parts of the Species that which bears the outward show of Bread or Wine that from this Division there is a parting of the whole divided into so many entire Bodies of Christ the Body of Christ being always at the same time equalâ— to it self it follows that a part of the Division is equal to the whole against that common Notion in Euclide That the Whole is bigger then the Part. And lastly in Logick it is a Maxime That the Parts agree indeed with the Whole but disagree one with another But in the abovesaid Division of the Host or Sacrament the Parts do so well agree that they are entirely the very same individual thing And whereas any Division whether Logical or Physical is the Division of some one into many this is but the Division of one into one and it self like him that for brevity â—ake divided his Text into one Part. To all which you may add that unless we will admit of two Sosia's and two Amphitruo's in that sense that the mirth is made with it in Plautus his Comedy neither the Bread nor the Wine can be transubstantiated into the intire Body of Christ. For this implies that the same thing is and is not at the same time For that individual thing that câ—n be and is to be made of any thing is not Now the individual Body of Christ is to be made of the Wafer consecrated for it is turned into his individual Body But his individual Body was before this Consecration â—herefore it was and it was not at the same time Which is against that fundamentaâ— Principle in Logick and Metaphysicks That both parts of a Contradiction cannot betrue or That the same thing cannot both be and not be at once Thus fully and intirely contradictious and repugnant to all Sense and Reason to all indubitable Principles of all Art and Science is this Figment of Transubstantiation and therefore most certainly false Read the ten first Conclusions of the brief Discourse of the true Grounds of Faith added to the Divine Dialogues 7. And from Scripture it has not the least support All is Hoc est corpus meum When Christ held the Bread in his hand and after put part into his own mouth as well as distributed it to â— his Disciples in doing whereof he swallow'd his whole Body down his throat at once according to the Doctrine of this Council or at least might have done so if he would And so all the Body of Christ Flesh Bones Mouth Teeth Hair Head Heels Thighs Arms Shoulders Belly Back and all went through his Mouth into his Stomach and thus all were in his Stomach though all his Body intirely his Stomach excepted was still without it Which let any one judge whether it be more likely then that this saying of Christ This is my Rody is to be understood figuratively the using the Verb substantive in this sense being not unusual in Scripture as in I am the Vine The seven lean Kine are the seven years of Famine and the like and more particularly since our Saviour speaking elsewhere of eating his flesh and drinking his bloud says plainly Ioh. 6. 63. that the words he sp ke they were spirit and they were truth that is to say a spiritual or aenigmatical truth not carnally and literally to be understood And for the trusting of the judgement of the Roman Church herein that makes it self so sacrosanct and infallible the Pride Worldliness Policy and multifarious Impostures of that Church so often and so shamelesly repeated and practised must needs make their Authority seem nothing in a Point that is so much for their own Interest especially set against the undeniable Principles of common Sense and Reason and of all the Arts and Sciences God has illuminated the Mind of man withall Consider the twelfth Conclusion of the abovenamed Treatise together with the otherten before cited Wherefore any one that is not a meer Bigott may be as assured that Transubstantiation is a meer Figment or enormous Falsehood as of any thing else in the whole world 8. From whence it will unavoidablâ— follow and themselves cannot deny it that they are most gross and palpable Idolaters and consequently most barbarous Murtâ—â—rers in killing the innocent Servants of God for not subâ—itting to the same Idolatries with themselves Costerus the Iesuiâ—e speaks expresly to this Point and consonâ—ntly I think to the Suppositions of the Council viz. That if their Church be mistaken in the Doctrine of Tâ—ansubstâ—ntiation they ipso facto stand guilty of such a piece of Idolatry as never was before seen or known of in the world For the errours of those saith he were more toâ—rable who wâ—rship some golden or siâ—ver Statue or some Image of any other Materials for their God as the Heathen worshipped their Gods or arâ—d Cloth hung upon the top of a Spear as is reported of the Laplanders or some live Animal as of old the Aegyptians did then of these that â—orship a bit of Breâ—d as hitherto the Christians have done