Catholicks no idolaters, or, A full refutation of Doctor Stillingfleet's unjust charge of idolatry against the Church of Rome.

A Full Refutation OF Dr. STILLINGFLEET's Unjuſt Charge of IDOLATRY Againſt the Church of Rome.

The Firſt Part. Of the Veneration of Holy Images.

CHAP. I.

The First and Second Anſwer to the Firſt Queſtion, ſhewn not pertinent. Neceſſity of Communion with the Church of Rome proved; and his Charge of Idolatry overthrown by his own Principles.

§ 1. WHoever conſiders how Dr. Stillingfleet in his Anſwer to the Two Queſtions, has engag'd himſelf and his Adverſary in Seventeen or Eighteen of the moſt material Controverſies between Catholicks and Proteſtants, beſides innumerable others of leſſer concern, which together with the former have ſwell'd his Rejoynder to a ſhort Paper, into a large Book; will not very eaſily free him upon his own word, from being fond of the practiſe of the Noble Science of Controverſie, or, as his Friend Dr. T. calls it, The Bleſſed Art of Eternal Wrangling: eſpecially, if he reflect how eaſie and obvious the Anſwer was to the Questions themſelves, without running into farther Diſputes: To the Firſt, by ſhewing that the Motives which are ſufficient to ſecure the Salvation of one bred up and well-grounded in Catholick Religion, are not ſufficient to ſecure the ſalvation of one bred up in the Proteſtant, who convinced by them ſhould embrace the Catholick. To the Second, by ſhewing the Motives for Communion with the Proteſtant Church, to be greater and ſtronger than thoſe for the Roman; and therefore that to be neceſſarily embraced before this; it being agreed between us, that it is of neceſſity to ſalvation to be a Member of ſome distinct Church. This had been a ready way to put an end to the Diſpute, and give Satisfaction to the Reader; and this had been ſufficient; our Aſſent to the Articles in controverſie, depending upon the ſtrength of the Motives: But to multiply Diſputes without cauſe, without end, and without bringing them to Grounds and Principles, as it is no good Argument to prove a man not to be fond of Controverſie, ſo all the Satisfaction the Reader is likely to gather from it, is a deſpair of being ever ſatisfied. When therefore the Doctor ſays he had no other end in this increaſe of Controverſies, but to let his Proteſtant Reader ſee there could be no reaſon to forſake the Communion of that Church; it is much like, as if a Mother, to deter her Son from travelling into other Countries, ſhould tell him there was a great Sea between, full of Rocks and Pirates, and no Veſſel ſtrong enough to venture over: Beſides, that the Countrey whither he was going ſwarmed with Bears and Lions. This is one way to let him ſee there could be no reaſon to think of leaving his Native Countrey; and this is the Method generally purſued by our Adverſaries, for want of ſound Principles, to retain their Adherents in their Communion, to make the dangers and difficulties they are to incounter with in that of the Roman, ſeem inſuperable, and therefore beſt for them to ſit down contented where they are. But what if all the dangers and difficulties he raiſes, prove but Bugbears and Scare-Crows? This I hope by GOD's Grace to make appear in the following Treatiſe.

§ 2. His firſt Anſwer to the firſt Queſtion, was, that an equal capacity of Salvation of thoſe perſons ſuppoſed, not onely in order to a ſafer Church, but in two ſeveral Churches ſuppoſed equally ſafe, can be no argument to forſake the Communion of the one for the other. To this, I reply'd, that the Anſwer was altogether impertinent to the Queſtion, the Controverſie not being between two perſons compared with a third in a ſafer Church; nor yet between two ſeveral Churches ſuppoſed to have in them an equal capacity of Salvation, but between a Catholick bred ſo, and a Protestant converted to be ſo, whether the later, having the ſame Motives with the former, may not equally be ſaved with him? To what purpoſe then was it to talk of an equal capacity ſuppoſed in two perſons compared with a third in a much ſafer condition, or in two ſeveral Churches compared to one another; unleſs it were to make his Reader believe that a ſuppoſed poſſibility of Salvation in the Catholick Church, was uſed by me as a ſufficient Argument to embrace its Communion? Whereas his own telling the Perſon concerned, that however Catholicks who were bred ſo, might be ſaved; yet a Perſon leaving the Proteſtant Communion for the Catholick, could Not be Saved in it, was that which occaſion'd the Queſtion. A weak but common Artifice of the Doctor and his Party, to deter Perſons from embracing the Catholick Communion; when yet the more genuine Sons of the Church of England are not ſo cruel as to damn all thoſe who embrace it. The Anſwer then was nothing to the purpoſe of the Queſtion; and this himſelf ſeems to acknowledge, when he adds Whether it were to the Question or no, he is ſure it was very much to the purpoſe, for which this Controverſie was firſt ſtarted. And then having gotten this loop-hole, he beſeeches the Perſon who had propoſed the Queſtion, to propoſe another, and if not for her own ſake, yet for his to inſiſt upon, that he may know one reaſon at leaſt, why the Believing all the Ancient Creeds, and leading a Good Life, may not be ſufficient to ſalvation, unleſs one be of the Communion of the Church of Rome. And this, he ſays, he cannot yet procure, though he have often requeſted it. Here himſelf is afraid he may be thought to digreſs; but ſo earneſt a requeſt muſt not be denied.

§ 3. I remember I promiſed to ſpeak to this Point when it ſhould be proper, (viz. in handling the ſecond Queſtion [Whether it be neceſſary to be a Member of ſome diſtinct Church?] where it came in order) and I did ſo, (though my Adverſary takes no notice of it here) as far as was pertinent to the preſent purpoſe; when upon his Grant, that A Chriſtian by vertue of his being ſo, is bound to joyn in ſome Church, and to chuſe the Communion of the pureſt; I ſubjoyned, that that Church was to be judged the pureſt, which had the ſtrongeſt Motives for it: and then laid down a Catalogue of ſuch weighty Motives for the Roman Catholick, allowed by Dr. Taylor Liberty of Prop •• cy, Sect. 20.: To which I added, That neither himſelf in his Defence, nor Dr. Taylor when he had a mind to invalidate them, produced any thing to weigh againſt them, but a few Tinſel-words, P. 550. and one Scripture-Teſtimony, interpreted by and according to their own Fancy. Having done this, they ſing Io Triumphe, that [Thou ſhalt not worſhip any graven Image] will out-weigh all the beſt and fairest Imaginations of the Roman Church. And now let the Reader judge whether he had any reaſon to ſay, that he could not procure an Anſwer to this Queſtion, though he had often requeſted it.

§ 4. But becauſe he ſeems ſo little ſatisfied with this Anſwer, as to take no notice of it, I ſhall now enforce it farther with this Argument ad hominem. There was in the World before Luther, a diſtinct Church, whoſe Communion was neceſsary to Salvation; But this was not the Protestant: Therefore it was the Roman. The Major is evident from his own Conceſſion; that a Chriſtian, by virtue of his being ſo, is bound to joyn in ſome diſtinct Church; which is not poſſible, if there be not ſuch a diſtinct Church to joyn with. The Minor alſo, that this was not the Proteſtant, is manifeſt, becauſe before Luther there was no ſuch Church in the World diſtinct from the Roman. It follows therefore (the Queſtion between him and us being of the neceſſity of Communion either with the Roman, or with the Proteſtant) that of the two, the Roman Church was, and ſtill is, (as remaining ſtill the ſame) that Church whoſe Communion is neceſſary to Salvation.

§ 5. Again, taking the term Roman-Church, not onely for the particular Dioceſs of Rome, but for the Churches alſo in Communion with it, as the Head, as we generally take it in this Controverſie; nothing can render her Communion not neceſſary to Salvation, but either Hereſie, that is, an adheſion to ſome private or ſingular Opinion or Errour in Faith; or Schiſm, that is a Separation from former Eccleſiaſtical Unity. For the firſt, my Adverſary himſelf (Rat. Account, p. 54.) acknowledges (as I ſhall ſhew before I end this Chapter) the Church of Rome to believe all the ſame Articles of Faith with the Proteſtant, and that the Points in which the Proteſtant differs from the Roman, are not Articles of Faith; conſequently, the Oppoſite Tenets to them, can be no Errours in Faith with him. And for the ſecond, if he will make the Church of Rome guilty of Schiſm, he muſt aſſign ſome other diſtinct Church (then at leaſt in being) from whoſe Unity ſhe departed; which I think was never pretended, I am ſure can never be performed. As for the Charge of Cauſal Schiſm, that is, the Churches having given juſt cauſe for Separation (the common plea of all Separatiſts) by Impoſing, as is pretended, New Articles of Faith, and ſome of them Idolatrous; as it implies an acknowledgment of the Fact of Schiſm, that is, of breaking Church-Unity, to be on the Proteſtants ſide: ſo till the Accuſation be made good, and judged ſo by ſome other more competent Judge than themſelves, they ſtand arraigned of the Crime of Schiſm alſo, for breaking Communion with the Church of Rome.

§ 6. Laſtly, not to ſpend too much time in a Digreſſion, and yet ſatisfie his deſire, (and if not his, the Readers) why the Believing all the Antient Creeds, and leading a Good Life, may not be ſufficient to Salvation, unleſs one be of the Communion of the Church of Rome: I argue thus: A Chriſtian by virtue of his being ſo, is bound to be of the Communion of that Church which evidently was the true one, and the purest, until it be as evidently at leaſt (if not more evidently) proved not to be ſo: for otherwiſe he wrongs both his Reaſon and Conſcience, if he leave a greater evidence, and adhere to a leſſer. But the Roman Church, as comprehending all thoſe in Communion with her, by the Teſtimony not only of S. Paul (Rom. c. 1. and c. 16.) but of the whole Chriſtian World of all Ages, was evidently once the onely true Church of Chriſt, and conſeqently the Pureſt; and neither hath nor can be as evidently, much leſs more evidently, proved not to be ſo ſtill, ſince the Teſtimony of thoſe who do or will deny it, is incomparably ſhort of the former. Therefore a Chriſtian, by virtue of his being ſo, is bound to be of the Communion of the Roman Church.

§ 7. Having thus not only given one but more Reaſons to his Demand (which I heartily pray may do him good, becauſe he requeſted ſo earneſtly to know them) I cannot but reflect how ſpeciouſly ſoever it hath been hitherto pretended againſt the Church of Rome, that the believing all the Ancient Creeds, and leading a Good Life, is all that is neceſſary to Salvation; yet now there is more required by him, viz. to joyn in ſome Church or Congregation of Chriſtians, by virtue of a mans being a Chriſtian, and that he is bound to chuſe the Communion of the Pureſt Church, by which I will ſuppoſe at preſent he means the Church of England. I hope I may without offence take the ſame liberty with him, which he did with me, and deſire, if not for my own ſake, at leaſt for the ſatisfaction of the Presbyterians, Anabaptiſts, and other Separated Congregations, to know one Reaſon from him, why the believing all the Ancient Creeds, and leading a Good Life, may not be ſufficient to Salvation, unleſs one be of the Communion of the Church of England! I confeſs I may be miſtaken to ſuppoſe him to mean by the pureſt Church, the Church of England: It is not improbable, as will appear in the following Diſcourſe, that he means that of the Presbyterians; but let him mean which he will, it comes all to the ſame paſs. I leave him to ſatisfie all other Sectaries, why they are bound, by virtue of their Chriſtianity, to joyn in either of thoſe two Congregations; or if not in them, in any other which he fancies to be the pureſt. Which done, I proceed to his Second Anſwer to the Firſt Queſtion, very fitly called by him the main buſineſs, becauſe it ſerves him as a Foundation to raiſe ſo many Controverſies upon, as by his manner of treating them, may frighten any one that ſhall but look toward the Roman Church, into deſpair of ever getting out of ſo intricate a Labyrinth.

§ 8. His ſecond Anſwer to the Frſt Queſtion, was, That all thoſe who are in the Communion of the Church of Rome, do run ſo great a hazard of their Salvation, that none who have a care of their Souls, ought to embrace it, or continue in it, becauſe they muſt be guilty either of Hypocriſie or Idolatry, ſins inconſiſtent with Salvation. This, I ſaid, was as little pertinent to the Queſtion, as the former; for, though it be ſuppoſed that none ought to embrace or continue in the Catholick Church, by reaſon of the great hazard, he ſaith, they run of their Salvation; yet if they do embrace it, why may they not be equally ſaved, that is, with equal hazard? To this he returns, that he is amazed I ſhould ſay this Anſwer of his was not pertinent to the Question, if the Queſtion were propounded for any ones ſatisfaction, that doubted, which Churches Communion it were beſt to embrace. And who can chuſe but be more amazed at this Reply, which gives no ſatisfaction at all to the Queſtion? For the Queſtion, ſuppoſing the ſame Motives, and conſequently an equal capacity, or hazard (as he will have it) of Salvation in two perſons, what anſwer is it to the Queſtion, whether they may not equally be ſaved, though with hazard, to ſay the hazard they run is very great? And yet of 573 pages his Book contains, no leſs than 544 of them are ſpent upon this ſubject. Tant • 〈…〉

I added farther, That this Anſwer of his implied a Contradiction, in aſſerting, that all thoſe of the Catholick Communion do run indeed a great hazard of their Salvation, and then affirming for proof of this Aſſertion, that they must be guilty of Hypocriſie or Idolatry, ſins inconſiſtent with Salvation: Which reduced into plain terms, is no other but to ſay, they may be ſaved, though with danger, and yet indeed they cannot be ſaved at all. To ſalve this Contradiction, he runs to a pretended ſuppoſition of wilful embracing or continuing in Hypocriſie or Idolatry, ſins (if unrepented of) inconſistent with Salvation: But this Salve is not at all proper for the Sore, ſince if the Motives convince the Underſtanding, and the Perſons be ſincere, as the Queſtion ſuppoſes, there cannot with any ſhew of Reaſon be any thing of wilfulneſs ſuppoſed in the Caſe. The Anſwer then was nothing to the purpoſe of the Queſtion; but onely that it might ſerve him for an occaſion to bring the whole Body of Controverſie into the Field, and give a treble Charge of Idolatry againſt the Church of Rome, viz. in worſhipping of Images, Adoration of the Hoſt, and Invocation of Saints. There want not Learned and Eminent men of the Church of England, who think the Charge to be over great; and there needs no more than his own Principles to make the Metal of his Proofs appear of too inferiour an Alloy to bear it. Which thus I ſhew.

§ 9. In his Rational Account of the Grounds of Protestant Religion, pag. 54. he lays down the ſtate of the difference between the Church of Rome and the Church of England, in theſe words: The Church of Rome impoſeth new Articles of Faith to be believed as neceſsary to Salvation.—But the Church of England makes no Articles of Faith but ſuch as have the Teſtimony and Approbation of the whole Chriſtian World of all Ages, and are acknowledged to be ſuch by Rome it ſelf, and in other things (as that no Veneration is due to Images, the Bread is not Tranſubſtantiated into the Body of Chriſt, Saints are not to be invocated, &c.) ſhe requires ſubſcription to them, not as Articles of Faith, but as inferiour Truths; or as Dr. Bramhall, (Lord Primate of Ireland, alledged by him) calls them, Pious Opinions, fitted for the preſervation of Unity; not, ſays he, that we oblige any man to believe them, but onely not to oppoſe or contradict them. This then is the Baſis and Foundation he lays of his Rational Account of the Grounds of the Proteſtant Religion, that no Doctrine of the Proteſtant Religion, as it differs from that of the Roman, is an Article of Faith; that is, that no Proteſtant believes, or if he do, he ought not to believe, as a matter of Faith, that the Images (for example) of Chriſt and his Saints are not to be honoured, that the ſubſtance of the Bread is not changed into the Body of Chriſt, that the Saints in Heaven are not to be invoked to pray for us: Nay, all that he is obliged to by the Church of England, is not to oppoſe or contradict them. This being ſo, let us now ſee what follows from this Doctrine.

1. It follows that the Church of Rome does not erre againſt any Article of Faith, becauſe the Church of England as he ſaith, makes no Articles of Faith, but ſuch as are acknowledged to be ſuch by Rome it ſelf.

2dly, It follows, that himſelf does not believe any of theſe Points to be Articles of Faith, Viz. That Veneration is not to be given to Holy Images, that Adoration is not to be given to the Euchariſt, or that the Saints are not to be invocated; becauſe to be Articles of Faith with him, they muſt have the Teſtimony and Approbation of the whole Chriſtian World of all Ages, and be acknowledged to be ſuch by Rome it ſelf.

3dly, It follows, that after all this buſtle to make the Church of Rome guilty of Idolatry, in theſe very Points of Veneration of Images, &c. For ought any Man knows, himſelf gives no interiour aſſent to any of the forementioned Tenets, not even as to Inferiour Truths, or Pious Opinions, becauſe the Church of England, as he cites out of Dr. Bramhall, doth not oblige any Man to believe them, but only not to oppoſe or contradict them; and it is not likely he defers more to the Church of England, than ſhe obliges him too.

4thly, and laſtly, It follows, that his charge of Idolatry againſt the Church of Rome is vain and groundleſs, for Idolatry being an Errour againſt the moſt Fundamental Point of Faith, and the Church of Rome according to him, not erring againſt any Article of Faith, 'tis evident, that to charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry, muſt according to his own Principles be the moſt groundleſs, unreaſonable, and contradictory proceeding in the World. But it is time now to come to particulars; onely I muſt not omit to deſire every indifferent Reader to reflect, and judge whether Dr. Stillingfleet, to render the Doctrine of the 39. Articles, digeſtible to the moſt ſqueamiſh ſtomack of the niceſt Nonconformiſt, have not done a notable piece of ſervice to the Church of England in degrading ſo many of them as are not acknowledged by the Church of Rome (although they be eſteemed the diſtinctive badg of the purity of the Church of England) from the dignity of being Articles of Faith, into a lower Claſſe of Inferiour Truths, as he calls them, which neither himſelf nor any Body elſe know, whether they have a grain of truth in them, or no; and conſequently are not bound to believe them? Nay, does he not undermine the Church of England both in her Doctrine and Government? In her Doctrine, by freeing her Subjects from any obligation of interiour believing her Articles (in which ſhe differs from the Church of Rome) to be ſo much as Inferiour Truths; In her Government, by expoſing her Ordination to be invaded without ſcruple, by ſuch as in their hearts judg it Anti-Christian, when he tells them, her Senſe is to oblige them no farther, than not to oppoſe or contradict it? Was it not worth the while to rend aſunder the Peace of Chriſtendom for a Company of Opinions, which (though Dr. Bramhall call them Pious) yet the greater part of Chriſtians both in the Eaſt and Weſt for many Ages have, and do condemn for Impious and Blaſphemous? Is not this a very Rational, or rather (as Mr. J. S. expounds the word) a very Reaſonable Account of the Grounds of Protestant Religion; and a rare way of juſtifying her from the Guilt of Schiſm? Sure he never thought of charging the Church of Rome with Idolatry, when he laid ſuch ſandy Principles for his Foundation: Principles of ſo brittle a temper, that it was not poſſible they ſhould bear ſo great a Charge, without breaking and diſcharging upon himſelf.

CHAP. II.

Dr. St.'s chief Argument to prove the Church of Rome guilty of Idolatry, examined; and his Prepoſterous ways of arguing laid open.

§. 1. IT is a known ſaying of St. Irenaeus, and St. Hierom, (Ep. ad Cteſiphont.) ſpeaking of thoſe, who ſet up their own fancies, in oppoſition to the Doctrine of the Church, that to lay open what they hold, is to refute it; and certainly it was never more true, than in the ſubject of the preſent Debate concerning the Veneration of Images, the very light of nature teaching, that the honour or diſhonour, done to a Picture or Image reflects upon the Perſon repreſented by it. This Protestants themſelves confeſs in civil matters, as in the Picture or Image of the King in order to his Perſon; and did they not corrupt themſelves, in thoſe things which they know naturally, they could not but acknowledg the ſame in the Image of Chriſt, and his Saints, in order to them. For, is it an honour to the King, to kiſs his Picture and, is it not the like to Chriſt, to put off our Hats, or kneel before His▪ Was it a diſhonour to the King, to ſhoot his Picture with Bullets, a • the Souldiers did in the late times, as they march'd along the Streets? And was it none to Chriſt, to have his Image bor'd through with hot Irons, as he was repreſented riſing from the Grave upon Cheapſide Croſs? A Man would think there needed no more but the light of Nature and Common ſence to decide this Controverſie; and yet the Doctor will needs ſuſtain, that the honour given to the Images of Chriſt and his Saints, does not redound at all to them; but is ſo far from that, that it is no other than down right Idolatry.

§. 2. How vain and groundleſs (to ſay no more) this Aſſertion of his is, I have already ſhewed in the foregoing Chapter, which may ſerve for a full and juſt Refutation of all he brings to juſtifie his Charge of Idolatry, not onely in this matter of Veneration of Images, but alſo of the Adoration of the B. Sacrament, and Invocation of Saints; In regard none of the contrary Tenets are with him Articles of Faith; nay he profeſſes himſelf not obliged to give any interiour Aſſent to them ſo much as to inferiour Truths, or Pious Opinions. But leſt he ſhould take this Compendious way of Refuting, by bringing things to Grounds and Principles, for none at all, (as his very-well-aſſured Friend Dr. Tillotſon does with my demonstrating Friend, as he calls him, Mr. J. S. after two Books ſet forth by him in anſwer to his Rule of Faith, viz. his Letter of Thanks, and Faith vindicated) to remove, I ſay, the very Temptation of any ſuch-like vapouring pretence from my Adverſary, I ſhall take the pains to examine and anſwer (with as much brevity as his prolixity will permit) the particular Arguments with which he endeavours to underprop his tottering becauſe groundleſs Charge of Idolatry.

§ 3. In order hereunto, I ſhall firſt ſet down what it is that the Catholick Church teaches concerning the Veneration of Images, and thus it ſtands recorded in the laſt General Council at Trent, (Conc. Trident. Seſſ. 25.) viz. That the Images of Chriſt, and of the Bleſſed Virgin Mother of God, and of other Saints, are to be kept and reſerved eſpecially in Churches, and due Honour and Veneration to be given to them; not for that any Divinity or Virtue is believed to be in them, or that any thing is to be asked of them, or any confidence to be placed in them, as was anciently done by the Heathens, who put their truſt in Idols, but becauſe the honour which is exhibited to the Images, is referr'd to the Prototype, or thing repreſented by them: So that by the Images which we kiſs, and before which we kneel, or put off our Hats, we adore Chriſt, and reverence his Saints, whom the ſaid Images repreſent. This is what the Council teaches, and the import of it is, that we may lawfully (and therefore ought upon occaſion) to put off our Hats, or kn • el before the Images of Christ and his Saints, with intent thereby to adore him, and reverence them; and this is what the Council calls (moſt conformably to the Light of Nature and Rel • gion) the giving of due Honour and Veneration to Images, but Dr. Still▪ (moſt repugnantly to both) Idolatry.

§. 4 To maintain this Charge, he lays down a P • opoſition, which I ſaid imply'd a Contradiction, viz. that in the worſhip of God by Images, the worſhip due to God is terminated wholly on the Creature. For what greater Contradiction, than that it ſhould be the worſhip of God, and yet be terminated wholly on the Creature? What he brings in his Excuſe (p. 57.) is a pretence that God hath forbidden it under the Notion of Idolatry, and that the Worſhip which God calls by the name of Idolatry, and its being terminated wholly on the Creature, are but the ſ • me thing in other words. And what is this in effect, but to tell us firſt, that it is Idolatry, becauſe it is wholly terminated on the Creature; and then again, that it is wholly terminated on the Creature, becauſe it is Idolatry? A very proper de • ence for ſuch a Cauſe! And from hence D • . Tillotſon may note that the uſe of Identical Propoſitions is not ſo deſpicable and ridiculous as he would make it; but rather the moſt expedite way for Dr. St. to reconcile the Terms of the greateſt Contradiction. But to the matter it ſelf I ſhall ſpeak more anon. Let us now ſee how he proves this main Propoſition. [viz. In the worſhip of God by Images, the worſhip aue to God, is terminated wholly on the Creature.] The worſhip, ſath he, (p. 4.) which God himſelf denies to receive, muſt be terminated on the Creature: But God himſelf in the ſecond Commandment, not onely denies to receive it, but threatens ſeverely to puniſh them that give it: Therefore it cannot be terminated on God, but onely on the Image.

§. 5. This is the terrible Argument, by virtue of which he paſſes the Sentence of Eternal Damnation upon all thoſe who are of the Communion of the Church of Rome, if they repent not of their • doring Chriſt by putting off their hats, or kneeling before his Image. And that the Reader may ſee with what Justice and Charity he does it, before I proceed to examine particulars, I ſhall convene his own Conſcience, to declare to the World, what kind of Argument he judges this to be. If onely Topical, or Probable, what anſwer will he give to the Great Judge at the dreadful day of Judgment, for poſitively condemning his Spouſe the Church for an Adultereſs, upon an account which himſelf acknowledges to be inevident and uncertain? I believe, himſelf would condemn that perſon for unjust and uncharitable, who ſhould poſitively charge the meaneſt mans Wife of Adultery upon the like account. If he judge it a Demonſtration, (which I cannot eaſily believe, he ſeems to have taken ſuch a Pique againſt the Demonſtrating Way) then the Premiſſes muſt be evidently and certainly true, and the Concluſion in virtue of them, Impoſſible to be falſe; and conſequently he muſt have greater certainty that the Church of Rome is Idolatrous, than he hath (if he be of the ſame mind with his Friend Dr. Tillotſon) of the Scripture's being the Word of God, or of the Sence of any Text of it; for example, that Chriſt is God; for the ſaid Doctor lays this down for his Fundamental Poſition in his Rule of Faith, p. 118. (and affirms it expreſly of the Books of Scripture, in the Preface to his Sermons) that we are not infallibly certain either that any Book is ſo ancient as it pretends to be, or that it was written by him whoſe name it bears, or that this is the ſence of ſuch and ſuch paſſages in it: It is poſſible all this may be otherwiſe. From whence I infer yet farther, that if we are not ſure of the Sence of any Text of Scripture, but poſſibly it may be falſe, Himſelf is not ſure that God hath forbidden the worſhipping himſelf by Images in the ſecond Commandment, and therefore cannot judge his own Argument to be a Demonſtration, nor conſequently evidence ſufficient to make out his Charge of Idolatry. But to come now to particulars.

§. 5. The worſhip, ſaith he, which God himſelf denies to receive, muſt be terminated on the Creature, and that wholly and onely on the Creature, as he expreſſes it in the Context of his Diſcourſe. This is the Major Propoſition of his Syllogiſm, and if this fail, the Charge he builds upon it, muſt needs fall. I aſſerted it in my Reply, to be abſolutely falſe, as built upon a miſtake of the nature of humane Acts, which though they ought to be govern'd by the Law of God, yet when they ſwerve from it, ceaſe not to tend to their own proper Objects, and that Gods prohibition of ſuch or ſuch a kind of worſhip, may make it to be unlawful, but hinders not the Act from tending whither it is intended. Of this I gave inſtances in the Prayers which Thieves and Murderers make to God for good ſucceſs; the Jew's offering to God the Blind and the Lame, which he had forbidden, Cain's bringing a Sacrifice to the Lord, Gen. 4. 3. which he refuſed to accept. All which I ſhewed were notwithſtanding terminated on God; and from thence inferr'd, that though God (as he falſely ſuppoſes) ſhould have forbidden men to worſhip him by Images, yet it does not follow, but the worſhip ſo given would be terminated on him.

§. 7. To ſhew the inſufficiency (as he calls it) of this Anſwer, he aſſerts, that where God hath prohibited any particular way or means of giving Worſhip to himſelf, that Worſhip ſo given cannot be ſaid to be terminated on him. And to ſhew the Vanity and Impertinency of this Defence, I anſwer, That this very Aſſertion of his, quite changes the ſtate of the Queſtion; for his Charge being of real Idolatry, and that antecedently to any Prohibition, as appears by his contending that the Church of Rome doth require the giving the Creature the honour due onely to God, p. 3. and by his aſſerting, p. 62. that any Image being made ſo far the Object of Divine Worſhip, that men do how down before it, doth thereby become an Idol, and on that account is forbidden in the ſecond Commandment: he now changes his Peremptory [cannot be terminated on God] into that Dwindling Expreſſion of [It cannot be ſaid to be terminated on God] giving his Reader to underſtand, that his meaning now is not, that Catholicks are really Idolaters, that is, by the very nature of Worſhip ſo given by an Image antecedently to any Law forbidding it; but denominatively, and in name onely; and that upon account of a Law (ſuppos'd by him moſt falſely, as I ſhall make manifeſt in the following Diſcourſe) to prohibit the giving Worſhip to God by bowing or kneeling before an Image. And leſt we ſhould any way doubt that this was his meaning, himſelf in the contents of his Firſt Chapter, puts down the ſtate of the Controverſie between us, in theſe words: The main Queſtion, ſaith he, is, Whether God hath forbidden the worſhipping of himſelf by an Image, under the notion or (as he explicates it, pag. 57.) under the name of Idolatry? It were worth the while to ſee the Doctor reconcile the ſtate of the Queſtion put by himſelf, with that Aſſertion of his above-cited, pag. 62. that any Image being made ſo far the Object of Divine Worſhip, that men do bow down before it, doth thereby become an Idol, and on that account is forbidden in the ſecond Commandment. The former ſuppoſes it to have the notion or name of Idolatry, upon the account of its being forbidden: The later affirms it to be forbidden upon the account of its being Idolatry in the very nature of the thing, antecedently to any Prohibition. And in which ſence ſoever of the two, he take the Propoſition in debate, viz. [The Worſhip which God denies to receive, cannot be terminated on him, but on the Image] it is evident he contradicts himself; For if he mean that it cannot be terminated on God, antecedently to the Prohibition, becauſe any Image being made ſo far the Object of Divine Worſhip, that men do bow down before it, doth thereby become an Idol, and on that account is forbidden in the ſecond Commandment, he muſt deny that it is the Prohibition which makes it to be terminated on the Image. And if he mean that it cannot be terminated on God, becauſe it is prohibited by him to Worſhip Him by a • Image, he muſt deny what he aſſerted before, that any Image being made ſo far the Object of Divine Worſhip, that men do bow down before it, doth THEREBY become an Idol, and ON THAT ACCOUNT is forbidden in the ſecond Commandment. Let him extricate himſelf as well as he can out of this Labyrinth. I return to what he addes in defence of his Aſſertion, viz. The Worſhip which God himſelf denies to receive, muſt be terminated on the Creature.

§. 8. To vindicate this Aſſertion from the Note of Falſhood I had fix'd upon it, he lays down theſe three Propoſitions: 1. That Worſhip is nothing elſe but an external ſignification of Honour and Reſpect. 2. That the ſignification of Honour which is due to God, is not to be meaſured by the Intentions of Men, againſt the declared Will of God. 3. The Divine Law being the Rule of Worſhip all prohibited ways of Worſhip muſt receive that denomination which God himſelf gives them: As, ſays he, it would be Treaſon, after the Princes Declaration of it by his Laws, for any man to bow down to a Sign-Poſt with the Princes Head upon it. And therefore if God have declared the Worſhip of himſelf by an Image to be Idolatry, it cannot be terminated on God, but onely on the Image. This is the ſubſtance of his Defence, and what it amounts to, is this, That if God have forbidden, under the name of Idolatry, to bow down before any Image, though with intention to Worſhip Him by it, this Act of Worſhip muſt be called Idolatry, becauſe not mens Intentions, but the Will of God is the Rule of Worſhip. A rare Defence indeed! But nothing at all to the purpoſe, (although we ſhould yield the Suppoſition to be as true as it is falſe, viz. that God had forbidden it under that name) unleſs he can ſhew that words can never be taken Metaphorically, but that the very definition of a thing muſt always neceſſarily go along with its name. What he charges upon us, is the very definition of Idolatry, viz. That we give to the Creature the honour due onely to God. What he brings to prove it, is a ſuppoſed extrinſecal denomination, that if God have called the Worſhipping him by an Image Idolatry, it muſt receive the name of Idolatry, and therefore be terminated on the Image. And if this kind of arguing be good, he may prove by the ſame Logick, that a man worſhipping a falſe God, violates his Neighbours Bed, becauſe God himſelf calls the Worſhipping a falſe God by the name of Adultery: And that he that wears a Sword with intention to defend his Prince, hath a real intention againſt his Life, in caſe the Prince upon ſome occaſion have forbidden to wear a Sword under the name of Treaſon. He that has but look'd over Ariſtotles Threſhold, knows, that from the definition to the name, the conſequence is good, becauſe the Name is but a Note of the Nature or Eſſence of the Thing defined. But nothing more inconſequent than to argue from the Name to the Definition, becauſe the Name may be given upon the ſcore of ſome ſimilitude, either intrinſecal or extrinſecal, and not upon the account of the Nature or Eſſence, which is properly ſignified by ſuch a Name. The Doctor therefore (to give him his due) in the beginning of his Charge, argues like a good Logician, when he would conclude the Church of Rome guilty of Idolatry, becauſe (he ſays) ſhe requires the giving to the Creature the Honour due onely to God. But he plays the downright Sophiſter in the cloſe, when he would prove that in worſhipping God by an Image, ſhe gives to the Image the Honour due onely to Him; becauſe if God have given it the name of Idolatry, it muſt receive the denomination of Idolatry. Either he muſt make it out, that a meer Extrinſecal Denomination has the miraculous power to reflect againſt Nature, the Honour directed to God, from Him to the Image, or he muſt confeſs that Gods Prohibition of ſuch Worſhip (if there were any) may make it indeed to be unlawful, but hinders not the Act from tending whither it was intended: and conſequently if it be intended or directed by the Underſtanding and Will, to God, though after an unlawful manner, it will not fail to be terminated on God. Nor is this to make the Intentions of men to be the Rule of Divine Worſhip, for if God have forbidden himſelf to be Worſhipped after ſuch a manner, the giving him ſuch Worſhip will be a diſhonouring of Him, though the Giver intend it never ſo much for his honour. Diſobedience it will be, or ſome other ſin, and denominatively Idolatry (if forbidden under that name) but not a terminating the honour due to God upon the Image, unleſs the Doctor think it a good Argument to prove the Fields and Trees to be Merry Companions, becauſe the Prophet ſays, The Fields are joyful, and the Trees of the Wood rejoyce. Theſe he will ſay are Metaphorical denominations; and ſo muſt that of Idolatry be, in his ſuppoſed Prohibition, unleſs he can prove the Worſhip due to God, to be terminated wholly on the Image, and ſo the Act it ſelf to have in it the true nature of Idolatry, antecedently to ſuch a denomination.

§. 9. As for that Courtly Compariſon of his, that it would be Treaſon in any man to bow down to a Sign. Poſt with the Princes Head upon it, though with an intention to honour him by it; (a moſt ſelf-denying Ordinance I confeſs, and not unlike to that rare example of Self-denyal to which himſelf ſo Religiouſly exhorts the Prelates of the Church of England in the Preface to his Irenicum, viz. to reduce the form of Church-Government to its Primitive State and Order, by retrenching all Exorbitancies (as he calls them) of Power, and reſtoring Presbyteries) as the World is like to want ſuch an unheard-of Example of Self-abnegation, at leaſt till Princes can be perſwaded that the honour or diſhonour done to their Pictures reflects not upon Them; and that Act of the Civil Law be repealed, (L. unica. cod. de his qui ad Statuas) which declares it Treaſon for any man to deface his Princes Picture; So, were it enacted, it would not hinder the Act of Reverence and Reſpect from being terminated upon the Prince to whom it was intended.

§. 10. To the Inſtances I gave in my Reply, of the Prayers which Thieves and Murderers make to God for good ſucceſs, of the Jews offering to God the Blind and Lame, which he had forbidden, and of Cain's offering a Sacrifice to God, which he refuſed to accept; all which evidently ſhew that God's having forbidden ſuch a kind of Worſhip, hinders it not from being terminated on him: All that he anſwers, is, That theſe Inſtances do not ſuppoſe any prohibited Object, or Means of Worſhip, as he ſuppoſeth the Worſhip of God by an Image doth. And here again he falls into the ſame Contradiction as before, viz. that it is the Worſhip of God by an Image, and yet the Image is made the whole and ſole object of Worſhip. But to conclude this point: 'Tis evident, that the Image is not made the Object of Worſhip by the Intention of him that gives it; which (ſays Dr. Taylor) is that by which God principally, if not ſolely takes eſtimate of humane actions) for what he intends, is, to Worſhip God by it; and the Intention not making it the Object of Worſhip, an Extrinſecal Denomination from a Law forbidding, (if there were any ſuch) cannot make it to be ſo, nor hinder the Act from being terminated on God, its intended Object. 'Tis manifeſt then, that the Major Propoſition of the Argument brought by him to prove the Church of Rome guilty of Idolatry, viz. That the Worſhip which God denies to receive, must be terminated on the Creature, is abſolutely falſe; and conſequently all that he builds upon it, falls to the ground. But this was but a Prelude to uſher in his Minor, viz. That God not onely denies to receive Worſhip by an Image, but threatens ſeveraly to puniſh them that give it. Upon this it is he lays the main ſtreſs of his Charge of Idolatry; how inconſequently (though ſuppoſed to be as he would have it, a Prohibition) I have ſhewed already, and ſhall make yet more apparent, by laying open the nullity of the Proofs he brings to maintain it.

CHAP. III.

The myſtery of making the ſame Propoſition ſometimes an Article of Faith, and ſometimes none. No expreſs Text againſt Worſhipping God by an Image. His first Proof from the Terms of the Law, manifeſ • ly groundleſs. The Argument from St. Auſtin's Judgment, and the Septuagints tranſlating the word Peſel, Idol, and not Image, re-inforced.

1. WHat we are to conſider in the firſt place here, is, what it is that Dr. St. will undertake to prove; and it is this, That God in the ſecond Commandment (according to his reckoning) expreſly prohibited the giving any Worſhip to himſelf by an Image. This is what upon his Second Thoughts (for the term expreſly was not in his FIRST Anſwer) he undertakes to prove: And I cannot but wonder to ſee it drop now from his Pen, who on the one ſide aſſerts Scripture (doubtleſs expreſs Scripture) to be his moſt certain Rule of Faith; and on the other ſide, denies (as I ſhewed above, Chap. 1.) any thing to b • an Article of Faith, which is not acknowledged to be ſuch by Rome it ſelf. What may the meaning of this be? If it be expreſly revealed in Scripture that God is not to be worſhipped by an Image, it is an Article of Faith. If it be not acknowledged to be ſuch by Rome it ſelf, it is no Article of Faith, but (as he calls it) an Inferiour Truth or Pious Opinion, yet ſuch as neither himſelf nor any man elſe is bound to believe there is a jot of Truth in it. Is it then, or is it not an Article of Faith that God is not to be worſhipped by an Image? If it be an Article of Faith, 'tis falſe what he aſſerts ſo ſtiffly in his Rational Account, p. 54. that the Church of England makes no Articles of Faith but what are acknowledged to be ſuch by Rome it ſelf. If it be not an Article of Faith, 'tis falſe what he affirms ſo poſitively here, that God hath expreſly prohibited it in the ſecond Commandment. Which ſide ſoever he takes, 'tis manifeſt he contradicts himſelf.

2. But perhaps his meaning is, that what at one time is but an Inferiour Truth, muſt at another be an Article of Faith, according as it may ſerve to the different ends and purpoſes he has deſigned to himſelf. And here if I miſtake not, lies the Knack, or (if you will give it ſo venerable a name) the Myſtery of the buſineſs. When the Hedge of the Church of England (viz. Subſcription to her 39 Articles) muſt be broken down for the good Brethren the Nonconformiſts to enter in, and ravage without ſcruple her Rights and Revenues, ſo many of the ſaid Articles as are not owned by Rome it ſelf, muſt be a company of Inferious Truths, or Pious Opinions, not to be aſſented to, but not to be oppoſed for Unity's ſake. But when the Church of Rome is to be charged with Idolatry, (the Pretence with which Ignorant Preachers, ſays Mr. Thorndike, (Juſt Weights, p. 128.) drive their Factions) then they are no more Infericur Truths, but Articles of Faith, expreſly revealed in the Holy Scriptures. Now, would an Impartial Reader (to uſe Dr. Taylor's expreſſion upon another occaſion) ſay upon his conſcience, that this was not kindly done, to make uſe of the Authority of the Church of Rome to unhallow ſo many of the 39 Articles as are not owned by her, and caſt them down into the Claſs of Inferiour Truths, to ſtitch up the Rent made by the Nonconformiſts from the Church of England; And then to conſecrate them again ſo eaſily by virtue of this one definitive word [Expreſly] into Divine Revelations, againſt the Church of Rome, to make the Breach of the Church of England from her yet wider. But what cannot an Irenical Compliance with one Party, and a Polemical Animoſity, or (as Mr. Thorndike calls it) Faction with another do▪ When the ſame Propoſition as it reſpects the former, ſhall be rank'd onely amongſt Inferiour Truths, which none are obliged to aſſent to; and as it oppugns the latter, ſhall be raiſed to an Article of Faith, which all are bound to believe? Here then lies the Myſtery, that the ſame Propoſition, viz. That God is not to be worſhipped by an Image, taken Irenically, and in its Paci • i • k Temper, is but an Inferiour Truth, becauſe not owned to be an Article of Faith by the Church of Rome; but taken Polemically, and in its • a • like Humour, it muſt be an Article of Faith, becauſe expreſly (as he ſays) revealed in Scripture. And if he will have it ſo, let us ſee how he goes about to prove it.

3. Our Contr • verſie, ſays he, p. 58. being 〈◊〉 about the ſence of a Law, the beſt ways we have to find the meaning of it, are either from the Terms in which it is expreſſ • d, or from the Reaſon annexed to it, or from the Judgment of Th • ſe whom we believe beſt able to understand and interpret it. And he will prove from every one of theſe three ways, that it is expreſly prohibited in the ſecond Commandment to worſhip God by an Image. It were well, he would tell us here firſt, what he underſtands by the term Expreſly. For if he calls that, for example, an expreſs Text, which of it ſelf is abſolutely clear and manifeſt, and therefore as St. Auſtin ſays, (de unit. E •• l. c. 19.) Non eget Interprete, needs no Interpreter; Mr. Thorndike (and thoſe other Learned Men of the Church of England, who ſee no better than he) have reaſon to lament the loſs of their Eye-ſight. But if he mean no more, but that it is clear and manifeſt to himſelf, they may hope they ſee as well as their Neighbours, though they ſee the quite contrary; unleſs They will ſuffer themſelves to be wrought upon by his ſtout aſſerting it to be clear and manifeſt; as the Travellers were by Polus in Eraſmus his Exorciſmus, when pretending that he ſaw a huge Dragon with • iery Horns in the Sky, by avouching it ſtrongly, and pointing expreſly to the place, he forced them (out of ſhame not to ſee ſo perſpicuous a thing) to confeſs that they ſaw it alſo. That it is not abſolutely clear and manifeſt of it ſelf, the pains and the ways he takes to make it out, ſufficiently evince. And whether it be clear and manifest even to himſelf we have cauſe to doubt; becauſe the Propoſition in debate, [viz. That God hath prohibited the worſhipping himſelf by an Image in the ſecond Commandment] not being acknowledged by the Church of Rome for an Article of Faith, the Church of England, ſays he, obliges no man to aſsent to it, but onely not to oppoſe it; and yet on the other ſide, every man is bound to aſſent to that which he ſees to be clear and manifeſt. Such frequent ſelf-contradictions are the natural Conſequences of a Diſcourſe not grounded upon Truth; And although the Reader may think I take a delight to diſcover them in my Adverſary, yet I can aſſure him 'tis a much greater Grief to me to ſee ſo ſubtil a Wit ſo often entangled in them. The fault is in the Couſe, which cannot be managed without falling into them. But as St. Auſtin ſays, Quis coegit ers malam cauſam habere? Who forced him and his Partizans to engage in a bad Cauſe? Nothing of Faith, if it be true which he tells us in his Rational Account: Nothing of Reaſon as I ſhall ſhew in the Examination of his Proofs.

4. The firſt way he takes to prove that God in the ſecond Commandment hath expreſly prohibited the giving any Worſhip to himſelf by an Image, is from the Terms in which the Law is expreſſed. And what are they in the Proteſtants own Tranſlation Exod. 20. 4? Thou ſhalt not make unto thee any graven Image, or any likeneſs of any thing, &c. Thou ſhalt not bow down thy ſelf to them, nor ſerve them. Theſe are the Terms in which the Law is expreſſed, and where I pray, is it expreſſed here, that we may not give any Worſhip to God himſelf by an Image? The firſt part touches not the Worſhip of Images, nor of God himſelf by them; but onely the making them; and gives matter to Divines to diſpute whether it be forbidden by this Commandment to make any Image or any Likeneſs at all? A thing in which Catholicks and Proteſtants are equally concerned. The ſecond forbids indeed in expreſs terms, to bow our ſelves down to the Images themſelves, but ſpeaks not one word of the lawfulneſs or unlawfulneſs of worſhipping God himſelf by them. So that in caſe we have not here another of the Doctors Identical Propoſitions, viz. that to treat a matter expreſly, is the ſame in other words, as not to ſpeak of it at all, it is manifeſt, that to worſhip God himſelf before or by an Image, is not expreſly prohibited in this Commandment. Let the Proteſtant Reader conſider this well, and not ſuffer himſelf to be deluded with the ſound of words. To bow our ſelves down to the Images themſelves, without any Relation to God, is by the Conceſſion of all to worſhip them inſtead of God. And is it all one to worſhip an Image inſtead of God, and to worſhip God himſelf by bowing before an Image? The difference is too palpable not to be ſeen by any one who hath not the natural Conceptions of his mind corrupted by an over-eager deſire to purſue at any rate ſo unjuſt and uncharitable a Charge as that of Idolatry. The Jews we know did worſhip God by bowing down before the Ark and the Cherubims, and yet they did not worſhip them inſtead of God. And if the Doctor will needs contend that this was a particular diſpenſation to the Jews, that they might lawfully bow down before the Ark and the Cherubims, to worſhip God; he muſt acknowledge the Precept (if it were ſo) as to that part of not worſhipping God by bowing before an Image, not to have been Natural, for then God had diſpens'd with them in committing real Idolatry; but Ceremonial, and conſequently not to oblige Chriſtians, unleſs he will engage them alſo in the obſervance of all the Ceremonial part of the Law of Moſes. Taking then the Terms of the Law as tranſlated by Proteſtants themſelves in favour of their own Cauſe, 'tis manifeſt that to worſhip God by an Image, is not expreſly prohibited, becauſe not at all ſpoken of in that Commandment.

5. What I aſſerted to be the meaning of the Law, was, That God forbad to give his Worſhip to Idols. To prove this, I urged 1. The Judgment of St. Auſtin, who makes thoſe words, Thou ſhalt not make to thy ſelf any graven thing, &c. to be but an explication of the immediately foregoing ones, Thou ſhalt have no other Gods before me. 2. That the word Peſel in Hebrew, in Latin Sculptile, (a graven thing) was uſed in Scripture to ſignifie an Idol, and particularly was tranſlated by the Septuagint in this very place 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Thou ſhalt not make to thy ſelf an Idol.

To the Firſt he anſwers (pag. 99,) by asking, How am I ſure this was St. Austin's conſtant Judgment, ſince in his later Writings he reckons up the Commandments as others of the Fathers had done before him? But before I reply to this Demand, it will be convenient to lay down what was S. Auſtin's Judgment in his former Writing, concerning the dividing of the Commandments.

6. In his LXXI Queſtion upon Exodus, he treats this Point expreſly, and at large, viz. Whether three Commandments onely are to be aſſigned to the first Table, and ſeven to the ſecond? Or four to the Firſt, and ſix onely to the Second? And he gives his Reſolution in theſe words. Thoſe, ſaith he, who aſſign four to the Firſt Table, will have thoſe words, [Thou ſhalt not make to thy ſelf an Idol; where Idols are forbidden to to be worſhipped] to be a diſtinct Precept from the foregoing words, Thou ſhalt have no other Gods beſides me; and theſe other words, Thou ſhalt not covet thy Neighbors Wife, and, Thou ſhalt not covet thy Neighbors houſe, with the reſt to the end of the ſecond Table, to be but One. Thoſe who aſſign but Three to the Firſt Table, make whatever is commanded concerning the Worſhip of One God; that nothing elſe be worſhipped for God beſides him; to be but One Precept: and divide the laſt words of the Second Table into Two, ſo that, Thou ſhalt not covet thy Neighbors Wife, is one Commandment; and, Thou ſhalt not covet his houſe, nor any thing that is his, another. Yet neither of them doubt of the Commandments being Ten, becauſe this the Scripture it ſelf witneſſeth. But to me, ſays He, it ſeems more congruous to divide them into Three and Seven, becauſe thoſe which belong to God ſeem to inſinuate a Trinity of Perſons to ſuch as more attentively look into them. And in reality the very ſame thing is more perfectly explicated, when Idols are forbidden to be worſhipped, which was ſaid in the forgoing words, Thou ſhalt have no other Gods beſides me. Thus S. Auſtin. And then having ſhown the laſt words of the Second Table, Thou ſhalt not covet thy Neighbours wife, Thou ſhalt not covet thy Neighbours houſe, &c. to be two diſtinct Precepts from the diſtinct Prohibitions, [Thou ſhalt not, and Thou ſhalt not] anſwerable to the different nature of the Sins forbidden he adds, But as to that which is forbidden by thoſe words, Thou ſhalt have no other Gods beſides me, it is apparent that a more diligent execution of this matter is imported by the words which follow. For to what does that Prohibition belong, Thou ſhalt not make to thy ſelf and Idol, or any ſimilitude of things in Heaven above, Thou ſhalt not adore them, nor ſerve them, but to that which was ſaid before, Thou ſhalt have no other Gods before me? Theſe are the Words and the Diſcourſe of S. Austin; in which the Reader may note, 1. That he tranſlates, Thou ſhalt not make to thy ſelf an Idol, not an Image, as Proteſtants do very artificially, to make their Aſſertion ſeem more plauſible. 2. That he makes the ſence of the Law to be the forbidding to give the Worſhip of God to Idols. 3. That he does not make it a distinct Precept from the foregoing words, Thou ſhalt have no other Gods beſides me, but onely a more particular and perfect explication of them. So that if the Judgment of S. Auſtin be to be followed, either for the meaning of the Law, or for the dividing of the Decalogue, it is evident he ſtands on the Catholick's ſide, and not on the Proteſtant's.

7. This Dr. St. ſaw very well, and therefore found no other way to evade the weight of his Judgment, but to call me to Account how I am ſure that this was his constant Judgment, ſince in his latter Writings (upon his bare word you muſt take it, for there is nothing in the place to prove it) he reckons up the Commandments as others of the Fathers had done before him? He would ſeem 〈◊〉 theſe laſt words to in • inuate as if S. Auſtin had changed his Judgment upon conſideration of what other Fathers had done before him; but there is mention of no ſuch thing in thoſe later Writings cited by himſelf; and in the former cited by me, 'tis plain that he had conſidered the Opinion of thoſe other Fathers before him (concerning the dividing the Commandments as Proteſtants do now) and that notwithſtanding their Sentiment in the caſe, he rejected it as leſs congruous to the meaning of the Law, and the natures of the things forbidden. This then was a pretty Artifice to amuze the Reader, inſtead of ſpeaking to the Point. But to come to his demand, How I am ſure that S. Austin remained conſtant in this Judgment, Let us firſt ſee what the words are in the place to which he refers us in his Margin, Who will ſay, ſaith S. Auſtin) (Contra duas Ep. Pelag. li. 3. c. 4.) that Chriſtians are not bound to obſerve, that God onely is to be ſerved with the ſervice of Religion, that an Idol is not to be worſhipped, that the Name of God ought not to be taken in vain, that Parents are to be honoured, that Adulteries, Murders, Theſ • s are not to be committed, that falſe witneſs is not to be born, that our Neighbours Wife, that no other thing which is his, is not to be coveted. Theſe are the words of S. Auſtin. And his Intention here was no more, but to recapitulate the Duties enjoyned in the Decalogue, which Chriſtians are bound to obſerve, as is evident, 1. From his firſt words, Who will ſay that Chriſtians are not bound to obſerve, &c. 2. From the occaſion of them, which was to anſwer the Calumny of the Pelagians, who accuſed him for aſſerting. That the Law was not given to juſtifie the Obſervers, but to be a greater cauſe of ſin. 3. From his leaving out the keeping of the Sabboth, as it was commanded to be obſerved by the Jews, which he had before excepted. This was his Intention in the place cited by the Doctor, and not to meddle at all with the manner how the Commandments are to be divided; for whether Four be aſſigned to the Firſt Table, and Six to the Second; or Three onely to the First, and Seven to the Second, the Duties which Chriſtians are bound to obſerve, are ſtill the ſame. So that the Doctor has no more ground from hence to ſay that St. Auſtin divides them in this place, as Protestants do, than he has from the very words of the Decalogue, as they are ſet down in Exodus, where although the Commandments are expreſly ſaid to be Ten; yet how many belong to the Firſt Table, and how many to the Second, is not ſpecified. Concerning this, he had delivered his Judgment profeſſedly in the place cited by me, to be the ſame which Catholicks at this day follow; and if the Doctor queſtion'd the Conſtancy of his Judgment, any man of Reaſon would think it had been his part to ſhew he had chang'd it; and not to ask his Adverſary how he is ſure he had not done ſo, when he could bring nothing to prove it, but the very matter it ſelf in diſpute. This I confeſs is a new way of anſwering the Fathers, and the readieſt I ever met with, excepting that of denying them. Whether it be as Good as New, let the Reader judge. I am ſure if it be allowed for good, there is no more to do, when an expreſs Teſtimony is alledged out of any Father for any point in Controverſie, but to ſtand up and ask the Alledger confidently, How he is ſure that the Father did not afterwards change his mind, in his later Writings, although he ſpeak not at all to that Queſtion in them. As for the particular point in debate, viz. Whether thoſe words, Thou ſhalt not make to thee a graven thing, be to be taken according to S. Auſtin, not as a distinct Commandment, but as an explication onely of the fore-going words, Thou ſhalt have no other Gods beſides me? I am ſure I have his Judgment profeſſedly for me in his former Writings, and having poſſeſſion on my ſide, I am yet farther ſure, that I ought not in juſtice to be deprived of it, till the Doctor can bring ſome better evidence out of his later Writings, than a bare recital of the Commandments; this being in plain terms no other than to beg the Queſtion. The Reader may note here alſo, that even in this place, cited by the Doctor for himſelf, the ſenſe S. Auſtin gives of the Law (whether it be a distinct Precept or no) is the very ſame I gave in my Reply, ut Idolum non colatur, that an Idol is not to be worſhipped. And if I miſtake not, his Judgment is to be preferr'd before Calvin's.

8. The next thing I inſiſted upon to ſhew the meaning of the Law to be the forbidding to give the Worſhip of God to Idols, was the uſe of the Hebrew word Peſel in Scripture to ſignifie an Idol, and particularly its being tranſlated ſo in this very place by the Septuagint. To this he returns a double Anſwer. 1. That ſuppoſing it ſignified onely an Idol, yet that were not enough, becauſe there is added another Word of as large a ſignification as may be to this purpoſe, which is (Themuna) SIMILITUDE. But this is nothing at all to the purpoſe, for how large ſoever its ſignification be, when taken by it ſelf, yet in our preſent caſe, it is limited by the following words, Thou ſhalt not bow down to them, nor ſerve them, to ſignifie the likeneſs of ſomething which is made to be worſhipped as God, that is, to be an Idol. And upon this account, as Mr. Thorndike (Epilog. Of the Laws of the Church, p. 361.) well obſerves, Tertullian contr. Marcion, li. 2. c. 22. manifestly affirms, the making of the Brazen Serpent and Cherubins, not to have been againſt the Law, becauſe not made for Idols, alledging the words of the Precept, [Thou ſhalt not worſhip them, nor ſerve them] for a Reſtriction limiting the Generality of a Carved Image. And this Opinion, ſaith he; I doubt not to be true. But to what purpoſe, ſaith Dr. St. are words of the largeſt ſignification put into a Law, if the ſenſe be limited according to the moſt narrow acceptation of one word mentioned therein? Inſtances I doubt not may be brought of Humane Laws, in which words of the largeſt ſignification are frequently put in, (and to purpoſe too) when the Intention of the Law-maker is, that they be underſtood according to the narrower ſignification of ſome other word or words in the Law. And that the Reader may ſee it was not done to no purpoſe, in the preſent Law under debate, I muſt deſire him to take notice, that the Heathens (as Origen Hom. 8. in Exod. 20. and Theodoret Q. 38. in Exod. tell us, when they expound this very Commandment) had two ſorts of Images; ſome which were purely ſigments or Fictions of their own Brain, made to repreſent what had no exiſtence but in their own Imaginations, as Sphynxes, Tritons, Centaurs, and the like; and others, which were made to repreſent ſuch things as had a real and ſubſtantial being in the World, as the Sun, Moon, Stars, and other like things, which they eſteemed and worſhipped as Gods. And although the word [Idol] as it is generally taken, be uſed to ſignifie any thing that is falſely eſteemed and worſhipped as a God, whether real or imaginary, yet the former onely of thoſe Images, ſay theſe Fathers, are ſignified in this Law by the word Idol, and the latter by the word Similitude. From whence it appears that the term Similitude in this place, is neither taken in its largeſt extent, to ſignifie any Image or Repreſentation whatſoever, though with relation to the worſhip of the true God; nor yet in the narroweſt ſignification of the word Idol, which is ſuch an Image as is made to repreſent for Worſhip, a Figment that has no real Being; but in a middle acception, for an Image or reſemblance of ſome real thing, but falſely imagined to be a God. And it was to the purpoſe that the Law ſhould be thus enlarged for the Inſtruction of a people ſo rude and prone to all kind of Idolatry as the Jews were: But ſuppoſing the Law to be Natural, and not in part Ceremonial, it was nothing to the purpoſe to put the word Similitude in its largeſt meaning, that is, as ſignifying any Image what ſoever, though made with reſpect to the Worſhip of the true God; when God himſelf commanded the Ark and the Cherubins to be made for that reſpect. What the Doctor ſhould prove (and it is his part at preſent to prove) againſt theſe Fathers, and the General Senſe of the Church of Chriſt for ſo many hundred years, is, that the word Similitude is to be taken ſo here; that is, for any Image made with reſpect to the Worſhip of God. But all the Proof he brings, is a confident I confeſs it cannot enter into my mind how God ſhould have forbidden it by more expreſs and emphatical words than he hath done; and yet his own words, (p. 60.) that God forbids any Image or Similitude to be made with reſpect to his Worſhip, I conceive are much more expreſs and emphatical to his purpoſe, than thoſe of the Law; for Thoſe bear a great diſpute, Theſe none at all. But to let this paſs; What he endeavours inſtead of proving his own Aſſertion, is, to render the explication brought by his Adverſary ridiculous, by a Compariſon, much of the ſame ſ • amp with his former one, of a Princes making it Treaſon to bow down to a Sign Poſt with his Head upon it, with Intention to honour him. And to do him right, the Reader ſhall have it as it lies. If a Prince, ſaith he, ſhould under a ſevere penalty (you may ſuppoſe it Treaſon, as in the other caſe) forbid all his Subjects making any Image or reſemblance, with intent to give honour to him by kneeling before them, would not that man be thought very ridiculous, who ſhould go about to interpret the Law thus, that the Prince did not forbid them making any Picture of Himſelf or his Son, or any of his Favorites, (for the Worſhip of theſe could not but redound to his own honour) but onely that they ſhould not make the Image of an Ape, or an Aſs, or a Tyger, thinking to honour their Prince thereby? Much ſuch an expoſition, ſays he, is that here given of the Law. God forbids any Image or Similitude to be made with reſpect to his Worſhip, (for it is ridiculous to imagine the Law means any thing elſe) but he (his Adverſary) ſaith, This Law muſt not be underſtood to exclude a Crucifix, or ſuch-like Sacred Image, with an intention to worſhip God by them; but onely they ſhould not worſhip Apis or Dagen, an Ichneumon or a Crocodile, or any the moſt ridiculous follies of the Heathen. Behold here a quaint Compariſon! A product of pure Fancy indeed, that a Prince ſhould be imagin'd to enact a Law ſo much againſt Nature, and his own honour. But to make it run on all four, with the Beaſts mention'd in it, viz. the Ape, the Aſs, and the Tyger, ought not the Doctor firſt to have prov'd the Senſe of the Law in queſtion to be, That God forbids an Image or Similitude to be made with reſpect to his Worſhip, by ſome better Reaſon, than [for it is ridiculous to imagine the Law means any thing elſe:] when there is not one word in the Law expreſſing a Prohibition of any ſuch thing, as I ſhewed above, and the Jews were expreſly commanded to make the Ark and the Cherubins, and to bow down before them to that very end? How quaint ſoever then the Compariſon be, it is g • ounded on a falſe Suppoſition, and ſo quite beſide the matter. I ſhall take leave to ſet it down, as I conceive it ought to be, and ſo leave it to the Reader to judge between us. Suppoſe that the R • b • ls of Aſtracan, having defaced all Images in the City, had ſet up that of their Leader Stephan Radzin in every Street, and as they paſs'd by, put off their Hats, or bow'd to it, with intent to honour him by thoſe actions. Suppoſe farther, that the Czar of Muſcovy, their lawful Prince, having reduced the City to his Obedience, ſhould forbid under a ſevere Penalty all his Subjects to uncover or bow themſelves to an Image; and at the ſame time, or a little after, command thoſe which were ſet up for the Uſurper's honour to be pull'd down and burnt, and others relating to himſelf ſet up▪ to the Intent to honour him by them: would not that man be thought very ridiculous, who ſhould go about to interpret the Law to be meant of any Image whatſoever, (though made with reſpect to the Prince' • own honour) by taking the word Image in its largeſt ſignification, eſpecially if there were another word or clauſe in the Law, limiting the Generality of the word Image to thoſe of the Uſurper? Juſt ſuch an expoſition of the Law is that given here by the Doctor. Rebel Mankind had ſet up Idols and Images of falſe Gods in all parts of the World, to honour that Arch Rebel the Devil, by bowing down before them; and God having reduc'd a part of it to his Obedience, (the People of the Jews) forbids them to make an Idol, or any ſimilitude of things in Heaven, or Earth, or under the Earth, to bow down to them, or ſerve them, reſtraining thereby the generality of the word ſimilitude, to ſignifie thoſe of falſe Gods: And at the ſame time, or preſently after, commands them to make an Ark and Cherubins to give Worſhip to himſelf by bowing down before them. Would not that man now be thought ridiculous, who ſhould go about to interpret the Law to mean by that general term Similitude, the forbidding any Image or Similitude whatſoever to be made with reſpect to his own Worſhip? Let the Reader judge whether this I have ſet down, be not the plain ſtate of the point in debate between us: and whether there be any thing more extravagant than ſuch an Expoſition of the Law as this here given, except the Reaſon it ſelf he gives 〈…〉 ridiculous to imagine the Law means any thing elſe?

9. His ſecond Anſwer to my Argument is, that the word Peſel is very properly rendred an Image, and doth not ſignifie barely an Idol. And what he offers by way of Proof is, that it is no leſs than forty ſeveral times rendred by the Lxx. glypton, a graven thing, and but thrice by eidoolon, an Idol, and once by eikoon, which is properly an Image. But granting this to be ſo, does it any way hinder, but their Judgment was, it was to be rendred by Idol in this place? Nay is it not evident, that tranſlating it generally by glypton, a graven thing, they had ſome particular reaſon to render it by Idol, rather than by graven thing or Image, in this and the other two places? I, but the word Peſel is o • ſo large a ſignification, that he ſaith it properly ſignifies any thing that is carved out of Wood or Stone, and being ſo often rendred by the Septu • gint a graven thing, it is plain from thence, ſaith he, that when they tranſlate it by an Idol, they mean no more thereby than a graven Image. But what a ſtrange kind of conſequence is this, that becauſe they oftentimes tranſlate it a graven thing, therefore, when they tranſlate it Idol, they mean no more I ſuppoſe he means • o leſs. thereby than a graven thing? As if the ſenſe of a word of a ſtricter ſignification, were to be regulated by another of a larger, and not the more ample by the narrower; eſpecially in this place, where the words, Thou ſhalt not worſhip them, nor ſerve them, are (as Tertullian above-cited ſaith) a Reſtriction limiting the Generality of a Carved Image. No aſſiſtance then can be given him from hence, nor yet from the Alexandrian MS. rendring it glypton in the repetition of the Law, Deut. 5. 8. nor its being tranſlated • ikoon, Iſa. 40. 18. nor yet from the Vulgar Latin uſing Idolum, Sculptile, and Imago, all to expreſs the ſame thing, Iſa. 44. 9, 10, 13. for in all theſe places (as They may ſee who will look into them) there is ſtill ſome term or clauſe reſtraining the words, Sculptile and Imago, to ſignifie ſuch a graven thing or Image as is made to be compared with God, or to be the Object of Divine Worſhip, that is, to be an Idol: from whence the contrary to what he infers, is plain, that when they tranſlate it by graven Image, they mean no more thereby than an IDOL. As for that final Concluſion of his, (viz. By which it appears, that any Image being made ſo far the Object of Divine Worſhip that men do bow down before it, doth thereby become an Idol, and on that account is forbidden in this Commandment;) not to ſpend time in divining what that is by which this appears (it is ſo very myſtical) the Propoſition it ſelf, 1. Suppoſes moſt falſely, that to bow down before any Image, though with intent to worſhip God, is to make it the Object of Divine Worſhip, and conſequently an Idol. 2. It contradicts alſo what he ſaid before, that to do ſo, is Idolatry, upon the quite contrary account, viz. becauſe it is forbidden, as hath been ſhewn more at large above. Let him not contradict Chriſts holy Spouſe the Church (if he will not contradict himſelf) much leſs accuſe her of Idolatry, for worſhipping God by bowing or kneeling before a Crucifix; as the Jews were allowed to do by the like actions before the Ark and the Cherubins. When he can prove this to be Idolatry from the Terms of the Law, or any thing elſe, he will do ſomething. Hitherto he hath done nothing, there being not any one Term in the Law, (as I have ſhewed) by which it is expreſly prohibited to give Worſhip to God himſelf by an Image. I advance now to his Second Proof, drawn, as he ſays, from the Reaſon annexed to the Law.

CHAP. IV.

Dr. St.'s Second Proof, from the Reaſon of the Law, Sophiſtical. All Repreſentations of God, not diſhonourable to him; nor rejected as ſuch by the Church of England. The Proper Reaſon of the Law on Gods part aſſigned, and aſſerted to be the Supream Excellency of his Nature.

