on the diseased Christians if then in all those Miracles we cannot find one instance which was not made apparent to the senses of mankind what reason have we to esteem this so Besides is not a Miracle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a sign sure I am the Scripture often calls it so and is not every sign declared by St. * Signum est res praeter speciem quam ingerit sensibus aliud aliquid ex se faciens in cogitationem venire De Doctrina Christiana l. 2. c. 1. Austin to be something sensible whereby we do perceive what is not sensible what therefore is no object of the sence can be no sign or Miracle Secondly we cannot possibly obtain a greater evidence that any Revelation is Divine than is the evidence of sence whence it doth follow that we can have no reason to believe a Revelation more than we do our sences as T. G. asserts for all the certainty we have of any object of our Faith depends on our assurance that the deliverers of it were infallibly assisted by the Divine Wisdom in that delivery and is not this attested by the Miracles they wrought the Prophesies they delivered the Doctrine they taught and that by sence should any of them be questioned must not we recur unto the sences of the Primitive Christians to confirm them and must they not then be the ultimate foundation of our Faith and our Traditions must we not be surer of the proof than of the thing proved And consequently of the evidence of sense than that of Faith which deriveth from it if not why Secondly doth our Lord pronounce them rather Blessed who believe and have not seen 20 Joh. 29 than Thomas who first saw and felt and then believed is it not because they do it upon lesser though sufficient evidence and so their Faith is more illustrious and praise worthy Thirdly should it be otherwise how cometh it to pass that men are equally assured of what equally they see but have not the like fulness of perswasion in what they believe That being once assured of the objects of sence they can admit of no greater certainty whereas after all our boasts of a Plerophory of Faith we have still need to strive and labour to encrease it Since then the certainty of Faith is proved inferior to that of sence It is not possible we should have greater reason to believe a Revelation or any matter of our Faith than to believe our sences as T. G. suggests hence also it doth follow that we can have no greater reason to believe that these four words this is my body are contained in Scripture or that they do assert the Sacrament to be Christs Body than that assurance which the sences of all Christians do afford us that it remaineth Bread And Thirdly hence it follows that we can have no greater reason to profess the Christian Faith than we have to reject the Figment of Transubstantiation Answer 3. As for that vain pretence that Christ hath said this is his Body and therefore we stand bound to think that he doth work a Miracle to make it so although it be against the sence and reason of mankind that he should do it This will oblige us also to believe that by some other like prodigious Miracle before his Incarnation he was Transubstantiated into the Rock which ministred water to the Jews during their Travels in the Wilderness for of that it is expresly said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 10.4 or that Rock was Christ 2. This will oblige us to believe that Christ hath neither Flesh nor Blood because the Scripture doth assure us that Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God 1 Cor. 15.50 which yet Christ Jesus doth inherit We unbelieving Protestants perhaps might think it strange that Christ should have neither Flesh nor Blood yet the Sacrament should be his very Flesh and Blood but as for you you know the danger of not believing God more than your sences and your reasons and therefore this and many thousand contradictions of like nature can be no reason why you should not embrace the Letter 3. This will oblige us to be Anthropomorphites and to confess that all the arguments which have been urged against that Tenet by the Church of Christ are vain and ineffectual for Scripture hath not only said that man was made after the likeness and similitude of God but also doth in very many places attribute unto him the parts and members of an humane body what then will you oppose against them sence and reason T. G. will give this answer for them that they well know the danger of not believing Holy Scripture more than their sences or their reason Will you confute them by a Text of Scripture which seems to contradict their Doctrine alas that which is often stiled Bread must not be thought to be so because Christ hath once said it is his body and can we be so vain as to imagine that one ambiguous passage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which may be rendred God makes or searcheth God loves or seeks the Spirit 4 Joh. 24. should carry