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 Pâ—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 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 boâ—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 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 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 St. takes up and abets the Arguments of that Pseudo-Synod as if they had never been retracted and anathematized as impious by the chief Author of it and scoffs at the Answers of the Synod to them as insufficient I pray God he may one day imitate him in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 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 saying Hold fast the Traditions which ye have received either by our word or by our Epistle And again 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 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 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 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
Catholicks NO IDOLATERS Or a Full Refutation Of Doctor STILLINGFLEETS Vnjust Charge of Idolatry Against the CHURCH OF ROME Let not Them who charge the Pope to be Antichrist and the Papists Idolaters lead the People by the Nose to believe that they can prove their Supposition when They cannot Mr. Thorndike Just Weights and Measures Chap. 2. Printed in the Year 1672. TO THE QUEEN MADAM THe Book before which I presume to fix Your Royal Name being the Product of some Hours defalkt from Your Majesties Service and the Subject of it Polemical set me for some time at dispute with my self whether I should let it venture to knock at Your Closet-Door Your Early Preventing the Sun to praise your Creator and Constant Retirements from the Tumults of the World which I could wish were as much imitated as they are admired to Vnite Your Soul by Prayer with Him and establish it in that perfect Peace which can only be enjoyed in becoming One Spirit with Him made me judg some Treatise of Divine Love which might minister matter to the Sacred Fire that burns continually upon the Altar of Your Heart would suit much better with that Better Part which you have chosen with Mary than a Book of Controversy Here then my thoughts were at a stand how to make my Address without Offence And I was ready to complain with Martha that I was left alone when that Admirable Mixture of Clemency and Zeal which disposes Your Heroick Mind not only to forgive Offences of this Nature but to esteem and cherish them as Pious convinc'd me I must be guilty of a greater Trespass should I doubt of obtaining either Your Pardon or Protection Nor was this All. The Glorious Saint whose Name You bear as she encourag'd me with her Example to engage in this Controversy so much more to recommend my endeavours to Your Majesties Patronage It was Her business to convince and reduce Idolaters to the Faith of Christ Mine is to defend the Faith which Christ planted in his Church from the Imputation of Idolatry An Aspersion so foul and Blasphemous that it betrays the Forger of it to be what the Anagram of his Name expresses a second Lucian Blasphemous I say For who-ever will undertake to maintain the Charge must at the same time profess that Christ who commanded us under pain of damnation to hear his Church hath permitted Her to require and enjoin her Children for many hundreds of years together to commit Idolatry as my Adversary contends parallel to that of the Heathens And consequently that Mahomet that grand Impostor whose Followers have been preserved by the Grounds he laid for above a Thousand Years from falling into Idolatry had more Wisdom and Power to contrive and carry on his design than the Son of God and that our Fore-Fathers in this Land had better have been converted to Judaism or Turcism than to Christianity as they were These Madam are the detestable Consequences of charging Idolatry upon the Catholick-Roman Church which as they must needs strike horrour into Your Religious Soul nay even of any who values the name of Christian So I thought it my Duty being singled out by a particular desiance from this new Abettor of it to appear in Vindication of that Faith on which Your MAJESTY grounds Your Hope of Heaven and whose Influence hath enrich'd Your Mind with all the Noblest Vertues from so unjust and scandalous a slander Which nevertheless I have endeavoured to manage with that Moderation and Temper as Circumstances duly weigh'd can neither create just Offence in the dissenting Party nor I hope render it mis-deserving to be presented to Your Majesties View by MADAM Your Majesties Most Humble and Most Obedient Subject and Servant T. G. THE PREFACE Christian Reader THough I never design'd to trouble Thee with any thing in Print especially in a Contentious way from which those who know me think me to be naturally averse yet now I am forc'd to appear publickly in defence of a little Paper which Another hath Printed for me Three Years were almost elapsed and the subject of that Paper quite worn out of my Memory when a Particular Messenger from Dr. Stillingfleet delivers me in Answer to it a large Book intitled A Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome c. As Civility oblig'd me to return thanks for such a Present to a Person to whom I thought I had been unknown so it had been great dulness not to look upon it with the same regard that Men look upon a Glove when sent by a Person with whom they have happened formerly to have some difference Hereupon my thoughts presently began to incline me to meditate a return both to his Civility and Challenge at least as to the Principal Heads contain'd in his Book but finding in his Preface the performances of those who had as occasion serv'd replied to some Passages of his Rational Account compared by Him to the way that Rats answer Books by gnawing some of the Leaves of them and that He proclaimed a general defiance to All to come into the Open Field from which he saith they had of late so wisely with-drawn themselves I easily conceiv'd he would not want many abler Adversaries who would take themselves to be concern'd to stand up for the Publick cause of GOD's Church and his Saints Nor was I deceived in my expectation as those Learned Treatises witness which have been written against Him upon this occasion Some of them in Vindication of the Devotion of the Roman Church and of the sanctity of those Persons whom he traduces Others against his Principles One to show how he contradicts himself and another compendiously refuting his whole Book All which I supposed would cost him a larger time to answer than he tells us he spent in writing and pointing the Book it self which he saith was but from about Christmas to Midsumer at what time it came forth This made me waver a while after I had applyed my thoughts to the Confutation of what first occurr'd in his Title and Book viz. The Charge of Idolatry which he most unjustly fixes upon the Church of Rome whether I should expose them to publick view or no. But then considering the Foulness of the Charge the particularness of the Challenge and the General Expectation to see him traced step by step which was the design I had undertaken I thought my self oblig'd to commit them to the Press And that the Reader may know what he is to expect from me it is that I have endeavoured to make my self such an Adversary as the Author of the Account 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conceiv'd would be a great pleasure and content of heart to Dr. St. if he could meet with viz. One who viewing his Aiery subtilties should oppose him seriously as if he were serious himself and then distinguish as if he were dealing with some solid Divine and then ply him with Proofs and Testimonies
continue in it And that upon these Grounds 1. Because they must by the terms of communion with that Church be guilty either of Hypocrisie or Idolatry either of which are sins inconsistent with Salvation Which I thus prove That Church which requires the giving the Creature the Worship due only to the Creator makes the Members of it guilty of Hypocrisie or Idolatry for if they do it they are guilty of the latter if they do it not of the former but the Church of Rome in the Worship of God by Images the Adoration of the Bread in the Eucharist and the formal Invocation of Saints doth require the giving to the Creature the Worship due only to the Creator therefore it makes the Members of it guilty of Hypocrisie or Idolatry That the Church of Rome in these particulars doth require the giving the Creature the honour due only to God I prove thus concerning each of them 1. Where the Worship of God is terminated upon a Creature there by their own confession the Worship due only to God is given to the Creature but in the Worship of God by Images the Worship due to God is terminated wholly on the Creature which is thus proved The Worship which God himself denies to receive must be terminated on the Creature but God himself in the second Commandment not only denies to receive it but threatens severely to punish them that give it Therefore it cannot be terminated on God but only on the Image 2. The same Argument which would make the grâ—ssest Heathen Idolatry lawful cannot excuse any act from Idolatry but the same argument whereby the Papists make the Worship of the Bread in the Eucharist not to be Idolatry would make the grossest Heathen Idolatry not to be so For if it be not therefore Idolatry because they suppose the bread to be God then the Worship of the Sun was not Idolatry by them who supposed the Sun to be God and upon this ground the grâ—sser the Idolatry was the less it was Idolatry for the grâ—ssâ—st Idolaters were those who supposed their Statues to be Gods And upon this ground their Worship was more lawful than of those who supposed them not to be so 3. If the supposition of a middle excellency between God and us be a sufficient ground for formal Invocation then the Heathen Worship of their inferiour Deities could be no Idolatry for the Heathens still pretended that they did not give to them the Worship proper to the Supream God which is as much as is pretended by the devoutest Papist in justification of the Invocation of Saints To these I expect a direct and punctual answer professing as much Charity towards them as is consistent with Scripture and Reason 