Jupiter and Sabaoth to be the same neither indeed to be any God at all but a Devil who is delighted with the name of Jupiter an Enemy to Men and God 2dly For the Intermediate Beings it is asserted by the same Origen that they were Devils also and according to the differently formed statues in which they assisted one was esteemed to be Bacchus another Hercules c. The like is affirmed also by Theophilus Antiochenus above cited and St. Austin upon the 96. Psalm But then because the supreme God was conceived to be of so high a Nature that he knew not what passed in this sublunary World Therefore 3dly The Office of these Inferiour Deities or Devils was to carry up the Prayers of Men to God as the Doctor himself cites out of St. Austin but very insincerely for St. Austin saith not to God but ad Deos to the Gods that is to Devils out of a supposition that they cannot know the necessities and prayers of Men but by Intervention of these Spirits and so to bring down to Men the blessings they prayed for And 4thly To oblige them to perform this Office of Nuncii or Messengers as St. Austin calls them they exacted of Men to give them Divine Worship by the Oblation of Victims and Sacrifices as the Fathers every where testify This then is the Scheme of the Heathens Divinity and Devotion The Doctor 's Father of Gods and Men was according to the Fathers an Arch-Devil The Inferiour Deities were Inferiour Devils Their Office was to inform the Superiour Gods of what passed here below and the reward they required for this service was no less than the Offering of Sacrifice to their Devil-ships And now was this the very same case altering only the Names of Things which he saith is in debate between Him and the Church of Rome concerning the Invocation of Saints Surely a more Injurious Calumny scarce ever dropt from the Pen of the greatest Enemy of Christianity except that of Julian the Apostate who charged the Christians of his time for their worshipping the Martyrs that for the one true God they worshipped many Men who were not Gods A most Injurious Calumny I say For r. The God whom we adore is not that wise Father of Gods and Men who was so high as not to know what was done here below but the true and Immortal God Maker of Heaven and Earth who sees the secrets of our hearts and knows our necessities before we utter them 2dly The Persons to whom we address our selves for their Prayers are not Devils or wicked Wretches but the Friends and Servants of God whom the Doctor himself as little respect as he hath for them acknowledges to exceed those other in excellency 3dly Their Office is not to inform the Supream God of what he knows not but to be Joynt Petitioners with us and for us to his divine Majesty as other Holymen are upon Earth 4thly and Lastly We do not procure or buy this favour of them by offering Sacrifice to them for as St. Austin saith What Bishop officiating at the Altar doth say at any time We offer to Thee Peter or Paul or Cyprian But as the same Holy Doctor there saith We celebrate their Memory with Religious Solemnity both to excite us to their imitation and to become partakers of their Merits and Prayers but so that we erect Altars not to any of the Martyrs but to the God of Martyrs although in Memory of them And now having spoken thus home to the Case I leave it to the Reader 's Judgment whether the Practice of Catholicks in honouring and Invocating the Saints be the same with that of the Heathens in the worship of their Inferiour Deities To make the Case run Parallel on all four the Doctor must prove either that the God we worship is not the very true God but an Arch-Devil or that the Holy Angels and Saints are not his friends and servants but inferiour Devils Or that we believe him to be so ignorant that he stands in need of them to inform him or that we offer sacrifice and erect Altars to them And when he can do all or any of these he will speak something to the Point But I believe these are none of those things which he threatens largely to prove if further occasion be given And I have good reason to believe so by his present undertaking which is not to prove any of these things in which the Parallel must consist if there be any but to cast a mist before his Readers eyes and make him lose both his labour and the Question as I shall show in the following Chapter CHAP. II. What kind of Honour Catholicks give to the Saints The Testimonies of Origen and St. Ambrose explained Of the Practice of making Addresses to particular Saints § 1. THe Question at present between Dr. St. and the Church of Rome is not whether divine worship be to be given to the Saints for this is abhor'd of all faithful Christians but whether an Inferiour Worship of like kind with that which is given to Holy Men upon Earth for their Holiness