A brief reply to a late answer to Dr. Henry More his Antidote against idolatry Shewing that there is nothing in the said answer that does any ways weaken his proofs of idolatry against the Church of Rome, and therefore all are bound to take heed how they enter into, or continue in the communion of that church as they tender their own salvation.

THE ANTIDOTE AGAINST IDOLATRY .

CHAP. I. what is Idolatry according to Divine Declaration .

1. THere are two ways in general of discovering what is or ought to be held to be Idolatry amongst Christians ; the one , Divine De●laration , the other , clear and perspicuous Reasons : Which though they may haply reach the one no farther than the other , that is to say , that whatsoever may be concluded to be Idolatry by Divine Declaration , the same may also by unprejudiced Reason , and vice versâ yet their joint concurrence of Testimony is a greater assurance to us of the Truth ; and two cords twisted together are stronger than either single . Wherefore we will make use of both , and begin with Divine Declaration first .

2. The first Conclusion therefore shall ●e , That as in civil Governments it is the Right of the Supreme Power to define and declare what shall be or be held to be Treason , and punishable as such : so it is most manifestly the Right of God Almighty , who is also infinitely good and wise , to define and declare to his people what shall be or be held to be Idolatry , which is a kind of Treason against God , or crimen laesaa majesta●is Divinae . And what is thus declared Idolatry by God is to be held by us to be such , though the Ludicrousness and Fugitiveness of our wanton Reason might otherwise find out many starting-holes and fine pretences to excuse this thing or that action from so foul an Imputation .

But as in civil affairs the declaring such and such things to be Treason , does in a Political sense make them so ipso facto ; so God's declaring such and such things to be Idolatry , they do to us ipso facto become Idolatry there●y : though to an ordinary apprehension , perhaps , neither this would have seemed Treason , nor that Idolatry , without these antecedent Declarations . But where the Law-giver is infallible , there is all the reason in the world we should submit not onely to his Power , but to his Judgement in the Definitions of things , and rest sure that that is Idolatry which he has thought fit to declare so to be .

3. The second Conclusion ; That what is declared Idolatry by God to the Iews ought to be acknowledged Idolatry by us Christians . The ground of this Conclusion is fixed in the nature of the Christian Religion . For Christianity being a far more spiritual Religion than that of Iudaism , and therefore abhorring from all Superstition , there cannot be the least Relaxation to the most rancid of all Superstitions , Idolatry it self . Wherefore whatsoever was accounted Idolatry amongst the Iews , and so defined by a Divine Law , must be reckoned much more such under Christianity , there being not the least pretence for any Relaxation .

Besides , there was nothing under the Iews ( or can by any people be ) rightly deemed Idolatry , but it is carefully enough cautioned against and plainly forbid in the first and second Commandments of the Decalogue . But the whole Decalogue is Moral , and so declared by God , in that it is said to be writ by his own finger on the Tables of stone , Exod. 31. 18. ( which are Symbols of the permanent substance of our Souls , on which all the general Precepts of Morality are ingraven as innate Notions of our Duty . ) And therefore it is hereby intimated that the Precepts of the Decalogue are just and fitting , not onely 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , but 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , not onely by an external Law , but engraffed in our very Nature and Reason ; and that the root and ground of them will easily be fetch'd from thence .

To which you may add , That it were a very immethodical and heterogeneous Botch , unworthy of the Wisdom of God and of his servant Moses , when as all the rest of the Decalogue is Moral , to phansie one or two of the Commandments of another nature . This is so rash and gross a Reproach to the Divine Wisdom as truly , in my judgement , seems unexcusable .

But besides this , The Morality of the Decalogue is also acknowledged by the Church , it making part of their Liturgy every-where , and we begging an ability of obeying the Second Commandment as well as the rest : and Christ also refers to the Decalogue for eternal life , Mark 10. 18 , 19.

And lastly , It seems as it were singled from all the rest of Moses Laws , as a lasting and permanent Law to the Church of God , ( whence it is entred into our very Catechisms , ) never to be abolished , or rather vigorously to be kept in force , for the Second Commandment's sake particularly , that it might strongly bear against those Invitations to Idolatry , that may seem to offer themselves in the nature of our Religion , or reclaim the Church from it when they were fallen into it , as well as it was to keep back the Iews from joyning in Worship with their Idolatrous neighbors round about them . Wher●fore all manner of Idolatry being cautioned against by the Moral Decalogue given to the Iews , there are no kinds thereof that ought to be entertained or allow'd of by any Christians .

4. The third Conclusion ; That what-ever was Idolatry in the Heathen , the same is Idolatry in us , if we commit it . The reason of which Assertion is this , Because the Heathen had not so express a Declaration from God against all manner of Idolatry as the Iews and Christians have : and therefore where-ever they are guilty of Idolatry , the Iew and Christian , if they do the like things , are much more .

The fourth Conclusion ; The Idolatry of the Pagans consisted in this , viz. in that they either took something to be the supreme God that was not , and worshipped it for such ; or else worshipped the supreme God in an Image ; or gave religious Worship , that is to say , erected Al●●rs , Temples and Images , offered Sacrifice , made Vows to , and invoked , such as they themselves knew not to be the supr●me God , but either the Souls of men departed or other Daemons , or else particular Appearances o● Powers of Nature .

The fifth ; That both Divine Declaration and the common Consent of Christendom do avouch to us , that all th● aforesaid Pagan Modes of Idolatry practised by them wer● in t●ose Pagans practices of Idolatry . And therefore , by the third Conclusion , they must be much more so i● either the Iew or Christian.

5. The sixth ; That giving religious Worship , that 〈◊〉 to say , erecting Temples , building Altars , Invoking making Vows , and the like , to what is not the suprem● God , though not as to him , but as to some inferio●● helpfull Being , is manifest Idolatry . This is plain out 〈◊〉 the precedent Conclusion ; and may be farther confirme from this Consideration , That Idolatry was very ra● amongst the Nations , especially the Romans , if thi● Mode of Idolatry be not truly Idolatry . And scarce any thing will be found Idolatry amongst them , but taking that to be the supreme God which is not , and worshipping it for such . But if any Being on this side the supreme God may be worshipped with religious Worship void of Idolatry , all things may , though some more nonsensically and ridiculously than others . Wherefore to use any of the abovesaid Modes of Worship to what is inferiour to the supreme Being , though not as to the supreme Being , must be Idolatry ; or else the Roman Paganism it self is very rarely , if at all , chargeable therewith , they having a Notion accurate enough of the supreme God , and distinct enough from their other Deities ; so that unless they chance to worship him in an Image , they will ●eldom be found Idolaters , or rather never , according to the opinion of some , who say , none that have the knowledge of the one true God can be capable of Idolatry .

6. The seventh ; That to sacrifice , burn Incense , or make any religious Obeisance or Incurvation to an Image in any wise , as to an Object of this Worship , is ●dolatry by Divine Declaration . This is manifest out of the second Conclusion and the first , as may appear at first sight . For it is plainly declared in the second Precept of the Decalogue touching Images , Thou shalt not bow to them , nor worship them : Of which undoubtedly the sense is , They shall not be in any wise the Object of that Worship which thou performest in a religious way , whether by Bowing down to them , or by what other way soever . For the second Commandment certainly is a Declaration of the mind of God touching religious Worship , let the Ceremonies be what they will .