all over the wâ—râ— for so many hundred years if the Doctrine of ransubstantiation be not true What can be a more full and express acknoâ—ledgement of the gross Idolatry of the Church of Rome then this if Transubstantiation prove an Errour Then which notwithstanding there is nothing in the world more certain to all the Faculties of a man as is manifest out of what has been here said And therefore the Romanists must be gross Idolaters from the second third fourth seventh and ninth Conclusions of the first Chapter and from the fourth fifth eighth ninth twenty fiâ—st twenty-second and twenty fifth of the second Chapter All these Conclusions will give evidence against them that they are very notorious Idolaters 9. And therefore this being so high and so palpable a strain of Idolatry in them touching the Eucharist or the eating the Body and drinking the Bloud of Christ wherein Christ is offered by the Priest as an Oblation and the People feed upon him as in a Feast upon a Sacrifice which is not done without Divine Adoration done to the Host according to the precept of their Church This does hugely confirm our sense of the eating of things offered unto Idols in the Epistles to the Churches in Pergamus and in Thyatira this worshipping of the Host being so expresly acknowledged by the Pope and his Clergy and in that high sense of Cultus Latriae which is due to God alone And therefore it is very choicely and judiciously perstringed by the Spirit of Prophecy above any other Modes of their Idolatry it being such a gross and confessed Specimen thereof and such as there is no Evasion for or Excuse Hoc teneas vultus muianiem Protea nodo CHAP. III. His Answer to the first Paragraph It had been ingenuous in the Doctor whilest he states Catholick â—octrine to speak Catholick language The Council of Trent even as quoted by himself mentions not the â—ost but onely the
Adversary has offered at me in this Paragraph Paragraph the second He has lately set forth an Exposition of the seven Epistles to the seven Churches of Asia The whole piece is of a pure Romantick strain wherein the Authours fancy being broken loose from the command of Reason and leaping over all boundaries of Church-Authority and the faith of his Ancestors runs on at eleven-score as if he were upon a warm scent giving chase to some of his Platonical Idea's The Answer This is indeed a pretty pleasant Rhetorical career but what it would affirm in plain English is this That my Exposition of the Epistles to the seven Churches is but a mere phancy And the Arguments he offers at to prove his Assertion are these That it is against church-Church-Authority against the Faith of our Ancestors and that I have brought no Reasons to prove it As to the Authority of the Church there was never any general Council nor any other that I know that ever declared that such a Prophetical sense as I have given of these seven Epistles is false nor for any doctrine that clashes with any thing supposed in my Exposition while the Church continued Symmetral I mean before her Apostasy But in that the ancient Fathers declared upon the removal of that which hindereth 2 Thes. 2. 6. that the Apostasy of the Church would insue and the appearing of Antichrist they expounding also the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the intireness of the Roman Empire that is consonant to my Exposition of those seven Epistles and to the assigned Interval of Pergamus But now in that he insinuates I have brought no Reason for my Exposition I think I have brought no less then demonstration for it And I think any one that has a Genius to read and judge of such things will easily acknowledge it upon the considerate perusal of my Exposition and serious pondering the tenth Chapter wherein the strength thereof is more briefly represented If we can in the contemplation of Anatomy in the body of an Animal observing how all the parts conspire to one end the convenient functions of life for such an Animal conclude a Providence therein certainly upon taking notice that the whole frame of all these Epistles and the order of them the notations of the proper names not excepted do all intirely tend as all the flesh of an Animal is made into muscles for fit and due motions for that Animal to set out the state of the Church in seven intire Intervals from the beginning to the end this is as certain a sign that these Epistles are such a Divine Prediction or Prophecy as such an Anatomy is of such a piece of Divine Providence in that Creature Paragraph the third To this he has adjoyned a pretended Antidote against Idolatry with Application to the Council of Trent and for the putting a stop as he phrases it to the Romish Infection His most formidable weapon is that harsh and unmanly Rhetorick called Railing His phrase is rough and clogged