§. 1. THe Second Proof he brings (p. 62.) to ſhew that God in the ſecond Commandment hath expreſly prohibited the giving any Worſhip to himſelf by an Image, is from the Reaſon annexed to it. (P. 58.) And that, he ſaith, the Scripture tells us was derived from Gods Infinite and Incomprehenſible Nature, which could not be repreſented to men, but in a way that must be an infinite diſparagement to it. I expected to find this Reaſon, becauſe he ſaith, it is annexed to the Law, either in the Law it ſelf, or in the Preface, or in the Commination againſt the Tranſgreſſors of it: but it ſeems he could not find it there himſelf, and therefore he cites for it, that Text of Iſa. 40. 18. To whom will ye liken God? Or what likeneſs will ye compare to him? And that of Deut. 4. 15, 16. Take good heed to your ſelves, &c. for ye ſaw no manner of ſimilitude on the day that the Lord ſpake unto you. And the Conſequence from all is, a deſire to know whether by this Reaſon God doth not declare, that all Worſhip given to him by any viſible Repreſentation of him, is extreamly diſhonourable to him? This is the Sum of his Diſcourſe; apt enough, I confeſs, to d • lude a vulgar Auditory out of the Pulpit, but altogether empty and inſignificant, when brought to the Test of Reaſon, as I ſhall make appear in this Chapter. The Reader in the mean time may pleaſe to take notice, that whereas he infers now onely from the Promiſſes, That all Worſhip given to God by any viſible Repreſentation of him, is extreamly diſhonourable to him, and not that it is flat Idolatry, he is either grown kind all on the ſuddain, or jealous that his Proof falls ſhort of his Charge: ſince every extreamly-great ſin, as Blaſphemy and the like, is extreamly diſhonourable to God, and yet not Idolatry. As for the Concluſion it ſelf, whether and in what ſenſe it may be true or falſe, ſhall be examined below; Let us ſee firſt what truth there is in the Antecedent, from whence he infers it.

§. 2. The Propoſition he lays down for the Reaſon of the Law, is this; Gods Nature being Infinite and Incomprehenſible, cannot be repreſented to men, but in a way that must be an infinite diſparagement to it. And, if this be ſo, what ſhall we ſay to one that ſhould repreſent God in Picture, as a Three-Corner'd Light caſting out radiant Beams on all ſides of it; at a little diſtance a reſplendent Cloud of Glory in a Circular form encompaſſing the Light: Within the Cloud, near to the Fountain of Brightneſs, Angels adoring; without the Cloud, Faith and Religion praying; and directly under it, an Altar with an inflamed Heart offering it ſelf in Sacrifice? Would ſuch a viſible Repreſentation as this, be an infinite diſparagement to God or no? If my Adverſary grant it, (as he muſt do, if he ſpeak conſequently to himſelf) then what becomes of the Church of England? For in the Frontiſpiece of her Book of Common-Prayer, Printed at London by Robert Barker 1642. in octavo, this very Picture is expoſed to the Eyes of all her People; and to prevent their miſtaking it, as intended to repreſent any thing but God, the incommunicable Name JEHOVAH is written in the midſt of the Triangular Light, and that in Hebrew Characters, to ſtrike (no doubt) a greater reſpect and reverence in the Beholders? If he deny it to be an infinite diſparagement, then what becomes of his Fundamental Poſition, that God being infinite and incomprehenſible, cannot be repreſented to men, but in a way that muſt be an infinite diſparagement to his Nature? Whatever Calvin denies concerning the lawfulneſs of repreſenting God in Picture, we ſee how far the Church of England allows it in the Front of her Publick Liturgy, and there want not other examples not unparallel to this, in ſome of her Churches alſo. So that Dr. Stillingfleet muſt either condemn her of Impiety i • making and expoſing ſuch kind of Repreſentations to the Eyes of the People; or himſelf of a moſt groſs Errour, when he aſſerts in ſo univerſal a manner, that God cannot be repreſented to men in any way but what muſt be an infinite diſparagement to him. Perhaps he will ſay, they are not expoſed by the Church of England for Worſhip. But that belongs to the Conſequence. Our Queſtion at preſent, is, about the Antecedent, whether they may not be made without diſparagement to God? Beſides that himſelf not onely condemns them for Worſhip, but alſo in order to the putting us in mind of God; which how ſtrange ſoever it ſeem, he avowedly maintains, p. 68. when he affirms, That they tend highly to the diſhonour of God, and ſuggeſt mean thoughts to us of the God we are to worſhip. But of this more in the next Chapter. Let him make his attonement with the Church of England as he can. I come now to ſpeak to the point it ſelf.

§ 3. Pictures or Images made with reference to God, may be conſidered two ways: either a • made to repreſent the Divinity it Self, out of an Erroneous Conceit which the Maker hath of it in his mind; ſuch as the Anthropomorphites had of God, whom they conceived to have Eyes, and Ears, and Hands, and other like bodily parts, as we have; or as repreſenting immediately ſuch things as bear a certain Analogy or Proportion to ſome divine Perfections, and thereupon are apt to raiſe our Minds to the Knowledge and Contemplation of the Perfections themſelves; As when God the Father is pictured as he appeared to Daniel in the likeneſs of the Ancient of Days, to manifeſt his Wiſdom and Eternity; and the H. Ghoſt in the likeneſs of a Dove, to ſignifie his Purity and Simplicity, in a manner ſuitable to our Conceptions. The firſt ſort of Repreſentations are an infinite diſparagement to the Divine Nature; becauſe being infinite and inviſible, it cannot be repreſented as it is in it ſelf by any corporeal likeneſs or figures. But the Second are no way diſhonourable to him, becauſe they are not made to repreſent the Divine Nature by an immediate or proper ſimilitude, but by Analogy onely, or Metaphorical ſignification, as is above declared. And if it were no diſparagement to God to appear in ſuch or ſuch viſible forms, it can be none to repreſent them in Picture, no more than it is to relate or deſcribe them in Writing.

§. 4. This premiſed, I anſwer to the Prepoſition. If his meaning be that Gods Nature being infinite and incomprehenſible, cannot be repreſented to men (either Properly or Analogically) but in a way that muſt be an infinite diſparagement to it; I deny it as falſe. God the Father would never have repreſented himſelf in a humane form, nor the H. Ghost in the likeneſs of a Dove, had it been diſhonourable. Nor do I believe the Church of England would have permitted the Divinity to be pictured in the likeneſs of a Triangular Light, had ſhe thought it a diſparagement. But if his meaning be, that the Divine Nature being infinite, cannot be repreſented properly as it is, by any corporeal ſimilitude; I grant it. But then the Conſequence in virtue of this Antecedent, can onely be this, that to worſhip God by ſuch a viſible Repreſentation, as conceiv'd proper to his Nature, is extreamly diſhonourable to him. And in this we perfectly agree with him; but utterly deny what he farther infers without any reſtriction or reaſon; that all Worſhip given to God by any viſible Repreſentation of him, (whether conceiv'd as Proper or Analogical) is extreamly diſhonourable to him.

Having ſhown the Propoſition it ſelf ( 〈◊〉 taken in the unlimited Senſe he gives it) to be falſe, it follows manifeſtly, that it cannot be the Reaſon of the Law. Yet for a more ample diſcovery of his Sophiſtical managing of Controverſie, I ſhall give it a farther Conſideration, as it is aſſigned by him for the Reaſon of the Law.

§. 5. The Queſtion at preſent between us, is, about the Reaſon of the Law, viz. Why God forbad the making a graven Image, or the likeneſs of any thing in Heaven or Earth, or under the Earth, to bow down and worſhip it? And on the People's part, to whom the Law was given, it is evident that it was to keep them in their duty of giving Soveraign Worſhip to God alone, by reſtraining them from Idolatry. But this it ſeems was too plain and obvious a Reaſon for ſo Metaphyſical a Diſcourſer; He ſeeks therefore another more ſubtil and elevated, and conſequently more apt to lead a vulgar Reader into a maze, viz. What Perfection in God was the Cauſe or Reaſon why he made this Law? What he aſſerts it to be, we have already heard, viz. That the Divinity cannot be repreſented to men, but in a way that muſt be an infinite diſparagement to it. What I affirm it to be, is, The Supreme Excellency of God's Nature, to which Soveraign Worſhip is onely due, and not the incongruity of an Image to repreſent it, as he often expreſſeth it. The Queſtion thus ſtated, I prove my Aſſertion,

1. From the Preface of the Law (the uſual place where the Reaſons of all Laws are expreſſed) becauſe the Reaſon there aſſigned by the Law-maker himſelf, is this, I am the Lord thy God. And what is this, but I am the onely Supreme and Super-Excellent Being above all and over all, to whom therefore Soveraign honour is onely to be given, and to none beſide me? Neither is there any mention at all made of the irrepreſentableneſs of the Divine Nature, or the incongruity of an Image to repreſent it to men; But the ſame reaſon of his Supreme Excellency is enforced anew from the Zeal or Jealouſie which God hath of his honour, when immediately after the Prohibition, he adds, For I the Lord thy God am a Jealous God, (as the Proteſtant Tranſlation hath it) by which he gives us to underſtand that the Reaſon why he will puniſh ſeverely thoſe who ſhall give his honour to any thing beſide him, is, becauſe he is the Lord their God, to whom onely it is due.

2. I prove it from the neceſſary Connexion there is, as of an effect to its proper Cauſe, between the Prohibition of the Law on the one ſide, and the Supreme Excellency of the Divine Nature on the other.

To make this as clear as the matter will give me leave, I muſt deſire the Reader to reflect, that although there be no diſtinction of Attributes or Perfections in God, but that All are really one and the ſame indiviſible Perfection with his Nature; and conſequently the ſame with one another, viz. his Mercy with his Juſtice; his Juſtice with his Truth, and his Truth with his Omnip • tence, &c. Yet We, by reaſon of the narrowneſs of our Underſtanding, are forced to apprehend, and diſcourſe (for example) of his Mercy as diſtinct from his Juſtice, aſſigning them as the proper Cauſes or Reaſons of ſeveral (even contrary) effects, which God produces by them. When he forgives, we ſay, he does ſo becauſe he is Merciful; and when he puniſhes, we ſay, he does ſo, becauſe he is Juſt; ſo that the formal Reaſon, as conceived by us, why he forgives, is his Mercy, and not his Juſtice; and why he puniſhes, is his Juſtice, and not his Mercy; and ſo immediate is the connexion between them and their effects, that if you abſtract his Mercy, there is no reaſon left to conceive why he ſhould forgive; nor to puniſh, if you abſtract his Juſtice. But in caſe you abſtract his Justice, and leave his Mercy, the effect of forgiving will ſtill follow, and conſequently his Mer •• , and not his Juſtice, muſt be aſſigned 〈◊〉 the formal Cauſe or Reaſon why h • forgiv ••• .

From hence, I think, I may infer, and lay down this General Rule, That that Notion or Perfection in God, upon which (conſidered preciſely in it ſelf) an effect depends, ſo that it follows or not follows as a conſequence from it, according as the ſaid notion is or is not conſidered by us; ought to be aſſigned for the proper Cauſe or Reaſon of ſuch an effect. But ſo it is in our preſent caſe, that if we conſider the Divine Nature preciſely as Supreamly Excellent (abſtracting from its Incongruity to be repreſented) it neceſſarily follows, that Soveraign Worſhip is due onely to It, and not to be given to any other either Image or Thing. But if we conſider it as Inviſible onely, and Irrepreſentable, (abſtracting from the notion of Supreme Excellency) it doth not follow on that account preciſely, that Soveraign Worſhip, or indeed any Worſhip at all is due unto it. An Angel is inviſible and cannot be repreſented as he is; doth it therefore follow that Soveraign Worſhip is due to him? Or that any Worſhip at all is to be given to a Sound, becauſe it cannot be painted? Excellency then, and not Inviſibility, is the Formal Reaſon of Worſhip. Whether a thing can or cannot be repreſented by an Image or Picture, if it have no Excellency, no Worſhip is due unto it; and if it have Excellency, Worſhip is due to it, according to the degree of Excellency it is endowed with. And upon that account Soveraign Civil Worſhip was equally due from the People to Moſes, being conſtituted their Prince by God, when his Picture could be drawn, as when it could not becauſe of the ſhining of his face; or when he kept on his Vail, or put it off: And God himſelf was no leſs adorable when he appeared to Daniel like the Ancient of Days, than when he gave the Law to Moſes without any Similitude: To conclude, to be Supremely-Excellent is Proper to God alone; Not-to-be-repreſentable by an Image, is Common to Him with Angels, though in a higher degree: and however it enter materially, or à parte rei, (as the Schools ſpeak) as the other Attributes of Truth, Wiſdom, Goodneſs, &c. do, to conſtitute the Divine Nature Supremely-Excellent; yet it is manifeſt that his Excellency preciſely, and none of the other Attributes, is the immediate and formal reaſon why Soveraign Worſhip is to be given to none but Him; and conſequently why this Law was made particularly to forbid it to be given (as at that time it was given by the Heathen) to Grave • Things, that is, Repreſentations of Imaginary Beings; or to any Similitude, that is, the likeneſs of any thing, which although it had a real Being, yet was not God.

3dly. Ad hominem, I argue thus. What follows preciſely from the Divine Nature's being Inviſible and Irrepreſentable (abſtracting from its Supreme Excellency, the proper Object of Latria) is onely this, that men therefore ought not to preſume to make any Image or likeneſs, to repreſent it as it is: and the Law in virtue of it, muſt be to forbid the making any ſuch Image: But Dr. St. utterly denies the Law we treat of to contain any ſuch Prohibition in it; as appears by his words againſt Bellarmin and others, pag. 77.—[As though ever any Men were ſuch fools to believe an Image could perfectly repreſent an Infinite Being; or that God need to make a Law to forbid that which is utterly impoſſible in the very nature of the thing: He might more reaſonably forbid men to paint a Sound,—or to make new Worlds, than to command them not to make any Image which ſhould perfectly repreſent his Nature.] Thus he, to ſhew the Law meant nothing leſs than to forbid men to make an Image of God; which yet is all that follows in virtue of his not being repreſentable by any corporeal figure. Therefore, according to himſelf, the irrepreſentableneſs of the Divine Nature, as preciſely conſider'd, cannot be aſſigned for the Proper Cauſe or Reaſon of this Law. Thus much from Reaſon.

§. 6. I come now to the places of Scripture; which, he ſaith, tell us, that the Reaſon of the Law was, That God's Nature being Infinite, could not be repreſented but in a way that must be an infinite diſparagement to him.

To the firſt. Iſa. 40. 18. To whom will ye liken God? Or what likeneſs will ye compare unto him? I anſwer, The Prophet tells us, that nothing is or can be like or compared to God; but where doth he tell us that this is the Reaſon of the Law, unleſs we are bound to believe it becauſe Dr. St. ſaith it? There is a likeneſs of Repreſentation, and a likeneſs of Compariſon (as the words themſelves ſeem to import) but neither of them evince what he intends. For if the words be to be underſtood of likeneſs in Repreſentation, all that can be inferr'd from them, is, that ſuch a likeneſs is not to be made; the Prohibition whereof, as the Doctor denies to be any part of the Law; ſo the thing it ſelf makes nothing againſt Catholicks, who abhor the very thought of making any ſuch likeneſs; and the Council of Trent, Seſſ. 25. expreſly enjoyns her Paſtors, for preventing any miſtake in ignorant and unlearned Perſons, When ſome Hiſtorical paſſage of H. Scripture concerning God, is repreſented in Picture, to teach them that the Divinity it ſelf is not thereby figured, as if it could be ſeen with corporeal Eyes, or drawn in Colours, or expreſſed in Figures; but that ſuch kind of Pictures are onely Repreſentations of ſome Apparition or Action of God, in a way proportionable to our Humane Conception. But if the Prophet ſpeak not of a likeneſs in Repreſentation, but in Compariſon, as the Contents of the Chapter in the Proteſtant Bible affirm in theſe words, The Prophet comforteth the People v. 18. by the Incomparableneſs of God: that is, if his intent be (as their own Annotation hath it upon that place, Bible in Quarto, 1610.) to arm them againſt the Idolatry wherewith they ſhould be tempted in Babylon, by ſhewing that none of the Idols of the Heathen were to be compared to Him in Wiſdom, Greatneſs, Power, &c. as is manifeſt he does from v. 12. to the end of the Chapter; it is no more to the purpoſe for which he alledges it, viz. Therefore it is forbidden to worſhip God himſelf by bowing or kneeling before an Image, than if one ſhould ſay, There is no compariſon for Riches and Greatneſs between a King and a Peaſant; therefore it is not lawful to give honour to the King, by putting off ones Hat before his Picture, or the Chair of State.

§. 7. To the other Text of Deut. 4. 15. where Moſes ſaith, Take good heed to your ſelves, (for ye ſaw no manner of Similitude in the day that the Lord ſpake to you.) I anſwer, That de facto no manner of Similitude was ſeen at that time by the People, that afterwards they might not take occaſion (as they were apt enough) to conceive it to have been a proper Repreſentation of the Divinity, and ſo entertain an erroneous Conceit of God. Notwithſtanding, if it had ſo pleas'd him, when he gave the Law he might have appeared to the People in ſome viſible likeneſs, without diſparagement to his Nature, as it is likely he did in a glorious manner to Moſes, at the Second giving of the Law, (when he deſcended and ſtood with him on the Rock, and he ſaw the back parts of God, and bowed to the Earth, and worſhipped, Exod. 33. 23. & 34. 5, 8.) and as both before and after he appeared to the Patriarchs and Prophets; and conſequently his not appearing ſo de facto, could not be the Reaſon of the Law. For as Dr. St. himſelf confeſſes very ingenuouſly, p. 63. Although God had appeared with a Similitude then, yet there might have been great reaſon for making a Law againſt worſhipping the Heathen Idols, or fixing the intention of their Worſhip upon the bare Image; I add, Even againſt thinking of honouring God, by an Image made by men, (if that were the meaning of the Law, as it is not) ſince ſuch a Law (if neceſſary) might have been made, and would have obliged, although God had choſen ſome viſible likeneſs to appear in at that time. The words then (For ye ſaw no manner of Similitude on the day that the Lord ſpake to you) though cited by the Doctor without a Parentheſis, to make them ſeem of more force, were not ſet down by Moſes, as the Reaſon of the Law: But the matter of fact was made uſe of by him as a Motive to induce the People to the Obſervance of it, in a Sermon he makes Deut. 4. to preſs them to that duty. And this Explication alſo the Doctor might have found in his own Bible, if he had but vouchſafed to caſt his Eye upon the Contents of the Chapter, where the whole Diſcourſe is entituled, An Exhortation to Obedience; or on the Breviate on the top of the Page, where the Arguments us'd in it are call'd Perſwaſions to Obedience. But there was the word likeneſs in the firſt Text; and Similitude in the ſecond, denied of God; and theſe were enough without conſidering the Context, or the intent of the Writer, or the Contents of the Chapters, to ask, Whether God by that Reaſon doth not declare, that all Worſhip given to him by any viſible Repreſentation of him, is extreamly diſhonourable to him? Now, though Proteſtants may hold with Dr. St. that the Scripture is the moſt certain Rule of their Faith; yet unleſs they wilfully ſhut their Eyes, they cannot think the Method he takes, to be the moſt certain way to find out its Senſe. But to draw to a Concluſion in this matter.

§. 8. Let us ſuppoſe the Argument (notwithſtanding all that hath been ſaid to ſhew its deficiency in all its parts) to be good and ſound, and that, in its largeſt extent, viz. The Nature of God being infinite and incomprehenſible, cannot be repreſented to men but in a way that muſt be an infinite diſparagement to it. Let us grant, I ſay, this Antecedent, and the Places of Scripture in the ſenſe they are cited by him. Let us grant the Conſequence too he infers from them, Therefore all Worſhip given to Him, by any viſible Repreſentation of him (whether Proper or Analogical) is extreamly diſhonourable to him. Suppoſe, I ſay, all this to be ſo. Will it follow from hence that Chriſt according to his Humanity, cannot be repreſented but with great diſparagement to Him? Or, that to put off our Hats, when we behold the Figure of his Sacred Body, as Nailed upon the Croſs, with intent to Worſhip Him, muſt be extremly diſhonourable to Him? What if the Soul of Man be Inviſible, and cannot be repreſented by any Corporeal Figure or Colours? Will it follow from thence, that any Picture made to repreſent a Prince according to his External Features, would be a diſparagement to him? and any Honour given him by means of ſuch a Repreſentation, a Diſhonour? The Conſequence he brings is no better, in order to Chriſt and his Image. If then his Argument do not at all concern the practiſe of Catholicks in making the Images of Chriſt and his Saints, with reſpect to their Honour; to what purpoſe was it to lay down for the Reaſon of the Law, (in which he will have it to be forbidden) That God's Nature being Infinite and Incomprehenſible, could not be repreſented without infinite diſparagement to it? To what purpoſe was it to ſpend no leſs than three Pages, as he does §. 6. in citing Authours to prove that the Wiſer Perſons of the Heathens themſelves condemned the Worſhip of God by Images, as incongruous to a Divine Nature? Was it to make his Reader believe that Catholicks allow of any Pictures as proper Repreſentations of the Inviſible Deity? Let him lay his Hand upon his Heart. I have told him the Churches Senſe in that Point. What thoſe Wiſer Perſons of the Heathens meant, is evident from their Words, and from the Time in which they lived, to be this: That the Nature of God being Spiritual and Inviſible, it could not be repreſented by any thing like unto it; and therefore the Worſhip which the People gave to their Images, as Gods, or like unto the Gods they worſhipped, was incongruous to the Divine Nature, and a diſparagement to the Deity. And if the Germans, as Tacitus reporteth, (de morib. German. c. 9.) rejected Images made in the likeneſs of men, (which the Doctor conveniently leaves out) becauſe they thought them unſuitable to the Greatneſs of Celeſtial Deities (for, Other Figures and Symbols they had in their conſecrated Groves, as the ſame Tacitus there witneſſeth, and Dr. St. ſuppreſſeth) it was but what the Light of Nature taught them concerning the notion of a Deity; which, had the myſtery of God made Man been revealed to them, would have taught them alſo, that it was no diſparagement to Him to be repreſented in the likeneſs of Man, and to be worſhipped by ſuch an Image. His other Citations I took upon his word, without examining them; and the Reader may gueſs by this out of Tacitus, whether it be not likely I did him a kindneſs in it.

CHAP. V.

Worſhip unlawful by the Light of Nature, equally unlawful to Jews and Christians. A ſtrange Paradox advanced by Dr. Stillingfleet, viz. What can an Image do to the heightning of Devotion, or raiſing Affections? How far his Devotion to the Sun may be allowed in the Judgment of St. Leo.

§. 1. FRom the Notions of the Wiſer Heathens concerning the Worſhip of Images, he paſſes to the Clearer Diſcoveries of the Goſpel, S. 7. and wonders as at a thing of all things the moſt ſtrange to him, that any Perſons ſhould think this Precept onely reſpected the Jewiſh Oeconomy; and he repeats his wonder in a higher ſtrain, p. 67. when he asks, How any men in their Senſe • can imagine that Worſhip to be lawful among Christians, which was unlawful to the Jews? It ſeems he wanted an Adverſary to combate, and rather than lay down his Weapons, he was reſolved to make one, though of empty Air: For there is not one word in the Reply (which he pretends to anſwer) to ſignifie that the Author of it ever look'd upon this Precept as a meer poſitive Law; (which by his wondering he would make his Reader believe) but the quite contrary. For the meaning of the Law there given, is this, That what God forbids in it, is, to give his Worſhip to Idols; which Prohibition being but an Explication of the Law of Nature, muſt equally oblige both Jews and Chriſtians. Yet to ſpeak to a Point, the occaſion of ſo much wonder. What Worſhip is it he means was unlawful to the Jews, and is lawful to Chriſtians? Was it to worſhip God by ſome Symbolical Figures inſtituted to raiſe their Minds to a more lively apprehenſion of Gods Majeſty and Glory? No; for this the Jews did by bowing down before the Ark and the Cherubins; and very lawfully they did it, as appears by David's exhorting them to bow or fall down before the footſtool of God, Pſal. 98. Or was it to worſhip God by ſome Corporeal Repreſentation conceiv'd as Proper to his Nature? This he hath been told before, is no leſs unlawful to Chriſtians now, than it was formerly to the Jews, but rather more, by reaſon of the clearer knowledge they have of the Nature of God. What Worſhip then does he mean? Pray take it in his own words, and make the beſt on't you can. God's being a Spirit, is given, ſaith he, as a particular Reaſon why we ought to worſhip him after a ſpiritual manner, and not by any Corporeal Repreſentation, as the Jews ſaid the Samaritans worſhipped God in the form of a Dove. This is what he ſaith; and if his words be to be taken with relation to what the Samaritans did, he ought firſt to have told us what that was; For as it appears from Scripture, 4 Kings 17. 33. they made an erroneous Conceit of God, becauſe they worſhipped him together with the Gods of the Aſſyrians, and as One of Many, though the Beſt of the Company; which neither the Jews did, nor Chriſtians (I hope) do, but as the onely true God. But if his words muſt be taken without that reſpect, as they make up an Antecedent and Conſequence, viz. God is a Spirit, therefore we ought to worſhip him after a ſpiritual manner, and not by any Corporeal Repreſentation whatſoever: As the Conſequence will hold as well againſt worſhipping God by any Corporeal Geſture or Ceremony, as by an Image; So the giving him Worſhip by any Corporeal Repreſentation (ſuppoſing the Law not to be meerly Poſitive, but Natural, and the Conſequence good) was, and is alike unlawful both to Jews and Chriſtians. But in caſe there were a particular Prohibition given to the Jews (by reaſon of their proneneſs to Idolatry) of not making any Image or likeneſs for Worſhip, though of God himſelf, the Law as to that part is evin • 'd to be only Ceremonial, from their being diſpens'd with, in the making and uſe of the Ark and Cherubins, and ſo not obliging Chriſtians, but manifeſtly inferring, that the uſe of Images (abſtracting from ſuch a poſitive Prohibition) is not unlawful. From hence it appears how incongruous his compariſon is between the uſe of Images and Common Swearing: This being of its own nature evil, and always dangerous; That not ſuch; nor dangerous in Chriſtians, who are imbued from their Infancy, with a more clea • and perfect knowledge of the Nature of God, than ever the Wiſer Heathens attained to by the Light of Reaſon, or the Jews by the Law of Moſes. Yet is not their ſtate ſo ſpiritual as to put them quite out of their Senſes. The Maxim of the Philoſopher holds ſtill good with them, That nothing enters into their Underſtanding, but what paſſes firſt by the Gates of their Senſes, and no Operation of the Sight (the quickeſt of them) is performed without an Image.

§. 2. Hitherto the Doctor hath been very careful to make his Reader believe him ſerious; but who can imagine him to be ſo, when he advances that ſtrange Paradox, p. 68. What can ſuch an Image, (that is, to uſe his own phraſe, a Block or a • ewnſtone, repreſenting God to his mind) What can ſuch an Image, ſaith he, do to the heightning of Devotion, or raiſing Affections? And he means not onely an Image of the Deity by way of Likeneſs, or Analogy, or Union; every one of which, he ſaith, tends highly to the diſhonour of the Deity, and ſuggests mean thoughts to us of the God we are to worſhip, but alſo of the Images of Chriſt our Lord, made to repreſent his Humane Nature with reſpect to his Worſhip; as is evident by his applauding the Conſtantinopolitan Fathers for condemning it as a great Abſurdity, (p. 79.) the reaſon whereof he ſeems to give in this place, when he immediately addes, And is there no danger among Chriſtians, that they ſhould entertain too low and unworthy thoughts of God? And can any thing tend to it more effectually, than the bringing down the Repreſentations of him to the Figure and Lineaments of a Man, drawn upon a Table, or carved in an Image? Thus He; And if he be ſerious, what can I do but admire the thrice-happy ſtate of theſe men, who living in the Body as out of the Body, (it is ſo ſpiritualiz'd by continual Praying, Faſting, and other Macerations) can mount at pleaſure into the Third Heaven, and need not the aſſiſtance of any viſible Repreſentations to raiſe them to the knowledge of the Inviſible and Incomprehenſible Deity? This, I confeſs, is a ſtate more to be admired, than ever to be hoped for) in this life, by the greater part of the Children of Adam. And therefore God, to lead man to the knowledge of Him, by means proportionable to his Nature; (which, as I ſaid, is to derive its knowledge from the Senſes) created the ſtately Machin of this viſible World, to ſerve as a Hieroglyphick of his Greatneſs and Power. Next, having choſen a peculiar People to his Service, although he forbad them to make the likeneſs of any of thoſe things he had created, to worſhip them for Gods; yet he commanded Moſes (Exod. 25. 10, 17, 18.) to place in the Temple where they were to worſhip him, a repreſentation of his Footſtool and Throne (the Ark and the Propitiatory) with two Cherubins of beaten Gold attending on each ſide of the Seat, to raiſe their thoughts to a more venerable apprehenſion of his Majeſty and Greatneſs. Laſtly, the fulneſs of time being come, in which he would ſhew the exceſs of his mercy towards Mankind, he was pleaſed (as S. Paul ſaith, Phil. 2. 7.) to take upon him the form of a Servant, and be made in the likeneſs of Man, that is, to become indeed true Man, not onely to work our Redemption by ſhedding his moſt precious Blood, but alſo by that viſible form (as the Church ſings upon the day of his Nativity) to carry, or rather raviſh our hearts to the contemplation of his Inviſible Deity, Ut dum viſibiliter Deum cognoſcimus, per hunc ad inviſibilia rapiamur. And if this were the means made choice of by God himſelf, as moſt efficacious (becauſe moſt connatural) to conduct us to the knowledge and love of Him; then certainly the Pictures or Images of his Nativity, Paſſion, Reſurrection, &c. which ſerve to put us in mind of what he did and ſuffered for us in that form of a Servant, cannot but conduce very much to work the like effects in us. And after all this, can any man (not to uſe his own phraſe, in his Senſes, but) who is ſerious, ask, What can ſuch an Image do to the heightning of Devotion, or raiſing Affections? S. Gregory Niſſen ſays of himſelf, (Orat. de Deitate Filii & Spiritus Sancti) That he often beheld, but never without Tears, the Picture of Abraham ready to ſacrifice his Son Iſaac; though but a rep • eſentation onely of a Type of the Son of God upon the Altar of the Croſs: And can any man, whoſe heart is not of Stone, behold attentively the Image of his dying Saviour himſelf with his Hands and Feet Nailed to the Croſs, and not be touched with a ſenſe of Devotion towards Him? Surely he muſt have loſt the notion of Humane Nature who can ſoberly affirm, that the making ſuch an Image with reſpect to His Worſhip, tends highly to the diſhonour of the Deity, and ſuggeſts mean thoughts to us of the God we are to worſhip: unleſs to remember that he dyed for us, be to think meanly and diſhonourably of him. But whither will not a Reſolution to maintain an Errour once eſpouſed, hurry the ſubtilleſt Wit? The Doctor's eagerneſs to make us Idolaters, had made him fancy that where God forbids to give his Worſhip to Idols, he forbad to make any Image with reſpect to his own Worſhip: and this forced him (for I cannot believe he did it without force to his own thoughts) to aſſert that an Image can do nothing to the heightning of Devotion, or raiſing Affections. If he think I ſtrain his words too far, (though no farther than what his diſcourſe gives me cauſe to do) let him vindicate himſelf by profeſſing candidly, that the Images of Chriſt according to his Humane Nature, may ſerve to raiſe our Affections, and heighten our Devotion to him as God. But then he muſt renounce the patronage of his Conſtantinopolitan Fathers, and retract or anſwer his own Reaſon, that if this be done by calling to our mind the Being we are to worſhip, there muſt be ſuppoſed ſome Likeneſs, or Analogy, or Union between the Object repreſented and the Image, every one of which tends highly to the diſhonour of the Deity, and ſuggeſts mean thoughts to us of the God we are to worſhip: and particularly that among Christians nothing can tend more effectually to it, than the bringing down the repreſentations of him to the figure and lineaments of a man drawn upon a Table, or carved upon an Image. But what ought we not to do to free our ſelves from Mistake, much more from Errour? The Miſtake at preſent (if I may give it ſo gentle a name) lies in this, That he conſiders not, that if one thing hath connexion with, or analogy to another, although Inviſible, when the former is repreſented to a Perſon that underſtands the analogy or connexion there is between them, it is apt to bring to his remembrance the later. Hence it is, that although the Soul of man cannot be drawn in colours, yet when the Body to which it is united, is repreſented in Picture, the Repreſentation ſerves as a means to bring to our minds the Perfections or Graces of the Soul which informs it; and not to bring them down (as againſt Nature and Experience he a • firms) to the figure and lineaments of a Body drawn upon a Table, or carved in an Image. Had the reſt of Mortals been imbued with this Principle, they had never cauſed either their Pictures or Images to be made, leſt they might be occaſion to their Friends, from whom they expected Love and Honour, to entertain too l • w and unworthy thoughts of them. Much leſs ought Princes to permit any Chair of State to be placed in the Preſenc • Chamber, for fear of bringing down the repreſentations of them to the uncouth figure of four or five ſticks put awkwardly together. But this is not all.

§. 3. On this account, he ſaith (p. 59.) it ſeems much more reaſonable for him to worſhip God by proſtrating himſelf before the Sun, or any of the Heavenly Bodies; nay to an Ant or a Fly, than to a Picture or an Image. And I have more kindneſs for him, if he ſhould do it, than to ſuppoſe him therefore (as he ſuppoſes himſelf, p. 70.) to be a Heathen Idolater, unleſs he take the Sun for a God. Philoſophy and Experience having given me ſo much inſight into the nature of humane actions, as to know they go whither they are intended; and Religion ſo much Charity, as to believe his intent was onely to worſhip the true God by it. But why does it ſeem much more reaſonable for him to worſhip God, by proſtrating to the Sun, nay to an Ant, or a Fly, than to a Picture or an Image? The reaſon, he ſays, is, becauſe in thoſe he ſees great evidences of the Power, and Wiſdom, and Goodneſs of God, which may ſuggeſt venerable apprehenſions of God to his mind, (ſo then now it ſeems that analogy doth not always tend highly to the diſhonour of the Deity, nor ſuggeſt mean thoughts to us of the God we are to worſhip) whereas a Picture or an Image can have nothing worthy admiration, unleſs it be the Skill of the 〈…〉 . If this be the reaſon, he ought in my Judgment to have given the precedence to the Ant and the Fly, (or to the Ape, the Aſs, and the Tyger, brought in by him in a former compariſon) for all theſe have two degrees of Perfection beyond the Sun, viz. Life and Senſe. If the danger be, that he is more like to take an Ant o • an Ape, by reaſon of their greater Excellency, for God, than the Sun, (the reaſon ſuppos'd by himſelf why we chuſe rather to worſhip God by an Image, than by the Sun) on that account (to let him feel the force of his own Argument, if it have any) that which deſerves moſt honour ſhould have leaſt given it, and that which deſerves leaſt, ſhould have moſt. For the danger is there ſtill greater, where the Excellency is greater, and by that means we ought rather to worſhip (he ſays to us, a Beaſt than a Saint; I ſay to him) the Earth than the Sun; for there is leſs danger of believing one to be God, than the other. But to return to his former words.

§ 4. Is there nothing then in a Picture worthy admiration, beſides the Skill of the Painter or Artificer? I dare avouch for the greater part of Ladies, who ſit for their Pictures, that they do it not purely to beget in the Beholders an admiration of the Painter; and thoſe who procure an Author's Picture to be ſet before his Book, intend, no doubt, that thoſe who fix their eyes upon it, ſhould admire ſomething beſides the Skill of the Engraver. I have my ſelf a Picture of a Friend which gives me occaſion frequently to admire the great Endowments of his Mind, but not at all the Hand that did it, it is ſo rudely done. Something then there is in Pictures beſides the Skill of the Painter, which may make them worthy, if not of admiration for the excellency of the work; at leaſt of uſe, for their quick ſuggesting to our Mind, not onely the outward Features, but alſo the inward Graces of the Perſons they repreſent. This virtue they have from their more expreſs repreſentation and likeneſs, even above other things, which have a greater reſemblance in natural perfections; and this is one Reaſon why we make uſe of them ſo frequently ſince God was made Man, becauſe they bring Him more immediately to our Mind, than either the Sun, or an Ant, or a Fly. And this may be the Reaſon (if I may have leave to ſuggeſt one) why Dr. St. Himſelf prefers the Sun for a Help to his Devotion, before an Ant or a Fly, though inferiour to them by two degrees in perfection; becauſe amongſt corporeal things, Light is the puteſt, and conceived by us to be likeſt to a Spirit. But to prefer them all, and with them the Ape, the Aſs, and the Tyger, before an Image, becauſe they have greater natural perfections than an Image hath, may (if it prevail in the World) quite undo the Company of Picture-drawers in a little time. For if it ſhall be made appear much more reaſonable to make uſe of what approaches nearer in perfection, than likeneſs, the Ladies may come inſtead of the Pictures of their Friends, to wear Ants and Flies in Cryſtal Caſes upon their Breſts: and inſtead of their own Pictures to ſend them the Apes and Aſſes he brought in ſo lamely in his former Compariſon, I and his Tygers too, when they can catch them, as greater reſemblances of their Perfections. Perhaps he'll ſay, he ſpeaks not of the Perfections of theſe Creatures, as barely ſuch, but as great evidences to him of the Power and Wiſdom and Goodneſs of God. But how many are there in the World not ſo Philoſophical and Contemplative as he is, who think more how to free themſelves from the importunity of the Ants and Flies, and from the heat of the Sun, than to conſider their perfections as great evidences of the Wiſdom, &c. of God; and yet if they come into a place where a Crucifix is, are preſently put in mind of God, and teſtifie the venerable apprehenſion they have of him, by bowing their Knee, or putting off their Hats? If he find his Devotion more inflam'd by the light and heat of the Sun, and the motions of thoſe little Beaſts, than by an Image, much good may it do him. But this ought not to preſcribe to the Generality of Christians, who I believe experience more frequent and more venerable thoughts of God ſuggeſted to their Minds by the ſight of a Crucifix, than by ſeeing the Sun, with all the Ants and Flies in the World. 'Tis not the nearer approach in perfection, even in the effect, that brings us always ſooneſt and ſureſt to the knowledge of the cauſe. We ſee many Fathers are not known by their Sons, who yet are preſently known by their Pictures. And Atheiſts deny the perfections of the Creatures to be any evidences at all of that Being we call God: but cannot deny a Crucifix to repreſent to their own thoughts, that Perſon whom we believe to be God. Pictures then we ſee have an advantage in repreſenting, above the Creatures; though in natural perfections they be inferiour to them. But yet for all this,

§. 5. He ſays, He cannot for his Heart underſtand, why he may not as well, nay better burn Incenſe, and ſay his Prayers to the Sun, having an intention onely to honour the true God by it, as to do both theſe to an Image. And the reaſon is ſtill the ſame, becauſe he is ſure the Sun hath far more advantages than any Artificial Image can have, and the beauty and influence of it may inflame and warm ones Devotion much more. I am ſure too, the Sun hath far more advantages than any material word can have, even the Name of JESUS either written or ſpoken; and yet I do not find the beauty and influence of the Sun to inflame and warm ones Devotion ſo much as the hearing or reading of that Sacred Name. But I perceive he hath a particular Devotion to the Sun (though it have leſs advantages than an Ant or a Fly) and therefore muſt warn him in Charity, not to ſay his Prayers to it, no more than we do to Images, (as he very well knows, though he would make his Reader believe the contrary) for that were to terminate his Intention upon the Sun, to put his truſt in it, and make it his God; but as for his bowing to it, with intent to worſhip the true God, (or burning Incenſe, uſing it, as it is uſed by the Church, for a Ceremony of like nature with bowing) he may have a Reſolution of the Caſe, how far it may be allowed him, from the Pen of that Great and Learned Doctor S. Leo: and for his farther ſatisfaction I ſhall take the pains to tranſcribe his words.

From that Opinion (ſaith S. Leo, Serm. in Natal. Dom.) viz. That the life of Man is governed by the Stars, that Impiety alſo takes its riſe, which is uſed by ſome who are leſs wiſe, to adore the Sun at his Riſing from ſome eminent place. A thing which ſome Chriſtians think they do ſo religiouſly in the obſervance of it, that before they enter into the Church of S. Peter the Apoſtle, which is dedicated to the One true and living God, they go up to the top of the Church, and turning themſelves to the riſing Sun, with low obeyſance bow down themſelves in honour of that Illuſtrious Planet. Which we are exceedingly grieved to ſee done, partly out of ignorance, and partly out of a Heatheniſh ſpirit. Becauſe although ſome perchance do worſhip the Creator rather of that fair Light, than the Light it ſelf which is a Creature; nevertheleſs they ought to abſtain from the very ſhow of ſuch a kind of Service, which when ſome new Convert, who hath forſaken the Worſhip of falſe Gods, ſhall find exhibited to the Sun by the more ancient Profeſſors of Chriſtianity, will be induced to retain that part of his old Opinion as probable or allowable, which he ſhall ſee to be common both to Chriſtians and Heathens. Let the Faithful therefore abſtain from ſo perverſe and worthy-to-be-condemned a Cuſtom; nor let the honour due to God alone, be mixed with their Rites who ſerve the Creatures; for the H. Scripture ſaith, Thou ſhalt worſhip the Lord thy God, and him onely ſhalt thou ſerve, Matth. 4. This is the Reſolution of that Ancient and Learned Father, at a time, whenas yet there were ſome Reliques of Paganiſm remaining in the World. And from it the Doctor may infer, That if he do not ſay his Prayers to the Sun, but onely bow down, or uſe ſome external ſignification of honour of the like nature, not out of ignorance, or a Paganiſh ſpirit, but with intent to worſhip the True God, in ſuch ſort as not to give ſcandal to the weaker Brethren, it may paſs for a piece of private Devotion in a Perſon ſo Philoſophical and Contemplative as I judge him to be. And this is all which Vaſques (ſo much accuſed by him, p. 129.) doth teach; for as for publick and promiſcuous adoring of Creatures, he condemneth it as undecent and ſcandalous,Lib. 3. de adorat. c. 1. ſaying expreſly, that Indiſcriminatim creaturas adorandas proponere, eſſet multis manifeſta cauſa periculi. If he ask me yet again, Why he may not do this as well, nay better to the Sun, than to an Image, ſince he is ſure the Sun hath far more advantages than any Artificial Image? I think I may ask him, why he may not as well, nay better put off his Hat to one of the Lyons in the Tower, with intent to honour the King, as do it to his Picture, or the Chair of State; ſince I am ſure the Lyon in his Senſe hath far more advantage than any Artificial Image or Figure can have; the Majeſty and Generoſity of the King of Beaſts, may ſuggeſt more venerable apprehenſions to him of the King he is to honour. But, to anſwer what for his heart he ſays he cannot underſtand, and give him a clear Solution of his Scruple, I muſt deſire him to conſider, that although the Creatures do repreſent God after their manner, yet it is ſo rudely, remotely, darkly, and imperfectly, that there is need of a great deal of diſcourſe to diſcover the Analogy or Proportion they bear to their Creator; They are called Gods Foot-steps, and to gather the height and bigneſs of Hercucules from his Foot-ſtep, was not the work of every Vulgar Capacity. Whereas an Image (for example) of Chriſt, is ſo apparently repreſentative of him, that upon ſight thereof our thoughts fly preſently unto him: and his Picture is no ſooner in our Eyes, than his Perſon by imagination in our Mind: and conſequently the likeneſs it bears to Him, is much more apt to inflame and warm ones Devotion, than the beauty and influence of the Sun. Beſides, that the Creatures being ſubſiſtent in themſelves, and evidently the Cauſes of many great benefits to Mankind, the danger is greater of terminating Worſhip upon them, than upon an Image, whoſe formal Being conſiſting in Repreſentation onely, connaturally carries our Thoughts and Affections to the Perſon repreſented by it. By what hath been ſaid, he may ſee how far the Defence he makes for himſelf (p. 70.) by his abuſive application of the diſtinction of Dulia and Hyperdulia, and of Supream and Relative Worſhip, in caſe he ſhould bow down to the Sun, with intent to worſhip the true God, will bear him out. If he go farther, and (as he ſtates the caſe himſelf) pay his Devotions to the Sun as a ſubſervient and miniſterial God, though with ſubordination to the Supream Deity; at his peril be it: For that which poſſibly would juſtifie his worſhipping of God by the Sun, will moſt certainly not juſtifie his worſhipping the Sun for a God.

CHAP. VI.

Of the Notions and Practiſe of the Wiſer Heathens in the matter of their Images. The Texts of St. Paul, Acts 17. 24. and Rom. 1. 21. Explained. Some of the Doctors Teſtimonies Examined; in particular the Relation he gives of what the Jeſuites did in China.

§. 1. THe next Onſet the Doctor makes upon the Catholick uſe of Images, is with a freſh Recruit of his Wiſer Heathens; the moſt Intelligent of whom, he ſaith, p. 74. did never look on their Images as any other than Symbols or Repreſentations of that Being to which they gave Worſhip. What he would infer from thence, is ſo ſoul, he could not find in his heart to ſpeak it out. Yet I cannot but acknowledge his kindneſs to us here, in comparing us at leaſt with the moſt Intelligent among the Heathens; whereas p. 70. he had done his endeavour to inſinuate into his Reader's belief, that the Aegyptians (who worſhipped Crocodiles and Serpents, Leeks and Onyons • or Gods) were more excuſable than the Papiſts. To uſher in the Wiſdom of the Heathens he premiſes two Texts out of S. Paul, Acts 17. 24. and Rom. 1. 19. as a mighty Argument, he ſaith, to prove the unſuitableneſs of the Worſhip of Images to the Nature of God, to be of an unalterable and univerſal nature. And I wonder whoever denyed it of ſuch Images as are conceived to be proper Likeneſſes or Repreſentations of the Divinity, of which S. Paul ſpeaks in the firſt place; or of the Images of the falſe Gods of the Heathens, of which he ſpeaks in the latter. Muſt the words of Scripture be always taken barely according to their ſound, without conſideration had to the Times and Circumſtances in which they were written? That the Athenians whom S. Paul reproved Acts 17. 24. thought the Divinity to be like to the Images they made of Gold and Silver, is evident by his words, as ſet down by Dr. St. himſelf, viz. Becauſe God was He who made the World, &c. Therefore we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto Gold, or Silver, or Stone, graven by Art or man's device. And himſelf grants this to have been their ſuppoſition. This then was a mighty Argument from the mouth of S. Paul, to drive that Erroneous Conceit out of the Minds of the Athenians, who believed the Divinity to be like the Images they made; but none at all from the Pen of Dr. St. againſt Catholicks, who deteſt the thoughts of having or making any ſuch Image. To what purpoſe then was it brought, except he intended to make his Reader believe the Papiſts to be no wiſer than the Athenians, who were ſo poſſeſſed with a wrong apprehenſion of the Nature of God, that (as St. Chryſostom tells us upon that place) when they heard St. Paul ſpeak of Anaſtaſis, that is, the Reſurrection, becauſe it was a new thing they never heard of before, and the word of the Feminine Gender, they concluded he brought them Tidings of ſome new Goddeſs?

§. 2. As for the ſecond place of Rom. 1. 21, 23. nothing can be more clear, than that the Apoſtle ſpeaks there of the Idols or Images of the Heathens; for after he had laid down the matter of fact which he condemned, viz. That although they knew God, yet they did not glorifie him as God, but changed the Glory of the Incorruptible God into an Image made like to corruptible Man, he adds alſo, And to Birds, and four footed Beasts, and Creeping Things, (which words were clapp'd under Deck by the Doctor with an &c. becauſe they plainly declare what kind of Images the Apoſtle meant) and then verſ. 25. tells us that by ſo doing▪ They changed the Truth of God into a Lie, and worſhipped and ſerved the Creature, rather than the Creator. Theſe are the words of the Apoſtle, ſo plain that the Doctor could find no evaſion, but to tell us, that St. Paul doth not diſcourſe here against the moſt groſs and ſottiſh Idolaters of the Heathen, but, as St. Chryſoſtom (ſaith he) well obſerves, againſt the Philoſophers, and the wiſeſt among them: who though they differed in their Opinions of Religion extreamly from the Vulgar, yet they concurred with them in all the external practices of their Idolatry. And before we go farther, it is well worth the obſerving what he obſerves out of St. Chryſoſtom. S. Chryſost. Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Rom. Dices, quid haec ad Philoſophos? You will ſay, ſaith St. Chryſoſtom, if the Apoſtle reprehended the Heathens for giving the glory of God to irrational Creatures, and what was yet more ſottiſh, to their very Images; what is that to the Philoſophers, or more Intelligent among them? Marry I anſwer, ſaith he, that, what hath been ſaid, moſt of all concerns them: For they have for their Maſters the Aegyptians, who were the Inventors of theſe things. And Plato, who yet ſeems graver than the reſt, glories in them. Nay his Maſter (Socrates) was a great Admirer of them; for this is He who commands a Cock to be offered to Aeſculapius. Hence you may ſee the Images of Beaſts and Creeping Things to be worſhipped, and together with them, Apollo and Bacchus. This is what St. Chryſoſtom obſerv'd of the Philoſophers: And was it not luckily done of the Doctor to make him the Patron of his Explication, viz. that the intent of the Apoſtle was not to charge them with falſe Notions of a Deity, but to ſhew their vanity and folly in thinking they had found out ſubtiller ways of defending the Common Idolatry among them, and inſtead of oppoſing them, made uſe of their Wits to excuſe them? But ſuppoſe what he ſays were ſo: that the Philoſophers were as ſubtil as he would make them, were they not worthily condemned by the Apoſtle, though but for the external profeſſion of praying and offering Sacrifice to the Statues of Jupiter, Venus, Mercury, &c. and alſo to thoſe of Birds, and four-footed Beaſts, and Creeping Things, as the Vulgar did? And if they found out ſubtiller ways of defending the Common Idolatries among them, and inſtead of oppoſing them, made uſe of their Wits to excuſe them, were they not to blame in ſo doing? But what is all this to Christians? To make his diſcourſe from the Apoſtles words come home to them, he ſhould ſhow that the Images by which they honour Christ and his Saints, are worſhipped by them as Gods, or as the Images of falſe Gods, as thoſe were of which the Apoſtle ſpeaks in that place; otherwiſe the ſubtil ways of defending he covertly aims at, wil be as allowable againſt the Deſerters of the Churches Faith, in the point of Images, as in other Myſteries of Chriſtianity. But to come to the point it ſelf.

§. 3. The moſt Intelligent Heathens, ſaith he, did never look on their Images as any other than Symbols or Repreſentations of that Being to which they gave Divine Worſhip. What Being this was, he doth not tell us, whether the onely true God, or thoſe falſe ones repreſented by their Images. If he mean theſe latter, he knows in his Conſcience he does wrong to Catholicks in comparing them even to his Wiſer Heathens. If the former, he does thoſe more right by his ſubtil way of defending them, than appears from the Teſtimonies he brings, They ever thought of doing themſelves. For all that is expreſſed there (and you may believe he would ſuppreſs nothing that might make to his purpoſe) out of Origen, Euſebius, Athanaſius, Arnobius, Auguſtin, Maximus Tyrius, and Julian, concerning the more Intelligent Heathens, is, that they did not look on their Images as Gods: That they look'd upon them nevertheleſs as Images or Symbols of falſe Gods, ſome of his own Teſtimonies affirm, as that of Celſus in Origen, lib. 7. That none but a ſtark fool believes the Images themſelves to be Gods, had he not left out the latter part of it, viz. Non diis dicatas Statuas, but that they were Statues erected to the Gods. And that of Julian, when he ſaith, They are but Symbols of the preſence of the Gods. But not any thing is there in them to ſignifie that they worſhipped the true God by them, beſides the two words of Divinity and Deity, which he cogg'd into the Teſtimonies of Arnobius and St. Auſtin to make his Reader believe ſo. I ſhall ſet down the paſſages both in his words and the Fathers, that the Reader by comparing them, may learn what credit he is to give hereafter to his citing of Authors; and at the ſame time receive a farther Teſtimony of my kindneſs to him in taking the reſt upon his word.

Firſt then for Arnobius. Arnob. What Dr. St. (p. 74.)Contra. makes the Wiſer Heathens deny there,Gent. li. 6. is that they ever thought their Images to be Gods, or to have any Divinity in them, but what onely comes from their Conſecration to ſuch an uſe. And the Reader finding the word Divinity in a different Character, and in the ſingular number, as it were in oppoſition to the Gods he immediately mentions before, and that they have no Divinity but what comes from their Conſecration to ſuch an uſe; What can he think, but that thoſe wiſe Heathen, intended to worſhip the true Divinity by thoſe Images, and look'd onely upon them as Signs conſecrated to ſuch an uſe 〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉 by ſome extrinſecal deputation, like that of the Images of Chriſt and his Saints among Catholicks, or of the Communion-Cup or Table even among Proteſtants. But is this what Arnobius makes the Heathens to ſay? Pray hear what the wiſer Heathens return upon him, when he upbraided them for worſhipping Gods of Gold and Silver, the works of mens hands. Erras & laberis; nam neque nos aera, neque auri argentique materias eſſe per ſe Deos, & religioſa decernimus Numina. You erre (ſay they) and are miſtaken, O Arnobius, in what you affirm, for we do not think the matter of Braſs, Silver, and Gold to be Gods, and adorable Deities, PER SE, of themſelves. No, we are wiſer than ſo. But how then? Sed eos in his colimu • eoſque veneramur, quos dedicatio infert ſacra, & fabrilibus efficit inhabitare ſimulacris. But we honour and worſhip the Gods or Deities in thoſe Statues, whom the virtue of ſacred dedication hath brought into them, and made to dwell in thoſe Images made by Art. And by Sacred Dedication is here meant Magical Incantation, by which the Souls of Wicked Men, or Evil Spirits, were evocated, and as it were tied to dwell in thoſe Images, as St. Austin relateth, Lib. 8. de Civit. Dei. c. 23. & 26. And now I beſeech you judge if this be fair play? When the wiſer Heathens ſay, that they do not think their Images to be Gods PER SE, of themſelves, that is, without Spirits dwelling in them; to ſay abſolutely, that they denied they ever thought their Images to be Gods? And when they acknowledge that they did worſhip the Gods which by Dedication were made to dwell in them; to tell us they do not acknowledge any Divinity in them, but what comes from their Conſecration to ſuch an uſe; as if in the Opinion of thoſe Heathens the End of the Conſecration had been in order to the Worſhip of the True God, and not to introduce falſe Gods, (or evil Spirits) to reſide in the Images. Nay when they ſay expreſly, that the Object of their Worſhip was the Gods which inhabited in thoſe Images, and that their Wiſdom conſiſted in this, that they did not worſhip the Images themſelves for Gods, but the Gods (Deos & Numina, in the Plural Number) which dwelt in them; to put for all this, Divinity in the Singular, as if their intention had been to worſhip the true God by them: is this, I ſay, fair dealing in a Controvertiſt? To ſet up a Flag upon a Fire-Ship to diſguiſe it, is a commendable Stratagem in an Enemy;—Dolus an virtus, quis in hoſte requirat? But when the bottom is full of Infernal Spirits, to fix upon it the Title of Divinity, and that in a larger Character, is no ſuch laudable quality in a Writer, whoſe greateſt virtue ſhould be plain-dealing. But we ſhall ſee more of this in the Citation out of St. Auſtin.

§. 4. What Dr. St. ſays that the Wiſer Heathens deny in St. Auſtin, is, that they worſhipped the Images themſelves; but through them they worſhipped THE DEITY.S. Aug. in Pſal. 113. Theſe are the Doctors words. Let us now ſee St. Auſtin's. Videntur ſibi purgatioris eſſe Religionis qui dicunt, Nec ſimulacrum nec daemonium colo; ſed per effiigiem corporalem ejus rei ſignum intueor, quam colere debeo. Theſe men, ſaith he, ſeem to themſelves to have taken up a more refined Religion, who ſay, I neither worſhip an Idol, nor a Devil; but by or in the corporeal Image I behold a Sign or Symbol of that thing which I ought to worſhip. And what thing is that? The Doctor ſays, the Deity; and that indeed is the onely thing they ought to worſhip. But was that their meaning? No ſuch matter, for as St. Auſtin immediately addes; They give this interpretation of their Images, viz that by the Image of Tellus, is ſignified the Earth; by that of Neptune, the Sea; by that of Juno, the Air; by that of Vulcan the Fire; by that of Venus, the Day-ſtar; by another the Sun, by another the Moon, &c. This is what they meant by the thing (they ſay) they ought to worſhip. And if it be urged against them (ſaith St. Auſtin) that then they worſhip Bodies, viz. the Earth, the Sea, the Fire, and the Air; they boldly anſwer, that they do not worſhip the Bodies themſelves, ſed quae illis regendis praeſident numina, but the Deities or Spirits which preſide and govern thoſe Bodies, Which Spirits, the ſame St. Auſtin (in Pſal. 69.) proves to be Devils, becauſe they proudly exact Sacrifice to be offered to them, and to be worſhipped as Gods. Theſe were the things which the Wiſer Heathens profeſſed they ought to worſhip by their Images, viz. the corporeal Creatures of Fire, Air, &c. or the Spirits which ruled over them, and not the Images themſelves, nor yet the Deity by them. And thereupon S. Auſtin ſays, that their puniſhment and condemnation is ſet forth by the Apoſtle in that very Text cited above by the Doctor, out of Rom. 1. 25. Who changed the Truth of God into a Lie, and ſerved the Creature rather than the Creator. For in the firſt part, ſaith he, of this Sentence, the Apoſtle condemns the Images or Idols themſelves; and in the latter, their interpretation of them. For by calling Figures made by an Artificer by the name of thoſe things which God made, they change the Truth of God into a Lie; and by eſteeming and worſhipping the things themſelves for Gods, they ſerve the Creature rather than the Creator. Theſe are the words of St. Auſtin: From whence it appears, firſt, That in his Judgment (and I do not read that he ever changed it in his latter Writings) when St. Paul condemns the Heathens for changing the Glory of God into the Image of a Man, or Beaſt, &c. he ſpeaks of ſuch Images as were worſhipped for Gods, or made to repreſent falſe Gods: Secondly, That my Adverſary deals very diſingenuouſly with his Reader, in affirming that the W • ſer Heathens did not worſhip the Images themſelves, but through them the Deity, when 'tis evident, what they ſaid they ought to worſhip by them, were the corporeal Creatures themſelves, or the Devils, which they believed to rule over them. Thirdly, That for any thing appears from the Teſtimonies he brings, himſelf hath found out a ſubtiller way of defending the common Idolatry among them, than they ever thought on themſelves; And ſo had he lived in that time, he might in all probability have had a Statue erected to him, with the Title of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Moſt uſeful Mercury. Let any Intelligent Perſon peruſe his 74th page with attention, and ſee whether he have not made uſe of more than Mercurial ſubtilty in every paſſage of it, to blind his Reader. But not to ſpend more time in a matter of fact, which himſelf after all acknowledges tacitly not to have been neceſſary; for whether the Wiſer Heathens intended to worſhip the true God, or no, he will have us to ſuppoſe they did ſo; and we muſt be content to ſuppoſe it with him.

§. 5. He deſires to know whether in this ſuppoſition, that they were not miſtaken as to the Object of their Worſhip, but intended through the Images to worſhip the true Deity, they were to blame or no in the manner of ſerving God by them? This Scruple I perceive hath long ſtuck in his mind; and as I gave him the Reſolution of St. Leo concerning his Devotion to the Sun, how far it was allowable; ſo I ſhall let him ſee how far at leaſt his Wiſer Heathens were culpable in the ſuppoſed practice, by a Reſolution which St. Paul himſelf gave in a caſe of like nature.1 Cor. 8. 1. Some there were in his time, who knowing an Idol to be nothing in the world, eat without ſcruple of meats offered to Idols, even in the Temples of the Idols. The Queſtion was, whether they were to blame or no in uſing that liberty? And St. Paul declares they were to blame upon a double account. 1. Becauſe in ſo doing they became a ſtumbling Block to them that were weak, 1 Cor. 8. 9. And 2. Becauſe by partaking of the Table of Devils, they were guilty at leaſt of the external Profeſſion of Idolatry, 1 Cor. 10. 21. In like manner I anſwer to the ſuppoſed Practiſe of the Wiſer Heathens, that they were to blame in ſerving God by their Images, 1. Becauſe the Images being inſtituted by Publick Authority for the Worſhip of falſe Gods, they concurred, as the Doctor himſelf acknowledges, with the Vulgar in all the external practices of their Idolatry. And then again, 2dly, Becauſe, though in the Schools they denied them to be Gods, yet as Origen anſwered Celſus, Orig. li. 7. contr. Celſ. p. 518. one of Dr. St.'s Wiſer Heathens, (when he preſſed him with the like ſuppoſition) They, ſaith he, being eſteemed wiſe and knowing men, did nevertheleſs give honour to them ſo far, that the People by their example were led into Errour, and their Souls ſo far depreſſed with a falſe Religion, that they could not endure ſo much as to hear any one deny them to be Gods whom they were accuſtomed to worſhip. Hoc eſt crimen quod Celſo impingimus aliiſ que omnibus qui haec non eſſe deos fatentur, &c. This, ſaith he, is the Crime with which we charge Celſus, and all thoſe who confeſs they are no Gods. But what is all this to Roman Catholicks? What he would infer, is, that they are alike to blame in worſhipping God by putting off their Hats, or bowing down, for example, before a Crucifix: And who ever ſaw a wider Conſequence? Suppoſe, ſaith Dr. St. that the Wiſer Heathens did worſhip the true God by the Images of their falſe Gods; Suppoſe again, that this was the thing which St. Paul pitch'd upon to condemn them for. Therefore Roman Catholicks, ſaith he, were alſo condemned by him for worſhipping Chriſt by his Image. Who ſees not here that he ſhould have bid us ſuppoſe one thing more, and that the very thing in Queſtion, viz. That God hath forbidden in the Second Commandment to worſhip him by an Image? Or if he will not have us to ſuppoſe this, whilſt he is endeavouring to prove it; to make good his Conſequence he muſt firſt prove that a Crucifix and other like Images uſed by Chriſtians, are Symbols and Repreſentations of falſe Gods; or that the Jews were alike to blame with his Wiſer Heathens for worſhipping the true God by bowing down before the Ark: Otherwiſe the caſe will be nothing parallel, either as to Scandal or exteriour Profeſſion of Idolatry: But by the Law of Contraries, as the Practice of the Wiſer Heathens was both Scandalous and Idolatrous as to the exteriour action, even before the Law was given, becauſe the honour given to the Image is referred to that which is repreſented by it; ſo upon the ſame account the practice of Chriſtians in honouring the Images of Chriſt, will be both honourable to Him, and ed • fying to our Neighbour.

§. 6. By this it appears how invidiouſly he repreſents what the Jeſuites did in China, (p. 75.) when he tells his Reader, that they never condemned the People for worſhiping Images, but for worſhipping falſe Gods by them; and perſwaded them not to lay them aſide, but to convert them to the honour of the true God: and ſo melted down their former Images, and made new ones of them. Who would not imagine by theſe words, but that the Jeſuites had told the People that they need not lay aſide their Images, but onely change their God, or at the moſt but melt down the old ones, & make new ones of them. The Doctor never met with an Adverſary more willing to take a Teſtimony upon his word, than my ſelf. But this ſeem'd ſo exorbitant, that I could not believe without ſeeing: And it coſt me ſome pains to do it, for the Book is ſo ſcarce, a man may run through moſt of the Bookſellers Shops in London, and not meet with it. At length I found it in the Library of a particular Friend; and what I found there was this, that the Jeſuites in China had by their Preaching converted ſome Perſons of that Nation from the Worſhip of falſe Gods, to the knowledge of the True One. And the ſaid Converts, to teſtifie the Truth of their Converſion, (like thoſe in the Primitive Church, who burnt their Books of curious Arts, Acts 19. 19.) brought a great heap of Idols, and conſumed them in a flaming furnace which they had made for that purpoſe. This done, after they had re-edified or repaired the Altar from which they had cast down the Idols, (it ſeems they had demoliſhed or defaced that alſo) there was placed, ſaith the Author, in their room the Image of Chriſt our Saviour; neither doth he ſay ſo much as that It was made of the melted Metal, though that had been no more than of the materials of a Pagan Temple to build a Church to the honour of Christ. His words are theſe. Simulacrorum (mark that) ingens cumulus extracta fornace flammis abſvmptus eſt. In eorum locum ſucceſſit Chriſti Servatoris Effigies, quam exturbatis Idolis in renovatam aram ſuffecerunt. This is what the Author reports of the Jeſuites, Trigaut. de Chriſtan. expedit. apud Sinas, lib. 5. c. 16. p. 588. and none can or will be offended with them for it; but ſuch as would be diſpleaſed with him that ſhould pull down an Uſurper's Image, and ſet up the Kings in its place. But as Dr. St. relates it, (I ſhould ſay tranſlates the words, for he is ſo exact as to refer us to the very page) it appears with quite another aſpect, ſomething like the ruines of Nabuchadonoſor's Image; but that there the materials onely of the Image, whereas here the Images themſelves of Chriſt and falſe Gods, are confuſedly blended together by him, when he ſays that the Jeſuites never condemned the People for worſhipping Images, but for worſhipping falſe Gods by them, and perſwaded them not to lay them aſide, but to convert them to the honour of the true God; and ſo melted down their former Images, and made new ones of them. I would gladly know what Images thoſe were by which he ſays they worſhipped falſe Gods, were they not the Symbols or Repreſentations of thoſe very falſe Gods? How then could the Doctor add (without diſtinguiſhing them firſt from the Images of Chriſt) that the Jeſuites perſwaded the People not to lay them aſide, but to convert them to the honour of the True God; And ſo melted them down, and made new ones of them? Did the People at the preaching of the Jeſuites caſt them into the fire, and They not condemn them? Did the People tear them from the Altar, and They perſwade them not to lay them aſide? Did the People conſume them in the fire, and They make new ones of them? Of will he ſay, that the word Images being General, may be applied reſpectively to the Images of 〈◊〉 falſe Gods, and of Chriſt? But where then was his Fidelity in tranſlating the word Simulacra (uſed by Eccleſiastical Writers, and particularly by the Author in this place, to ſignifie the Idols of the Heathens) by the General word Images? Where was his ſincerity in confounding together the Images of the falſe Gods and of Chriſt, with ſo many 〈◊〉 one upon another (and the firſt of them, which was to guide the reſt, ſuppoſing for the Images of the falſe Gods) that it was ſcarce poſſible for an ordinary Proteſtant Reader to avoid being miſtaken; whereas Trigautius himſelf had diſtinguiſhed them ſo clearly in his Relation, that it was impoſſible for any one to miſtake, but by deſign? What that muſt be, in a Perſon who dares to charge the whole Church of Chriſt with Idolatry for ſo many hundreds of years together, a wiſe man will eaſily gueſs. What lies open to every one, is, that he hath an excellent faculty in reporting faithfully (as he calls it in his Preface, I ſuppoſe he means by Faithful there, the ſame as being True to his own Cauſe) the ſenſe of an Author, eſpecially if the Book be hard to be found, and the thing done as far off as China, and that by the Jeſuites. As for the Fact it ſelf, of burning the Images of falſe Gods, and ſetting up that of Chriſt in their room, it was no more (if not much leſs) than what St. Gregory did (by whom this Nation receiv'd its Chriſtianity) in ordering the Pagan Feſtivals of our Anceſtors to be converted to the Aſſemblies of Chriſtians: Whoſe Wiſdom in ſo doing, is highly extolled and juſtified by Mr. Thorndike from the very nature of Chriſtianity; Juſt Weights, Chap. 1. which, ſaith he, ſanctifieth all times, all places, all geſtures, all circumſtances, that can pretend to expreſs, to procure, to advance, that attention of mind, that elevation of ſpirit, wherewith Chriſtians profeſs to worſhip God in Spirit and Truth. And that the Images of Chriſt, among other things, may pretend to this, by calling him to mind, and raiſing our Affections to Him, I have ſhewed in the precedent Chapter.