2. Because the Church of Rome is guilty of so great corruption of the Christian Religion by such opinions and practises which are very apt to hinder a good life Such are the destroying the necessity of a good life by making the Sacrament of Penance joyned with contrition sufficient for salvation the taking off the care of it by supposing an expiation of sin by the prayers of the living after death and the sincerity of devotion is much obstructed in it by prayers in a language which many understand not by making the efficacy of Sacraments depend upon the bare administration whether our minds be prepared for them or not by discouraging the reading the Scripture which is our most certain rule of faith and life by the multitude of superstitious observations never used in the Primitive Church as we are ready to defend by the gross abuse of people in Pardons and Indulgences by denying the Cup to the Laity contrary to the practice of the Church in the solemn Celebration of the Eucharist for a thousand years after Christ by making it in the power of any person to dispense contrary to the Law of God in oaths and Marriages by making disobedience to the Church in disputable matters more hainous than disobedience to the Lawes of Christ in unquestionable things as Marriage in a Priest to be a greater crime than Fornication By all which practises and opinions we assert that there are so many hinderances to a good life that none who have a care of their salvation can venture their souls in the communion of such a Church which either enjoyns or publickly allows them 3. Because it exposeth the â—aith of Christians to so great uncertainty By making the authority of the Scriptures to depend on the infallibility of the Church when the Churches Infallibility must be proved by the Scripture by making those things necessary to be believed which if they be believed overthrow all foundations of faith viz. That we are not to believe our senses in the plainest objects of them as that bread which we see is not bread upon which it follows that tradition being a continued kind of sensation can be no more certain than sense it self and that the Apostles might have been deceived in the Body of Christ after the Resurrection and the Church of any Age in what they saw or heard By denying to Men the use of their judgment and reason as to the matters of saith proposed by a Church when they must use it in the choice of a Church by making the Churches power extend to make new Articles of faith viz. by making those things necessary to be believed which were not so before By pâ—etending to infallibility in determining Controversies and yet not determining Controversies which are on foot among themselves All which and several other things which my designed brevity will not permit me to mention tend very much to shake the faith of such who have nothing else to rely on but the authority of the Church of Rome 3. I answer That a Protestant leaving the Communion of our Church doth incur a greater guilt than one who was bred up in the communion of the Church of Rome and continues therein by invincible ignorance and therefore cannot equally be saved with such a one For a Protestant is supposed to have sufficient convictions of the Errors of the Roman Church or is guilty of wilful ignorance if he hath not but although we know not what allowances God will make for invincible ignorance we are sure that wilful ignorance or choosing a worse Church before a better is a damnable sin and unrepented of destroys salvation To the second Question I answer 1. I do not understand what is meant by a Christian in the Abstract or in the whole Latitude it being a thing I never heard or read of before and therefore may have some meaning in it which I cannot understand 2. But if the Question be as the last words imply it Whether a Christian by vertue of his being so be bound to joyn in some Church or Congregation of Christians I answer affirmatively and that he is bound to choose the communion of the purest Church and not to leave that for a corrupt one though called never so
have not seen anywhere proposed in these terms I answer that the first Proposition is built on a great 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 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 and consequently if it be intended or directed by the understanding to God though after an unlawful manner it will not fail to be terminated upon God Thus when a Thief or a Murderer prays to God to give him good success in the Theft or Murder he intends though God denies to hear any such Prayer yet is the Prayer truly directed to him and thus when the Jews offered to God in Sacrifice the blind and the lame though he had forbidden it yet was the oblation terminated on him and therefore he reproves them for having polluted him Mal 1. 8. and to convince them the more of their evil doings Offer it now says he to thy Governour will he be pleased with thee or accept thy person Though the Governor deny to accept what is presented to him yet it is truly offered to him by the Presenter and so although God deny to accept such or such Sacrifice yet it is truly offered to him though the offering of it after a forbidden manner make it to be sin Did not God refuse to accept the Sacrifice of Cain and yet the Scripture Gen. 4. 