The eighth ▪ That to erect Temples , Al●ars , Images , or to burn Incense , to Saints or Angels , to invoke them , or make Vows to them , and the l●ke , is plain ●dolatry , This is apparent chiefly out of the third , fourth , fifth and sixth Conclusions of this Chapter . For the Pagans Daemons exquisit●ly answer to the Christians Saints and Angels in this point ; saying that this spiritual Fornication is a Rape upon our Saints and Angels , but simple fornication in the Heathen with their impure Daemons .

The ninth ; Religious Incurvation towards a Crucifix , or the Host , or any Image , as to an Object , and not a meer unconsidered accidental Circumstance , is Idolatry . This is manifest out of the seventh and eighth Conclusions . But the Worship of Latria exhibited to the Host upon the opinion of Transubstantiation is Idolatry by the third and fourth .

7. Conclusion the tenth ; To use on set purpose in religious Worship any Figure or Image onely circumstantially , not objectively , but so as to bow towards it , or to be upon a man's knees before it with Eyes and Hands devoutly lifted up towards it , but with an intention of making it in no sense any Object of this religious Worship , yet if this were in a Country where men usually and prof●ssedly do , it were notwithstanding for all this intention a gross piece of Idolatry .

But if the whole Country should conspire to make this more plausible sense of those Incurvations and Postures ; admit we might hope it were not Idolatry , yet it would be certainly a most impious and wicked Mocking of God , and ●luding his mind in the second Commandment , ( that naturally implies the forbidding any Worship or Incurvation toward Images in a way of Religion , ) and a crime as scandalous and near to Idolatry as the going into bed to another man's Wife , with chast pretensions , would be to gross Adultery .

Nay , indeed , it is very questionable , if he knowingly and deliberately put himself into these postures before an Image , whether the Image will not be the Object of th●se Postures and Incurvations whether he will or no. Or rather it seems plain , beyond all questioning , that it will be so . For there is a corporeal Action significative of Honour and Respect corporeally ( though not mentally ) directed towards and received by the Image , and this at the choice of the Religionist , which intitles him to the fact .

But we need not labour much touching this last Conclusion , the two former abundantly convincing the Church of Rome of multifarious Idolatries , if they will stand to Divine Definitions , or the Declarations of Holy Scripture touching this point .

ANSWERS AND REPLIES On CHAP. I.

His Answer to the first Conclusion .

To this Conclusion , saith my Adversary , I onely return this Remark ; That the learned Simile , wherein the Doctour spends many words , might very well have been dispenced with , without any offence to Logick or impeachment to the Authors judgement . For the Simile seems to aim at the clearing and setting the unquestionable Prerogative of an increated Power , upon the right of a meer humane Iurisdiction : which is in effect , an unskilfull piece of Hysteron p●oteron , making a truth of the highest rank to truckle under an inferiour Principle : Which , considering there is no Power but of God , ( Rom. 13. ) can have no truth in it , but by presupposing that very truth which it pretends to illustrate and establish .

The Reply .

THis is a very remarkable Remark indeed , and 〈◊〉 as g●ves timely notice of the design of my Antagonist , which is to make a show of saying something to every Conclusion , though he knows in his own Conscience , being of that wit and parts that he is , that it is really nothing to the purpose , as most certainly this is not . For I do not go about to establish the Prerogative of an uncreated Power upon the right of humane Jurisdiction ; but the Argument is à Comparatis , That if the supreme Power amongst men , have the right to define and declare , &c. Then much more or most abundantly clear it is , that it is the right of God Almighty , who is infinitely good and wise , to define and declare , &c. Our Saviour ( M●t 7. ) argues thus , If men being evil give good gifts to their children , how much more will our Heavenly Father give good gifts to them that ask him . Does he there establish the bounty of God on the bounty of evil men ; but argues à Minori , if they that are less willing and able to do good , notwithstanding do it , much more will God who is goodness it self , and infinitely able and willing to do good , be sure to do good to those that call upon him . And so say I , If it be the right of finite Mortals , that have the supreme Power , to define and declare , it is much more , or most of all true in God Almighty , who is also infinitely good and wise , that he hath the right to define and declare , &c. So that my Antagonist , without any Offence against Logick or impeachment to his Judgement , might have saved himself the labour of this assault upon my first Conclusion , and ingenuously confessed it as it is , impregnable and inexpugnable .

His Answer to the second Conclusion .

His assault also on my second Conclusion is very oblique and elusory . Now , says he , that the whole Decalogue is moral he makes some needless attempts to prove , chiefly for the second Commandments sake . All which proofs it is easy to take off by this single Answer : I say then , as to the second Commandment , if he expound it so as onely to Prohibit the making or worshipping of Idols or Images of false Gods , I shall readily grant it to be moral and strictly binding both the Jews and Christians : But if he puts any other meaning on the Text , he begs the Question , and he must excuse me if I call for ●is further proof , &c. The sense of which Answer in brief is this , That though he acknowledge the whole Decalogue moral , ( Else why does he say I make needless attempts to prove it ? ) yet if I expound the Morality of the second Commandment so as that I would thereby show it unlawfull to worship any Images saving of false Gods , which he calls Idols , that it will not go down with him , unless I more fully prove the Morality of this Commandment to extend also to the Prohibition of worshipping any Image suppose of the true God , or of Saints and good Angels : This is the full sense and scope of this first Answer . But he comes in also with a secondly , That some both Catholick and Protestant Divines own no more then a Ceremonial Precept in the second Commandment , if extended to any Vniversal Prohibition of all Images , and under that notion given onely to the Jews .

The Reply .

In Reply to the First ; I first take notice , That he is fain to pass over my first ground of this second Conclusion as too hard for him to deal with , namely the Spirituality of our Christian Religion . Which ground being unshaken , the second Conclusion remains firm , from Instances of Jewish Idolatry in Scripture .

But now for the extent of the Moral sense of the second Commandment of the Decalogue , that it should forbid the bowing to any Images whatsoever in the way of Religion or Devotion , the words aptly spreading to that latitude ; In the first place I say , My Adversary should bring reason to the contrary : For we are with fear and reverence to receive the Laws of God in such an extent or latitude of sense , as , it being natural , will be most effectual to keep us from sinning against them . Otherwise , if my Adversary would be still more humoursom , and would say , That stealing from a man of another Religion , killing of him , or covering his goods were Lawfull ; and I should produce those Commandments against him , Thou shalt not steal , Thou shalt not kill , Thou shalt not covet , &c. He might roundly reply after his Fashion , that if I understand them of stealing from , killing or coveting any ones goods but theirs of our own Religion , I beg the Question . Which consideration alone , methinks , should make any one senside of the great absurdity of his Answer to the present case of worshipping of Images .

But yet again in the second place , I say it is necessary and inevitable to understand the second Commandment in that extent of sense that I suppose it to have : For it is manifest , that the second Commandment as well as the first , treats of Religion and our Worship of God . The first is , Thou shalt have no other Gods but me , that is to say , We shall exhibit Religious Worship to no other Beings besides himself , and so make as if they were Gods . For the all-wise God knows there is really no other Gods besides himself , nor any can really make them so . But men may make as if there were , by giving Religious Worship to them , though they be no Gods . So that here all false Deities , whether Angels , Daemons , or separate souls of men , or what ever Powers of nature , are plainly forbid to be worshipped or made Gods of , or acknowledged to be Gods by any Religious Worship . Which therefore à fortiori takes away all erecting Images to be bowed to or worshipped in reference to them . In so much that the second Commandment seems Tautological , or at least superfluous , if it be meerly to forbid the making of Images of Worship for those Gods , whose at all having , or any way worshipping is already so plainly forbid .

