in these 〈◊〉 Whether the worshipping false Gods supposing them to be true 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 Bâ—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 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
Divines whether any of the three Points instanced by the Doctor viz. Veneration of Images Adoration of the B. Sacrament and Invocation of Saints be Idolatry or no and those who side least with that Party which are called Non-conformists are for the Negative Viz. that it is not Idolatry whereas if it had been the sense of the Church of England in those Articles that it were Idolatry to do any of those things they had by maintaining the contrary as erroneous incurr'd Excommunication ips facto as appears by the Canons Printed before the 39 Articles set forth by Mr. Rogers Here therefore the Doctor to maintain his charge of Idolatry to be as he calls it the receiv'd Doctrin and practice of the Church of England is forc'd to have recourse to the Book of Homilies and to the Sentiments of Particular Persons of which he cites no less than Seventeen the greatest part of whom I shall show to be incompetent Witnesses in the case and the rest to speak nothing to his Purpose First then for the Book of Homilies which he saith is not barely allow'd but subscribed to as containing godly and wholsome Doctrine and necessary for these times I answer this doth not Evince that every particular Doctrin contained in it is such And therefore Mr. Thorndike speaking of the very Homily against peril of Idolatry here urged by Dr. St. saith that in this particular he must have leave to think it fails as it evidently doth in others And Bish Mountague saith The Book of Homilies contains a general Godly doctrin yet it is not in every part the publick dogmatical doctrin of the Church And Dr. Heylin in his necessary Introduction to Cyprianus Anglicus p. 14. tells us that the vehemence used in those Homilies was not against Images as Intolerable in themselves but as they might be made in those broken and unsetled times an occasion of falling But that People being well instructed in the right use of them Images may be still kept for good uses in Churches and for stirring up of devotion in which respect they were called saith he by Pope Gregory and not unfitly the Lay-men's Books As for the particular Doctors he cites I except against little less than two parts of three of them as Incompetent Witnesses in the Case And in Order to this I shall take the same measure the Doctor himself puts into my hand when to show the Testimony of Arch bishop Whitgift to be valid in his cause he premises that none could be less suspected to be Puritanically inclined than He that is I shall cast out of the List all those who shall be found to have been Puritans or Puritanically inclin'd And first for his two Arch-bishops Whitgift and Abbot the Former though otherwise a stiff Asserter of the Disciplin of the Church of England is known to have consented to the frameing of the Lambeth Articles and to have proposed them to the Divines of Cambridge and the latter was so great a Favourer and Abettor of the Puritan Party that to stop them in their full Carreer Dr. Heylin saith it was found necessary to suspend Him from his Metropolitical Jurisdiction of Dr. White the same Heylin reports p. 135. that for Licensing Bishop Mountague's Appello Caesarem it was said that White was turned Black Jewel Bilson and Davenant were all excepted against by our late Soveraign K. Charles I. in his 3d. Paper to Hinderson Dr. Fulk also in Matth. 28. 46. is noted for abetting Calvin in his blasphemous Opinion that our Saviour Christ suffered in his Soul the very pains of a damned Person upon the Cross Reynolds and Whitaker are notorious for their siding with the Puritans the latter being a great stickler for the Lambeth Articles and the Former appearing publickly the Fore-man or Champion of that Party at the Conference at Hampton-Court against the Church of England Bishop Usher and Bishop Downam cannot be excused The story of the first is to be seen in Cyprianus Anglicus p. 271. where after many Calvinistical Opinions of which the said Primate was the Contriver in Ireland Dr. Heylin saith he refused to receive the whole Body of the Canons made in the year 1603 because he was afraid of bowing at the name of Jesus and some other Reverences which he neither practised nor approved and p. 216. that his Book called Gottescalchus had run the same Fate of being called in with that of Bishop Downam 's about Perseverance but that it seem'd not fit to put a publick disgrace upon the Primate of a Nation By all which it appears that of Seventeen Authors He cites to maintain his unjust charge of Idolatry upon the Church of Rome to be the sense of the Church of England no less than Eleven are shown to have been downright Puritans or Puritanically affected For the Six which remain viz. Dr. Jackson Dr. Field Isaac Casaubon Bishop Andrews Arch bishop Laud and King James whoever compares what the Doctor cites out of them with what they write in other places nay whoever attentively considers but the very places cited by my Adversary shall find that they do not impugn the Doctrin it self of the Church of Rome or the practice conformable to that Doctrin but such things as they conceived to be great abuses in the Practice of it For Dr. Jackson as cited by the Doctor doth not say that to give a honourary Veneration to Images is Idolatry but to give divine honour to them which he saith the Papists do and the Papists themselves deny Bishop Andrews in like manner giveth for the reason of his charge that the Papists do not meerly pray to the Saints to pray for them but to give what they pray for themselves and the Papists profess they do no such things Dr. Field doth not charge the Invocation of Saints with Idolatry and Superstition but speaks only of the Idolatry and Superstition whâ—ch he thought but not truly was committed in it Arch-bishop Laud also as his own words declare speaks of the practice of Adoration of Images in the Modern Church of Rome which he erroneously affirmeth to be too like to Paganism And so K. James in the place cited by the Doctor had He not so soon forgot his promise of reporting faithfully saith expresly that what He condemns is Adoring of Images viz. with Divine Worship praying to them and imagining a kind of sanctity to be in them all which are detested by Catholicks And all that he cites out of Isaac Casaubon when He was employed by the King to deliver His Opinion to Cardinal Perron in the Invocation of Saints was that the Church of England did affirm that some Particular Practices were joyned with great impiety So that it is not the Doctrin of the Church of Rome if rightly practic'd which these Authors condemn of Idolatry but the abuses they conceiv'd to be committed in the practice of it as to give the Worship due to God to an Image to pray to