it against so many which more expresly do ascribe unto him the members of an humane body or shall we fly unto Tradition alas is it not that which is derived from the sences of those men which in the matter of Transubstantiation have been all constantly deceived and if their hearing be a sufficient ground of Faith against the Doctrine of the Anthropomorphites must not their eyes and tast and smell and feeling be as cogent against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Fourthly This must oblige us to believe what is the greatest Blasphemy viz. That Christ by all the Miracles he wrought among them gave no sufficient motive to the Jews to own him for the true Messiah for all his Miracles were only motives to believe that Law should be abolished which God hath often said should last 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or for ever Doth nor he tell them that the things he had revealed belonged to them and to their Children for ever Deut. 29.29 Exod. 12.17 that they might do all the things of this Law Doth not he call the Passover an everlasting Statute Hath not he said the Law of their first fruits shall be a Statute for ever throughout their Generations 23 Lev. 14 And if you answer that this word Gnolam doth not alwayes signifie an infinite duration but is sometimes used for such duration as admits a period and so must not be urged against so great conviction of their sence and reason Will not this answer justifie the Protestants when they produce so many instances to shew that when a thing in Scripture is stiled this or that the meaning only is that it doth signifie what it is said to be for to omit those passages so often cited 40 Gen. 12. 41 Gen. 26. 7 Dan. 38. 8 Luk. 11. 13 Mat. 38 39.
guilty of idolatry it being the most clear and most unquestionable truth that the most excellent Creature is not God 2. Whatever doth import and signifie the honour due to the Ceator doth also signifie that excellency which is only due unto him We cannot then perform that act of honour which imports this excellency to the best of Creatures but we must honour it as our Creator nor can we honour it as our Creator but we must worship it as God and by so ding we must be guilty of what the Romanists confess to by paying honor to a Creature But we can pay no greater honor to the most excellent of Creatures than by ascribing to it that honor which is due to God alone and therefore by ascribing of that honor to it we must be guilty of idolatry 4. By giving of that honor to God which doth import that excellence and perfection which agrees to God alone we exercise that act of Worship which we call Latria for since Dulia doth import only the worship proper to the Creature it cannot signifie that worship which is due to him whose dignity is infinitely greater than what the best of Creatures doth enjoy if then we exercise that act of worship to the Creature we give Latria to it and in the judgment of our most rigid Adversaries to give Latria to a Creature is to be guilty of Idolatry To know the secrets of the hearts of persons praying Prop. 2. §. 2. is a divine and uncommunicated excellency This is apparent 1. from express Scripture testimony 1 Kings 8.39 2 Chron. 6.29 30. What prayer or what supplication soever shall be made by any man or by all thy people Israel when every one shall know his own sore and his own grief and shall spread forth his hands in this house hear thou from heaven thy dwelling place and forgive and render unto every man according to all his wayes whose heart thou knowest for thou even thou only knowest the hearts of the children of men where first observe That there it is asserted as a thing proper to God not only that he knows the hearts of all men collectively taken but distributively i. e. that he alone doth know the heart of any man for this is given as a reason why when supplications are made by any man God should render to him according to his wayes because he only knows his heart i. e. he only knows the heart of any single person 2. Observe this knowledge of the heart is thus appropriated to God in reference to whatsoever prayer and supplication shall be made by any man Whence we infer that whatsoever prayer and supplication shall be made by any man God only knows the heart and the conceptions of the Supplicant and therefore that this knowledge is not communicated to Saints or Angels 3. Observe that to affirm this knowledge is ascribed to God alone because he only hath this knowledge from the perfection of his nature whereas it is communicated to the Saints and Angels only by way of revelation or by the vision of that God who knoweth all things Is 1. without all ground to limit what is universally pronounced in the case of prayer 2. It we admit this limitation to say God only knows the secret of the heart of him that prayeth hath no more of truth than if I should assert God only hath a being