§. 7. To adde new Colour to his ſuppoſed Reaſon of the Law, which he will have to be the Unſuitableneſs of an Image to repreſent the Deity, he tells us in the next place, that the Chriſtian Church believed this Law to be immutable. And to prove this, he cites a paſſage or two out of Origen and Clemens of Alexandria, affirming that the making uſe of corporeal repreſentations, makes the Deity contemptible, and that Chriſtians have nothing to do with Images becauſe of the ſecond Commandment. And to this I anſwer as formerly, What Roman-Catholick ever denied it of ſuch Images as they there ſpeak of, viz. the Images of the Heathens (againſt whom they diſputed) who thought their falſe Gods to dwell in their Images, Which thought, ſaith Mr. Thorndike, made them Idols? Juſt Weights, ch. 19. p. 127. or of ſuch Images as were by the erroneous conception of the Maker or Worſhipper, ſuppoſed to repreſent the Divinity, in it ſelf? Which kind of Images are ſo far from the hearts of Catholicks, that we profeſs with St. Germanus and St. John Damaſcen, Damaſc. Orth. Fid. Lib. 4. c. 17. cited by the Doctor, That it is the higheſt madneſs and impiety to go about to make an Image or Similitude of the Inviſible Deity. And whereas he would make Clichtovaeus and Bellarmin to appear non-ſenſical and ridiculous, for expounding the aforeſaid Fathers to ſpeak of ſuch Images as ſhould be thought to be like unto God, and perfectly to repreſent him to us, by adding moſt triumphantly, As if ever men were ſuch fools to believe an Image could perfectly repreſent an Infinite Being; or that God need make a Law to forbid that which is utterly impoſſible in the very nature of the thing. It is evident he does but trifle; for although it be impoſſible in the very nature of the thing, to make an Image which ſhall perfectly repreſent the Deity as it is; yet it is not impoſſible for men to be ſuch fools as to conceive the Deity otherwiſe than it is, and ſo to go about to make an Image to repreſent it • which is plainly Clichtovaeus his ſenſe, and Bellarmin's Anſwer likewiſe, as the Doctor himſelf confeſſes; yet rather than ſpoil ſo pretty a Compariſon as he had in his head, he goes on to tell us, that God might more reaſonably forbid men to paint a Sound, to graſp all the Air in the hollow of their hands, to drink up the Ocean, to wear the Sun for a Pendant at their Ears, or to make new Worlds, than to command them not to make any Image which ſhould perfectly repreſent his Nature. Theſe gay Expreſſions were too dear to be loſt, (though the laſt of them, which is the ground of the reſt,Chamier de Imag. lib. 21. cap. 3. were borrowed from Chamier;) and Bellarmin muſt be made ſeemingly to ſpeak nonſenſe, rather than not be told he lies. So glorious a thing it is, to ſeem to have Confuted Bellarmin.

But to end this Chapter, Two things I deſire to know of him:

The firſt is, How he reconciles himſelf with himſelf, when he makes the Irrepreſentableneſs of Gods Nature to be the Reaſon of the Law, and yet will not have the Law forbid us to Think of making an Image to repreſent it; although this later be the immediate Conſequence of the former?

The ſecond, How he will reconcile himſelf to his Maſter Calvin, who expounding this very Law,Inſtit. lib. 1. c. 11. Thou ſhalt not make to thy ſelf a graven thing, or any likeneſs, &c. expreſly affirms, that God by thoſe words reſtrains our licentiouſneſs, that we ſhould not attempt to repreſent Him by any viſible figure? If not by any, then certainly not by ſuch an one as we ſhould think might repreſent him perfectly. I leave them conferring notes, and proceed.

CHAP. VII.

Of the Second General Council of Nice, called moſt irreverently by Dr. St. That Wiſe Synod. His Conſtantinopolitan Fathers Objections anſwered by Epiphanius, and the Anſwers ſhewn to be Good.

§. 1. WE are come now to that Stone of Offence, that Rock of Scandal (as the Doctor would have it) the Second General Council of Nice, Anno 789. in which all ſuch were anathematiz'd, and condemned as Hereticks, who ſhould call the Images of Chriſt and his Saints, Idols, and aſſert the honour given them by Chriſtians to be Idolatry. What wonder then if he who finds himſelf comprehended under that Anathema, be in ſuch a paſſion againſt the Council, that in contempt and ſcorn he moſt irreverently calls it, That Wiſe Synod, p. 76. that is in plain Engliſh, the Three Hundred and Fifty Fathers who voted in it, Fools, together with the Pope's Legates who preſided, and the Vicars of the Oriental Patriarchal Sees, who aſſiſted in it. O my God! is it come to this, that an Inferiour Rector of one P • rochial Church, (whoſe name is ſcarce known but in the Bills of Mortality, and was never heard of in the Liſt of any General Council) ſhall dare to condemn as fooliſh the Sentence of the moſt August and Venerable Tribunal upon Earth! Was he not afraid of that dreadful Sentence of our Lord,Matth. 5. 22. He that ſhall ſay to his Brother, (how much more to ſo many Fathers of the Church) Fool, ſhall be guilty of Hell-fire? What Order and Diſcipline can be obſerv'd in the Church, if it ſhall be lawful for any private perſon, upon preſumption of his own wit, to contemn and deride the Decrees of thoſe whom he is bound under pain of being accounted as a Heathen and Publican, to hear? Will he plead for his excuſe, that he follows the Judgment of another Synod held not long before in Conſtantinople, in which bo • h the making and honouring of ſacred Images was condemned? Let him ſhew that to have been a lawful Council, and not a Conventicle, as in reality it was, being called by the Secular Power, and wanting both the conſent and preſence of the Patriarchs of the Eaſt, and chiefly of the Biſhop of Rome, by himſelf or Legates,Concil. Chalced. in Ep. ad Leon. whom the Fathers of the fourth General Council of Chalcedon acknowledge to have preſided over them, as the Head over the Members, and without whoſe Authority, according to the Canon of the Church, Socrat. li. 2. Hiſt. Eccl. c. 13. & Sozomen li. 3. c. 91. no Decrees could be valid. None of which defects were in the Council of Nice. Beſides that divers of the Biſhops, who had voted in, and ſubſcribed to the falſe Synod of Conſtantinople, came and abjur'd its Doctrine in the Council of Nice; and among them Gregorius Biſhop of Neocaeſarea, the Ringleader of the Faction. Yet Dr. St. takes up, and abets the Arguments of that Pſeudo-Synod, as if they had never been retracted and anathematized as impious by the chief Author of it; and ſcoffs at the Anſwers of the Synod to them as inſufficient. I pray God he may one day imitate him in his Repentance, as he hath done hitherto in his Paſſion againſt the Images of Chriſt and his Saints. Examples we know move much: and poſſibly it may be neither unprofitable to Him, nor ungrateful to the Reader, to ſet down the form and manner of that Biſhops Recantation, and his Reception into the Church.

§. 2. Being brought into the Council by a Perſon of honour ſent from the Emperour,Conc. Nic. 2. Act. 2. Taraſius Patriarch of Conſtantinople ask'd him, If hitherto he had not known the Truth, or knowingly had contemn'd it? His anſwer was, that he hop'd it was out of ignorance: but deſir'd to learn. And when Taraſius bad him declare what he deſir'd to learn: he anſwered; Foraſmuch as this whole Aſſembly doth ſay and think the ſame thing, I know and moſt certainly believe that the Point now agitated and preached (by this Synod) is the Truth: and therefore I beg pardon for my former evils, and deſire with all theſe to be inſtructed and inlightned: For my Errours and Crimes are great beyond meaſure; and as God ſhall pleaſe to move the hearts of this Holy Synod to Compunction (towards me) ſo be it. Here Taraſius expreſſing ſome doubt he had leaſt his ſubmiſſion might not be ſincere, but that he might ſpeak one thing with his mouth, and have another in his heart, Gregorius cry'd out, God forbid! I confeſs the Truth, and lie not, neither will I ever go back from my word. Whereupon Taraſius told him, that he ought long ago to have given ear to what the Holy Apoſtle St. Paul teaches, 2 Theſ. 2. 15. ſaying, Hold faſt the Traditions which ye have received, either by our word, or by our Epiſtle: And again, 1 Tim. 6. 20. Tit. 3. 9. to Timothy and Titus, Avoid profane Novelties of words. For what can be a greater Novelty in Chriſtianity, and more profane, than to ſay, that Chriſtians are Idolaters? To this Gregorius return'd, that what he and his Partizans had done, was evil; and we confeſs, ſaith he, that it was evil: So it was, and ſo we did, (by which words it ſeems he made a particular confeſſion of what evil they had done) and therefore we beg pardon of our faults. I confeſs, moſt Holy Father, before you and this Holy Synod, that we have ſinned, that we have tranſgreſſed, that we have done evil, and ask pardon for it. Upon this it was ordered, that he ſhould bring in his Confeſſion the next Seſſion of the Synod; which he did, of the ſame tenour with that of Baſilius, Biſhop of Ancyra, and others in the firſt Seſſion:Act. 3. viz. that he did receive and ſalute (or give Veneration to) the Holy and Venerable Images (of Chriſt and his Saints) and anathematize ſuch as were not of the ſame mind; as he expreſſed himſelf in the vote he gave, after he had by the Sentence of the Popes Legates, and the conſent of the Synod been reſtored to his Seat, upon his repentance. This is recorded of Gregorius Biſhop of Neocaeſarea in the Acts of the Council of Nice to his immortal Glory. May it be imitated with no leſs Glory by the Rector of St. Andrews. May he take to himſelf what St. Ambroſe ſaid to Theodoſius, Secutus es errantem, ſequere poenitentem. This I heartily pray for, and to this end ſhall take the pains to ſhew with what little Reaſon he abets the Arguments of that falſe Synod, and derides the Anſwers of the Nicen Fathers. If in doing this, I make his vanity appear here, (as elſewhere I have done) it is but what St. Auſtin tells us,S. Aug. in Pſal. 36. we ought ſo much the more to endeavour towards thoſe who oppugn the Church, by how much the more we deſire their ſalvation. And I know not how poſſibly himſelf could have laid it more open than in the Ironical Title of That Wiſe Synod, he gives that very Council to which his Leader in the Charge of Idolatry, (the afore mentioned Gregorius) ſubmitted himſelf, as to a moſt lawful Council, confeſſing, that what thoſe Fathers ſo unanimouſly taught was the Truth, and the Tradition of the Catholick Church. Now what they taught, was,Act 7. this, that the Images of Chriſt and his Saints were to be placed and retained in Churches, that by ſeeing them, the Memory and Affections of the Beholders might be excited towards thoſe who were repreſented by them: as alſo to ſalute and give an honourary adoration (or reſpect) to the ſaid Images, like as is given to the figure of the Holy Croſs, to Chalices, to the Books of the H. Goſpels, and ſuch like ſacred Utenſils: but not Latria, which (as true Faith teacheth) is due onely to God. What he could find in this definition, for which the Fathers deſerved from him the title of Fools, I cannot imagin, unleſs he will have it to be Idolatry to reverence the Books of the Holy Goſpels, or the ſacred Utenſils of the Altar. But in this the Council is vindicated by Eminent Divines of the Church of England. Epil. 3. p. p. 363. li. 3. c. 36. For Mr. Thorndike freely 〈◊〉 , that he muſt maintain as unqueſtionable, that the Council of Nice enjoyns no Idolatry. And Dr. Field affirms that the Nicene Fathers mean nothing elſe by adoration of Images, but embracing, kiſſing, and reverently uſing of them; like to the honour we (ſaith he) do the Books of Holy Scripture. Whereupon Biſhop Montague ſaith, Let Doctrine and Practice go together, Gagg. c. 48. p. 3 • 9. and we agree. Dr. St. perhaps will rank them for this in the ſame Predicament of—with the Nicen Fathers. But herein his vanity and preſumption will appear, though leſs, than in condemning a whole General Council. A farther diſcovery of it, he makes in deriding the anſwers given to the Objections of his Constantinopolitan Fathers. Let us ſee what they are, and with what reaſon he does it.

§. 3. Firſt, ſaith he, When the Fathers of the Synod at Conſtantinople had ſaid, that Chriſt came to deliver us from all Idolatry, and to teach the Worſhip of God in Spirit and in Truth, they bravely anſwer, that then it is impoſſible for Chriſtians (meaning I ſuppoſe particular Chriſtian) to fall into Idolatry, becauſe (he ſhould have added, as the Council doth, the Prophets had foretold, that all Idolatry ſhould be extirpated by the preaching of Chriſt & his Apoſtles, and) his Kingdom was always to continue, and the gifts and graces of God are without repentance: Which would as well hold, ſaith the Doctor, against the prevalency of the Turk, as Idolatry among them. And is not this bravely anſwered by the Doctor? Doth he think that there are as great Promiſes in the Scripture, for the Turks not over-running Chriſtendom, as there are for the Gates of Hell not prevailing againſt the Church? Or that the Church, which is Christs Kingdom, could apoſtatize ſo far as to enjoyn and allow the belief and practiſe of Idolatry, and the Gates of Hell not prevail againſt it? If he will not maintain theſe impieties to be true,Zach. 13. 2. nor deny what God hath ſaid by the Prophet Zachary, Behold, the days come, and I will deſtroy the names of Idols from off the earth, and the memory of them ſhall be no more: and this not for four or five hundred years, but to the end of the World, for the Kingdom of Chriſt is to continue always, and his graces are without Repentance; let him give Glory to God, and acknowledge his charge of Idolatry to be falſe, and that Chriſt hath done what he came to do, that is, (as his Conſtantinopolitan Fathers confeſs) to deliver us from all Idolatry.

§. 4. The ſecond thing he makes the Fathers of the falſe Synod at Conſtantinople to urge, is, That the Devil not being able to reduce the World to the former Idolatry, endeavours underhand to introduce it, under a pretence of Chriſtianity, bringing them again to the Worſhip of the Creature, and making a God of a thing that is made, when they have called it by the Name of Chriſt. The words here cited were taken out of St. Gregory Niſſen, in the Oration he made upon his Brother St. Baſil; and Epiphanius in the Name of the Council of Nice, charges them to have adulterated both the meaning and words of the Saint, by putting the name of Chriſt, inſtead of that of the Son. For whereas St. Gregory's Diſcourſe there was againſt the Arrians, proving them to be Idolaters, becauſe they acknowledged Christ to be a Creature, and yet, adored and ſerved and put their truſt in him, they wickedly pervert his words againſt the Images of Chriſt, which although Chriſtians retain in memory, and reverence out of love to him, that is repreſented by them, yet they neither call them Gods, nor ſerve them as Gods, nor at any time put their hope of ſalvation in them, as the Arrians did in the Son, although they believed him to be a Creature. The Dr. thought it not to his purpoſe to take notice of this Juggle of his Conſtantinopolitan Fathers, in putting the name Chriſt for Son: No, it might put us in mind of his own dexterous managing the words and ſenſe of Authors cited by himſelf, as I have ſhewed in the foregoing Chapter. Only, when Epiphanius makes the difference between the Arrians and Catholicks to conſiſt in this, that the Arrians truſted in Chriſt, and gave properly divine honour to him; but Catholicks did not ſo to the Images of Chriſt, but only worſhiped them for the ſake of the Object repreſented by them. Summ. 3. p. 9. 25. a 3. He comes in (p. 79.) with a But Aquinas and his followers have at large proved, that where any thing is worſhipped meerly for the ſake of another, it must have the ſame kind of worſhip given it, which they give to the thing repreſented by it: For as Aquinas obſerves, the motion of the Soul towards an Image, as it is an Image is the ſame with that which is towards the thing repreſented by it: Therefore Epiphanius and the Nicen Fathers are in the ſame caſe with the Arrians, whom they acknowledge to be Idolaters.

§ 5. I remember the Dr. in his Preface tells his Reader, that his deſign is to argue cloſely. How much he hath failed in the performance of his deſign, (if ever he had any ſuch) I have ſhown in almoſt every argument he brings: And for the preſent argument, there are ſo many failings in it, that a Junior Sophiſter in the Schools would have given it the name not of one, but of many Fallacies. For to make the conſequence good, he ought firſt to have prov'd, that the Nicen Fathers were of the ſame opinion with Aquinas and his followers: or that their Argument was ſo evident a D • monſtration, that they could not but be guilty of culpable ignorance if they did not ſee it. 2dly, That Aquinas and his followers did conclude themſelves in virtue of ſo evident a proof, to be Idolaters; or at leaſt they ought to have done ſo, for giving the ſame Worſhip or Reverence to Chriſt and his Image; to Him, abſolutely for himſelf; to his Image, relatively, or meerly for his ſake, as they explicate themſelves. 3dly, That the Arrians were Idolaters upon this very account, that they gave onely relative Worſhip to the Son, and not properly Divine Worſhip, which St. Gregory Niſſen ſaith they did, becauſe though they acknowledged him to be a Creature, yet they ador'd, and ſerv'd, and put their truſt in him as God. Theſe things he ought to have prov'd, to make his own conſequence good, viz. Therefore the Nicen Fathers are in the ſame caſe with the Arrians, whom they acknowledge to be Idolaters. But to tell us; that becauſe Epiphanius and the Nicen Fathers ſaid, they onely worſhipped the Images of Chriſt for his ſake who was repreſented by them: and becauſe (not They, but) Aquinas and his followers have at large proved that when Chriſt is worſhipped by his Image, the ſame Worſhip or Reverence is given to him and his Image; Therefore Epiphanius and the Nicen Fathers were in the ſame caſe with the Arrians, that is, Idolaters; is ſuch a piece of Logick (if good) as would have ſerv'd Diogenes (had he known it) to conclude all the Platoniſts in the world to be blind. For thus he might argue from the Doctors Topicks; The Platoniſts, and all Philoſophers, affirm that for a man to ſee, there muſt neceſſarily be ſome union between the Object and the Eye, that is, ſomething muſt paſs from the Eye to the Object, or from the Object to the Eye. But Ariſtotle and his Followers have at large proved, that this cannot be done by emiſſion of Rays from the Eye to the Object, as the Platoniſts would have it; but by Immiſſion of Species from the Object to the Eye: Therefore all the Platoniſts in the world are blind. What greater Sophiſtry can there be, than when there are different Opinions how the ſame thing may be done, and one of them really abſurd, at leaſt ſeemingly ſo to others, to make him who does the thing to be guilty of all the abſurdities which follow from ſuch an Opinion? Yet ſuch is the Doctors manner of arguing in this place: All Catholicks agree that an Image may be worſhipped for his ſake whom it repreſents; St. Thomas and his followers will have this to be done by the ſame act by which the Prototype is worſhipped: Others who take a different way of explicating the thing, look upon this as abſurd, and think they can prove it to be Idolatrous: and Dr. St. from hence concludes Epiphanius and the Nicen Fathers, becauſe they ſay onely what all Catholicks agree in, viz. That they worſhipped the Images of Chriſt onely for his ſake who was repreſented by them, to be Idolaters. The Reader I ſuppoſe by this time ſees the fallaciouſneſs of this kind of arguing: and that the Doctor may feel it, (if ſeeing be not enough) I ſhall preſs him with his own Argument in a Point which himſelf affirms. To ſhew what kind of Reverence we give to holy Images, and that it is not Idolatrous, I inſtanced in Moſes and Joſhua's putting off their Shoes in reverence to the Ground where they ſtood, becauſe it was Holy. To this the Doctor anſwers, p. 105. Firſt, That for this there was an expreſs Command; but in the caſe of Image Worſhip there is as plain a Prohibition. But let this paſs, though I have manifeſtly proved the contrary. What I fix upon at preſent, is his Second Anſwer, in which he avouches, (abſtracting from any Prohibition or Command) that the ſpecial preſence and appearance of God, doth ſanctifie a place to ſo high a degree, that we may lawfully testifie our Reverence towards it, and this Reverence ſo teſtified towards the Ground by Moſes and Joſhua in putting off their Shoes, I ſuppoſe himſelf will grant, was not given to the Ground for it ſelf, but meerly for His ſake who appeared there preſent in a ſpecial manner, that is for God's. This ſuppoſed, I ſubſume according to his Logick: But Aquinas and his followers have at large proved, that where any thing is worſhipped or reverenced meerly for the ſake of another, it muſt have the ſame kind of reverence given it, which they give to the thing which ſanctifieth it by its preſence; for they do not onely maintain that the ſame reverence is to be given to the Croſs on which Chriſt ſuffered,Summ. 3. p. q. 25. a. 4. becauſe it repreſents him to us as crucified, but alſo becauſe of his preſence or conjunction to it; upon which account they ſay the King and his Garment are worſhipped with the ſame act of Civil Worſhip. Therefore Moſes and Joſhua were Idolaters for giving reverence to the Ground meerly for his ſake who ſanctified it with his preſence. The Conſequence (though horrible to any Chriſtian Ear) is parallel to that of the Doctor againſt Epiphanius and the Nicen Fathers; and if it have any force againſt theſe, it muſt have the ſame againſt thoſe. Thus is the Doctor fallen into his own Trap. Neither can he ſave himſelf by having recourſe to an expreſs command in the caſe; becauſe Gods ſpecial preſence is given by him there as a diſtinct reaſon why reverence might lawfully be given to the Ground for his ſake who was preſent; and if it were Idolatry in it ſelf to do ſo, becauſe Aquinas and his followers have at large proved, that where any thing is reverenced meerly for the ſake of another, it muſt have the ſame kind of reverence given it, which they give to the thing which ſanctifieth it by its preſence: it follows that God commanded Moſes and Joſhua upon his grounds to do an act which in it ſelf is Idolatry; and this ſounds no leſs, if not more horrible to a Chriſtian Ear, than the former. Let him then take his choice, whether he will allow what Aquinas and his followers have at large proved for good, or no. If he grant it, he muſt ſhow the diſparity, why Moſes and Joſhua were not as much Idolaters according to his Principles, as Epiphanius and the Nicen Fathers. If he deny it, let him tell us with what conſcience he could condemn Epiphanius and the Nicen Fathers for Idolaters, upon Grounds which himſelf denies to be good and ſolid. Thus much to the form of the Doctors Argument. As for the diſtinction it ſelf of Abſolute and Relative Latria (with which St. Thomas and his followers explicate their Doctrine) I ſhall have occaſion to ſpeak of it hereafter. In the mean time the Reader may p • ouſly believe, that to give Relative Latria to the Image of Chriſt, is no more Idolatry, than to give Relative Regal honour to the Kings Garment, is Treaſon.

§. 6. The third thing he urges from his Conſtantinopolitan Fathers, is, the great Abſurdity (as they call it, and he applauds them for it, p. 80.) of making an Image of Chriſt for Worſhip, becauſe Chriſt is God and Man; therefore the Image muſt be of God and Man: which cannot be, unleſs the Deity be circumſcribed within the created fleſh, or there be a confuſion of both Natures after their Union, both which are blaſphemies condemned by the Church. To this Epiphanius anſwers two things; 1. That the Name of Chriſt is ſignificative of both Natures, and that an Image repreſents onely the Humane Nature, and agrees onely in name, and not in ſubſtance with the Prototype. 2. That the Divine is no more circumſcribed within the Humane Nature in its being repreſented in an Image, than it was in its being laid in the Manger, or nailed to the • roſs. And conſequently that the Objection either of circumſcription of the Divine Nature, or confuſion of both Natures, was vain and frivolous. I, but ſays the Doctor, What doth this Anſwer ſignifie, unleſs there be an equal preſence or union of the Divine Nature of Christ with the Image, as there was with the Humane Nature? And I would gladly know what this Anſwer of his is to the purpoſe, unleſs he think that nothing may be worſhipped with relation to God, unleſs it have as great an Union with the Perſon of Chriſt, as his Humane Nature had? He will not deny, I hope, that the ſpecial preſence and appearance of God doth ſanctifie a place to ſo high a degree, that we may lawfully teſtifie our reverence towards it, and yet that preſence or union is not equal to that of the Divine Nature of Chriſt with his Humane. It is not onely Union, but Repreſentation alſo, that may occaſion Worſhip; and ſo we ſee the King is worſhipped by his Picture, as repreſenting him, though it have not ſo cloſe an union with his Soul as his Body hath. But what ſticks in the Doctors mind (if I miſtake not) is, how Christ God and Man, can be worſhipped by an Image which repreſents him onely according to his Humane Nature? To this I have ſpoken already in the fifth Chapter; and himſelf may ſatisfie his Reader in the point, by telling him how the King, who conſiſts of Soul and Body, can be worſhipped by a Picture which repreſents him onely according to the Lineaments of his Body.

§. 7. In the fourth place, his Conſtantinopolitan-Fathers urge, that If the Humane Nature of Chriſt be repreſented in the Image of Christ to be worſhipped as ſeparate from the Divine; this would be plain Neſtorianiſm. And what ſays Epiphanius to this? That never any man well in his wits, when he ſaw the Picture of a man, thought that the Painter by drawing him, had divided his Soul from his Body, that is, that he had not onely drawn the man, but hang'd and quarter'd him too? Was ever time ſo fondly miſpent as in propoſing and refuting ſuch pitiful kind of Sophiſtry, as this of the Doctors Conſtantinopolitan-Fathers? And yet He ſays, the Good Nicen Fathers (where he means by Good, what he meant before by Wiſe) not knowing what to anſwer, deny the Concluſion, and cry, They Neſtorians? No. They lie in their Teeth. Thus He. But what the Nicen Fathers anſwered like Good men and True, was this, that though the Images of Chriſt (like other Images) repreſent onely the external Lineaments of his Humane Nature, yet when they look upon them, they understand nothing but what is ſignified by them. For example, When he is repreſented as born of the Virgin (which is, I ſuppoſe, what the Doctor means by the Birth of the Virgin. p. 81.) what they conceive in their Minds, is not his Humane Nature as ſeparated from the Divine, but one Emmanuel, true God and Man: and therefore were far enough from b • ing guilty of Neſtorianiſm in the uſe of Images. Here the Doctor cries out, Alas for them! that they ſhould ever be charged with the Worſhip of Images, who plead for nothing now but a Help to their profound Meditations by them! And may not I much better ſay, Alas for him! who, if they Worſhipped the ſame which they conceived in their Minds, could not ſee their Worſhip (which is an Act of the Will) muſt be as free from Neſtorianiſm, as their Underſtanding. But he had had nothing to reply, if he had not thruſt in thoſe Words of his own, (to be Worſhipped as ſeparate from the Divine Nature) For they are not in the Objection, as it ſtands Recorded in the Council. However, they ſignifie little to his purpoſe, becauſe the Will is carried to the Prototype as it is conceived in the Underſtanding, nor doth it give to the Image t • e Worſhip due to the Principal, becauſe the Image is not Worſhipped at all for its own ſake, but for the Principal's.

§. 8. The Fifth Argument which he makes his Conſtantinopolitan Fathers produce, is from the Inſtitution of the Euchariſt, which they call Chriſts Image becauſe instituted in Commemoration of him. And whereas he ſaid, Do this in remembrance of Me, He did, as it were, tell them, That no other Figure or Repreſentation under Heaven was choſen by Him, as able to repreſent His being in the Fleſh. This, they ſay, was an HONOURABLE Image of his Quickning BODY, made by Himſelf, which he would not have of the ſhape of a Man, to prevent Idolatry. And as the Body of Chriſt was really ſanctified by the Divine Nature; ſo this Holy Image is by Adoption Deified, or made Divine through ſanctification of Grace. This is the ſenſe of the Argument; to which Epiphanius anſwers, that from the Fury they were poſſeſs'd with againſt the making of Images, they were driven into another madneſs, of calling the Euchariſt an Image, contrary to the Scriptures and Fathers. And the Doctor knows that it is a ſufficient Anſwer to an abſurd Objection, to ſhew that the Objector was driven to run into an Abſurdity to maintain his Cauſe. What the Conſtantinopolitans would have inferr'd from thence, was, that becauſe Chriſt (as They aſſerted) made the Euchariſt an Image of his Body, therefore no other Image might be made or Worſhipped. But this They did not, but left it perhaps (as too hard a Task for Themſelves) to be undertaken by ſo Great an Admirer of Them and their Doctrine, as my Adverſary: and at his Door it lies. Onely he is deſired to bear in mind againſt a fit ſeaſon, that the Eucharist with Them is an HONOURABLE IMAGE, made by Chriſt Himſelf, and therefore if he will not deſert his Leaders, he muſt give honour to it, nay Divine Honour, becauſe although his Beloved Conſtantinopolitans call the EUCHARISTICAL BREAD an IMAGE, yet they confeſs it in the ſame place to be NO FALSE IMAGE of Chriſts Natural Fleſh, but by virtue of the Prieſtly Conſecration, it is made his Divine Body.

§. 9. In the ſixth and laſt place he jumbles together no leſs than Eight Arguments or rather Bare Aſſertions of his Conſtantinopolitan Fathers, all which Epiphanius denies and refutes as frivolous and falſe; as any one may ſee, who either conſiders the Objections in themſelves; or will take the pains to read the Anſwers to them at large in the ſixth Action of the Council of Nice. Which though my Adverſary call weak and trivial, yet it is no ſign he thought them ſo, when he omitted to ſet them down.

CHAP. VIII.

The Doctors Objection from the Council of Frankford examined, and ſhewn to be no Advantage to his Cauſe.

§. 1. AFter the matter of the Veneration due to Holy Images, had been diſcuſſed, and defined, as you have ſeen, in the ſecond General Council of Nice, the Doctor fearing that his Irony of that Wiſe Synod, would not ſtick faſt enough, unleſs backed with a greater Authority than his own, tells his Reader that it was condemned by the Council at Francford, called together by Charles the Great, Anno 794. He ſhould have added, By the Command of the Apoſtolick See, as it is in Hin • marus; but that had been an apparent diſadvantage to his Cauſe, Li. contr. Laud. Epiſc. c. 20. and therefore better left out. Nevertheleſs the fact it ſelf he looks upon as an apparent advantage to it. And thereupon he endeavours to ſhow by many Conjectures, that the Fathers at Francford did expreſly reject the Council of Nice, and that not out of miſunderſtanding its Doctrine, as ſome raſhly, he ſaith, imagine: but that really they intended to condemn the Doctrine it ſelf there defined. His proofs are, (p. 84.) Becauſe the Acts of that Council, he ſaith, were very well known to the Author of the Caroline Book; and becauſe the Copy of the Nicen Council was ſent them by Pope Adrian; whoſe Legates alſo preſided in the Council of Francford, and might eaſily rectifie any Miſtake, if they were guilty of it. Beſides, none of the Hiſtorians of that time do take notice of any ſuch Error, and the ſecond Canon of Francford publiſhed by Sirmondus, expreſly condemns the Council of Nice. To this he adds, That the ſame Council was rejected here in England, and the Synod of Paris, called by Ludovicus Pius, condemned expreſly Pope Adrian for aſſerting a ſuperſtitious Adoration of Images. Laſtly, he confirms it from the Doctrine of the Caroline Books, (whoſe deſign, as Binius confeſſeth, was againſt all Worſhip of Images) and of Agobardus publiſhed by Baluzius, who ingenuouſly, ſaith he, confeſſeth, that Agobardus ſaith no more than the whole Gallican Church believed in that Age.

This is the ſum and force of his Argument, and to manifeſt the inſufficiency of it in order to his deſign, (ſuppoſing the matter of fact to be true, viz. that the Council of Francford did reject that of Nice, which divers learned men not improbably deny) I ſhall ſhew firſt, that de facto there was a miſ-underſtanding of the Doctrine of the Council of Nice. Secondly, That ſuppoſing there had been no miſtake, but that the Synod at Francford had really condemn'd the Doctrine of Nice, yet had it been no advantage to his Cauſe.

§. 2. Firſt, there was a miſunderſtanding of the Doctrine of the Council of Nice. And to make this evident, I ſhall need no more than to compare what was taught in the Council of Nice, with what was condemn'd in the Council of Francford. What the Council of Nice taught, I have ſet down in the precedent Chapter, viz. That the Images of Chriſt and his Saints were to be placed and retained in Churches, &c. and that an honourary adoration (or reſpect) was to be given to the ſaid Images, like as is given to Chalices, and to the Books of the H Goſpels; but not LATRIA, which (as true Faith teacheth) is due onely to God. This was the plain and open Definition of the Council of Nice. Let us now ſee what it was that the Synod of Francford condemned. Allata eſt in medium Quaeſtio, &c. A Queſtion was propoſed in the Council (ſaith the Author of the Caroline Book) concerning the late Synod of the Greeks held at Conſtantinople (a miſtake of the place, for Nicaea) about the adoring of Images: In qua ſcriptum habebatur, In which there was written, that thoſe ſhould be anathematized, who did not give ſervice and adoration to Images of the Saints, as to the Divine Trinity. Now, ſaith the ſaid Author, our most Holy Fathers denying by all means Service and Adoration, did both contemn and unanimouſly condemn the ſaid Synod. This is what the Fathers of the Synod at Francford condemned, as it ſtands repreſented by the Author himſelf of the Carolin Book, to whom my Adverſary ſaith, that the Acts of the Council were very well known, and by Goldaſtus in Sir Henry Spelman, Concil. To. 1. p. 307. who cites them as the very words of the Council, and I ſuppoſe by Sirmondus alſo; for had he publiſhed any thing elſe, the Doctor would not have failed to let us know it. And now I appeal to any indifferent Reader, whether there were not a great miſunderſtanding of the Doctrine of the Council of Nice. For had the Fathers of Francford rightly underſtood that the Council of Nice declar'd onely an honourary Worſhip to be given to Images, like as to the H. Croſs and to the Books of H. Scriptures, &c. and not Latria, or the Worſhip due only to God, they could never have condemn'd it for defining that the ſame Service and Worſhip was to be given to Images as to the Divine Trinity. And therefore Mr. Thorndike ingenuouſly profeſſeth, that It is to be granted, that whoſoever it was that writ the Book againſt Images under the Name of Charles the Great, Epilog. part. 3. p. 363. did underſtand the Council to enjoyn the Worſhip of God to be given to the Image of our Lord. But it is not to be denied that it was a meer miſtake, and that the Council acknowledging that ſubmiſſion of the heart which the Excellence of God onely challenges, proper to the H. Trinity, maintains a ſignification of that eſteem to be paid to the Image of our Lord. It is evident then there was a grand miſtake: And to omit what Bellarmin and others ſay of the ocſion of it,De Concord. ſacerd. & Imp. li. 2. c. 17. ex edit. Baluzii. Conc. Nic. Act. 3. Petrus de Marca (the late learned Archbiſhop of Paris) very probably judges it to have riſen from the words of Conſtantinus Biſhop of Conſtantia in Cyprus, unskilfully rendred by the Latine Tranſlator. For (as he well obſerveth) the Council of Francford did not condemn the plain and open Definition of the Council of Nice, but (as the Canon it ſelf of Francford ſpeaks) Quod ſcriptum habebatur, for that there was found written in the Acts of that Council, that the Worſhip due unto God, was to be given to Images. And the Author of the Caroline Book tells us, that this was found written in the Sentence of the aforeſaid Conſtantinus, whom therefore he condemns of precipitancy and folly in theſe words, Infauſte & praecipitanter ſive inſipienter Conſtantinus Conſtantiae Cypri Epiſcopus dixit, ſuſcipio & amplector honorabiliter ſanctas & venerandas Imagines, & quae ſecundum ſervitium adorationis quae ſubſtantiali & vivificatrici Trinitati emitto. But inſtead of precipitancy and folly in Conſtantinus, he ſhould have laid the fault upon the ignorance of the Tranſlator, or his own, if not his malice. For the ſenſe in Greek is plain and facil to be this: Suſcipio & honorarie amplector ſanctas & venerabiles Imagines. Et adorationem ſecundum Latriam ſoli ſuperſubſtantiali & vivificae Trinitati impendo. I receive and with honour embrace the holy and venerable Images (of Christ and his Saints) but for adoration of Latria, I give it onely to the ſuperſubſtantial and Life-giving Trinity. From whence it is is plain how ignorantly or maliciouſly rather it was ſaid by Calvin, Inſtit. lib. 1. c. 11. §. 16. that the ſame Conſtantinus profeſſed he did reverently embrace the ſaid holy Images, cultumque honoris, qui vivificae Trinitati debetur, ſe illis exhibiturum, and that he would give that Worſhip to them which is due to the Holy Trinity; when what he profeſſed, was the quite contrary. Such Arts as theſe were enough to make a man ſuſpect a good Cauſe, much more to deſert a bad one. But whether this were the occaſion or no, 'tis evident (as I ſhewed before) that there was a great miſtake, and while the matter of fact is evident, my Adverſary labours in vain to argue from Conjectures, that it was not poſſible, eſpecially ſince the Copy of the Acts of the Nicene Council, was ſo unskilfully if not maliciouſly tranſlated, as to miniſter matter of miſtake; and though the Popes Legates could not perſwade the Francford Fathers from being engaged in it, yet 'tis certain they reclaimed againſt their proceedings; and if the Fathers at Francford perſiſted in their miſtake, what wonder if the Hiſtorians of that time, who favour'd them, took no notice of it? Or if the Engliſh Hiſtorians ran into the ſame Errour, as it is manifeſt they did, by what Hoveden reports,Hoveden Annal. P. Prior. ad Anno 792. that the Engliſh Biſhops believed the Doctrine of the Council of Nice to be, that Adoration was to be given to Images, which the Church of Chriſt abhors? That the Author of the Caroline Book, and Agobardus after him, did not content themſelves with what the Council of Francford had condemned, viz. That Worſhip was not to be given to Images, as to the Holy Trinity; but denied any veneration at all to be due to them, (as the Doctor will have it) hinders not, but that the Council of Francford condemned that of Nice upon a miſunderſtanding of its Doctrine, as I have evidently ſhewed.

§. 3. Secondly, But now ſuppoſing there had been no miſtake, but that the Fathers at Francford (as my Adverſary would have it) had really condemned the Doctrine of the Council of Nice, yet I affirm it had been no advantage to his Cauſe, becauſe as himſelf (p. 84.) ſaith, The Popes of Rome ſided with the Worſhippers of Images, that is, confirmed the Doctrine of the Council of Nice, whereas they oppoſed and rejected the condemnation of it by the Fathers of Francford. That the Popes Legates contradicted it in the Synod, Cent. 8. c. 9. is confeſſed by the Magdeburgenſes; and that the Pope himſelf oppos'd it, is manifeſt from the Confutation he wrote of the Caroline Book; and that no Decrees of any Council could be valid without the Popes conſent, was ſo undoubted a thing among all Chriſtians, that the Author himſelf of that Book durſt not deny it, but on the contrary affirms it to have been the ſenſe even of the Fathers of Francford, as acknowledging and profeſſing the laſt Judgment of Controverſies to belong to the Biſhop of Rome; and upon this account they affirmed the Council of Nice was to be rejected,Baron. An. 794. viz. for that it had not been confirmed (as they pretended, though falſely) by the Pope. And if the Fathers of Francford look'd upon it then as an advantage to their Cauſe, that the Pope (as they pretended) had not ſided with the Worſhippers of Images, that is, with the Nicen Fathers, how comes the Doctor to look upon it now as ſo apparent an advantage to the ſame Cauſe, that the Pope (as he confeſſeth) ſided with them? What I can diſcover here, is nothing but a great improvement of confidence, to alledge that for an Advantage which in Church-Affairs is the greateſt prejudice upon Earth. But if the Popes confirming the Council of Nice, were no advantage to his Cauſe, as little is it, that the Council at Francford denied it to be Occumenical, becauſe the Greeks onely were there preſent, and none of the other Provinces were called; for what weight ſoever the Doctor may conceive that Exception to have carried at that time, yet 'tis certain now it hath no force at all, ſince the Council it ſelf hath for many hundreds of years been accepted as a true and lawful General Council, and its Doctrine as Catholick by all the Provinces of Christendom, and the contrary to it condemned for Hereſie. And this is no other 〈◊〉 what Mr. Thorndike anſwers to two Objections urged from St. Epiphanius and the Council of Elvira, Juſ • 〈…〉 chap. 19. that granting they held all Images in Churches dangerous for Idolatry (of which, ſaith he, there is appearance) it is manifeſt they were afterwards admitted all over. From whence it follows that what Dr. St. argues from the Synod of Paris under Ludovicus Pius (which was indeed but a Conference of ſome Learned Men) condemning Pope Adrian for a ſuperſtitious adoration of Images; Anno 825. From the Doctrine alſo of the Author of the Caroline Book, and that of Agobardus, which Baluzius, ſaith he, confeſſeth to be no more than the whole Gallican Church believed in that Age, is no advantage at all to his Cauſe, becauſe in ſuppoſition that they then did look upon the very true Doctrine of the Council of Nice, as dangerous, and impugn it as ſuch, by reaſon of a very evil ſuperſtition, the ſame Baluzius ſaith, had poſſeſſed the minds of ſome perſons in that Age, viz. that the ſame Worſhip was to be given to Images as to the Bleſſed Trinity; yet afterwards the Doctrine of the ſaid Nicene Council prevailed all over, and was received as an Apoſtolical Tradition by the Gallican Church it ſelf; like as the Doctrine of Non-rebaptization of Hereticks w • s received in the African Church, although it had been condemned there before in a Council by St. Cyprian. But upon a diligent ſurvey of Baluzius his Diſcourſe in that place,Baluzius in notis ad Abogard. tit. de Imag. p. 88. I do not perceive his meaning to be what the Doctor would have it, viz. that what Agobardus wrote was the belief of the whole Gallican Church in that Age: but that it was the Judgment and Deſign of the French Biſhops at that time, to extirpate by all means the above-mentioned Superſtition which then reigned, although in doing it they might ſeem to run into the other extream, of denying any Worſhip at all to be due to Images; all the whole buſineſs of the uſe of Images, being (as the Author of the Account very well obſerves, p. 18.) but a matter of Diſcipline and Government. For had he meant that what Agobardus wrote, was no more than the whole Gallican Church believed in that Age; how could the ſame Baluzius tell us, that the French Biſhops at that time, although they ſeemed to remove all Worſhip from Images, yet allowed them to be kept, that the Faithful by ſeeing them, might be excited to imitate thoſe Holy Perſons they repreſented: Papyrius Maſſon. in Synopſi Agob▪ Whereas Agobardus went ſo far as to affirm that they were kept for Ornament to delight the eyes, but not for the inſtruction of the people; nay, that they were not to be painted upon the Church-Walls? Was this the Belief of the Gallican Church in that Age, when Jonas Aurelianenſis wa • commanded by Ludovicus Pius • o 〈◊〉 againſt Claudius • aurinenſis for caſting them out of the Church? Surely the little care there was taken to preſerve the Canon of the Council of Eran • ford againſt Image-Worſhip, or • ather the unanimous concurrence to ſuppreſs it (if there were ever any ſuch Canon, for it lay in obſcurity for above ſeven hundred years together, till it was publiſhed, as my Adverſary ſays, about the middle of the laſt • entury, by Du Tillet) as alſo the prevalency of the contrary Belief in the Gallican Church, as it is at this day, without any noiſe or oppoſition, are no great Preſumptions to men who have any inſight into the Affairs of Religion, that the ſaid Church in that Age believed (as Dr. St. would have us believe from the Confeſſion of Baluzius) that no Veneration was to be given to Holy Images. It is upon the contrary ſuppoſition, that Baluzius endeavours to excuſe Agobardus and ſome other French Biſhops of that Age, as tranſported with zeal againſt a Superſtition which, he ſays, had then prevailed among ſome Perſons in giving the ſame Worſhip to Images as to the Holy Trinity. And for himſelf, he profeſſes that he is much pleaſed with the Decree of the Council of Cambray, Anno 1565. That the People be taught that no Worſhip ought to be given to an Image, for the matter or elegancy of the work, &c. but for the Thing repreſented by it, to which the Worſhip and Honour is chiefly referr'd; and that the Mind or Intention of him that prayeth or worſhippeth be carried to the thing ſignified, and not terminated on the ſign, which can neither hear, nor ſee, nor underſtand. Thus much • o the Doctors Objection from the Council of Francford, a Paſſage (take it which way you will) ſo difficult and obſcure, by reaſon of the various Opinions of Authors, and ſeeming, if not real Contradictions in Hiſtorians, that for one whoſe deſign is to blunder, not ſatisfie his Reader, a fitter Topick cannot be found, unleſs it be that which follows of the Calves, as he hath perplex'd it with his groundleſs Conjectures.

CHAP. IX.

Of the Doctors Third Proof, from the Judgment, as he pretends, of the Law-giver. His ſpeculation concerning the Golden Calves manifeſ • ly repugnant to the H. Scriptures and Fathers. Mr. Thorndike's Judgment of the Meaning and Extent of the Second Commandment.

§. 1. THe Third Reaſon Dr. Stilling fleet brings to prove that God in the ſecond Commandment hath expreſly prohibited the giving any Worſhip to himſelf by an Image, is taken, ſaith he, (p. 92.) from thoſe who were beſt able to underſtand the meaning of it: and among theſe, none ſo competent a Judge as the Law-giver himſelf. Here we have a ſolid Principle indeed to work upon, and if the Doctor would give me leave to infer from it, I would argue thus: But the Law-giver himſelf commanded the Ark and the Cherubims to be placed in the Temple, with reſpect to his Worſhip; Therefore he did not expreſly prohibit in the ſecond Commandment the giving any Worſhip to himſelf by an Image. For it cannot be • onceived that himſelf would introduce 〈◊〉 allow ſuch a practiſe as ſhould be contrary to its meaning. But I muſt not foreſtall, but attend my Adverſary: and the ſubſtance of what he diſcourſes upon that Principle, is this, That the Iſraelites were condemned by God of Idolatry, for worſhipping the Golden Calf, and yet they did not fall into the Heathen Idolatry by ſo doing, but onely worſhipped the true God under that Symbol of his preſence. If you ask him how he knows for certain that the Iſraelites did not fall back into the Heathen Idolatry; when it is certain that in Aegypt they worſhipped the Idols of the Aegyptians, Ezek. 20. 7, 8? He tells you upon his word, that they had not the leaſt pretence of infidelity as to the true God; and yet the very Text he cites to prove it, tells us they pretended their deſpair of Moſes returning, as a ſufficient reaſon to move Aaron to make them Gods who ſhould go before them. If you ask him how he knows for certain, that the Calf was intended to be onely a Symbol of Gods preſence? He tells you, We (that is himſelf and his Maſter Calvin) cannot imagine the people ſo ſottiſh, Calv. Inſtit. li. 1. c. 11. n. 9. Nec tam incogitantes erant Judaei▪ ſaith Calvin, to deſire Aaron to make them a God in the proper ſence, as though they could believe the Calf newly made, to have been the God, which before it was made, brought them out of the land 〈◊〉 Egypt. And yet they can both of them very eaſily imagine Catholick Chriſtians to be ſo ſottiſh as to terminate their Worſhip upon a Block, or a hewn Stone, though 〈◊〉 the ſame time they deny any Divinity to be in them, or have not the least pre • ence of Infidelity as to the True God. But (be their Imagination as much at the devotion of their Paſſion as they pleaſe) could not the People, taking it for granted (as he ſays they did) that Moſes was not to be heard of more, fall into a diſlike or a diſtruſt of the God whom Moſes had taught them to worſhip, and ſo run with their thoughts into Aegypt, and require of Aaron to make them a God to go before them, like unto the Gods which they had ſeen and worſhipped there? That this was their Intention, and not to make a Symbol onely of the preſence of the true God, the very making of the Calf, which was done in imitation of the Golden Bulls of Aegypt, the Symbols (as the Doctor calls them) of their chief God Oſiris, ſufficiently evinces. And for this it is they are ſo frequently reprehended in Holy Scripture. Deut. xxxii. 15. He (that is, Iſrael) forſook God which made him, and went back from the God of his Salvation; and verſ. 18. Thou haſt forſaken the God which made thee, and haſt forgotten the God thy Creator. Pſal. cv. 19. They made a Calf in Horeb, and worſhipped the Molten Image. Thus they changed their Glory into the ſimilitude of an Ox that eateth Graſs. They forgat God who had ſaved them, who had done ſo great things in Aegypt, wonderous works in the Land of Cham, and fearful things in the red Sea. And again, Acts vii. 39, 40. Our Fathers, ſaith St. Stephen, would not obey, but thruſt him (that is, the true God) from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Aegypt, ſaying unto Aaron, Make us Gods to go before us, &c. And they made a Calf in thoſe days, and offered ſacrifice to the Idol, and rejoyced in the work of their own hands. This is what the Scripture teſtifieth that the Iſraelites did, viz. that they forgat the God which made them; that they thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back into Aegypt; that the Molten Calf (which they had made after the pattern they had ſeen there) was an Idol, and that they offered ſacrifices to this Idol: And muſt we now deny all this to be true, becauſe Calvin and Dr. St. cannot imagine the People to have been ſo ſottiſh? Is this to make Scripture the Rule of Faith, or Imagination to be the Rule of Scripture? Let the Reader obſerve here for his Inſtruction that according to Dr. St.'s behaviour here and elſewhere, if he meet with any paſſage in Scripture that thwarts his Imagination, he muſt underſtand it in a ſenſe agreeable to what he can imagine, that is, as beſt pleaſes his own fancy. And This (how • unningly ſoever He and his Partizans diſguiſe it) is indeed the onely Ground from which they take their meaſures in the Interpretation of Scripture, as Mr. E. W. hath clearly proved in his Book called Proteſtancy without Principles. And although His performance, among others, be likened by the Doctor to the way that Rats anſwer Books, by gnawing ſome of the leaves of them: yet an Impartiall Reader will compare it rather to the execution done by the Worm in Jonas, which ſmote the Gourd, and it withered. But to return to the Iſraelites, and their Golden Calf.

§. 2. Did the Fathers underſtand the ſame by it which Calvin and the Doctor do? Could They not imagine the People to be ſo ſottiſh as to aſcribe their deliverance, and the Miracles wrought in it, to this New God? Nothing leſs. There is no cauſe to wonder, ſaith St. Athanaſius, at the Phariſees madneſs,S. Athan. in illud, Quicun que dixerit verbum. Tom. 4. in imputing the works of Chriſt to the Devil, becauſe their Fathers were of the ſame mind before them; for being but newly gone out of Egypt, they attributed the benefits which God had beſtowed on them, to the Calf which themſelves had made, ſaying, Theſe are thy Gods, O Iſrael, which brought thee out of Egypt. You will ask, ſaith St. Hierom, how they offered ſacrifices in the Wilderneſs, not to God, but to their King, whom they call Lucifer?St. Hierom in Amos, cap. 5. And the Anſwer he gives is, that from the time they transformed their Gold into a Calf, ſaying theſe are thy Gods, O Iſrael, which brought thee out of Egypt, it is manifeſt, that all what they did, they did not to God, but to Idols. In like manner St. Chryſoſtom. After the people had heard thoſe words,St. Chryſoſt. Tom. 5. Hom. 5. de Poenit. I am the Lord thy God, Thou ſhalt have no other Gods beſide me; They made a Calf, and rejected God. They did not acknowledge him to be the Lord, but diſowned their Benefactor, ſaying unto Aaron, Make us Gods to go before us: And then, as if he had foreſeen the difficulty Calvin and my Adverſary have of imagining how the people could believe the Calf newly made to have been the God, which before it was made brought them out of the Land of Egypt, He objects to himſelf, If they were Gods, why did they ſay, Make? For how can thoſe be Gods which are made? And then anſwers, Sic malitia obſaecans ſibi ipſi repugnat, & ſemetipſam extinguit. That, It is the nature of malice to blind the mind it poſſeſſes to that degree, that it makes it contradict and deſtroy it ſelf.

§. 3. This is what the Holy Scripture and the Fathers ſay expreſly of the Iſraelites making and worſhipping the Calf. That they were Idolaters in ſo doing, we confeſs; but that their Idolatry conſiſted onely in worſhipping the True God under that, as a Symbol of his preſence, we utterly deny. And till the Doctor can prove it, by as great, if not greater Authority of Scriptures and Fathers, than I have done the contrary, he will never prove from this fact of theirs, that God hath expreſly prohibited in the ſecond Commandment the giving him any Worſhip by an Image. What he does is, to tell us that he cannot imagine the people to have been ſo ſottiſh, as to believe the Calf newly made to have been the God, which before it was made, brought them out of the Land of Egypt: or to think the Gods of Egypt had wrought thoſe Miracles for them in their deliverance. But theſe are Conjectures of his own Fancy, without any Authority of Scripture or Fathers; nay expreſly againſt them, as I have ſhewed. And although Aaron perhaps, and ſome of the Wiſer among them might not be ſo ſottiſh, yet it is certain (as the Doctor confeſſes of his Wiſer Heathens) they were ſo weak as to concur with them in the external practiſes of their Idolatry. But then he tells us again, (p. 94.) that the people took it for granted that Moſes, by reaſon of his forty days abſence, was to be heard of no more; and therefore they fell upon deviſing the fitteſt Symbol for the preſence of God going before them; and herein the greateſt number, ſaith he, being poſſeſſed with the prejudices of their Education in Egypt, where Golden Bulls were the Symbols of their chief God Oſiris, they pitched upon that, and forced Aaron to a compliance with them in it. And all the proof he brings for this, is, that immediately before Moſes his going up to the Mount, the laſt Promiſe God made to them was, that he would ſend his Angel before them, Exod. xxiii. 20, 23. as if thoſe who had forgotten the God that made them, could not alſo forget this Promiſe; or at leaſt think that He had forgotten it, or was not able to perform it; and ſo fall upon deviſing the making of a God like thoſe they had ſeen in Egypt, whoſe Preſence and Conduct they might have continually with them. This follows much more clearly from the prejudice of their Education in Egypt, than what the Doctor has deviſed for them; for they never deviſed any ſuch thing to themſelves, as is manifeſt out of the Scriptures and Fathers before alledged. And when I conſider the Iſraelites, a people without Learning, oppreſſed for four hundred years together by the moſt Idolatrous Nation in the World, and ſerving their Gods, as it appears they did, out of Ezek. xx. 8. the prejudice which this cuſtom had wrought in them, and their readineſs upon every ſlight occaſion, to turn back with their hearts into Egypt; laſtly, the Character which God himſelf gives of them, Deut. xxxii. 28. that they were a Nation void of counſel, neither was there any underſtanding in them. When, I ſay, I conſider all this on the one ſide; and the quaint device the Doctor would transfer from his own head into theirs, of making the Calf onely for the Symbol of the preſence of the true God, on the other: I cannot but look upon it to be much of the ſame nature with thoſe ſubtil fetches which Hiſtorians, to ſhew their own skill in Politicks, deviſe, rather than diſcover, in the Actions of thoſe Perſons (though never ſo ſtupid) who are the ſubject of their Hiſtory. How many Plots and Deſigns have Tacitus and others framed for them, which they never dream't of themſelves? much leſs were the Iſraelites guilty of any ſuch ſubtil ſpeculation as Calvin and the Doctor have invented for them. The higheſt pitch of their Fancy, if it ſtaid not in the Image it ſelf, was to magine ſome Deity, like thoſe of Egypt, to inſinuate it ſelf into the Calf (as the Egyptians believed of their Gods) from thence to give Oracres, and conduct them into the Land of Promiſe; and not as the Doctor deviſes for them, that they look'd upon it onely as a Symbol of the true God, whom now they had thruſt from them and forgotten. To make out this device, which had no other foundation but in his own fancie, he is forc'd to invent a new kind of Idolatry, diſtinct from the Heathen Idolatry; Becauſe there is no intimation (ſaith he, p. 95.) made of their falling into the Heathen Idolatry. But why then does he charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry upon this account, (p. 3.) viz. that ſhe requires the giving to the Creature the Worſhip due onely to the Creator? Is not the giving Divine Worſhip to a Creature, the ſame as to make it a falſe God? And is it not Heathen Idolatry to worſhip a falſe God? Either then he muſt retract the ground upon which he builds his Charge of Idolatry; or he muſt ſtand to it ſtifly without flinching, that both Catholicks, now, and the Jews then were Heathen Idolaters. For he does but contradict himſelf whilſt he makes us guilty onely of Chriſtian Idolatry; and yet does us no kindneſs at all, whilſt he charges us to terminate the Worſhip due onely to God, upon the Creature. Oh, but, ſays he, when afterwards the Iſraelites fell into Heathen Idolatry, the particular names of the Gods are mentioned, as Baal-Peor, Moloch, Remphan, &c. What then? Is it the Idol's having a Name, that makes the Worſhippers Heathen Idolaters? Ariſtotle tells us, that words are but the ſigns of the conceptions of our mind: and if they conceived or believed the Calf to be a God, were they not as much Heathen Idolaters for worſhipping it without a Name, as the Egyptians for worſhipping it under the Name of Apis? The onely difference I find is, that the Egyptians by long practice were become Maſters of their Trade, in making Gods, whereas the Iſraelites by this one Act were Novices onely in that Art.

§ 4. What hath been ſaid of the Golden Calf in the Wilderneſs, may in like manner be applied to the Calves which Jeroboam ſet up at Dan and Bethel, viz. that the People did not look upon them as Symbols onely of the preſence of the true God, but that, as St. Hierom ſaith, they forgat the Law of God, S. Hierom in Oſe • , c. 4. and wholly devoted themſelves to Egyptian Idols. And the ſame is affirmed by the Author of the Commentaries under the name of St. Ambroſe, viz.S. Ambr. in Rom. 1. Tom. 3. that the Egyptians worſhipped a four-footed Beaſt, whom they called Apis, in the likeneſs of a Calf: Which Evil of theirs, ſaith he, was imitated by Jeroboam, in ſetting up the Calves in Samaria, to which the Jews offered ſacrifice. But this, ſaith the Doctor, was not ſo agreeable to his End, nor ſo likely to ſucceed: And why not? Was not his end to ſecure the Ten Tribes to himſelf, ſo that they might not think of returning to unite themſelves any more to the Houſe of David? And what more likely way to effect it, than the making them ſuch Idols as their Fathers had worſhipped in Egypt and the Wilderneſs? What he aimed at, (Achitophel-like) was to make the breach irreconcilable, and this of making them Calves he look'd upon as the propereſt means to that end, conſidering the inclination of that People, whoſe eyes, as the Scripture ſaith,Ezek. xx. 24. were after their Fathers Idols. I, but the Occaſion, ſaith he, of the Kingdoms coming to him, was from Solomon's falling into Heathen Idolatry, and this would make him more cautious of falling into it, eſpecially at his firſt entrance. And I believe it would have done ſo, had he been a Good Joſias, and not a wicked Jeroboam. But why the Doctor ſhould think him ſo tender conſcienc'd, whom God himſelf upbraids for having made to himſelf ſtrange and molten Gods, and cast him behind his back, 3 Kings xiv. 9. Or why he ſhould think him ſo ſcrupulous, when the Scripture ſaith, that he ſacrificed to the Gods which he had made, 3 Kings xii. 32. and that he ordained him Prieſts for the high places, and for the Devils, and for the Calves which he had made, 2 Paralip. xi. 15. I cannot imagine. The Ingenious Author of the Cauſes of the decay of Chriſtian Piety, chap. 15. made a different Judgment of the matter, when to ſhew that Divinity has long ſince been made the Handmaid to Policy, and Religion modell'd by Conveniencies of State; he immediately adds for an example, that The Golden Calves became venerable Deities, when they were found apt to ſecure Jeroboam's jealouſies. But had this been Jeroboam's Intention, how much better, ſaith the Doctor, had he then argued that they had been hitherto in a great miſtake concerning the true God, and not meerly as to the place of his Worſhip, which is all he ſpeaks againſt; for he continued, ſaith he, the ſame Feaſts and way of Worſhip which were at J • ruſalem? 1 Kings xii. 32. And what wonder if ſo great a Polititian as he was, ju • g'd it not fit to leave off on the ſudden all that had been in uſe before? Sudden Changes from one extream to another, whether in the Natural or Politick Body, are always look'd upon as dangerous. And therefore the firſt Reformers nere in England, when they deſign'd a Service onely of Bread and Wine, thought it expedient to retain the Names of the Body and Blood of Chriſt, and many of the ancient Prayers and Ceremonies, which the nicer Brethren boggle at at this day, as Pelicks of Popery, and Politick Inventions to make the Bread and Wine go down the better. But for Jeroboam, he told the People plain enough what he meant, when pointing to the Calves, he bid them behold the Gods which had brought them up out of the Land of Egypt. And the Text cited by the Doctor 1 Reg. xii. 23. ſpeaks but of one Feaſt he ordain'd like unto the Feaſt that was in Juda; though the Doctor will have it, that he continued the ſame Feasts and way of Worſhip which were at Jeruſalem. But Ahab's ſin, he ſaith, was much greater than that of Jeroboam: It was ſo; but will abſolve Jeroboam no more from the guilt of Idolatry, (which the Scripture calls ſpiritual Adultery) than one mans committing adultery with many, will free another from the guilt of the ſame crime, who commits it but with one: 2 Kings • . 16. Nor does Jehu's zeal for the Lord (nay though it were for his Lord, as the Doctor, not the Scripture, reads it) exempt him from Idolatry in following the ſteps of Jeroboam, any more than the lawful Act of Matrimony acquits a Husband from the Crime of Adultery, who defiles his Neighbours Bed. But, How then, ſaith he, came the Worſhip of the true God in the ten Tribes to be ſet in oppoſition to the Heathen Idolatry in 1 Kings xviii. 21? No otherwiſe ſurely than by the force of imagination. For when Elias ſaid unto the people, How long will ye halt between two Opinions? If the Lord be God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him. The ſence is plain, that he meant to recal the people to the Worſhip of the onely True God, whom he preached to them, and in the manner he himſelf did worſhip him; and not that he intended to ſet the Iſraelites ſacrificing to the Calves at Dan and Bethel (which is what the Doctor means by the Worſhip of the true God in the ten Tribes) in oppoſition to the Worſhip of Baal. For in the very next Chapter the Prophet himſelf ſuppoſes ſuch a general Apoſtacy of the ten Tribes to the Worſhip of Baal, that he complains as if he alone were left alive, who had not conſented to his Worſhip; as appears by the Anſwer which God made him, that he had yet ſeven thouſand left in Iſrael which had not bowed their knees to Baal, 3 Kings xix. 17, 18. How then could Elias ſet the Worſhip of the true God in the ten Tribes in oppoſition to the Worſhip of Baal, when he ſuppoſed all that were remaining of the Ten Tribes, except himſelf, to have forſaken the true God to follow Baal? As for the Embaſſy of the Samaritans to the King of Aſſyria, that a Prieſt might be ſent unto them from the Captivity, the reaſon is plain why they ſent to him, and not to the King of Juda, becauſe they fear'd his diſpleaſure, ſhould they have kept Correſpondence with his Enemy. Moreover they thought the God of Iſrael to be only a Topical God; and therfore they call him the God of the Land, 4 Kings xvii. 26. as diſtinct from the God of Juda. Now what the Text ſaith, is, that the Prieſt when he came, taught them how they ſhould fear the Lord; but there is no mention at all made of his teaching them to worſhip him in the Calves, as Symbols of his preſence, which was the onely thing for the Doctors purpoſe, had it been there.

§. 5. Having thus anſwer'd all the Doctors Conjectures, or rather Monceius his, as to the greater part of them, (for it is with his Hei • er he plows) by which he endeavours to make the World believe that the Iſraelites intended the making of the Calves for no other end, but onely to worſhip God in them as Symbols of his preſence, and ſhewn them to be perfectly groundleſs; for a farther diſcovery of the weakneſs of his D • ſcourſe, let us ſuppoſe it, after all, to be as he would have it; It cannot be denied, but the Calves were originally Symbols of Oſiris, the chief (but falſe) God of the Egyptians; and himſelf confeſſes (p. 94.) that upon this account the Iſraelites made choice of them for the fitteſt Symbols of the preſence of the true God: Suppoſe, I ſay, they look'd upon them as ſuch, and that they were condemned of Idolatry for intending to worſhip the true God in them, I affirm, it follows no more from hence, that God hath expreſly prohibited in the ſecond Commandment to give him any Worſhip by ſuch Symbols or Images as are not the Symbols of falſe Gods; than it would follow from a King's condemning ſuch Perſons of Treaſon, as ſhould pretend to worſhip Him by honouring the Image of an Uſurper, that he had expreſly prohibited the giving him any Worſhip by his own Image. In fine, if this diſcourſe of the Doctors may be allowed for good, I ſee no reaſon why he might not as well juſtifie the groſſeſt of Idolaters, the Aegyptians, in their worſhip of L • cks and Onyons, from the guilt of Heathen Idolatry, as the Iſraelites in worſhipping the Calves: for, proceeding in his way, it were but to imagin, they could not be ſo ſottiſh as to believe them to be Gods in the proper ſenſe, but that they look'd upon them onely as Symbols of Gods kindneſs to them, in providing them Sauce as well as Meat, though out of Reverence to thoſe Deities they would eat neither of them.