with much dirt which he throws too bountifully upon persons which never deserved it at his hands His Objections are bold uncivil irreligious not without a deep tincture of Geneva The Answer My useing nor affecting any other Rhetorick but plain propriety of Speech or Scripture phrase applied to things that are true that is that which makes it both harsh and formidable to those that are friends to falshood And this it is which they call Railing Such as when I call Idolatry Idolatry and Pagan-like Idolatry Pagan-like Idolatry and the unjust and cruel killing of innocent men barbarous murder But that it should be unmanly to speak truth I understand not or yet ungentile in such necessary occasions as these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to speak Truth was one of the main characters of a Gentleman amongst the Persians though Pagans so that it is a sad thing that it should be ungentile so to do amongst Christians And why is my phrase said to be rough and clogged with much dirt but that it expresses such things as are scabrous and dirty A Poet or Painter describing a Leper or a man newly taken up out of a pit of mire if their pens or pencils describe true by you they must be called rough or clogged with much dirt or mire In the mean time it is a sad case that the constitution of your Religion is such that we cannot set it down in proper and significant language but we must seem to rail at you in your own judgements though we speak onely the Truth And for his talking of my throwing dirt upon persons For my part I have no personal controversie with any but onely declare against the corruptness of the Roman Religion with which they indeavour to infect the people and against their Idolatry in particular Which I do out of a spirit of common charity both to them and our selves wishing not the least hurt to them in any regard but being ready to serve them in what is fit and in my power to serve them in any thing My Objections indeed are bold because I have clear truth on my side but they can seem uncivil and irreligious onely to your selves because it is a ruffling as it were by rude reason of your trim Formalities in your superstitious and Idolatrous Worship which you call Religion But as for the deep Tincture of Geneva I am as much a stranger to it as to Rome but ready to receive of either any usefull truth I am as yet unacquainted with But where they offer Errors I am as little concerned in the one as in the other Paragraph the Fourth And therefore were it not that the Opinion of his supposed Abilities may cast a favourable reflection upon all that issues from his brain and gain Credit to his Antidote amongst his vulgar Zealots to the irreparable dammage of their Souls his work might have lain neglected as without a Reader so without an Adversary But in regard the Doctor has prefixed his Name to the Book as Author and that a great Name is a great Argument with some to evince the truth of the Contents and that no doctrine is so absurd but may spread under the professed Patronage of a famed Divine therefore some things must be said by way of Rejoynder to the Antidote least some unwary Readers seeing the Doctor so full gorged against Popish Idolatry and repeating his Invectives almost in every page with endless tautologies should tamely suffer themselves to be borne down the stream with big words and think all is Gospel and well-grounded that falls with so much noise and confidence from the mouth of a Doctor The Answer The brief account of this long Paragraph is this That he would make his own believe that there is nothing but my Name my degree in Divinity and the confidence of my affirming those things whereof in my Antidote I do pronounce that makes my Book taken notice of but that it would be of it self the weakest
â—â—oration of the Blessed Sacrament or which is the same of Iesus â—hrist in the Sacrament Which is a quite different thing from that uncatholick expression of worshipping the Host For Catholick Principles own nothing of the Host to remain after Consecration but the species or symbols Nor does the Council enjoyn the Worship of Latria to the symbols but to â—esus Christ veiled with these symbols The Reply THis Answer is most what but a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or strife about words Whether it be called Host or Sacrament it is all one to me and to the Cause I undertake For by the Host I mean tâ—e consecrated Bread and it is familiar in common spâ—â—ch to understand the Host in that sense As when they say At the elevation of the Host and As the Host passes by aâ—d the like which is understood of the Sacrament as my Adversary here had rather have it called Besides that the very Reason of the name implies so much that it is the Consecrated Bread because Hostia from whence the word