Whence it necessarily follows , that at least chiefly , though not onely , the making and worshipping of Images , in reference to the true God , is forbid by the second Commandment : Whom the Commandment strictly forbids to be worshipped in any Image whatsoever , that represents any thing in the whole Universe , Heaven , Earth , or Sea , &c. This I say , is plainly the principally intended sense , according to free and unprejudiced Reason . But yet the Precept is so penned , that in a secondary scope it forbids the Religious bowing to or worshipping all Images whatsoever . Thus plain is it , that the worshipping any Images of the true God is here strictly forbidden , contrary to what our Adversary pretends .

Which Interpretation the Law-giver himself , who best knows the meaning of his own Laws , do's plainly ratify , Exod. 32. where Israel worshipping God himself in a visible Image the Golden Calf , provoked Gods wrath so as t●ere fell thirty Thousand of them by the Sword , for so hainous a crime of Idolatry . So that the true Exposition of this Law , as Draco's Law was said of old to have been , was written in blood . So solid and authentick is this sense thereof , namely , That as he will have nothing else besides himself worshipped with Religious Worship , so himself will not be worshipped in an Image or Similitude of any thing in Heaven , Earth , or Sea , that is , in the whole Universe .

But then thirdly out of my Adversaries own Concession ; As it is already manifest , that the erection of an Image to the true God is forbidden by this Commandment , so is the worshipping of Images in reference to Saints and Angels here also forbidden . For my Adversary do's readily grant , that the Precept is Moral and strictly binding as to the Prohibition of the Worship of the Images of false Gods . Now I say , There is no more than one God ; and the rest no otherwise made Gods than by giving Religious Worship to them , of which erecting consecrated Images to them and bowing to them is one mode . And therefore these Saints and Angels , to whom Religious Worship is given by a Law , do ipso facto become Gods , but not true Gods but false Gods ; and therefore the worshipping of their Images is forbidden , yea strictly forbidden even in the Moral sense of this Commandment , according to the very concession of my Adversary , whom no man will question in that point to have Pronounced right .

And lastly , That there may be no Creep-hole left , whereas my Adversary would weaken my Argumentations taken from the Morality of the Decalogue in general , and of this Precept in particular , by supposing that I will not stick to grant , that one and the same Precept of the Decalogue ( considered under a double respect ) may be both Moral and Ceremonial , I do absolutely deny that any Commandment in the substance thereof ( and I think I have sufficiently proved it in the third Section of this Chapter ) is Ceremonial or Temporal , but of Eternal obligation to the Church of God . As for Example in the fourth Commandment , the substance is the keeping of every seventh day , as an holy Commemoration of the Worlds Creation by God , declared by himself , finished in six days space , himself also sanctifying the Seventh day and Hallowing it . So that it seems to me , that every seventh day for a memorial of the Creation , and in such a way as may further our Contemplation in Divine things in reference to God our Creator and Redeemer , is perpetually to be observed . But to keep the self same day with the Jews is but Circumstantial , or to keep it in that strict resting , ab omnimodo opere seculari , in such a Superstitious way as they do . But now for the second Commandment , if the forbidding of the use of Images by way of Religious Worship , that is by way of bowing to them and worshipping them any how , be not the substance of it , it has no substance at all , but is wholly Ceremonial . Which is very gross and absurd as I have already proved in this Section . So sufficiently firm is our proof from the Morality of the Decalogue , for any thing my Adversary has alledged or can alledge .

For as for his Secondly , That some both Catholick and Protestant Divines own no more than a Ceremonial Precept in this second Commandment , &c. I answer , that I think the Jews themselves are not really concerned in the Commandment as to the meer making of Images , nor is the Commandment against that , but the making them in reference to Religion and the worshipping of them . This is plainly the scope of the Commandment , as any one that does not wilfully wink cannot but see . And I am confident no Protestant Divine will ever acknowledge , that the Prohibition of making Images in reference to Religion and the Worship of them , to be meerly Ceremonial in this Precept . He must be a Papist under a Protestants hood that can ever assert this . And this shall serve by way of Reply to what ever is material in his Answer to my second Conclusion .

His Answer to the third Conclusion .

With my third Conclusion he plays at Bo-peep , on this sort , feigning the sense of it to be either this , That we are guilty of Heathenish Idolatry , if we commit Heathenish Idolatry , which he wittily calls an Identick Proposition surfeiting of too much Truth : or else , what ever external Act of Worship was Idolatry in the Heathen , is also Idolatry in us , if applied to any Being on this side God .

The Reply .

To the first I say , That my Conclusion is not an Identick Proposition , because that though the Acts of Idolatry be of the same Nature , yet they are not from the same Party . A Pagan worships a Consecrated Image ; A Christian worships a Consecrated Image ; are these two but one Identick Proposition surfeiting of too much Truth ? If you espy any overplus , I pray you take it to your self to line your Propositions with , which I usually find too lank and devoid thereof . But it is no vain assertion , nor so plain to every one at the first sight : That acts of the same nature committed by several parties , are still of the same nature . For there are some high-flown Illuminado's , that hold that lying with another mans wife is not Adultery in them though it be so in others : And I wish it were not so in the Spiritual Adultery , I mean the ●dolatry of too many Christians ; They do not think they commit it , when the same things done by Heathen they will readily acknowledge to be Idolatry .

But now to the second part , I answer , That I do not restrain Idolatry in this place to External acts of Worship onely ; but it comprehends any External , Internal , or mixt act consisting of both , which are held Idolatrous in the Heathen . Which quite breaks in pieces the insnaring case my Adversary offers to me ; of a converted Christian begging St. Pauls blessing on the knee as his father that begat him in Christ ; and of an Heathen of Lycaonia on his knees adoring the Apostle at the same time for the God Mercury , Act. 14. For every External act of Worship is not Idolatry . Nor was it Idolatry in the Lycaonian to be on his knee to Paul , but the intended adoration of him for the God Mercury . This mixt action of genuflexion and Internal Religious adoration together was Idolatry , but the External alone had not been Idolatry . And if the new Convert had given inward Religious Worship adjoyned to the External genuflection unto St. Paul , then it had been Idolatry in him also as well in the Lycaonian . So little hurt has this assault done my third Conclusion , which is not restrained to External act of Worship , but asserts onely , All acts of Worship , Internal , External or mixt , that are Idolatrous in Heathens , to be so also in Christians when they commit the like .

Answer to the fourth Conclusion .

In his Answer to my fourth Conclusion he hales in Preposterously my eight Conclusion out of time and order , and so confusedly speaks to them both . But I am such a lover of Method , that I will onely reply to what belongs to my fourth Conclusion here , and defer the answering to what is mentioned under my eighth Conclusion till we come thither . What there●ore he Objects against my fourth Conclusion is onely this : First that it is proofless and false that the Pagans worshipped the supreme God in an Image . Secondly , that I omitted one branch of the Pagan Idolatry , the worshipping of the very Images for Gods . They called them Gods , sayes he , they took them for Gods , sacrificed to them as Gods . And the same is to be said of those souls of men departed , Daemons or other particular Appearances or Powers of Nature , all which they took and worshipped for Gods , For Gods I say , which this mincing Conclusion seeks most warily to conceal . This is the utmost of the force my Adversary summes up against this Conclusion .

The Reply .