3. says expresly that he brought an offering to the Lord God had not respect to Cain nor his offering but this did not hinder but that Cain's offering had respect to God was terminated on him In like manner though God deny such or such a kind of Worship if it be offered though unlawfully by the Creature yet is it terminated on him The Proposition therefore which asserts that the Worship which God denies must be terminated on the Creature I deny as absolutely false and so will you too Madam when you shall see the sense of it to be no other but that a wicked Man cannot Pray to God or Worship him in an unlawful or forbidden manner who is therefore a wicked Man because he does so What follows from hence is that though God should have forbidden Men to Worship him by Images yet it does not follow but the Worship so given would be terminated on him But now to speak to his second Proposition in which the main force of this Argument consists We utterly deny that God in the second Commandment forbids himself to be Worshipped by a Crucifix for example or such like Sacred Image for such only are the subject of the present controversie What he forbids there is to give his Worship to Idols and this is clear from the circumstances of the Text First Because this Commandment if St. Austin's Judgment be to be followed is but a Part or Explication of the first Thou shalt have no other Gods before me Secondly because the Hebrew word Pescl in Latin Sculptile is used in Scripture to signifie an Idol Let them be confounded who adore Sculptilia that is Idols saith the Psalmist and so the Septuagint translate it in this very place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Idol Thou shalt not make to thy self an Idol So that it was an artifice of the Protestants to make their assertion seem plausible to translate Image instead of Idol and not a certain kind of Image neither but any whatsoever Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image Now what is all this to Catholicks who neither make to themselves nor adore Idols nor yield Soveraign honour or acknowledgment of Deity to any but God We give indeed a veneration to Images but the Image of God is not another God besides him nor is the Worship of it the Worship of another God but of him who is represented by it for St. Basil saith The Worship of an Image stays not there but is referred or carried to the prototype or thing represented We give therefore an insetior or relative honour only to the Sacred Images of Christ and his blessed Mother and Saints not latriam the Worship due to God but Honorariam adorationem a certain honorary Worship expressed by kissing them or putting off our Hats or kneeling before them much like the Worship given to the Chair of State or the Kings Picture or his Garment by the like actions or to come nearer to the subject such as was commanded to be given by Moses and Joshua to the ground whereon they stood by putting off their Shoos because it was holy and by the Jews in adoring the foot-stool of God or falling down before it Psal 98. 5. and in Worshipping as St. Jerome testifies they did that part of the Temple called the Holy of Holies because there were the Cherubims sacred Images ordered by God himself to be placed there the propitiatory representing Gods Throne and the Ark his foot-stool In a word such as the Protestants themselves give to the Name of Jesus when they hear it spoken by putting off their Hats and bowing at it or to the Elements of Bread and Wine in the Supper by kneeling before them as figures representing the death of Christ if condescendence to the conscience of weaker Brethren will permit them to own they have any honour or veneration for them or for the Altar before which they bow To conclude this point the Objector brings a Text which forbids us to give the Soveraign honor due to God to an Idol but let us hear out of Scripture an express Text that it is not lawful to give to holy Images and other things relating to God an inferiour or relative Worship such as we have declared and that will be to the purpose § 6. He aims to conclude the Catholick Church guilty of Idolatry from the adoration of the Bread as he believes it in the Eucharist Now to do this he ought to prove that what we adore in the Eucharist is bread indeed But instead of that he brings a comparison between our adoration of Christ in the Eucharist and the Heathens adoration of the Sun viz. That the Papists by the same Argument make the Worship of the bread in the Eucharist not to be Idolatry which would excuse the Heathens Worship of the Sun and of their Statutes from Idolatry For if it be not therefore Idolatry says he because they suppose the bread to be God then the Worship of the Sun was not Idolatry in them who supposed the Sun to be God I shall not complain here of the unhandsomness of the expression that Catholicks suppose the Bread to be God just as the Heathens supposed the Sun to be God whereas he knows that Catholicks believe that the substance of the bread is changed into Christs body but shall answer to the Argument That the Worship of Christ in