Host is signifies a Sacrifice Which your Church will not grant the Bread to be before Consecration whereby you conceive it to become Christ himself And lastly Durandus and I doubt not but many others of your Church do call the Sacrament it self Hostia very often So that there is more of pomp then solidity in this rebuke and a cunning endeavour to make me seem less skilfull in these Points of Controversie in the eyes of your Party But now to the Second part of your Answer which seems more material That the Council enjoyns not the Worship of Latria to the symbols but to Jesus Christ veiled with the Symbols I Reply That for as much as they enjoyn adoration or bowing to this effigiated bare or visible sâ—mbolical Presence of Christ invisibly there it is Idolatry by Conclusion 20th Chapter 2. And though they pretend to omit the external species or shew of the pread in their Worship yet while it is acknowledged that they Worship Christ as Hypostatically united with the substance of the Bread not annihilated but changed and transubstantiated into his body there veiled with these Species and being this Transubstantiation is not this Latriâ— of theirs is turned into Idolatry by the twenty first twenty second and twenty fifth Concâ—usions of the second Chapter As it is manifest to any one that lists to compare the Case with these Conclusions which stand very firm still for any thing he has been able to alledge against them After this my Adversary gives a brief sum of this third Chapter of mine in this Enthymeme Transuâ—stantiation is a meer Figment Ergo The adoration of the Eucharist is palpable ldolatry and so runs out preposterously to the eighth Paragraph in Answer to the concealed Proposition of the Enthymeme But I will rather set his Answers in the same order that the numbers of the Paragraphs require And so his Answers to the Antecedent of the Proposition will come in view first We will consider his Answer to the consequence of it at the eight Paragraph which is its due place His Answer to the Argument in the fourth Paragraph To this he Answers This is indeed a fair demonstration that Dr. More is acquainted with Plautus his Comedies and can when he pleases descend from the Divinity-chair to a piece of unseasonable mirth anâ— stage Drollery But let this pass as a pleasant skirmiâ— before the main charge The Reply If it was not indecorous for St. Paul to quotâ— Heathen Poets as Aratus and Epimenides yea Comedians as Menander in his Thais how can it be below such an one as I to quote a Comick Poet 〈◊〉 in any point of Drollery but for an earnest 〈◊〉 ration That â—t never was seen nor is it possible that 〈◊〉 body can be 〈◊〉 two places at once But if this Testimâ—â— does not like you you may remember how I showd you above That Athanasius and Anastatius ancient Christians declare â—hat an Angel himself nor a Soul separate can be in two places at once But the stress of my Argument yes not in the â—uthority of Pâ—autus but in tâ—e sense of all mankind as I have inâ—imaâ—ed who by common suffâ—age unless infinitely prejudiced do ratifie this 〈◊〉 That one body cannot be in two places at once Which distinct force of this my first Argument 〈◊〉 Aâ—versary endeavoured to smother by a Rhetorical flourish and nimble-paced Transition 〈◊〉 those fetcâ—ed from Arts and Sciences c. To which you shall now hear his Answers His Answer to the Argument from Physicks in the fifth Paragraph To this he Answers First by asserting it possible That a Body occupying a space equal to it self in one place may â—et be elsewhere without occupying any place at all and he would prove this more then possible from the opinion of the Learned who maintain that actually the supreme Heaven occupies no place Secondly by denying the Inferences I make 〈…〉 of one Body being in two places at once as first That the Body will be equal to those 〈◊〉 sâ—aces What needs that Mr. Doctor saâ—s he It is enough that in each of those two spaceâ— it be onely equal or commensurate to that determinaâ—e place it there occupies suppose of six cubâ—â—s and in neither of them equal or commensurate to a space of twelve Cubits And then for my Inference That granting this Body equal to the spaces it occupies at once it will be double to it self he denies the consequence Because a Body of one Cubit rareâ—ied into a double dimension and therefore occupying a double space will not be double to it self And a rational Soul informing a Body of a span length when the Body is grown to another span still informed by the same Soul it does not follow that the Soul is double to it self Is not this rare Divinity says he Let the Doctor show a material disparity in these two Cases or else acknowledge the unconclusiveness of his own Objection This is the sum and substance of that wherewith he would enâ—rvate my