§. 6. To conclude this Point of the meaning of the Second Commandment, he tells us, that the Jews thought the Prohibition to extend to all kind of Images for Worſhip. And I would gladly know whether we muſt ſtand or fall by the Interpretation of the Jews? It was their Opinion that the Prohibition extended not only to the worſhipping, Vaſq. in 3. d. Th. diſp. 103. q. 25. c. 1. but alſo to the making all kind of Images. And will the Doctor therefore condemn the Profeſſions of Painting and Carving, Conc. Nicen. Act. 6. as unlawful, and (as his Conſtantinopolitan Fathers call them) blaſphemous? Well, but Vaſquez, ſaith he, acknowledgeth, with other Divines of the Roman Church, that it is plain in Scripture, that God did not only forbid that in the ſecond Commandment which was unlawful by the Law of Nature, Vaſq. in 3. d. Th. diſp. 104. q. 25. c. 3. as the worſhipping an Image for God; but the worſhipping the true God by any ſimilitude of him: But to whom do they ſay he forbids it? Does not Vaſquez ſay expreſly, c. 2. that it was to the Jews? which the Doctor conveniently leaves out. And do not thoſe Divines in the very words cited by himſelf plainly declare the Prohibition of worſhipping God by any ſimilitude of him, to be but a Poſitive Precept, when they ſo clearly diſtinguiſh it from the Prohibition of worſhipping an Image for God, which they ſay, was unlawful by the Light of Nature? And if they look'd upon that part of the Prohibition as a meer Poſitive Precept, does he think they thought it obliged Chriſtians? Their Doctrine and Practice evince the contrary. And if Divines agree not among themſelves how far this Precept obliged the Jews, what matter is it, ſo they agree that what is forbidden in it to Chriſtians is that which is unlawful by the Law of Nature? The oppoſition then which the Doctor would make between my Aſſertion, and that of other Catholick Divines, is altogether impertinent; for taking it as a Natural Precept and Immutable, they ſay the ſame that I do, that it onely forbids the worſhipping of Idols. To what he alledges of the Primitive Chriſtians being declared Enemies to all Worſhip of God by Images, which, he ſaith, is at laſt confeſſed by Petavius, Petav. Dogm. Theolog. Tom. 5. lib. 15. c. 13. ſ. 3. c. 14. 5, 8. one of the moſt Learned Jeſuites they ever had, when he affirms, that for the firſt four Centuries, or farther, there was little or no uſe of Images in the Temples or Oratories of Christians, (not to diſpute the matter of fact, of which he confeſſes there was ſome little uſe; nor the truth of the Doctors relating the words of Petavius, of which there is ſome little reaſon to doubt, from what he did before with Trigautius) I ſhall give him the Anſwer of Mr. Thorndike, Juſt Weights, chap. 19. one of the moſt Learned Divines among the Proteſtants, that at that time there might be jealouſie of Offence in having Images in Churches, before Idolatry was quite rooted out, of which afterwards there might be no appearance. And therefore they were afterwards admitted all over; for it is manifeſt, ſaith he, the Church is tied no farther than there can appear danger of Idolatry. And ſince he hath given in occaſion to mention this Learned Perſon, I ſhall conclude this Point with his Judgment concerning the meaning and extent of the Second Commandment, that the Reader may ſee how diametrically oppoſite Dr. St.'s diſcourſe is, to the Sentiment of ſo Eminent a Divine in the Church of England. Thus then Mr. Thorndike.

§. 5. The ſecond Commandment, ſetting forth God for a God that is jealous of his People whether they worſhip him or not,Just Weights, chap. 23. manifeſtly ſuppoſeth their Covenant to forſake all other Gods beſide him: a Contract of Marriage between Him and his People. Which if it be ſo, it is no leſs manifeſt, that the Images which the Precept ſuppoſeth, are the Repreſentations of other Gods, which his People were wont to commit Adultery with, by Worſhipping them for God. For ſeeing it is manifeſt how much Idolatry was advanced by Imagery, (though it may be without it) there can be no marvel that there ſhould be a peculiar Precept againſt it. Wherefore it is manifeſt that Jews by the Letter of this Precept are tied from all Images which their Elders, who had the power of limiting what is lawful, and what is not by the Law, ſhould declare to be unlawful: But to think that their declarations ought to bind Christians, were to imagine that Chriſtians ought to be Jews. —And then a little after, he goes on. For Chriſtianity, ſaith he, having put Idolatry to flight, which the Law never pretended to do, it is not to be imagined, that the having of Images can make a man take thoſe for God, which they repreſent, ſo long as the belief of Chriſtianity is alive at the heart. For neither was it Idolatry, though it were a breach of this Commandment, for a Jew to have ſuch Images as were forbidden by their Elders, not taking that for God which they repreſented. But what honour of Saints departed, or what ſigns of that honour, Chriſtianity may require, what Furniture or Ceremonies the Churches of Chriſtians, and the Publick Worſhip of God in them, may require, now all the world profeſſes Chriſtianity, and muſt honour the Religion which they profeſs, this the Church is at freedom to determine by the Word of God, expounded according to the beſt agreement of Chriſtians.

This is Mr. Thorndike's Diſcourſe, in which the Reader may obſerve,

1. That to think the Declarations of the Jews ought to bind Chriſtians, were to imagine that Chriſtians ought to be Jews.

2. That all things forbidden to the Jews by this Commandment, were Not Idolatry.

3. That the Images which the Precept ſuppoſeth, were the Repreſentations of other, that is, falſe Gods, which his People were wont to worſhip for God.

4. That what Furniture (viz. of Images, the matter he there treats of) or Ceremonies the Publick Worſhip of God may require, is left to the Judgment of the Church to determine.

5. and laſtly, That the Oppoſition in this Point between Dr. St. and Mr. Thorndike, is not onely concerning the obligation of the Jews (as between Catholick Divines) but of Chriſtians alſo, in order to this Commandment. So that ſome are of opinion, however Dr. St. • eem to direct his arrows againſt the Church of Rome, yet he meant at leaſt by rebound to ſhoot them at Mr. Thorndike. And had he made it any part of his buſineſs to anſwer his Arguments, I might eaſily have been induc'd to have embrac'd their Opinion. But thoſe remaining untouch'd, I cannot but look upon this Diſcourſe of that Learned Perſon, as a kind of Prophetical Confutation in the year 1662. (when he printed that Book) of all which Dr. Stillingfleet brings in 1671. for the proof of his Charge of Idolatry againſt the Church of Rome in the matter of Images. As for his new way of anſwering the Teſtimony I alledged of St. Auſtin's Judgment (of the ſenſe of this Commandment) by asking me how I am ſure that it was his conſtant Judgment, I have at large refuted it in the Third Chapter, to which I remit the Reader.

CHAP. X.

What kind of Honour the Church gives to Holy Images, explained: and the Doctors mixing School Diſputes with matters of Faith, ſhewn to be ſophiſtical.

§. 1. TO clear the Doctrine and Practiſe of the Catholick Church from his moſt Unjuſt Charge of Idolatry, I told the Reader, That the Honour we give to the Sacred Images of Chriſt and his Saints, was an inferiour or Relative Honour onely, not Latria, the Worſhip due to God, but a certain Honourary Worſhip, expreſſed by kiſſing them, or putting off our Hats, or kneeling before them: much like the Worſhip which is given to the Chair of State, or the Reverence which Moſes and Joſhua gave to the Ground, by putting off their Shoes, &c. That this was the meaning of the Council of Nice, Of the Church, l. 3. c. 36. is confeſſed by Dr. Field and Mr. Thorndike, as I have ſhewed p. 124. And that the Council of Trent means no more, is manifeſt from the words of the Council related above, Chap. 2. as alſo for that Seſſ. 25. it refers us expreſly to the Council of Nice. Yet becauſe the Doctor is reſolved to quarrel the diſtinction of Abſolute and Relative Worſhip, that the Reader may ſee what is meant by it, I ſhall deſire him to take notice, firſt, That Adoration or Worſhip being an Act of the Will; as the Will can love one thing for it ſelf, becauſe of the Perfection it is endow'd with, and another thing not for it ſelf, but purely for that others ſake to whom 〈◊〉 belongs. So likewiſe it may adore or worſhip a thing, either for it ſelf, that is, for ſome intrinſecal Excellency in the thing, for which it deſerves Worſhip; and then it is ſaid to worſhip the thing abſolutely, becauſe for it ſelf. Or it may worſhip it for another's ſake, that is, for ſome Excellency in the Perſon to whom the ſaid thing hath a Relation or Union: and then it is ſaid to worſhip ſuch a thing with a Relative or Inferiour Worſhip, becauſe purely for that Perſons ſake. And becauſe Intellectual Beings are capable of having ſome Excellency in themſelves, for which they deſerve to be worſhipped, as Virtue, Sanctity, Wiſdom, Power, &c. and Inanimate Beings are capable of bearing a Relation to a Perſon endowed with ſuch Excellencies, it follows that as Intellectual Beings may have Abſolute Worſhip given to them; ſo Inanimate Things relating to them, may for their ſakes have a Relative Reſpect, or Honourary Adoration given to them; and that ſo far from being injurious to the Perſon to whom they belong, that it would be look'd upon as a diſreſpect and affront, if in due circumſtances it were not done. Such a kind of Relative Worſhip it is we affirm to be due, and to be given to the Images of Chriſt and his Saints, when we kiſs them, or put off our Hats before them. Secondly, I muſt deſire him to observe (as Mr. Thorndike doth very well) that the words Adoration, Epil. p. 3. p. 3 • 3. Worſhip, Reſpect, Reverence, or howſoever you tranſlate the Latine word Cultus, are or may be in deſpite of our hearts equivocal; that is, ſometimes they may ſignifie one kind of honour, and ſometimes another: Sometimes that which belongs to God, and ſometimes that which belongs to the Creature. And the cauſe of this equivocation, he ſaith, is, the want of words; vulgar uſe not having provided words properly to ſignifie conceptions which came not from common ſenſe. And from this equivocation in the Words Adoration, Worſhip, &c. the greateſt part of the Difficulties which occur in this, take their riſe. Now when the Doctor ſhould ſet himſelf ſeriouſly to confute the aforeſaid Explication, he puts his Reader into a fit of laughing with a Drolliſh Parallel, p. 100. that to give this Inferiour and Relative kind of Worſhip to the Image of Chriſt, that is, to honour and reverence it for his ſake, is juſt as if an unchaſte Wife ſhould plead in her excuſe to her Husband, that the perſon ſhe was too kind with, was extreamly like him, and a near friend of his, and that it was out of reſpect to him that ſhe gave him the honour of his Bed. But to lay open the unparallell'd fondneſs of this Compariſon, there needs no more than to appeal to any married man for his Opinion in the caſe, viz. Whether he think it a matter of like Reſentment to find his Wife kiſſing his Picture as it hangs at her Breaſt, as to ſurprize her in Bed with a Friend of his, though never ſo like him? Some things done out of reſpect are very well taken, and cannot in reaſon be otherwiſe, by the Perſon for whoſe ſake the reſpect is given; of this kind I take the wearing of her Husbands Picture to be in a Wi • e, or her being kind (though not too kind) to his Friend for his ſake. But others there are, which would be very ill taken, though pretended to be done with never ſo much reſpect: And of this kind I ſuppoſe it would be, to give the Honour of her Husbands Bed to another, though never ſo like him. No man ſurely well in his Senſes, can look upon theſe two with an equal Concern. And yet if the Doctor will make his Compariſon hold good, he muſt prove the whole ſtate of married Mankind do, or ought to do ſo: At leaſt to infer any thing againſt us, he muſt ſhew it not poſſible to give any Honour or Reſpect (even inferiour) to the Image of Chriſt for his ſake. For if this be poſſible, it will follow, that as in a Chaste Wife it is a laudable expreſſion of the Honour and Reſpect ſhe bears her Husband, to kiſs his Picture, or wear it near her Heart; So it will be no leſs in a Chriſtian towards Chriſt, to give an Honourary Reſpect • o his Image for his ſake. God indeed hath declared himſelf, as the Doctor ſaith particularly jealous of his Honour in this Commandment, that he will not give his Glory to another, but hath reſerved all Divine Worſhip as peculiar to himſelf; but where hath he declared that we may not • eſtifie the giving Him Divine Worſhip by kiſſing his Image, or the Books of the H. Goſpels, or other things relating to Him? The Object of Jealouſie is a Rival, or what hath relation to, or union with him; not what may ſerve to expreſs Affection and Reſpect to the Perſon who ought to be loved: And therefore a Jealous Husband will neither permit his Wife to admit his Rival into her Company, nor his Picture into her Cloſet; yet never thinks her an Adultereſs for carrying his own in her • oſom. The Images which the Precept ſuppoſeth, were as Mr. Thorndike ſaith, the Repreſentations of other Gods, which his people were wont to commit Idolatry with. And the Doctor, though in the Reply I challeng'd him to do it, neither hath nor can produce any Prohibition of giving to the Images of Chriſt and his Saints a relative Reſpect o • Worſhip for his ſake. And in caſe he could, yet that I hope would prove it no more to be Idolatry in a Chriſtian to kiſs, for example, the Image of Chriſt crucified, than it would be Adultery in a Wife out of reſpect to her Husband, (though he ſhould forbid it) to kiſs his Picture. Diſobedience there might be in either caſe, but Idolatry or Adultery in neither.

§. 2. Having prepared his Reader with ſo juſt a Compariſon, and told him by the by, of the diſtinction of Abſolutely and Relatively being very ſubtilly applied in Scotland to ſaying the Lords Prayer to a Saint, which in reality needed no ſuch diſtinction, as ſignifying no more, than ſaying the Pater Noster to God, with an intention directed to ſuch or ſuch a Saint, to deſire him to become Joynt-Petitioner with us for what we beg in it; He wonders, in the next place, (p. 101.) very much we stick at any kind of Worſhip to be done to Images. For his part, were he of our mind, he ſhould as little ſcruple offering up the Hoſt to an Image, as ſaying his prayers to it, and he doubts not to come off with the ſame diſtinctions. For if I do it, ſaith he, to God abſolutely and for himſelf, and to the Image onely improperly and relatively, wherein am I to blame? This is his Diſcourſe, and the Reader may obſerve in it, 1. That he hath not read, or at leaſt takes no notice, that the anſwer in the ordinary Catholick Catechiſm, to the Queſtion, Whether we may pray to Images? is a down-right No, by no means: and that the Council of Trent Seſſ. 25. hath declared that we are not to ask any thing of an Image. Let the Reader judge whether this were ignorance or no. 2. That he cannot contain himſelf any where within bounds of Mediocrity, but muſt always run into extreams, which ſide ſoever he take. He cannot be a Church-of-England-man, but with the Presbyterians he muſt deny Epiſcopacy to be of Divine Right, and any honour to be due to the Euchariſt or Altar, &c. Neither will he be a Papiſt without offering up the Hoſt and ſaying his prayers to an Image. So that if He become a Proſelyte, He cannot content Himſelf with the Common Idolatry of the Papiſts, in kiſſing or putting off their Hats to the Images of Chriſt, but will needs make Himſelf twice a greater Idolater than they are. How much He would be to blame in ſo doing, He will better underſtand when He is become a Proſelyte. In the mean time it may ſuffice Him to know, that the Church of God hath no ſuch cuſtom: for however the material action of Sacrifice may be done for ſeveral ends and intentions; yet when it proceeds from an intention to profeſs a total ſubmiſſion of our ſelves to God, as the Supream Author of Life and Death, (which gives it the formality of a Sacrifice) it is uſed and taken by the publick Uſe and Cuſtom of the Church, for an acknowledgement of the abſolute Worſhip due to God, and not of Relative to an Image: and that more eſpecially in offering up the Hoſt, that is, the Body and Blood of Chriſt, the true Chriſtian Sacrifice, the Nature and Dignity whereof requireth that it be offered to God alone. As for the Rule of St. Baſil, S. Baſ. li. de Spiritu ſancto. cap. 18. upon which he would ground his Practiſe (and which I quoted very ſincerely, though he craftily inſinuate the contrary to the Reader) viz. That the Worſhip of the Image is carried to the Prototype; Mr. Thorndike hath told him very well, that what Signs of Honour or Ceremonies the Publick Worſhip of God may require, the Church is at freedom to determin; and ſo onely ſuch expreſſions of Honour are to be given to Images as the Church allows. What therefore I ſhould adviſe him, were I worthy, and would he be of our mind, ſhould be to lay aſide what the Apoſtle calls languiſhing about Queſtions and ſtrife of Words, 1 Tim. vi. 4. and (as a Modern Author phraſes it) to uſe Eccleſiaſtical good manners to the H. Images of Christ and his Saints, and ſay his prayer • and offer Sacrifice (as other Catholicks do) to God alone. • t is Duty and Diſcretion in things we cannot underſtand, to follow the Apoſtle's Rule, Sapere ad ſobrietatem, to be wiſe unto ſobriety. But it is no leſs than inſolency and madneſs, and that in the higheſt degree, S. Aug. Ep. 118. ſaith St. Auſtin, to diſpute whether that be to be done or no, which is practiſed by the whole Church through the World, as this Cuſtom of giving an Honourary Reſpect to the Images of Chriſt and his Saints, hath been confeſſedly for many hundreds of years.

§. 3. But before the Doctor can or will become a perfect Proſelyte of the Church of Rome, he deſires ſeriouſly (it ſeems he was but (as I gueſs'd) in a fit of Drolling before) to know of me, whether any Worſhip doth at all belong to the Image, or no? Becauſe, ſaith he, if there be any Worſhip due (as the Council of Trent ſaith there is) to the Image, either it is the ſame that is given to the Prototype, or diſtinct from it. If it be the ſame, then proper Divine Worſhip is given to the Image: If diſtinct, then the Image is worſhipped with Divine Worſhip for it ſelf, and not relatively, as I would have it. And was it not ſubtilly done to tell us, that if the Worſhip given to an Image be diſtinct from that which is given to the Prototype, (God) then the Image is worſhipped with Divine Worſhip for it ſelf? The words had been more expreſs, but the ſenſe had been the ſame, had he ſaid: If an Image be not worſhipped with Divine Worſhip, then it is worſhipped with Divine Worſhip: for the Worſhip due to God, is Divine Worſhip, and that which is diſtinct from it, is not Divine Worſhip. So hard a thing it is for one, who intends miſchief, to meddle with ſuch edge-tools as School-diſtinctions are, and not cut his own fingers. And this is 〈◊〉 firſt time my Adverſary hath done ſo. However he will not lay them down yet 〈◊〉 if it be the former. i. e. the 〈◊〉 Worſhip that, ſaith he, is condemned of Idolatry by Bellarmine, becauſe the Creature is equally worſhipped with God: and if the latter, i.e. diſtinct, P. 102, 103. this is oppugned by Vaſquez (a man of great Reputation too, and of as ſ • arching a Wit as Bellarmine) as a certain kind of Superſtition or Idolatry, becauſe Man expreſſeth ſubmiſſion to an Inanimate Thing. From whence he concludes that it is in mens choice what ſort of Idolatry they will commit who worſhip Images, but in neither way can they avoid it. And here it is he thinks he hath pinch'd us ſore, and yet will not give us leave to cry out upon himſelf and his Partizans for their inſincere and ſophiſtical mixing the Diſputes and Niceties of the Schools with the Doctrine of the Church. But how little the Faith and Practiſe of the Church is concerned in them, I ſhall let the Reader ſee by a Parallel example in a paſſage relating to Civil Worſhip. A Gentleman at Court paſſing through the Guard-Chamber, ſaw a Countrey-man there engaged in a Diſpute with three or four of the Yeomen. The Clown, it ſeems, would have gone into the Preſence cover'd. They pull'd him back, and told him when he went into that Room, he muſt pull off his Ha • . He asked them very pertly, To whom, or to what, for he ſaw nothing but a Chair and a Canopy? They told him, It was the Kings Chair of State, and he muſt do it to the Chair out of reſpect to the King. The Countreyman here (perhaps he had read Dr. St.'s Argument, or heard him preach it, for ſuch kind of preaching hath been the ground of that part of Quakeriſm) began with a ſerious countenance to demand of them, whether any Worſhip at all were due to the Chair or no? For his part, he was a Loyal Subject of His Majeſties, and had really a ſcruple in the caſe. For if any Worſhip were due to it, it was either the ſame which is given to the King, or diſtinct from it. If the ſame, then proper Regal Worſhip would be given to ſomething beſide the King, which were Treaſon to do. If diſtinct, then the Chair would be worſhipped with Regal Honour for it ſelf, and not relatively, which were for a man to ſubmit himſelf to a piece of Wood: And he had ſo much eſteem for his Manhood, that he would not debaſe it ſo far, for all their Halbards. Here the Yeomen of the Guard bid him leave his quibbling, and do his duty; which he refuſing to do, unleſs they would ſatisfie his ſcruple, they took him by the ſhoulders and thruſt him out of doors. The paſſage no doubt was pleaſant, but withal ſo parallel to the Doctors proceeding in this matter, that I cannot but ſeriouſly deſire to know of him, whether he judge it a ſufficient excuſe for the Clown not to put off his Hat, becauſe he did not, or would not underſtand what kind of Worſhip was due to the Chair. Or, (to put the example in a thing relating to the Worſhip of God, of which I ſhall ſpeak more in the next Chapter) whether Moſes and Joſue might have refuſed to have put off their Shoes in reverence to the Ground where they ſtood, till they had firſt been ſatisfied, whether it were the ſame Worſhip they gave to God, or diſtinct from it? That they did lawfully teſtifie their Reverence towards the Ground, is affirmed by himſelf, p. 105. and if they were not retarded from doing it by the Doctors Dil • mma, no more ought Chriſtians from teſtifying their Reverence to the Images of Chriſt and his Saints. Let Plato and Ariſtotle with their followers wrangle as much as they will about the manner how we come to ſee; the former contending that it cannot be done by the Object's uniting it ſelf with the Eye; the latter aſſerting as ſtrongly, that it cannot be done by the Eye's ſending forth Rays to the Object: Muſt we therefore ſtand ſtill with our Eyes ſhut, till it be agreed between them by which of the two ways we are to ſee? At this rate we muſt neither ſee, nor hear, nor feel, nor move, till it be accorded between Philoſophers how theſe Operations are performed, which will be never. Let the Schoolmen then diſpute as much as they pleaſe about the manner how Honour is given to an Image, yet honeſt Nature will teach us to do it for his ſake who is repreſented by it, with as much ſecurity, and as little danger of erring, as any of the aforeſaid Operations. What the Councils declare in this matter (and to them it is the Doctor himſelf confeſſes p. 209. that we must appeal for the Churches ſenſe) is that we are not to give Latria, the Worſhip due onely to God, but a honourary Reſpect or Adoration to Holy Images, as to the Books of Holy Scriptures and other things belonging to God.

§. 4. This is what the Church requireth of her Children to believe, and this is all that a Catholick Controvertist is bound to ſpeak to. Nor do the Arguments the Doctor brings in reality deſerve to be anſwered otherwiſe than Zeno's Arguments againſt Motion were anſwered by Diogenes. For Zeno proves every jot as ſubtilly that a man cannot move an inch without breaking his neck, as the Doctor doth that we cannot honour the Image of Chriſt without falling into Idolatry. Nevertheleſs I ſhall yield ſo far to the Doctors importunity, (becauſe he pretends to be ſerious) as to return an Anſwer to his Captious Demand, Whether the Worſhip given to the Image be the ſame that is given to the Prototype, or diſtinct from it? And I am the rather induced to do it, in St. Thomas his way, who bolds that the ſame Reverence is given to Chriſt and to his Image: becauſe I find my Adverſary himſelf (in caſe any Honour or Veneration be due to the Image, as the Council affirms there is) p. 79. very well inclin'd to allow of St. Thomas his Reaſon for it, becauſe, as the ſaid St. Thomas well obſerves (ſaith Dr. St.) the motion of the Soul towards an Image, as it is an Image, is the ſame with that which is towards the thing repreſented by it. When therefore he objects, that if it be the ſame, then proper Divine Worſhip is given to the Image, I deny the Conſequence, becauſe although it be the ſame as to the ſubſtance of the Act, yet it falls upon the Image after an inferiour manner, as a thing relating to God, and purely for his ſake. Hence it is, that St. Thomas his followers diſtinguiſh in the ſame Act of Worſhip a double notion; the One of Abſolute Latria, as it tends to God Himſelf; the other of Relative Latria, as it reflects upon the Image for his ſake. Now to help the Fancy in ſo nice a Speculation, ſome inſtances are uſed of other Acts which tend to different Terms or Objects relating to one another; which though not in all things parallel, yet ſerve to ſhow how the ſame indiviſible Act may include different habitudes or reſpects, the one inferiour to the other. Is it not an Act of Chriſtian Charity to help our Neighbours Horſe or his Aſs out of a ditch, and yet if we conſider the Act as preciſely tending to relieve the Horſe, it is not Charity, but an inferiour kind of love, (if we may ſo call it) or rather compaſſion of the Beaſt? And do not the Saints in Heaven ſee God and the Creatures by the ſame Act of Beatifical Viſion, and yet the Act as conſidered preciſely in order to the Creatures, is not Beatifical, but of an inferiour kind to it ſelf, as terminated upon the Eſſence of God? In like manner ſay theſe Divines, although the Act or motion of the Soul be the ſame to the Prototype and the Image; and as terminated upon the Prototype, it be Abſolute Latria; yet as it falls preciſely upon the Image, it is not ſo, but a Relative or inferiour Veneration for the Prototype's ſake. As for what he urges out of Bellarmin againſt its being the ſame becauſe it is, Bellarm. de Imagli. 2. c. 24. ſaith the Doctor, of the nature of Latria (Bellarmin ſaith true Latria) to be given for it ſelf. It is evident Bellarmin takes the word Latria to ſignifie onely that Worſhip which is given to Soveraign Excellency for it ſelf; whereas Saint Thomas and his Followers qualifie it with the addition of Relative, which is of a diminiſhing nature, to ſignifie that the Worſhip is given to the Image by the ſame Act, but after an inferiour manner for the Prototype's ſake. So that the whole diſpute in effect is rather de modo l • quendi, of the manner of ſpeaking, than of the thing it ſelf. For Bellarmin himſelf in the precedent Chapter maintaineth expreſly,Cap. 23. that the Image may be worſhipped with the ſame Worſhip as the Prototype; For, ſaith he, he that adoreth a Perſon, adoreth alſo all ſuch things as are united to him; as he that adoreth the King in his Garment, adoreth together with him his Garment alſo. And where as the Image is conceived at the ſame time as united with the Prototype which is adored, it followeth that the Image it ſelf is adored but per accidens, ſaith he, becauſe it is neither the perſon adored, nor the reaſon of adoring, but a thing conjoyned to the Perſon who is adored.

Thus much to the Doctors Queſtion in a Point belonging to the Schools, and not at all to Faith; for although neither St. Thomas, not Bellarmin, nor Vaſquez, nor any other Schoolman, had ever diſputed, Whether Worſhip be given to the Image by the ſame Act by which it is given to the Prototype, or a diſtinct one, yet Chriſtians would have underſtood well enough by the Churche's declaration, that they are not to give the Worſhip due only to God, to an Image, but onely a Honourary Reſpect or Veneration for his ſake, as to other Holy things. Whether the Doctor will be ſatisfied with what I have ſaid to one ſide of his Dilemma, I cannot tell; but I ſhall give him occaſion in the next Chapter, if he pleaſe, to ſpeak to both; at leaſt I expect he ſhould uſe the ſame candor with me, that I have done with him, to let me know which Side he will take, for one he muſt.

CHAP. XI.

Of the Inſtances brought to explicate the nature of the Honour given to Images; from the like Reverence given to the Chair of State▪ to the Ground, to the Ark, to the Name of JESUS, &c. The weakneſs of the Doctors Evaſions laid open, and his own Arguments return'd upon him.

AFter I had in my Reply declar'd what kind of Honour it is which Catholicks give to the Images of Chriſt and his Saints, I added, as a farther Explication of it, that it was much like the Honour given to the Chair of State, or the Kings Picture, or his Garment; or to come nearer to the ſubject ſuch as was given to the Ground by Moſes and Joſue's putting off their Shoes; to Gods Footſtool, by the Jews adoring or falling down before it: and by Proteſtants themſelves to the Name of JESUS, to the Eucharist and the Altar. By theſe Inſtances, he ſays, I thought to eſcape; what I thought was, that I had explicated clearly enough by them the nature of the honour we give to Images: but how much he finds himſelf entangled in them, and how • ore they pinch him on every ſide, whilſt they force him to ſay and unſay; to ſhuffle, and ſhift, and make uſe of all his little Artifices, to free himſelf, but in vain, will appear from the Examination of the ſeveral Evaſions, rather than Anſwers, he gives to them.

§. 1. For the honour given to the Chair of State, (and we may ſuppoſe he means the ſame of the Kings Picture and Garment) he ſays, that our diſpute is not concerning Civil Worſhip, but Divine. And here, in the firſt place, he impoſes upon his Reader, for the Diſpute between Catholicks and Proteſtants, is not whether Divine Worſhip may be given to Images, for that they acknowledge to be due to God alone; but whether they may not give an inferiour or honourary reſpect and veneration to them for his ſake? This I ſaid was much like the honour given to the Chair of State; that is, as we honour the Chair for the Kings ſake, and yet do not give the ſame Regal honour to the Chair, as to the King; ſo in like manner we honour Chriſts Picture or Image, and yet give not the ſame Divine honour to the Image as to Himſelf, but an inferiour Reſpect and Reverence, as hath been above declared. The Compariſon then you ſee is onely about the way or manner of giving Honour, which may be the ſame to God and the King, although the Honour ſo given be very different; and therefore for the Doctor to tell his Reader, that the inſtance was in a matter of Civil Worſhip, is juſt, as if when St. Austin to perſwade his friend Honoratus to believe the Myſteries of Religion without ſeeing them,Li. de utilit. Cred. becauſe he did the like in many things in order to this preſent Li • e, he ſhould have anſwered him, that he miſtook the caſe, for their diſpute was • not about Humane Faith; which is one of thoſe Anſwers the Adag • terms 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , nothing to the purpoſe. But though he ſay our diſpute is not concerning Civil Worſhip, yet 'tis obſervable, he does not tell us clearly, whether he hold it lawful to give any ſuch Worſhip to the Chair or no. If he do not, I grant he proceeds conformable to his own Principles againſt the Worſhip of Images, and ſo leave him to diſpute it with the Guard. If he do, the Countrey-man (of whom I ſpake in the precedent Chapter) ſets upon him with his own Argument; that either the honour he gives to the Chair, is the ſame with that which he gives to the King, or diſtinct from it. If it be the ſame, then proper Regal Worſhip is given to the Chair. If diſtinct, then the Chair is worſhipped with Regal Worſhip for it ſelf, &c. and it is in his choice to take which part of the Dilemma likes him beſt. But to preſs the Inſtance yet cloſer: If he, do acknowledge that Civil Honour is given to the Chair of State, let him give a ſufficient Reaſon, why a like proportionable Reverence (call it by what Name you will) may not be given to the Image of Chriſt. This will be to ſpeak to the purpoſe, but that was not his intention, and therefore he flies for refuge to a frivolous ſuppoſition, that I would not ſay that were any honour to the King, in caſe he had abſolutely forbidden it, as we have proved, ſaith he, God hath done in the caſe of Images. As for that pretty ſelf-denying Ordinance of a Prince's forbidding any Reverence to be given to his Picture or Chair of State, (which perhaps the Doctor thinks very ſit ſhould be enacted in conformity to what God (he ſaith) hath forbidden in the ſecond Commandment) were it, I ſay, enacted, I grant as formerly that to diſobey it would be to diſhonour the King, as the diſobeying any other Law would be; but that hinders not but the Act intrinſecally and of its own nature would be an Act of Reverence to the King; for, H • nor, as the Phiſopher ſaith, eſt in honorante, Honour reſides in the mind that gives it. And for any Command of God forbidding to honour the Images of Chriſt and his Saints, beſides that I have ſhown that Aſſertion of his and his Partizans, to be in every reſpect groundleſs▪ yet for the ſatisfaction of the true Protestant Reader, I ſhall adde one Obſervation more upon that ſubject: and it is this, that the Compilers of the 39 Articles (in which is contained the Doctrine of the Church of England) ſufficiently inſinuate they could find no ſuch Command, when they rejected the Adoration of Images, Art. 22. not as Idolatry (as the Doctor doth) but onely as a fond thing, vainly invented; nor as repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, (as they profeſs very roundly, though without ground, when they come to ſpeak of Tranſubſtantiation) but as being rather repugnant to the Word of God, Art. 28. which qualification of theirs plainly gives us to underſtand, that they had done their endeavours to find a Command, but could meet with none; for had they made any ſuch diſcovery either in the Second Commandment, or elſewhere in the Word of God, they would not have ſpared to tell us of it, and have cry'd it down for flat Idolatry, as the Doctor does. In the mean time it is pleaſant to ſee, what Veneration this Champion of the Church of England hath either for the Compilers of thoſe Articles, or for the Articles themſelves, when what they call onely a fond thing, a vain Invention; he condemns as Idolatry, moſt damnable Idolatry: and Magiſ • erially declares it to be expreſly prohibited in the ſecond Commandment; when they after the beſt enquiry they could make, pronounce onely Problematically that in their Judgment, they thought it to be rather repugnant to the Word of God, than conformable to it. So much does a Pigmy upon a Giant's Shoulders (the modeſt Emblem of Novel Wits) ſee farther than the Giant himſelf, upon whoſe Neck he preſumptuouſly ſets his feet.

§. 2. The ſecond Inſtance was of the Reverence which God commanded Moſes and Joſue to give to the Ground whereon they ſtood, by putting off their ſhoes, becauſe it was Holy. After a ſhort deſcant upon the former erroneous Ground, viz. that he thinks there is ſome little difference between what God hath commanded, and what he hath forbidden, p. 105. After this ſhort deſcant, I ſay, and one Note in it above Ela, that there is as plain a Prohibition againſt giving honour to the Image of Chriſt, as in the caſe of Moſes and Jeſue there was an expreſs Command to do it to the Ground. (Alas for the Compilers of the 39 Articles, that they could not ſee it!) At length he gives Glory to God, and tells us, that the ſpecial preſence & appearance of God doth ſanctifie a place to ſo high a degree, that we may lawfully teſtifie our Reverence towards it. Who will not here admire the force of Truth, which after long ſtanding out, makes all her Adverſaries ſubmit to her power? What could the Doctor have ſaid ſo much to the ruine of his own Cauſe, and the establiſhing of ours, as to confeſs that Moſes and Joſue might and did lawfully teſtifie their Reverence towards the Ground? I can eaſily believe his Paſſion blinded him ſo far, that he did not foreſee the Darts he threw ſo ſpitefully againſt the Images of Chriſt, would recoil (as they do) with double force upon his own head. For a ſubtil Logician like himſelf, would ask him here, whether this Reverence he ſpeaks of, were Abſolute or Relative, that is, were teſtified to the Ground for it ſelf, or meerly for God's ſake who appeared there preſent? His Anſwer, I doubt not, would be, that it was not to the Ground for it ſelf, but meerly out of reſpect to God. And what would his Oppoſer do here, but firſt turn his own Compariſon upon him, p. 100. that this was juſt as if an unchaſte Wife ſhould plead in her excuſe to her Husband, that the Perſon ſhe was too kind with, was a near Friend of his, and that it was out of reſpect to him, ſhe gave him the honour of his Bed? And then make a grave application upon it, as the Doctor does, That if ſuch an excuſe will not be taken by a Jealous Husband, how much leſs will ſuch like pretences avail with that God who hath declared himſelf particularly jealous of his honour, and that he will not give his Glory to another, but hath reſerved all Divine Worſhip as proper to himſelf, and no ſuch fond excuſes of relative and inferiour Worſhip will ſerve, when they encroach upon his Pregrogative? Neither would this ſubtil Diſputant be content to ſtop here, but would farther adde, that for his part he could ſee no reaſon, why had he been in Moſes and Joſue's place, but he might with as little ſcruple have offered ſacrifice to the Ground, as put off his ſhoes to it. And he ſhould think himſelf hardly dealt with, if he did not come off with the ſame diſtinction. For if he did it to God abſolutely, and for himſelf, and to the Ground onely improperly and relatively, wherein were he to blame, in the Doctors Principles? Let him deal as he pleaſes with this Perſonated Soſta.

For my own part, (to purſue his Method of arguing a little farther, that the Reader may ſee whether it leads) I deſire ſeriouſly to know of him whether any Reverence was due to the Ground or no? P. 102. If none at all, to what end did they put off their ſhoes, which if the Ground (as he ſaith of Images) had any ſenſe in it, would think was done to it? Why was there an expreſs Command to require it? And why doth the Doctor himſelf determine that they might lawfully teſtifie their Reverence towards the Ground becauſe it was ſanctified or Holy, if none were due? If there were any due, whether it were the ſame which was given to God, or diſtinct from it? If it were the ſame, then proper Divine Worſhip was given to the Ground; if distinct, then the Ground was worſhipped with Divine Worſhip for it ſelf, and not relatively. Again, either it was Divine Worſhip, or an Inferiour Worſhip diſtinct from it. If it were Divine Worſhip, then the Argument he urges out of Bellarmin, (p. 103.) returns upon him, that it is the nature of Divine Worſhip to be given for it ſelf; and therefore if it were given to the Ground, the Creature was equally worſhipped with God, which certainly was Idolatry. If it were not Divine, but an Inferiour Worſhip, diſtinct from that which is given to God, then Vaſquez, (a man of great Reputation too, and of as ſearching a Wit as Bellarmin) comes upon him, that he that ſo gives it, incurs the crime of Idolatry, becauſe he expreſſeth his ſubmiſſion to a meer inaninate thing, that hath no kind of excellency to deſerve if from him. So that upon the whole, what follows in Doctor St.'s Logick is, that it was in Moſes and Joſue's choice what ſort of Idolatry they would commit, when they testified their Reverence to the Ground, but in neither way could they avoid it. I cannot expect he will ſet much by the Authority of Bellarmin and Vaſquez; but what I expect and in juſtice may exact from him, is, that he will anſwer their Reaſons, at leaſt one of them, if he embrace the other; or elſe give a ſufficient reaſon himſelf why this manner of arguing is abſurd againſt the Reverence he confeſſes due to the Ground, and not againſt the Reverence we aſſert to be due to Holy Images. If he fly to the old ſhift, of an expreſs Command for the one, and a pretended Prohibition for the other, no relief is to be had from thence; for beſides his giving Gods ſpecial preſence here as a ſecond and diſtinct reaſon why they might lawfully teſtifie their Reverence towards the Ground, whether there were any Command or no; yet taking in the Command, the Argument hath ſtill the ſame force as before. For either the Reverence they were commanded to teſtifie towards the Ground, becauſe it was Holy, was the ſame which they gave to God, or diſtinct from it. If the ſame, then proper Divine Worſhip was given to the Ground by Gods Command; If diſtinct, then the Ground was worſhipped with Divine Worſhip for it ſelf. Both Idolatry in their own nature according to his Principles: And conſequently it is now in his choice, whether he will blame Moſes and Joſue for committing, or God for commanding them to commit Idolatry. If it were Idolatry in the nature of the thing to put off their ſhoes in reverence to the Ground, God's Command could not make it to be otherwiſe. And if it were not Idolatry in it ſelf, neither is it to give a like honour to the Image of Chriſt. From whence it follows to the utter ruine of all he hath argued from his pretended Prohibition, that as no Command of God can make that to be not Idolatry, which is ſo in the nature of the thing; ſo no Prohibition (if there were any) could make that to be Idolatry, which hath not in it the true and real nature of Idolatry. Here the Ax is laid to the Root, and if ever the Doctor will ſpeak home to the purpoſe, it muſt be upon this point. He muſt ſpeak to the nature of the thing, and not ſtand pointing at the Sky, as Polus did, to perſwade the World he ſees a ſiery Dragon, and that all are blind who ſee it not, when there is nothing but pure Air. What he faintly ſuggeſts at preſent, as ſome little difference between the caſe of giving reverence to the Ground, and that of giving the like to Images, viz. that God was preſent in the place by a ſpecial appearance, but is not ſo in Images, is (to uſe his own Compariſon, that he may ſee how ſit it was to the matter he applied it) juſt as if an unchaſte Wife ſhould plead in her excuſe to her Husband for giving a Friend of his the honour of his Bed, that ſhe did it not when he was abſent, but to testifie her greater reſpect to him, at a time when he was particularly preſent: and can any one think but that ſuch an excuſe as this would be taken by a Jealous Husband? He adds for a farther difference, that the Reverence then requir'd, was not kiſſing the Ground, or bowing to it, much leſs praying to it, but onely putting off their ſhoes. And I wonder what Edition of the Council of Trent he makes uſe of, to ground this calumny of praying to Images, ſo often repeated by him; for in all thoſe printed in Catholick Countries, we are told we are not to ask any thing of them: and I wonder no leſs by what Rule he makes putting off the ſhoes to be a ſign of leſs reverence, than kiſſing the Ground, or bowing to it. The Rubrick of the Miſſal preſcribes it to be done but once a year by the Prieſt upon Good Friday to teſtifie a greater Reverence to the Image of our Crucified Lord. But I ſhall not diſpute it with him, onely I perſwade my ſelf, that if the Common-Prayer-Book ſhould ordain the Miniſter when he goes up to the Communion-Table either to put off his ſhoes, or to bow to it, he would ſcruple much more to go barefoot, than to nod to it with his Shoes on.

Two other pretences of difference he brings not unlike the former; The firſt, that in kiſing the Ground, or bowing to it, if theſe things had been done to the Ground, the danger had not been ſo great as to Images. The other, that the Reverence of Holy Places and Things, is of a quite different nature from the Worſhip of Images. For the firſt of danger, he may leave that (as Mr. Thorndike hath told him) to the Judgment of the Church. And for the ſecond, Holy Places and Things may have ſeveral Relations to God, according to the different uſes for which they ſerve in order to his Worſhip; and yet the Reverence given them may be proportionably alike, that is, an inferiour Reſpect and Veneration, and not Latria, which is due to God alone. But how different ſoever he would make it from that of Images, he muſt not think to eſcape; For if any be due at all to Holy Places and Things, I ſuppoſe it is given them for God's ſake, and then all his own Arguments return upon him afreſh; for either it is the ſame which is given to God, or diſtinct from it; and which way ſoever he take, Bellarmin or Vaſquez will be upon him. Or none at all is due to them, and then he mocks his Reader, when he tells him, that the Reverence of Holy Places and Things, is of a quite different nature from the Worſhip of Images. And this is indeed what lies at the bottom, how ſpeciouſly ſoever he pretend the contrary here in words, as will manifeſtly appear from his Anſwers to the following Inſtances. For firſt,

§. 3. To that of the Reverence given by the Jews to the Ark and the Holy of Holies, where the Cherubins and Propitiatory were, he plainly enough denies that any was given them. To prove there was, I produced firſt that Text of the Pſalm, Adore ye the foot-ſtool of God, for it it is holy, Pſal. xcviii. 5. (as all the Ancient Fathers read it without ſcruple) or as their own Tranſlation hath it, Fall down before his Foot-ſtool, for He (the Margin hath it It) is holy. And ſecondly, the Teſtimony of St. Hierom, who ſaith expreſly (Ep. 17. ad Marcel.) Venerabantur olim, that the Jews in times paſt did worſhip or reverence the Holy of Holies, becauſe there were the Cherubins, the Propitiatory, the Ark, &c. To neither of theſe doth he vouchſafe any Anſwer at all, but with an Ipſe dixit, tells us, p. 106. that the Jews onely directed their Worſhip towards that place where God had promiſed to be ſignally preſent among them; and ſignifies no more to the Worſhip of Images, than our lifting up our Eyes to Heaven doth, when we pray. Thus He, Oracularly, without either Scripture, or Father, or Reaſon to abet him. But if Moſes and Joſue might lawfully teſtifie their Reverence to the Ground, becauſe it was holy, why might not the Jews do as much to the Foot-ſtool of God, becauſe that alſo was holy? Why was it placed in the Holy of Holies, and why were the People commanded to adore, or bow down before it, but to testifie their Reverence to it, and that a much greater, in the Doctors opinion, than putting off their ſhoes, for they were to adore it, or fall down before it: and all this, I hope, ſignifies ſomething more to the Worſhip of Images than the lifting up our Eyes to Heaven doth, when we pray; which might have been as well, if not better, without all this Ceremony, in an open field.

For the Cherubins, he tells, That they were always hid from the ſight of the People; as if nothing could have Reverence given it, but what is ſeen: It may reaſonably be preſumed, that himſelf will charge us with Idolatry for adoring the Hoſt, not onely when we ſee it upon the Altar, but when it is recluded in a Tabernacle, or covered with a Veil. Nor doth he mend the matter when he ſays, That the High Prieſt himſelf went into the Holy of Holies but once a year; for if at that time it were lawful for him to teſtifie Reverence to the Throne of God there placed, it is as much as we deſire; and if unlawful, it was more than he ought to have done, though but once a year; for as St. Hierom ſaith,Li. adverſ-Vigilant. Quod ſemel feciſſe bonum eſt, non poteſt malum eſſe, ſi frequenter fiat; aut ſi aliqua culpa vitanda eſt, non ex eo quod ſaepe, ſed ex eo quod • it aliquando, culpabile eſt. What he adds of the Cherubins being placed meerly as Appendices to the Throne of God, was a means rather to increaſe than diminiſh the people's reverence to them; and for their form, there needed no more be known than what Calvin (in Exod. xxv. 18.) affirmeth of them, That they repreſented Angels.

§. 4. To bowing at the Name of JESUS. This Ceremony was appointed and allowed by the Injunctions made in the time of Queen Elizabeth, Art. 52. and was defended by Dr. Whitgift in his Defence againſt Cartright, Tr. 21. ch. 7. Ag. Rhem. Teſt. Phil. ii. 10. by Dr. Fulk, Dr. Andrews, (whoſe words are cited below) and others; and is at this day publickly practiſed in the Church of England, and that in Dr. St.'s own ſight, by ſuch as eſteem themſelves the onely true and genuine Sons of that Church. This Inſtance I thought to be very pertinent, becauſe firſt it is allowed by Protestants, and ſo more eaſily underſtood; and ſecondly becauſe of the Analogy there is between Words and Pictures, a Picture being a Word to the Eye, and a Word (as Ariſtotle calls it) a Picture to the Ear. Peri Herm. c. 1. Another reaſon I had alſo, becauſe the Doctor being inoculated into the Church of England, or, (to ſpeak his Dialect) a Revolted Presbyterian, I thought he would not dare to diſavow all reverence to the Sacred Name of JESUS. But I find I was deceived; for he tells me plainly, I might as well have inſtanced in going to Church at the Toll of a Bell, as in bowing at the Name of Jeſus; for as the one only tells us the time when, ſo the other only puts us in mind of the Perſon whom we are to worſhip. This is plain enough, I confeſs (if it be as mannerly) to tell us that no more Reverence is due to the moſt H. Name of JESUS, when we hear it ſpoken, than to a Bell when we hear it toll. And the Compari • on is ſomewhat more elevated, than if he had made it with Whittington's fancying the Bells to call him back to be Lord Maior of London. But was this all that St. Paul meant, when he told us, That at the Name of Jeſus (or as Dr. St. himſelf reads it, p. 111. To the Name of Jeſus) every knee ſhall bow? Phil. ii. 10. Was it for this that God ſo highly exalted Him, that He gave Him a Name which is above every Name, that it might have as much Reverence given It, as we give to great Meg of Weſtminster? What would Biſhop Andrews have ſaid, had he lived to hear this? Verily (ſaith He in his Sermon upon the foregoing words of St. Paul) God will not have us worſhip him like Elephants, as if we had no Joynts in our Knees. He will have more honour of men, than of the Pillars of the Church. He will have us to bow our Knees, and let us bow them in God's Name, and To his Name. For this is another Prerogative. He is exalted to whoſe Perſon Knees do bow; but He to whoſe Name onely much more. But the cauſe is here otherwiſe. For his Perſon is taken up out of our ſight; all we can do, will not reach unto it. But his Name he hath left behind to us, that we may ſhew by our Reverence and Reſpect to it, how much we eſteem him; How true the Pſalm ſhall be, Holy and Reverend is his Name. But if we have much ado to get it bow at all; much more ſhall we have to get it done to his Name. There be that do it not; what ſpeak I of not doing it? There be that not onely forbear to do it themſelves, but put themſelves to an evil Occupation, to find faults where none is, and caſt ſcruples into mens minds, by no means to do it—And again a little after. But to keep us to the Name. This is ſure; the words themſelves (of St. Paul) are ſo plain, as they are able to convince any mans Conſcience. And there is no Writer (not of the Ancient) on this place that I can find, (ſave he that turned all into Allegories) but literally underſtands it, and likes well enough we ſhould actually perform it. Thus Dr. Andrews, (a very Learned Biſhop of his Church, as Dr. St. himſelf calls him, p. 101.) And can any legitimate Son of that Church hear him preach, that no more Reverence is due to the Name of JESUS, than to the tolling of a Bell, and yet cry him up hereafter for a Pillar of that Church (unleſs it be in the Biſhop's ſenſe above-mentioned) whoſe practiſe he expoſes as ridiculous, by ſo unhandſome a Compariſon? I remember at the beginning of the Long Parliament one of the firſt Wounds given to the Church of England was from a Book whoſe Title (as I read it poſted up in Weſtminster-Hall) was Jeſu-Worſhip Confuted; and whether the ſame might not have been put for a Marginal Note to this Anſwer of the Doctors, I leave to Judgment of the Reader. Give me leave to ſpeak a Word to you, Sons of the Church of England; what if the Doctor ſhould come upon you for reverencing the Name of JESUS with your Hat or Knee, as he doth upon us for honouring in like manner his Image, viz. p. 102. that the Reverence you give to that Holy Name, is either the ſame you give to God or diſtinct from it. If it be the ſame, then you give proper divine worſhip to the Name; and if it be diſtinct, then the Name is worſhipped with divine worſhip for it ſelf; and it is in your choice what ſort of Idolatry you will commit who worſhip the Name of JESUS, but neither way can you avoid it? If you tell him that the Reverence you give that H. Name is not the worſhip due to God, but a Relative and inferiour reſpect for his ſake; he will tell you again, as he did me in the caſe of Images, p. 100. that this is juſt as if an unchaſt Wife ſhould plead in her excuſe to her Husband, that the Perſon ſhe was too kind with, was extreamly like him, and a dear friend of his, nay had his very name, and that it was out of reſpect to him, that ſhe gave him the honour of his Bed. I do not hear that he hath preſs'd this argument upon you; and if he do not, I cannot but wonder, his zeal for God's honour ſuffers you ſo long to go on in your Idolatrous practiſe; and much more, if he comply with you himſelf in ſhewing any reverence to that Name, for though like a wiſer Chriſtian (there being degrees among Chriſtians, as well as Heathens,) he differ extreamly from the Vulgar in his Opinion of Religion, yet this is to concur with them in the external practiſe of their Idolatry and ſo he falls under the ſame cenſure with his wiſer Heathens, p. 73. On the other ſide if he do it no • ,Serm. 9th. of the Reſurrect. Biſhop Andrews hath told him he hath juſt reaſon to fear, least the Knee that will not bow, be ſtrucken with ſomething, which ſhall make it not able to bow; and for the Name, that they that will do no honour to it, when time of need comes ſhall receive no honour by it. But to conclude this Point. If it be the ſenſe of the Sons of the Church of England, that they intend to give no more reverence to the moſt Holy Name of Jeſus, when they hear it read, than to a Bell, when they hear it toll, I confeſs I was miſtaken in alledging this Practiſe of theirs for an Inſtance. But if they acknowledge more is due to that ſacred Name, than to a Bell, and yet not ſo much as is due to God himſelf, I have the end for which I brought it, which was to let them ſee what kind of worſhip it is we give to the Images of Chriſt, ſuch as is given by themſelves to the Name of Jeſus. For we make Images no more the Objects of our worſhip, when we kneel before them, than they do that Holy Name, when they bow at it.

§ 5. The Fift Inſtance was of the Reverence given to the Sacramental ſigns in the Supper by kneeling before them; which if the Bread and Wine had any ſenſe in them (as he ſaith of Images, p. 102.) would think were done to them. And what ſaith my Adverſary to this, Marry, that this of all things ſhould not be objected to them. If you ask him why? He tells you, becauſe they have declared in their • ubrick after the Communion, that thereby no adoration is intended or ought to be done either unto the Sacramental Dread and Wine, there bodily received; or any corporal preſence of Chriſt's Natural Fleſh and Blood; for the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain ſtill in their very natural ſubstances, and therefore may not be adored. For that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Chriſtians. I confeſs I reflected up in this Rubrick, when I put down Kneeling at the Euc • ariſt for an Inſtance; but I could not imagin the Doctor would make it a matter of Triumph over the Church of England. It is not yet more than a dozen years, ſince this Rubrick was inſerted into the Communion Book, and the occaſion is well known to have been a deſign to gain ſcrupulous and diſſenting Parties to a conformity in ſo innocent a Ceremony. And becauſe the Church of England hath been ſo kind to thoſe who diſſented from her, as to declare no adoration is intended by it to the Bread and Wine, or any corporal preſence of Chriſt's Natural Fleſh and Blood; Will the Doctor be ſo unkind, as to make her ſay, that no Reverence at all is due to that Holy Sacrament? that this of all things in the World ought not to have been objected againſt them? What! will he make them fall below Calvin in their reſpect to that Sacrament, who ſaith, Juſt. lib. 4. c. 17. it is to be received with reverence, as the Pledge of our Holy Union with Chriſt? Is it not time now to remind him, as I promiſed above, p. 138. how his Beloved Conſtantinopolitan Fathers call it an Honourable Image of Chriſt's quickning Body? And thereupon invite all thoſe (and among them the Doctor, unleſs he will leave himſelf out, as he did theſe words) all thoſe I ſay to rejoyce and exult with confidence, who deſire, worſhip, and offer it for the Salvation both of Soul and Body? Though He ſtile me very ineptly a Revolted Proteſtant, yet I have ſo much reſpect for thoſe learned Perſons who made that Rubrick, as to think they meant by Adoration, what the word now ſignifieth by uſe in Engliſh, that is, Divine Worſhip proper to God alone: and not, that no more Reverence ſhould be uſed towards the Bread and Wine in the Church, than there is to the Remainder of it at home, by ſome ſeemingly-Revolted Presbyterians (I cannot believe them to be truly Sons of the Church of England.) Now what the ſenſe of that Church was, and ſtill is, unleſs the Doctor will have us ſuppoſe theſe Modern Divines to have prevaricated from their Fathers, Biſhop Jewel tells us in theſe words.Reply againſt Hard. p. 379. We only adore Chriſt ſaith he, as very God, but we Worſhip alſo, and Reverence the Sacrament, we Worſhip the Word of God, we worſhip all other like things in ſuch Religious wiſe to Chriſt belonging. The ſame is witneſſed by Biſhop Morton, Of the Maſs. l. 7. c. 2. S. 3. Under the degree of Divine Worſhip, we our ſelvs yield as much to the Euchariſt, as St. Auſtin did to Baptiſme, where he ſaid (Epiſt. 164.) We reverence Baptiſme whereſoever it is. Nor is this delivered by them as their private Opinion, but as the ſenſe of the Church of England, as appears by their words. And if you ask, how they can excuſe themſelves from Idolatry, you have the Anſwer of Biſhop Jewel; Reply. p. 409. that the Sacraments be adored, but the whole honour reſteth not in them, but is paſsed over from them to the things ſignified. So that it ſeems I was not much mi ••• ken, when, to paralel the Reverence given by Catholicks to Images, I inſtanced in that which is given by Proteſtants to the Sacramental ſigns by kneeling at the Euchariſt; for they do not only allow a like Reverence, but maintain it alſo with the ſame distinction: Nor will the Doctor ever be able to perſwade his Pariſhioners out of it, till he can make them leave their uſual Expreſſion, when they ſpeak of this Sacrament that they do not receive it as Bread, but as the Body of Chriſt.

§. 6. The 6th. and laſt Inſtance was of Reverence given to the Altar by bowing to it; a practiſe of great Antiquity, as Dr. Heylin ſhows in his defence of the Modern Practiſe of it in the Church of England againſt Burton, p. 25. This Dr. Still. ſaith, is of the ſame nature with the putting off our Hats, while we are in the Church; And what is this to ſay? Himſelf admits a Reverence to Holy Places, (p. 105.) and ſurely the Church, the Houſe of God is one of them. Here then we find him incline to admit a Reverence due to the Altar; and if it be of the ſame nature with putting off our Hats while we are in the Church, as he doth the one, ſo he may lawfully do the other. But then, as if he had granted too much, he preſently draws back, and tells us, This is only determining a natural act of Reverence, that way which the ancient Chriſtians did uſe to direct their Worſhip: (which as far as I can underſtand the words) is not of the ſame nature with putting off our Hats when we are in the Church, but with going to Church when the Bell tolls, which is to give no more Reverence to the Altar, than to the Bell. But who can unfold the Riddle, and tell me what he means by a natural Act of Reverence that way which the ancient Chriſtians did uſe to direct their Worſhip? If he mean by that way the local ſituation of the Altar in the Eaſt, which was the way the ancient Chriſtians uſed to direct their Worſhip, and that Nature teacheth us to direct our Worſhip that way; although the Altar (for example) in St. Andrew's, may ſerve for ſuch a determination, becauſe it is placed in the Eaſt; yet he muſt give another reaſon why thoſe in the Savoy bow towards the Altar, where it is ſeated in the North, becauſe it doth not there determin a Natural Act of Reverence that way, which the ancient Chriſtians uſed to direct their Worſhip, which was towards the Eaſt. But if he mean by that way, a like manner of Reverence to the Altar, as was uſed to be given by the Ancient Chriſtians, he will find in the aforecited place out of Dr. Heylin, that they acknowledged an honour and veneration due to the Holy Altar, and teſtified that honour by bowing and kneeling to it. In fine, whatever the meaning of the words be, to ſpeak to the practiſe it ſelf, either he condemns thoſe of the Churc • of England who profeſs and teſtify their reverence to the Altar by bowing to it for Idolatry, or no. If he do, they are at age to anſwer for themſelves. If he do not, an Inferiour or Relative honour may be given to it for his ſake whoſe Throne it is, under the degree of Divine Worſhip due to God alone; and as the allowing this will render him a true Son of the Church of England; ſo the allowing the like to the ſacred Images of Chriſt will make him in this point a perfect Proſelyte of the Church of Rome, whoſe Councils have decreed that we are not to give to the Images of Chriſt and his Saints Latria, or the worſhip due to God, but a honourary reſpect and veneration, as to the Books of H. Scripture, and other Holy things. But what himſelf may juſtly fear, ſhould ſucceſs crown his endeavours in putting ſcruples into poor ſimple Mens minds to with draw them from the Reverence they owe to the Sacraments of Chriſt, his Saints, his Name, his Image, his Altars, and ſuch like Holy things relating to his Worſhip, is, that the Event (whatever the deſign be) of his labours will be no other (as thoſe Pious and Learned Doctors of Rhemes long ſince obſerved, and we ſee at this Day in a great meaſure fulfilled) than to inure Men by degrees to loſe all honour and reſpect to Chriſt himſelf, to aboliſh all true Religion out of the World, and to make them plain Atheiſts. The Chair of State is not more an Ornament to the King's Palace, than the Reſpect given to it is a Fence againſt the Contempt of his Perſon. He that paſſes by that with his Hat on, thinks himſelf excus'd upon the ſame account from putting it off to the King himſelf.

The End of the Firſt Part.

THE SECOND PART OF THE ADORATION OF THE Moſt Bleſſed Sacrament.

CHAP. I.

The Practiſe of the Primitive Church in this Point; The Doctor's Argument to prove it to be Idolatry, built upon an Injurious Calumny, that Catholicks believe the Bread to be God. The ſenſe of his firſt Propoſition cleared, and the Proofs he brings for it, refuted.

§. 1. HAving cleared the Doctrin and Practiſe of the Catholick Church from my Adverſaries Unjuſt Charge of Idolatry in the Worſhip or Veneration ſhe gives to the Images of Chriſt, I come now to ſhow the Injuſtice of a like accuſation he brings in upon account of the Adoration ſhe gives to Christ himſelf in the most H. Sacrament of the Altar: A th •• g ſo univerſally practiced and recommended by the Fathers of the Primitive Church, both Greek and Latin, that who ſo will condemn the practiſe of it at this day in the Church of Rome, muſt have the confidence to involve the Church of that time in the ſame Condemnation with it. Among other Apostolical Traditions, which were delivered to the Church without Writing, St. Baſil reckons the words of Invocation, Li. de Spir. S. c. 27. when the Euchariſtical Br • ad and Cup of Bleſſing were ſhewed. Dialog. 2. And Theodoret affirms expreſly, that The Myſtical Symbols are underſtood to be what they are made, and are believed and adored, as being the things they are believed. In Epitaph. Gorgoniae. S. Gregory N • zianzen reporteth of his Siſter Gorgonia as a great teſtimony of her devotion, that in a certain ſickneſs ſhe had, ſhe went with Faith to the Altar, and with a lowd voice beſought him, who is worſhipped upon it, for remedy, giving him all his Titles or Attributes, and remembring him of all the miraculous things which he had done. And the ſame no doubt was done by St. Monica the Mother of St. Auſtin, in her daily devotions at the Altar, at which ſhe uſed to aſſiſt without pretermiſſion of any one day; Confeſs. li. 9. c. 13. and from whence ſhe knew, ſaith he, that Holy Victime to be diſpenſed, by which the 〈◊〉 writing was blotted out, which carried our condemnation in it. To this Sacrament of our Redempti •• ſhe had tied her Soul faſt by the Bond of •• ith. And in this ſhe did no more, 〈◊〉 what her Son teache •• upon the 98th. Pſal •• , S. Aug. in Pſ. 98. where expounding 〈◊〉 words of the Pſalmiſt, Adore ye his Foot-ſtool, to be meant of the Earth, and by the Earth, to be underſtood the Fleſh of Chriſt, he addeth, that whereas Christ walked here in the Fleſh, and gave us that very fleſh to be eaten for our Salvation, and no man eateth that Fleſh, unleſs he have firſt adored, we find, ſaith he, how ſuch a Foot-ſtool of our Lord may be adored; and that we do not only not ſin in adoring, but we ſin in not adoring. Viz. that Foot-stool of our Lord, by which he ſaid before was meant his moſt Holy Fleſh. And from whom did he learn this Doctrin, but from the ſame Master, from whom he learn't Christianity. St. Ambroſe, who treating of the ſame place of the Pſalmiſt, Li. 3. de Sp. Sto. c. 12. ſaith, By the Foot-ſtool is underſtood the Earth, and by the Earth the Fleſh of Chriſt, which we adore alſo at this day in the Mysteries, and which the Apoſtles adored in our Lord Jeſus. Upon this Account it is, that St. Chryſoſtome exhorts Chriſtians to this duty by the Example of the Wiſe-men: Hom. 24. in l. ad Cor. Theſe Men, ſaith he, though Barbarians, after a long Journey adored this Body (of our Lord) in the Manger, with great fear and trembling; Let us imitate what they did. Thou ſeeſt Him not in the Manger, but on the Altar. And then again by the Example of the Angels, who, ſaith he, aſſiſt the Prieſt at the time of offring the Holy Sacrifice; Li. 6. de Sacerd. and the whole order of Heavenly Powers liſt up their Voices; and the place round about the Altar is filled with the Quires of Angels, in honour of Him who lyeth upon it. And therfore it is called by St. Optatus, S. Opt. li. 6. f. 61. the Seat or Throne of the Body of our Lord. Thus theſe Holy Men, not as private Doctors delivering their own Opinions, but as Fathers, teſtifying and tranſmitting to Poſterity the Doctrin and Practiſe of the Church of their time, which was ſo notorious in this point of the Adoration of the Euchariſt, that the Heathens becauſe they knew Chriſtians made uſe of Bread and Wine in the Myſteries, objected to them, (as St. Auſtin reports,)S. Aug. lib. 20. contr. Fauſt. c. 13. that they worſhipped Ceres and Bacchus. And hereupon Mr. Thorndike (Epil. 3. p. pag. 351.) ingenuouſly ſaith, I do believe that it was ſo practiſed and done in the ancient Church, which I maintain from the beginning to have been the true Church of Chriſt—For I do acknowledge the teſtimonies that are produced out of St. Ambroſe, St. Auſtin, St. Chryſoſtome, St. Gregory Nazianzen: with the reſt, and more than I have produced. And now it is in the Reader's choice, whether he will condemn ſo great and Holy Men, and with them the Church of that time, of Idolatry for adoring our Lord Chriſt in the Sacrament of the Altar, or will abſolve Uj for doing what they did. It is with them we muſt ſtand or fall. And the Doctor's argument will make neither or both Idolaters. But before I ſpeak to that, and that the Reader may ſee what force it is like to have, behold how he uſhers it in.

§. 2. I proceeded, ſaith he, to the Adoration of the Hoſt, and here the argument I propoſed, was to take off the common anſwer, viz. (of Catholicks) that it cannot be Idolatry, becauſe they believe the Bread to be God. This is what the Doctor expoſes in the front of his Rejoynder to publick view. And if the Reader meet with ſuch ſophiſticate Ware in the Mouth of the Sack, What may he expect when he comes neerer to the bottom? The argument I propoſed, ſaith he, was to take off the Common Anſwer, (viz. of Catholicks) that it cannot be Idolatry, becauſe they believe the Bread to be God: And that too, just as the Worſhippers of the Sun believed the Sun to be God; For upon the ſame ground he ſaith, it is that they who believe the Sun to be God, and worſhip him on that account, would be excuſed from Idolatry too. The unhandſomneſs of this Proceeding I fairly hinted to him in my Reply, whereas I might juſtly have called it a moſt injurious calumny; and it became an Ingenuous Writer, either to have juſtified his charge; or (if he could not do that, nor yet had humility enough to retract it,) to have wav'd at leaſt the repeating it in his Anſwer. But this he is ſo far from doing, that without any proof at all, what he did but inſinuate before in the Body of his Argument, he lays down now expreſly in his Rejoinder, as the Ground of his charge of Idolatry in this matter. Wherefore I muſt now challenge him to prove it, viz. that it is the Common Anſwer of Catholicks that their Adoration of the Euchariſt cannot be Idolatry, becauſe they believe the Bread to be God; or if that be too much, to produce at leaſt any one Catholick Author, who ever excuſed himſelf from Idolatry upon that account. Nothing is more notorious than that Catholicks believe the whole ſubſtance of Bread to be converted into the Body of Chriſt, and conſequently Bread not to be there. Wherefore to do both himſelf and us right, he ſhould have ſaid, the Common Anſwer of Catholicks, when they are charged with Idolatry in the Adoration of the Hoſt, is not, that it cannot be Idolatry, becauſe they believe the bread to be God; but becauſe they believe no bread at all to be there, but the Body of Christ true God, into which it is changed. This had been to ſpeak Truth; but withall it had been to ſtifle his argument in its birth, by choaking his Parallel between Catholicks and thoſe who worſhipped the Sun, ſuppoſing it to remain ſtill the Sun. And why ſhould be ſcruple more to preſerve his own Child, than the Aegyptian Midwives did to ſave thoſe of other People?

The Argument, as it is artificially propoſed by himſelf, runs thus, that Upon the ſame Ground that Catholicks would excuſe themſelves from Idolatry, p. 109. becauſe they believe the bread to be God: they who believe the Sun to be God, and worſhip him on that account would be excuſed from Idolatry too; which who ſo reads would think it intended directly to excuſe the worſhippers of the Sun from Idolatry. But becauſe his Intention is to make it fall with a revers'd blow upon Catholicks, and conclude them guilty of Idolatry, that the Reader may ſee the force of the Argument, I ſhall reduce it to form, as it may ſerve to infer that Concluſion. And this it is. If the Worſhip of the Sun by thoſe who believe the Sun to be God, and Worſhip him on that account, be Idolatry▪ then the Worſhip of the bread in the Euchariſt, by thoſe who believe it to be God, and worſhip it on that account, is Idolatry. But it is the Common Anſwer of Papiſls, (ſaith Dr. St.) that they believe the bread to be God. Therefore they are Idolaters. This is the ſumme of this mighty Argument; and there needs no more to overthrow it, but to deny as moſt notoriouſly falſe, the ſecond Propoſition, that Catholicks believe the Bread to be God, as the Worſhippers of the Sun believed the Sun to be God. Others may judge of it, as they pleaſe, but for my part I ſhould wonder extreamly, how the Doctor could have the confidence to advance ſo palpable a calumny the ſecond time, but that I ſee, what a • t and courage are neceſſary to uphold ſo unjuſt a charge. Perhaps he will reply, his meaning was, that Catholicks believe that to be God, which he and his Partizans believe to be meer bread. But then what a rare conſequence is it to ſay, the worſhippers of the Sun were Idolaters, becauſe they worſhipped for God what themſelves believed to be the Sun: Therefore Catholicks are Idolaters, becauſe they worſhip that for God, which Dr. St. and his Partizans believe to be but bread? Which is juſt, as if an Arrian ſhould conclude both Catholicks and Proteſtants to be Idolaters, for worſhipping Christ, becauſe they worſhip him for God whom the Arrians believe to be but a pure creature.