he only acts he only knows that Christ is come into the world because he only acts and hath his being from himself our beings and our power of action is derived from him and by his revelation only we do know that Christ is come into the world 3. We may on like accounts assert That even when the general hath paid his Souldiers he alone hath money because what money and of his Souldiers have was given by him and that the Master only of the School of Westminster knows Greek and Latine because his Scholars have derived that knowledge from him 4. If we admit of such a limitation then the exclusive term will not refer to what is spoken but to that which is not mentioned not to the predicate viz. the knowledge of the hearts of men which is expressed but only to the manner of that knowledge of which the Text is wholly silent Now this inter pretation gives such a forced and strained sense as in a matter of this nature ought not to be admitted without the greatest evidence Whereas the sence we plead for is the most plain and natural import of the words For it is natural to conceive the sense of this expression should be this thou and no other knowest the hearts of men whereas if we do paraphrase it thus that many myriads of Saints and Aâ—gels have this knowledge of the heart but thou alone dost naturally know what they receive from revelation this Proposition taken as it is expresed viz. God only knows the hearts of men will be both absolutely false and uncouth and what is contradictory to it viz. God only doth not know the hearts of them that pray will be absolutely true 2. If such a knowledge of the heart was not an uncommunicated excellency if it was only that which did agree to many thousands of blessed Saints and Angels then could it be no proof of the divinity of Christ and of the holy Spirit for what is answered to the Protestant by those who do ascribe this knowledge to the Saints in glory might be with equal probability alledged to baffle and evade this evidence of Christs divinity which is so often and so triumphantly suggested by the holy Fathers And hence it is confessed by the great (f) Quod argumentum nullum esset omnino si non Dei proprium id foret cogitationes intimas corda cognoscere Theol. dogm Tom. 3. l. 1. c. 7. p. 39. §. 3. Petavius that if this knowledge were not proper to God their argument would certainly be weak and groundless And yet the Fathers in his Argument are so exceeding full and copious that it were endless to collect what they deliver Our Lord saith (g) in Lucam l. 5. c. 3. Ambrose demonstrateth himself to be God by knowing of the secrets of the heart Take saith (h) Serm. 50. Chrysologus these indications of our Lords divinity hear how he penetrates the secret of thy heart see how he dives into thy hidden thoughts See saith St. (i) p. 2. Com. in Joh. p. 144. Cyril how he is that God who is the (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril Alex. Com. in Joh. l. 2. p. 133. E. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ib. p. 144. searcher of all hearts For to none other is it given to know the mind of man as is apparent from that passage of the Psalmist God is the searcher of the heart and reins for there the Psalmist mentions it as a peculiar thing which only doth agree to the Divine nature and to nothing else if it be proper unto God
this is manifestly false and that Doctor Stillingfleet not only contradicis the Truth but himself too to wit because he had before affirmed that the Aegyptian Daemons saith Celsus healed the diseases of the parts proper to themselves and therefore might justly be Invocated And 2. because he had told us from S. Augustin that it was their Office to inform the superior Gods of what they could not know otherwise this is the only ground of this rude imputation of falsehood and contradiction to the Doctor and yet this ground is as ridiculously vain as if I should affirm this Proposition to be false that all the Heathens attributed to their good Spirits was only Intercession because they attributed to them Wings and an Aetherial body who is so blind as not to see that when the Doctor saith they made them Mediators of Intercession only not Mediators of Redemption by that exclusive only he could not intend to say that they asserted nothing else concerning them as he most grosly doth mistake or most unconscionably doth interpret him but only that they ascribed nothing to them which made them Mediators of Redemption Moreover is it fair dealing when he thus rails against Dr. Stillingfleet to do himself what he imputes unto the Doctor and quote him falsely in that very place which yet he manifestly doth in setting down this passage as the Doctors words viz. that the giving them Divine Worship proceedeth upon that superstition c. For both to this citation and to many passages pretendedly translated from the Fathers or cited as the sense and meaning of their words