Argument drawn from Physicks against Transubstantiation What follows belongs rather to his Answer to my Argument drawn from Metaphysicks which we shall consider there The Reply In the mean time to his first Answer I Reply thus That it is a fetch beyond the Moon or rather beyond the World to endeavour the enervation of my Consequences from the supposal of a Body in two internal places at once that it so filling those two places is equal to the two places equal to one another and that therefore it is double to it self by saying that a Body occupying a place equal to it self in one place may yet be elsewhere without being in any place beâ—cause the supreme or extimate Heaven is in no place which yet is to be understood of no exâ—ernal place But Eustachius and other Schoolâ—hilosopâ—ers and all that hold an internal place â— which Truth is plainly demonstrable do hold that it is in
Bishop Constanâ—ines Caution look very odly and unlikely to be his own but of some heedless and unskilfull foister in of stuff to serve a sense against the general current of the Council or to obscure the genuine tenour of it Which yet if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be understood of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I have noted and explained it above though this caution were in it would not be repugnant to any part of the Council And besides what is the Authority of one single Bishop in so great a number of Bishops to weaken the general Current of the sense of the Council So sure and certain every way is the meaning that Photius has represented of the Council CHAP. IX The meaning of the Doctrine of the Council of Trent touching the Worship of Images more determinately illustrated from the general Practice of the Roman Church and Suffrage of their Popes whereby it is deprehended to be still more coursly and Paganically Idolatrous 1. BUT it may be it may give more satisfaction to some to know what is the Church of Rome's own sense of this Honor debitus she declares ought to be done to the Images of Christ and the Saints Putting off a man's Hat and lying prostrate before them the Council does not stick to instance in by the bye But because the Council calls this neither Dulia nor Hyperdulia not Latria some will it may be be ready to shuffle it off with the interpretation of but a civil Complement to these Images or their Prototypes But since the Council of Trent has declared nothing farther what can be a more certain Interpreter of their meaning then the continued Custome of their Church and the sense of such Doctours as have been even sainted for their Eminency as â—homas Aquinas and Bonaventure who both of them have declared that the Image of Christ is to be worshipped with the Worship of Latria the same that Christ is worshipped with 2. And Azorius the Iesuite affirms that it is the constant Opinion of the Theologers their own he means you may be sure that the â—mage is to be honoured and worshipped with the same Honour and Worship that he is whose Image it is Which is not unlike that in the Council of Nice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the foregoing Citation But that they are all capable of religious Worship the Council of Trent it self as well as Bellarmine and others if not all the Theologers of that Church does plainly acknowledge in that it determines for their Invocation which is competible to no invisible Power but the Godhead it self Wherefore it is manifest that their Images are worshipped with religious Worship also 3. But we shall make still the clearer judgement thereof if we consider the Consecration of these Images which the Council of Trent declares are to be worshipped For the Conâ—ecration and Worshipping of them makes them perfectly as the Idol-Gods of the Heathen as Octavius jearingly speaks of the Heathen Gods that is their Idols in Minucius Felix Ecce funditur fabricatur scalpitur nondum Deus est Ecce plumbatur constrâ—itur erigitur nec adhuc Deus est Ecce ornatur consecratur oratur tunc postremó Deus est Behold it is clothed or adorned it is consecrated and prayed unto then at length it becomes a God And if this will doe it the Church of Rome's Images will prove as good Idol-Gods as any of them all 4. Chemnitius recites some forms of Consecration I will cull out onely those of the Images of the blessed Virgin and of S. Iohn That of the Virgin is this anctify O God this Image of the blessed Virgin that it may aid and keep safe thy faithfull people that Thundrings and Lightnings if they grow too terrible and dangerous may be quickly expelled thereby and that the Inundations of Rain the Commotions of civil War and Devastations by Pagans may be suppressed by the presence thereof Which is most effectual to make all men come and hurcle under the protection of the Virgin 's