To the first thing Objected I answer ; That he must understand by his Assertion either , That the Pagans had not the knowledge of the supreme God , and so could not Worship him at all , and consequently not in an Image ; or else that having the knowledge of the supreme God yet they did not Worship him in an Image . If he means the first it is a notorious untruth , as may easily appear out of Plato , Plutarch , Aristotle , Homer , Tully , Plotinus , Jamblichus , and many other of the Heathen Writers , who were clear asserters of the supreme Godhead , and many of them notable skilfull describers of the same , This is a thing so well known among the learned , that it is enough to mention it onely . But if he mean the second , that is also a mistake . For the Inhabitants of Thebais worshipped the maker of the World , in the Image of a man with an egg coming out of his mouth . Dion Chrysostomus also , and Maximus Tyrius do profess , that in their Images of Gold and Silver and Ivory , they worshipped the supreme God the maker and Governour of all things . And what was more frequent than the Images of Iupiter , who is the supreme Deity , whom Aratus invokes in his Phanomena , and St. Paul speaking of the supreme God , ( Acts 17. 28. ) In whom we live and move and have our being , alledges out of Aratus in that very place , these words of his , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 For we are his off-spring , namely 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Jupiter , and ●heon the Scholiast on the place , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . We must understand , saith he , here by Jupiter the maker of the World . So that that part of the Heathenish Idolatry is plain , that they worshipped the supreme God in an Image : But suppose they did not , were it , not then a shame , that the Church of Rome should be greater Idolaters than they , that stick not to Worship the supreme God in an Image , and a shame for my Adve●●ary who contends , that the worshipping of the true God by an Image is not forbidden in the second Commandment ; and so proves himself a patron for greater Idolatry than he acknowledges to be among the very Heathen .

To the second thing Objected , I answer , That I might very well omit that branch of Idolatry , the worshipping of their very Images for Gods , because I did not intend any such charge upon you , as if you worshipped Images taking them for the very Saints or Angels themselves , because I hope that seldom happens even amongst the most ignorant of your Pl●beians ; as I believe it very seldom happened amongst the Heathens themselves . And the force of my arguing from this fourth Conclusion will never Iye upon the plenary enumeration of all the sorts of Pagan Idolatry , but on my true application to those that are mentioned there . So be they be there I refer to in my Arguments , it is enough ; others not being there , or there being more than I refer to , neither strengthen nor weaken my Applications and Arguings , so framed as I have intimated .

So that it is a superfluous thing for me to go about to disprove your Assertion , That they called their Images Gods , that they took them for Gods , that they sacrificed to them as Gods ; Onely I shall return thus much , That Dan. 5. 4. do's not prove that they themselves called their Images Gods , but that the Holy Penman styleth them so . As the Spirit of Truth also stiles them , or rather stiles their Gods Images , which is all one . Isa. 46. Psal. 115. Habac. 2. Act. 19. 26. the very places you quote to prove they took their Images for Gods . Which places yet do not at all prove it , but onely prove what the sentence of the true God is , touching the Gods of the Heathen , in reference to their Images they worshipped complexly with them , upon a supposal that upon their Consecration , some invisible Power was conveyed into them , and was ready there to hear and help all supplicants to them . But now God who is the Prince and Commander of all Spirits knows , that this their Religious Consecration has no such Power to convey any such assisting Spirits unto those Images , so that they may be assured of their presence and ayd , and therefore he must justly and truly , contrary to their opinion of them , who took them to be inhabited by some D●mons , calls them meer stocks and stones as they really are . But to take the meer stock or stone which they saw hewed into such a forme to be a God , is so excessively sottish , that it is not credible , that it ever fell into the mind of any number of the lowest dregs of the Heathen Common People , or that they intended their sacrifices to them . But that they phancyed the presence of some Daemons that received the Nidour and Odour of their Sacrifices , is a thing so Vulgar and Trite , that I hold it needless any more than to mention it .

And now whereas he saith , That the souls of men departed , their Daemons , and particular Powers and Appearances of Nature they took them , and worshipped them for Gods , and calls my Conclusion a mincing Conclusion , because it do's not mention that ? This omission was no intended cunning of mine to ruine the matter at all . For I thought I spoke sufficiently home in saying they gave Religious Worship to these , which is at least equal to the calling of them Gods , especially in Greek and Latine . For as much as 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 and Dii in the Greek and Latine signify as large as Elobim in the Hebrew which signifyes Angels or particular Spirits as well as the eternal God the maker and Governour of all . And so does 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 and Dii signify all invisible Spirits , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 particularly separate souls from 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 to divide or separate , because they are separate from the Terrestrial body . And 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 also is said of a separate soul amongst the Pythagoreans ; and Synesius himself also says , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , That he would be an Angel or a blessed Spirit amongst the blessed Spirits . Wherefore Dii , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , which we usually translate Gods , the words of themselves imply no more than Angels or souls separate . But if Religious Worship be given to them , then they become Gods : Nor can any thing beside the supreme God be properly called God , unless Religious Worship be instituted for it ; and then be it what it will , the Notion and name of a false God properly belongs unto it : so that in reality in saying , They give Religious Worship to the souls of men , or Daemons ; I say also , That they were their Gods , and that they worshipped them for such ; So that my Adversary has what he would , and yet my Conclusion remains as strong as ever . But in the mean time let me Observe , That the calling of the Canonized souls of Holy men 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , ( and Saints answers to it , and consequentially is of the same sense so far forth as it respects their Canonization ) from the propriety of notation from 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , whence is 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , and 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , which implies Religious Worship , is the calling of them by an higher Title than if they should call them 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . So little mincing is there in the application of Saints , from that of Gods signifying in the same latitude that 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . But S●ints as it signifies onely Pious or Holy , there sounds nothing amiss in it .

Answer to the fifth Conclusion .

All the Answer , saith he , That truth can allow to this fifth Conclusion , is Nego suppositum ; For the Doctor here supposeth , that he hath given us a true and adequate division of the Pagan Idolatry in the precedent Conclusion , according to Divine declaration and the common consent of Christendom ; whereas I have shewed his Hypothesis to be false , and laid open his foul and gross mistakes , ( 't is a favour to call them so ) which indeed are such as might invite a modest man to wipe his pen and lay it aside , till he had taught it a more awful regard to Ingenuity and Truth . This is his whole Answer Verbatim .

The Reply .

Upon which truely I have much ado to forbear from more than smiling , to observe the art of my Adversary in making the greatest noise and boast where there is least of all at the bottom ; he speaking such a perfect nothing with so great a grace . If he has shewed any Hypothesis to be false , it must be an Hypothesis of his own making . For I did not , nor do suppose my fourth Conclusion to be an adequate enumeration of all the Idolatries of the Pagans , but onely as many as I have enumerated to be real Paganical Idolatries ; which my Adversary himself cannot deny . And I intended no more than thus , nor is any more than thus serviceable to my design : For I shall not refer to that Conclusion for any more modes of Idolatry than are mentioned there . Nor does this fifth Conclusion pronounce of any more than are there mentioned . So that this Conclusion is as firme as a Rock of Marble . Let any man therefore consider his long flourish at the end of this Answer , and he will observe what an excellent Artist my Adversary is , in making a show of saying something , when the matter do's not afford any thing to be said . But such sleights serve to keep the people in their bondage of Errour . And yet he wipes his mouth , who ever should wipe their pen ; and presumes he has done nothing amiss , it being in so Pious a Cause , and for the interest of his Church . For I must confess , I think it impossible but himself should here clearly discern , that he says nothing at all to the purpose .

Answer to the sixth Conclusion .

This sixth Conclusion , says he , looks back upon the fifth , and calls to it for help ; but till the fifth has learned to stand upon its own legs , it is not in a condition to lend any proof or support to its neighbours . This to the sixth Conclusion as demonstrated from the fifth . But my Adversary is very pleasant upon the Confirmation annexed thereto , of which I shall give a tast in my Reply .