it or imagin any virtue or Divinity to be in it or to pray to the Saints as to those who are to give us what we pray for themselves All which are forbidden by the 2d Nicen Council and that of Trent and for other practices which the Dr. occasionally objects they shall be discuss'd in the following Discourse This being so as I have shewn and the Judgment of these Divines differing only as more and less in the same kind from what Mr. Thorndike and other learned Protestants pretend when they reprove some practices as Idolatrous or at least in danger to be such These last Six Authors cited by the Doctor ought to have been alledged for the contrary position of what He affirms viz. That the Church of Rome neither in her Doctrine nor Practice conformable to her Doctrin is guilty of Idolatry For whilst they impeach only some Practices which they judge different from the Doctrine 't is manifest they iâ—ply the Doctrine it self and Practice if conformable to it not to be Idolatrous Here then let the Reader judge whether Dr. St being as He saith by command publickly engag'd in the defence of so excellent a cause as that of the Church of England against the Church of Rome have not betray'd his trust and his Church too if it be his in advancing such a Medium to justifie Her separation as contradicts the sense of that Church if it be to be taken from the sentiments of those who are esteem'd Her true and Genuin Sons and in the Judgment of some of them makes it in plain terms to be Schismatical Which yet will appear more clearly if we consider how this Charge of Idolatry subverts the very foundation of Ecclesiastical Authority in the Church of England For it being a received Maxime and not denyable by any one of common sense that no Man can give to another that which he hath not himself it lies open to the Conscience of every man that if the Church of Rome be guilty of Heresy much more if Guilty of Idolatry it falls under the Apostles Excommunication Gal. 1. 8. and so remains depriv'd of the lawful Authority to use and exercise the Power of Orders and consequently the Authority of Governing Preaching and Administring Sacraments which those of the Church of England challenge to themselves as deriv'd from the Church of Rome can be no true and lawful Jurisdiction but usurped and Antichristian This is what follows against the Church of England from the charge of Idolatry upon the Church of Rome and so much the more as issuing from his Pen who in his Irenicum a Book very humbly tendred by him to Consideration after the Re-settlement of Episcopacy in the Church of England maintains that no particular Form of Church Government is De Jure Divino but mutable as the Secular Magistrate with the advice of learned and experienc'd Persons shall see convenient for State and Church and particularly that the main Ground for setling Episcopal Government in this Nation was not any pretence of Divine Right but conveniency to the State and condition of the Church at the time of its Reformation citing for it the Testimony of Arch bishop Cranmer and others Mr. Foulis I know speaking of that Book calls Him a Bold Fellow that Published it and affirms that he little understood the compass and merit of that Controversie I like not the rudeness of these and other expressions of like nature He there uses and I forbear to repeat yet I could willingly joyn with Him so far in Charity as to impute it rather to Inadvertence than design in my Adversary did not this new charge of Idolatry seem but too apparently to be but a clinching of the nail which He had driven before to the Head For if the Form of Church-Government be mutable as the Secular Power well-advised shall see reason what greater reason can there be for the actual changing of it than the nullity of its Jurisdiction This hath made me wonder not a little how the Governours of the Church of England could see their Authority so closely attacqued at least so manifestly betrayed by their pretended Champion and not vindicate themselves and their Jurisdiction from the â—oul stain of Antichristian which necessarily follows if the Church of Rome as He pretends be guilty of Idolatry and they derive together with their Consecration their Episcopal Jurisdiction from it But I shall leave these things to those whom it concerns and betake my self to my present business which is to show that the Church of Rome neither in her Doctrine nor Practice conformable to her Doctrine is guilty of Idolatry And this I bid done much sooner had not the Time spent iâ— Transcribing least the Copy should be surprized the Difficulty of the Press which also encreased the Errata and other Employments 〈◊〉 a few for we also are none of those happy Men who have only one thing to mind reâ—arded me in my design ERRATA IN the Preface page 2. line 27. for Pointing read Printing p. 6. l. 8. r. Dr. Taylor that neither p 25. l. 15. r. Question thus put p. 35. l. 30. for with r. against p. 38. l. 8. for couse r. causâ— l. 9. for ers r. eos p. 41 l. 10 r. writings p. 5â— l. 28. r. Beholders p. 64 l 12 r. Irrepresentablenes p. 80. l. 11. for the r. his p. 81. l. 18. f. seat r. State p. 87. l. 6. f. did r. drew p. 92. l. ult r. advantages p. 124. l. 11. add in the Marg. Of the Church li. 3. c. 36. p. 134. l. 3. f. cross r. Cross p. 138. l. 23. r. â—ue that by p. 140. l. ult f. rashly r. vainly p. 158. l. 27. r. Obcaecans l. 27. f. that r. that is p. 161. l. 25. or â—magine r. Imagine l. 28. for Oracres r. Oraces p 172. l. 5. for in r. me p. 178. l. 25. r. in this matter p. 212. l. 27. for honour r. comfort p. 2â—7 l 6. r. Wherefore p. 246. l. 2. r. Begotten Son p. 360. l. 30. f. first r. â—isth p. 363. l. 2. after foâ— Biu put St. Nicholas for Eru p. 411. l. 7. 8. f. Paul r. Paula l. 23. Praises r. prayes p. 448. l. 17. f. Flood r. Floods THE CONTENTS OF THE CHAPTERS PART I. Of the Veneration of Holy Images Chap. 1. DR Stillingfleet's 1st and 2d Answer to the First Question shown not pertinent Necessity of Communion with the Church of Rome proved and his Charge of Idolatry overthrown by his own Principles Pag. 1. Chap. 2. His chief Argument to prove the Church of Rome guilty of Idolatry examin'd and his Preposterous ways of arguing laid open Pag. 17. Chap. 3. 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 manifestly groundless The Arguments from St. Austin's Judgment and the Septuagint's Translating the word Pesel Idol and