Image in such dangers as under the Wings of the great Iehovah This is hugely like the consecrated Telesms of the Pagans But let us hear the form of the Consecration of the Image of S. Iohn also Grant O God that all those that behold this Image with Reverence and pray before it may be he ard in whatsoever Streights they are Let this Image be the holy Expulsion of Devils the conciliating the presence and assistence of Angels the protection of the faithfull and that the Intercession of this Saint may be very powerfull and effectuall in this place What a mighty Charm is this to make the Souls of the feeble to hang about these Images as if their Presence were the Divine Protection it self 5. These Chemnitius recites out of the Pontificall he perused But the Rituale Romanum published first by the command of Paulus Quintus and again authorized by Pope vrban the eighth will do our business sufficiently they being both since the Council of â—rent and therefore by the Exposition of these Popes we may know what that debitus Honor is which the Tridentine Fathers mention as that which ought to be done to the Images of Christ the blessed Virgin or any other Saint For the Consecration of their Images runs thus Grant O God that whosoever before this Image shall diligently and humbly upon his knees worship and honour thy only begotten Son or the blessed Virgin according as the Image is that is a-consecrating or this glorious Apostle or Martyr or Confessor or Virgin that he may obtain by his or her Merits and Intercession Grace in this present life and eternall Glory hereafter So that the Virgin and other Saints are fellow-distributers of Grace and Glory with Christ himseâ—f to their Supplicants before their Images and that upon their own Merits and for this Service done to them in kneeling and pouring out their Prayers before their Statues or symbolicall Presences What greater Blasphemy and Idolatry can be imagined Ornatur consecratur oratur tunc postremò fit Dâ—us that is to say The Image is pray'd before but the Daemon pray'd unto There is no more in Paganism it self And yet by the Pope's own Exposition this is the debitus Honor that is owing to the Images of the Saints Consider the latter end of the last Conclusion of the first Chapter and the forms of Invocation in the fourth and fifth as also the eighteenth Conclusion of the second Chapter 6. This is all plain and express according to the â—uthority of their Church And that besides their Adoration and Praying before these Images which considering the postures of the Supplicant and the Image is as much praying to them as the Heathens will acknowledge done to theirs there are also Wax-candles burning before them and the Oblation of Incense or perfuming them Feasts likewise Temples and Altars to the same Saints and the carrying them in Procession which was the guize of ancient Paganism is
and is a kind of tacit insinuation that they are indeed Idolaters but not express ones as if their Hypocrisie could avail any thing with God or free them from that condemnation that attends all that are Idolaters Is the business then come onely to this that the Romanists are not professed Idolaters I wonder who ever professed themselves Idolaters that were serious in their Idolatry For serious Idolatry always implies Ignorance and mistake in the Idolater though the Crime of Idolatry be so exceeding hainous by Conclusion 4th Chapterâ—d But it being probable that Dr. Thorndike had a greater kindness for the Church of Rome then thus and that by this last Argument also he would prove them to be really no Idolaters let us suppose it and see how well his Argument will conclude it They expresly profess their detestation of Idolatry nor make any express renunciation of that profession therefore they are no Idolaters To which 〈◊〉 Answer An unjust man or Extortioner one that blinded with Covetousness does unjust actions does expresly profess his detestation of injustice nor renounces that profession does it follow therefore that he is not an unjust man Or to make an Hypothesis something more operose though sufficiently pertinent to the Occasion we will suppose a considerable number of Jews in some Kingdom having misbehaved themselves out of fear of punishment to posses themselves of some strong Castle of the Prince of the Countrey and there continuing a considerable time to exercise their Religion and for better show to write at the upper end of the Hall where they meet Moses Decalogue in golden Capital letters making great profession of the righteousness of the Laws of that Decalogue but in the mean time for the indulging to themselves the pleasures of the flesh as well as for the supplying their necessities and securing themselves should make particular Laws and Decrees amongst themselves for the plundring and spoyling