also the Liturgies and Rituals in a Tongue unknown but to the Learned among them that who will dispute against it must prepare himself to hear the censure of St. Austin Ep. 118. where he saith That it is a point of most insolent madness to dispute whether that be to be observed which is frequented by the whole Church through the World 4. He says The sincerity of Devotion is much obstructed by making the efficacy of Sacraments depend upon the bare administration whether our minds be prepared for them or not In what Council this Doctrine was defined I never read but as for the Sacrament of Penance which I suppose he chiefly aims at I read in the Council of Trent Sess 14. Falso quidam calumniantur That some do falsly calumniate Catholick Writers as if they taught the Sacrament of Penance did confer Grace without the good motion of the receiver which the Church of God never taught nor thought But I am rather inclined to look upon this as a mistake than a calumny in the Objector 5. He says The sincerity of Devotion is much obstructed by discouraging the reading of Scriptures which is our most certain Rule of Faith and Life Here he calls the Churches prudential dispensing the reading of Scripture to persons whom she judges fit and disposed for it and not to such whom she judges in a condition to receive or do harm by it a discouraging the reading of Scriptures which is no other than whereas St. Paul Coloss 3. 21. enjoyns Fathers not to provoke their Children lest they be discouraged one should reprove a Father for discouraging his Child because he will not put a Knife or Sword into his hands when he foresees he wil do mischief with it to himself or others the Scriptures in the hands of a meek and humble Soul who submits its judgment in the interpretation of it to that of the Church is a Sword to defend it but in the hands of an arrogant and presumptuous Spirit that hath no Guide to interpret it but it s own fancy or passion it is a dangerous Weapon with which he will wound both himself and others The first that permitted promiscuous reading of Scripture in our Nation was King Henry the Eighth and many years were not passed but he found the ill consequences of it for in a Book set forth by Him in the Year 1542. he complains in the Preface That he found entred into some of his Peoples hearts an inclination to sinister understanding of it presumption arrogancy carnal liberty and contention which he compares to the seven worse Spirits in the Gospel with which the Devil entred into the House that was purged and cleansed Whereupon he declares that for that part of the Church ordained to be taught that is the Lay People it ought not to be denyed certainly that the reading of the Old and New Testament is not so necessary for all those folks that of duty they ought and be bound to read it but as the Prince and Policy of the Realm shall think convenient so to be tolerated or taken from it Consonant whereunto saith he the Politick Law of our Realm hath now restrained it from a great many This was the judgment of him who first took upon him the Title of Head of the Church of England and if that ought not to have been followed in after times let the dire effects of so many new Sects and Fanaticisms as have risen in England from the reading of it bear witness For as St. Austin sayes Neque enim natae sunt Haereses Heresies have no other Origen but hence that the Scriptures which in themselves are good are not well understood and what is understood amiss in them is rashly and boldly asserted viz. to be the sense of them And now whether the Scriptures left to the private interpretation of every fanciful spirit as it is among Protestants be a most certain Rule of Faith and Life I leave to your self to judge 6. He says The sincerity of Devotion is much obstructed by the multitude of superstitious observations never used in the Primitive Church as he is ready to defend he should have said to prove for we deny any such to be used in the Church 7. By the gross abuse of People in Pardons and Indulgences Against this I can asseâ—t as an eye-witness the great devotion caused by the wholsome use of Indulgences in Catholick Countreys there being no Indulgence ordinarily granted but enjoyns him that will avail himself of it to confess his sins to receive the Sacraments to pray fast and give alms all which duties are with great devotion performed by Catholick people which without the incitement of an Indulgence had possibly been left undone 8. He says The sincerity of Devotion is much obstructed by denying the Cup to the Laity contrary to the practice of the Church in the solemn celebration of the Eucharist for a Thousand Years after Christ This thousand years after Christ makes a great noise as if it were not as much in the power of the Church a thousand years after Christ as well as in the first or second Century to alter and change things of their own nature indifferent such as the communicating under one or both kinds was ever held to be by Catholicks But although the Cup were not then denyed to the Laity yet that the