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 't is 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 §
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
own Body by saying This is my Body and St. Ignatius in the first confesseth the Eucharist to be the Flesh of Christ which suffred for our sins And now let the Reader judge whether those learned Protestants above cited had reason to affirm of these Fathers though they taxed them of error for it that for what appears by their words they believed and taught the Doctrin of Transubstantiation I know the Doctor will not want many a pretty artifice to obscure if possible and elude the force of these Testimonies but the Confession of his Brethren will still be a Potent Prejudice against him Nor can he ever have the courage to deny but that the words taken as they sound seem evidently at least to teach the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and yet what is highly observable in this case this being a matter of so great consequence that Dr. Morton confesseth if it be defensible Protestants must stand chargeable of Heresie but if it may be confuted the Romanists must necessarily be condemned of Idolatry None of those Fathers who are cited by Protestants as Abettors of Transubstantiation were ever taxed of Errour for what they asserted by any of their Contemporaries whom we know to have been very jealous not only of new doctrines but of any new forms of words or by those who lived in the Ages after them nor yet did the Greeks move any dispute about this Point in the Council of Florence whereas Berengarius no sooner began to broach the contrary but immediately the whole Church as the Writers of that time witness was startled at the Novelty and condemned it as Heresie as Mr. Fox above cited witnesseth § 4. But what if the Doctor shall deny all this that is both the Testimonies of the Fathers and the Confession of his Brethren to be sufficient to prove Transubstantiation to have been a Doctrine received in the Universal Church from Christ's time To show the unreasonableness of such a denyal I would propose this case to his Consideration and the Readers Viz. In supposition that a Controversy arise in this present Age about the sense of a Law which was made 500. Years ago and that a considerable number of those who started the Controversy should confess that for the last two hundred years the contrary to what they maintain was generally received in the Kingdom as the sense of the Law and should further confess that the most eminent Lawyers of the former Ages from the first enacting of the Law held the same with the latter Nor had there ever been any disagreement or opposition among them in that Point whether it be not a sufficient proof that what they taught to be the sense of the Law was generally received to be the sense and meaning of it from the beginning The Testimonies themselves of those Ancient Lawyers would be conviction enough how much more when strengthned by the Confession of the Adverse Party it self Now if this be so in the delivery of the sense of a humane Law where it happens very often that great Lawyers may be and often are of different judgments how much more in the delivery of a divine Doctrine where the Pastors of the Church are bound to deliver what they received and the succeeding Age is stil bound to receive what they delivered Surely if we add to this the Confession of the very Adversaries themselves the Proof as St. Irenaeus saith must be true and without contradiction § 5. But if the Doctor will still persist in the denyal of so Evident a Proof because the Proposition is comparative between the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and that of Christ's Divinity as to its general reception in the Church I must desire him soberly to consider how much less St. Athanasius thought sufficient to prove this latter to be a Catholick Tradition For having cited the Testimonies of four Fathers only for the Consubstantiality of the Son with his Father viz. Theognostus Dionysius Alexandrinus Dionysius Romanus and Origen he concludes with an Ecce Behold we demonstrate saith he this Doctrine to have been delivered from Fathers to Fathers as it were by hand And St. Austin using the like Argument in the point of original sin first makes this Preface I will alledge saith he a few Testimonies of a few of the Fathers with which nevertheless our Adversaries will be constrained to blush and yield if either any fear of God or shame of Men can over-power in them so pervicacious an obstinacy And then having produced the Testimonies of five or six of the Latin Fathers he tells Julian against whom he wrote that that part of the World ought to suffice him that is to make him yield it to be the Catholick Faith in which our Lord was pleased to crown with a most glorious Martyrdome the First or Prince of the Apostles And then to show that the Faith of the Greek Church was the same with that of the Latin in this Point he cites the Testimonies only of three Greek Fathers and to the first of them viz. St. Greg. Nazianzen he immediately adds This is so great a Man that neither he would say this but from the Christian Faith most notorious to all neither would they have esteemed him so Venerable if they had not acknowledged that he spake these things out of the rule of the most known Truth And now let the Reader judg whether when we produce a far greater number of most manifest Testimonies of the Fathers of several Ages teaching without any Contradiction that the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ by Consecration and this confessed of some of the most Eminent of them in every Age by Protestants themselves we do not more than sufficiently prove that it was a Doctrine received in the