The Reply .

I appeal to the Reader , If the fifth doth not stand very fast and unmoveable for any thing my Adversary hath brought against it , or indeed can be brought against it . To make a show of undermining it , he feigned a false Hypothesis of his own , which he would have fastened upon me , as if I had need of it , when as I have most manifestly proved to the contrary : So that this sixth Conclusion also is as firme as need be desired . But he assaults the further Confirmation of it , ( which I added ex abundanti ) with a pleasant freak fetched out of Eusebius , his mentioning of thirty Thousand Deities of the Heathens reckoned by Hesiod , which he brings in a Maurice dance against my Confirmation to make it Ridiculous ; nay many more Gods of wood and stone noted by Eusebius himself , he like a second Amphion makes to dance after his pipe ; but all his Musick is spoiled by my freely acknowledging , that by ●ome inferiour helpfull Being : I understand such a Being as he may if he will call an inferiour Deity ; and is so in as good a sense as any can be upon the suppo●al I mean ; namely , that Religious Worship is given to it . So that the uncertainty of the sense of that phrase shall be no matter for his Antick Sophistry , or Distorted Raillery . But in the mean time , this numerous rabble of inferiour Deities he has conjured up , I shall make discharge their force against himself , illustrating the strength of my Confirmation from hence , viz. That if the giving Religious Worship to what is not the supreme God , though not as to him but as to some inferiour helpfull Being , which they judge worthy of Religious Worship , and so make an inferiour Deity of it , be not Idolatry ; the Pagans , who as my Adversary affirms out of Eusebius worshipped thirty Thousand such like Deities and more , were seldom or never to be found Idolaters ; which I think is absurdity enough . So little has my Adversary got , by attempting to raise a disjunctive Quibble out of that ancient Father of the Church E●sebius , to blind the eyes of the Populacy .

Answer to the seventh Conclusion .

In Answer to this seventh Conclusion , he first Proposes some things as Preparatory thereto . Afterwards , he brings in the Answer it self . The Preparatories are these

I. That Catholicks usually distinguish two parts of Worship . The first Latria which is the highest Religious Worship possible , due to God alone the Creatour of all Things , and that Examples of this kind of worship are , Sacrifices , and the erecting of Temples and Altars .

II. That neither Sacrifice it self , nor dedication of Temples and Altars excludes a secondary Remembrance , or Titular honour of Saints .

III. That there are other Acts of an inferiour respect which without any offence to the Catholick Divinity , we may chuse whether we will call Religious worship or no , as burning Incense , lighting up Candles , and bowing our bodies to the Saints and their Images . These Acts he calls indifferent and variously determinable according to our intention to either a Divine or Civil Worship . As was Abrahams incurvation of his body to God , Gen. 17. to Angels , Gen. 18. to Men , Gen. 23. This is the sum of the force and strength of his Preparatories .

The main strength of his Answer it self , is contained in these few things ; namely , That all my Instances of Idolatry in this seventh Conclusion are not true Instances of Idolatry , but that I do as unskilfully , as if a Lawyer should define murther to be the wilfull taking away a mans life without cause , or cu●ting a limb or drawing of blood . So saith he , sacrificing to an Image and bowing to an Image sutes not well together , as if they were both Acts of Idolatry , any more than all those are of Murther . His great exception therefore against this seventh Conclusion is , that I make bowing to an Image Idolatry , which he indeavours to disprove .

First from the Jews bowing towards the Ark of the Covenant , over which were the Cherubims of Image work ; which , says he , could not be done without bowing before Images . Secondly , from Christians bowing at the name of Iesus . Tuirdly and lastly he adds , That the Worship done to their Saints and Images , is not by the Catholick Church commanded to be called Religious Worship , which he applies to the proof of my seventh Conclusion . This is the main of what he brings against this seventh Conclusion : For it were tedious to take notice of what things are so little pertinent to the purpose , but onely brought in for a blind to the people . And I have neither leasure nor any list to meddle with such things . In which notwithstanding I acknowledge my Adversary an Egregious Artist for the imposing on poor Souls to use his own Phrase .

The Reply .

As to the first of his Preparatories , that tells us Catholicks usually distinguish two sorts of Worship ; I wonder then that he has so soon forgot to be a Catholick himself , as to assert there are three ; from that Instance of Abrahams bowing to God , to Angels , and to Men , by a different Application of the heart , viz. to be Divine Worship in respect of God , an inferiour kind of Worship in respect of Angels , and a Civil Worship as referred to men . Wherefore , says he , he that would speak distinctly to the Catholick Tenet , must distinguish these several modes of Worship one from another , or else shew cause why he ranks them all under one and the same species of Religious Worship , else he will not Cope with his Adversary like a Scholar . Namely , Unless contrary to the current of Catholicks he make three kind of Worships instead of two , or take not heed of making all three one kind of Worship , that is , Religious ; which is impossible for any one to do that is not a meer dotard . So perplextly and confoundedly does he speak of his sorts of Worship by reason of the tenderness and unsoundness of the cause he undertakes .

But if he would make any sense of the two sorts of Worship usually distinguished by the Catholicks , he must either understand that general bipartition of Worship into Religious and Civil . Or else that bipartition of Religious Worship into Latria and Dulia , which later may again be subdivided into Dulia major or minor ; Major that which is given to the blessed Virgin , and is particularly called Hyperdulia ; Minor , that to the rest of the Saints and their Images . But this he durst not speak out explicitly , that he might not be found to allow Religious Incurvation to Images , which is so manifestly forbidden in the second Commandment , as is intimated in this seventh Conclusion .

Now to his second Preparatory , That neither Sacrifice it self , nor Dedication of Temples and Altars , which he says are Acts of Latria , excludes a secundary Remembrance or titular Honour of the Saints ; I say , as it is little to the present Conclusion , so it is in it self plainly false ; For it is expresly said , Thou jhalt have no other Gods besides me . And God himself knows , and God be thanked we all know , that it impossible there should be any Gods besides Him , and that therefore we can have none but Him in any other sense than in doing some actions in honour to that which is not God , which is proper to be done to God alone . And therefore to make any Thing or Person to Communicate with God in these actions of honour , is to have other Gods besides Him , as much as it is possible to have any other .

Nor will it excuse the fact , that this honour is but secundarily intended to the Saints , or what ever else is thus worshipped besides God . For besides , that the direction of our intention will not change the nature of the proper Notes of an external Latria , these can be no other than secondary Deities which are forbidden ; for as much as there can be no other but these besides him to be forbid , and therefore no other than a secundary Honour or inferiour kind of Religious Worship can be possibly intended to them , by those that institute it or do it to them ; they retaining as the Iews did , the supreme God still for their God ▪ and therefore even that honour is also forbidden , in that it is forbidden that we should have any Gods besides Jehovah himself . And besides , can be that is a jealous God endure that any other should any ways partake of that honour that is proper to Him even of Latria , which these Acts are acknowledged to be by my Adversary ; whose insensibility therefore I stand amazed at in this point . For he flatly affirms this to be warrantable Religion , viz. That this Temple and this Altar be erected and dedicated to God and St. Francis ; That this or that Sacrifice be offered to God and St. Francis ; To God primarily as the supreme God , to St. Francis secundarily or as to a Saint , not as to the supreme God . But does not Temples , Altars and Sacrifices , make a secundary or inferiour Deity , as much as any Thing or Person can be made a Deity , by them that hold one supreme God ; which was the case of the Jews . And therefore thus having or making a secundary Deity is palpable Idolatry .