and neer Relation to God may not be lawfully given to them now they are in Heaven This is the true state of the Question between us which the Doctor afraid to grapple with turns aside and will he saith insist upon these two things 1. That the Fathers did condemn all such kind of worshâ—p supposing their Principle true that is as far as I can understand it supposing what they said was true 2. That they did not only condemn it in those spirits which the Heathens worshipped but in good Angels themselves And before I engage with Him upon the Testimonies of the Fathers I must disperse the Mist he raises by his Egregious equivocating in the words All such kind of worship What kind of worship is it the Fathers deny may be given to the most excellent created Beings He tells us p. 145. any Religious Worship And what doth he mean by Religious Worship To dispute saith Mr. Thorndike whether we are bound to honour the Saints or not were to dispute whether we are to be Christians and to believe this or not Whether this be Religious or Civil nothing but equivocation of words makes disputable and the cause of that equivocation the want of words vulgar use not having provided words properly to signify conceptions which came not from Common sense Plainly their excellence and the Relation we have to them being Intelligible only by Christianity must borrow a Name from that which vulgar language attributes to God or to Men our Superiours And then a little after he saith That the Relation which God hath settled between the Church Militant and Triumphant may be reasonably called Religious provided that the distance be not confounded between the Religious honour of God and that Honour of the Creature which the Religious honour of God enjoins being neither Civil nor
not Image reinforced Pag. 33. Chap. 4. The Doctor 's Second Proof from the Reason of the Law sophistical All Representations of God not dishonourable to him nor rejected as such by the Church of England The Proper Reason of the Law on God's part is assigned and asserted to be the Supream Excellency of his Nature pag. 57. Chap. 5. Worship unlawful by the light of Nature equally unlawful to Jews and Christians A strange Paradox advanced by Dr. Stillingfleet viz. What can an Image do to the heightning devotion or raising Affections How far his Devotion to the Sun may be allowed in the Judgement of St. Leo. pag. 76. Chap. 6. Of the Notions and practice of the Wiser Heathens in the matter of their Images The Texts of St. Paul Acts 17. 24. and Rom. 1. 21. explained Some of the Doctor 's Testimonies examined in particular the Relation He gives of what the Jesuites did in China Pag. 95. Chap. 7. Of the 2d General Council of Nice call'd most irreverently by Dr. St. that wise Synod His Constantinopolitan Father's Objections answered by Epiphanius and his Answers shown to be goâ—d pag. 118. Chap. 8. The Dr.'s Objection from the Council of Franckford examin'd and shown to be no advantage to his Cause pag. 140. Chap. 9. Of the Doctor 's Third Proof from the Judgment as He pretends of the Law-giver His Speculation concerning the Golden Calves manifestly repugnant to the H. Scripture and Fathers Mr. Thorndike's Judgment of the Meaning and Extent of the second Commandment pag. 153. Chap. 10. What kind of honour the Church gives to Holy Images explained and the Doctor 's mixing School-disputes with matters of Faith shown to be sophistical pag. 176. Chap. 11. Of the Instances brought to explicate the nature of the honour given to Images from the like Reverence given to the Chair of State to the Ground to the Ark to the Name of Jesus c. The weakness of the Doctor 's Evasions laid open and His own Arguments return'd upon Him pag. 193. PART II. Of the Adoration of the most Blessed Sacrament Chap. 1. THe Practice 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 pag. 221. Chap. 2. The true State of the Controversie laid open together with the Doctor 's endeavours to mis-represent it His manner of arguing against the Adoration of Christ in the Eucharist equally destructive to the Adoration of Him as God pag. 243. Chap. 3. Of Dr. St.'s Scruple about the Host's not being consecrated for want of Intention in the Priest and his mistake of the true Reason of giving Adoration to Christ in the Sacrament pag. 256. Chap. 4. His 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 p. 272. Chap. 5. A Check to the Doctor 's bigg words against the Grounds of Transubstantiation With a New Example of reporting faithfully as he calls it the words and sense of an Author pag. 294. Chap. 6. Dr. Taylor 's Argument in behalf of Catholicks supposing them mistaken in the belief of Transubstantiation not answered by Dr. St. The Parallel of such a supposed mistake with that of Idolaters shown to be a real and very gross mistake in Himself pag. 317. PART III. Of the Invocation of Saints Chap. 1. 