Universal Church from our Saviour's time And if he think yet he can produce greater Evidence for the Doctrine of Christ's Divinity being universally received in the Church from Christ's time the early contest of the Arrians about that Point their Power and Continuance for so many Ages compared with the open and undisturbed delivery of the Doctrin of Transubstantiation may soon convince him of the vanity of such an undertaking § 6. The 3d. and last Ground he instances in is Scripture and this he saith he doth and shall acknowledge for his only Rule of Faith in spight of all pretences to infallibility either in Church or Tradition When he hath considered well what Mr. E. W. hath said to him upon this Subject in his two Learned Treatises Protestancy without Principles and Religion and Reason I hope this spight of his may be abated But in the mean time what doth he alledge out of this his only Rule of Faith as he will have it against Transubstantiation Not so much I can assure you as one single Text. But because Bellarmin produces One and but One for that Point viz. the words of Christ This is my Body whereas he cites many for
assistance we can do it We worship therefore the Martyrs with that Worship of love and society with which even in this life also Holy Men of God are worshipped whose heart we judge prepared to suffer the like Martyrdom for the truth of the Gospel But we worship them so much the more devoutly because more securely after they have overcome all the Incertainties of this World as also we praise them more confidently now reigning Conquerors in a more happy life than whilst they were fighting in this but with that Worship which in Greek is called Latria and cannot be expressed by one word in Latin for as much as it is a certain service properly due to the Divinity we neither worship them nor teach them to be worshipped but God alone Now whereas the offering of Sacrifice belongs to this Worship of Latria from whence they are called Idolaters who gave it also to Idols by no means do we suffer any such thing or command it to be offered to any Martyr or any holy soul or any Angel And whosoever declines into this Error we reprove him by sound Dectrine either that he may be corrected or avoided And a little after It is a much less sin for a Man to be derided by the Martyrs for drunkenness then even fasting to offer Sacrifice to them I say to sacrifice to Martyrs I say not to sacrifice to God in the Memories or Churches of the Martyrs which we do most frequently by that rite alone by which in the manifestation of the New Testament he hath commanded Sacrifice to be offered to him which belongs to that Worship which is called Latria and is due only to God This was the Doctrine and practice of Christian People in St. Augustine ' s time and that he himself held formal Invocations a part of the Worship due to Saints is evident from the Prayer he made to St. Cyprian after his Martyrdom Adjuvet nos itaque Beatus Cyprianus orationibus suis c. Let Blessed Cyprian therefore help us who are still encompassed with this mortal flesh and labour as in a dark Cloud with his Prayers that by Gods grace we may as far as we are able imitate his good works Thus St. Austin where you see he directs his Prayer to St. Cyprian which I take to be formal invocation and for a further confirmation of it we have the ingenuous confession of Calvin himself Instit li. 3. ch 20. n. 22. where speaking of the third Council of Carthage in which St. Austin was present he acknowledged it was the custom at that time to say Sancta Maria aut Sancte Petre Ora pro nobis Holy Mary or Holy Peter pray for us But now Madam what if after all this he himself shall deny that any of the opposite Tenets are Articles of his faith viz. That honour is not to be given to the Images of Christ and his Saints that what appears to be bread in the Eucharist is not the Body of Christ That it is not lawful to invocate the Saints to pray for us Press him close and I believe you shall find him deny that he believes any one of these Negative points to be Divine truths and if so you will easily see his charge of Idolatry against us to be vain and groundless Having thus given a direct and punctual answer to his argument I must now expect as much charity from him as is consistent with Scripture and Reason How much that is you will see in his third Answer to the first Question But to proceed § 8. He brings a Miscellany of such Opinions and practices as he calls them which are very apt to hinder a good life and therefore 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 He reckons up no less than Ten. 1. That we destroy the necessity of good life by making the Sacrament of Penance that is confession and absolution joyned with contrition sufficient for salvation And do not Protestants make contrition alone which is less sufficient for Salvation But perhaps the joyning of confession and absolution with contrition makes it of a malignant nature If so certainly when the Book of Common Prayer in the Visitation of the Sick enjoyns the sick Man if he find his conscience troubled with any weighty matter to make a special confession and receive absolution from the Priest in the same words the Catholick Church uses it prescribes him that as a means to prepare himself for a holy death which in the judgment of the Objector destroys the necessity of good life 2. Catholicks he says take off the care of good life by supposing an expiation of sin by the Prayer of the living after death But certainly the belief of temporal pains to be sustained after death if there be not a perfect expiation of sin in this life by works of penance is rather apt to make a Man careful not to commit the least sin than to take off the care of a good life And though he be ascertained by faith that he may be holpen by the charitable suffrages of the faithful living yet this is no more encouragement to him to sin than it would be to a Spendthrift to run into debt and be cast into Prison because he knows he may be relieved by the charity of his Friends If he were sure there were no Prison for him that would be an encouragement indeed to play the Spend-thrift And this is the case of the Protestants in their denyal of Purgatory 3. The sincerity of Devotion he says is much obstructed by Prayers in a Language which many understand not If he speak of private