custom of receiving but under one kind was permitted even in the Primitive Church in private Communions the Objector seems to grant because he speaks only of the Administration of it in the solemn Celebration and that it was also in use in publick Communions is evident from Examples of that time both in the Greek Church in the time of St. Chrysostome and of the Latin in the time of St. Leo the great As for the pretended obstruction of Devotion you must know Catholicks believe that under either species or kind whole Christ true God and Man is contained and received and if it be accounted an hindrance to devotion to receive the total refection of our soul though but under one kind what must it be to believe that I receive him under neither but instead of him have Elements of Bread and Wine Surely nothing can be more efficacious to stir up Reverence and Devotion in us than to believe that God himself will personally enter under our Roof The Ninth Hinderance of the sincerity of devotion is that we make it in the power of a person to dispense in Oaths and Marriages contrary to the Law of God To this I answer That some kind of Oaths the condition of the Person and other Circumstances considered may be judged to be hurtful and not fit to be kept and the dispensation in them is no more than to judg or determine them to be so and consequently to do this cannot be a hinderance but a furtherance to devotion nor is it contrary to the Law of God which commands nothing that 's hurtful to be done
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 noâ— 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 â—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 Eucâ—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
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 discoâ—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 mis-state 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 confidâ—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 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 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
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
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 mattâ—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 hâ—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 theâ— 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 but also of the Valleys So is he God not onâ—y of our Reason but of our Senses also And if the Antidote his Goodness hath prâ—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 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 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 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 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 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 heâ— Primitive Purity either into Schism or Heresy Nor yet before what Tribunal her cause wâ—s examined or by what Judge she hath been condemned unless by themselves who are her Accusers whereas not only Piety but even Natural Reason teaches that no particular Man is to be condemned much less deprived of what he stands possessed till his cause be Juridically heard and sentenced Nor ought any Man to be Judge in his â—wn cause much less to execute the sentence given by himself All which the New-Reformers in England France Germany c. have done in denying the Authority of the Roman Church and setting up for themselves § 2. But now instead of making Good his Assertion Viz. That the Authority of the Roman Church is no ground of believing at all he desires he saith with all his heart to see this Authority proved which is just what all other Accusers do when their Proofs fail to call upon â—he Defendant to prove his Title which after a long Possession ought in all Law to stand Good and Valid till the Accuser can prove it to be otherwise Cromwell might with much more reason have summon'd the King to prove his Title to the Crown after a Prescription of 500. Years than the Doctor can exact it from the Church to prove her Authority of which she hath been in Possession a far longer time Olim possideo Prior possideo was the Church's Plea in Tertullian's time 'T is their part then to prove who are the Accusers yet Catholick Authors to satisfy if possible the importunity of the Church's Adversaries have receded from the Rigour of this Plea and written large Volumes in Justification of her Authority Particularly the two learned Cardinals Bellarmin and Perron And now very lately Mr. E. W. The Book is called Religion and Reason and being written particularly against the Doctor expects his Answer These he may consult at his leasure I shall only at present remind him of what I have proved already at his request in the first Chapter of the first Part to which I refer the Reader Viz. That a Christian by vertue of his being so is bound to be of the Communion of the Roman Church And then subsume But every Christian is bound to submit to the terms of Communion of that Church whose Communion by being a Christian he is bound to be of Therefore every Christian by vertue of his being so is bound to submit to the terms of Communion required by the