§. 3. This is all which needed to have been replyed to the Argument, to ſhow the inconcluſiveneſs of it: but to prevent what I thought was likely to be objected by my Adverſary, I added two things. 1. That Catholicks are not miſtaken in their belief of the Bread's being changed into the Body of Chriſt, as having the ſame grounds and motives, and a like divine Revelation to believe this, as to believe that Chriſt is God, and conſequently to be adored. Hereupon I affirmed that the Doctor's argument, altering only the names, would be of as much force from the Pen of an Arrian againſt the Adoration of Christ for God, as it was from his own, againſt the Adoration of him in the Euchariſt. And I think ſit to repeat the argument here, for the ſame reaſon, for which the Doctor ſeems unwilling to hear of it. What that was, the Reader will ſee below, §. 5. of this Chapter. The argument as I then propoſed it was this. The ſame argument which would make the groſſeſt Heathen Idolatry lawful, cannot excuſe any Act from Idolatry; But the ſame argument by which Protestants make the worſhip of Chriſt (a pure Man, ſaith the Arrian; I ſhould have ſaid, creature, and I thank the Doctor for minding me of it,) not to be Idolatry, would make the groſſeſt Heathen Idolatry not to be ſo. For if it be not therefore Idolatry, becauſe they ſuppoſe Chriſt to be God, then the worſhip of the Sun was not Idolatry by them who ſuppoſed the Sun to be God. 2dly, I added, that ſuppoſing Catholicks ſhould be miſtaken in their belief, yet Dr. Taylor an eminent Man among the Proteſtants, denies it would follow from thence, that they were Idolaters. And I ſhall repeat his words, when I come to ſpeak to that Point. The Doctor, to make good his Argument againſt theſe Anſwers (which he calls only appearances of anſwering) undertakes to prove four things. 1. That ſuppoſing there were the ſame Revelation of Chriſt's Divinity, and of his Preſence in the Euchariſt by Tranſubſtantiation, yet there could not be the ſame reaſon for the Adoration of the Hoſt, as for worſhipping Christ himſelf. 2. That there are not the ſame motives and grounds to believe the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation, that there are to believe that Chriſt is God. 3. That ſuppoſing they are miſtaken in the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation, this doth not excuſe them from Idolatry. 4. That the ſame Reaſon which would excuſe them, would excuſe the moſt groſs Idolaters in the World. Theſe are the heads of what he rejoins in this matter, Great and Glorious things, if they can be made out. But how far the performance comes ſhort of the undertaking, will appear by the enſuing Anſwers to the ſeveral Propoſitions, and wh • t he brings in proof of them, in order as they lye.

§. 4. The Doctor's firſt Propoſition: Suppoſing there were the ſame divine Revelation of Tranſubstantiation, p. 111. (that is, of Chriſt's Preſence in the Euchariſt, by the change of the Bread into his Body) and of His Divinity, yet there could not be the ſame reaſon for adoration of the Hoſt, as of Chriſt himſelf. The firſt thing we are to conſider here, is, what he means by the word Hoſt, whether Chriſt himſelf under the ſpecies or accidents of Bread; or the Accidents themſelves. If he mean Chriſt under the Accidents, the Queſtion is, whether the ſame adoration be due to Chriſt in the Sacrament, as out of it? If he mean only the Accidents, the Queſtion is, whether the ſame adoration, that is, as much or as great adoration is due to them as to Christ himſelf? The firſt he knows is affirmed by us, the ſecond denyed, becauſe as was ſaid before of Images (p. 190.) although Chriſt and the Accidents be worſhipped by the ſame Act of Adoration, yet as conſidered preciſely relating to the Accidents, it falls upon them after an Inferiour manner. And it became a Generous Adverſary, (as he ſhows himſelf to be, in ſuppoſing the ſame divine Revelation for Chriſt's Preſence in the Euchariſt, as for his Divinity, which he needed not have done) to have told us clearly his meaning in this Point. But this he thought not fit to do, but to blend both ſenſes confuſedly together, that when he found himſelf preſs'd in one, he might ſlie for refuge to the other. The Catholick ſenſe is this, that the ſame or as great adoration is due to Chriſt in the Sacrament, as out of it. Againſt this he objects two things. 1. That there is a plain Command in Scripture for the One, and none for the other. 2. That the One gives us a ſufficient reaſon for our Worſhip, the other doth not. To the firſt I anſwer (as he foreſaw very well I would) that a General Command (ſuch as thoſe cited by himſelf, Let all the Angels adore him, that is, Christ, Hebr. 1. 6. and to his Name every Knee is to bow, Phil. 2. 10.) doth extend to him wherever he is preſent: as a like command of honouring ſuch a Perſon for King would do, wherever he ſhould be known to reſide: And this I take to be Intimation enough that we are to worſhip Chriſt under the Accidents ſuppoſing him preſent there. And whereas he ſaith this Anſwer proves no more his worſhip in them, than in a Turf, or any other piece of bread, becauſe Chriſt, ſaith he, being God is every where preſent, (as if his being God made him every where preſent, as he is ſuppoſed to be in the Sacrament;) This was but an Artifice to divert the Reader from the matter in hand, which is not about the worſhip of God, as every where preſent, but as hypoſtatically preſent in the Fleſh: And ſo the Queſtion between us, is, whether in caſe there be a general command to worſhip the Son of God made Man, we may not as lawfully do it to him (ſuppoſing a divine Revelation, that he is ſo preſent) in the Sacrament, as the Apoſtles and others adored him, when he was converſant among them? To this Queſtion I Anſwer affirmatively, and he Negatively, unleſs he can ſee a plain Command to do it to him, as preſent in the Sacrament. And who can but wonder to ſee him now ſo ſcrupulous in giveing adoration to God made Man, (believing him to be really preſent in the Hoſt) unleſs he have an expreſs command to do it; who profeſſes of himſelf (p. 101.) that were he of our mind in the matter of Images, he ſhould not stick to offer up the Hoſt it ſelf, that is, God-Man really preſent under the Sacramental ſigns, in Sacrifice to a block or a hewn ſtone, without any command at all either general or particular to do it? But to remove this ſcruple; as I have endeavoured to do ſome others, it may ſuffice to tell him, that although our worſhip be not to be guided by our fancies, but the will of God; Yet where there is a general command without any Exception, to worſhip the Word made Fleſh, there he hath given a ſufficient Indication of the lawfulneſs of doing it, wherever we are certain by Faith that He is ſo preſent. What particular command had the Wiſemen to adore Him in the Manger, or the Thief upon the Croſs? Was it not enough that they had a Divine Revelation, that He was the Son of God, to move them to adore Him with Divine Worſhip? Or is he leſs adorable under the Sacramental ſigns, than bound up in ſwadling-cloths, or covered with blood and ſpittle? Surely it was happy for the Wiſe-men and the Thief, that they had not Dr. St. to direct them what to do. For had they followed his Caſuiſtry, they muſt have ſuſpended their Adoration for want of an Expreſs Command in their particular caſes.

§. 5. But he had not advanced above a Leaf farther, when it ſeems he perceiv'd the weakneſs of this Anſwer; and therefore to piece it out, he tells us, (p. 115.) that in caſe of Chriſt's viſible appearance to us in any place, we need not a particular command in ſuch a caſe to make it lawful to adore him. But that which goes againſt the grain of his ſenſe and reaſon, is, that he ſhould do it to him under a Veil, though he be more certain by Faith, that it is He that is there preſent, than if he ſaw him with his eyes. This is ſuch a ſelf-denyal, as is not to be expected from fleſh and blood. And if you ask him why there is not the ſame reaſon of believing Chriſt to be preſent, as ſeeing him? He anſwers with a distinction much more ſubtil, than that he alledged out of Scotland, for ſaying the Lord's Prayer to a Saint, p. 101. that in matters of pure Revelation, where the matter propos'd to our Faith can be no Object of ſenſe, as Chriſt's Infinite preſence in all places as God; there he may firmly believe, and worſhip Him upon the credit of Divine Revelation: but ſpeaking of the viſible preſence of Chriſt, where honour is given on the account of the divine nature, but he can be known to be preſent only by his Humanity in this caſe I ſay, ſaith he, (and his Ipſe dixit muſt be of no leſs authority than that of Pythagoras) I ſay, the evidence of ſenſe is neceſsary in ord • r to the true worſhipping of the Perſon of Chriſt. Here is indeed an appearance of a diſtinction, but ſuch an one as quite overthrows his whole diſcourſe, for if he ſuppoſe (as he doth at preſent) that the Humanity of Chriſt is really preſent in the Sacrament, in ſuch a way that it cannot be the Object of ſenſe, he muſt rank it among his matters of pure Revelation, and ſo not only firmly believe it, but alſo give him worſhip ſuitable to his preſence. When therefore he tells us the queſtion is concerning the viſible preſence of Chriſt, it is manifeſt he either changes the ſtate of the Queſtion, or retracts what before he ſo generouſly granted of his Inviſible preſence in the Sacrament. This then is plain was but to delude the Reader, and not anſwer to the Queſtion, which was, Why there is not the ſame reaſon for worſhipping Chriſt in the Sacrament, believing him to be there upon the credit of a Divine Revelation, as if we ſaw Him with our eyes. But to follow him a little in his wandrings, and ſpeak to the viſible preſence of Chriſt. In caſe he can be known to be preſent only by his Humanity, Why muſt the Evidence of ſenſe be neceſsary in order to his worſhip? Was he not ſo preſent in the Womb of the Virgin, after the Angels meſſage? Was he not ſo preſent in his Aſcenſion after he was intercepted from his Diſciples ſight by a Cloud? Was he not ſo preſent, before he opened the Eyes of the two blind Men, who ſate by the way ſide, Matth. 20. 30.? And is he not believed by all Chriſtians to be ſo preſent at the right hand of his Father? And might none of theſe worſhip him, becauſe they could not ſee him? If he pretend a difference in the caſes, becauſe in all them he was the Object of ſenſe either before or after: but as he exiſts in the Sacrament he can be no Object of ſenſe; he muſt grant his preſence there to be a matter of pure Revelation: and ſo falls upon the other edge of his diſtinction, that in matters of pure Revelation, where the matter propoſed to our Faith can be no Object of ſenſe, there firm credit is to be given to the divine Revelation, and worſhip alſo ſuitable to his preſence. But to go one ſtep further, In caſe a thing be knowable by evidence of ſenſe, May it not alſo be made known by Divine Revelation? And will not God's Revelation aſcertain us as well, if not much better, than our Eyes? Who ſaw the World riſe out of nothing? No leſs a Philoſopher than Aristotle (not to ſpeak of others) held it never had any beginning. And yet what Christian does not believe it had, more firmly upon the account of God's Revelation, than if he had been preſent in ſome corner of the ſpatium Imaginarium, and beheld the foundation of it with his Eyes? Upon the whole then, which way ſoever the Doctor turn himſelf, unleſs he will maintain (what he ſeems indeed to ſuppoſe all along in this diſcourſe) that we are to give more credit to our ſenſe▪ then to God's revealed word, he muſt confeſs that wherever there is a Divine Revelation of Chriſt's preſence, (which at preſent he ſuppoſes in the Sacrament.) there is the ſame, if not greater Reaſon, to believe and worſhip him, than if he ſaw him as clearly as the Wiſe-men did in the Manger, or the Thief upon the Croſs. And conſequently that he was but too too Prodigal, in granting, that ſuppoſing a like Divine Revel •• ion for Chriſt's preſence in the Euchariſt by Tranſubſtantiation, as for his being true God, yet there would not be the ſame reaſon to worſhip him there, as when he dwelt viſibly among us. All that he could deviſe to elude the Parallel argument I urged from the Pen of an Arrian, Viz. that the Argument he brings to conclude Catholicks to be Idolaters, for their adoration of Chriſt in the Euchariſt, would be of as much force from the Arrians againſt the adoration of him as God: All, I ſay, he could deviſe to elude this argument with, ſtanding to the true ſtate of the Queſtion, and ſuppoſing (as he does) a like divine Revelation for both, was to ſay there was not an expreſs command to worſhip him in the Euchariſt; which how pitiful an Evaſion it is, I have ſhewed above. And yet as pitiful as it is, it may ſerve well enough to make an unwary Reader believe, he concludes all the Papiſts in the World Idolaters for worſhipping our Lord Chriſt himſelf in the Sacrament. But why it ſhould do ſo, when nothing leſs than an expreſs Prohibition could make them Idolaters in the matter of Images, I cannot imagin.

§. 6. The Second Proof he brings to ſhow that, Suppoſing a like divine Revelation for Chriſt's being preſent in the Sacrament, as for his being true God, yet there is not the ſame reaſon of adoration, is p. 112. becauſe the One, he ſaith, gives us a ſufficient reaſon of our Worſhip, viz. his Divinity; but the other doth not, becauſe all that He can believe then preſent, ſuppoſing Tranſubſtantiation, is the Body of Chriſt, and that is not the Object of our Adoration. But this is altogether as weak as the former; for however that be all he can believe, and more than he does believe, (God encreaſe his Faith.) yet Catholicks believe much more, viz. that together with his Body in the Euchariſt are preſent his Soul, his Perſon, his Divinity, in a word, whole Chriſt; and to his Perſon it is they terminate their worſhip as hypoſtatically united with his Body. For as the Dr. himſelf ſaith very well (p. 114.) although the humane nature of Chriſt, of it ſelf can yield us no ſufficient reaſon of adoration, yet being conſidered as united to the Divine Nature, that cannot hinder the ſame Divine Worſhip being given to his Perſon, which belongs to his Divine Nature, any more than the Robes of a Prince, can take off from the honour due unto him. To elude this Anſwer (for now his chiefeſt hope conſiſts in ſeeking out ways to eſcape) inſtead of rejoining to it, upon the ſuppoſition of Tranſubſtantiation; he falls to diſpute down-right againſt Tranſubſtantiation it ſelf, where he tells the Reader, that this Anſwer of Chriſt's Body being hypostatically united with the Divine Nature, is indeed a good argument to prove the Body of Chriſt cannot be there by Tranſubſtantiation. And I deſire the Reader to be very attentive to the argument as it is propos'd by the Doctor; for otherwiſe perhaps it may coſt him the labour of a ſecond reading. If the Bread, ſaith he, p. 113. be converted into that Body of Chriſt, which is hypoſtatically united with the Divine Nature, then the Converſion is not meerly into the Body, but into the Perſon of Christ, and then Chriſt hath as many Bodies hypoſtatically united to him, as there are Elements conſecrated: and ſo all the accidents of the Bread belong to that Body of Christ which is hypostatically united with the Divine Nature. Therefore the Body of Chriſt cannot be in the Sacrament by Tranſubſtantiation. This is his argument, which he calls a Good One. I am ſure I may call it a ſublime One, and ſo ſublime, that there wants only an Adverſary of the ſame humour with Mr. J. S.'s to ſet it out for a notable piece of new Mystical Divinity. Dr. T. Preface to his Sermons. For I do verily believe that neither Harphius nor Rusbrochius, nor the profound Mother Juliana have any thing in their writings ſo ſeemingly un intelligible, and contradictory, as this diſcourſe of the Doctor's is really ſuch. For (beſide the hard words of hypoſtatical union, conſecrated Elements, Converſion into the Perſon of Chriſt, &c. which quite put down Mr. J. S.'s vulgar ones of Potentiality, Actuality, Actuation, ſupervene ſubſume, &c.) Firſt, He will have it to be the ſame Body, becauſe it is that Body which is hypostatically united with the divine nature. Then he will have it not to be the ſame Body, becauſe Chriſt would have as many Bodies, as there are Elements conſecrated. And then again it muſt be the ſame Body, becauſe all the Accidents of Bread belong to that Body, which is hypoſtatically united with the Divine Nature. But this way of refining a diſcourſe into Myſtical Divinity is proper only to confute demonſtrations; and the argument I have to deal with is ſo far from that, that it carries not the ſhow of a Probability. For if the Bread be converted into that Body of Chriſt which is hypoſtatically united with the divine nature, and not meerly into that, but into the Perſon of Chriſt, does it follow that he hath as many Bodies hypoſtatically united to him as there are Elements conſecrated? No more, than becauſe the Bread, the Fleſh, the Fiſh which he eat upon Earth, were converted into the ſubstance of his Body, and hypoſtatically united to him, it follows, that he had as many bodies hypoſtatically united to him, as there were ſeveral meats eaten by him. Before Digeſtion or Converſion they were diſtinct; by Converſion they were made the ſame body. But if this will not ſerve the turn, he wants not a falſe ſuppoſition, to blind his Reader with, Viz. that we make the Elements, i.e. the Accidents of Bread, (for we we will have nothing elſe remain after Conſecration in ſpight, he ſays, of all the reaſon and ſenſe of the World.) the Object of divine worſhip. But the falſity of this ſuppoſition I ſhall make appear in the next Chapter; together with his miſtake (if it be no more) of the meaning of the Council of Trent.

CHAP. II.

The true State of the Controverſy laid open, together with the Doctor's Endeavours to miſrepreſent it. His manner of arguing againſt the Adoration of Chriſt in the Euchariſt, equally deſtructive to the adoration of Him, as God.

§. 1. IN purſuance of his former deſign, my Adverſary will now undertake p. ii4. to prove yet further, that upon the Principles of the Roman Church, no Man can be aſsured, that he doth not commit Idolatry every time he gives adoration to the Hoſt. And this he hopes will abundantly add to the diſco • ering of the diſparity between the worſhip given to the Perſon of Christ, and that which is given to the Euchariſt upon ſuppoſition of Tranſubſtantiation. But before he can come to this he muſt needs miſtake, or rather miſſtate the Controverſy, which he does in moſt ample manner; when after a great many Preambles for three whole Pages together, no more to the purpoſe, than the Flouriſhes of a great Text-letter are to the force of a Bond, he tells the Reader at length that the ſtate of the Controverſy between us, is, whether proper divine worſhip may be given to the Elements, (i. e. the Accidents) on account of Christ's corporal preſence under them? But, (whatever Divines diſpute concerning the Worſhip of the Accidents) the Object of Catholicks Adoration (as Dr. Taylor ingenuouſly confeſſes) Viz. (What is repreſented to them in their mind, their thoughts and purpoſes) in the B. Sacrament, is the only true and Eternal God hypoſtatically joined with his Holy Humanity: And conſequently the Queſtion between us, is, Whether ſuppoſing our Lord Chriſt to be really preſent under the Sacramental ſigns, the ſame proper divine worſhip be not to be given to him there which is due to his Perſon, wherever it is preſent by hypoſtatical union with his ſacred Humanity? Let the Doctor do thus, and we have no quarrel with him; which is an evident ſign, that the Queſtion between us, is not, as he ſays; whether the ſame Adoration ought to be given to the Accidents, which we would give to the very Perſon of Chriſt? But what may not be venture to ſay, who had the confid • nce to advance ſo notorious a calumny, as that it is our common anſwer in this matter, to excuſe our ſelves from Idolatry, that we believe the Bread to be God? I told the Reader what he was like to find neer the bottom of the Sack, when he met with ſuch ſophiſtical Ware at the very top. But the Doctor pretends he hath ſomething to ſay here in his defence; and it is this, that the Council of Trent hath expreſly determin'd that there is no manner of doubt left, Seſs. 13. c. 5. but that all Christians ought to give the ſame worſhip to this Holy Sacrament, which they give to God himſelf. For it is not therefore leſs to be worſhipped, becauſe it was Inſtituted by Chriſt our Lord, that it might be taken. But who tells him that the Council here by the word Sacrament means only the Signs or Accidents of Bread? Why may it not mean the Holy Victime which is diſpenſed from the Altar, as St. Auſtin did, when he ſaid that his Mother St. Monica had tied her Soul faſt to this Sacrament by the bond of Faith? If the Council may be allowed to explicate its own meaning, we ſhall find the ſenſe of the word to be, the Body of Chriſt, and with it his Divinity, under the Sacramental Veil: for, the reaſon it gives in the words immediately following, (which the Doctor conveniently leaves out) of this adoration, is, becauſe we believe the ſame God to be preſent in it, of whom the Eternal Father ſaid, Let all the Angels of God adore him. And this is yet more plain from the 6th. Canon, where the Anathema is denounced againſt thoſe, who ſhall ſay, that in the moſt H. Sacrament of the Euchariſt, the only begotten of God is not to be adored with the worſhip of Latria. But let the Council ſay what it will, Dr. St. ſays, that by the Sacrament it must underſtand the Elements or Accidents, as the Immediate term of that divine worſhip, or elſe the latter words, [that the Sacrament ought not leſs to be adored, becauſe it was inſtituted to be taken] ſignify nothing at all. And why ſo? Do Catholicks underſtand nothing by the Sacrament, but the Accidents! Or was nothing inſtituted to be taken, but the bare ſigns of Bread and Wine? Dr. St. is, or would be, an Author of great Authority; and from his own Confeſſion we have it, (p. 111.) that the Holy Sacrament according to Catholicks is the Body of Chriſt under the Accidents of Bread. Theſe are his own words: and if he will not believe the Council, let him believe himſelf, whether he do ſo, or no, 〈◊〉 proceeding upon his ſuppoſition, that proper divine worſhip is to be given to the Accidents▪ he affirms, (p. 118.) that this is not denied, that he knows of, by any who underſtand the Doctrine or Practiſe of the Roman Church, I leave to the Reader to judg, when he ſhall have heard what Bellarmin, an Author not unacquainted with the Doctrin and Practiſe of the Church, ſays in this matter.Bellarm. de Euch. li. 4. c. 29. There is not, ſaith he, any one Catholick, who teaches that the External Symbols per ſe, (that is, abſolutely) and properly are to be adored with the worſhip of Latria, but only to be reverenced with a certain inferiour worſhip, which is due to all Sacraments. What we affirm is, that Christ is properly and per ſe to be adored with the worſhip of Latria, and that this adoration belongs alſo to the Symbols of Bread and Wine, under which he is contained, as they are apprehended united with him, in ſuch manner as thoſe who adored him apparl'd upon Earth, did not adore him alone, but quodammodo, in a certain kind his Garments alſo. For neither were they ſo ſcrupulous, as to require him to put off his cloths, before they adored him, nor yet to ſeparate him in thought from them, at the time of adoration; but worſhipped him abſolutely, as then he was. And then a little after, whatever difference, ſaith he, there may be among Divines about the manner of ſpeaking, the Queſtion is no other, but whether Christ be to be adored with divine worſhip in the Euchariſt? This is what Bellarmin ſays; And, if the Doctor would not except againſt an Example from civil worſhip, I ſhould tell him, that his ſtating the Controverſy between us, concerning the adoration of Chriſt in the Eucharist, to be, whether the Accidents be to be adored with proper Divine Worſhip which is due to God alone? is juſt as if a Quaker ſhould make the Queſtion between him and a Proteſtant concerning the worſhip of the King in his Robes to be, whether the Robes are to be worſhipped with the ſame Regal worſhip which is due only to the King's Perſon? The ſubtilty, (ſuch as it is) is Parallel in both: Only the Doctor hath the fortune to be applauded for what the poor Quaker would be laughed at, and hiſs'd out of the Court.

I cannot doubt but the Doctor (who is ſo well vers'd in Bell. as his Objections ſhow) had read theſe paſſages in him, when he ſubjoins, that Catholicks to anſwer their adverſaries arguments, would ſeem to direct their worſhip only to Chriſt, as under the Elements or Accidents; a pretty ſelf-conviction, if well obſerv'd, for who ſhould we believe for the Doctrin and practiſe of Catholicks but themſelves? But what he adds, that they yield, that on the account of this corporal preſence, that which appears ought to have the ſame worſhip given to it with that which is ſuppoſed or believed, is ſufficiently convinced by what hath been cited out of Bellarmin, in that abſolute ſenſe in which the Doctor charges it upon us, to be a meer calumny, (as Bellarmin calls it) for although he affirm, that when Christ is worſhipped under the Symbols, that adoration belongs alſo to the Symbols, yet he ſays it is, in ſuch manner, as the adoration given to him upon Earth in his apparel belonged to his Garments; which he qualifies with a quodammodo, after a certain manner; that is to ſay, not as it is given to Chriſt himſelf, but in an inferiour manner, as hath been above declared, Part 1. chap. 10. p. 190.

§. 2. After all this turning and winding to miſ-repreſent the ſtate of the Controverſy to be, whether on the account of Chriſt's corporal preſence in the Sacrament, that which appears (viz. the accidents of bread) ought to have the ſame worſhip given to it with that which is ſuppoſed or believed, that is, with Chriſt himſelf; He comes at length to ſhow, that upon the Principles of the Roman Church no Man can be aſſured, that he doth not commit Idolatry every time he gives adoration to the Hoſt. To prove this, he makes uſe of a double Medium. The firſt, That no Man can be ſecure that the Object is ſuch as doth deſerve divine worſhip. The ſecond, That no Man can be ſatisfied, that he hath a ſufficient reaſon for giving this worſhip to the Hoſt. And they are both of them impertinent to the preſent purpoſe, and quite overthrow his ſuppoſition; for proceeding upon the Principles of the Roman Church, and ſuppoſing (as he doth at preſ • nt) a divine Revelation for the preſence of Chriſt true God and Man in the Saccrament, he muſt either deny Chriſt himſelf to be adorable, or he muſt grant, that the Object doth deſerve Divine Worſhip, and that there is ſufficient reaſon to give it. He that is too Prodigal in giving away, what in time he may need himſelf, caſts himſelf upon a neceſſity either of begging what he gave, or pretending an Error in the Deed of Gift. And to theſe ſtraits hath the Doctor brought himſelf, by his over-liberality in ſuppoſing a like divine Revelation for Christ's preſence in the Sacrament, as for his being true God. His honour will not permit him to begg, what he ſo freely granted; and therefore he takes the other courſe of pretending a double flaw in the donation: and although his pretences be excluded by the very evidence of the deed, as it ſtands upon Record in his own Book, p. 111. yet I ſhall give them the hearing, and ſhow them to have nothing at all of proof in them.

1. He ſaith, p. 120. No Man can be ſecure, that the Object is ſuch as doth deſerve divine worſhip: If you ask him why? He tells you, the Maſs-Bell now rings, the Hoſt is to be adored, and if he ſhould chance to believe his ſenſes, or harken to his reaſon, he becomes an Idolater by not being a Fool or a Mad-man. Again, if he conſider the miraculouſneſs of the change; it is ſo ſtrange and ſudden, he can hardly ſay that God becoming Man was ſo great a wonder, as a little piece of Bread becoming God. If he be recall'd from carnal Reaſon to the Words of Chriſt, this is my body, he is told that Scripture is very obſcure, and dangerous for any one to be too confident of the ſenſe of it; If he be ſent for the meaning of it to the unanimous conſent of the Fathers; he ſees the World is as full of diſputes concerning the ſenſe of their words, as of the Scriptures. Laſtly, If he be counſel'd to lay aſide his ſcruples, and ſubmit to the authority of the preſent Church, he finds that Catholicks are not agreed about that neither: Some think it enough, that it is defined by the Pope; Others require the concurrence of a General Council, and that it be confirmed wholly by the Pope, and doth proceed in the way of a Council. So that he ſees he may ſpend all his life in the ſtudy and ſearch of theſe things, and yet never be ſatisfied in them, nor conſequently in Tranſubſtantiation it ſelf, which is now the Point he pretends he is not ſatisfied in: wherefore if this be the only way of ſatisfaction, he muſt forbear giving adoration, or be guilty of Idolatry in doing it. And doth he not manifeſtly prove himſelf here to be in the caſe of the Prodigal I lately mentioned, when ſuppoſing a like divine Revelation of the preſence of Chriſt in the Euchariſt, as of his being true God, he now ſpends no leſs than four whole Pages to prove that he cannot be ſatisfied there is any ſuch Revelation? Let Schollars judge of this illiberal manner of proceeding, whilſt I ſpeak to the Argument it ſelf. And, (not to tire the Reader with particular Reflexions upon the ſ • veral difficulties he ſtarts concerning the evidence of his ſenſe, the miraculouſneſs of the change, the obſcurity of Scripture, the conſent of the Fathers, which have been anſwered over and over by Catholick Writers,) to free my ſelf from all ſcruples in the caſe, I take the Authority of the preſent Church to be ſufficient for me. For however ſome Divines think it enough, that it be defined by the Pope who is Head of the Church▪ Others require the concurrence of a General Council; and that this General Council be wholly confirmed by the Pope, and doth proceed in the way of a Council: Yet I am ſure that none of theſe are wanting in the point of Tranſubſtantiation. For it hath been defined long ago both by Popes and Councils, and received as lawfully defined by the whole Church Catholick, that our Lord Chriſt is truly and really preſent in the Sacrament, by the converſion of the Elements into his Body and Blood; and therefore (for any thing the Doctor hath ſaid in this matter) I may ſecurely give the ſame proper divine worſhip to him there, which is due to his Perſon, without fear of Idolatry.

§. 3. But becauſe the Doctor profeſſes that the end why he took this way, was a hope he had, that it would abundantly add to the diſcovering the diſparity between the worſhip given to the Perſon of Chriſt, and that which is given to the Euchariſt upon ſuppoſition of Tranſubſtantiation. I ſhall in the next Place ſhow, how he hath failed of this End; and there will need no more to do it, but to ſuppoſe a Socinian to take up his own argument, and retort it upon him in the point of the worſhip of Chriſt, as God. And if he approve not my Anſwer for good, it will be expected from him to give a better. Behold then a Socinian propoſing the argument in Dr. St.'s own Mood and Figure. The chimes now ring all in to Church, where I muſt give the ſame divine worſhip to Christ, as to the Eternal Father. But ſtay (ſaith the Socinian) how can I be ſecure, that the Object is ſuch as deſerves divine worſhip? If I ſhould chance to believe my ſenſes, and hearken to my reaſon, which can diſcover nothing in him, but his Humanity; I become an Idolater by not being a Fool, or a Mad man. Again, if I conſider the miraculous union of the Divine and Humane Nature in one Perſon; it ſeems more ſtrange to me, that Man ſhould be God, than, what the Papiſts ſay, that Bread ſhould be converted into his Body. Muſt I rely on the bare words of Chriſt, I and the Father are One; but I am told by no leſs a Man than St. Peter, 2 Pet. 3. 16. that there are certain things in Scripture hard to be underſtood, which the unlearned and unſtable deprave to their own perdition, and therefore it muſt needs be dangerous for me to be too confident of the ſenſe of it, in ſo difficult a point. I have heard there have been great diſputes concerning the meaning of thoſe words among the Primitive Christians; And What a caſe am I in then, if thoſe words do not prove it? Muſt I have recourſe for the interpretation of them to the unanimous conſent of the Fathers? Alas, what relief is this to my anxious mind! For I ſee the World is full of diſputes concerning the ſenſe of their words, as well as the Scriptures. And I have heard of a late Author, one Christophorus Sandius, who in a Set-Treatiſe contends that the greateſt part of thoſe Fathers, who are eſteemed Orthodox, deny the Son to be conſubſtantially One with the Father. In this great confuſion, what ground of certainty have I to ſtand upon, whereby to ſecure my mind from the Commiſſion of a great ſin? While I am in this Labyrinth, behold a kind Catholick offers to give me caſe, and tells me theſe are doubts and ſcruples, I ought not to trouble my ſelf about: The Authority of the preſent Church is ſufficient for me. But how ſhall I know what he means by the Authority of the preſent Church. For I find Catholicks themſelves are not agreed about that neither. May I be ſure, if the Pope, who is Head of the Church ſay it? No, not unleſs he defines it? But may I be ſure then? No, not unleſs a General Council concur. But may I be ſure if a General Council determins it? Yes, if it be confirmed wholly by the Pope, and doth proceed in the way of a Council: But how is it poſſible for me to judge of that, when the intrigues of actions are ſo ſecret: I ſee then, if this, or any of theſe, be the only way of ſatisfaction, I muſt forbear giving the ſame adoration to Chriſt, as to the Father, or be guilty of Idolatry in doing it. Behold here the Doctor's argument return'd upon himſelf; and if it have any force againſt the adoration of Chriſt in the Euchariſt, it muſt have the ſame againſt the worſhip of Him as God. And what a caſe is Chriſtianity in, if it depend upon his ſolving his own Argument? But his ſcruples are not yet at an End.

CHAP. III.

Of Dr. St.'s Scruple about the Hoſt's not being conſecrated, for want of Intention in the Prieſt; and His miſtake of the true Reaſon of giving Adoration to Christ in the Sacrament.

§. 1. THe Doctor's next Scruple is about the Prieſt's Intention, or rather not Intention to Conſecrate; and I confeſs I never met with any Man ſo unevenly ſcrupulous, as he is; that is, ſo reſolute in ſome caſes, (were he of our mind) as in ſaying his Prayers to the Sun, and offering up the Host to an Image: and yet ſo timorous in others, as in this of not daring to adore Chriſt himſelf, (were he of our mind in the Point of Tranſubstantiation) as ſuppoſed preſent in the Sacrament, for fear the Hoſt ſhould not be conſecrated through defect or malice of the Prieſt. Suppoſe, ſaith he, (p. 123.) I am ſatisfied in the Point of Tranſubſtantiation, (by which you ſee he ſet himſelf to fight againſt it at the ſame time that he told us he would ſuppoſe it) it is not enough for me to know in general, that there is ſuch a change, but I muſt believe particularly that very Bread to be changed ſo, which I am to worſhip, And by what means can I be ſure of that? It is a very evil thing to be troubled with too many ſcruples: While the mind is perplexed with them, the tongue runs unawares into Contradictions. What is it elſe to ſay, that he is to worſhip that very Bread which he muſt believe to be changed? What common ſenſe will charge him to honour that, which he muſt believe not to be there? This hath a reliſh of the old Leaven, that Catholicks believe the Bread to be God: And I ſee a cuſtome of any thing, though it be ſelf-contradiction will turn by degrees into a ſecond nature. But to let this paſs, and attend to his ſcruple. Here he would ſeem to return again to his former ſuppoſition of a like divine Revelation for Chriſt's Preſence in the Euchariſt by Tranſubstantiation, as for his being true God: but in reality he does but ſeem to do it. For, from his whole diſcourſe, (p. 111. &c.) where he ſuppoſes the ſame divine Revelation for Tranſubſtantiation, as for Chriſt's Divinity, it is evident he ſpeaks not only of Tranſubſtantiation in general, but alſo in particular. What means elſe his firſt Proof, (p. 111.) that there is a plain command in Scripture for adoring Chriſt himſelf, but not the least intimation given that we are to worſhip Him in the Elements, ſuppoſing Him preſent there. And again, what means his 2d.

Proof, (p. 112.) that the one gives us a ſufficient reaſon of our worſhip, viz. that he is the Eternal Son of God; but the other doth not, ſuppoſing the Bread to be really converted into the Body of Chriſt? Who ſees not here that the ſuppoſition is of the real and undoubted preſence of Chriſt by the change of the Bread into his Body? and that he does but endeavour, to take back by parcels, what he unwarily gave away in the lump, when he raiſes doubts and ſcruples about the certainty of the change of this or that particular Bread? But let him contradict himſelf never ſo much, it makes nothing for us. We muſt be guilty of Idolatry every time we hear Maſs, unleſs we can be ſure that there is a change made of the bread into the Body of Chriſt in that very particular Hoſt, which is to be worſhipped. And by what means can we be ſure of that? For, the Church, ſaith he, (p. 124.) having declared that it is neceſsary, that he that conſecrates be a Prieſt, and that he have an intention of conſecrating; if either the Conſecrator ſhould chance to be no Priest, becauſe not rightly baptized (which is no unheard of thing) or not have an intention to conſecrate, they who worſhip the Hoſt, must be guilty of Idolatry every time he celebrates. This is the mighty ſcruple which torments his mind, and although the abſurdneſs of the Aſsertion, that another Man's defect or wickedneſs ſhould make me incur the crime of Idolatry whether I will or no, might ſuffice to make any reaſonable Man to depoſe ſo chimaerical a ſcruple, yet becauſe he will not or cannot do it, I would ask him▪ what kind of certainty it is he would have? If no leſs than certainty of Faith, or evidence of ſenſe will ſerve his turn, I would ask again, what like certainty hath a Child or a Husband that thoſe Perſons whom they take, the one for his Father, the other for his Wife are ſo in very deed? I cannot believe him ſo rigid a Caſuiſt, as neither to permit a child to do his duty to his Mother's Husband, till he have a Divine Revelation that he is his true Father; nor a Husband to pay the conjugal debt, unleſs he firſt have as much evidence as ſenſe can give him, that Lia is not put in the place of Rachel: and when that is done, perhaps a Divine Revelation may be neceſſary to know whether ſhe be not married before to another Man; for this alſo is no unheard of thing. Who might not ſay here, as the Diſciples did on another occaſion, Matth. 19. 10. If the caſe of a Man with his Wife be ſo, it is not expedient to marry? But as I ſaid before, I cannot believe the Doctor will be ſo rigid in this Point. But why then muſt we be tyed up from giving worſhip to Chriſt, as preſent in this or that particular Hoſt, unleſs we be certain either by evidence of ſenſe or by Divine Revelation, that it is truly conſecrated? If the want of ſuch a certainty ought to make us ſuſpend our Worſhip, I am ſure the want of the like for true diſpoſition, ought to make the Communicant forbear receiving. But if he ſpeak of ſuch a certainty, as is uſually found in the aforeſaid humane Actions, and others of the like nature; why may not this ſuffice as well to ſecure Chriſtians from ſinning in their adoration, as thoſe other Perſons in paying their reſpective duties? Doth it happen oftner that a Perſon ſuppoſed to be a Prieſt is no Priest, (becauſe not rightly baptized,) than that a Perſon ſuppoſed to be a Father is not the Man? Or doth it happen oftner, that a Prieſt cheats the People by having no intention to conſecrate, than that a light Houſ-wife wheadles a ſecond Man to marry her, while her Husband unknown to him is yet alive? It is not in the nature of Man to ſin ſo frequently out of pure malice, as it is upon the account of ſome profit or pleaſure thence reſulting. Why then muſt we be more guilty of Idolatry (though the Hoſt through defect, or Malice on the Priest's ſide ſhould happen not to be truly conſecrated) than ſuch a Perſon is of Adultery, or a Child of undutifulneſs for having their own good Intentions abus'd by the malice of others? Wantonneſs may make a Wife forget her duty; but doth not make a Child criminal in doing his, to him whom he believes to be his Father; And the wickedneſs of a Prieſt (as there was one Judas among the Twelve) may make him a Devil: but that cannot make me an Idolater. For whilſt my Adoration is directed not to the Bread, which I ſuppoſe not to be there, but to the Perſon of Jeſus Chriſt true God, whom I firmly believe to be in every Host duly conſecrated, and have not the leaſt reaſonable cauſe to ſuſpect other at preſent, the Action on my part hath all that is requiſite to make it good and lawful; and is ſo far from being Idolatry, that it is a real honouring of Christ, and will be ſo accepted. When Hephaeſtion was honoured by a miſtake for Alexander, that great Prince was ſo far from condemning the Perſon as a Traytor, that he took the honour as done to himſelf. And in caſe thoſe Gentiles who were ſo deſirous to ſee our Saviour, Jo. 12. 21. had either for want of a Guide to direct them to the Perſon, or by the treacherous malice of a Judas proſtrated themſelves at the Feet of ſome other: what reaſonable Man would have condemned them for Idolaters? And yet we poor unfortunate Roman Catholicks, if it ſhould chance at any time to happen, that either the Prieſt be no true one, or have no intention to conſecrate, though our Intentions be never ſo ſincere to adore only our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, muſt ſtand condemned of downright Idolatry, for ſo the Doctor calls it (p. 124.) and that without any Proof at all, but the old Ipſe dixit, that without the Intention of the Prieſt in conſecrating, it can be nothing elſe.

§. 2. The ſecond Medium he takes (p. 125) to prove that upon the Principles of the Roman Church no Man can be aſſured, that he doth not commit Idolatry every time he gives adoration to the Hoſt, is, that no Man can be ſatisfied that he hath ſufficient reaſon for giving this worſhip to it. And the ſubſtance of the reaſon he gives, is, becauſe if I worſhip Chriſt, ſaith he, in the Sacrament, it is upon account of his corporal preſence, and he finds it generally agreed by the Doctors of the Roman Church, that the humane Nature of Chriſt conſidered alone, ought not to have divine honour given to it; and hotly diſputed among them, whether Chriſt's humane nature, though united to the divine, ought abstractedly conſidered, to have any true divine honour given it. And what will he infer from hence? That therefore he cannot be ſatisfied, that he hath ſufficient reaſon for giving true divine honour to the humane nature of Chriſt conſidered alone, or abstractedly, in the Sacrament? Much good may it do him. But what is this to the purpoſe? Do Catholicks adore the Humanity of Christ alone, or abstractedly in the Sacrament? Do they ſeparate, or abſtract in their minds and thoughts his Body from his Perſon, when they adore him there▪ No more than the Wiſe-men did, when they adored him in the Manger, or the Apoſtles, when they adored him after his Reſurrection; Or, than he is adored now at the right hand of his Father. All thoſe Preciſions and Conſiderations the Doctor ſpeaks of, are only in the Heads of the Schoolmen, when they are diſputing, not in the minds of Chriſtians, when they are adoring. The Object they adore, whether in the Sacrament, or out of it, is the only-begotten Son of God made Man, without ſeparating or abſtracting one nature from another, any more than we do the King's Body from his Soul, when we worſhip him. And as Mr. Thorndike very well obſerves,Epil. 3. part. p. 350. whoſoever propoſeth not to himſelf the conſideration of the Body and Blood of Chriſt, as it is of it ſelf, and in it ſelf a meer Creature (which he that doth not on purpoſe cannot do) cannot but conceive it, as he believes it to be, being a Chriſtian: And conſequently the primary reaſon of his adoration, is the divinity there preſent. I, but ſays the Doctor, when I worſhip Chriſt as in the Sacrament, I muſt worſhip him there upon the account of his bodily preſence, for I have no other reaſon, to worſhip him in the Sacrament, but becauſe his Body is preſent in it. And what may this mean? Have the Niceties and Preciſions of the Schools ſo perplex'd his underſtanding, that he hath loſt the very firſt Notions of Chriſtianity? Is it not Christ's Body? Are they not the very words of Chriſt, This is my Body? And is not Chriſt true God? How comes it to paſs then that he hath no other reaſon to worſhip him in the Sacrament, but becauſe his Body is preſent in it? This indeed is the reaſon why his Divinity, as hypoſtatically united to his Humane Nature, is preſent in the Sacrament; but the reaſon of his being adored there is his Divinity, and not his Body. Philoſophy tells us, that it is one thing that makes a Man to be in a place, and another, that makes him to be worſhipped in that place: and yet he would not be worſhipped there for this latter, unleſs he were preſent by vertue of the former. The ſpeculation may not ſeem ſo clear to ſuch as are not vers'd in the Schools; but an example will make it plain. There is a Preacher in the World much admired and honoured by his Party in the Pulpit. That which makes him to be preſent there, (or is the reaſon of his preſence there,) is his Quantity or Bodily Dimenſions; but what he is admired for and honoured, is his Wit, his Eloquence, his Zeal againſt Papiſts, &c. Theſe are the Qualities for which I hear he is applauded, and I eaſily believe it. But if my Adverſaries diſcourſe be good (whom I take to have as much Eloquence, and to be of as ſubtil a wit, and of as flaming a Zeal as the other) I muſt tell his Admirers they are in a very great Errour, as to the reaſon of their admiration: and I doubt not but to make it appear upon his own Principles. For I find it generally agreed by all the old Philoſophers, and by the Doctors alſo at preſent of both Univerſities, that Quantity, or corporal dimenſion, conſidered alone, ought not to have civil worſhip given to it: and I find it very uncertain, whether the Body it ſelf though united to the Soul, ought, abſtractedly conſidered, to have any true civil honour given it. But I am moſt certain that the only reaſon why he is preſent in the Pulpit, is his Quantity or Bodily dimenſions; Therefore if they will honour or admire him in the Pulpit, it muſt be upon the account of his bodily preſence, or corporal dimenſions; and not for thoſe other great parts and abilities for which they have hitherto admired him in that place; for if they conſider well, they have no other reaſon to honour him, as in the Pulpit, but becauſe his Body is preſent in it. And I am of Opinion, that if any thing can cure them of their Error, it will be the Parallel Argument, he brings againſt the worſhip of Chriſt in the Sacrament. Viz. that becauſe worſhip muſt be given him there upon the account of his bodily preſence, as the condition why his divinity as united with his humane Nature is there preſent; Therefore his Bodily Preſence and not his Divinity united to it, muſt be the reaſon of adoration. As for what he adds, (p. 127.) That ſuppoſing Tranſubstantiation his Divinity ſhould be there in a particular manner preſent to no End; I ſuppoſe he means by that particular manner, the hypostatical union with his humane nature wherever it is: And doth it not well become a Maſter in Iſrael to affirm that ſuch a preſence of the Divinity would be to no end, when and where himſelf ſuppoſes the Body of Chriſt to be really and ſubſtantially preſent? There wants but one ſtep more, to deny that the hypostatical union of the Divine Nature to the Humane was neceſſary at all, either for Chriſt's offering himſelf upon the Croſs, or now at the right hand of his Father; for although the Ceremony of offering him upon the Altar be performed by the Prieſt, yet Chriſt himſelf is there alſo both Offerer and Oblation, Prieſt and Victim, as the Fathers teach. [S. Greg. Niſſ. Orat. 1. de Reſurr. S. Ambr. in Pſ. 31. 1. Chryſoſt. Ho. 24. in 1. ad Cor.] Well, but the Divinity of Chriſt makes not the leaſt manifeſtation of it ſelf in the Sacrament to our carnal ſenſes; And muſt this hinder us from giving him the worſhip due to his Perſon? Is it not enough that we know Him to be there by divine Revelation, as the Doctor at preſent ſuppoſes we do? What other manifeſtation had the Divinity of Chriſt made of it ſelf to the Baptiſt, when before the appearing of the Holy Ghoſt he refuſed to Baptize him? An evident ſign that he reverenc'd him as the Son of God, Matth. 3. 13, 14. Did not our Saviour himſelf, when St. Peter confeſſed him to be Chriſt the Son of the living God, declare that Fleſh and Blood had not revealed this to him, but his Father which is in Heaven? And upon that very account pronounce Him Bleſſed? Matt. 16. 17. But it ſeems the Bleſſing is now revers'd, and inſtead of Bleſsed are they that have not ſeen, and yet have believed, Jo. 20. 29. We muſt now ſay, Bleſſed are they who will not believe unleſs they ſee, Dr. St. p. 561. n. 5. And what will the end of this be, but the baniſhing Faith and Chriſtianity out of the World?

§. 3. After all theſe endeavours to wreſt out of our hands the ſuppoſition he ſo freely granted (p. 110.) of the ſame Revelation for Chriſt's Preſence in the Euchariſt, as for his Divinity, he would bring the buſineſs at laſt to a Compoſition, if we will beg of him to yield that the Body of Chriſt being preſent, his Divinity is there preſent too. And I am not ſo nice, (if it will come no cheaper way) as not to begg it of him, for Chriſtianity's ſake: but then he adds that even upon this ſuppoſition, that Chriſt's Divinity is preſent with his Body in the Sacrament, (p. 127.) his mind muſt still unavoidably reſt unſatisfied as to the Adoration of the Hoſt. For, ſuppoſing the divine Nature preſent in any thing gives no ground upon that account, to give the ſame worſhip to the thing wherein he is preſent, as I do to Chriſt himſelf. But here again he relapſes into his former mistake of the Controverſy, which (in ſpight of the practiſe of Catholicks, which is to adore Chriſt under the Accidents, in like manner as he was worſhipped in his Apparel,) he will have to be, that proper divine worſhip is to be given to the Accidents: For, this is what he means here by the Hoſt. Let him ſtate the Queſtion as it ought to be, that is, Whether Chriſt may not be worſhipped under the Accidents, as well as in his Garments? Or (if he will needs mix the Queſtions of the Schools with thoſe of Faith) Whether the Accidents may not be worſhipped together with Chriſt, in like manner as his Garments were worſhipped together with Him? And the Controverſy will quickly be at an End. But, (not to tire the Reader with following him in his Repetitions) his ſcruple, if I miſtake not, at preſent, is, why, ſuppoſing the divine nature preſent in any thing gives no ground to worſhip every thing in which he is preſent; yet his preſence in the Euchariſt ſhould be a ſufficient reaſon to worſhip the Accidents together with him? And to this I give Bellarmin's anſwer, lib. 4. de Euch. c. 30. (which I take alſo to be the ſenſe of Greg. de Valentia, in the place cited by the Doctor.) Longe aliter Christus eſt in Euchariſtia, &c. That Chriſt is in the Euchariſt in a far different manner, than God is in other things. For in the Euchariſt there is but one only Suppoſitum, and that divine: All other things there preſent belong to that, and in a certain manner make one with that, though not in the ſame manner. (mark that) Hence it is that the whole is rightly worſhipped together, as we ſaid before of Chriſt apparell'd. But although God be in all other things, yet not ſo, that he is one Suppoſitum with them, nor is there ſuch an Union between God and the Creature in which he is, that they can be ſaid to be in a manner One. By this it appears, that as Greg. de Valentia deſervedly calls this preſence of Christ to the Accidents, an admirable Conjuction, ſo the Doctor unjuſtly impoſes upon Bellarmin, that he grants as great an hypoſtatical union between Christ and the Accidents, as between the divine and humane Nature; for although Bellarmin ſay, that all things there preſent, in a certain manner make One with the Suppoſitum, yet he declares expreſly, that it is not in the ſame manner. But here the Doctor complains of un-intelligible terms and notions uſed in this matter; And might he not do the ſame with as much reaſon of the terms and Notions uſed by the School-men in explicating the myſteries of the Trinity and Incarnation? How un-intelligible ſoever the School-terms appear to him, yet it is very eaſy to underſtand that neither Greg. de Valentia, nor Bellarmin mean to give divine honour to the Accidents for themſelves; and yet much eaſier to underſtand what Christian People mean, when they profeſs, the Object of their Adoration in the Euchariſt, to be the only begotten Son of God under the Accidents of Bread and Wine. As for what he alledges out of Vaſquez, that ſuppoſing the preſence of Chriſt to be the Ground of Adoration, it follows in his Opinion, that God may very lawfully be adored by us in any created Beeing, wherein he is intimately preſent; I have ſpoken to it in the 5th. Chapt. of the 1. Part: And as Vaſquez himſelf acknowledges the danger of that Doctrine if it ſhould be commonly and publickly put in practiſe by the People; (for poſſibly there may be another conſideration for Philoſophical and Contemplative Men in their private Devotions, as St. Leo there cited ſeems to grant) ſo if the Doctrine be Good, what follows from thence is that Chriſt, being ſuppoſed to be really preſent in the Sacrament, and in a particular manner by Tranſubſtantiation, may moſt certainly be adored in it. Vaſquez was a Man of great learning, and of a ſearching wit, but it is noted of him, as of Lactantius, that he was more ſubtil in oppugning the Opinions of others, than ſolid in eſtabliſhing his own.

CHAP. IV.

Dr. St.'s Fundamental Principle of judging of matters propoſed to our Belief by Senſe and Reaſon, ſhown to be abſurd in it ſelf, and deſtructive to Chriſtianity.

§. 1. WE come now to the Doctor's Second Propoſition, that there are not the ſame Motives and Grounds to believe the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation, p. 130. that there are to believe that Chriſt is God: which, he ſaith, I affirm without any appearance of reaſon. And he would gladly know what excellent Motives and Reaſons thoſe are, which ſo advantageouſly recommend ſo abſurd a doctrine as Tranſubſtantiation is, as to make any Man think he hath reaſon to believe it. He is ſure, he ſaith, it gives the greateſt advantage to the Enemies of Chriſt's Divinity, to ſee theſe two put together upon equal terms, as though no Man could have reaſon to believe Chriſt to be the Eternal Son of God, that did not at the ſame time ſwallow the greatest Contradictions to ſenſe and reaſon imaginable. This is a Topick, in which the Doctor wonderfully delights himſelf (as all others have done before him who have deſerted the Faith of the Church.) We have it over and over at every turn; as if the whole Syſtem of Chriſtian Faith, and every particular Article of it, were to be meaſured by the Standard of Senſe and Reaſon; ſo that if any thing ſeem abſurd and contradictory to them, no grounds or motives can recommend it ſo advantageouſly, as to make any Man think he hath reaſon to believe it. This is what lies at the bottom of his Diſcourſe; and himſelf lays it down for the only Principle o • Criterium by which we are to judge of the Truth of Divine Revelation, when in his ſecond C • aſſe of Principles, he affirms, There can be no other means imagined, p. 561. n. 5. whereby we are to judg of the Truth of divine Revelation, but a Faculty in us of diſcerning truth and falſhood in matters propos'd to our Belief: which if we do not exerciſe in judging the truth of divine Revelation, we muſt be impoſed upon by every thing which pretends to be ſo. The perfect diſcuſſion of this Principle, I ſhall not engage my 〈◊〉 in at preſent. The Men of Principles, (as the Doctor calls them not without juſt cauſe) are likely enough to take it into Conſideration a ſecond, and perhaps a third time too. At preſent it may ſuffice to ſhew briefly now abſurd in it ſelf, and how deſtructive to Chriſtian Religion this Principle of the Doctor's is, Viz. That we are to judge of the truth of divine Revelation, (i.e. whether God have revealed ſuch a thing, or no) by exerciſing our Faculty of diſcerning truth and falſhood in matters propoſed to our belief: that is, by making our Reaſon the Judge, whether the matter propoſed to our belief be true or falſe. This is what I can underſtand by the Doctor's words to be his meaning. If He can give them a better, I ſhall be glad to find my ſelf miſtaken. But if this be, (as to me it ſeems to be) the ſenſe of his words, I am ſorry that any thing ſo irrational in its ſelf, and ſo fatal to Religion, ſhould proceed from the Pen of a Christian. For firſt, as I ſaid, it is abſurd in it ſelf, becauſe it can by no means ſubſiſt, unleſs we will equal Man's knowledge with that of God. For▪ if Man cannot comprehend the depth of the knowledge and power of God, (that is, if God both know and can do, more than Man can underſtand) it is evident, that the judgment of ſenſe and reaſon about the Truth of the matter propoſed, can never be a • it means to aſſure him whether God have revealed it, or no; and it is as evident on the contrary, that if it be ſufficiently propoſed and aſſerted as revealed by God, though it ſeem never ſo abſurd and contradictory to humane ſenſe and reaſon, we muſt ſubmit our judgment to the belief of it, as True. 'T • s not all our reaſonings and ſyllogiſms againſt the matter propoſed, that can excuſe us from the Obligation of c • ptivating our Unde • ſtanding to the Obedience of Chriſt. 2 Cor. 10. 5. That which ſeems a Camel to us, is not ſo much as a Gnat to the knowledge and power of God, and therefore rather than give Him the lye, we muſt ſtrain our ſelves to ſwallow what ſeems to be the greateſt Contradiction to Senſe and Reaſon Imaginable. Our firſt Mother Eve, by taking part with her ſenſe againſt Faith, deſtroyed her Self and Poſterity by believing the Devil rather than God; and what more ſuitable Penance for this Fault, or Cure for this Pride, than for God to exact of us, that we ſhould believe Him rather than our ſenſe? and this particularly in the point of Tranſubſtantiation of the Bread into the Body of our Redeemer; that as by following ſenſe, and eating the fruit of the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, Death came upon all, both of Soul and Body; ſo all may receive Life by denying the ſuggeſtions of Senſe, and eating the true food of the Body of Chriſt, under the forme of Bread. 2dly, It is deſtructive to Chriſtianity, ſince if we muſt believe nothing, but what our Senſe and Reaſon can comprehend, we muſt lay aſide our Creed, and neither believe the Creation of the World, nor the Trinity of Perſons, nor the Incarnation of the Son of God, nor the Reſurrection of the Dead: all which ſeem to imply as many and great Abſurdities and Contradictions, as the Doctor, for his heart, can Object againſt Tranſubſtantiation. It would be too tedious to inſiſt upon them all: Thoſe who are curious may meet with them every where in the Writings both of thoſe who impugn, and of thoſe who defend the Catholick belief in thoſe Points. Yet to give the Reader a clearer Inſight into the abſurdneſs and malignity of this Principle of the Doctors, and how agreeable this proceeding of his is in this Point to that of other Deſertors of the Church's Faith: I ſhall inſtance in ſome of the Contradictions objected againſt the Myſteries of the Trinity and Incarnation; and that in the words of Dr. Beaumont (now Master of Peter-Houſe in Cambridge) in his moſt excellent Poem call'd Pſyche, or Love's Myſtery. Verſes I know, in a Book of Controverſy will ſeem as improper, and come as unexpected, as a Garden of Flowers in a rough and craggy Deſ • rt; but a Traveller will not find fault with his Guide for leading him thorough it, if he lead him not out of his way. My Adverſary, without any occaſion given him, to pleaſe the Atheistical humour of the Wits of the Time, could think fit to turn Spiritual Archy, and make ſport with the Saints in ſo prophane a manner, as is no where to be parallel'd in the worſt of Play-Books. And I hope after ſo many hard and ſpiny Queſtions of the Schools wherewith he hath perplex'd the minds of his ſober Readers, I may have leave to divert them with citing a little Poetry, which doth but expreſs in Verſe, what the matter it ſelf leads me to have ſaid in Proſe: See then how the aforeſaid Dr. Beaumont introduces a Cerinthian Heretick endeavouring to ſeduce Pſyche (that is, the Soul) from the belief of the Mysteries of the Incarnation and Trinity upon Dr. St.'s Principles of Senſe and Reaſon. Canto 15.

[213] Blind Ignorance was grown ſo bold,Before Cerinthus came. that ſhe Sought to perſwade the World it had no eyes. Making the lazy Name of Myſtery Inſtead of Demonſtration ſuffice. From this black Pit thoſe monſtrous Prodigies So Cerinthus calls the Myſteries of the Trinity and Incarnation Of Hood-wink'd and abuſed Faith did riſe. [214] Who can imagin Heaven would e're ob'rude Upon the Faith of Reaſonable Men, That which againſt all Reaſon doth conclude, And founded is on Contradiction? Sure God ſo ſtrange a Law did never give, That Men muſt not be Men if they believe. [219] For though the Marvel-Mongers † grant that He Was moulded up but of a Mortal Mettal, And that his ſubſtance was the ſame, which we Find in our ſelves to be ſo weak and brittle: Yet an Eternal God they make Him too, And angry are, that we will not do ſo. [220] Thus the quaint madneſs of a dreaming Brain Holds the ſame thing a Mountain and a Mite, Fancies the Sun▪ (Light's Royal Soveraign) To look like ſwarthy and ignoble Night: Imagins wretched Worms, although it ſee They crawl in D • rt, Illuſt • ious Kings to be. [221] But Heaven forbid, that we ſhould ſo blaſpheme And think our God, as poor a thing as we. How can Eternity be born in Time? How can Infinity a Baby be? Or how can Heaven and Earth's Almighty Lord To Aegypt fly for fear of Herod's Sword? [226] I know they ſtrive to mince the matter by Diſtinguiſhing his Natures. For their Art Being aſham'd of no Abſurdity H • mſelf from his own ſelf preſumes to part. Yet we durſt not admit a Deity, Which muſt on a diſtinction builded be. [227] But how much more than Mad, their doctrine is, And how tranſcending Pagan Blaſphemy, Who not content to make a God of This Both Paſſible and Mortal Jeſus, try To thruſt Him into one ſubſtantial knot With his Eternal ſire, who Him begot? [228] Two yet not Two, but One theſe Two muſt be, Nay and a Third into the knot they bring, The Spirit muſt come in to make up Three, And yet theſe Three be but one ſingle Thing. Thus faſt and looſe they play, or ev'n and odd, And We a juggling Trick muſt have for God. [229] If God be One, then let Him be ſo ſtill, Why jumble we, we know not what together? Did all the World not know their God untill This old blind Age diſcover'd Him? Did neither The Patriarks believe, nor Prophets ſee Aright, becauſe They took not One for Three? [231] Let Love and Duty make of Chriſt as high And Glorious a Thing, as Wit can reach, Provided that againſt the Deity No Injury nor Sacriledge they preach; If only on ſuch terms He lov'd may be, Him to neglect is Piety, ſay we. And then a little after he concludes. [234] For If your Faith relies on Men, who are Themſelves but founded and built up of duſt; If yo • by Reaſon's Rule diſdain to ſquare Yo • r P • ety, and take your God on Truſt, (Which Heaven forbid) You only are a Prize Unto Impoſtor's fair-tongu'd Fallacies.

Thus doth this Ingenious Perſon repreſent an Heretick in his true Colours, arguing againſt the Myſteries of the Trinity and Incarnation, upon the Principles with which Doctor St. 〈◊〉 the Doctrin of Tranſubſtantiation, a • d in terms ſo equivalent, that the Dr. ſeems but to have reſolv'd into Proſe what the other wrote in Verſe; as may appear from this following Parallel. 'Tis Ignorance and Madneſs, ſaith the Cerinthian Heretick, to believe that God can be Three and One, and that Chriſt is God, Stanz. 213. 220. 'Tis Folly and Madneſs ſaith Dr. St. to believe Tranſubſtantiation, (He becomes an Idolater by not being a Fool or a Mad-man.) p. 120. The Myſteries of the Trinity and Incarnation are monſtrous Prodigies of abuſed Faith, ſaith the Cerinthian, Stanz. 213. Tranſubſtantiation, ſaith D. St. is ſo strange and ſudden a change, that he can hardly ſay, that God becoming Man was ſo great a wonder, as a little piece of bread becoming God, p. 120. The Cerinthian affirms of the Trinity and Incarnation, that they are againſt all reaſon, and founded on Contradictions, Stanz. 214. Dr. St. affirms of Tranſubſtantiation, that it is abſurd, and for a Man to believe it, he muſt ſwallow the greateſt Contradictions to Senſe and Reaſon Imaginable, p. 130. In a word the Cerinthian makes his Senſe and Reaſon to be the Rule of his Faith, Stanz. 234. And Dr. St. will believe nothing that ſeems to contradict them, p. 561. Only the Cerinthian affirms the Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation to tranſcend Pagan-blaſphemy, which I do not ſee yet that Dr. St. • ath ventured to ſay of the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation. Perhaps he will reply to this Parallel, that the difficulties the Cerinthian objects againſt the Trinity and Incarnation, are but ſeeming Contradict • ons; but thoſe in the Point of Tranſubſtantiation are real ones: but then he muſt grant according to his Principles, that whilſt they ſeem to be Contradictions, they are not to be believed by thoſe to whom they ſeem ſo, that is, by the unlearned, who are the greateſt part. Or if they may notwithſtanding believe thoſe Myſteries, they may much rather believe that of Tranſubstantiation, ſince it ſeems a greater Contradiction, that the very ſelf ſame Nature ſhould be whole and undivided in three diſtinct Perſons, than that the ſame Body ſhould be in many places; and that the Inviſible Word ſhould be made Fleſh, than that Bread ſhould be converted into that Fleſh. How Dr. St. will extricate himſelf I know not; but the way which Dr. Beaumont takes to ſecure the Soul from being ſtartled with theſe ſeeming Contradictions, is to introduce her Angel Guardian, Canto. 16. conducting her to Chriſt's Catholick Church, the Ground and Pillar of Truth. And upon this Ground it is, (For in his Preface, he recants aforehand, if any thing throughout the whole Poem ſhould happen againſt his Intention, to prove diſcord to the Conſent of Chriſt's Catholick Church) that he makes the Angel perſwade his Pupil to contemn all the ſeeming Contradictions, which crafty and ſubtil Wits object againſt the Real Preſence of Chriſt's Body in the Sacrament, if not againſt Tranſubſtantiation it ſelf. And becauſe the Book is not every where to be found (as not having been ſo often Printed as Dr. St.'s, becauſe there is no Prophane Invective in it againſt the Perſons and Lives of Gods Saints) I ſhall venture to Tranſcribe another parcel of Verſes out of it,Canto. 12. ſo proper to the preſent ſubject, as if written on purpoſe by the Ingenious Author, to cruſh in the Egg thoſe ſecret workings of Atheiſm and Irreligion, which the aforeſaid Principle is apt to breed in the Wits of this Age, under ſo colourable a pretence, as that of not being fool'd out of their Senſe and Reaſon.

[74] When Jeſus by his Water cleanſed had His Servant's Feet, and by his Grace their Hearts Shewing what Preparation muſt be made By all who ever mean to have their Parts. In his pure Banquet: down he ſits again And them with Miracles doth entertain. And then having deſcribed the Inſtitution of the Sacrament, he goes on. [81] Sweet Jeſu! O how can thy World forget Their Royal Saviour, and his Bounty, who Upon their Tables his own ſelf hath ſet; Who in their Holy Cups fails not to flow, And in their Diſhes lie. Did ever Friend So ſure a Token of his Love commend? [82] Infallibly there doſt Thou flow and lie; Though mortal Eyes diſcover no ſuch thing▪ Quick-ſighted Faith reads all the Myſtery, And humble Pious Souls doth eaſily bring Into the Wonder's Cabinet; and there Makes all the Jewels of this Truth appear. [83] Shee generouſly dares on God rely And truſt his Word, how ſtrange ſo e're it be: If Jeſus once pronounces, This is my Body and Blood; Far, far, be it, cries ſhe, That I ſhould think my dying Lord would cheat Me in his Legacy of Drink and Meat. [84] (His Word is moſt Omnipotent, and He Can do what e're he ſays; and more than I Can or would underſtand. What is't to me If He tranſcends Humane Capacity? Surely it well becomes Him ſo to do, Nor were He God, if he could not do ſo; [85] Let Him ſay what He will I muſt deny Him to be God, or elſe believe His Word; Me it concerneth not to verify What he proclaims; I only muſt afford Meek Credit, and let Him alone to make Good, whatſoever He is pleas'd to ſpeak) [86] Groſs and unworthy Spirits ſure They be, Who of their Lord ſuch mean Conceptions frame, That parting from his deareſt Conſorts, He No Tokens of his Love did leave with Them, But ſimple Bread and Wine; a likely Thing, And well-becoming Heavens Magnificent King. [88] Ask me not then, How can the Thing be done, What power of Senſe or Reaſon can digeſt it? Fools as you are, what Demonſtration So evident as this, My God profeſt it? And if you once can prove, that He can lie, This Wonder, and Him too, I will deny. [89] What thank is it, that you can credit that Which your own ſenſe & Reaſon's eye reads plain? Heaven's much to them beholden, who will not Believe it higher is, than they can ſtrain; Who jealous are of God, and will not be Induc'd to truſt Him further than they ſee. [90] And yet had you theſe modeſt eyes of mine,The words of the Angel to the Soul. You in this gloomy Cloud would ſee the Sun; That Sun who wiſely doth diſdain to ſhine On thoſe, who with bold prying preſs upon His ſecret Majeſty, which plainly I Becauſe I make no anxious ſearch, deſcry. [91] This is the valorous Reſolution Of Gallant Faith: and this will ſerve to be The Bleſſed Rule, by which all thoſe muſt run, Who are the Scholars of Humility. Yet I muſt tell thee Pſyche, itching Pride VVill not hereafter thus be ſatisfied:

And then having inveigh'd in the following Stanza's, againſt thoſe, who will needs be prying with the skill, they take for granted hath fill'd their brains; (that is with the Doctor's faculty of diſcerning Truth and falſhood) into the manner how this Miracle is brought to paſs, He concludes with theſe words in favour of Tranſubstantiation.