Prayers all Catholicks are taught to say them in their Mother Tongue If of the publick Prayers of the Church I understand not why it may not be done with as much sincerity of devotion the People joyning their intention and particular Prayers with the Priest as their Embassador to God as if they understood him I am sure the effects of a sincere devotion for nine hundred years together which this manner of Worship produced in this Nation were much different from those we have seen since the reducing of the publick Liturgie into English as is manifest from those Monuments which yet remain of Churches Colledges Religious Houses c. with their endowments and in the conversion of many Nations from Heathenism to Christianity effected by the labours and zeal of English Missionaries in those times c. But this is a matter of Discipline and so not to be regulated by the fancies of private Men but the judgment of the Church and so universal hath this practice been both in the Primitive Greek and Latine Churches and is still by the confession of the Protestant Authors themselves of the Bible of many Languages Printed at London Anno 1655. in most of the Sects of Christians to have not only the Scriptures but
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
as in the matter of Tradition or Christs Body after the Resurrection 3. He saith that We expose Faith to great uncertainty by denying to Men the use of their Judgment and Reason as to matters of Faith proposed by a Church that is we deny particular Mens Judgment as to matters of faith to be as good if not better than the Churches and to infer from hence that we make Faith uncertain is just as if on the contrary one should say that Protestants make faith certain by exposing matter of faith determined by the Church to be discussed and reversed by the Judgment and Reason or rather Fancy of every private Man We have good store of this kind of certainty in England But as for the use of our Judgment and Reason as to the matters themselves proposed by the Church it is the daily business of Divines and Preachers not only to shew them not to be repugnant to any natural truth but also to illustrate them with Arguments drawn from reason But the use he would have of reason is I suppose to believe nothing but what his reason can comprehend and this is not only irrational in its self but contrary to the Doctrin of St. Paul where he commands us to captivate our understandings to the Obedience of Faith 4. He adds We expose faith to uncertainty by making the Church power extend to making new Articles of Faith And this if it were true were something indeed to his purpose But the Church never yet owned any such power in her General Councils but only to manifest and establish the Doctrin received from her Fore-fathers as is to be seen in the prooems of all the Sessions of the Council of Trent where the Fathers before they declare what is to be believed ever premise that what they declare is the same they have received by Tradition from the Apostles And because it may happen that some particular Doctrine was not so plainly delivered to each part of the Church as it happened in St. Cyprian's case concerning the non-rebaptization of Hereticks we acknowledg it is in her power to make that necessary to be believed which was not so before not by inventing new Articles but by declaring more explicitly the Truths contained in Scripture and Tradition Lastly he saith We expose Faith to great uncertainty because the Church pretending to infallibility does not determine Controversies on foot among our selves As if faith could not be certain unless all Controversies among particular Men be determined what then becomes of the certainty of Protestants faith who could yet never find out a sufficient means to determin any one Controversie among them for if that means be plain Scripture what one Judgeth plain another Judgeth not so and they acknowledg no Judg between them to decide the Controversie As for the Catholick Church if any Controversies arise concerning the Doctrin delivered as in St. Cyprian's case she determines the controversy by declaring what is of faith And for other Controversies which belong not to faith she permits as St. Paul saith every one to abound in his own sence And thus much in Answer to his third Argument by which and what hath been said to his former objections it appears that he hath not at all proved what he asserted in his second Answer to the first Question viz. That all those who are in the Communion of the Church of Rome do run so great a hazard of their Salvation that none who have a care of their souls ought to embrace or continue in it But he hath a third Answer for us in case the former fail and it is § 10. That a Protestant leaving the Communion of the Protestant Church doth incur a greater guilt than one who was bred up in the Church of Rome and continues therein by invincible ignorance This is the directest Answer he gives to the Question and what it imports is this That invincible Ignorance and he doth not know what allowance God will make for that neither is the only Anchor which a Catholick hath to save himself by If by discoursing with Protestants and reading their Books he be not sufficiently convinced whereas he ought in the supposition of the Answerer to be so that the Letter of the Scripture as interpretable by every private Mans reason is a most certain Rule of Faith and Life but is still over-ruled by his own Motives the same which held St. Austin in the bosome of the Catholick Church he is guilty of wilful Ignorance and consequently a lost Man there is no hope of Salvation for him Much less for a Protestant who shall embrace the Catholick Communion because he is supposed doubtless from the same Rule to have sufficient conviction of the Errours of the Roman Church or is guilty of wilful Ignorance if he have it not which is a damnable sin and unrepented of destroys salvation So that now the upshot of the Answer to the Question Whether a Protestant embracing Catholick Religion upon the same motives which one bred and well grounded in it hath to remain in it may be equally saved with him comes to this that they shall both be damned though unequally because the converted Catholick more deeply than he that was bred so And now who can out lament the sad condition of that great Doctor and Father of the Church