Roman Church And this the Doctor knows for he often complains of it as a great violence put upon his Sense and Reason to be a submission to her Decrees in matters of Faith and particularly in the Point of Christ's presence in the Eucharist by Transubstantiation as well as of his being the same True and Consubstantial God with his Father § 2. The Second Ground or Motive he Instances in and I suppose he will deny this too to be any ground of believing at all is Catholick Tradition This done he bids me again to prove if I can as if it belong'd not at all to him who is the Accuser to prove his Action or as if it had been some new point which no Catholick Author had ever yet attempted to prove that Transubstantiation was a Doctrine received in the Universal Church from our Saviour's time and here he saith when I please he shall joyn issue with me And if I think fit to put the Negative upon him he will undertake to instance in an Age since the first Three Centuries wherein if the most learned Fathers and Bishops yea of Rome it self be to be credited Transubstantiation was not believed These are bigg words indeed and the Doctor might have done well to have remembred what the King of Israel answered to the proud message of the King of Syria Let not him that girdeth on his Harness boast himself as he that putteth it off But it is no new Artifice in our Adversaries then to speak biggest when there is least cause for it as I shall make appear my Adversary does in this matter from the very Confession of Protestants themselves Which kind of proof is look'd upon by all sober Men as very proper both to satisfie the Judgment of an Impartial Reader and also to abate the boasting of over confident Spirits For as Bishop Hall saith One blow of an Enemy dealt to his Brother is worth more than many from an adverse hand And upon this account it is that when Bellarmin makes use of the like proof that is undertakes to prove the Roman Church to be the true Church of God by the Confession of Protestants Dr. Field saith surely if he can prove that we confess it to be the true Church he needeth not to use any other arguments Let us see then what Protestants say in this Point And first that Transubstantiation was a Doctrine received in the Universal Church from the time of Berengarius that is 600. Years ago is scarcely denied by any that I know of Mr. Fox himself acknowledgeth that about that time the denying of it began to be accounted Heresy and in that number saith he was first one Berengarius who lived about Anno 1060. And Mr. Perkins allows it a longer Date when he says that during the space of 900 Years the Popish Heresy had spread it self over the whole World 2dly That it had remained in quiet possession from the Year 850. that is 200 Years before until the time of Berengarius is confessed by Joachim Camerarius as also that although it had been called into Question before by the prlvate Writings of some yet the first that publickly impugned it was Berengarius 3dly That Damascene in the beginning of the 8th Century and Theophylact who though he be not so ancient yet his Authority is much esteem'd by learned Men because he is look'd on as an Abridger of St. Chrysostome did plainly incline to Transubstantiation is confess'd by Ursinyus So is it of St. Gregory in the 6th Age by Dr. Humfrey when he saith that he and St. Austin the Apostle of England brought Transubstantiation into the English Church In the fift Age Eusebius Emissenus is taxed by the Centurists to have spoken not commodiously viz. for their purpose of Transubstantiation The like is affirmed by them of St. Chrysostome in the same Age and of St. Ambrose in the fourth of S. Cyprian in the third by Ursinus of Tertullian and Origen in the second by the forenamed Centurists and S. Ignatius in the first is acknowledged by sundry Protestants to have said of certain Hereticks of his time That they do not admit Eucharists and Oblations because they do not confess the Eucharist to be the Flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ which Flesh
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 And Tertullian in the same Age saith that our Lord having taken Bread made it his
let me praise Thee St. Cyril saith By Thee Holy Mother and Virgin 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 above-cited 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 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 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 said to St. Stephen 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 doâ— 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 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 devouâ—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 inâ—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 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
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 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 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 Mâ—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 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 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