he adds this word Divine where it is not expressed or in the least intended only that he may seem to answer when he doth nothing less which is a fraud so horrible and disingenious that no man can sufficiently detest it or judge that man can make a conscience of his actions who makes a common practice of it 2. Let any man peruse S. Augustin's whole discourse upon this matter and he will find that to overthrow this Tenet of * Sed quia eosdem Daemones inter homines Deos ita medios constitutos putant tanquam nullus deus homini misceatur ut hine perferant desiderata inde referant impetrata atque hoc Platonici precipui Philosophorum ac nobilissimi sentiant cum quibus velut cum excellentioribus placuit istam examinare quaestionem utrum cultus plurimorum Deorum prosit ad consequendam vitam beatam quae post mortem futura est De Civitat Dei l. 9. c. 1. p. 268. D. Apuleius and all Philosophers that were of the same judgement with him and held that their good Doemons did so mediate betwixt the Gods and men as that they carried our petitions up to them and did return the Aids and Blessings of the God to us He undertakes the Refutation of this Platonick Doctrine and the examination of this Question whether the worship of those many Gods or Daemons was profitable to the obtaining of our future Bliss and to confute this Doctrine of the Platonists and to prove this Mediation not to be profitable to this end he argues thus * Proinde mediatorem inter nos Deum mortalitatem habere oportuit transeuntem beatudinem permanentem ut per id quod transit congrueret morituris ad id quod permanet transferret ex mortuis Boniigitur Angeli inter miseros mortales beatos immortales medii esse non possunt quia ipsi quoque beati immortales sunt Id. ib. c. 15. vid. etiam c. 13. Multi sunt medii Separatores ne possit ad illud unum beatificum perveniri ad quod ut perduceremur non multis sed uno Mediatore opus erat hoc eo ipso cujus participatione sumus beati hoc est Verbo Dei non facto sed per quod facta sunt omnia Ib. c. 15. A. This Mediation cannot be performed but by a middle person who partakes of some what that makes him like unto hoth parties and therefore cannot be performed by good Angels such as the Platonist asserts these Daemons are because Good Angels have happiness and immortality with God but neither misery nor mortality by which they may agree with Man This is his argument even in that place whence Dr. Stillingfleet doth cite these words that those who are Christians do believe that we need not many but one Mediator and that such a one by whose participation we are made happy i. e. the word of God not made but by whom all things were made Now here the Doctor is with great confidence p. 373. and with as little reason accused of false translation and addition to St. Austins words of addition because he saith those that are Christians do believe Of false Translation in those words we need not many but one Mediator but it is easie to vindicate the Doctor from these false aspersions for that Christians only could be brought to the Enjoyment of God was certainly St. Austins Faith so then ut perduceremur sc nos ad Deum non multis sed uno Mediatore opus erat sc nobis must import thus much That we Christians may be brought to God we have no need of many Mediators To cavil at this Translation is to expose his ignorance to every School Boy But to the Testimony of St. Austin he returns this Answer that it is plain he speaks of such a Mediator p. 374. by whose participation we are made happy that is a Mediator of Redemption and not a Mediator of Intercession Rep. it is as plain that St. Austin speaks of such a Mediator who is the word of God not made but making all things and that the Platonist acknowledged his Mediating Demons to be made by God the Platonist may therefore with T. G. infer that it is plain he speaketh not against them though he designed nothing else because he speaks of such a Mediator by whose participation we are made happy that is sayth he the word of God not made c. 2. Doth not St. Austin tell us in the begining of this Book that seeing some Philosophers affirmed that their Good Demons were Ministers to intercede with God or carry up our Prayers to him and to bring back his Blessings unto us therefore he would enter upon this dispute whether the worship of those many Gods was profitable to Salvation And therefore it is evident he stood obliged to shew they did not contribute to our Salvation by being Mediators of Intercession for us as well as to exclude them from from being Mediators of Redemption The Works of Origen against Celsus §. 2. are so express and clear against this practice of the Church of Rome that if he had designed to confute the Doctrine of that Church he could not have devised expressions more repugnant to it for having confessed that * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 233. holy Angels did carry up our