and hitherto reputed St. Austin who rejecting the Manichees pretended rule of Scripture upon the aforesaid grounds left their Communion to embrace the Communion of the Church of Rome And what is become now of their distinction of points fundamental from not fundamental which heretofore they thought sufficient to secure both Catholicks and Protestants Salvation and to charge us with unconscionable uncharitableness in not allowing them to be sharers with us The absurdness of these consequences may serve for a sufficient conviction of the nullity of his third and last answer to the first Question As for what he saith to the second I agree so far with him that every Christian is bound to choose the Communion of the purest Church but which that Church is must be seen by the grounds it brings to prove the Doctrines it teaches to have been delivered by Christ and his Apostles That Church is to be judged purest which hath the best grounds and consequently it is of necessity to salvation to embrace the communion of it What then you are bound to do in reason and conscience is to see which Religion of the two hath the strongest Motives for it and to embrace that as you will answer the contrary to God and your own soul To help you to do this and that the Answerer may have the less exception against them I will give you a Catalogue of Catholick Motives though not all neither in the words of the fore-cited Dr. Taylor advertising only for brevity sake I leave out some mention'd by him and that in these I set down you also give allowance for some expressions of his with which
he hath mis-represented them Thus then he Liberty of Proph. Sect. 20. Speaking of Catholicks The beauty and Splendour of their Church their pompous he should have said solemn Service the stateliness and solemnity of the Hierarchy their Name of Catholick which they suppose he should have said their very Adversaries give them as their own due and to concern no other Sect of Christians the Antiquity of many of their Doctrines he should have said all the continual succession of their Bishops their immediate derivation from the Apostles their Title to succeed St. Peter the flattering he should have said due expressions of Minor Bishops he means in acknowledging the Pope head of the Church which by being old records have obtained credibility the multitude and variety of People which are of their perswasion apparent consent with Antiquity in many Ceremonials which other Churches have rejected and a pretended and sometimes he should have said always apparent consent with some elder Ages in matters Doctrinal The great consent of one part with another in that which most of them affirm to be de fide of Faith The great differences which are commenced among their Adversaries abusing the liberty of Prophecying into a very great licentiousness Their happiness of being Instruments in converting divers he should rather have said of all Nations The piety and austerity of their Religious Orders of Men and Women The single life of their Priests and Bishops the severity of their Fasts and their exteriour observances the great reputation of their first Bishops for faith and sanctity the known holiness of some of those persons whose institutes the religious persons pretend to imitate the oblique Arts and indirect proceedings of some of those who dâ—parted from them and amongst many other things the names of Heretick and Schismatick which they with infinite pertinacity he should have said upon the same grounds the Fathers did fasten upon all that disagree from them These things saith he and divers others may very easily perswade persons of much reason and more piety to retain that which they know to have been the Religion of their Forefathers which had actually possession and seizure of Mens understandings before the opposite professions to wit of Protestant Presbyterian Anabaptist c. had a name Thus Dr. Taylor an eminent and leading Man amongst the Protestants and if he confess that these Motives were sufficient for a Catholick to retain his Religion they must be of like force to perswade a dis-interessed Protestant to embrace it unless the Protestants can produce Motives for their Religion of greater or at least equal force with these which so great a Man among them confesseth that Catholicks have for theirs Here therfore you must call upon the Author of the Paper you sent me to produce a Catalogue of grounds or at least some one ground for the Protestant Religion of greater or equal force with all these And as Dr. Taylor saith divers others which he omitted viz. The Scripture interpreted by the consent of Fathers the determination of General Councils the known Maxime of Catholicks that nothing is to be believed of Faith but what was received from their Fore-fathers as handed down from the Apostles The testimony of the present Church of no less Authority now than in St. Austin's time both for the Letter and the sence of the Scripture c. Do this and the Controversie will quickly be at an end Particular disputes are endless and above the understanding of such as are not learned but in grounds and principles 't is not so hard for Reason and common sence to Judge That you may the better do it in your case I shall desire you to take these two Cautions along with you First That the Subject of the present Controversie are not those Articles in which the Protestants agree with us and for which they may pretend to produce the same Motives we do But in those in which they dissent from us such as are no Transubstantiation no Purgatory no honour due to Images no Invocation to Saints and the like in which the very Essence of Protestant as distinct from Catholick consists What Motives they can or will produce for these I do not fore-see The pretence of Scriptures being sufficiently plain hath no place here because then the foresaid Negatives would be necessary to be believed as divine Truths And for their own Reason and Learning it will be found too light when put into the Scale against that of the Catholick Church for so many Ages The second Caution is That you be careful to distinguish between Protestants producing grounds for their own Religion and finding fault with ours An Atheist can cavil and find fault with the grounds which learned Men bring to prove a Deity such as are the Order of this visible World the general consent of