the Country people as they went to Market and killing such as resisted and should declare it Lawfull to Ravish the Women they met with interpreting the Law against Adultery touching Jewish Women onely that are of their own Religion and Theft and Murder of Plundring or killing those of the common wealth of Israel not Aliens and Strangers which their Law makes no provision for as they will pretend that take upon them to be the Interpreters thereof Now if any one should accuse them of Adultery Theâ—t and Murder committed against their Princes Subjects and they should plead or any for them that they cannot possibly be Robbers Murderers or Adulterers because they expresly profess their open detestation thereof nor have any where renounced that Profession the Decalogue of Moses also witnessing for them writ in great Capital letters in their very Hall where they dayly meet in which it is expresly said Thou shalt not commit Adultery Thou shalt do no Murder Thou shalt not Steal they notwithstanding making those particular Decrees amongst themselves and acting accordingly would not the Apology seem vain or impious How then can the express Profession of the Church of Rome against Idolatry excuse her from Idolatry when they make particular Decrees of worshipping the Host with Latria of Invocating the Saints and bowing to their Images and practise it in such Circumstances as I have again and again declared Nay when these Decrees are made by general Councils as they pretend how can they be but express Idolaters and renounce their prosession against Idolatry as much they can do For no serious Idolater takes himself to be so Wherefore we see how hugely unconcluding every Argument of Dr. Thorndikes is whereby he would prove the Church of Rome no Idolaters But I have over and over agaiâ— demonstrated them to be Idolaters in this my Antidote nor has my Adversary produced any thing that in the least manner enervates any of my Arguments nor can he prop himself by the Authority of Dr. Thorndike it being so without all ground and Reason From all which that Imputation I hope by this time is washed off That my Arguments are mere blustering words and I unconcerned how true or false they are whenas if my Adversary be a man of sense as truly I presume him to be he cannot but feel by this that my words are not a storm and thunderclap without a bolt but that they carry along with them what is solid and strong And verily for Dr. Thorndike himself being so venerable and Learned a Person and of that judgement and sincerity after a Cause is so throughly canvassed on all sides as it has been betwixt you and me and him and my self about the Idolatry of the Church of Rome if he were now alive as it has pleased God to take him out of this life and translate him as I hope to a better since the finishing of this my Reply and before the transcribing of it I believe he would not stick to conclude her guilty of Idolatry and that he and I should be fully agreed in these Points Which I am the more easily induced to believe from what he wrote in a letter about a year before he died which Clause does plainly seem to null this fourth and greatest Antithesis betwixt him and me viz. That the separating from the Church 〈◊〉 Rome upon the account of Idolatry is Schism before God His words as I had them faithfully conveyed to me by a worthy friend are these To pray to the Saints for those things which onely God can give as all Papists do is in the proper sense of the words down right Idolatry I but here my Adversary will be forward to Reply But so long as the words may be figuratively understood we are excused of Idolatry But let him hear how Dr. Thorndike himself obviates this subterfuge If they say their meaning is by a figure onely to desire them to procure their requests of God how dare any Christian trust his Soul with that Church which teacheth that which must needs be Idolatry in all that understand not that figure Which is spoken with incomparable judgement and modesty and tender Civility to that Church but I promise you in effect charges them as home as to this point as if he had said in a word They are all down right Idolaters From whence it will necessarily follow That he changed his opinion before he dyed and held that to separate from the Church of Rome upon the account of Idolatry is not Schism before God Now that he says they are all down right Idolaters is manifest Because he says all that understand not that figure which may excuse them of Idolatry are so Now I am well assured and he could not chuse but be so too that the most Learned of them understand not that figure there being no such figure in all Rhetorick yet unless they have made of late a new Figure calling it Quidlibet pro quolibet that is the putting any thing for any thing which will be a colour