[99] It is in vain to tell theſe Wranglers how Jeſus could graft cold Stones into the ſtock Of Abraham, and make them fertil grow In Iſraelites; or that the Bread he took In's daily Diet, was not wholly ſpent, But part into his Body's ſubſtance went. [100] In vain to tell them, how into his Blood The Wine he drank was changed day by day. For though ſuch ſpeculations underſtood With prudent Reverence might make eaſier way Unto the Myſtery; yet Wranglers will Becauſe they will be ſo, be Wranglers ſtill.

This and much more to this Purpoſe, (which not to ſurfet the Reader with too many delicacies I omit) ſaith the Author of that Illustrious Poem; in which to the ſatisfaction of all that read it himſelf hath made appear to the World, what his Modeſty made him willing to expect rather from others, that a Divine Theam is as capable and happy a ſubject of Poetical Ornament, as any Pagan or Humane device whatſoever. And would the Gallants of both Sexes employ as many of their precious Hours in reading this excellent Piece, as they do in Romances and Play-Books, I dare be bold to affirm, (though perhaps I ſhall not be credited) They would find not only more ſubstance, but more delight in this than in the beſt of them. But to return to my preſent buſineſs. My deſign was to let the Reader ſee, how far my Adverſary's beloved Principles of Senſe and Reaſon, are from being fit Umpires, to judge of matters propoſed as of divine Revelation; particularly in what relates to the preſence of our Saviour in the Euchariſt, and I thought I could not do it better, than in the words of this learned and Ingenious Author, whoſe whole Diſcourſe ſeems but a Deſcant upon thoſe words of St. Chryſoſtom, when ſpeaking of this Myſtery to the People of Antioch, Hom. 60. ad pop. he ſaith, Let us obey God in all things, and not gain-ſay Him, though what is ſaid, ſeem to contradict both our Imaginations and Eyes. Let his word obtain more credit from us, than our thoughts or ſight. And thus let us behave our ſelves in the Myſteries (that is in the moſt Holy Sacrament) not beholding only thoſe things which lye before us, (viz. the Symbols of Bread and Wine) but holding faſt his words. For his Word is Infallible but our ſenſe is eaſy to be deceived. That never fails, but this moſt frequently miſtakes. Becauſe therfore the Word ſaith. This is my Body, let us obey and believe and behold Him with the eyes of our Underſtanding. If the Doctor will not do ſo, but will have his Readers to meaſure matters of Faith by the Rule of Senſe and Reaſon, and not truſt God farther than they can ſee with them, I am ſure he gives a far greater advantage to the Enemies of the moſt Holy Trinity and Chriſt's Divinity by ſo unChriſtian a Principle, than we can poſſibly do by aſſerting a like divine Revelation for his being preſent in the Eucharist, as for his being true God, notwithſtanding the ſeeming contradictions that occur in it.

But perhaps the Doctor w • ll ſay, that I am miſtaken all this while, and that he meant no ſuch thing by the uſe of Reaſon: For I remember now, that when upon his Aſſerting,In his 3d. Anſw. to the 1. Queſt. p. 7. that Catholicks expoſe the Faith of Chriſtia • s to a great uncertainty, by denying to Men the uſe of their Judgment and Reaſon, as to the matters of Faith prop • ſed by a Church when they muſt uſe it in the choice of a Church: (which if it ſay any thing to the purpoſe, it muſt be this, that becauſe Men muſt make uſe of their reaſon to find out the true Ground of believing (which Catholicks affirm to be the Church) therefore they muſt believe nothing which the Church propoſes as a matter of Faith, but what the Faculty in them (called reaſon) of diſcerning Truth and Falſhood in matters propoſed to our belief, ſhall judge to be true in it ſelf; for otherwiſe how doth it follow that they expoſe the Faith of Chriſtians to uncertain • y?) when I ſay upon this aſſertion of his, I ſuppoſed (and clearly enough I think) that the uſe he would have of reaſon, was to believe nothing, but what his reaſon could underſtand, He aſſures me (p. 542.) upon his word that he meant no ſuch thing, for I believe, ſaith he, an Infinite Being, and all the Doctrines revealed by it in H. Scriptures, although I cannot reconcile all particulars concerning them to thoſe Conceptions we call Reaſon. But here I obſerve firſt, (as no very great ſign that he means not by the uſe of Reaſon, what I ſuppoſed) that he doth not tell us of any one particular Article he believes with that terrible condition, unleſs he mean he cannot reconcile all particulars concerning the exiſtence of a Deity; but huddles them up in a blind Univerſal, that he believes all the Doctrines revealed by God in the H. Scriptures; as if it were enough for a Chriſtian to believe in general all that God hath revealed in Scripture, without troubling himſelf about the Senſe of any thing in particular, for fear of over-ſtraining his Reaſon to ſwallow ſomething that may ſeem a Contradiction. And I confeſs the Letter of the Scripture may be a ſufficient Rule of ſuch a Faith. 2dly, This Aſſertion of his expoſes the Faith of Chriſtians to as great uncertainty as that he charges upon Catholicks; by its denying to Men the uſe of their Judgment and Reaſon as to matters of Faith revealed by God in the Scriptures, when they muſt neceſſarily uſe them to find out the Scriptures, and the exiſtence of a Deity. For whether the Scripture or the Church be ſuppoſed to be the Ground of believing, the caſe is the ſame as to the Point of Reaſon. Men muſt be allowed the uſe of their Judgment and Reaſon in the ſearch of both. And therefore he muſt either acknowledge his Charge to have been groundleſs when he taxed Catholicks for expoſing Faith to uncertainty; or he muſt grant to Men, (though it be with contradicting himſelf, which is much eaſier to do, than to ſwallow the leaſt ſeeming Contradiction in a matter of Faith) that they may and ought to make uſe of their diſcerning Faculty, as to the truth or falſhood of matters propoſed to our belief, which I confeſs I take to be the ſame, as to believe no more than their Reaſon can comprehend: and ſo if Reaſon chance to meet with ſome ſeeming Contradiction, with which it is not able or willing to grapple, the Article ought and muſt be exploded for ſuch a monſtrous Prodigy of hood wink'd and abuſed Faith▪ as no Man can imagine God would e're obtrude upon the Faith of Reaſonable Men.

But here again perhaps he will ſay, that although God may impoſe upon us an Obligation of believing againſt the Conceptions of our Reaſon, yet he cannot do it againſt the ſuggeſtion of our ſenſe, becauſe, as he aſſerts, p. 540. This would be to overthrow all certainty of Faith, where the matters to be believed depend upon matt • r of Fact. But here I would deſire to know what Angel from Heaven reveal'd this Doctrin to him. Suppoſe in the caſe of the two Diſciples at Emmaus, that our Saviour had vaniſhed out of their ſight, before he brake bread, might he not h • ve told them afterwards that it was He who had appeared to them in a diſguiſe, without overthrowing all the certainty of Faith, where matters to be believed depend upon matter of Fact? St. Chryſostome above cited I am ſure was of another mind in the very point of Chriſt's real preſence in the Sacrament, when he bids us obey God in that myſtery, though what he ſay ſeem to contradict our thoughts and eyes. And ſo was St. Cyril too, when he exhorts Chriſtians not to conſider it as naked Bread and Wine, for it 〈…〉 Blood of Christ according to the words of Chriſt himſelf. And although ſenſe do ſuggest this to the • , (viz. that it is Bread) yet let Faith confirm thee. Do not judge of the thing by thy tast, but know, and hold for most certain, that this Bread which is ſeen of us, is not Bread, though the taſt judge it to be Bread, but the Body of Chriſt, and that the Wine which is ſeen by us, although it ſeem Wine to the ſenſe of taſting, notwithſtanding is not Wine, but the Blood of Chriſt. This is what theſe Holy Fathers teach in this matter; and with great reaſon; for as God is not only God of the Hills, 3 Kings 20. but alſo of the Valleys; So is he God not on • y of our Reaſon, but of our Senſes alſo. And if the Antidote his Goodneſs hath pr • ſcrib'd to Cure our Corrupt Nature, be prepared in ſuch a manner as requires the captivating of our Senſe as well as of our Underſtanding, who ſhall queſtion either his Wiſdome or Power? He hath ſaid, This is my Body, though it appear to us to be bread. And this being but one Exception from the General Rule of Senſation; why that ſhould overthrow all certainty of Faith, more than ſo many exceptions, as the Trinity and other Myſteries lay upon the General Rules of our Reaſoning, I leave to all Men of ſenſe and Reaſon to judge. O but this is the ſtrangeſt of Miracles, and Miracles ought to be the objects of ſenſe, I grant it of ſuch Miracles, as are done for the Converſion of Unbelievers; but this is not done upon ſuch an account, but for the Sanctification of thoſe who believe already. And for theſe it is enough that Chriſt hath ſaid, It is his Body. They know very well the danger of not believing him more than their ſenſes. And that others may know it alſo, I ſhall ſet it before them in the words of St. Epiphanius, no leſs than 1300. Years ago. We ſee (ſaith he ſpeaking of the Bleſſed Sacrament) that It is neither equal, In Ancor. Circ. Med. nor like in proportion or Image to his Fleſh, to the Inviſible Deity, to the lineaments of a Body, for this is of a round forme, and inſenſible according to power. And yet becauſe he was pleaſed to ſay through Grace, This is my Body, every one believeth his ſaying. For, who believeth not that it is his very true Body, falleth from Grace and Salvation. Thus much to the Doctors Principles of Senſe and Reaſon. Let us now ſee what he ſays againſt the Grounds and Motives of Tranſubſtantiation.

CHAP. V.

A Check to the Doctor's bigg words againſt the Grounds of Tranſubſtantiation; with a new Example of reporting faithfully (as he calls it) the Words and Senſe of an Author.

§. 1. TO ſhow there are not the ſame Grounds and Motives for Chriſts preſence in the Euchariſt by Tranſubstantiation, as for his Divinity, my Adverſary inſtances in Three. 1. The Authority of the Roman Church. 2. Catholick Tradition. 3. Scripture. And for the firſt of theſe, Viz. The Authority of the Roman Church, if it have any at all, it ſtands againſt the Doctor for Tranſubſtantiation, and that ſo evidently, that he is forced to take the confidence (p. 130.) utterly to deny that to be any ground of believing at all. For my part I believe every ſober Perſon of his own Party will judge he had much better have ſaid nothing at all. And I cannot but think how St. Austin, who calls the Chair of Peter that Rock, In Pſ. cont. Part. Donat. Ep. 162. which the proud Gates of Hell do not overcome: and profeſſes that the Principality of the Apoſtolick Chair did always conſerve its vigour in the Roman Church, would have ſtartled to hear one ſingle Doctor ſo pertly deny it to be any Ground at all of believing. How St. Hierome, who writing to Pope Damaſus, ſaith,Ep. ad Damaſ. I know that upon this Rock the Church is built; and whoſoever eateth the Lamb out of this Houſe is Prophane, &c. would have whetted his ſtile more againſt him for denying her Authority to be any Ground of believing at all, than ever he did againſt Vigilantius, for deriding Invocation of Saints, Veneration of Relicks, or Lighting Candles at Noon-Day in the Church, &c. And how St. Irenaeus would have excluded him out of the Society of Chriſtians, Li. 3. c. 3. for this peremptory behaviour, when he affirms it neceſſary for all other Churches (convenire) to have recourſe, and agree with the Roman by reaſon of its more eminent Principality. That this was the Dignity and Prerogative of the Roman Church in the time of theſe Holy Fathers, the Doctor himſelf cannot deny; and if he pretend ſhe is fallen from the Purity ſhe then enjoyed, it is but what the Donatiſts his Predeceſſors in this point, ſaid above twelve hundred years ago, when (as St. Auſtin tells us) they call'd the Apostolick Chair, Li. 1. cont. lit. Petilian. c. 51. the Chair of Peſtilence, becauſe it oppos'd their Novelities, as it does his at preſent. And although the Challenge have been often made, yet none of her Adverſaries have ever been able to ſhow the time when ſhe fell from he • Primitive Purity, either into Schiſm, or Hereſy. Nor yet before what Tribunal her cauſe w • s examined, or by what Judge ſhe hath been condemned, unleſs by themſelves, who are her Accuſers; whereas not only Piety, but even Natural Reaſon teaches, that no particular Man is to be condemned, much leſs deprived of what he ſtands poſseſſed, till his cauſe be Juridically heard and ſentenced. Nor ought any Man to be Judge in his • wn cauſe, much leſs to execute the ſentence given by himſelf: All which the New-Reformers in England, France, Germany, &c. have done in denying the Authority of the Roman Church, and ſetting up for themſelves.

§. 2. But now inſtead of making Good his Aſſertion, Viz. That the Authority of the Roman Church is no ground of believing at all; he deſires, he ſaith, with all his heart to ſee this Authority proved: which is juſt what all other Accuſers do when their Proofs fail, to call upon • he Defendant to prove his Title, which after a long Poſſeſſion ought in all Law to ſtand Good and Valid, till the Accuſer can prove it to be otherwiſe. Cromwell might with much more reaſon have ſummon'd the King to prove his Title to the Crown after a Preſcription of 500. Years, than the Doctor can exact it from the Church to prove her Authority, of which ſhe hath been in Poſſeſſion a far longer time. Olim poſſideo, Prior poſſideo was the Church's Plea in Tertullian's time. 'Tis their part then to prove, who are the Accuſers; yet Catholick Authors to ſatisfy, if poſſible, the importunity of the Church's Adverſaries, have receded from the Rigour of this Plea, and written large Volumes in Juſtification of her Authority; Particularly the two learned Cardinals, Bellarmin and Perron: And now very lately Mr. E. W. (The Book is called Religion and Reaſon, and being written particularly againſt the Doctor, expects his Anſwer.) Theſe he may conſult at his leaſure; I ſhall only at preſent remind him of what I have proved already at his requeſt in the firſt Chapter of the firſt Part, (to which I refer the Reader,) Viz. That a Chriſtian by vertue of his being ſo, is bound to be of the Communion of the Roman Church: And then ſubſume; But every Chriſtian is bound to ſubmit to the terms of Communion of that Church, whoſe Communion by being a Chriſtian he is bound to be of. Therefore every Chriſtian by vertue of his being ſo, is bound to ſubmit to the terms of Communion required by the Roman Church: And this the Doctor knows (for he often complains of it as a great violence put upon his Senſe and Reaſon) to be a ſubmiſſion to her Decrees in matters of Faith; and particularly in the Point of Chriſt's preſence in the Euchariſt by Tranſubstantiation, as well as of his being the ſame True and Conſubſtantial God with his Father.

§. 2. The Second Ground or Motive he Inſtances in, (and I ſuppoſe he will deny this too to be any ground of believing at all) is Catholick Tradition. This done, he bids me again, to prove if I can (as if it belong'd not at all to him who is the Accuſer to prove his Action; or as if it had been ſome new point which no Catholick Author had ever yet attempted to prove) that Tranſubſtantiation was a Doctrine received in the Univerſal Church from our Saviour's time: and here, he ſaith, when I pleaſe he ſhall joyn iſsue with me, And if I think fit to put the Negative upon him, he will undertake to inſtance in an Age, ſince the firſt Three Centuries, wherein if the most learned Fathers and Biſhops (yea of Rome it ſelf) be to be credited, Tranſubſtantiation was not believed. Theſe are bigg words indeed, and the Doctor might have done well to have remembred what the King of Iſrael anſwered to the proud meſſage of the King of Syria, 3 Kings 20. 11. Let not him that girdeth on his Harneſs, boaſt himſelf as he that putteth it off. But it is no new Artifice in our Adverſaries, then to ſpeak biggeſt, when there is least cauſe for it; as I ſhall make appear my Adverſary does in this matter from the very Confeſſion of Protestants themſelves: Which kind of proof is look'd upon by all ſober Men, as very proper both to ſatisfie the Judgment of an Impartial Reader, and alſo to abate the boaſting of over confident Spirits. For, as Biſhop Hall ſaith, One blow of an Enemy dealt to his Brother, Peace of Rome, Ep. dedic. fol. 1. is worth more than many from an adverſe hand. And upon this account it is, that when Bellarmin makes uſe of the like proof, (that is, undertakes to prove the Roman Church to be the true Church of God, by the Confeſſion of Proteſtants,) Dr. Field ſaith, ſurely if he can prove, Of the Church p. 182. that we confeſs it to be the true Church, he needeth not to uſe any other arguments. Let us ſee then what Proteſtants ſay in this Point. And firſt that Tranſubstantiation was a Doctrine received in the Univerſal Church from the time of Berengarius, that is 600. Years ago, is ſcarcely denied by any that I know of. Mr. Fox himſelf acknowledgeth,Act. Monum. Printed Ann. 1526. p. 1121. that about that time the denying of it began to be accounted Hereſy, and in that number, ſaith he, was first one Berengarius, who lived about Anno 1060. And Mr. Perkins allows it a longer Date, when he ſays that during the ſpace of 900 Years the Popiſh Hereſy had ſpread it ſelf over the whole World. Expoſ. Symh. p. 266. 2dly, That it had remained in quiet poſseſſion from the Year 850. (that is 200 Years before) until the time of Berengarius is confeſſed by Joachim Camerarius; Hiſt. Narrat. p. 161. as alſo that although it had been called into Queſtion before by the prlvate Writings of ſome, yet the firſt that publickly impugned it was Berengarius. 3dly. That Damaſcene in the beginning of the 8th. Century, and Theophylact (who though he be not ſo ancient, yet his Authority is much eſteem'd by learned Men, becauſe he is look'd on as an Abridger of St. Chryſoſtome) did plainly incline to Tranſubſtantiation, is confeſs'd by Urſinyus. Commonefact. p. 211. So is it of St. Gregory in the 6th. Age by Dr. Humfrey, Jeſuitiſm. p. 2. Rat. 5. p. 626. when he ſaith, that he and St. Auſtin the Apoſtle of England, brought Tranſubſtantiation into the Engliſh Church. In the fift Age Euſebius Emiſsenus is taxed by the Centuriſts, to have ſpoken not commodiouſly (viz. for their purpoſe) of Tranſubſtantiation. Cent. 4 c. 10. Col. 985. The like is affirmed by themCent. 5 col 517 of St. Chryſoſtome in the ſame Age, and of St. Ambroſe Cent. 4. c. 4. col. 295. in the fourth; of S. Cyprian in the third by Urſinus, Commonefact. p. 211. & 218. of Tertullian and Origen in the ſecond by the forenamed Centuriſts,Cent. 3. col. 58. 260. and S. Ignatius in the firſt is acknowledged by ſundry Proteſtants Hamelman. de Trad. Apoſt. c. 746. Chemn. Exam. part. 1. p. 94. to have ſaid of certain Hereticks of his time, That they do not admit Euchariſts and Oblations, becauſe they do not confeſs the Euchariſt to be the Fleſh of our Saviour Jeſus Chriſt, which Fleſh ſuffred for our Sins; an evident ſign that all thoſe who held the Fleſh of Chriſt to be true Fleſh, and not Phantaſtical, believed alſo the Eucharist to be that very true Fleſh.

This is what Protestants themſelves confeſs of the moſt eminent Fathers of God's Church in each Age from our Saviours time concerning the Doctrin of Tranſubſtantiation, as I find them cited in two Treatiſes, the one called The Proteſtants Apology for the Roman Church; the other, The Progeny of Catholicks and Proteſtants; whoſe Authors I never heard were taxed of inſincerity in their quotations: And if it be true, what Dr. Field ſaith of Bellarmin, that if he could prove that Proteſtants confeſs the Roman to be the true Church, he needed not to uſe any other arguments, I might ſuperſede any farther proof of this matter, and leave the Doctor to join iſſue with his Fellow-Brethren.

But the Reader perhaps may deſire to ſee the Teſtimonies themſelves of thoſe Fathers, which were ſo pregnant as to force ſuch learned Men of the Protestant Party to confeſs that they taught the Doctrin of Tranſubstantiation. And in order to his ſatisfaction in this Point, I ſhall ſet down one Teſtimony of each Father in the ſame order as they ſtand cited above, and but One to avoid Prolixity.

TESTIMONIES OF THE FATHERS FOR TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

IN the beginning of the Eighth Century, St. Jo. Damaſcen, li. 4. de fid. c. 14. The Bread and Wine and Water are by the Invocation and Coming of the Holy Ghoſt, changed ſupernaturally into the Body and Blood of Chriſt: And with him agrees Theophylact, The Bread is transformed by the Myſtical Benediction,In cap. 6. Joan. and the coming of the Holy Ghoſt, into the Fleſh of our Lord.

At the end of the Fifth and beginning of the Sixth Century, St. Gregory. Our Creator well knowing our Infirmity,Paul. Diacon. in ejus vita. by that Power, with which he made all things of nothing, by the Sanctification of his Spirit, converts the Bread and Wine mixed with Water (their proper ſpecies or figure remaining) into his Fleſh and Blood.

In the Fifth Euſebius Emiſſenus, and St. John Chryſoſtome. The former ſaith, Before Conſecration, there is the Subſtance of Bread and Wine,Serm. de corp. dom. but after the words of Chriſt, it is the Body and Blood of Chriſt. For what wonder that he who created them with his Word, ſhould convert or change them after they were created? The latter, The things we propoſe are not done by Humane Power:Hom. 83. in Matth. We hold but the place of Miniſters, but he that ſanctifieth and changeth them is Chriſt himſelf.

In the Fourth Century St. Ambroſe▪ and becauſe this is the Age I ſuppoſe the Doctor pitches upon, when he ſaith he will undertake to inſtance in an Age, ſince the firſt three Centuries, Wherein if the moſt learned Fathers and Biſhops who lived in it are to be credited, Tranſubstantiation was not believed; I ſhall be ſomewhat larger in citing the words of St. Ambroſe, and alſo add other Teſtimonies of Fathers of the ſame time to his, that the Reader may ſee what Iſsue his Undertaking is like to have in this matter. First, Then St. Ambroſe, as if he foreſaw my Adverſaries objection,li. de Initiand. c. 9. puts it down in theſe formal words. You will ſay perhaps, How do you prove to me that I receive the Body of Chriſt, when I ſee another thing? And the way he takes to Anſwer it, is by comparing the change made here in the Nature of the Bread, with the examples of thoſe miraculous changes, which were wrought by Holy Men of Old in the Natures of other things, as of Moſes's Rodd being turned into a Serpent, the Waters of Aegypt into Blood, &c. From whence he infers, that if the Benediction of thoſe who were but pure Men, was of ſuch force, as to change Nature, What muſt we ſay of that divine Conſecration, where the very words of our Lord and Saviour do operate?— Thou haſt read, ſaith he, of the works of the Creation, how God ſpake the Word and they were made, he commanded and they were created, (that is, produc'd out of nothing) The Word therefore of Chriſt which of nothing could make that to be which was not, can it not change thoſe things which are (viz. Bread and Wine) into that which before they were not, (viz. his own Body and Blood?) ſurely it is not a leſs matter to give new natures to things out of nothing, than to change them after they are made.—Again, You will ſay perhaps, my Bread is uſual Bread, No, (ſaith he) this Bread is Bread before the Sacramental words; li. 4. de Sacram. c. 4. When the Conſecration is performed, of Bread is made the Fleſh of Chriſt.—He ſpake the Word and it was made; he commanded and it was created. —And that we may not doubt he meant it was made his true Fleſh, he ſaith, As our Lord Jeſus Christ is the true Son of God, li. 6. c. 1. not as Men are by Grace, but as the Son, of the ſubſtance of his Father; ſo it is his very true Fleſh, as himſelf hath ſaid, which we receive, and his very true Blood which we drink. This and much more doth St. Ambroſe write of this ſubject; ſo that no Man need to wonder, if the Centuriſts ſay, he wrote not well of Tranſubſtantiation: Cent. 4. c. 4. col. 295. And I have either read or heard it reported of Calvin that he wiſh'd the Devil had ſtruck the Pen out of St. Ambroſe's hand, when he wrote thoſe Books of the Sacraments. But let us now ſee what other Fathers of the ſame Age teach concerning this Point. S. Cyril, Orat. 4. C. Our Saviour, ſaith he, ſometime changed Water into Wine, and ſhall we not think him worthy of our belief, that he changed Wine into his Blood? S. Gregory Nyſſen. We do rightly believe that the Bread ſanctified by the Word of God, Orat. magn. Catech. c. 37. is changed into the Body of God the Word. By vertue of his Benediction he changeth the nature of the things which are ſeen (Bread and Wine) into that, Viz. his own Body. S. Gaudentius. Tract. 2. de Exod. The Maker & Lord of Natures, who produceth Bread out of the Earth, doth again of Bread, becauſe he can, and hath promiſed to do it, make his own Body; and He who made Water of Wine, maketh of Wine his own Blood. Theſe are Fathers who lived in the Age immediately following the three firſt Centuries, to whom I might add St. Chryſoſtome above cited, (who flouriſhed in this Century, though he dyed in the beginning of the next) and others; but theſe may ſuffice to let the Reader ſee, (if this be the Age which the Doctor intends to inſtance in) how unlikely it is he ſhould make good what he aſſerts, that Tranſubſtantiation was not believed in it.

In the Third Century St. Cyprian ſaith, The Bread which our Lord gave to his Diſciples, Serm. de coena Dom. being changed not in ſhape or figure, but in nature, was by the Omnipotency of the Word made Fleſh. And Urſinus confeſſeth, There are many ſayings in him which ſeem to affirm Tranſubſtantiation. Commonefact. p. 211. & 218. And Tertullian in the ſame Age,li. 4. in Marcion. ſaith, that our Lord having taken Bread made it his own Body, by ſaying, This is my Body: and St. Ignatius in the firſt, confeſſeth the Euchariſt to be the Fleſh of Chriſt which ſuffred for our ſins. Ep. ad Smyrn. And now let the Reader judge whether thoſe learned Protestants above cited, had reaſon to affirm of theſe Fathers (though they taxed them of error for it) that for what appears by their words they believed and taught the Doctrin of Tranſubſtantiation. I know the Doctor will not want many a pretty artifice to obſcure, if poſſible, and elude the force of theſe Teſtimonies, but the Confeſſion of his Brethren will ſtill be a Potent Prejudice againſt him. Nor can he ever have the courage to deny, but that the words taken as they ſound, ſeem evidently at leaſt to teach the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation; and yet (what is highly obſervable in this caſe) this being a matter of ſo great conſequence, that Dr. Morton confeſſeth,Prot. Appeal. li. 2. p. 105. if it be defenſible, Proteſtants muſt ſtand chargeable of Hereſie; but if it may be confuted, the Romanists muſt neceſsarily be condemned of Idolatry: None of thoſe Fathers, who are cited by Proteſtants as Abettors of Tranſubſtantiation, were ever taxed of Errour for what they aſſerted by any of their Contemporaries, whom we know to have been very jealous not only of new doctrines, but of any new forms of words; or by thoſe who lived in the Ages after them: nor yet did the Greeks move any diſpute about this Point in the Council of Florence; whereas Berengarius no ſooner began to broach the contrary, but immediately the whole Church, as the Writers of that time witneſs, was ſtartled at the Novelty, and condemned it as Hereſie, as Mr. Fox above cited witneſſeth.

§. 4. But what if the Doctor ſhall deny all this, that is, both the Teſtimonies of the Fathers, and the Confeſſion of his Brethren to be ſufficient to prove Tranſubſtantiation to have been a Doctrine received in the Univerſal Church from Chriſt's time? To ſhow the unreaſonableneſs of ſuch a denyal, I would propoſe this caſe to his Conſideration, and the Readers. Viz. In ſuppoſition that a Controverſy ariſe in this preſent Age about the ſenſe of a Law, which was made 500. Years ago, and that a conſiderable number of thoſe who ſtarted the Controverſy, ſhould confeſs, that for the laſt two hundred years the contrary to what they maintain, was generally received in the Kingdom as the ſenſe of the Law, and ſhould further confeſs that the moſt eminent Lawyers of the former Ages, from the firſt enacting of the Law, held the ſame with the latter; Nor had there ever been any diſagreement or oppoſition among them in that Point; whether it be not a ſufficient proof, that what they taught to be the ſenſe of the Law, was generally received to be the ſenſe and meaning of it, from the beginning? The Teſtimonies themſelves of thoſe Ancient Lawyers would be conviction enough: how much more when ſtrengthned by the Confeſſion of the Adverſe Party it ſelf? Now if this be ſo in the delivery of the ſenſe of a humane Law, where it happens very often that great Lawyers may be and often are of different judgments; how much more, in the delivery of a divine Doctrine, where the Pastors of the Church are bound to deliver what they received, and the ſucceeding Age is ſtil bound to receive what they delivered? Surely, if we add to this the Confeſſion of the very Adverſaries themſelves, the Proof (as St. Irenaeus ſaith) muſt be true and without contradiction. Adv. haer. lib. 4. c. 14.

§. 5. But if the Doctor will ſtill perſiſt in the denyal of ſo Evident a Proof; becauſe the Propoſition is comparative between the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation, and that of Chriſt's Divinity, as to its general reception in the Church, I muſt deſire him ſoberly to conſider, how much leſs St. Athanaſius thought ſufficient to prove this latter to be a Catholick Tradition. For having cited the Testimonies of four Fathers only for the Conſubſtantiality of the Son with his Father, viz. Theognoſtus, Dionyſius Alexandrinus, De Decret. Nicen. Synodi. Dionyſius Romanus, and Origen, he concludes with an Ecce. Behold, we demonstrate, ſaith he, this Doctrine to have been delivered from Fathers to Fathers, as it were by hand. And St. Auſtin uſing the like Argument in the point of original ſin, Contr. Julian. li. 1. c. 2. &c. firſt makes this Preface, I will alledge, ſaith he, a few Teſtimonies of a few of the Fathers, with which nevertheleſs our Adverſaries will be conſtrained to bluſh and yield, if either any fear of God, or ſhame of Men can over-power in them ſo pervicacious an obſtinacy. And then having produced the Teſtimonies of five or ſix of the Latin Fathers, he tells Julian againſt whom he wrote, that that part of the World ought to ſuffice him, (that is, to make him yield it to be the Catholick Faith) in which our Lord was pleaſed to crown with a moſt glorious Martyrdome the Firſt (or Prince) of the Apoſtles. And then to ſhow that the Faith of the Greek Church was the ſame with that of the Latin in this Point, he cites the Teſtimonies only of three Greek Fathers; and to the firſt of them; viz. St. Greg. Nazianzen, he immediately adds, This is ſo great a Man, that neither he would ſay this but from the Chriſtian Faith moſt notorious to all; neither would they have esteemed him ſo Venerable, if they had not acknowledged that he ſpake theſe things out of the rule of the moſt known Truth. And now let the Reader judg whether when we produce a far greater number of moſt manifeſt Teſtimonies of the Fathers of ſeveral Ages, teaching without any Contradiction that the Bread is changed into the Body of Chriſt by Conſecration; and this confeſſed of ſome of the moſt Eminent of them in every Age by Proteſtants themſelves, we do not more than ſufficiently prove that it was a Doctrine received in the Univerſal Church from our Saviour's time? And, if he think yet he can produce greater Evidence for the Doctrine of Chriſt's Divinity, being univerſally received in the Church from Chriſt's time, the early conteſt of the Arrians about that Point, their Power, and Continuance for ſo many Ages, compared with the open and undiſturbed delivery of the Doctrin of Tranſubſtantiation, may ſoon convince him of the vanity of ſuch an undertaking.

§. 6. The 3d. and laſt Ground he inſtances in, is Scripture; and this, he ſaith, he doth and ſhall acknowledge for his only Rule of Faith in ſpight of all pretences to infallibility either in Church or Tradition. When he hath conſidered well, what Mr. E. W. hath ſaid to him upon this Subject in his two Learned Treatiſes, (Proteſtancy without Principles, and Religion and Reaſon) I hope this ſpight of his may be abated. But in the mean time what doth he alledge out of this his only Rule of Faith (as he will have it) againſt Tranſubſtantiation? Not ſo much I can aſſure you as one ſingle Text. But becauſe Bellarmin produces One, and but One for that Point, (viz. the words of Chriſt, This is my Body.) whereas he cites many for proof of Chriſt's Divinity, he will appeal to him, whether there are the ſame Grounds and Motives from thence to believe Tranſubſtantiation, as there are the Divinity of Chriſt. But if Catholicks do not acknowledge Scripture alone to be the Rule of Faith, what am I concern'd whether Bellarmin produce many Texts, or but One, or none at all? Does not the Doctor himſelf ſay, that ſome of our Religion have ſaid, that Tranſubſtantiation could not be prov'd from Scripture alone; and have not others of it ſaid as much of the Conſubstantiality of the Son with the Father? I am ſure this was believed before the Scripture was written; and ſo Scripture could not be the Rule of believing it. But then again, what if Bellarmin produc'd but One Text of Scripture for Tranſubſtantiation, therefore can there no more be produc'd? Or, if no more could be produc'd, would there not be the ſame Ground of believing from thence, ſuppoſing I am certain of the true ſenſe of th • s One, as if there were many? Are we not bound as much to believe God when he ſays a thing once, if we be ſure of the true ſenſe of what he ſaith, as when he ſays the ſame twice or thrice? And were not all thoſe places cited by Bellarmin, for Chriſt's Divinity, as much impugned by the Arrians, as this, (of Chriſt's words, This is my Body.) is by Calvin and his Complices? Why then muſt I, becauſe Bellarmin produces out of Scripture but one Text for Tranſubſtantiation, and many for Chriſt's Divinity, acknowledge there are not the ſame Grounds or Motives to believe the one as the other?

§. 7. I, but Bellarmin himſelf acknowledges, that there is ſome obſcurity or ambiguity in the very Text he cites; for after he had ſpent the greateſt part of the Chapter againſt the Lutherans, li. 3. de Euch. c. 19. He concludes it thus, ſaith the Doctor, p. 131. Although there be ſome obſcurity or ambiguity in the words of our Lord, yet that is taken away by Councils and Fathers, which is a plain Indication he thought, the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation could not be proved from Scripture alone. But ſtay, am I bound to believe Dr. St. upon his bare word? May I not look into Bellarmin to ſee what he ſays, without incurring a ſin of raſh judgement againſt my Neighbour? The Book (God be thanked) is not ſo hard to be found, as that of Trigautius. I ventur'd to look the place upon the Remembrance of ſome former dexterity I had noted in him in citing of Authors, and (although I could hardly believe my Eyes, nor did not, till I look'd into another Edition) I found Bellarmin not to ſay what he affirms him to ſay, but in reality the contrary. For after he had proved from the words of our Lord, the Real Preſence of his Body in the Sacrament againſt the Calviniſts, li. 1. de Euch. c. 1. and in the preſent Chapter had ſhown againſt the Lutherans, that Tranſubſtantiation is abſolutely inferr'd from the very ſame words, being to carry on his Proofs from Scripture to Councils and Fathers, he concludes the Chapter in theſe words, and that by way of Tranſition:

Adde, quod LICET in verbis Domini ESSET aliqua obſcuritas, vel ambiguitas, ea tamen ſublata eſt per multa Concilia Catholicae Eccleſiae, & Patrum Conſenſum. Add, ſaith he, that ALTHOUGH THERE WERE (or ſhould be, which is as much as to ſay, ſuppoſe there were) ſome obſcurity or ambiguity in the words of our Lord, yet that is taken away by the many Councils of the Catholick Church, and the Conſent of Fathers. And now I appeal to the Reader, whether Dr. St. have not given us here a very rare example of reporting faithfully, (as he calls it in his Preface) the words and ſenſe of an Author. Is it all one to ſay, although there be, and although there ſhould be? He that ſaith, Although there be ſome ambiguity in the words, ſuppoſes them to be ambiguous: He that ſaith Although there ſhould be ſome Ambiguity in them, ſuppoſes them not to be ambiguous. And this is the caſe between Bellarmin and the Doctor. Bellarmin only puts the caſe they were ambiguous, and by ſo doing ſuppoſes them not to be ſo: and the Doctor makes him acknowledge them de facto to be ambiguous: which is juſt, as if when the Doctor himſelf ſays, (p. 111.) ſuppoſing there were the ſame divine Revelation of Tranſubstantiation and of Christ's Divinity, &c. I ſhould infer, that he acknowledges the Revelation to be the ſame, de facto, in both. 'Tis manifeſt then, that by this Tranſlation he hath corrupted both the words and ſenſe of Bellarmin. And this not by miſtake, as appears but too too plainly, for that himſelf makes the words of Bellarmin, as he tranſlates them, to be a plain Indication, that he thought Tranſubſtantiation could not be proved from Scripture alone; whereas had he reported them as they ſtand in Bellarmin, (LICET ESSET) Although there were, (or ſhould be) ſome ambiguity in the words of our Lord, &c. They had been a plain Indication, that Bellarmin for his part thought that he had ſufficiently prov'd the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation out of Scripture. And now the Reader ſees what the Doctor meant in his Preface, by his deſign (as he calls it) to report faithfully: And however he intended to make uſe of it for his advantage, yet it is a very plain Indication of what ſhifts and artifices they are fain to avail themſelves of, who will maintain a bad cauſe. To conclude, I ſhall give him the Opinion of Dr. Taylor in this Point more faithfully: who in his Liberty of Prophecying, Sect. 20. n. 16. ſaith, that Catholicks have a Divine Revelation, (viz. This is my Body.) whoſe literal and Grammatical ſenſe, if that were intended (is ſo clear and evident for Tranſubſtantiation, that it) would warrant them to do violence to all the Sciences in the Circle.

CHAP. VI.

Dr. Taylor's Argument in behalf of Catholicks, ſuppoſing them miſtaken, Un-anſwered by Dr. St. His Parallel of ſuch a ſuppoſed miſtake with that of Idolaters, ſhown to be a real and very groſs mistake in himſelf.

§. 1. HAving ſhown in my Reply that the Dr's Argument by which he would prove the Church of Rome guilty of Idolatry for adoring our Lord Chriſt in the Euchariſt, would be of equal ſorce ſrom the Pen of an Arrian, againſt the adoration of him, as God, wherever preſent; I added, (p. 20.) that ſuppoſing Catholicks ſhould be miſtaken in their belief, (And I hope the Doctor will not infer from hence, that I acknowledge them to be miſtaken, de facto,) yet ſo eminent and learned a Man among the Protestants, as Dr. Taylor, denies it would follow from thence, that they were Idolaters. And the words I cited were theſe, out of his Liberty of Prophecying. Sect. 20. Numb. 16. Idolatry, ſaith he, is a forſaking the true God, and giving divine worſhip to a Creature, or to an Idol, that is, to an Imaginary God, who hath no Foundation in Eſſence or Exiſtence: And this is that kind of Superſtition, which by Divines is called, the ſuperſtition of an undue Object. Now it is evident, ſaith he, that the Object of Catholick's Adoration (that which is repreſented to them in their minds, their thoughts, their purpoſes; and by which God principally, if not ſolely takes Eſtimate of humane Actions) in the B. Sacrament, is the only true and Eternal God, hypoſtatically joined with his Holy Humanity; which Humanity they believe actually preſent under the Veil of the Sacramental Signs; and if they thought him not preſent, they are ſo far from worſhipping the Bread in that caſe, that themſelves profeſs it Idolatry to do ſo, which is a demonſtration, that their Soul hath nothing in it, that is, Idolatrical. If this Confidence and fanciful Opinion hath engaged them upon ſo great a miſtake, (as without doubt, he ſaith, it hath) yet the Will hath nothing in it, but what is a great Enemy to Idolatry. Thus Dr. Taylor, and I ſaid, I thought it would be a I ask worthy Dr. St.'s pains to ſolve this Argument, if he would not abſolve us from being Idolaters. But it ſeems, he either thought it not worth his pains; or rather, that it would be but labour loſt to go about it, and therefore endeavours to ſhift it off: First▪ By returning Us the Opinion of ſome of our own Divines; And, 2dly, By ſeemingly oppoſing Dr. Taylor to himſelf, though what he cite out of him be nothing to this purpoſe.

§. 2. The Divines, whoſe Opinions he returns me, are Coſter and Biſhop Fiſher. If the Doctrine of Tranſubstantiation be not true, Enchir. Controv. c. 8. p. 308. ſaith Coſter, the Idolatry of the Heathens in worſhiping ſome Golden or Silver Statue, or any Images of their Gods; or the Laplanders worſhipping a Red Cloth, or the Aegyptians an Animal, is more excuſable, than of Chriſtians who worſhip a bit of Bread. And if there be nothing but Bread in the Eucharist, ſaith Biſhop Fiſher, Contr. Oecolamp. li. 1. c. 2. they are all Idolaters. Theſe are the Teſtimonies he produces: And what follows from hence? that becauſe they ſeem to ſay in effect what he does, therefore the Reaſon alledged by Dr. Taylor is ſolved? This is a new way of ſolving arguments not unlike to his new way of anſwering the Testimonies of Fathers (I ſhewed above, p. 46.) which was to ask me, How I was ſure, the Fathers had not changed their Judgment in their latter Writings, when himſelf brings nothing to prove they did. What I required of him in this point was, to ſolve the Argument, or abſolve us from Idolatry. The one he cannot, the other he will not do. Only he tells us that two of our own Divines were of the contrary Opinion; as if becauſe Vaſquez holds an Opinion contrary to Suarez, that alone were a ſufficient ſolution to all his Arguments.

As for the Teſtimonies themſelves, they are but the Opinions of Divines, and ſo I might take the liberty of the Schools to deny the conſequence, as Mr. Thorndike doth, when he ſaith, that ſuch kind of expreſſions in Catholick Divines, [viz. if there be nothing but Bread in the Euchariſt, they are all Idolaters,] Epil. 3. part. p. 352. ſhow what confidence they would have the World apprehend, that they hold their Opinion with, but not that the Conſequence is true, viz. that they are therefore Idolaters, unleſs, ſaith he, what I have ſaid above be reprovable. And what was that, but the ſame which Dr. Taylor aſſerted? viz. That a Mans miſtake in thinking the Elements to be away, (which indeed, ſaith he, are there,) cannot make him guilty of honouring thoſe Creatures as God, which we know, if he thought they were there, he must needs take for Creatures, and therefore could not honour for God. And he repeats the ſame again in his Juſt Weights and Meaſures, c. 19. where he ſays, that they who worſhip the Hoſt, do not believe that the Elements remain, nay, they ſay they muſt be flat Idolaters, if they he there. Zeal to their Opinion makes them ſay more than they ſhould ſay. But if they were there, they would not take them for God; and that is it, ſaith he, (not ſaying that they ſhould be Idolaters if the Elements did remain) that mu • t make them Idolaters. Thus Mr. Thorndike, and juſtifiably enough, had thoſe Divines proceeded in the Doctor's ſuppoſition of formal Idolatry; which upon the beſt judgment I can make of Coſterus his words, I have reaſon to think they did not, but only conſidered and compared the Material Object (Bread) as leſs worthy of adoration, with the Golden or Silver Statues of the Heathens, &c. And this I take to be manifeſt from Coſter's diſcourſe, (if entirely ſet down) which is this, that if the true Body of Chriſt be not in the Sacrament of the Eucharist▪ Chriſt hath dealt with his Church in a manner much unbecoming his Goodneſs, which was to leave her for 1500. Years together in ſuch an Error and Idolatry, and that occaſioned by his own words, as was never ſeen or heard of in the World. For, ſaith he, the Error of thoſe who worſhip for God a Golden or a Silver Statue, &c. is more tolerable, (that is, leſs abſurd to any Man's reaſon) than of Chriſtians who worſhip a bit of Bread. And upon this account it is, he adds, that ignorance could not excuſe ſuch wiſe and learned Men, as Auſtin, Chryſoſtom, Hierom, &c. for adoring the Hoſt (unleſs they were moſt certainly aſſured, that it was not bread, but the Body of Chriſt) and that the Heathens were more excuſable from Idolatry, who adored their Statues, (becauſe they muſt needs think them much more worth than a bit of bread.) By which it appears, that the whole force of his argument lies upon the Indignity of the thing, (which the Doctor omitted) viz. that Chriſt by his words ſhould give occaſion to his Church to run into ſo abſurd an Errour, (though but material only) for ſo long a time together. And conſequently he meddles not at all with the preſent Queſtion, whether ſuppoſing Catholicks miſtaken in their belief, they would be guilty (as my Adverſary would make them) of Formal Idolatry? From whence it follows that Dr. St. hath neither ſolved Dr. Taylor's Argument, by which he proves that Catholicks, neither ought nor can be juſtly accuſed of Idolatry, (that is, of formal Idolatry) ſuppoſing them to be miſtaken in their belief of Tranſubſtantiation, becauſe what is repreſented to them in their minds, their thoughts and purpoſes, (and by which God principally, if not ſolely takes estimate of humane Actions) in the B. Sacrament, is not Bread which they believe not to be there at all, but the only true and Eternal God: Nor yet in reality hath return'd us the Opinion of our own Divines, who were not concerned in the Queſtion at preſent in debate between us. For they did not conſider the act, as it was the worſhipping God ſuppoſed to be in the place of Bread; but materially only, as it was the worſhipping the Bread for God. No relief then is to be had from our Divines. Let us ſee whether the Doctor ſpeed any better in what he cites out of Dr. Taylor himſelf; for by his manner of proceeding, he would make the Reader believe, that he had anſwer'd his own Argument, when he ſpeaks nothing at all of it.

§. 3. None, ſaith he, is ſo fit to anſwer Dr. Taylor, as himſelf, after almost Twenty Years time, (in which alſo he was advanced to Epiſcopal dignity) to conſider more throughly of thoſe things, that is, ſuppoſing Catholicks miſtaken in their belief, ye • they are excuſed from Idolatry, as having in their minds no other Object of Adoration in the B. Sacrament but the only true and Eternal God. And what is it that Dr. St. hath found in Dr. Taylor himſelf after Twenty Years conſideration to Anſwer his Argument? Marry this, that Thou ſhalt not worſhip any Graven Images will out-weigh all the beſt and faireſt Imaginations of the Church of Rome. And again, that the Second Commandment is plain and peremptory againſt all the making and worſhipping any Image, or likeneſs of any thing. And who would not think here, that the Doctor had forgot, that we were not diſputing now about the worſhip of Images, but of Chriſt in the Sacrament? Had I cited Dr. Taylor when I was treating the matter of Image-worſhip, Lib. of Proph. c. 20. Numb. 4. to ſay, that the ordinary diſputes between Catholicks and Proteſtants (of which certainly that of the Veneration of Images is one) have to no very great purpoſe diſturbed the Peace of Chriſtendome; and that they are ſuperſtructures ill built,Ib. Numb. 3. and worſe managed, but yet they keep the Foundation—The foundation of Faith, ſaith he, stands ſecure enough for all their vain and unhandſome ſuperſtructures; the places he cites might have ſerv'd for a kind of Recantation, (not to give it the name of Contradiction) becauſe if it be Idolatry it deſtroys the Foundation. But to tell us that Dr. Taylor anſwers his own Argument, viz. (that Catholicks in caſe they ſhould be miſtaken in the belief of Tranſubſtantiation, are not guilty of Idolatry, as having no other Object of their Adoration in the Sacrament but the only true God) becauſe the ſecond Commandment is peremptory againſt the worſhip of Images; is ſuch a trifling evaſion, as nothing but deſpair of ſaying any thing to the purpoſe could have caſt ſo ſubtil a Diſcourſer upon it.

But hath the Doctor nothing here to ſay for himſelf, why he produced theſe Teſtimonies of ſo diſparate a temper to the preſent purpoſe? Yes. For by theſe Aſſertions of Dr. Taylor, it is clear, (ſaith he) he did not think that Idolatry did lye only in giving divine worſhip to a Creature, p. 133. or to an Idol, which is called the ſuperſtition of an undue Object; but alſo will have the ſuperſtition of a prohibited manner, or way of Worſhip to be Idolatry. For he not only makes the Second Command peremptory againſt the Worſhip of the true God by an Image, but elſewhere plainly determins this to be Idolatry; Doct. dubitant. li. 2. c. 2. as when he ſaith, (and I pray take notice what it is he ſaith) that to worſhip falſe Gods, or to give divine honour to an Image (which only they who take an Image for God do) is all one kind of formal Idolatry. If therefore, ſaith Dr. St. (and we muſt grant him too, it is all one, to worſhip God himſelf by an Image, and to worſhip an Image inſtead of God) they cannot be excuſed from Idolatry who worſhip the true God by an Image, though the Object of their Adoration be right, and they think the manner of it lawful; neither can they who worſhip Chriſt upon the account of Tranſubſtantiation in the Sacrament. This is the Doctor's diſcourſe; and as it muſt coſt him no little pains to ſqueez ſo ſubtil an Inference from Dr. Taylor's words: So I confeſs, it coſt me ſome to reduce it into ſuch order, as might make it intelligible to the Reader. But the miſchief is, that whilſt he labours thus to ſolve the argument, he confirms it. For as for the firſt part of the diſtinction, Viz. the Superſtition of an undue Object, it is evident that Catholicks are not guilty of it in Dr. Taylor's judgment, becauſe (as D • . St. himſelf confeſſes) he acknowledges the Object of Catholicks Adoration to be the only true God, who, I hope, is no undue Object of our Worſhip. And for the Second, viz. the ſuperſtition of a prohibited manner or way of Worſhip, he brings nothing out of Dr. Taylor to prove the worſhip of Chriſt in the Sacrament to be ſo; but only tells us, (though Dr. Taylor's words, as I noted above, import no ſuch thing) that he determines the worſhip of the true God by an Image, to be Idolatry; Neither did Dr. St. himſelf hitherto pretend any Prohibition to worſhip Chriſt in the Sacrament, but only that there was no expreſs Command, p. 111. for the doing it. So that upon the whole, Catholicks, ſuppoſing they were miſtaken in their belief, would not be guilty of Idolatry upon either of theſe accounts; that is; either for that they had an undue Object of worſhip in their thoughts, or for that the worſhip of Chriſt in the Sacrament was forbidden. But now,

§. 4. In the 4th. and laſt place, the Doctor aſſerts, p 134. that if a miſtake in this caſe will excuſe •• tholicks, it would excuſe the gr • ſſeſt Idolat ••• in the World. And to make this out, he •• lls us of ſome (who as St. Auſtin relates) ſaid that Christ was the Sun, Profat. in Pſ. 93. and therefore worſhipped the Sun, and would fain underſtand why they ſhould not be as free from Idolatry, as thoſe who are ſuppoſed to be miſtaken in the belief of Tranſubſtantiation? But the diſparity between the one miſtake and the other is ſo clear, that I ſhall appeal to the Readers, whether I had not juſt reaſon to call the not ſeeing it in the Doctor, a very groſs miſtake. For what St. Auſtin relates of the Manichees, (as the Doctor himſelf reports it) is, that they worſhipped the Sun, whom they falſly thought to be Chriſt: That is, what they had in their minds and purpoſes to adore, was the Sun. But Catholicks (ſuppoſing a miſtake in their belief) do not believe the Bread to be Chriſt; or worſhip the bread which they believe to be Christ. No: their miſtake (if there were any) would be, that they believed the bread not to be there at all; and therefore what they would have in their minds and purpoſes to adore, would not, nor could not be bread, but the only true and Eternal Son of God. The difference then in the miſtakes would be this, that the Manichees had for the formal term of their Worſhip, an undue Object, viz. a Creature inſtead of the Creator; but Catholicks in caſe of a miſtake, would have no other formal Object of Adoration in their minds but the Creator himſelf. And the miſtakes being ſo different, it follows they muſt have as different an influence upon the Acts of Worſhip, i.e. to make them guilty or not guilty o • formal Idolatry. But then he moulds the Queſtion anew, and propoſes it in theſe 〈◊〉 , Whether the worſhipping falſe Gods, ſuppoſing them to be true, p. 136. be not as Venial a fault, as worſhipping that for the true God, which is not ſo? As for Inſtance, ſuppoſe the Aegyptians worſhipping the Sun for God, and the Iſraelites the Golden Calf, believing it was the true God, &c. Upon what account, ſaith he, ſhall theſe be charg'd with Idolatry, if an Involuntary miſtake and firm belief that they worſhip the true God doth excuſe from it? And then adds, that the moſt stupid and ſenſleſs of all Idolaters, who worſhipped the very Images for Gods, were in truth the moſt excuſable upon this Ground. To this I anſwer, that (ſetting aſide the new diviſion, he runs upon the old falſe ground, that Catholicks believe the Bread to be God, as the Worſhippers of the Sun believed the Sun to be God) the diſparity as to the miſtakes is ſtill the ſame; becauſe the Aegyptians believed and worſhipped the Sun for God, and ſo did the Iſraelites the Golden Calf; but Catholicks (though ſuppoſed to be miſtaken in their belief) would not worſhip the Bread for Chriſt, becauſe their miſtake would not be in taking the Bread for God; as the Aegyptians did the Sun: but in this, that they conceived the Bread not to be there at all, but in place thereof, the only true and Eternal God: And ſo although the Object, (or rather Subject) materially there preſent would in ſuch a caſe be Bread, yet their act of adoration would not be terminated formally upon that, but upon God. For as Dr. Taylor ſaith, if they thought Him not preſent, they are ſo far from worſhipping the B • ead in this caſe, that themſelves profeſs it to be Idolatry to do ſo; which is a demonstration that their Soul hath nothing in it which is Idolatrical. And if the Doctor ſee not the force of this demonſtration, (for demonstrations are very dazling Objects to Eyes unus'd to ſo great Light) I ſhall lay it yet plainer before him in this Syllogiſm. Whatever is taken for an Object of Worſhip, the Underſtanding muſt affirm (either truly or falſly) to be: and therefore neither the Aegyptians had worſhipped the Sun for God, nor the Iſraelites the Calf, if their underſtanding had not firſt affirmed them to be: But Catholicks whether mistaken or not in the belief of Tranſubſtantiation▪ do not in their minds affirm he Bread to be, but not to be; becauſe 〈◊〉 both ſuppoſitions they believe it to be converted into the Body of Chriſt; Therefore the Object of their worſhip is not Bread, but Christ the only true and Eternal Son of God. And therupon the ſame Dr. Taylor (in the place above cited, Numb. 17.) ſaith, That before they venture to paſs an Act of Adoration, they believe the Bread to be annihilated, or turn'd into his ſubſtance, who may lawfully be worſhipped: And they, who have theſe thoughts, are as much Enemies of Idolatry, as they that underſtand better (as he thinks he does) to avoid that Inconvenience, which is ſuppoſed to be the Crime, which they formally hate, and we (ſaith he) materially avoid. When therefore Dr. St. upon account that the miſtake, and firm belief of the Aegyptians and others, [that what they worſhipped was the true God] could not excuſe them from being guilty of formal Idolatry, (becauſe what they had in their minds and purpoſes to adore, was that very Creature which they falſly took for God) when I ſay he undertakes to infer from hence, that a miſtake in Catholicks as to the material object preſent in the Sacrament, (whereas what they would have in their minds and purpoſes to adore, would be no other thing, but the very true God with Excluſion of the Creature:) would involve them alſo in the ſame crime: Or, on the contrary, becauſe ſuch a miſtake were ſufficient to excuſe Catholicks from the guilt of Idolatry; therefore another quite different, would excuſe thoſe who directed their Intention to the Worſhip of a Creature, which they falſly deemed to be God: Both theſe conſequences are ſo apparently irrational, that nothing but Animoſity to maintain perfas & nefas) an angry charge of Idolatry could extort them from a Perſon, who would be held a Maſter of that Reaſon, as none but Rats can Anſwer. Nevertheleſs, in vertue of them, He concludes, that what he hath ſaid in behalf of the Heathen Idolaters, is the utmoſt can be ſaid for the Papiſts adoration of the Hoſt, ſuppoſing the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation were as true, as he ſays, it is falſe and abſurd. And was this then the Effect of that great Work of the Converſion of this Nation to Chriſtianity above a Thouſand Years ago, that St. Austin, and the other Religious Monks, who were ſent hither with him by St. Gregory, only perſwaded the People to leave their old Idolatry for a new One, as ſtupid and ſenſleſs as the former? Surely no Chriſtian Ear can hear this without horrour. And the Judgement Mr. Thorndike would have made of this Concluſion, could have been no other, but that the Author of it (had not Dr. Stillingfleet very luckily put his Name to the Book) muſt have been a Jew or a Turk; when after a ſerious conſideration of Catholicks adoration of the Hoſt, he concludes in theſe words. In fine,Just Weights. c. 19. Jews and Mahumetans are bound to take the Worſhip of the Hoſt for Idolatry. For they will needs take the Worſhip of the Holy Trinity for no leſs. But they who know that the God-Head of Chriſt is the Reaſon, for which his Fleſh and Blood is worſhipped in the Euchariſt, cannot take that worſhip for Idolatry, becauſe his Fleſh and Blood is not preſent in the Eucharist, as they who worſhip it there, think it is. For they know, that the Fleſh and Blood of Chriſt is no Idol to Christians, whereſoever it is worſhipped: Wherefore if Dr. St. have no better arguments to prove his Charge of Idolatry with, in this matter, than his own diſcerning Faculty of Truth or Falſhood in matters propoſed to our belief; or than what he hath ſaid in excuſe of the moſt stupid and ſenſleſs of Heathen Idolaters, (whoſe Patronage he ſeems to have undertaken all along in this Diſcourſe) I muſt conclude his Reaſons to be as falſe and abſurd, as any Jew or Mahumetan imagins the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation to be.

The End of the Second Part.

THE THIRD PART OF THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS.

CHAP. I.

The Doctrine of the Church of Rome in this Point ſuppoſed by Dr. St. to be Idolatry, but not proved. The diſparity between the Worſhip given by Catholicks to the Saints, and that of Heathens to their Inferiour Deities, laid open.

§. 1. THe Third Point, which Dr. St. fix'd upon, as a fit Subject to ſhow his wit in proving the Church of Rome to be guilty of Idolatry, is the Invocation of Saints. And that the Reader may ſee what a prodigious ſtock of that Faculty is neceſſary to make it out, I ſhall firſt ſet down the Doctrin of the Church, as it ſtands recorded in the Council of Trent. What that Council teaches, is: that, It is good and profitable for Chriſtians humbly to invocate the Saints, Conc. Trid. Se • ſ. 25. and to have recourſe to their Prayers, aid and aſſiſtance, wher by to obtain benefits of God by his Son our Lord Jeſus Christ, who is our only Redeemer and Saviour. Theſe are the very words of the Council; and any Man but of common Reaſon, would think it were as eaſy to prove Snow to be black, as ſo Innocent a practice to be Idolatry, even Heathen Idolatry. What we teach and do in this matter, is to deſire the Saints in Heaven to pray for us, as we deſire the prayers of one another upon Earth; and muſt we for this be compared to Heathens? Do we not acknowledg that Jeſus Chriſt, the Son of God, is our only Redeemer and Saviour? Do we not confeſs that what Benefits we obtain of God either by our own or others Prayers, muſt come by the merits of Him our only Redeemer? Do we not believe that God needs neither our own Prayers, nor the Prayers of others, to confer his Benefits upon us; but that all the need is on our part, and all that we can do either by our own Prayers, or humbly begging the Prayers of others, is little enough to make us capable of his Favours? Do we not profeſs to all the World that we look upon the Saints, not as Gods, but as the Friends and Servants of God, that is, as just Men, whoſe Prayers therefore are available with him? And that we worſhip them only with that worſhip of Love and Communion, with which even in this life alſo Holy men of God are worſhipped, whoſe hearts we judge prepared to loſe their Lives for the truth of the Goſpel? Where then lies the Heatheniſm? Where lies the Idolatry? Had the Doctor held himſelf to the Doctrine of the Church of England, which terms the Invocation of Saints, a fond thing vainly invented and grounded upon no warrant of Scripture; there had been ſome colour for a diſpute againſt the lawfulneſs of it. But to condemn us of Idolatry, down-right Idolatry for deſiring the Servants of God in Heaven to pray for us, was to put the common ſize of Intelligent Readers quite out of hopes of ever ſeeing it proved. He ſays indeed in his Preface, that He thinks it no great skill to make things appear either ridiculous or dark: and here He gives us a very pregnant Example, of what himſelf can do in that kind.

§. 2. The Argument he made choice of to do this Feat, that is, to prove the Church of Rome guilty of Idolatry in the Invocation of Saints, was this. If the ſuppoſition of a middle excellency between God and us, be ſufficient ground for formal Invocation, then the Heathens worſhip of their inferiour Deities could be no Idolatry, for they ſtill pretended they did not give to them the worſhip proper to the ſupreme God; which is as much as is pretended by the devouteſt Papiſts in Juſtification of the Invocation of Saints. To this I anſwer'd two ways in my Reply: 1. By ſhewing the diſparity of Catholicks worſhip from that of the Heathens, in two things: 1. In the Objects; where I ſaid, that by Perſons of a middle excellency, we underſtand Perſons endowed with ſupernatural gifts of grace in this life, and glory in Heaven, whoſe Prayers by conſequence are acceptable and available with God. But the ſupreme Deity of the Heathens is known to be Jupiter, and their inferiour Deuits, Venus, Mars, Bacchus, Vulcan, and the like rabble of Devils, as the Scripture calls th • m; and therefore there can be no conſequence, that becauſe the Heathens were Idolaters in the worſhip of theſe though they pretended not to give them the worſhip proper to Jupiter the ſupreme God; therefore Catholicks muſt be guilty of Idolatry in deſiring the ſervants of the true God to pray for them to him. 2. In the manner of worſhip, becauſe I ſaid, if any of the Heathens did attain (as the Platoniſts) to the knowledge of the true God, yet as St. Paul ſaith, they did not glorify him as God, but changed his glory into an Image made like to corruptible Man, ador •• g and offering ſacrifice, due to God alone, to the Statues themſelves, or the inferiour Deities they ſuppoſed to dwell or aſſiſt in them; which St. Auſtin, upon the 96. Pſalm, proves to be Devils, or evil Angels, becauſe they required ſacrifice to be offered to them, and would be worſhipped as Gods. What he meant by formal Invocation, I ſaid I did not well understand, but Catholicks, I told him, underſtand no more by it in this matter, but deſiring or praying the Saints to pray for them. And if this were Idolatry, we muſt not deſire the Prayers of a just Man, even in this life, becauſe this formal Invocation will be to make him an Inferiour Deity. 2. I anſwer'd, that the ſame Calumny was caſt upon the Catholicks in St. Auſtin's time, and is anſwered by him, and his Anſwer will ſerve as well now as then, in his Twentieth Book againſt Fauſtus, Chap. 21. who himſelf held ſuch formal Invocation a part of the Worſhip due to Saints, as is evident from the Prayer he made to St. Cyprian after his Martyrdome, l. 7. de Bapt. c. Donat. c. 1. And Calvin himſelf confeſseth it was the cuſtome at that time to ſay, Holy Mary, or Holy Peter pray for Us.

This indeed was my Anſwer, and to diſprove it, he undertakes to ſhow two things: 1. That the diſparity between Catholicks worſhip of Saints, and the Heathens worſhip of their inferiour Deities,p. 139. is not ſo great as to excuſe them from Idolatry. 2. That the Anſwer given by St. Auſtin doth not vindicate them now, as well as then.

§. 3. 1. Concerning the diſparity; 1. As to the Object of Worſhip, he abhors from his heart to parallel the H • ly Angels and Saints with the impure Deities of the Heathens, as to their Excellencies. No. He hath more honour for them than not to think them more excellent, than Devils, or wicked Wretches: I ſuppoſe in caſe they have the teſtimony of Scripture for their ſanctity; otherwiſe it may go hard with the beſt of them, ſhould he proceed in the ſame form with all the reſt, as he doth a little below with St. Ignatius. But ſuppoſing them at preſent to be more excellent, than the impure Deities of the Heathens, yet if the Idolatry of the Heathens, ſaith he, lay not only in this, that they worſhipped Jupiter, and Venus, and Vulcan, who are ſuppoſed to have been wicked Wretches; but in this, that they gave Divine Worſhip to any, beſides God, then this diſparity cannot excuſe Catholicks from being Idolaters. Behold here the ground upon which he intends to build his Charge of Idolatry, Viz. That Catholicks give divine honour to the Holy Angels and Saints. This is what the Reader muſt ſuppoſe, otherwiſe his Arguments are at an End; and having laid this falſe and ſcandalous ſuppoſition, inſtead of proving it, he undertakes to ſhow out of the Primitive Fathers, that it was the Property of the Chriſtian Religion to give divine worſhip to none, but God himſelf and his Son Chriſt Jeſus. To this purpoſe he cites Juſtin Martyr, and Theophilus Biſhop of Antioch, to whom he ſays he might add, if it were requiſite in ſo Evident a matter, the teſtimonies of Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen, Athenagoras, Lactantius, Arnobius, (and who not, that ever pretended to the Name of Chriſtian?) who all agree that Religious (by which he means divine) worſhip is proper to the true God, and that no created Being is capable of it; and in this ſtrain he runs on for no leſs than Ten Leaves together: and at length without ever proving that Catholicks do give divine worſhip to the Holy Angels and Saints, he moſt triumphantly concluded them to be Idolaters. This is the ſumme of his performance, and by it I underſtand that it had been no great skill in the Phariſees, to have made any of thoſe Perſons who honoured St. Peter, or St. Paul, when they were upon Earth, or deſired their Prayers, to be Idolaters. They needed not any other proof, but only to ſuppoſe confidently, that they gave to them the worſhip proper to God alone, and the work was done; eſpecially if they had but cited that Text of Scripture, Thou ſhalt worſhip the Lord thy God, and Him only ſhalt thou ſerve. I confeſs when I ſaid, that I thought it would be as eaſy to prove Snow to be black, as the Doctrine of the Catholick Church in this matter, to be Idolatry; I did not reflect, that Dr. St. might ſuppoſe Catholicks to give divine worſhip to the Saints, and ſo conclude them to be Idolaters. But this, (as I now remember) is a Peculiar Topick, of which all thoſe who oppoſe the Faith of the Church, are forced to make uſe; Viz. to ſuppoſe her Doctrine not to be what ſhe affirms, but what they would have her to affirm, and from thence to make her guilty of what Crimes and Enormities they p • eaſe themſelves.