Nations c. In this an Atheist thinks he doth somewhat But can he produce as good or better grounds for his own Opinion No you see then 't is one thing to produce grounds for what we hold and another to find fault with those which are produced by the contrary part The latter hath made Controversie so long and the former will make it as short let the Answerer therefore instead of finding fault with our Motives produce his own for the Articles in Controversie and I am confident you will quickly discern which carry the most weight and consequently which are to be preferred A Full Refutation OF Dr. STILLINGFLEET's Unjust Charge of IDOLATRY Against the Church of Rome The First Part. Of the Veneration of Holy Images CHAP. I. The First and Second Answer to the First Question shewn not pertinent Necessity of Communion with the Church of Rome proved and his Charge of Idolatry overthrown by his own Principles § 1. WHoever considers how Dr. Stillingfleet in his Answer to the Two Questions has engag'd himself and his Adversary in Seventeen or Eighteen of the most material Controversies between Catholicks and Protestants besides innumerable others of lesser concern which together with the former have swell'd his Rejoynder to a short Paper into a large Book will not very easily free him upon his own word from being fond of the practise of the Noble Science of Controversie or as his Friend Dr. T. calls it The Blessed Art of Eternal Wrangling especially if he reflect how easie and obvious the Answer was to the Questions themselves without running into farther Disputes To the First by shewing that the Motives which are sufficient to secure the Salvation of one bred up and well-grounded in Catholick Religion are not sufficient to secure the salvation of one bred up in the Protestant who convinced by them should embrace the Catholick To the Second by shewing the Motives for Communion with the Protestant Church to be greater and stronger than those for the Roman and therefore that to be necessarily embraced before this it being agreed between us that it is of necessity to salvation to be
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
being engaged in it yet 't is 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 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 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 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 't is 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 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 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 wâ—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 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 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 waâ— commanded by Ludovicus Pius â—o 〈◊〉 against Claudius â—aurinensis for casting them out of the Church Surely the little care there was taken to preserve the Canon of the Council of Eranâ—ford against Image-Worship or â—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 â—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
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. â—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 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 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
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 thâ—â—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 when the Eucharistical Brâ—ad and Cup of Blessing were shewed 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 S. Gregory Nâ—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 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 Redemptiâ—â— she had tied her Soul fast by the Bond of â—â—ith And in this she did no more 〈◊〉 what her Son teacheâ—â— upon the 98th Psalâ—â— 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 aâ—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 whâ—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 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
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
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 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 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 oâ— Criterium by which we are to judge of the Truth of Divine Revelation when in his second Câ—asse of Principles he affirms There can be no other means imagined 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
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 yoâ— by Reason's Rule disdain to square Yoâ—r Pâ—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 aâ—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 'T is Ignorance and Madness saith the Cerinthian Heretick to believe that God can be Three and One and that Christ is God Stanz 213. 220. 'T is 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. â—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 Contradictâ—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 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 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
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
proof of Christ's Divinity he will appeal to him whether there are the same Grounds and Motives from thence to believe Transubstantiation as there are the Divinity of Christ But if Catholicks do not acknowledge Scripture alone to be the Rule of Faith what am I concern'd whether Bellarmin produce many Texts or but One or none at all Does not the Doctor himself say that some of our Religion have said that Transubstantiation could not be prov'd from Scripture alone and have not others of it said as much of the Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father I am sure this was believed before the Scripture was written and so Scripture could not be the Rule of believing it But then again what if Bellarmin produc'd but One Text of Scripture for Transubstantiation therefore can there no more be produc'd Or if no more could be produc'd would there not be the same Ground of believing from thence supposing I am certain of the true sense of thâ—s One as if there were many Are we not bound as much to believe God when he says a thing once if we be sure of the true sense of what he saith as when he says the same twice or thrice And were not all those places cited by Bellarmin for Christ's Divinity as much impugned by the