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 the Heathens to their Inferiour Deities laid open pag. 333. Chap. 2. What kind of Honour Catholicks give to the Saints The Testimonies of Origen and St. Ambrose explained Of the practice of making Addresses to Particular Saints pag. 353. Chap. 3. 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 pag. 377. Chap. 4. Of the Term Formal Invocation and the different Forms used in the Invocation of Saints Some Instances out of the Fathers to show the like to have been used in their Times pag. 397. Chap. 5. The disparity assigned by Dr. St. between desiring the Saints in Heaven and Holy Men upon Earth to pray for us shown to be Insignificant pag. 414. Chap. 6. Of the practice of Christian People in St. Austin's time in the Invocation of Saints pag. 430. The Two Questions whence Dr. Still took Occasion to raise this Controversy 1. WHether a Protestant having the same Motives to become a Catholick which one bred and born and well grounded in the Catholick Religion hath to remain in it may not equally be saved in the profession of it 2. Whether it be sufficient to be a Christian in the abstract or in the whole latitude or there be a necessity of being a member of some distinct Church or Congregation of Christians His Answer to the aforesaid Questions The first Question being supposed to be put concerning a Protestant yet continuing so doth imply a contradiction viz. That a Protestant continuing so should have the same Motives to become a Catholick taking that term here only as signifying one of the communion of the Church of Rome which those have who have been horn or bred in that communion But supposing the meaning of the Question to be this Whether a Protestant leaving the communion of our Church upon the Motives used by those of the Roman Church may not be equally saved with those who are bred in it I answer 1. That an equal capacity of salvation of those persons being supposed can be no argument to leave the communion of a Church wherein salvation of a person may be much more safe than of either of them No more than it is for a Man to leap from the plain Ground into a Ship that is in danger of being wrackt because he may equally hope to be saved with those who are in it Nay supposing an equal capacity of Salvation in two several Churches there can be no reason to forsake the communion of the one for the other So that to perswade any one to leave our Church to embrace that of Rome it is by no means sufficient to ask whether such a one may not as well be savâ—d as they that are in it already but it is necessary that they prove that it is of necessity to salvation to leave our Church and become a Member of theirs And when they do this I intend to be one of their number 2. We assert that all those who are in the communion of the Church of Rome do run so great a hazard of their Salvation that none who have a care of their Souls ought to embrace it or
Humane but such as a Creature is capable of for Religion's sake and that Relation which it settleth By this it appears that if the Doctor mean by Religious Worship that Honor which is due to God alone it is true what the Fathers say that It is not to be given to the most excellent created Beings but nothing at all to the Point in debate between us If he mean that Honour of which a Creature is capable of for Religion's sake and that Relation which it settleth I shall show it to be false that the Fathers deny any such honour to be given to the Holy Angels and Saints And if he contend that this kind of worship ought not to be called Religious St. Austin will tell him that it is but a meer wrangling about words because the word Religion as he shows may be used in other senses besides that of the worship due to God and Himself speaking of the honour given by Christians to the Martyrs saith We celebrate their Memories with Religious Solemnity And who so saith Mr. Thorndike in the place above cited could wish that the Memories of the Martyrs and other Saints who lived so as to assure the Church they would have been Martyrs had they been called to it Alas He never thought that for ought Dr. St. can know they were great Hypocrites had not been honoured as is plain they were honoured by Christians must find in his heart by consequence to wish that Christianity had not prevailed Whether this Censure of Mr. Thorndike's be applicable to my Adversary or no depends upon his allowing or not allowing such honour to the Saints as is plain was given them by Christians but for the distinction he makes between the Religious worship due to God and that of which a Creature is capable of for Religion's sake it will clearly dispell the Mâ—st he hath