§. 4. Now although the Teſtimonies of the Fathers he alledges, are ſo impertinent to the preſent Queſtion, as I have ſhewed, yet becauſe ſome of them, as they are imperfectly reported, or advantageouſly tranſlated by him, may give occaſion to an unwary Reader to ſuſpect, that they meant to deny that any worſhip at all was to be given to any beſides God: I ſhal take the pains to unfold their meaning, and free him from any ſuch Jealouſy, by ſhowing that when they deny in general terms worſhip to be given to a Creature, they mean divine worſhip, which is due to God alone; and not that worſhip which is given to Men, upon account either of their Natural or Supernatural Endowments; or for the Place or Office they hold in the Church or Common-Wealth. For as there is a worſhip due to Men for the former; ſo alſo doubtleſs for the latter. And we have an Example of it in Dr. St. himſelf, in his Irenicum, p. 413. [Printed at London, An. 1662.] Where, ſpeaking of Mr. Baxter, he calls him, Our Reverend and Learned Mr. Baxter: Learned, I ſuppoſe for his knowledge; but Reverend for his Piety, and Place in the Preſbytery, and ſo worthy of double, if not of treble honour.

Thus much premiſed of the different degrees there are of worſhip, as alſo that it is a thing notoriouſly known, that many of the Heathen Emperors exacted to be worſhipped as Gods, that is, with divine worſhip;

The Teſtimony out of Juſtin Martyr (p. 141.) anſwers it ſelf, becauſe where he tells the Emperours, that Chriſt did perſwade Men to worſhip God alone, &c. He preſently adds,Apol. 2. that the ſame Chriſt commanded Christians to give unto Caeſar the things which are Caeſars, 1 Pet. 2. of which Honour is One, in the Judgment of St. Peter. And the like had been manifeſt of Theophilus Antiochenus, Theophil. ad Autol. li. 1. if the Doctor had fairly ſet down his words, for he expreſly affirmeth, that although the King was not ordained to be adored, yet He was to be honour'd with that lawful worſhip, which belongs to Him. And this is inſinuated in the very words cited by the Doctor himſelf. [viz. as the King ſuffers none under him to be called by his Name, nor is it lawful to give it to any, but himſelf, ſo neither is it to worſhip any but God alone] for although the King will ſuffer none under him to be called by his Name yet he requires that reſpect be given to thoſe whom he conſtitutes Judges and Magiſtrates under Him, according to their degree and quality. And God himſelf, although he forbid to give his own Name or Honour to any but Himſelf, yet he commands us to give honour to whom honour is due, Rom. 13. 7. And that this was the meaning both of Theophilus and Juſtin, we need no better Expoſitor than Tertullian, who was neer upon contemporary with them;Scorpiac. c. 14. and tells us that the King is then to be honoured, when he keeps • imſelf within his own Sphere, and abſtains from divine honours; Quum a divinis honoribus longe est. So that I cannot but wonder, what the Doctor meant by alledging theſe Testimonies of thoſe two ancient Fathers, unleſs he intend to deny any worſhip at all to be due to any beſides God; or that he think it not poſſible to worſhip a good Man for his vertue and ſanctity, but we muſt give him divine honour. If he produc'd them for no other End, but to ſhow that we ought not to give divine worſhip to any created Being whatſoever, it is evident they are not at all to the purpoſe, it being far from the minds and hearts of Catholicks to give that honour to the Saints.

§. 5. But then the old ſcruple returns again, Why he may not as well honour God by giving worſhip to the Sun, as to Ignatius Loyola, p. 143. or St. Francis, or any other late Canoniz'd Saint! (He might have added, if he had pleas'd, or to one not yet Canonized, his Reverend Mr. Baxter?) For he is ſure the Sun (and why not the moſt Reverend Sun?) is a certain Monument of God's Goodneſs, Wiſdome and Power, and he cannot be miſtaken therein, but he can never be certain of the Holineſs of thoſe Perſons, he is to give divine Worſhip to. Thus Dr. St. And certainly he muſt believe his Readers to be all stark blind, who cannot diſtinguiſh the Reverence due to a Perſon for his Holineſs, from Divine Worſhip: or that a Saint is not a greater Monument of GOD's Goodneſs, Wiſdome and Power, than the Sun. But by his particularizing the late Canonized Saints, it ſeems he is ſatisfied, that St. Peter, and St. Paul were greater Monuments of the Divine Goodneſs, Wiſdome, and Power, than the Sun; that more were raiſed to love God by ſeeing the light of their example, than by gazing upon that bright Planet: and conſequently, that we may much better honour God by giving worſhip to them, at leaſt, than to the Sun; and perhaps to St. Francis too, becauſe he is ſo kind as to honour him here with the title of Saint. But his quarrel, I perceive, is particularly to Ignatius Loyola, (as he irreverently calls him) who for ought he can know, (he ſays) was a great hypocrite, but he is ſure the Sun is none. And whether will his ſpight againſt the Saints, at length hurry him, if we may not honour a Man for the great Vertue and Piety, which appears in him, becauſe for ought we can know, he is a hypocrite? What if the like ſcruple ſhould poſſeſs his mind in order to St. Hierome, St. Ambroſe, St. Auſtin, and the reſt of the Primitive Saints? It were but to ſay of them, what he doth of St. Ignatius, that for ought he can know, they were great hypocrites: For, He knows the beſt of Men have their corruptions, and to what degree it is impoſſible to underſtand, but he is certain the ſpots in the Sun are no moral impurities, nor diſpleaſing to God. And may he not ſay the ſame of the Martyrs too, that for ought he knows, they did not lay down their lives purely for the truth of the Goſpel, but perhaps becauſe they were weary of them, or for vain glory, or out of obſtinacy, not to yield to their Adverſaries? If, I ſay, ſuch a ſcruple as this ſhould come into his mind, what poſſibility were there of his ever being freed from it, but by Divine Revelation? Yet ſome Aſſiſtance I may perhaps give him, by letting him ſee the unreaſonableneſs of the ſcruple, by the abſurdneſs of the Conſequences, which muſt follow upon it. For if it be not lawful to honour a Saint, ſuppoſed to be in Heaven, becauſe for ought he can know, he was a great hypocrite upon Earth; it follows by the ſame Rule, that we may not honour any Perſon in this Life; for the grace of God which ſhines in his life and converſation, for fear we ſhould honour an Hypocrite for a Saint. And I ſhould adviſe him by no means to preach this Doctrine to his Auditors, leaſt they ſhould entertain the ſame ſcruple of Him, which he doth of the Saints now raigning with God in Glory. O, but they are the late Canonized Saints, that he is not in perfect Charity with (for if he were, he would never refuſe to honour them, upon a meer whimſy, that for ought he can know, they were great Hypocrites:) and Philip Nerius, he ſaith, could not be miſtaken in the ſhining of the Sun, although he might be in the ſhining of Ignatius his face, which yet is thought ſo conſiderable a thing, (it ſeems it was not the only thing) that it is read in the Leſſons of the Roman Breviary. But whoever conſiders the care and diligence, uſed at this Day by the Church of Rome, in examining the Lives, and Actions, and Miracles of thoſe Perſons whom She Canonizes, ſhall find it every way as great, if not greater than in the Primitive times. I muſt confeſs the Dr.'s deſperate ſcruple of For ought he can know— is able to defeat the greateſt diligence Imaginable: and ſo no doubt it had the dedication of that Church in the Weſt, ſome years ago, in Memory of our late Royal Soveraign K. Charles I. had it depended upon his deciſive Vote. As for the ſhining of S. Ignatius his face, he is not the firſt whom God vouchſafed to honour with that outward ſign of the Grace which ſhined in his Soul; and although the Roman Breviary make mention of it only upon the Teſtimony of Philip Nerius, yet that Philip Nerius is known to have been a Man of that ſanctity and integrity, that he would not have ſtained his own Soul, to caſt a falſe light upon another Man's face. I am ſure, though the ſpots in the Sun are no Moral Impurities, nor diſpleaſing to God; yet ſuch groundleſs ſuſpitions, and raſh judgments againſt Perſons of ſo eminent and approved Vertue, muſt needs be highly diſpleaſing to him. What he adds of giving worſhip to Kings and their ſtatues, as well as to Saints and their Images, is altogether impertinent, for if he mean divine worſhip, we deny it may lawfully be given to either of them; and if he ſpeak of ſuch worſhip as may be given to Men, I would willingly underſtand, why the Saints may not be honoured as the adopted Children of God, as well as Kings for that they are his Vice-gerents? I would alſo willingly underſtand yet farther, whether he allow any honour at all to be due to Princes upon that account; for I do not remember hitherto any paſſage in him, (though he have had frequent occaſion to ſpeak of them) from whence I could gather, that he holds it lawful to give any worſhip either to their statues, or to themſelves. And upon the ſame Principles that he denies any to be due to the Saints, a Quaker would prove that it muſt be denied to Princes.

§. 6. What hitherto hath been alledged by the Doctor, to prove us guilty of Idolatry, it ſeems was not ſo full to the purpoſe, as himſelf could wiſh it, and therefore he will now come home to the caſe. p. 145. And this it is. The Heathens were not ſuch Fools, as ſome would make them: (nor yet altogether ſo wiſe as he would make them, if we may believe the Fathers,) to excuſe themſelves: For, though (ſaith he) they gave worſhip to ſome, whom they conſider'd as the greateſt Benefactors to Man-kind, yet ſtill they acknowledged one ſupreme God, not Jupiter of Creet, but the Father of gods and men: Only they ſaid, this ſupreme God being of ſo high a Nature, and there being other Intermediate Beings between Him and men, whoſe Office they conceived it was, to carry the Prayers of Men to God, and to bring down help from Him to them, they thought it very fitting to addreſs their ſolemn ſupplications to them. Here now, ſaith he, is the very ſame caſe in debate, (altering only the Names of Things) which is between us and the Church of Rome, and if ever they ſpeak home to our caſe, they must do it upon this Point. And ſo they do, but very little to their comfort. Here then we muſt fix our Foot, and if we can ſhow the caſe not to be the ſame, we ſhall by his own Confeſſion ſpeak home to the Point; and we ſhall more-over have this comfort at leaſt, that we ſuffer this reproach (of being parallel'd to Heathens) falſly, for God's ſake. In order to this I ſhall ſhow, 1. What the ſupreme God of the Heathens was. 2. What were thoſe Intermediate Beings. 3dly. What was their Office; And, 4thly, What kind of ſervice they required.

1. For the ſupreme God Jupiter, the Doctor ſays, it was not he of Creet, but the Father of gods and men. And the Poets indeed call him ſo, (of whom Horace confeſſeth, that they took the priviledge to dare to fain and ſay any thing.) But how glorious ſoever the Title be, yet Origen tells us in expreſs terms,li. 5. contr. Celſ. p. 487. that he was not the true God, but a Devil. We are ready to undergo, ſaith he, any torments rather than confeſs Jupiters to be God, for we do not believe Jupiter and Sabaoth to be the ſame, neither indeed to be any God at all, but a Devil, who is delighted with the name of Jupiter, an Enemy to Men and God. 2dly, For the Intermediate Beings, it is aſſerted by the ſame Origen, that they were Devils alſo, and according to the differently formed ſtatues, li. 8. cont. Celſ. p. 525. in which they aſſiſted, one was eſteemed to be Bacchus, another Hercules, &c. The like is affirmed alſo by Theophilus Antiochenus above cited, and St. Auſtin upon the 96. Pſalm. But then becauſe the ſupreme God was conceived to be of ſo high a Nature, that he knew not what paſſed in this ſublunary World: Therefore, 3dly, The Office of theſe Inferiour Deities or Devils, was to carry up the Prayers of Men to God (as the Doctor himſelf cites out of St.li. 8. de Civ. Dei. c. 14. 18. 21. Auſtin, but very inſincerely, for St. Auſtin ſaith, not to God, but ad Deos, to the Gods, that is, to Devils,) out of a ſuppoſition, that they cannot know the neceſſities and prayers of Men, but by Intervention of theſe Spirits; and ſo to bring down to Men the bleſſings they prayed for: And, 4thly, To oblige them to perform this Office of Nuncii or Meſſengers, (as St. Austin calls them,) they exacted of Men to give them Divine Worſhip, De Civ. Dei. li. 8. c. 21. by the Oblation of Victims and Sacrifices, as the Fathers every where teſtify. This then is the Scheme of the Heathens Divinity and Devotion. The Doctor's Father of Gods and Men, was according to the Fathers, an Arch-Devil; The Inferiour Deities, were Inferiour Devils. Their Office was to inform the Superiour Gods, of what paſſed here below; and the reward they required for this ſervice, was no leſs than the Offering of Sacrifice to their Devil-ſhips. And now, was this the very ſame caſe (altering only the Names of Things) which, he ſaith, is in debate between Him and the Church of Rome concerning the Invocation of Saints? Surely, a more Injurious Calumny ſcarce ever dropt from the Pen of the greateſt Enemy of Chriſtianity, except that of Julian the Apoſtate, who charged the Chriſtians of his time for their worſhipping the Martyrs, that for the one true God, they worſhipped many Men who were not Gods. A moſt Injurious Calumny,As St. Cyril Alex. reports of him. li. 6. contr. Julian. I ſay. For, r. The God, whom we adore, is not that wiſe Father of Gods and Men, who was ſo high, as not to know what was done here below; but the true and Immortal God, Maker of Heaven and Earth, who ſees the ſecrets of our hearts, and knows our neceſſities before we utter them. 2dly, The Perſons to whom we addreſs our ſelves for their Prayers, are not Devils or wicked Wretches, but the Friends and Servants of God, whom the Doctor himſelf (as little reſpect as he hath for them) acknowledges to exceed thoſe other in excellency. 3dly, Their Office is not to inform the Supream God of what he knows not, but to be Joynt Petitioners with us, and for us, to his divine Majesty, as other Holymen are upon Earth. 4thly, and Laſtly, We do not procure, or buy this favour of them, by offering Sacrifice to them; for as St. Auſtin ſaith, What Biſhop officiating at the Altar, Cont. Fauſt. li. 20. c. 21. doth ſay at any time, We offer to Thee Peter, or Paul, or Cyprian? But, as the ſame Holy Doctor there ſaith, We celebrate their Memory with Religious Solemnity, both to excite us to their imitation, and to become partakers of their Merits and Prayers: but ſo that we erect Altars not to any of the Martyrs but to the God of Martyrs, although in Memory of them.

And now having ſpoken thus home to the Caſe, I leave it to the Reader's Judgment, whether the Practice of Catholicks in honouring and Invocating the Saints, be the ſame with that of the Heathens, in the worſhip of their Inferiour Deities? To make the Caſe run Parallel on all four, the Doctor muſt prove, either that the God we worſhip is not the very true God, but an Arch-Devil; or that the Holy Angels and Saints are not his friends and ſervants, but inferiour Devils; Or that we believe him to be ſo ignorant, that he ſtands in need of them to inform him; or that we offer ſacrifice and erect Altars to them. And when he can do all, or any of theſe, he will ſpeak ſomething to the Point. But I believe theſe are none of thoſe things, which he threatens largely to prove, if further occaſion be given. And I have good reaſon to believe ſo, by his preſent undertaking, which is not to prove any of theſe things (in which the Parallel muſt conſiſt, if there be any,) but to caſt a miſt before his Readers eyes, and make him loſe both his labour, and the Queſtion, as I ſhall ſhow in the following Chapter.

CHAP. II.

What kind of Honour Catholicks give to the Saints. The Teſtimonies of Origen, and St. Ambroſe explained. Of the Practice of making Addreſſes to particular Saints.

§. 1. THe Queſtion at preſent between Dr. St. and the Church of Rome, is not whether divine worſhip be to be given to the Saints, (for this is abhor'd of all faithful Christians) but whether an Inferiour Worſhip, of like kind with that which is given to Holy Men upon Earth for their Holineſs and neer Relation to God, may not be lawfully given to them, now they are in Heaven? This is the true ſtate of the Queſtion between us, which the Doctor, afraid to grapple with, turns aſide, and will (he ſaith) inſiſt upon theſe two things. 1. That the Fathers did condemn all ſuch kind of worſh • p, p. 146. ſuppoſing their Principle true, that is, as far as I can underſtand it, ſuppoſing what they ſaid was true. 2. That they did not only condemn it, in thoſe ſpirits, which the Heathens worſhipped, but in good Angels themſelves. And before I engage with Him upon the Teſtimonies of the Fathers, I muſt diſperſe the Miſt he raiſes by his Egregious equivocating in the words, All ſuch kind of worſhip. What kind of worſhip is it the Fathers deny may be given to the most excellent created Beings? He tells us, (p. 145.) any Religious Worſhip. And what doth he mean by Religious Worſhip? To diſpute, (ſaith Mr. Thorndike) whether we are bound to honour the Saints or not, Epil. part. 3. p. 353. were to diſpute whether we are to be Chriſtians, and to believe this or not. Whether this be Religious or Civil, nothing but equivocation of words makes diſputable, and the cauſe of that equivocation the want of words; vulgar uſe not having provided words properly to ſignify conceptions, which came not from Common ſenſe.—Plainly their excellence, and the Relation we have to them, being Intelligible only by Chriſtianity, muſt borrow a Name from that, which vulgar language attributes to God, or to Men our Superiours. And then a little after he ſaith. That the Relation which God hath ſettled between the Church Militant and Triumphant, may be reaſonably called Religious, provided that the diſtance be not confounded between the Religious honour of God, and that Honour of the Creature, which the Religious honour of God enjoins, being neither Civil nor Humane, but ſuch as a Creature is capable of for Religion's ſake, and that Relation which it ſettleth. By this it appears, that if the Doctor mean by Religious Worſhip, that Honor which is due to God alone, it is true what the Fathers ſay, that It is not to be given to the moſt excellent created Beings, but nothing at all to the Point in debate between us. If he mean, that Honour of which a Creature is capable of for Religion's ſake, and that Relation which it ſettleth, I ſhall ſhow it to be falſe that the Fathers deny any ſuch honour to be given to the Holy Angels and Saints. And if he contend that this kind of worſhip ought not to be called Religious, de Civit. Dei. li. 10. c. 1. St. Auſtin will tell him, that it is but a meer wrangling about words, becauſe the word Religion, as he ſhows, may be uſed in other ſenſes, beſides that of the worſhip due to God; Contr. Fauſt. li. 20. c. 21. and Himſelf ſpeaking of the honour given by Chriſtians to the Martyrs, ſaith, We celebrate their Memories with Religious Solemnity. And, who ſo (ſaith Mr. Thorndike in the place above cited) could wiſh, that the Memories of the Martyrs, and other Saints who lived ſo, as to aſsure the Church they would have been Martyrs, had they been called to it, (Alas, He never thought that, for ought Dr. St. can know, they were great Hypocrites) had not been honoured, as is plain they were honoured by Chriſtians, muſt find in his heart by conſequence, to wiſh that Chriſtianity had not prevailed. Whether this Cenſure of Mr. Thorndike's be applicable to my Adverſary, or no, depends upon his allowing, or not allowing ſuch honour to the Saints, as is plain was given them by Chriſtians; but for the diſtinction he makes between the Religious worſhip due to God, and that of which a Creature is capable of for Religion's ſake, it will clearly diſpell the M • ſt he hath raiſed from the Teſtimonies of the Fathers; and let the Reader ſee, how he hath perverted their meaning, and yet ſaid nothing to the purpoſe.

§. 2. The firſt he cites is Origen, affirming, that the Scripture doth indeed ſtile God, the God of Gods, and Lord of Lords, Contr. Celſ. li. 8. in princ. but withall ſaith, that to us there is but one God the Father, of whom are all things, and One Lord Jeſus Christ by whom are all things, and we by Him—And his mind aſcends up to the ſupreme God who worſhips him inſeparably and indiviſibly by his Son, who alone conducts us to the Father. Therefore ſeeing there are many Gods, and many Lords, we endeavour by all means not only to carry our minds above thoſe things on Earth, which are worſhipped by the Heathen for Gods, but above thoſe whom the Scripture calls Gods, by which Origen means the Angels. To this I anſwer, that it is plain from the very words themſelves, that the worſhip which Origen here contends, ought not to be given to Angels, is divine worſhip proper to God alone; for he ſpeaks only of that worſhip, which is given to the Father inſeparably and indiviſibly by his Son. And when-ever ſuch worſhip is to be given, we muſt not only carry our minds above thoſe things which were worſhipped by the Heathens for Gods, but above the good Angels alſo, becauſe they are not inſeparably and indiviſibly One with the Father, as the Son is, who alone can conduct us by his Grace and Merits to the Father. And this is yet more plain from the Reply, which Origen gave to that Evaſion of Celſus, viz. that None were to be honoured for Gods, but thoſe to whom the ſupreme God doth communicate it; for, denying any ſuch honour to have been granted by God to the Heroes or Daemons of the Heathens, he proves from Miracles, and Prophecies, and Precepts, that this honour was given to Chriſt, Ut omnes honorent Filium, ſicut Patrem honorant, that all ſhould honour the Son, as they honour the Father, that is, that they ſhould honour him as God, which the Doctor tranſlates that they who honour the Father, ſhould honour the Son alſo; tacitly inſinuating that no honour at all m • ght be lawfully given, but to the Son. And again, when Celſus objects, that by the ſame Rule that Chriſtians gave honor to Chriſt, he thought they might give it to Inferiour Deities: The account which Origen gives of the worſhip which Christians attribute to the Son, [viz. becauſe it is ſaid, I and my Father are One.] makes it yet more evident, that he ſpeaks of divine worſhip, which cannot be given to any created Beings; and not of ſuch an Inferiour Worſhip, of which Creatures are capable upon account of their Holineſs and Relation to God. For of theſe he ſaith (and who will not wonder to ſee it cited, though but imperfectly, by the Doctor himſelf) that if Celſus had ſpoken of the true Ministers of God after his only begotten Son, p. 148. ſuch as Gabriel, Michael, and all the Angels and Archangels, and had contended that they were to be worſhipped: (which laſt words, though very material, are left out by Dr. St.) he acknowledges that by explaining the notion of worſhip or reſpect, and the Actions of thoſe that give it, perhaps he ſhould have ſaid ſomething of that Subject, as far as the dignity of ſo great a thing, and the reach of his understanding would have permitted. But this not being objected by Celſus, but only that they were by the ſame Rule by which they worſhipped Chriſt for God, to worſhip in like manner the Inferiour Deities of the Heathens, he thought it not neceſſary to enlarge upon that Subject at preſent, but only to ſhow the different account upon which they worſhipped Chriſt, as one with his Father. By which it is manifeſt he held a certain worſhip or reſpect due to the Angels, inferiour to that, which is due to God alone.li. 5. contr. Celſ. And all that the Doctor hath to ſay for himſelf, is that Origen ſaith elſewhere, Although the Angels be called Gods in Scripture, yet we are not to worſhip them with divine worſhip: which is a plain conceſſion, that when Origen denies worſhip to any created Beings, he ſpeaks of divine worſhip, and ſo nothing againſt that Inferiour worſhip or reſpect which is given by Catholicks to the Holy Angels and Saints.

§. 3. But now the Doctor would ſeem to ſay ſomething to the purpoſe, li. 8. contr. Celſ. when he tells us, that Origen utterly denies, that our Prayers are to be offered to any but Chriſt alone, and that any word which is proper to Religious worſhip, is to be attributed to the Angels themſelves. But he does but ſeem to come home to the Point; for as Mr. Thorndike well obſerves,Epil. part. 3. p. 353 The terms of Prayer, Invocation, calling upon, and whatever elſe we can uſe, are or may be in deſpite of our hearts, equivocal; that is, we may be conſtrained, unleſs we uſe that diligence, which common diſcretion counts ſuperfluous, to uſe the ſame words in ſignifying requests made to God and to Men. And a little a • ter. Prayer, Invocation, calling upon, is not ſo proper to God, but that whether you will or not, every Petition to a Prince or Court of Juſtice, is neceſsarily a Prayer; and he that makes it, Invocates or Calls upon that Prince or Court for favour, or for Justice. The Notion then of Prayer may be diſtinguiſhed, as well as that of Worſhip: and Proteſtants themſelves when they pray others to pray for them, uſe it in a quite different ſenſe, than when they pray to God: for as applyed to God, it imports a total dependance upon him, as the Author of all good; but as apply'd to Juſt and Holy-men, it implies no more, than a Communion of Love and Society in the Members of the Church Militant, with thoſe of the Triumphant, for the aſſiſtance of their Prayers, to him, who only can give what we ask. And in this ſenſe the words Prayer, Invocation, &c. are uſed by Catholicks, when they are applyed to the Holy Angels and Saints. And that Origen, when he denies that our Prayers are to be offered to any but Christ alone, ſpeaks of Prayer in the firſt ſenſe, and not in the latter, is evident from what he had ſaid before in the beginning of the firſt Book, where he acknowledges that the Angels do offer up the Prayers of Men to God, (and ſurely it can never be Idolatry in us to deſire them to do what they do;) and much more from his own practice, in his firſt Homily upon Ezechiel, where he Invocates an Angel in theſe words, Come Holy Angel, and receive Him who is converted from his former Errour. And therfore, when he ſays, We are not to pray to them who pray for us; He adds, (as the Doctor cites him p. 149.) That we ought not to divide our ſupplications between God and them; By which he explains himſelf to mean, that we ought not to pray to them in the ſame manner, as we do to God; for that indeed were to divide our ſupplications; But to deſire them to offer up our Prayers, or to pray for us, is not to divide our ſupplications between God and them, but to unite their Prayers to ours, as we do the Prayers of • uſt Men upon Earth, whom we deſire to pray for us. It is evident then, and moſtly out of the very places cited by the Doctor himſelf that the Invocation or Honour, which Origen denies to be given to Angels, is that which is due to God.

§. 4. But now the Doctor, weary (it ſeems) of being ſerious ſo long to no purpoſe, thought fit to entertain his Reader with an other Eſſay (for one Enterlude of this kind we have had already in the 1st. Chap.) of the peculiar Faculty he hath in expoſing the Saints to deriſion. Celſus (ſaith he, p. 150) yet further urges, that according to the doctrin of the Aegyptians, every part of a Man hath a particular Daemon or Ethereal God, and every one of theſe being invocated, heals the diſeaſes of the parts proper to themſelves; why then may they not juſtly be invocated? ſaith Celſus. And if one of the Church of Rome, ſaith Dr. Still. had been to anſwer him, he muſt have told him, that the thing was rational which he ſaid, only they were out in their Names; for instead of Chnumen, Chnaachumen, Cnat, Sicat, Biu, Eru, &c. They ſhould have choſen Raphael for travelling and againſt Diſeaſes, Apollonia againſt the Tooth • ach; Sebaſtian and Roch againſt the Plague, St. Nicholas againſt Tempests, Michael and St. George againſt Enemies, and others in like caſes. Thus the Doctor makes ſport for himſelf, and others of his humour, by deriding a practice uſed by ſome Catholick People, of addreſſing themſelves to ſome particular Saints, rather than others, againſt particular dangers o • diſeaſes; as if there were no difference between the Aegyptians daemons, or Ethercal Gods, and the Saints, but in the Names: or between the Aegyptians addreſſes to thoſe Devils, and thoſe of Catholicks to the Holy Saints and Angels, but in the language; and that there needed no more, but to correct the Names, as you would do faults eſcaped in Printing, viz. for Chnumen to read Raphael; for Chnaachumen, Apollonia; for Cnat, Sebaſtian; for Sicat, Roch; for Biu, Michael; and I ſuppoſe for, &c. (it is ſo like the Dragon's Tail) St. George, who otherwiſe muſt be left out. But the ſport is not more pleaſing to thoſe who mock at all Religion, than I ſhall make it appear ridiculous to all ſober Readers, by ſhowing Two things: 1. The difference between the Doctrine and Practice of the Aegyptians, and that of Catholicks. 2. The reaſonableneſs of the practice of making addreſſes to one particular Saint, rather than another.

Firſt then, That Catholicks look upon the Saints with a different regard from what the Aegyptians did their Daemons, is evident, in that the Aegyptians believed them to be Gods, which is far from the hear • of any Catholick to believe of the Angels and Saints: And it is no leſs evident that the addreſſes they make to them are different from thoſe the Aegyptians made to thoſe Gods, becauſe as Origen ſaith, the Invocation which Celſus contended for, was Votiva illis ſacrificia reddere, to offer ſacrifice to them, (which is due to God alone) and that upon account that they had power to heal the Diſ • aſes of the Parts proper to themſelves: But the Invocation which Catholicks make to the Holy Angels and Saints, is but to deſire them, as we do Holy Men upon Earth, to pray for us. And therefore when the Doctor ſaith, that If one of the Church of Rome had been to Anſwer Celſus, he must have told him, that the thing was Rational which he ſaid. I muſt tell him, that what he ſaith is Irrational and falſe, becauſe both the Conceit they have of the Angels and Saints, and the addreſſes they make to them, as I have ſhewed, are point blank oppoſite to thoſe of the Aegyptians. But now on the other ſide, ſuppoſing the Aegyptians had the ſame conceit of their Daemons, which Catholicks have of the Holy Angels and Saints, and that they did no more but as Catholicks do, deſire them to pray for them to the ſupream God; would it follow that Catholicks may not deſire the Prayers of the Saints and Angels? No more, than becauſe the Aegyptians erected Temples, and offred Sacrifice to their great God Oſiris; therefore Catholicks may not do the ſame to the very true God himſelf: or, becauſe they made their ſolemn ſupplications to a falſe God; therefore Proteſtants may not offer up their Prayers to the true One.

2. The reaſonableneſs of making addreſſes to one particular Saint rather than another in ſome particular occaſions: And this will appear from the Conſideration upon which it is uſually done, which is not a diviſion of Offices among the Saints, every one of whom may equally intercede without entrenching upon the Propriety of another, and their Interceſſion may be implored by us, in all kinds of neceſſities whatſoever; but it is grounded upon a Reflexion, which the ſuppliant makes either upon ſome ſignal Grace, which ſhined in that Saint above others, as Patience, Humility, Chaſtity, &c. (for which reaſon the Church ſaith of every one of them, Non eſt inventus ſimilis illi, that there was no other found like to him) or upon the particular manner of his ſuffering Martyrdom, or ſome particular Miracle, or ſuch like remarkable paſſage in his Life and actions; which may ſerve to excite the Hope of the ſuppliant to obtain redreſs by means of his Interceſſion, in a caſe which he conceives to bear a ſuitableneſs or conformity to ſomething acted or ſuffered by him. Now the efficacy of Prayer being grounded on Hope, and it being natural to us to hope for redreſs where others have found it, or where it may more reaſonably be expected, by reaſon of ſome particular qualification we apprehend in the Perſon to whom we addreſs, it is manifeſt, that as the aboveſaid Reflexion ſerves to erect our Hope, ſo alſo it conduces to the end of Prayer, that is, the obtaining of what we pray for. Hence it is, that although all the divine Attributes are really one and the ſame indiviſible Perfection in God, yet for pardon we fly to his Mercy; for knowledge to his Wiſdome, for Protection to his Power, &c. And St. Paul aſſigns the remiſſion of our ſins to the Paſſion of Chriſt, but our Juſtification (by which we riſe to newneſs of life) to his Reſurrection. He was delivered to death for our ſins, Rom. 4. 25. and roſe again for our Juſtification. The reaſon whereof he gives in the Epiſtle to the Hebrews. c. 2. v. 18. Where he ſaith, that it behoved Chriſt to be made like unto his Brethren in all things, that he might be a merciful and faithful High-Prieſt in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the ſins of the People; For, ſaith he, in that he ſuffred himſelf being tempted, he is able to ſuccour them that are tempted; that is, by what he ſuffred himſelf, he is made prompt and ready to ſuccour thoſe who are in affliction and Temptation. For it was true even of his moſt ſacred Humanity, what the Poet out of the very nature, of Humanity made another ſay, Ha • d ignara •• li, miſeris ſuccurrere diſco, that by his own ſufferings he had learnt how to compaſſionate the ſufferings of others. And this was laid down by St. Paul, as a powerful Argument to perſwade the Hebrews to put their Hope in Him for their reconciliation with God, becauſe he was ſo particularly qualified and fitted for that Work by what he had ſuffered. Why then may not a like Conſideration of the fitneſs or qualification of one Saint above others, as ſo conceived by us, (either for his eminent Perfection in ſuch a particular virtue, or ſome other Remarkable paſſage in his Life) be taken as a Motive to invite us to addreſs for the obtaining what we ſtand in need of, to his Interceſſion before others? The Scripture we know to perſwade us to Patience in Adverſity, James 5. 10. bids us reflect upon the ſufferance of Job; And why may not his eminence in that virtue, as it ſerves for an example of our Imitation, be alſo taken as a particular motive of our having recourſe to his Interceſſion? And when Jacob bleſſed the two Sons of Joſeph, Ephraim and Manaſſes, among ſo many Angels whoſe aſſiſtance he might have implored, he beggs for that Angel in particular to be their Guardian, who had delivered him out of all his troubles. The Angel, ſaith he; who delivered me from all evils, Gen. 48. 16. bleſs theſe Children. And why? but becauſe he thought that he who had been ſo careful to deliver him, would be as careful to deliver them. And upon this account were I in danger of being ſhip wrackt, I ſhould ſooner fly to the Interceſſion of St. Paul, who had ſaved by his Prayers all his Fellow-paſſengers in the Ship from being drowned, than to another who had never been in the like danger. Behold here then the Crime of Catholicks in calling particularly upon the Angel Raphael when they travel, becauſe he protected young Tobias in his Journey; upon St. Roch against the Plague, becauſe his Charity was ſignal in aſſiſting thoſe who were inſected with it: upon St. Nicholas against Tempeſts, becauſe he ſaved ſome by his Prayers, who in a ſtorm at Sea invoked him, while yet alive: upon St. Apollonia for the Tooth-ach, becauſe all her Teeth were ſtrucken out for her free Confeſſion of Chriſt; and upon St. Michael and St. George againſt Enemies, becauſe the latter was by Profeſſion a Souldier, and a moſt valiant Martyr. And the former is recorded in Scripture to be the Protector of the People of God. This is the Crime for which the Doctor charges Catholicks with Idolatry. Dan. 10. 21. & 12. 1. But if it be a Crime in them, it is much like that of a Beggar, who hopes to find relief at that door, where he hears others have been relieved before. The Doctor perhaps to carry on his ſport, will inſtance in ſome addreſſes that are made to particular Saints upon ſuch accounts, which ſeem to him ridiculous, or it may be contrary to what happened to the Saint. But while I defend the reaſonableneſs of the practice in it ſelf, I am not bound to defend, that all who uſe it, take the hints of their application to one Saint before another from ſolid and reaſonable Motives. This I know, that what ſeems ridiculous to One who ſcoffs at devotion, may ſerve to raiſe affections in another who is truly devout: And the Chananaean Woman, when our Saviour ſaid to her, It is not good to take the Children's bread and cast it to Dogs, Matth. 15. 26. drew an Argument of Hope, from whence another who had not her Faith would have taken a Motive of deſpair. In fine, to conclude this Point, let us ſuppoſe that Martha and Mary Magdalen, who are now glorious Saints in Heaven, were again living upon Earth, I would gladly know whether a Perſon guilty of Incontinency, might not without being guilty alſo of Aegyptian Idolatry, conceive a greater Hope of obtaining God's favour by the Prayers of ſo Exemplar a Convert, than by thoſe of her Siſter, though more Innocent? Surely the Parallel Example of her Converſion, and the particular Zeal ſhe muſt have for the Converſion of others, would ſoon determin the devotion of the Penitent to have recourſe to her Interceſſion? The Caſe is the ſame now ſhe is in Heaven, for ſhe hath not loſt her Charity by being there. And the caſe is the ſame in addreſſes made to other Saints, upon like accounts, as I ſhewed above. When therefore the Doctor hath a mind hereafter to change the names of the Aegyptian Gods, who according to their doctrin preſided over the ſeveral parts of Man; let him, if he pleaſe, tranſcribe out of the Almanack the Anatomy of Mans Body, as the parts thereof are govern'd by the Twelve Signs, Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, &c. The Characters at leaſt may ſtand indifferently, as Hieroglyphical Notes either of the Signs of the Zodiack, or Aegyptian Deities. But nothing can be more ridiculous, than to aſſert, that there is no diſparity between the Aegyptians worſhip of thoſe Deities, and the honour which Catholicks give to the Saints, but in the Names. Thus much for Origen.

§. 5. His ſecond Teſtimony is out of the Commentaries, under the Name of St. Ambroſe,In Ep. ad Rom. c. 1. where that Authour ſpeaking againſt thoſe who neglecting the true God, ſaid it was ſufficient for them to worſhip only the things which are ſeen, ſays, that they made uſe of a miſerable excuſe, which was, that acceſs might be made to God by theſe, as we go to the King by his Courtiers, &c.

To this I anſwer, that it is evident by the Anſwer of that Author, as ſet down by the Doctor, that he ſpeaks of thoſe who gave the honour due to God, to a Creature, and forſakeing God, adored their Fellow-ſervants. Whom therefore he compares to thoſe who give the honour due to the King, to any of his Courtiers; which as he doth not, who only makes uſe of a Courtier to recommend him to the King: ſo neither do Catholicks give the honour due to God, to the Saints, who only require the favour of their Prayers to God. But here the Doctor makes a terrible blunder by his dextrous tranſlating thoſe words of the Author, [Suffragatore non opus eſt, ſed mente devota:] To ſignify, that becauſe nothing is hid from God, therefore we need no one to recommend us to his favour; a devout mind is enough: which if it were the Author's meaning (as it is the Doctor's) would make him to exclude not only the neceſſity we have of the Prayers of our Fellow-members, as well of the Church Militant as Triumphant, but alſo of the Interceſſion of Chriſt himſelf: for, if a devout mind be enough, and that we need no one to recommend us to God's favour, what need we the Prayers of others, or the Interceſſion of Chriſt? But it is manifeſt, that the Author takes not the word in this ſenſe; but as thoſe are called ſuffragatores, whoſe vote or advice the King takes (for example) in the Election of his Officers, becauſe as the Author there addeth, being but a Man, he knows not of himſelf whom to employ in publick affairs, without being inform'd by others. This is the Reaſon given by the Author, and this is what the Heathens affirm'd of their Inferiour Deities, De Civ. Dei. li. 8. c. 21. as St. Auſtin reports, Viz. That the Ethereal Gods who have care of humane affairs, would not know what Men do, unleſs the Aerial Daemons declared it to them. By which it appears, that when the Author ſays, Suffragatore non est opus, that becauſe nothing is hid from God, there is no need of a ſuffragator, he means, that GOD needs not any one to inform or adviſe him what to do, as Kings do, and as the Ethereal Gods of the Heathen did; but not, according to Dr. St.'s Verſion, that we need no one to recommend us to his favour, that is, that we need not the Prayers and Interceſſions of just Perſons, which the Scripture ſaith, are available with Him.

§. 6. The like Piece of Legerdemain he uſes in his next Teſtimony (p. 153.) out of St. Auſtin, for where he ſaith, that if the Ethereal Gods can ſee our minds, De Civ. Dei. li. 8. c. 21. [non ad hoc daemonibus indigent nunciis] they need not for this the daemons for Meſſengers or Informers. The Doctor tranſlates it imperſonalty, that if our minds can be known without their help, there is no need of their Mediation, intimating thereby, that if our neceſſities and prayers can be known to God without his being inform'd by the Holy Angels and Saints, we need not their Prayers and Interceſſion to recommend us to his favour. Theſe are the ſhifts the Doctor is put upon, to wreſt the Fathers to ſay what they never mean't. But now he thinks he hath knockt us on the Head with a down-right blow, when he tells us out of the ſame St. Auſtin, li. 9. c. 15. that thoſe who are Chriſtians do believe, that we need not many, but One Mediator, and Him the very Perſon himſelf, by whoſe participation we are made happy. But here alſo his Pen (that fatal Instrument by which he does us dead) moved not ſo even, as not to ſlant a little from the true tranſlation and meaning of St. Auſtin's words. For whereas St. Auſtin diſputing there againſt the Platoniſts, who made the Inferiour Deities to be Mediatours, ſaid, Non multis ſed uno Mediatore opus erat, that to bring us to happineſs, there needed not many, but One Mediator; the Doctor firſt makes a Preface of his own, as if it were St. Auſtin's, that thoſe who are Chriſtians do believe; And then turns [opus erat, there was no need] (as Plato pretended) into we need not many, but One Mediator; as if St. Auſtin were diſputing againſt Catholicks for deſiring the Interceſſion of the Saints. To the Teſtimony it ſelf, as it ſtands tranſlated by the Doctor, I anſwer, that it is plain from the very words of St. Austin, that he ſpeaks of ſuch a Mediator, by whoſe Participation we are made happy, that is, of a Mediator of Redemption, and not a Mediator of Interceſſion, that is, ſuch an one as may recommend us in his Prayers, to obtain God's favour through his Son Jeſus Chriſt our only Saviour and Redeemer; for theſe may be many, as Mr. Thorndike well obſervs,Epil. 3. Part. p. 355. when he ſaith, that if whoſoever be accepted to pray for another is neceſſarily by ſo doing his Mediator, Interceſſor or Advocate to him, with whom he is admitted to deal on his behalf by his Prayers, then—Certainly neither could Job intercede for his friends, nor Samuel for the Iſraelites, nor Abraham for Abimelech or Pharaoh, nor any of God's Prophets, for any that had or were to have recourſe to them for that purpoſe, but they muſt be by ſo doing Mediators, Interceſsors and Advocates for them with God. And in this ſenſe, (ſuppoſing that the Saints pray for us, which Dr. St. ſaith, he will not deny the Fathers did believe. p. 173.) He admits that the Saints may be called our Mediators, and Interceſsors to God, and that to diſpute whether they may be counted ſo or no, is a meer contention about words. Now that the word Mediator is not ſo appropriated to Chriſt, but that it may be and is applyed to ſome other, Bible in 4o. London, 1610. even in Holy Scripture, the Annotations ſet forth upon the Bible by Publick Authority tell us, when explicating that place of St. Paul, Gal. 3. 19. [The Law was ordained by Angels in the hand of a Mediator] They affirm that the Mediator there meant was Moſes. But however the word Mediator may be uſed, the Doctor ſays, it would be ridiculous here to diſtinguiſh Mediators of Redemption and Interceſſion, becauſe all that the Heathens attributed to their good ſpirits, (for ſo he will have them to be in deſpite of St. Auſtin, who calls them Devils) was only Interceſſion.

This he avoucheth here in the face of the World, p. 156. but (as I ſuppoſe) in confidence, that neither his Reader, nor his Adverſary will be ſo rude, as to remember him of what he told us out of Celſus, p. 150. that the Aegyptian Deities at leaſt, I mean Chnumen, Chnaachumen, Cnat, Sicat, Biu, Eru, &c. Every one of them healed the diſeaſes of the parts proper to themſelves, and therefore might justly be invocated; nor yet of what he told us ſo lately out of St. Auſtin, p. 155. that the Heathens ſuppoſed that the Gods could not know the Neceſſities and Prayers of Men, but by the Intervention of thoſe Spirits, and that the giving them divine worſhip proceeded upon that ſuppoſition; Viz. that it was their Office to inform the Superiour Gods of what they could not know otherwiſe. For, if theſe things be true, it is manifeſtly falſe what the Doctor affirms at preſent; Viz. that ALL that the Heathens attributed to their Inferiour Deities was only Interceſſion; and conſequently, he not only contradicts the Truth, but (what perhaps to him is worſe,) Himſelf alſo. So dear doth it coſt him, to make the Church of Rome appear guilty of Idolatry, for deſiring the prayers of the Holy Angels and Saints; not to inform God of what he knows not, nor for them to give what they ask, (as the Heathens believed of their Deities) but only to recommend us to his favour, as we begg the prayers of one another. But his Zeal is not all ſpent. There follows a ſecond Part of it to the ſame doleful Tune; And we muſt dance ſtep by ſtep after it, if we will not be counted Rats.

CHAP. III.

What kind of Worſhip of Angels was Condemned by St. Paul, Theodoret, &c. with a farther diſplay of the diſparity between the Heathens Worſhip of their Inferiour Deities and that given by Catholicks to Holy Angels and Saints.

§. 1. THe Second Thing the Doctor propoſed to ſhow out of the Fathers, (p. 154.) was, that they did not only condemn giving this worſhip to the Spirits, which the Heathen worſhipped, but to good Angels too. And here again he deludes his Reader with that general term of this Worſhip; as if the honour which Catholicks give to the good Angels, by deſiring their Prayers to the only true God, were the ſame with that worſhip which the Heathen gave to thoſe ſpirits whom they worſhipped with ſacrifice as Gods. But we muſt give him leave to cry whoop, all hid, in Generals, and find him out if we can.

The firſt place he ſeeks to hide himſelf in, (and he was ſo afraid to be diſcover'd, that he would not ſet down the words) is that Text of St. Paul, Col. 2. 18. Let no Man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility, and worſhipping of Angels, &c. and not holding the Head (Chriſt.) Here he ſaith, that St. Paul doth in the general condemn the worſhip of Angels, that is, all kind of worſhip of any kind of Angels, whether good or bad. But if ſo, why did St. Paul ſay, in a voluntary humility, and not holding the Head Chriſt? Theſe Clauſes ſufficiently intimate a particularity in the Worſhip, which St. Paul condemn'd, and this was, ſaith St. Chryſoſtome, S. Chryſoſt. in Col. 2. 18. that ſome among the Coloſſians ſaid that we ought to be recociled, and have acceſs to the Father, not by Chriſt, but by the Angels. And this, ſaith he, is that which is ſaid (i. e. condemned) by the Apostle, that they ſo admitted and worſhipped the Angels for Mediators, as to exclude Chriſt; And the reaſon why they did ſo, is given by Theophylact, Theophyl. in Col. 2. 18. becauſe they eſteemed it a thing unworthy the Majeſty of the only begotten Son, on the one ſide, to make the Reconciliation, and far tranſcending Man's Poverty or lowneſs on the other. This ſuppoſed, the Doctor's petty Objections of St. Paul's not diſtinguiſhing good Angels from evil ones, and our ſetting up other Mediatours beſides Chriſt, vaniſh into Air, becauſe good Angels themſelves are not to be worſhipped, but in ſubordination to Chriſt the Head, nor their Prayers to be deſired as efficacious for us, but through his merits. And when we have recourſe to them upon this account, it is no more to ſet up other Mediators beſides Chriſt, than when we deſire the Prayers of Holy Men upon Earth.

§. 2. But Theodoret upon this Place of the Apoſtle, ſaith, that thoſe who defended the Law, perſwaded Men to worſhip Angels, becauſe the Law was delivered by Angels; which practice, he ſaith, continued a long time in Phrygia and Piſidia; and therefore the Synod of Laodicea doth forbid praying to Angels; And to this day the Oratories of St. Michael are among them. This they perſwaded Men to, as a piece of humility, affirming that God the Creator of all things could not be ſeen nor comprehended, nor approached by us; and therefore we ought to obtain his favour by the Angels. This is what Theodoret ſaith, and the Import of it amounting only to this, that St. Paul and the Council of Laodicea (in his Judgment) forbad the worſhipping or praying to Angels, upon account that the Law was deliver'd by them (and therefore, as Theophylact ſaith, they brought us ſalvation) or that God by reaſon that he is Inviſible and Incomprehenſible, cannot be approached, but by the Angels: The Reader ſees how unjuſtly this Place is urged againſt Catholicks, who have recourſe to the Holy Angels for their Prayers, not upon account that they brought us ſalvation without Chriſt by delivering the Law, or that God is ſo high we cannot have acceſs to Him, but by them: but that they, as true Friends of GOD, would intercede for us through the Merits of Chriſt our only Saviour and Redeemer: as the Council of Trent declareth.

But if Theodoret will not do the Doctor's work, Baronius ſhall. No wonder, ſaith he, (p. 155.) Baronius is ſo much diſpleas'd with Theodoret for this Interpretation, for he very fairly tells us, what he condemns, Baron. An. 60. 20. 21. (and St. Paul too) was the practice of the Church of Rome, and thoſe Oratories were ſet up by Catholicks, and not by Hereticks. And I ſhall wonder more, if he find any one who will believe him; that ſo great a Champion of the Church of Rome, as Baronius, ſhould be ſo ſtupid, as to maintain in the face of the World the lawfulneſs of praying to Angels, as it is practiſed in that Church, and yet confeſs that as ſo practiſed, it is condemned by Theodoret and St. Paul too. Either Baronius was a very great Dolt, or the Doctor does not deal very fairly by him. And this is but too too evident: 1. Becauſe the words as put by him for the words of Baronius, Viz. [what Theodoret condemns (and St. Paul too) was the practiſe of the Roman Church] are not Baronius his words, but the Doctor's, for Baronius ſaith there expreſly, that Theodoret as to the Doctrine of the Veneration of Angels, recta ſenſit, that is, held the ſame which the Roman Church holds at this day. 2dly, Becauſe the Point in which Baronius differs from Theodoret, is not that thoſe were not condemn'd by him and St. Paul too, who worſhipped Angels upon the erroneous account aforeſaid, viz. That Acceſs could only be made to God by the Angels: (whether the Authors of that Doctrine were Jews, or Hereticks, or Philoſophers;) but that Baronius judged Theodoret miſtaken in aſſerting the Authors of that Doctrine not to have been the Heathen Philoſophers, but certain Hereticks; and much more in ſuppoſing the Oratories of St. Michael in Phrygia and Piſidia, to have been erected by thoſe Hereticks; Incaute nimis, ſaith Baronius, Too unwarily attributing to them the erecting of thoſe Oratories which had been of old instituted by Catholicks. Baron. An. 60. n. 20. This is what Baronius ſaith, grounding himſelf upon ſome ancient Records; And here lieth the depth of the Charge, that becauſe Theodoret condemns the worſhip and Invocation of Angels, as he thought it was practis'd by thoſe Hereticks in thoſe Oratories of St. Michael; and Baronius thinks him miſtaken in the matter of Fact, and that thoſe Oratories were indeed erected by Catholicks, therefore Baronius (ſaith the Doctor) very fairly tells us, that what Theodoret condemns was the practice of the Roman Church. Which is juſt, as if the Doctor being to comment that paſſage of Scripture, Joſ. 22. where the Children of Iſrael deſign'd War upon the Reubenites, &c. for erecting an Altar beſide the Altar of the Lord, ſhould tell us, that they too unwarily aſcribed to a ſchiſmatical worſhip, what was intended for a testimony of the true and lawful worſhip of God. And another Author paſſing his judgment upon this Comment of the Doctor's ſhould affirm, that Dr. St. very fairly tells Us, that what the Iſraelites condemned in the Reubenites, was the worſhip of the true God. Would not this be a fair tale. if well told by a credible Perſon of Dr. St.? If he would not own it for ſuch himſelf; Why does he impoſe ſo foul a one upon Baronius? For as the Iſraelites were miſtaken in the End, for which that Altar was Erected, ſo was Theodoret, ſaith Baronius, in the uſe of thoſe Oratories of St. Michael; and therefore it follows no more in his Judgment, that what Theodoret condemn'd was the true and lawful Invocation of Angels, as practis'd in the Church of Rome, than that what the Iſraelites condemn'd was the worſhip of the true God, as exercis'd among them.

§. 3. But the Doctor ſaith yet further, that Baronius very fairly tells Us, that not only what Th • odoret condemn'd, but what St. Paul too condemn'd, was the practiſe of the Church of Rome. But this is yet fouler than the former; for himſelf (p. 156.) tells us, that what Baronius contended, was condemned by St. Paul, was the Idolatry of the Heathens. And although Dr. St. will needs make the Catholick Invocation of Angels, and the Heathens worſhip of their Daemons to be the ſame, yet a greater Authority than His is requiſite to make us believe that Baronius thought ſo too. Theſe are pitiful ſleights of ſophistry, to delude an unwary Reader: Adverſ. Haereſ. li. 2. c. 57. And ſo are, his citing of Irenaeus, as denying any Invocation of Angels to be in uſe among Christians; and of the Council of Laodicea, as charging all who worſhip Angels with Idolatry in ſo doing: Can. 35. For Irenaeus ſpeaks only of ſuch ſuperſtitious Invocating of Angels, as was uſed by the Marcites and Carpocratians in their Magical Operations, and working of falſe Miracles. And whatever Practice that were of nominating Angels, which the Council of Laodicea is ſo ſevere againſt, (whether of the aforeſaid Hereticks or Heathens) it is manifeſt that it cannot with any ſhow of Probability be underſtood of that worſhip which the Catholick Church gives to Holy Angels. 1. Becauſe the Council ſpeaks of ſuch as nominated Angels, and made private Aſsemblies to them, forſaking (or excluding) our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, which words were conveniently omitted by the Doctor. And, 2dly, Becauſe the Council both in the Canon immediately foregoing: (34.) As alſo Can. 51. alloweth the honouring and celebrating the Feast-days of the Martyrs; which is a plain Indication that it intended not to condemn in this Canon the worſhip due to Angels; of whom Theodoret ſaith, That they are more to be honoured than Men; Li. 3. de Angelis. yet not as ſecondary Gods, but as our Fellow-Servants and Miniſters of God. By this the Reader may ſee, whether we had more reaſon to fear the force of this Canon; or he the diſcovery of what he ſo artificially concealed.

§. 4. To his Teſtimony out of Origen, p. 156. I have anſwered already, that he ſpeaks of ſuch Prayers, as are offred only to God; for he both acknowledges a diſtinction between the worſhip due to God and the Angels, and himſelf alſo directs his Prayer to an Angel, as I have ſhowed above, p. 359. What he cites out of St. Austin, (de Civit. Dei. li. 10. c. 1.) is not in the leaſt againſt the Honour or Invocation of Angels, as taught and practis'd in the Catholick Church. For the Queſtion there in debate between Him and the Platoniſts, as it ſtands propos'd in the very Argument of the Chapter, is, Whether the Angels will that ſacrifice be offered to God alone, or alſo to them? That they may be honour'd with that kind of worſhip, with which Holy Men or Bleſſed Souls are honoured by us, he ſufficiently intimates in his 20th. Book againſt Fauſtus, c. 21. Where he equally denies the worſhip due to God, ought to be given to any of them. And elſewhere,Tom. 4. ſup. Gen. 9. 61. as if he intended to prevent the Dr.'s Objection, as to the worſhip of Angels; he ſaith, Neither let it move you, that the Angel (Apoc. 19. 10.) forbiddeth St. John to worſhip Him, and admoniſheth Him rather to worſhip God; For the Angel, ſaith he, appeared ſuch, (that is, in ſo glorious a manner) that he might (by miſtake) be worſhipped for God, and therefore the Worſhipper was to be corrected. And this he ſaith in reference to what he had ſaid before, Viz. That it is obſervable in the Precept [Thou ſhalt worſhip the Lord thy God, and Him only ſhalt thou ſerve] that it is not ſaid, Thou ſhalt worſhip the Lord thy God only, as it is ſaid, Thou ſhalt ſerve Him only, which in Greek is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : by which it is plain, that in St. Auſtin's Judgment, although Latria be due to God alone, yet worſhip may be given to others. When therefore he ſaith in the place now under debate, that the Bleſſed ſpirits are not willing we ſhould ſacra facere, that is, dedicate, (the Doctor tranſlates it equivocally to perform any ſacred Offices) and ſacrifice to them, or conſecrate our ſelves, or any thing of ours to them by the Rites of Religion, it is evident he ſpeaks of the worſhip which is due to God alone, that is, of ſuch Dedications and Conſecrations, as were performed by the Heathens to their Daemons as Gods. And although in his 61. Q. upon Exodus, he makes this difference (as the Doctor objecteth againſt us) between Latria and Dulia, that Dulia is due to God, as he is Lord; but Latria is not due, but to God as he is God. Yet in the very place cited here by the Doctor, he affirms,Li. 10. de Civ. Dei. c. 1. that that ſervice which is given by ſervants to their Masters, is wont to be called by another Name in Greek, that is, dulia. But this the Reader was not to know, for fear he might infer, that if ſome degree of the ſervice called in Greek dulia, might be given by Servants to their Maſters, then ſurely a higher degree of it may be given to the Holy Angels.

§. 4. But now after all theſe endeavours uſed by the Doctor, to hide himſelf in the General terms, of ſuch worſhip, Religious worſhip, Prayer, Invocation, &c. and ſome obſcure paſſages of the Fathers; He tells us, that he knows very well (and I pray God, his own knowledge may not riſe againſt him in the Day of Judgment) by what Arts all theſe Testimonies are endeavoured to be evaded, (or rather, by what Light he will be diſcovered to have ſaid nothing to the purpoſe,) Viz. That theſe ſayings of the Fathers were intended againſt the Heathens Idolatry who worſhipped thoſe Spirits as Gods, and offered Sacrifices to them: But the Church of Rome denie • the Angels and Saints to be Gods, and aſſerts that the worſhip by Sacrifice is proper only to God. This Anſwer is indeed given by St. Auſtin very often, and others of the Fathers: And there needed no other, to the Teſtimonies he produces, if all who read his Book, knew as much as himſelf. But ſuch devices as theſe, (for ſo he calls them, though prov'd to be the ſenſe of the Fathers out of the very places cited by him) he ſaith, can never ſatisfy an impartial mind. And (to return him his own words in a like occaſion) I muſt tell him, that if ever he ſpeak home to our caſe, he muſt do it upon this Point, And ſo he does, but very little to his comfort; as I ſhall make appear, by ſhowing the nullity of the Reaſons, with which he endeavours to make the aforeſaid Anſwer ſeem inſufficient.

1. The Firſt is, becauſe The Fathers, he ſaith, (p. 158.) do expreſly deny, that Invocation or Prayer is to be made to the Angels, and Saints. But this is but to ſay the ſame thing over again, or to equivocate (as Mr. Thorndike ſaith) in the terms of Prayer and Invocation, which are not ſo proper to God, but that in deſpite of our hearts, they may be uſed in ſignifying requeſts made alſo to Men.

2. His ſecond Reaſon is, becauſe It would be no more unlawful to ſacrifice to Saints or Angels, than to Invocate them. And this Reaſon clearly deſtroys it ſelf, becauſe it ſuppoſes we hold it unlawful to ſacrifice to the Saints, as the Heathens did to their Inferiour Deities. But to let that paſs with the reſt: If he take the word Invocation here to ſignifie the Prayer we make to God, as the Author and Giver of all Good, I grant it, no leſs unlawful to ſacrifice to Saints and Angels, than to Invocate them. For what Catholick ever taught or thought that it was lawful to Invocate any Angel or Saint upon that account? But if the word Invocation on the one ſide (as in deſpite of all oppoſition it may be, and by the Cuſtome of the Church it is uſed) be taken to ſignify the requeſts we make to Angels and Saints to pray for us; and on the other ſide the offering of ſacrifice be not only by the cuſtome of the Church, but of all Mankind (as St. Auſtin teacheth) appropriated to ſignify the abſolute worſhip due only to God; De Civ. Dei. li. 10. c. 4. Who ſees not the unlawfulneſs of offering it to any Saint or Angel, may conſiſt with the lawfulneſs of deſiring them to pray for us? The caſe is plain in juſt Men upon Earth. For St. Paul and Barnabas accepted willingly the Prayers which others made to them for their aſſiſtance, but utterly refuſed to admit the ſacrifice which the Lycaonians (Acts 14.) would have offered to them: and it is as plain of the Saints in Heaven, becauſe we pray no otherwiſe to them, than we do to Holy Men upon Earth, though more devoutly upon the account of their unchangeable ſtate of Bliſs. How then could the Doctor parallel theſe two together, and not only parallel them, but make it leſs unlawful to pray to the Saints, than to offer ſacrifice to them? I'le tell you. Catholicks, when they write againſt In • idels or Hereticks, make uſe of the Anſwers which the Fathers have formerly given to their Objections. But Dr. St. being to oppoſe the Doctrine of the Catholick Church, in the Point of Invocation of Saints, is for • 't to maintain an Argument of the Heathens againſt St. Auſtin: Nay, ſaith he, (p. 158.) The Heathens in St. Auſtin argued very well, that ſacrifices being meer external things, li. 10. de Civ. Dei. c. 19. might more properly belong to the Inferiour Deities: but the more Inviſible the Deity was, the more Inviſible the ſacrifices were to be, and the greater and better the Deity, the ſacrifice was to be ſtill proportionable. Thus the Doctor, to ſhow that in all reaſon the duty of Prayer ought to be reſerved as more proper to God, than any External ſacrifice; or, as he va • ies the Phr •• ſe, than a meer outward ſacrifice: and conſequently that Prayer was leſs communicable to a Saint, than Sacrifice. But do you not think the Doctor us'd the utmoſt of his confidence here, to own and maintain for good (nay very good) an Argument of the Heathens confuted by St. Auſtin in that very place? The Heathen, ſaith Dr. St. argued very well. I deny it, ſaith St. Auſtin, becauſe in ſo arguing they manifeſt that they do not know (neſciunt) that viſible ſacrifices are the ſigns of the Inviſible Sacrifices of the mind; like as the words we ſpeak are the ſigns of things. For as when we pray or praiſe, we direct the words to him, to whom we offer in our hearts the things themſelves, which we ſignify by them: ſo when we ſacrifice, we know that the viſible Sacrifice is to be offered to no other, but to Him whoſe Inviſible Sacrifice, we our ſelves ought to be in our hearts. And upon this account (he adds a little below) it is and no other, that the Devils require ſacrifice to be offered to them, becauſe they know it to be due to God alone—endeavouring by that means to hinder acceſs to the true God; that Man may not be his ſacrifice, whilst ſacrifice is offered to any but to him. Thus St. Auſtin in Anſwer to the Heathens Objection and the Doctor's. By which it appears, 1st, That in the Judgment of St. Auſtin, external ſacrifice being the higheſt expreſſion of the higheſt part of Prayer, which is the devoting and ſacrificing our ſelves in our hearts to God, it ought of all others to be reſerv'd as moſt proper and acceptable to him: And that Religion which admits no external viſible ſacrifice, muſt needs be deficient in the moſt ſignal part of the Publick Worſhip of God. 2dly, That in the Judgment of the ſame St. Auſtin the Doctor (if he ſpeak as he thinks) knows no more than the Heathens did what the true notion of external ſacrifice is, when he takes it as diſtinguiſh'd from Prayer. And it would ſeem, as he ſaith, p, 159. very ſtrange indeed that ſacrifice, ſo taken, ſhould be that Latria which is proper to God. But it ſeems as ſtrange to me that He ſhould take it ſo, when himſelf confeſſeth, that thoſe who did appropriate ſacrifice to God, (by which it ſeems himſelf is none of them) did comprehend Prayer as the moſt ſpiritual and acceptable part of it, and that 〈…〉 that ſacrifices of old were Solemn 〈◊〉 of ſupplication; unleſs he meant to make his Reader believe that Catholicks, w •• en they ſpeak of ſacrifice, as proper to Go • , mean only the external action, as diſtinguiſh'd from Prayer: which as 〈◊〉 is far from the • 〈…〉 minds to think ſo the Doctor in applauding the Doctrine of the Heathens, and ſiding with them againſt St. Auſtin, manifeſtly ſhows that he judg'd the Argument of the Heathens more rational than St. Auſtin's Anſwer.

3. His third Reaſon of diſſatisfaction is, (p. 159.) becauſe upon the ſame account that the Heathen did give divine honour to their Inferiour Deities, thoſe of the Roman Church, he ſaith, do ſo to Angels and Saints. But this hath been ſufficiently refuted already in the Firſt Chapter, §. 6. And at preſent there needs no more, but to put down the Negatives to the Doctor's Affi • matives, viz. that Catholicks do not uſe Solemn Ceremonies of making any capable of Divine Worſhip; nor ſet up the Images of the Saints or Angels for that End, nor conſecrate Temples, and erect Altars to them, or keep Feſtivals and burn Incenſe before them as Gods, or offer ſacrifice to them as the Heathens did even to their Inferiour Deities. Theſe are all ſuch known Truths, both from the Doctrine and Practice of Catholicks, that nothing but a Prodigious deal of Zeal to fix the black note of Idolatry upon that Church, from which the Engliſh Nation receiv'd the Faith of Christ, could occaſion the frequent repetition of ſo notorious a ſlander. Nor doth the Doctor ſo much as offer to prove the contrary of any of theſe Negatives againſt the Church of Rome, but only the laſt, of not offering ſacrifice to the Saints and Angels. And here he thinks he hath found ſomething to catch at, becauſe Bellarmin ſaith,Li. 1. de Sanct. beat. c. 7. That the ſacrifices of the Eucharist, and of Lauds and Prayers are publickly offered to God for their honour. But is this what the Fathers ſay of the Heathens worſhip of their Inferiour Deities, that they offered ſacrifices to God for their honour? No, they ſay expreſly, that the Heathens offered ſacrifices to them, and maintained that they ought to do ſo; whereas yet Catholicks profeſs it ought not to be done even to the Holy Angels and Saints, but only to God, though as Bellarmin ſaith, it may be offered to God in honorem, in, or (as the Doctor tranſlates it) for their honour. And this is but what St. Austin profeſſed,De Civ. Dei. li. 8. c. 27. when he ſaid, that what is offered at the Memories of the Martyrs, is offered to God, who made them both Men and Martyrs, and joyned them in Heavenly Honour with his Holy Angels, that by this ſolemnity, we may give thanks, ſaith he, to the true God for their Victories, and be excited to imitate what they did and ſuffered. But the Doctor ſaith, p. 116. that to ſacrifice to one for the honour of another, is a thing beyond his reach, if that ſacrifice does not belong to him for whoſe honour it is offered. I have heard that ſome Beggars have the skill to ſhrink up their Armes into their Sleeves, as if they could not reach above a ſpan from their ſhoulders; And now I perceive there is an Art of ſhrinking up Underſtandings, as well as Armes. For who can believe it beyond Dr. St.'s reach to underſtand how ſacrifice may be offered to God in honour, or for the honour of the B. Virgin, but that it muſt be offered to the B. Virgin her ſelf, and that ſo, as not to honour God by it, as he moſt uncharitably and unchristianly would make his Reader believe we do? A ſudden twitch by the hand will ſerve to pluck out the Beggar's arm to its full length; and becauſe I am perſwa • ed a home-example may do as much for a ſhrunk • up Underſtanding; I muſt deſire the Doctor to reflect, whether it would not be for his honour, that his whole Party ſhould keep a Solemn Day of Thankſgiving for the Great Wit and burning Zeal with which the Lord hath endow'd Him, to the utter confuſion of the Popiſh Cauſe? If he think this would be much fo • his honour; although the Thanks were given to God, and not to him; I hope it is not beyond his reach now to Underſtand that ſacrifice alſo may be offered to God in thankſgiving for the great Vertues and Prerogatives he beſtow'd upon the B. Virgin, although the ſacrifice be offered to God and not to her. In • 〈…〉 , Honour is nothing but a Teſtimony o • Proteſtation of ſome excellency; and whether Thanks be given to God, by words, or by ſacrifice, for the Gifts and Graces he hath beſtowed on ſuch a Perſon, it is an evident Protestation of ſuch excellency in that Perſon, and conſequently for his honour, though both words and ſacrifice be directed to God, and not to him.