Arrians as this of Christ's words This is my Body is by Calvin and his Complices Why then must I because Bellarmin produces out of Scripture but one Text for Transubstantiation and many for Christ's Divinity acknowledge there are not the same Grounds or Motives to believe the one as the other § 7. I but Bellarmin himself acknowledges that there is some obscurity or ambiguity in the very Text he cites for after he had spent the greatest part of the Chapter against the Lutherans He concludes it thus saith the Doctor p. 131. Although there be some obscurity or ambiguity in the words of our Lord yet that is taken away by Councils and Fathers which is a plain Indication he thought the Doctrine of Transubstantiation could not be proved from Scripture alone But stay am I bound to believe Dr. St. upon his bare word May I not look into Bellarmin to see what he says without incurring a sin of rash judgement against my Neighbour The Book God be thanked is not so hard to be found as that of Trigautius I ventur'd to look the place upon the Remembrance of some former dexterity I had noted in him in citing of Authors and although I could hardly believe my Eyes nor did not till I look'd into another Edition I found Bellarmin not to say what he affirms him to say but in reality the contrary For after he had proved from the words of our Lord the Real Presence of his Body in the Sacrament against the Calvinists li. 1. de Euch. c. 1. and in the present Chapter had shown against the Lutherans that Transubstantiation is absolutely inferr'd from the very same words being to carry on his Proofs from Scripture to Councils and Fathers he concludes the Chapter in these words and that by way of Transition Adde quod LICET in verbis Domini ESSET aliqua obscuritas vel ambiguitas ea tamen sublata est per multa Concilia Catholicae Ecclesiae Patrum Consensum Add saith he that ALTHOUGH THERE WERE or should be which is as much as to say suppose there were some obscurity or ambiguity in the words of our Lord yet that is taken away by the many Councils of the Catholick Church and the Consent of Fathers And now I appeal to the Reader whether Dr. St. have not given us here a very rare example of reporting faithfully as he calls it in his Preface the words and sense of an Author Is it all one to say although there be and although there should be He that saith Although there be some ambiguity in the words supposes them to be ambiguous He that saith Although there should be some Ambiguity in them supposes them not to be ambiguous And this is the case between Bellarmin and the Doctor Bellarmin only puts the case they were ambiguous and by so doing supposes them not to be so and the Doctor makes him acknowledge them de facto to be ambiguous which is just as if when the Doctor himself says p. 111. supposing there were the same divine Revelation of Transubstantiation and of Christ's Divinity c. I should infer that he acknowledges the Revelation to be the same de facto in both 'T is manifest then that by this Translation he hath corrupted both the words and sense of Bellarmin And this not by mistake as appears but too too plainly for that himself makes the words of Bellarmin as he translates them to be a plain Indication that he thought Transubstantiation could not be proved from Scripture alone whereas had he reported them as they stand in Bellarmin LICET ESSET Although there were or should be some ambiguity in the words of our Lord c. They had been a plain Indication that Bellarmin for his part thought that he had sufficiently prov'd the Doctrine of Transubstantiation out of Scripture And now the Reader sees what the Doctor meant in his Preface by his design as he calls it to report faithfully And however he intended to make use of it for his advantage yet it is a very plain Indication of what shifts and artifices they are fain to avail themselves of who will maintain a bad cause To conclude I shall give him the Opinion of Dr. Taylor in this Point more faithfully who in his Liberty of Prophecying Sect. 20. n. 16. saith that Catholicks have a Divine Revelation viz. This is my Body whose literal and Grammatical sense if that were intended is so clear and evident for Transubstantiation that it would warrant them to do violence to all the Sciences in the Circle CHAP. VI. Dr. Taylor 's Argument in behalf of Catholicks supposing them mistaken Un-answered by Dr. St. His Parallel of such a supposed mistake with that of Idolaters shown to be a real and very gross mistake in himself § 1. HAving shown in my Reply that the Dr's Argument by which he would prove the Church of Rome guilty of Idolatry for adoring our Lord Christ in the Eucharist would be of equal sorce srom the Pen of an Arrian against the adoration of him as God wherever present I added p. 20. that supposing Catholicks should be mistaken in their belief And I hope the Doctor will not infer from hence that I acknowledge them to be mistaken de facto yet so eminent and learned a Man among the Protestants as Dr. Taylor denies it would follow from thence that they were Idolaters And the words I cited were these out of his Liberty of Prophecying Sect. 20. Numb 16. Idolatry saith he is a forsaking the true God and giving divine worship to a Creature or to an Idol that is to an Imaginary God who hath no Foundation in Essence or Existence And this is
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 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 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 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 muâ—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
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 pâ—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 that the same Christ commanded Christians to give unto Caesar the things which are Caesars of which Honour is One in the Judgment of St. Peter And the like had been manifest of Theophilus Antiochenus 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 and tells us that the King is then to be honoured when he keeps â—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 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
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 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 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 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