To the third Preparatory , I Answer , first , That it is hard to conceive , that we may choose whether we will call these acts of inferiour respect Religious or no , without any offence to his Catholick Divinity ; when as the Catholicks , as he calls them , distinguishing two sorts of Worship , it is necessary to make such bipartitions of them as I have hinted ; if they will have them run by twos , which will empty these acts of inferiour respect , as he Termes them ▪ to be Religious ; and himself plainly intimates they are so toward the end of his Answer to this seventh Conclusion . For he says , But if nothing will serve my turn , but Religious and Divine Worship must be all one , then we utterly deny that we are in any wise concerned in his Objection , for we give no such Religious Worship to the Saints themselves much less to their Images ; that is , no such Religious Worship as is Divine and is properly Latria ; but it implies , that an inferiour Religious Worship you do give ; nor do I contend for a Latria , but Religious Worship in general .

Secondly , I deny that burning Incense , lighting up Candles , bowing our bodies to Saints and their Images are acts indifferent , determinable as our intention shall be to either a Divine or Civil Worship , as Abrahams incurvation of his body to God , to Angels , to Men ; For bowing the body is a vulgar Ceremony of Civility , known up and down in the World to be so ; and does not become a Religious Ceremony , till it be applied to an Object of Religious Worship , or in such circumstances that it is understood to be so : but the bowing the body to the consecrated Image of some invisible Power or Spirit , is as notoriously all over the World known to be a Religious Ceremony , and to signity Religious Honour and Worship . And we may as well , or rather better , call the Saints Gods , and pretend onely a Civil sense by it , as bow to the Image of a Saint set up and Consecrated for the purpose , and pretend we intend onely a Civil Worship by it . For this was the Universal Mode of acknowledging any person a God , by erecting an Image , and Honouring him in it by the above said Ceremony ; as it was the Universal Phrase of calling that a God which was so honoured . And what is said of bowing the body to the consecrate Image of an Invisible Power or Spirit , the same is also to be said of lighting Candels before the said Image ; it is an Universally well known Ceremony of Religion amongst the Nations , not a Civil Ceremony , whereby they acknowledged that to be a God whom they so Honoured . And lastly for burning of Incense , the Learned are agreed , that it is a Sacrifice , and therefore an act of Latria according to my Adversaries own Concession . And the Primitive Christians were so sensible thereof , that they would rather die than fling a few grains of Incenfe into the fire in honour of the Emperour , they looking upon it as a Sacrificing to him . And truly it is a very noble kind of Sacrifice , as may be seen by the Altar of Incense next the Holy of Holies , and highly significant of Honour ; that is , of sending up prayers , and Devotionally spending all the Powers of our Souls and bodies as an acceptable service , and of a sweet smelling savour to him we thus Worship : Which is the highest Worship imaginable , so far is it from being determinable to a Civil Worship , I mean the Type thereof , from either custom or the nature of the thing it self .

It s Preparatories being thus swept away , let us consider the Answer it self : In which he lays to my charge , what himself was just now so manifestly guilty of , namely of mingling things of an Heterogeneous nature , he making the burning of Incense to a Saint , which is a Sacrifice , a Civil Worship , as well as the bowing of the body . And he blames me for making , Sacrificeing to an Image , and bowing to an Image , both of them acts of Idolatry . Whenas notwithstanding , I do not say , that simply bowing towards an Image , suppose to take up a pin , or a glove , from off the the flour betwixt the Image and us , is Idolatry , but a Religious Incurvation to the Image is Idolatry . So that my Adversary is disingenuous in not representing my A●sertion such as it is , which addes Religious to that bowing or Incurvation to an Image which I pronounce to be Idolatry . And all Incurvation is such , that is made to a consecrated Image , as to an Object of this Worship .

I but he has two proofs to evince , that even Religious Incurvation to an Image is no Idolatry . For the name of Jesus is Religiously bowed to , and the Jews were commanded to bow toward the Ark of the Covenant over which were the Cherubims of Image-work . And therefore they were commanded to bow to Images by God himself , which therefore can be no Idolatry .

To the first I answer , That a name or voice is no Image or Similitude , accordingly as it is written , Deut. 4. 12. ye saw no Similitude , onely ye heard a voice . And besides it is ridiculous to infer , that we bow to the name of Jesus when we hear it named , because we bow at the naming of it , as to infer that those of your Church say their Ave-Maries to the Ave-Mary-bell , because they say them at the tinkling of it ; neither the Ave-Mary-bell , nor the Name or word Jesus are the Objects of our Devotion , but onely the Occasions of it . Besides , they whose backs are turned off the Priests or Reader when he names the name of Jesus , what a ridiculous bowing were that in them , if they bowed to the name sounding behind them . Therefore these are poor and weak shifts to make a show for the worshipping 〈◊〉 Images ; from an Example where there is neither any Image ▪ nor any bowing to that which they would fain fancy to be one .

To the second I Answer , That be it so that there is a command to bow toward the Ark of the Covenant where Images are , and consequentially towards Images ; and that this Incurvation is Religious , yet the command to bow toward these Images is onely ex accidenti : And mark the cunning of my Adversary here again , ( my words are , or make any Religious Obeisance , or Incurvation to an Image in any wise , as to an Object of this Worship ) which last words he craftily leaves out ; Which are of ●ssential importance to this act of Idolatry . But God was so far from commanding the Jews to bow towards the Cherubims , as to an Object of their Worship , that he barred them from the very sight of them , and suffered them not so much as to be an object of their eyes . Which was a plain inhibition from bowing to them , as an Object of their Devotion , or any way of worshipping them . It would be a very unjust imputation of any rash tongue , touching suppose some chast Amazon , that she was familiarly saluted by such a Knight at such a time , when she did not so much as lift up the Beaver of her Helmet all the time they conversed together , which therefore was a certain bar against any such audacious attempt . And the Case is the same in this foul charge , that God commanded the Jews to Worship the Cherubims over the Mercy sear , and bow to them as an object ; when as he carefully hid them with a vail from their eyes , that they might not be worshipped . Besides how infinitely inconsistent is it with the Truth and Sanctity of the Divine Majesty , to give so strict a Law against worshipping of Images , and then at the same time to command the two Cherubims to be worshipped , and yet to take away the lives of thirty Thousand men for worshipping that golden Cherub , or golden Calf which Aaron had set up : Which being in their view and they bowing before , became the object of their Worship . But the Cherubims on the Ark of the Covenant were onely a Ci●cumstance of their Worship as so much , but were industriously hid from being any Object thereof . And God alone who spake from betwixt the Cherubims , was the onely object of their Worship : And the Cherubims and other Holy things there were onely Holy figures and Hierogly phicks of mysterious and profound Truths , which here it is not at all necessary to explain .