raised from the Testimonies of the Fathers and let the Reader see how he hath perverted their meaning and yet said nothing to the purpose § 2. The first he cites is Origen affirming that the Scripture doth indeed stile God the God of Gods and Lord of Lords but withall saith that to us there is but one God the Father of whom are all things and One Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by Him And his mind ascends up to the supreme God who worships him inseparably and indivisibly by his Son who alone conducts us to the Father Therefore seeing there are many Gods and many Lords we endeavour by all means not only to carry our minds above those things on Earth which are worshipped by the Heathen for Gods but above those whom the Scripture calls Gods by which Origen means the Angels To this I answer that it is plain from the very words themselves that the worship which Origen here contends ought not to be given to Angels is divine worship proper to God alone for he speaks only of that worship which is given to the Father inseparably and indivisibly by his Son And when-ever such worship is to be given we must not only carry our minds above those things which were worshipped by the Heathens for Gods but above the good Angels also because they are not inseparably and indivisibly One with the Father as the Son is who alone can conduct us by his Grace and Merits to the Father And this is yet more plain from the Reply which Origen gave to that Evasion of Celsus viz. that None were to be honoured for Gods but those to whom the supreme God doth communicate it for denying any such honour to have been granted by God to the Heroes or Daemons of the Heathens he proves from Miracles and Prophecies and Precepts that this honour was given to Christ Ut omnes honorent Filium sicut Patrem honorant that all should honour the Son as they honour the Father that is that they should honour him as God which the Doctor translates that they who honour the Father should honour the Son also tacitly insinuating that no honour at all mâ—ght be lawfully given but to the Son And again when Celsus objects that by the same Rule that Christians gave honor to Christ he thought they might give it to Inferiour Deities The account which Origen gives of the worship which Christians attribute to the Son viz. because it is said I and my Father are One makes it yet more evident that he speaks of divine worship which cannot be given to any created Beings and not of such an Inferiour Worship of which Creatures are capable upon account of their Holiness and Relation to God For of these he saith and who will not wonder to see it cited though but imperfectly by the Doctor himself that if Celsus had spoken of the true Ministers of God after his only begotten Son such as Gabriel Michael and all the Angels and Archangels and had contended that they were to be worshipped which last words though very material are left out by Dr. St. he acknowledges that by explaining the notion of worship or respect and the Actions of those that give it perhaps he should have said something of that Subject as far as the dignity of so great a thing and the reach of his understanding would have permitted But this not being objected by Celsus but only that they were by the same Rule by which they worshipped Christ for God to worship in like manner the Inferiour Deities of the Heathens he thought it not necessary to enlarge upon that Subject at present but only to show the different account upon which they worshipped Christ as one with his Father By which it is manifest he held a certain worship or respect due to the Angels inferiour to that which is due to God alone And all that the Doctor hath to say for himself is that Origen saith elsewhere Although the Angels be called Gods in Scripture yet we are not to worship them with divine worship which is a plain concession that when Origen denies worship to any created Beings he speaks of divine worship and so nothing against that Inferiour worship or respect which is given by Catholicks to the Holy Angels and Saints § 3. But now the Doctor would seem to say something to the purpose when he tells us that Origen utterly denies that our Prayers are to be offered to any but Christ alone and that any word which is proper to Religious worship is to be attributed to the Angels themselves But he does but seem to come home to the Point for as Mr. Thorndike well observes The terms of Prayer Invocation calling upon and whatever else we can use are or may be in despite of our hearts equivocal that is we may be constrained unless we use that diligence which common discretion counts superfluous to use the same words in signifying requests made to God and to Men. And a little aâ—ter Prayer Invocation calling upon is not so proper to God but