His 4th. and laſt Reaſon, [that although Catholicks do not call the Saints and Angels Gods, yet they give them the Worſhip of Invocation, and the honour of ſacrifices, which are only due to God] This, I ſay, is but a Repetition of the Burden of the old Song of Julian the Apoſtate, and Fauſtus the Manichaean: and hath been at large refuted in the precedent diſcourſe. I ſhall only add two Teſtimonies for a farther confutation of it, as ſung over anew by the Doctor. The firſt is of S. Auſtin.Li. 8. de Civ. Dei. c. 27. We do not, ſaith he, erect Temples, or ordain Prieſts, nor make Dedications, nor offer ſacrifices to the Martyrs, becauſe not They, but their God is our God. We honour indeed their Memories, as of Holy Men of God, who fought for the Truth, even to the loſs of their Lives—But we do not worſhip them with divine honours, as the Heathens did their Gods, nor do we offer ſacrifice to them. The ſecond is of Biſhop Mountague, in his Treatiſe of Invocation of Saints, p. 60. Where he telleth all, who are or will be concern'd for Truth, that the Doctors of the Church of Rome do teach, that the Saints are no Immediate Interceſsors for Us with God; but whatſoever they obtain for Us at GOD's hands, that they do obtain by and through Chriſt. And it is (ſaith he) for ought I know the voice of every Romaniſt, Non ipſi ſancti, ſed eorum Deus, Dominus nobis eſt. (that is, Not the Saints themſelves, but their GOD is our Lord.) So, it muſt not be imputed which is not deſerved. Were they worſe than they are, it is a ſin, they ſay, to bely the Devil; a ſhame to charge Men with what they are not guilty of, to make the breach bigger, already too wide. Thus St. Auſtin, and Biſhop Mountague; and were they alive, they might juſtly • ear, Preface, pag. 22. 12. that for theſe ſingular fancies, or ſuperſtitious Caprichio's, as the Doctor calls them, they ſhould • all under his laſh of being accounted Men of mere Charity than Judgment.

CHAP. IV.

Of the Term, Formal Invocation, and the different Formes uſed in the Invocation of Saints: Some Inſtances out of the Fathers, to ſhow the like to have been uſed in their Times.

§. 1. THe Doctor having made uſe, in his Anſwer to the two Queſtions, of the equivocal term of Formal Invocation, to amuze his Reader, I reply'd, I underſtood not well what He meant by Formal Invocation, but withall I told him, that what Catholicks understand by it in the preſent matter, is deſiring or praying thoſe juſt Perſons, who are in Glory in Heaven to pray for them: To ſhew the palpable weakneſs (as he calls it) of this Anſwer, he ſays he will prove, that thoſe of the Church of Rome, do allow and practice another kind of Formal Invocation from what I aſsert; and I think he never betrayed more pa • pably the weakneſs of his own cauſe, than in this undertaking. Let the Reader judge.

§. 2. Firſt then, he ſays, that Never any Perſon before me imagin'd that to be the ſenſe of Formal Invocation, which I do, when I ſay, that what we underſtand by it, is deſiring or praying the Saints to pray for us. And 〈◊〉 Himſelf in the very next words declar • s, that he imagins the very ſame ſenſe of it that I do, when he ſays, that the term of Formal Invocation was purpoſely choſen by Him to diſtinguiſh it from Rhetorical Apoſtrophes, Poetical Flouriſhes, and general wiſhes that the Saints would pray for us, and from Aſsemblies at the Monuments of the Martyrs; of all which, he grants, there are ſome inſtances in good Authors, Viz. the Chief Fathers both of the Greek and Latin Church. For what is this, but to tell us, that he means by Formal Invocation, as I do, a real addreſs of our minds to the Saints themſelves to help us with their Prayers: 'Tis true indeed what He would have his Reader to underſtand by it, is, what he ſays is conſtantly practis'd in the Roman Church to offer up our Prayers to Saints and Angels, to help us in our neceſſities, as well as to pray to God for us. But what doth he ſay then to the Forme of Prayer uſed by us in the Letanies, Holy Mary, or Holy Peter pray for us: Is it only a Rhetorical Apoſtrophe, Poetical Flouriſh▪ or general wiſh, that the Saints would pray for us: Or, is it more? If it be no more, Why does he impugne what he grants was uſed by thoſe good Authors. If it be more, 'tis then a part at leaſt of Formal Invocation, as defin'd by Himſelf. And if when we pray them to help our neceſſities, the meaning be, that they ſhould do it by their Prayers, the whole ſenſe of Formal Invocation in this preſent matter, is to deſire them to pray for us: ſo that though never any Perſon before me imagin'd this to be the ſenſe of it, yet now I have the Doctor himſelf concurring with me in it. But to paſs on to the Proofs of his Aſſertion.

§. 3. All the difficulty, he ſays, (p. 163.) lies in this, whether Catholicks pray to the Saints to help their neceſſities, as well as pray for them: that is, whether beſides the uſual form of ſaying, Holy Mary pray for us; we do not ſometimes vary the Phraſe, and ſay, Help me, or comfort and ſtrengthen me, O B. Virgin: for, as for the meaning of the words, I never yet met with any Catholick ſo Ignorant, as not to underſtand the ſenſe to be, to deſire them to help us with their Prayers. Behold then here the terrible Myſtery not to be made known to Proſelites, ſaith the Doctor, until they be firſt made ſafe and faſt enough! Viz. that ſometimes they may uſe the like form of words to God, and the Saints, as a Child does to his Father, when inſtead of ſaying, Pray Father, Pray to God to bleſs me, he ſaith ſometimes Bleſs me Father. But Catholicks he ſaith, (p. 163.) do this with all the ſame external ſigns of devotion, which they uſe to God Himſelf. And can he excuſe a Child from Idolatry, when he kneels down with the ſame external ſign of devotion, which we uſe to God, and ſaith Bleſs me Father, becauſe he ſaith it in a different ſenſe to his Father, than he doth to God; and will he not upon the ſame account be as charitable to us, when with the like external ſign of devotion, we ſay, Bleſs me, or help me, Mother of God? Mr. Thorndike in all his diſcourſes ſhows his unwillingneſs to free the Practiſe of the Church of Rome in this matter from Idolatry, yet convinc'd by the Evidence of Truth,Epil. 3d. Part. p. 358. he confeſſes, that the Church of England having acknowledg'd the Church of Rome, a true Church, though corrupt, ever ſince the Reformation, he is oblig'd ſo to interpret the Prayers thereof, as to acknowledge the corruption ſo great, that the Prayers which it alloweth may be Idolatries, if they be made in that ſenſe, which they may properly ſignify; but not that they are neceſſarily Idolatries. For, if they were neceſsarily Idolatries, then were the Church of Rome neceſſarily no Church, the being of Chriſtianity pr • ſuppoſing the worſhip of one true God. And although to confute the Hereticks, the ſtyle of Modern devotion, he ſaith, leaves nothing to God, which is not attributed to, and deſired of his Saints, yet it cannot be denyed, they may be the words of them, who believe that God alone can give that which they deſire. And if this cannot be denyed, where is the Doctor's either Charity or Sincerity to interpret theſe or the like words,Help me Mother of God, in the ſame ſenſe they carry, when we ſay Help me GOD?

§. 4. But what do I do expecting Charity from Him, who makes it ſuperſtitious Fanaticiſme, In his Preface. or at beſt but Fanciful ſingularity in others? The exceſs not of his Judgment, but Zeal, (if we muſt call it ſo) hath quite eaten up his Charity. And every thing he meets with, that is not down-right Ora pro nobis, muſt now be Idolatrous or Blaſphemous. Nay, it is enough he hath heard of our Ladies Pſalter, a Blaſphemous Book, he ſaith, never yet cenſured, wherein the Pſalms in their higheſt ſtrains of Prayer to God are applyed to the Virgin Mary. But what, or whoſe Book ſoever that be, (which I firſt had news of from Himſelf) his only hearing of it, argues that it is no publick Devotion of the Church, and ſo not to be charg'd upon Her: And did it contain Blaſphemy (as he ſaith it doth,) and were publickly known, no doubt it had been cenſured before this. But then again, as we are not to take all for Goſpel, ſo neither are we to take all for Blaſphemy, which the Doctor calls ſo. Every one, ſaith Aristotle, judgeth as he is affected, and nothing more ſubject to different conſtruction, than words. They are like thoſe Pictures which repreſent a Man to one that ſtands on the right hand, and a Beaſt to another who ſtands on the left; or like the Pillar of Cloud, which gave Light to the Iſraelites, but was darkneſs to the Aegyptians. For Example, thoſe words of Christ to his Apostles. You are the Light of the World, if you ſet a Jew on the one ſide, and Dr. St. on the other: The Jew who owns Christ for no other than a Seducer, will call them Blaſphemous; but the Doctor, I hope, will not do ſo, although Chriſt ſay of Himſelf, that He is the Light of the World. And the only Reaſon he can give, is, becauſe though the words be the ſame, yet the ſenſe in which they are applyed to Christ and his Apoſtles, is very different. And poſſibly thoſe higheſt ſtrains of Prayer to God, which he ſaith are applyed in that Pſalter to the B. Virgin, may, if examined, be found not chargeable with Blaſphemy, on the like account. For, if it be not the dead words, but the Intention of the Speaker that animates them, which makes them to be Prayer (otherwiſe a Parrot which ſhould be taught to ſay, Help me God, would pray as well as a Chriſtian) it follows that as the Intention of the Speaker is different, ſo will the Prayer be alſo; that is, the ſame words ſpoken to God will have reſpect to Him, as who alone can give what we deſire; but applyed to the B. Virgin, will ſignifie only that we deſire her Prayers to obtain for us of God, what we believe that he alone can give; and conſequently no ſtrain of Prayer, (properly ſo called) which is made to GOD, will be applyed to the B. Virgin.

§. 5. But now the Doctor will be ſo juſt, as not to inſist upon the Ancient Breviaries, or Obſolete Forms, or Private Devotions, (among which ſurely the Pſalter he ſpeaks of may be ranked) There is Blaſphemy and Idolatry enough, he thinks, in the preſent Roman Breviary, to ſerve his turn. The firſt Inſtance he gives, is that of the Antiphon, Hail B. Virgin, Thou alone haſt deſtroy'd all the Hereſies in the World; and leaſt this ſhould be interpreted of doing it by her Son, (as the Church doth, when ſhe preſently addeth, Dum virgo Deum & Hominem genuiſti, that is, Miſs. Vot. de B. Mar. a Purif. by bringing Him into the World, who was both God and Man) a Formal Invocation of Her, he ſaith, follows, Give me strength againſt thy Enemies: to which he adds thoſe Ejaculations in the Hymn, Ave Maris stella. Wherein ſhe is intreated to looſe the bonds of the guilty, to give light to the blind, and drive away our evils (but he leaves out, and to beg for us all good things,) and to ſhew her ſelf to be a Mother, (or as it is, ſaith he, in the Maſſe-Book at Paris, 1634. Jure Matris Impera Redemptori, As thou art a Mother, Command the Redeemer.) But then again, leaſt the Hymn ſhould be thought only Poetical, he ſaith, that in the Feaſt of S. Maria ad Nives, a formal Prayer, is made to Her to help the miſerable, to ſtrengthen the weak, to comfort thoſe that mourn (where again he leaves out, Pray for the People, Intercede for the Clergy, &c.) And the like forms, he ſaith, are uſed to St. Michael, and the Angel Guardians, and to the Apoſtles. And now, ſaith he, is all this only praying to the Saints to pray for us? Yes ſurely, if it be the ſenſe which makes the words to be Prayer, as I ſhewed above; and not the bare Characters or Letters. And that the Church's ſenſe is no other, but to deſire them to obtain for us of God the bleſſings expreſſed in thoſe forms, viz. help, comfort, light, &c. is manifeſt both from her frequent intermixing that uſual form of Pray for us, which the Doctor conveniently leaves out; and from her publick Doctrin, as ſet down in the Council of Trent, and inculcated to all the Faithful in their Cat • chiſms.

But what can be ſaid to thoſe words in the Maſs-Book at Paris, 1634. Jure Matris Impera Redemptori; As thou art a Mother, Command thy Son? I Anſwer, 1. That thoſe words, [ſhew thy ſelf to be a Mother] to which the Doctor makes theſe other of the Maſs-Book at Paris correſpond, are not found in any Maſs-Book at all, that I can hear of; nor do the words cited by the Doctor, agree in their number and meaſure with the reſt of the Verſes of that Hymn, and conſequently I have ſome Reaſon to believe him miſtaken (at leaſt) in citing that Maſs-Book. But 2dly, Suppoſing the words, as cited by the Doctor, to be found in that Maſs-Book, I confeſs they expreſs a vehemency of Spirit, not unſuitable to the brisk and ſudden efforts propet to that Nation; but yet they are ſuch as may admit of a fair conſtruction, if they meet with a Reader who is not obſtinately bent to be way-ward. There are even in Scripture ſome expreſſions, which ſeem to carry with them as great an exceſs as this.Joſ. 10. 12. 14. For example, when it is ſaid that Joſue ſpake to our Lord, and the Sun ſtood ſtill, God obeying the voice of a Man: And when our Saviour ſaith of Himſelf, that in Heaven he will make his Servants to ſit down to Meat, Luke 12. 37. and will ſerve them. Now, as the former of theſe expreſſion doth not ſignify, a real Obedience in God to the voice of Man, but his readineſs to do the will of thoſe that fear him; nor the latter, that Chriſt will really ſerve the Elect at Table, but only ſignifies the great care He will take, that nothing ſhall be wanting to the complement of their joy and ſatisfaction. • o alſo the words objected by the Doctor, [A • thou art a Mother, Command the Red • em •• ▪] 〈◊〉 not ſignify, that ſhe ſhould really command Him, as ſhe did when he was ſubject to her upon Earth; but that ſhe would uſe that Grace and Favour on Our behalf, which She hath with Him, as a Mother, above all other Saints. And this being underſtood to be the ſenſe of the words, all that the Doctor can ſay, is that the Author was too Hyperbolical in the manner of his Expreſſion; and in this I dare affirm he will find very few Catholicks diſſenting from him. Nay more, I have reaſon to believe, that the Pariſian Miſſal of 1634. if there were any ſuch words in it, hath been ſince corrected; Otherwiſe my Adverſary would doubtleſs have cited the Maſs-Book of 1670. and not of 1634. And then the words he objects, ought to have been caſt among the Obſolete Forms, which he ſaid before, he ſhould not inſiſt upon.

§. 6. But now again, if we uſe the ſame form of words to the B. Virgin, and other Saints, as we do to God, as when we deſire her to strengthen the weak, to give light to the blind, &c. From whence, ſaith the Doctor, muſt the People take the ſenſe of theſe Prayers, if not from the ſignification of the words? I Anſwer, not meerly from Lilly's Grammar Rules, but from the Doctrine of the Church delivered in her Councils and Catechiſms, and from the common uſe of ſuch words and expreſſions among Chriſtians. If a Child being taught by his Parents, that God alone can give what we ask, when he ſaith to his Father, Bleſs me, underſtands the meaning of the words to be, that his Father ſhould pray to God to bleſs him: then ſurely much more muſt Catholick People, when they pray to the B. Virgin to drive away all evils, underſtand the ſenſe to be, that ſhe would pray to God to deliver them from all evil; there being beſides the common Doctrine of Chriſtianity, (by which they are taught that God alone is the Giver of all good things,) ſo many Sermons, Catechiſms, and Explications, both by word and writing daily made in the Catholick Church, by Prieſts to the People, and Parents to their Children in this particular Point. Well, but if this were all, ſaith the Doctor, why in all this time that thoſe Prayers have been complained of, (viz. by thoſe who have revolted from the Church) hath not their ſenſe been better expreſſed? Why have they not been expunged all this while, after that their Breviaries have been ſo often reviewed? This I fear, if done, would not be enough to keep them from telling us, Once upon a time there was a blaſphemous Book; or in the Maſs-Book, Printed at Paris in ſuch a Year, there was—But why to comply with the humour of a few Opiniators, whom no Reaſon can ſatisfy, muſt Mankind be debarred the natural manner of expreſſing their affections? And why have not thoſe ſcrupulous Perſon • all this while deviſed a Dictionary, or Phraſe-Book to furniſh us with words, and forms of ſpeaking, which may equal our Conceptions, and expreſs every little variation of our thoughts, and all the different tempers and emotions of the Spirit? Do we not do the ſame action ſometimes more quick and ſmartly, than at others? Why then muſt we be tyed to uſe always the ſame form of words? Why may we not ſometimes utter the ſame affection in a more fervent manner of expreſſion, than at others? He that ſees himſelf in an imminent danger, makes no long Preambles, but cries out, Help me: And St. Gregory Nazianzen records it as an act of great devotion in St. Justina, Orat. in S. Cyprian. ut ſuppetias ferat. that to free her ſelf from the ſnares of Satan, ſhe call'd upon the Virgin Mary to help and ſuccour her. But the Doctor hath now found a Staff to beat Bellarmin with, for offering to inſtance in Scripture that the Apoſtles are ſaid to ſave Men, Viz. by their Prayers, &c. Therefore in the like ſenſe we may deſire them to ſave us: And he lays on ſo hard,Rom. 11. 14. 1 Cor. 9. 22. that he hath beat all the brains out of the Cardinal's head at a blow. For will any Man, ſaith he, in his Wits, ſay the Caſe is the ſame in Ordinary Speech, and in Prayer. Is it all one, ſaith he, for a Man to ſay, that his Staff helped him in his going, and to fall down upon his Knees, and pray to his Staff to help him? And now I pray, who ſo proper a Man to confute Bellarmin, as Dr. St.? Bellarmin ſpeaks of ſuch Instruments as have both Underſtanding and Will to help us to Heaven by their Prayers; and he preſently lets drive at Him with his Staff for ſpeaking Non-ſenſe. Let the Reader judge whether the Inſtrument be more Irrational, or the Uſe he makes of it: I have long ſince obſerv'd, that whenever he makes other Men out of their Wits, The Reader hath reaſon to ſuſpect all is not right at home. But St. Paul doubtleſs was a Rational Inſtrument, and What would He have ſaid, ſaith the Doctor, to one who ſhould ſay to him, I pray you pardon my ſins, and aſſiſt me with the grace of God? I believe he would neither have condemned him of groſs Idolatry, nor prodigious Folly, as the Doctor doth, but conſidering the bitterneſs of his Soul, by the eagerneſs of his Expreſſion, would have given him the aſſiſtance of his Prayers, to obtain what he aimed to procure by his means of God.

§. 7. Having thus cleared the fenſe of thoſe Forms of Prayer, we ſometimes uſe to the B. Virgin, and other Saints, to be no other than praying to them to pray to God for us, as I aſſerted in my Reply, and anſwered the little exceptions the Doctor made againſt it; I ſhall conclude this Point with ſome Inſtances of like expreſſions, either uſed or approved by the Fathers of the Primitive times. And firſt for the uſual form of, Holy Mary, or Holy Peter pray for us, the Inſtances are ſo numerous, that to tranſcribe them would make a Volume. Many of the Fathers are taxed for this practice by the Magdeburgenſes, and other Proteſtant Writers; and for this ſort of Invocation, Epil. part. 3. pag. 358. Mr. Thorndike ſaith, it is confeſſed that the Lights both of the Greek and Latin Church, Baſil, Nazianzen, Nyſsen, Ambroſe, Hierome, Austin, Chryſostom, Cyrils both, Theodoret, Fulgentius, St. Gregory the Great, Leo, more, or rather all after that time, have ſpoken to the Saints, and deſired their Aſſiſtance. Nay, the Doctor himſelf (though diminute in his Confeſſion) acknowledges there are ſome Inſtances of them in good Authors, although he will needs have them to be but Rhetorical Apoſtrophes, and Poetical Flouriſhes, or Wiſhes, that the Saints would pray for us, as we Engliſhmen, when we are at play, (ſaith Mr. Perkins, and I wonder ſo pat an Example could eſcape the Doctor) call upon the Bowls to rubb, Problem. p. 91. or to run as we would have them. At this ſport he fancies St. Hierome to have been, when he cry'd to Paul, after her death, Help me, O Paul, in my old Age with thy Prayers; And ſo no doubt was the Emperor Theodoſius too, when as Ruffinus reporteth, Hiſt. Eccl. l. 2. c. 33. He went to viſit the Sepulchers of the Martyrs, accompanyed with all the Clergy and People, (it was, it ſeems, a General Day of Bowling,) and proſtrate before their Aſhes, (You may imagin to take ſurer aim) implored aid by their Interceſſion; or, (as St. Chryſoſt. hath it) in the ſame, or a like occaſion, Ho. 26. in 2 Cor. beſought the Saints to be his Patrons and Advocates with GOD. And the Doctor Himſelf brings in Saint Auſtin, as playing at the ſame Game, when he ſays (p. 173.) that he wiſhes rather than praiſe, that St. Cyprian would help him with his prayers; Confeſſing alſo, as I ſaid before, that there are ſome Inſtances of this pleaſant kind of Invocation to be found in good Authors. The difficulty then lies in thoſe prayers which we make to Saints to help our Neceſſities; But of theſe alſo there want not Inſtances in the Writings of good Authors of the Primitive times, parallel to thoſe which the Doctor objects out of the preſent Roman Breviary, and Office of our Lady. Do we ſay there, Hail B. Virgin, Thou alone haſt destroyed all Hereſies in the World; Vouchſafe Holy Virgin to let me praiſe Thee? St. Cyril ſaith, By Thee, Holy Mother and Virgin, Hom. contr. Neſtor. every Creature that worſhipped Idols, hath been converted to the knowledge of the Truth, Praiſe and Glory be to Thee, O Sacred Trinity. Praiſe alſo be to Thee, O Holy Mother of God—Who can ſufficiently ſet forth thy Praiſes? Do we entreat the B. Virgin to help the miſerable, to ſtrengthen the weak, &c.? St. Gregory Nazianzen abovecited, commends St. Justina for beſeeching the B. Virgin to help and ſuccour her. Do we deſire her to protect us from our Enemies, and ſhew her ſelf to be a Mother? Orat. in Theodor. Mart. St. Gregory Niſſen, calls upon St. Theodorus to fight for his Country, as a Souldier, and to uſe that liberty of ſpeech for his Fellow-ſervants, which beſits a Martyr. Do we ſupplicate the Angels to come to our help, and defend Us? St. Ambroſe ſaith,Li. de vidius. that they are to be ſupplicated for us, who are given us for our Protectors. Laſtly, Do we deſire the Apoſtles Jubere, the word ſignifies to wiſh or deſire, as well as to command; but the Doctor will have it here to command the guilty to be looſed; (And He might as well have tranſlated, Jubeo te valere, I command you to farewell) It is not ſo much, as what that devout Woman in St. Auſtin, Serm 33 de diverſis. ſaid to St. Stephen, De civ. Dei. li. 22. c. 8. when upon the death of her Child before Baptiſm, ſhe brought the dead Body to the ſhrine of the B. Martyr, and there exacted ofhim, ſaith St. Auſtin, to reſtore her Son to Life with theſe words, Redde filium meum, &c. Give me my Son, that I may behold him in the preſence of him, who crowned thee. A thing both commended by St. Auſtin, as a Testimony of her great Faith; and confirmed for ſuch by God, in reſtoring her Son to Life, at the Interceſſion of the Saint. Thus much may ſuffice to ſhow, that whil'ſt the Doctor caſts ſo much Dirt upon the Doctrine and Practice of the preſent Roman Church, He makes it fly in the Faces of thoſe great Fathers and Lights of the Primitive Times. And much leſs might have ſufficed for an Objection, (which taken in all its parts, is as like the ſeeking for a knot in a Bul-ruſh, as ever yet I met with any) but that, as the Apoſtle ſaith, We are Debtors both to the Wiſe, and to the Unwiſe. Let us ſee whether the next be any better.

CHAP. V.

The diſparity aſſigned by Dr. St. between deſiring the Saints in Heaven, and Holy Men upon Earth, to pray for Us, ſhown to be Inſignificant.

§. 1. TO manifeſt farther the weakneſs of the Doctor's Argument, I added in my Reply, that if Catholicks muſt be guilty of Idolatry, for deſiring juſt Perſons in Heaven to pray for them, upon the ſame account we muſt not deſire the Prayers of a juſt Man, even in this Life, becauſe this formal Invocation will be to make him an Inferiour Deity. And the Doctor rejoins, p. 168. that ſuppoſing this were all, yet this would not excuſe them. But from what? He was loath to name it, the conſequence is ſo abſurd, yet he would have his Reader believe, that it would not excuſe them from Idolatry. And the Reaſon he gives is, For their practice is very different in their Invocation of Saints, from deſiring our Brethren on Earth to pray for us. And he cannot but wonder how any Men of common ſenſe can ſuffer themſelves to be impoſed upon ſo eaſily in this matter. But if he ſuppoſe, that what we do • Invocating the Saints, is no more than to deſire them to pray for us, as we do other Holy Men upon Earth, How comes the one to be Idolatry and not the other? The difference, as far as I can gather from his words, conſiſts in this, that amidſt the Solemn Devotions of the Church, after we have prayed to the Perſons of the Holy Trinity, to have mercy on us, remaining upon our Knees, we addreſs to the Saints, and require the aſſiſtance of their prayers, ſaying, Holy Peter and Paul pray for us; and this without being ſure that they hear us. This, together with a hint of our ſetting up their Images in ſome higher place in the Church, and burning Incenſe before them, is the whole ſumme of his Argument. Theſe circumſtances, he ſays, make the deſiring the Saints in Heaven to pray for us, to be of a very different nature from deſiring the ſame from our Brethren on Earth. And I wonder how any Men of common ſenſe can ſuffer themſelves to be ſo far impoſed upon, as to believe that any thing of this, or all of it together can amount to Idolatry? Li. 20. contr. Fauſt. c. 21. Why we do not the ſame in all reſpects to Holy Men upon Earth, St. Austin gives the Reaſon, when he ſays, that we worſhip the Saints in Heaven ſo much more devou • ly, than when they were upon Earth, becauſe more ſecurely, after they have overcome all the dangers and uncertainties of this World, as alſo we praiſe them more confidently now reigning Conquerours in • a more happy Life, than whilſt they were fighting in this. So that what we do more to them in Heaven, than whilſt they were upon Earth, in praying to and praiſing of them, is an expreſſion of a greater devotion to them now, (than then) upon the account of their ſecure injoyment of a ſtate of Bliſs, which they can never loſe. But for that Worſhip, which is call'd Latria, for as much as it is a certain ſervice proper to the Divinity, we neither worſhip them, (ſaith St. Auſtin, and all Catholicks with him) nor teach them to be worſhipped, but God alone. But to return to the Doctor.

§. 2. The firſt thing he cavils at, is our turning to the Apoſtles with the ſame poſtures and expreſſion of devotion, to deſire them to pray for us, after we have invoked the Perſons of the Holy Trinity: And where lies the Idolatry here, if we deſire them only, as he ſuppoſes, to pray for us? Is the deſiring a juſt Man to pray for us, to give him the honour due to God? Why then were Job's Friends ſent to him for his Interceſſion? Or is it the doing it upon our Knees? Why then do Parents permit their Children to ask them bleſſing in that poſture? Or, is it the uſing that poſture in the Church? Are all the People then Idolaters, for deſiring upon their Knees the Prieſt (nay one another) to pray unto God for them? Theſe are ſuch pitiful trifles, that they were not worth the reciting, much leſs refuting, if (as St. Hierom ſaith of the like) to recite them were not to refute them. Well, but St. Peter, he ſaith, who would not permit Cornelius to fall down before him, and St. Paul who rent his Garments and cryed out to the Men of Lyſtra, Why do you theſe things? would no doubt have been leſs pleaſed with this. And why ſo,Adverſ. vigilant. c. 2. if Cornelius, as St. Hierome thinks, intended through Error, to worſhip him with divine honour; and the Men of Lyſtra, (as St. Luke relates) to offer ſacrifice to St. Paul, as to a God? But then again, ſuppoſing the honour which Cornelius there intended, to have been only an Inferiour reſpect, as to a Holy Man, and that St. Peter (as St. Chryſoſtome thinketh) refuſed it out of Humility, Hom. 21. in Act. (or as the Doctor terms it Modesty) Does that hinder, but that upon another occaſion he might have admitted it, without danger to his Modeſty, and much more ſecurely now, that He is in Heaven? For my part, I believe that the Prophet Elizeus loſt nothing of his Modeſty, 4. King. 4. 27. or Humility, when the Sunamiteſs fell down and held Him by the Feet, and He forbad his Servant to thrust Her away. To accept, or refuſe due honour is a matter belonging to Prudence; and as ſometimes it may be refuſed with vain glory, ſo at an other it may be admitted with Humility. What a Caprichio then was it to ſay, that if we impute it only to St. Peter's Modesty, we will not allow him to carry it to Heaven with him? as if St. Peter could not, without forfeit forſooth of his Modeſty, have ſeen Chriſtians do to him, what they every Day do to one another in the Church.

§. 3. The Second thing he hints at, is that we can never be ſure that the Saints do hear us, therefore it muſt be unlawful, or as he would make it, Idolatrous to deſire them to pray for us. To this I anſwer firſt, that this can be no excuſe for him not to deſire the Angels to pray for him, for it is certain by many Texts of Holy Scripture, that they know our neceſſities and prayers, as Dan. 12. 1. At that time ſhall Michael ſtand up, that great Prince, which ſtandeth for the Children of thy People. Zach. 1. 12. The Angel of the Lord ſaid, O Lord of Hosts, how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jeruſalem, and on the Cities of Juda, againſt which thou haſt had Indigration theſe threeſcore and ten Years. Pſal. 137. 2. I will ſing unto thee in the ſight or preſence of the Angels. Luc. 15. 7. There ſhall be Joy in Heaven, and V. 10. There ſhall be Joy before the Angels of God, upon one Sinner that doth Penance. Apoc. 8. 4. The ſmoke of the Incenſes of the Prayers of the Saints aſcended from the hand of the Angel before God. All theſe places, and divers others do manifeſtly ſhow, that our Prayers and Actions are not unknown to the Angels; And whereas our Saviour himſelf ſaith, that the Juſt in the Reſurrection ſhall be as the Angels in Heaven. Matth. 22. 30. (the equality as to knowledge, not depending upon the Body) it follows by the Analogy of Faith, that our prayers and concerns are known alſo to the Saints, now enjoying the ſame Bliſsful Viſion with the Angels; and they no doubt rejoice as much at the Converſion of a Sinner, as the Angels do; and of them it is recorded alſo, Apoc. 5. 8. as well as of the Angels, that they had golden Vials full of Odours, which are the prayers of Saints, that is, of the Faithful upon Earth, who are here called Saints, as they are often in other places of Holy Scripture alſo. To this I might add the Incomparable perfection of the knowledge which the Bleſſed enjoy in Heaven, with many other arguments both from Authority and Reaſon, brought by Catholick Divines to prove this Tenet. But becauſe the Doctor brings nothing to prove the contrary, viz. that the Saints do not hear us, beſides his own, Ipſe dixit; I ſhall not inlarge further upon this Point, but give him all the fair play he can deſire, which is to ſuppoſe with him at preſent, that the Saints do not hear our prayers. But will it follow from thence, that it is unlawful, or Idolatrical to deſire their Interceſſion? I anſwer, (2dly,) with Bellarmine, De Sanct. Beat. li. 1. c. 20. and deny the Conſequence. 1. Becauſe, although Proteſtant Writers do cite ſome of the Fathers, as expreſſing themſelves doubtfully, whether the Saints hear our prayers, or no; yet ſuppoſing this to be as thoſe Proteſtants would have it, this was no Argument to thoſe very Fathers, not to call upon the Saints in particular to pray for them, as is manifeſt from their own doctrin and practiſe, by what hath been ſaid above, and from the Confeſſion of Proteſtants themſelves. 2. Becauſe it is certain by many and great Miracles wrought by God upon Addreſſes made to the Saints, that thoſe who call upon them are heard, and obtain what they deſire. And for the Proteſtant Reader's ſatisfaction in this Point, I ſhall ſet down ſome of them, as they ſtand recorded in the Works of St. Baſil, Theodoret, and St. Austin, witneſſes of too great Authority and Integrity to be queſtion'd, much leſs rejected, as Writers of Fables or Romances.

1. St. Baſil, in his H • mily upon the 40. Martyrs, after he had told his Auditors. that there was Help prepared for Chriſtians, Viz. The Church of the Martyrs, and that thoſe who had taken pains to find one to pray for them, had here no leſs than Forty: and that it was the practiſe of Chriſtians at that time for thoſe who were in Tribulation, or Joy, to fly, and have recourſe to the Forty Martyrs; thoſe for deliverance from their Troubles, and theſe for the Conſervation of their Proſperity: he adds, Here a Pious Mother praying for her Children, is accepted or heard; as alſo asking a ſaf • return for her Husband, when in a Journey; or health for him in ſickneſs. Let us therefore pour forth our Prayers with theſe Holy Martyrs. The Doctor will be apt to catch at theſe laſt words, as if St. Baſil meant, that Chriſtians were only to join their prayers with the Prayers of the Martyrs, and not to deſire them to pray for them; But this exception is excluded, by what he ſaid before, that thoſe who are in Affliction, fly, and have recourſe to the Martyrs themſelves: which practiſe of the People, ſaith Dr. Forbes,Conſid. Modeſt. c. 3. p. 311. the firſt Biſhop of Edinburgh, had not St. Baſil approved, he would never have propoſed as an Example to be imitated: and with him agrees Voſſius there cited by him.

2dly, Theodoret is yet more expreſs in this matter, Li. 8. de Graec. Affect. The Temples of the Martyrs, ſaith he, are conſpicuous, and Illuſtrious both for their Greatneſs and Beauty. Nor do we frequent them only once, or twice, or five times in a year; but we celebrate frequent Aſſemblies in them; and often ſing praiſes every Day to the Lord of thoſe Martyrs. Thoſe who are in good health, begg of the Martyrs the conſervation of it; and ſuch as are afflicted with any diſeaſe, beg health. Thoſe who are barren, pray that they may have Children; and thoſe who have Children, that they may be preſerved to them. In like manner, thoſe who travel, deſire the Martyrs to be the companions, or rather Guides of their Journey; and thoſe who return ſafe, return alſo to give thanks for the benefit they have received; Not that they imagin they go to Gods; but they beſeech and pray the Martyrs of God, as Heavenly Men, to be Interceſſours to Him for them. Now that ſuch as piouſly and faithfully pray to them, obtain their deſires: The Donaries, when they pay their Vows, do witneſs, as evident Teſtimonies of their recovered health. For ſome hang up the reſemblances of Eyes; others of Hands, others of Feet; made of Gold or Silver: which their Lord, how ſmall and vile ſoever the gifts be, diſdains not moſt gratefully to accept, meaſuring the gift by the ability of the Giver. Theſe therefore being expoſed to the eyes of all Men, and brought by thoſe who have obtained health, are moſt certain ſigns of the Cure of the Diſeaſes. Theſe I ſay ſhew the vertues of the Martyrs who lye buried there; and the vertue of the Martyrs declares the God whom they worſhipped, to be the true God.

3dly, St. Auſtin is ſo copious in this ſubject, that he writes a Treatiſe rather than a Chapter, of the Miracles which were done in his time, at the Shrines of ſeveral Martyrs, De Civ. Dei. li. 22. c. 8. particularly of St. Stephen, which thoſe who deſire to be informed of the Truth, may read at their leiſure. I have inſtanced already in that of the devout Mother, Chap. 4. who exacted of St. Stephen to reſtore her Son to life, and had her Petition granted, God, ſaith St. Auſtin, doing it per Martyrem, by his Martyr. I ſhall only add at preſent what he relates of a poor, but pious Man, called Florentius, who having loſt his Cloak, and not having wherewith to buy another, went to the twenty Martyrs, (whoſe memory, ſaith he, with us is very famous, and pray'd with a loud voice, to be cloathed: Certain young Men, whom St. Auſtin calls Irriſores, (i. e. ſcoffers) hearing him pray, derided him, (as no doubt Dr. St. would have done, had he been there) as if he had begg'd ſo much money of the Martyrs, as would buy him a Cloak. But he departing from thence towards the Sea-ſide, found a great Fiſh upon the ſhore, in whoſe Belly, when open'd, there was found a Gold Ring; which the Cook, a good Chriſtian, to whom he had ſold the Fiſh, and knew what had paſſed, gave him, with theſe words: Behold how the Twenty Martyrs have cloathed Thee. Thus St. Auſtin, little thinking, then, or now, (if he know nothing of what paſſes here below) what ſport this ſtory will make for the Doctor and his Partizans; though he good M • n judg'd it worthy to be recounted, that God might be glorified in his Saints. And upon the ſame account I ſhall not omit, though it may add matter of new Merriment to the ſcoffing humour of the Age, to ſet down what I find related by John Patriarch of JERUSALEM, to have paſſed in this kind with Saint John Damaſcen, about the Year 728. He is known to have been a ſtout Aſſerter of the Veneration of Holy Images, and when the Emperour Leo Iſauricus raiſed a Perſecution for that cauſe, he wrote divers learned Epistles to confirm the Faithful in the Tradition of the Church. He was then at Damaſcus, where the Prince of the Saracens kept his Court, and highly in the favour of that Prince for his Wiſdom and Learning; And the Emperor Leo not knowing otherwiſe how to execute his Fury againſt him, cauſes a Letter to be forged, as from Damaſcen to Him, and to be tranſcribed by One who could exactly imitate his hand; the Contents whereof were to invite him to paſs that way with his Army; with promiſe to deliver the City into his hands. This Letter the Emperor, (as out of friendſhip to an Ally, and deteſtation of the Treachery,) ſent to the Prince of the Saracens, who no ſooner ſaw and read it, but in a brutiſh▪ Paſſion, commanded the right hand of Damaſcen, which he ſuppoſed had writ it, to be cut off. Dictum Factum. A word and a blow. His hand was ſtruck off, and hung up in the Market-place, till Evening; when upon Petition that he might have leave to bury it, it was commanded to be delivered to him. He takes the hand, and inſtead of laying it in the Ground, joins it to his Arm, and proſtrating himſelf before an Image of our B. Lady, which he kept in his Oratory, humbly beſought her Interceſſion for the reſtoring of his hand, that he might employ it in ſetting forth her Son's praiſes, and Hers: This done, ſleep ſeiz'd on him, and he beheld the Image of the B. Virgin looking upon him with a pleaſant aſpect, and telling Him, that his Hand was restored; which when he awaked he found to be true, and a ſmall Circle or mark only remaining in the place where it had been cut off, to teſtify the truth of the Miracle: This is recorded by John Patriarch of Jeruſalem, in the Life of St. John Damaſcen, and to this I might add many more of the like kind: But theſe may ſuffice to ſatisfy an Impartial mind, that whether the Saints themſelves hear us or no, yet thoſe who implore their Interceſſion are moſt certainly heard, De Cura pro mort. Cap. 15. and as St. Auſtin ſaith, helped by them: And it can never be unlawful, much leſs Idolatrous to uſe that means for the obtaining our juſt deſires, which God himſelf hath atteſted by ſo many Miracles to be acceptable to him. All that the Doctor brings to uphold his ſlippery conſequence, is that it would be a ſenſleſs thing to deſire ſome excellent Perſon in the Indies, when we are at our ſolemn devotion to pray for us. And ſo, no doubt he would have derided thoſe three Tribunes, Vita S. Nicol. apud Lipoman. who (being unjuſtly condemn'd by the Emperor Conſtantine, commended themſelves to the Prayers of St. Nicholas at that time far from the Court,) for double Innocents. But God who is every where preſent, and to whom the Wiſdom of the World is Fooliſhneſs, both could and did reward the ſimplicity of their Devotion, by cauſing the Holy Man to appear to the Emperour in his ſleep, and divert him from executing the Sentence. In fine, if the Doctor will needs have it to be a ſenſleſs thing to call upon the Saints in Heaven for the Aſſiſtance of their Prayers, he muſt either condemn the Lights both of the Greek and Latin Church (as Mr. Thorndike calls them) to have been ſenſleſs Men, (and they may thank God they eſcape ſo) or he muſt grant this practiſe of theirs, to be a convincing Argument, that they believed the Saints did hear them.

§. 4. The laſt thing he quarrels at, is the ſetting up the Images of Saints in ſome higher place of the Church, and burning Incenſe before them. And what he ſays to ſhow this to be very Evil, is that which proves it to be very Good, viz. That the Perſons, for whoſe ſake this is done, are (as we ſuppoſe them) truly ſuch, as for their aſsured ſanctity, would deſerve to have it done to themſelves, though perhaps Humility, or other Moral Conſiderations might weigh both with them, and the Church not to permit it to be done. Yet we know, that Elias ſate upon the top of a Hill, and call'd Fire from Heaven upon thoſe two Captains, who came to ſeize him; but condeſcended to go with the third, who fell on his Knees before Him. And I would gladly be inform'd what Evil at all it would be to ſet a Saint (were he preſent) in ſome higher Place in the Church, (as we do a Biſhop) for the People to ſee Him, and deſire his Prayers. Perhaps it is the ſmoke of the Incenſe, which troubles his Eyes, that he cannot diſtinguiſh between the uſe of it, as applyed to God, and as applyed to his Servants, or other things relating to him. But this being of its own nature an indifferent Ceremony (as bowing and kneeling alſo are) and not appropriated (at leaſt in the new Law) to the worſhip of God, it is in the freedome of the Church to determine how and when it ſhall be uſed. And as when we kneel to God, that poſture is a ſign of the ſoveraign honour we give to him, as the Lord of all things; but when we do it to a Holy Man, or our Parents, it is but a ſign of an Inferiour reſpect due to them. So likewiſe the Ceremony of Incenſe, when directed to God, ſignifies the worſhip we owe to him; but to Holy Perſons or things, an Inferiour reſpect or veneration to them for his ſake.Li. 2. de Miſsa. c. 15. The uſe of it is very ancient as Bellarmin ſhows, and the ſignifications many, and very fitly adapted to the Publick Service of God, as well for the Reverence of the Place; as to mind us of the Inacceſſible Glory of God, who appeared in a Cloud; and the ſweet Odour our Prayers are to him, if ſent up from a heart inflamed with the love of God. This then being the Intention of Catholick People in the uſe of theſe and the like Ceremonies, viz. to give only a Honourary reſpect or Veneration to the Saints, and to deſire them only to pray for us, it is evident that neither in the place, nor the time, nor the manner, any incroachment at all is made upon the worſhip and ſervice due to God alone; and all the Dr. hath done in this Paragraff, §. 14. p. 168. was, to endeavour to tye a knot in a Bull-ruſh, when he could find none, and the matter was ſo brittle, that it would not hold the tying.

CHAP. VI.

Of the Practiſe of Chriſtian People in St. Auſtin's time, in the Invocation of Saints.

§. 1. THe ſecond Anſwer I gave to the Dr.'s Injurious Parallel of the Heathens Worſhip of their Inferiour Deities, and the worſhip given by Catholicks to the Saints, was, that the ſame Calumny (as St. Austin calls it) was cast upon the Catholicks in his time,Li. 20. contra Fauſt. c. 21. and is anſwered by him, and his Anſwer will ſerve now as well as then. That Himſelf held ſuch Formal Invocation a part of the Worſhip due to Saints, as is evident from the Prayer he made to St. Cyprian after his Martyrdome;Li. 7. de Bapt. contr. Donat. c. 1. Let B. Cyprian therefore help us with his Prayers, &c. And for a farther Confirmation of it, I added, that Calvin himſelf acknowledgeth it was the cuſtome at that time to ſay,Instit. li. 3. c. 20. nu. 22. Holy Mary, or Holy Peter pray for us.

The Dr. comes now, as he ſaith (p. 170.) to conſider the Anſwer of St. Auſtin, whether it will ſerve to vindicate us now as well as then: And I muſt deſire the Reader to take the pains to peruſe attentively the words of St. Auſtin, as they ſtand cited in the Reply, and the Doctor's Conſiderations upon them (for himſelf thought not fit to call them an Anſwer;) that by his Performance in this Point, he may ſee to what miſerable ſhifts, and diſengenuous Arts they are put, who will ſhut their Eyes, and fight againſt the light of a Noon-day Truth.

§. 2. His firſt Conſideration is, that Sr. Auſtin utterly denies that any Religious worſhip was performed to the Martyrs. And how could he affirm this, if he had not ſhut his Eyes, when St. Auſtin ſays expreſly in the place cited, that it was the cuſtom of the Chriſtian People in his time, to celebrate with Religious Solemnity the Memories of the Martyrs? That the Reader might not ſee this Contradiction, he corrupts the words of St. Auſtin by tranſlating them after his mode, Viz. It was the Cuſtome of the Chriſtians in his time to have their Religious Aſſemblies at the Sepulchres or Memories of the Martyrs: As if their Meetings were only to honour God in Himſelf, and not his Martyrs for his ſake. But this is both expreſly oppoſite to the words themſelves; and is refuted by St. Austin himſelf, when having admitted in Anſwer to Fauſtus his Objection, that Christians did celebrate the Memories of the Martyrs with Religious Solemnity, he declares himſelf not to ſpeak of that Religious Worſhip which is due only to God, but ſuch a kind of worſhip, with which even Holy Men in this life are worſhipped. We worſhip therefore, ſaith he, the Martyrs with that worſhip of Love and Society, &c. But we worſhip them ſo much more devoutly, than we do Holy Men upon Earth, becauſe more ſecurely, after they have overcome all the Dangers and Incertainties of this Life. He that hath but half an Eye open muſt ſee, that St. Auſtin ſpeaks here of the Worſhip which the Chriſtians of his time gave to the Martyrs themſelves. And that the Dr. doth but Equivocate in the term [Religious worſhip] which may reaſonably be applyed to the honour due to the Saints, as I ſhewed above in the 2d. Chap. And whereas he ſaith, that I conveniently left out, what St. Auſtin adds, that not only Sacrifice was refuſed by Saints and Angels, but any other Religious honour, which is due to God himſelf, as the Angel forbad St. John to fall down and Worſhip Him; had He not conveniently put thoſe words [any other Religious honour] into the Text (for they are not in St. Auſtin) he had had nothing to blind his Reader with; and yet as himſelf cites the words, it is evident that St. Auſtin ſpeaks of ſuch Religious honour, as is due to God himſelf. Whoever looks into the Text (which I omitted only for brevities ſake) will judge he had done much more conveniently for his cauſe, had he left it out.

§. 3. His ſecond Conſideration, is, (p. 171) that Invocation is expreſly excluded by St. Auſtin, as no part of the Worſhip due to Saints. And how again without ſhutting his Eyes, could he affirm this, when St. Austin expreſly ſays, that Christians did celebrate the Memories of the Martyrs with Religious Solemnity, not only to excite to the Imitation of their Vertues, but alſo to be partakers of their Merits, and to obtain help by their Prayers? This he conveniently avoids the repeating of, and ſlies for refuge to another place of St. Auſtin, where he ſaith, We raiſe no Altars on which to ſacrifice to Martyrs,De Civitat. Dei. li. 22. c. 10. but to One God, the God of Martyrs, as well as ours; at which as Men of God who have overcome the World by Confeſſion of Him, they are named in their place and order, but are not invocated by the Prieſt who ſacrifices. And here he thinks he hath done our work for us. For, This (ſaith the afore-cited Biſh. Forbes) is a Teſtimony in which all Diſſenters wonderfully exult,Conſid. Mod. c. 4. p. 317. and even Triumph; But thoſe of the Church of Rome, ſaith he, do anſwer, and indeed truly, that St. Austin ſpeaks here of Invocation in the Liturgy, and at the Altar, where foraſmuch as Sacrifice is truly offered to God, (though he think many of the Church of Rome miſtaken in their Explication of it) Invocation is to be directed to God alone. And that this was St. Austin's meaning in that place, would have appeared from the Reaſon he gives, in the words immediately following the Doctor's citation, had he not moſt conveniently left them out, Viz. Becauſe the Prieſt, ſaith St. Austin, ſacrifices to God, and not to the Martyrs, although he ſacrifice in Memory of the Martyrs, for he is the Prieſt of God, and not of the Martyrs: Who ſees not, that St. Auſtin here ſpeaks of Invocation made by the Prieſt at the Offering of the Sacrifice?

§. 4. But that He did allow at other times the direct Invocation of Saints, I have already ſhown in the 4th. and 5th. Chapters, from the Examples of the devout Mother exacting of St. Stephen the reſtoring her Son to Life; and of the poor Man, who prayed to the Twenty Martyrs to be cloathed. Both which St. Auſtin highly commends, and relates them no doubt as patterns for our Imitation. In his 17th. Sermon de verbis Apostoli, he expreſly affirms, that it is an Injury to pray for a Martyr, to whoſe Prayers we ought to be commended. And in his Book of the Care for the Dead, c. 4. & 5. he ſaith, that the Chriſtians of his time, did not only recommend the Souls of their deceaſed Friends to God, but to the Martyrs alſo, as their Patrons to be helped by them: And this he gives for the Reaſon, why they deſired to have their Bodies buried neer the Shrines or Sepulchers of the Martyrs, Viz. That the Memory of the Place where they were buried, might excite their Friends to recommend them by their Prayers to thoſe very Saints. Theſe Teſtimonies are ſo clear, that they cannot poſſibly be evaded by any ſhift, or pretence whatſoever of Rhetorical Apoſtrophes, or Poetical Flouriſhes, or General Wiſhes that the Saints would pray for us. And although Biſhop Mountague with his piercing Wit, being preſs'd with theſe Authorities, ſought every chink to eſcape out at, yet Biſh. Forbes (c. 4. p. 320.) confeſſes it was in vain; and that he is very ſorry, that the ſaid Biſh. Mountague gave ſo juſt a cauſe to Joannes Barclaius to expostulate with Him, Paraen. li. 2. c. 7. for impoſing upon the credulity of his Soveraign, and others in this matter. And had he been now alive, he might with grief enough have pronounced the ſame (as I doubt not but many other learned Protestanas do) of Dr. Stillingfleet. As for what he quotes to have been obſerved by Lud. Vives (if his Obſervation were true) that many Chriſtians in his time did offend in re bona, in a thing good in it ſelf, (which the Doctor leaves out) becauſe they did, ſaith he, no otherwiſe worſhip Saints, than they did God himſelf, (the contrary whereof is aſſerted by St. Auſtin of the Chriſtians of his time,) it imports at moſt but an Errour or Abuſe in ſome particular Perſons, ſuch as St. Auſtin ſaith (in the place above-cited againſt Fauſtus) that whoever falls into it, is to be reproved by ſound Doctrine, that he may be either corrected or avoided.

§. 4. From St. Auſtin's Teſtimony of the cuſtome of Chriſtian People in his time, I paſſed to his Practice, and for a Proof of it, I inſtanced in the Prayer he made to St. Cyprian after his Martyrdome, Li. 7. de Bapt. contr. Donat. c. 1. in theſe words; Let bleſſed Cyprian therefore help Us with his Prayers, &c. This the Doctor calls an Apoſtrophe, that is a Counterfeit Invocation, ſuch as Mr. Perkins ſaid, we Engliſh men make to a Bowl, when we pray it, (globum rogamus) to rubb or run; And the compariſon being ſo Parallel between Mr. Perkins's Globum rogamus, and St. Chryſoſtom's Sanctos rogamus, Hom. 26. in 2 Cor. I cannot but wonder, that Engliſh-men who are generally eſteemed the beſt Invocators of Bowls in the World, ſhould nevertheleſs be no better Invocators of Saints. For, if the devotion be the ſame, it can be no more Idolatry to call upon the Saints, than upon the Bowls. But to ſpeak to the words of St. Auſtin, [Let B. Cyprian therefore help us with his Prayers] whoever conſiders the Motive alledged by Him, why he addreſſed himſelf to St. Cyprian, which was for that in Heaven, He ſaw more clearly the truth of that Question, of which himſelf had formerly doubted, and St. Auſtin was then treating of; and the neceſſity he had of his Prayers, as being yet in this Mortal Fleſh, and labouring as in a dark Cloud; will eaſily ſee that it was not a counterfeit, but a true and ſerious addreſs to Him for the aſſiſtance of his Prayers: And Chemnitius no doubt underſtood it ſo,Exam. part. 3. p. 211. when ſpeaking of this very paſſage of St. Austin's invocating St. Cyprian: This, ſaith he, Auſtin did, ſuffering himſelf to be carried away with the Times, and Cuſtome. Well, but for all this, the Doctor will have it to be a wiſh, rather than a Prayer, and he doubts his ſaying the like to St. Auſtin, Let Bleſſed Austin now help me with his Prayers, would not be taken by us for a renouncing the Proteſtant Doctrine, and embracing that of the Church of Rome. To this I Anſwer, although the word Adjuvet taken Grammatically, be of the wiſhing or Optative Mood; yet taken with all the circumſtances above-mention'd, and the cuſtome of Chriſtian People of that time approved by St. Auſtin, it imports as much a formal requeſt, as if a Child ſhould ſay to his Father, Benedicat, Let my Father bleſs me: For it is not ſo much the Mood, as the Mode (that is, uſe and cuſtome) which determins the ſenſe of words: And if the Doctor will hazard a tryal of it, Let him but profeſs as St. Austin did, that we ought to celebrate with Religious Solemnity the Memories of the Martyrs, to be aſſiſted by their Prayers; and that it is good and lawful to commend our ſelves to their Prayers; and upon this account ſay, as St. Auſtin ſaid, Let B. Cyprian help me with his Prayers, I dare undertake his own Party ſhall take it for renouncing the Proteſtant Doctrine, and embracing that of the Church of Rome. But he is ſo far either from making this Profeſſion with St. Austin, or ſaying to him, Let B. Auſtin now help me with his Prayers, that he would have the Reader to take it for one of the ſuperſtitions, which he would give us to underſtand, crept in after the Anniverſary Meetings at the Sepulchers of the Martyrs, grew in requeſt. For S. Auſtin himſelf, Contr. Fauſtum. li. 20. c. 21. ſaith he, affirmeth, that what they taught was one thing, and what they did bear with was another, ſpeaking of the cuſtomes uſed at thoſe Solemnities. And is it poſſible he could think ſo great a Forb as this could paſs for current in the World? Is it poſſible he could have courage enough to cite the place, where thoſe words are to be found, and not fear a Rat? Obſerve I pray: What St. Auſtin condemns in that place is this, that ſome who brought Wine and Meat to the Sepulchers of the Martyrs, took ſo plentifully of them, that they made themſelves drunk. His words are theſe, As for thoſe who make themſelves drunk at the Sepulchers of the Martyrs, how can they be approved by us, whom ſound Doctrine condemns, even when they do it in their own private Houſes. This was the cuſtome of which St. Austin ſaith, that the Governours of the Church did not teach it, but bore with, till it could be amended. And the Doctor had the Conſcience, by a ſubtil Inſinuation, to make his Reader believe, that what St. Auſtin condemned, was the deſiring, or, as he calls it, wiſhing the Martyrs to pray for them. I ſhall leave him to make ſatiſfaction to God and the World, and proceed to that which he calls the Queſtion between us.

§. 5. The Queſtion between us, ſaith he, is not how far ſuch wiſhes, rather than prayers, being uttered occaſionally, as St. Auſtin doth this to St. Cyprian, but whether ſolemn Invocation of Saints in the duties of Religious Worſhip, as it is now practiſed in the Roman Church, were ever practiſed in St. Auſtin's time? This he utterly denies, and here, ſaith he, (p. 174.) we ſtand and fix our Foot againſt all oppoſition whatſoever. Thus expiring Candle gathers up its ſpirits, and forces it ſelf into a blaze before it dies. Alas! that ſo many learned Men ſhould all this while have been miſtaken in the Queſtion! that they ſhould have ſpent ſo much oyl and ſweat to no purpoſe! The great Queſtion hitherto controverted between Catholicks and Proteſtants, was held to be, Whether it be lawful to Invocate the Saints to pray for Us? and whether this were agreeable to the practiſe of the Primitive times? But now, like a miſchievous Card that will ſpoil the hand, this is dropt under the Table, and all the ſhow above-board, is, whether it may be done in the duties (as he calls them) of Religious Worſhip? He ſaw how often his Foot had ſlipt, whilſt he endeavoured to ſtand upon the denial, of its being the cuſtome of the Fathers to deſire the Saints to pray for them; and therefore he catches hold of this Twigg to ſave himſelf, Conſid. Mod. p. 308. but in vain; for Biſhop Forbes confeſſes that it was their cuſtome to do ſo, both in publick and private prayers; although he be loath to give it any other name but that of wiſhing. But Chemnitius, (That great Light of the German Church, as our Doctor calls him in his Irenicum, p. 396. where he ſets him in the Van for aſſerting the mutability of Church-Government, and of whom, he ſaith, Brightman had ſo high an Opinion, as to make Him to be one of the Angels in the Churches of the Revelation) this great Man, without mincing the matter,Exam. Conc. Trid. part. 3. p. 200. acknowledges freely, that Invocation of Saints began to be brought into the publick Aſſemblies of the Church by Baſil, Niſſen, and Nazianzen, who lived in the Century before St. Auſtin: and could little doubt of the Continuance of it in St. Auſtin's time, when he witneſſeth that Chriſtian People did then celebrate the Memories of the Martyrs with Religious Solemnity, to obtain the Aſſistance of their Prayers; But who can tell us what the Doctor means by the duties of Religious Worſhip? If he mean hearing of Sermons, (which is ſo much cry'd up by thoſe of his Party, as if it were the Pro and Poop of Religion, though the Author of the Cauſes of the Decay of Chriſtian Piety, Ch. 18. call it the moſt lazie of all Religious Offices;) he knows the Invocation of Saints was both commended and practiſed in their Sermons, by St. Baſil. Hom. in 40. Mart. S. Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 20. & 21. S. Greg. Niſsen. Orat. des. Theodoro, and others. If he mean the Letanies, although the uſe of them began to be more ſolemn in the time of Gregory the Great, yet Strabo affirms that,De-reb. Eccl. c. 28. that form of Invocating the Saints was believed to be much more Ancient: Viz. from the time that St. Hierom tranſlated the Epitome of Euſebius his Martyrologe into Latin: or, (as others explicate his meaning) before that time, but not in ſo great a number. But then again, if he ſpeak of that Part of the Maſs, which was anciently called the Maſs of the Catechumeni, and ſerves as a Preparatory devotion, both to Prieſt and People, the Prieſt indeed before he aſcends to the Altar, deſires the B. Virgin, and the reſt of the Saints, as alſo the People, to pray to our Lord God for him, and in the Verſicles between the Epistle and Goſpel, there are ſome Inſtances (though very rare) of Holy Mary, or Holy Paul pray for us; but as theſe are not excluded by St. Auſtin, who ſpeaks only of the Prieſt's directing his Invocation to God alone in the offering of the ſacrifice; ſo neither can the Doctor give any ſatisfactory Reaſon, why the Prieſt may not lawfully uſe it then, (eſpecially being appointed by the Church,) as in his private Oratory. But if he mean that Part of the Maſs, which begins from the Offertory, and was anciently call'd the Maſs of the Faithful, in which the Prieſt addreſſes himſelf expreſly to Offer up the ſacrifice of the New Teſtament, which Chriſt hath Inſtituted in his own Body and Blood; Let him, if he can, (for, he ſaith, he hath look'd into our Miſsals) produce any one Inſtance of Formal Invocation to any Saint or Angel. There they are named at this day (as they were in St. Auſtin's time) in their place and Order, but are not Invocated by the Prieſt that Sacrifices: So that in this, which is the moſt proper and peculiar duty of Religious Worſhip (as I have ſhown in the 3d. Chap. it was accounted by St. Auſtin) there is a moſt perfect Conformity between the Primitive and Modern Church: and the difference in other leſs ſolemn parts of Devotion, not at all material, as hath been ſhewed.

§. 6. In the laſt place (p. 174.) the Doctor ſaith, He is ſent from S. Auſtin to Calvin, whoſe Authority, (though never owned as Infallible by Him) he need not, as he ſaith, fear in this point; and therefore the Errand, (if he will have it ſo,) could not be ungrateful. I may well think his heart leap'd for joy to hear Calvin alledged for a witneſs, that it was the cuſtome in St. Austin's time to ſay, Holy Peter pray for Us: and thereupon, as if the day were his own, he ſays, He cannot but wonder, that if I ſaw the words in Calvin, or Bellarmin, that I would produce them. But hold: Have not I more Reaſon to wonder at his wonder, if it be true what Himſelf makes Calvin to ſay, Viz. That the Council of Carthage did forbid praying to Saints, leſt the publick prayers ſhould be corrupted by ſuch kind of Addreſſes, Holy Peter pray for us? For why, I pray, was ſuch a Decree made, and why did the Fathers of that Council fear, leſt the publick prayers ſhould be corrupted with ſuch kind of addreſſes; if there were no ſuch cuſtome at that time? Either the Dr. corrupts the words of his dear Maſter Calvin; or, it is manifeſt, they imply it was the cuſtome at that time to ſay, Holy Peter pray for Us. And to make this clearer, I ſhall ſet down, 1. What Calvin really ſaith. 2. What Bellarmin anſwers to him. And from both it will appear, that Calvin ſuppoſes there was ſuch a custome; and withall that Calvin hath corrupted the words and meaning of the Council, and D. St. miſrepreſented thoſe of Calvin.

1. What Calvin really ſaith, is this, viz. That it was anciently forbidden in the Council of Carthage that direct prayer or Invocation be made to the Saints at the Altar. Inſtit. li. 3. c. 20. n. 22. And it is probable, the reaſon was, for that thoſe Holy Men, when they could not totally Repreſs the force of an evil Cuſtome, they thought good at leaſt to put this reſtraint upon it, leſt the publick prayers might be corrupted with this Forme; Holy Peter pray for Us. This is what Calvin ſaith. And who ſees not, that the cuſtome (no wonder if He call it an ill one.) whoſe force, he ſuppoſeth, the Council would, but could not totally Repreſs, was this form of addreſs, Holy Peter pray for Us? And He that ſees this, muſt ſhut his Eyes, if he ſees not that in Calvin's Opinion, it was the Cuſtome of that time (however reprovable he would make it) to ſay, Holy Peter pray for Us. For how could he make the reſtraining that Cuſtome, to be the reaſon of the Law, if he did not ſuppoſe there was ſuch a cuſtome, and that a forcible one too? But then again, who ſees not, that for fear the Reader ſhould ſee this, the Dr. moſt conveniently left out of his citation thoſe words of Calvin, which were moſt material to the preſent purpoſe [viz. that the Decree was made to forbid direct praying to Saints at the Altar, and the Reaſon in his Opinion, why thoſe Fathers made that Decree, was to reſtrain the force of an evil cuſtome, which they could not totally Repreſs?] For had theſe words been put down, the thing had been too clear to be denied, viz. that Calvin acknowledged there was ſuch a cuſtome at that time: As in a like caſe, if the Elders ſhould make a Sanction, that hereafter it ſhall not be lawful for Dr. St. to miſ • report the words and ſenſe of their Patriarch Calvin; and I ſhould ſay, that in my Opinion, the Reaſon would be to reſtrain the force of an evil cuſtom, which they could not totally repreſs in him, of doing it in moſt of the Authors he cites; I dare confidently aver, he would not ſtick to charge me, that I ſaid, he had ſuch a cuſtom: which if he think good to do, the many inſtances I have brought of his inſincere dealing in this kind, wil more than ſufficiently acquit me.

2. What Bellarmin (de ſanct, beat. li. 1. c. 16.) anſwers to this Objection of Calvin, is, that Calvin corrupted the words and ſenſe of the Council, when he ſaid, that what it forbad, was to make direct Prayer or Invocation to Saints at the Altar, becauſe the Council ſpeaks not at all of praying to Saints, but only ordains that the prayer of him that ſacrifices be directed to the Father, and not to the Son. He ſays indeed, that Calvin by his Logick deduces that, becauſe prayer is to be directed to the Father, therfore the Saints may not be Invocated: and then farther, that the Council decreed, that that form of Invocation, Holy Peter pray for us, ſhould not be uſed. And this I can eaſily believe was Calvins ultimate deſign in corrupting the Canon of the Council. But where doth Bellarmin ſay, that there was no ſuch cuſtome in St. Austin's time; or that Calvin ſaid, there was no ſuch cuſtome at that time? Why then is it made a wonder, that if I ſaw the words in Calvin or Bellarmin, I would produce them? The Reaſon was, to make the Reader believe, that himſelf could not poſſibly be guilty at that very time of a crime, which he imputed to his Adverſary. But whoever conſiders the nature of the cauſe, he hath undertaken, will ſee no cauſe to wonder at this procedure, becauſe it is the natural effect of ſuch a cauſe, to put the maintainer upon the deſperate ſhift of miſ-repreſenting the words and ſenſe of Authors, and no Man wonders at a natural effect, eſpecially if it be frequent, as this of the Doctor's is.

§. 7. But now the blaze is ſpent, and there only remains a little ſmoke, viz. that I may as well the next time bring St. Auſtin's Teſtimony for worſhipping of Martyrs, Images, and Angels, becauſe he ſaith, he knew many who adored Sepulchers and Pictures, and had tryed to go to God by praying to Angels. What this [as well] relates to, I cannot tell; but I am ſure he uſes the ſame Art here, in bringing theſe Teſtimonies againſt us, which he did before in alledging the cuſtom of thoſe who made themſelves drunk at the Sepulchers of the Martyrs. For either S. Auſtin ſpeaks here of the Errours of ſuch as were profeſſed Hereticks; or, if any who profeſſed themſelves Catholicks fell into them, they were the Errors of particular Perſons, (though many,) and juſtly reproved by him: Whereas the Cuſtom of Invocating the Saints to pray for us, was the Univerſal practice of Christians at that time, not reproved, but owned, practiſed, and abetted by the moſt Religious Biſhops and Fathers of the Primitive Church, and by St. Austin himſelf, as hath been ſhown: and by more, or all after their time; as Mr. Thorndike confeſſes. Wherefore if the Doctor be ſtill reſolved to keep his ſtanding againſt ſo great a ſtrength of Authority, and give no more ſatisfactory account hereafter, than he hath already done, of charging the Roman Church with Idolatry: It is manifeſt, that his Foot ſticks faſt (as the Pſalmiſt ſaith) in the deep Mire, where no ground is: or, to ſpeak in Mr. Thorndike's language, in the depth of Schiſm: From whence, that he may be drawn out before the Flood run over him, is the hearty wiſh of Him, who honours his Perſon and Parts, whilſt he detects his Sophiſtry, and refutes his Calumnies.

FINIS.