And now lastly touching his last shift , concerning the nature of this Worship of Images and Saints ; which insinuates , that though there be a middle Worship betwixt Divine and Civil , the Catholick Church ( he means the Roman ) does not require that it should be called Religious ; besides that it is contrary to the common stream of Catholicks as I noted before , and that he himself does imply that middle Worship to be Religious ; I add further , what are we the better for not calling it Religious , when it is so in its own nature , and we thereby Idolaters ? Now is it in our Power to make this middle Worship of Saints expressed by consecrated Images , and bowing to them to be a Civil Worship . For the Almighty Law-giver is afore hand with us in this , who has forbidden us to have any other Gods besides himself . And in the second Commandment as he has forbidden that himself should be worshipped by any graven Image , Deut. 4. v. 12. 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ▪ so by vertue of the first Commandment he has also forbid us to erect , or consecrate , or any ways to make any Image to any one else , and to bow to it in honour of the Person it is made to , it being the known and usual way of making a false Deity ; a false or in●eriour Deity being nothing else but some Creature , ( for there cannot be possibly any more than one real God ) that by erecting an Image ●o it , and by bowing to this Image , or any otherwise worshipping it , or honouring it , in reference to t●at Creature , as by burning Incense before it , and making Invocations looking up to it , is made a God . Which therefore is forbid by this first and second Commandment as a Religious , that is to say , as a wickedly Religious or Idolatrous Worship , whether to God or to any thing else ; but is not in any wise a Civil Worship , it being thus branded by God for an Idolatrous one , and declared to be a Mode of Religious Worship , though a bad one , as I have noted in this Conclusion . Nor is there any legitimate Religious Worship , but what is truly Divine , and is done to God himself . What ever comes after this , it is but several degrees of Civil Worship , whether to Men or to Angels , namely when they are visible to us . But to Worship an Angel no way sensible , nor visible to us is an act of Idolatry , as is else where proved . In the mean time we sufficiently see how weak all the attempts of my Adversary are against this seventh Conclusion .

Answer to the eighth Conclusion .

This Conclusion for its proof appeals to the Testimony of four false witnesses ; to wit , the third , fourth , fifth and sixth Conclusions , and as such I justly except against them . This is his whole Answer to the eighth .

The Reply .

But now I desire the Reader to examine those four witnesses as he calls them , and consider how clear and unexceptionable a witnses they give ▪ And to perpend my Reply to his Objections against them , that he may see what exceeding firm and evident Truths they witness too , and such as no man of ordinary wit and Conscience , if he impartially consider them , can possibly deny . And to note also , that from my Adversaries own Concession , if those four Conclusions be true , this Conclusion must be true also .

But that there may be no room left for further Cavilling , I will according to my Promise in my Reply to his Objections against my fourth Conclusion , answer to his exceptions there preposterously made against a special Clause annexed to this eighth , viz. That the Pagans Daemons , exquisitely answer to the Christians Saints and Angels in this point ; saving that this Spiritual Fornication is a rape upon our Saints and Angels , but single Fornication in the Heathen with their impure Daemons . Touching this particular Clause says my Adversary , pag. 12 , Of all the Doctors Conclusions , there is none more intrinsick and Fundamental to the Subject now under debate , nor any that ought to speak more , or doth speak less to the point than this ; For it is most fondly Erroneous , and most disingenuously ob●ruded upon the easy credulity of the Vulgar ; that the Pagans Daemons exquisitely answer to the Christians Saints and Angels , So he : But this is onely to make a noise ad populum . For what I affirm is most apparently true , viz. That the Pagans Daemons exquisitely answer to the Christians Saints and Angels in this point here mentioned , in having the like Idolatr●us Worship done to them . For my Conclusion says [ in this Point ] which he craftily and according to his custom leaves out ; but the Point is easily proved . For had the Daemons of the Pagans Temples Consecrated to them ? So have the Saints ; Had they Altars built to them ? So have the Saints ; Had they Images erected to them ? So have the Saints ; Did they burn Incense to the Daemons ? So they do to the Saints ; Were the Daemons invoked before their Images ? So are the Saints ; Did they make Vows to the Daemons ? So they do to the Saints . And is not this similitude exact enough for my purpose , who intimate onely , that those things are done to Saints that were done to the Pagans Daemons ; and that therefore those four Conclusions are rightly alledged to prove the eighth . But whereas my Adversary makes a noise , as if this Clause were the most Intrinsick and Fundamental to the whole business , it is so little essential to the matter , that if I had not mentioned it , my Cause had been alike strong without it ; and my Reader by casting his eye on this Conclusion , and the Conclusions here cited , might have observed as much as I have said , of himself , so obvious is the Truth thereof . But taking this Clause absolutely as my Antagonist has quoted it , there might abundance more similitudes betwixt the Pagans Daemons , and the Pontifician Saints be enumerated out of the 17. Chap. of the first book of my Synopsis Prophetica , which for brevity sake I omit .

The greatest Objection my Adversary brings against this Assertion is , That the Saints are not called Gods , as the Daemons of the Pagans were ; Can any sober Divinity , says he , brook it , ( pag. 15. ) that the Pagans Daemons should be said exquisitely to answer to our Saints and Angels . Do we Worship Saints and Angels for Gods ? ●Do we call them Gods ? Do we take them for Gods ? Do we Sacrifice to them as Gods ? Far be it as from our heart to intend it so from an ingenuous Adversary to Object it . But I say , though you do not Sacrifice Oxen to the Saints , yet you burn Incense to them , which was a very high and Holy Sacrifice under Moses . But the great stress lyes in this , that you do not call them Gods . But what 's that to the purpose while you make them so ; doing in a manner all the Religious Ceremonies that the Pagans did to their Gods : And for the very Name in your Latine Authours , how much does Divus Paulus , and Divus Thomas , differ from Deus Paulus , and Deus Thomas ; which yet is usuall enough . Nec tam praesentes alibi cognoscere Divos . But we will not insist on Grammatical Niceties : Admit they are not called Gods , ( not to note that 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 signifies at least as high ) does it follow you do not make them so . Let us frame this short Parable fitted for the meanest Capacity .

A City suppose , for a certain time was so instituted , that Whores and Whoredom , under that very Name and Appellation was admitted as Lawfull ; but there being some ill consequences of it , and inconvenient for the Common Weal of the City , this Licentiousness was abolished , and the City reduced to a more sober pass . But after some time the same custom got up again , and was ratified by Law , but under another Title ; calling those that were termed Whores before , Nymphs of Pleasure , and Whoredom , the doing duty and service to the Nymphs of Pleasure . Thus having continued for a season , a certain plain-hearted , and plain-spoken Citizen , observing the same inconveniences return that were before , stood up in the Senate , and spake out his mind concerning this custom ; openly declaring , that the old Whoredom was returned again , which they had upon good grounds abolished out of the City : Whereupon a Zealous Oratour of the other Party stands up and cries out : Can any sober Politicks brook such a reproach as this to so well governed a City , as to condemn it of approving Whoredom , for allowing men to do duty and service to the Nymphs of Pleasure ? Where are the Whores that this licensed Whoredom is committed with ? Do we caress or accost these Nymphs of Pleasure as Whores ? Do we call them Whores ? Do we take them for Whores ? Do we lye with them as Whores ? Far be it , as from our hearts to intend it , so from any ingenuous and well-bred Citizen to Object it . Was not this a very smooth and convincing speech to wipe the City clean off the Imputation of Whoredom ? But this honest blunt Citizen briefly replied : That in lying with these Nymphs of Pleasure , they ips●facto made them Whores ; which was an Answer never to be refuted . And to say I to my right fluent and eloquent Adversary , and to his vehement Rhetorick so like that of this Oratour in the Parable . That by erecting Temples , Altars and Images , by invoking and making vows to Saints and Angels , they make them Gods whether they will or no , as much as any thing can be made a God by men .

So that the Pagans Daemons d● exquisitely answer to the Christians Saints and Angels in this point of Idolatry ; saving that this Spiritual Fornication is a Rape upon our Saints and Angels , but simple Fornication in the Heathen with their impure Daemons . Nor is it any immodesty in any one to use such similitudes as the Spirit of God has used before us , who frequently sets out Idolatry by Fornication . Whence it will follow by clean and dry Mathematical Analogy , that Idolatry committed upon an unwilling Object is a ●ape , and that the Saints and Angels are unwil●ing t●us to be abused , an● one may adventure to be their compurgator . Whence the Idolatry committed is more hainous , as a Rape is a more hainous sin than simple fornication . This is t● refore truly that blaspheming of them that d●ell in Heaven , the Saints and Angels , Apoc. 13. 6. namely by this Idolatrous Worship done to them , traducing them as if they were pleased thus to be made false Gods by receiving Religious Worship , and were open Rebells against the true . But we will dwell no longer on this Subject ; It is already sufficiently manifest that not onely this eight Conclusion , but also this superadded Clause annexed to it , is without exception .

Answer to the ninth Conclusion .

This Conclusion having thus coldly drawn up an enditement against us , pleads its evidence out of the seventh and eighth Conclusions ; And so leaning upon two broken Reeds falls to the ground , where I am sure neither Reason nor Authority will ever stoop to take them up .

The Reply .

This is all he returns to my ninth Conclusion , which is just nothing at all . For I have abundantly evinced that my seventh and eighth Conclusions are no broken Reeds , but invincible and immovable Pillars of Truth ; which Reason will never suffer to fall to the ground , nor any understanding Authority ever gain-say .

Answer to the tenth Conclusion .

Here asking leave first of Ethicks he tells my Conclusion , that it gives God the lye , and makes him the Approver , Commander , and Rewarder of ▪ Sin , eve● Idol●try it self . For God promised a reward to Prayer made in the Temple , 2 Chron. 7. 15. where not withstanding there were graved Angels or Cherubims upon the walls . And he commanded his people to adore the A●k over which were Cherubims or Angels of Image-work ; where the worshipper could not possibly make his addresses , but he must needs bow at least Circumstantially if not Objectively towards an Image , which he says I make Idolatry . This is the sum of what he alledges against this tenth Conclusion .

The Reply .

To which I reply , That he would have done well tohave beg'd pardon of Grammar , Rhetorick , and Logick too , as well as of Ethicks ; For he has offended against all four . To give God the lye is no such Rhetorical flourish , though he uses it more than once in his Answer to this Conclusion , as if he were in love with the phrase . Nor has it that Grammatical sence he would put on it ; For to give the lye is to say one speaks false , not to speak false of another ; That is to be lye one . Besides to adore the Ark that is not good Grammar , Psal. 99 5. It is 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 Worship at his footstool . And the seventy has it , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , where 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 has the same force that ● in 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . And it is lastly very bad Logick to argue , That because I sav , in a Country where men professedly Worship an Image as an Object , if another bow to the same Image , with an Intention onely of making it a circumstance of his Worship commits Idolatry ; that therefore I say , that al bowings before an Image , though onely circumstantially , is Idolatry . For this is to conclude a general from a particular , which is enormous bad Logick : As ill as if he should conclude , that because one says , that putting the Hat off in Turky is a reproach ; therefore he says , the putting the Hat off any where is a reproach . Wherefore I do not make God an approver or rewarder of Idolatry , since I do not affirm circumstantially to bow towards an Image to be Idolatry , unless in a Country where the people do objectively bow to it ; which was not the case of the Jews , as I have sufficiently proved above .

There are some little nibblings and quibblings at my Transition which concludes this first Chapter , which I permit my Adversary to please himself in , it being past that time of the day with me . It is sufficient that I have shew'd , that my ten Conclusions of this first Chapter have prov'd themselves as firm as Adaman● against all the assaults of my Adversary . And as for his nibbling at my Transition to build a jest upon , it he had rather have Divine definition or declaration , than definitions or declarations , let him please himself . But the grounds of my Conclusions running much upon the first and second Commandments , and we having no dual number in English , I thought no body would have cavilled at my using the plural .

CHAP. II. What is Idolatry according to the Determination of clear and free Reason .

1. WE will now try how obnoxious the Romanists are out of the plain Definitions and Determinations of free and clear Reason . In which Method let us set down for

The first Conclusion , That Idolatry is a kind of Injustice against God . That this is true , may appear from that Definition of Religion in T●lly , who defines it Iusti●am adversus Deum . Which is not the sense of Tully onely , but the very voice of Reason and Nature . And therefore Idolatry being one kind of Irreligion or Impiety , it must needs in●lude in it a kind of Injustice against God .

2. The second Conclusion ; That Idolatry is a very fore and grievous Disease of the Soul , vilely debasing her and sinking her into Sensuality and Materiali●y , keeping her at a distance from the true sense and right knowledge of God , and leaving her more liable to bodily Lusts : That the natural tendency of Idolatry is this , and yet the Souls of men , in this Lapsed state , are naturally prone to so mischievous a Disease , as both History and daily Experience do abundantly witness . See the Mischiefs of Idolatry in my Mystery of Iniquity , Part 〈◊〉 Lib. ● . Ch. 16.

Nor can it infringe the truth of this Conclusion , that a man , retaining still the true Notion of God according to his Divine Attributes , may , according to a sense of his own , bow down toward a corporeal Object of worship . For he must retain it by force against such a Practice , as would and does naturally debauch the users of it . And besides , if he had really the Life of God in him as well as the Notion of him , he would feel such Actions grate against his heart , and perceive how they would invade and attempt the abating and extinguishing the more true and pure sense of God and of his Worship , and seduce the Soul to external Vanity .

But suppose a man or two could keep their minds from sinking down from a right Notion of the Deity ; yet they are as guilty of Idolatry , if they give religious Worship to corporeal Objects , as he is of Adultery and Fornication that yet uses them so cautiously as neither to impair his bodily Health , nor besott his natural Parts thereby . And therefore , though there may be some few such , yet the Laws against Fornication and Adultery ought notwithstanding to be very sacred to every one , even to those discreeter Transgressours of them , and ever to be obeyed by them , because the Observation of them is of such infinite importance to the Publick .

And what we have said of the Worship of God is analogically true of honouring of the Saints , who are best honoured by the remembrance and imitation of their Vertues , not by scraping Legs to or clinging about their Image , which are no more like them than an Apple is to an Oister .

3. The third Conclusion ; That those high expressions of the Jealousie of God and his severe Displeasure against Idolatry are very becoming the nature of the thing , and his Paternal care of the Souls of men . This appears from the foregoing Conclusions . For both the Prerogatives and Rights of the Divine Majesty himself are concerned , and also the Perfection , Nobilitation and Salvation of the Souls of men . This we discover by Reason , and our Reason is again more strongly ratify'd by Divine Suffrage .

The fourth ; That Idolatry , though it be so hainous a Sin , yet where it is committed most in good earnest does necessarily involve in it Ignorance or Mistake , in the Act of Worship or in the Object ; they either taking the Object to be God when it is not , or to have some Attribute of God when it has not , or to enjoy some Prerogative of God which yet it does not , or else the Worship not to be Divine when it is ; or , lastly , they mistake in the Application of the Worship , thinking they do not appl● Divine Worship to an Object when they do .

The fifth ; That to be mistaken in the Object of Worship , or in the Kind of Worship , or in the Application , cannot excuse any-thing from being downright Idolatry ; forasmuch as none are in good earnest Idolaters without some of these Mistakes .

The sixth ; That the peculiar Honour or Worship which is given to God is given to him not so much as his Honour and Worship , as his Due and Right : insomuch that he that does not give it to God , or communicates it to another , does an injury to the Divine Majesty . This is plain , and consonant to what was said on the first Conclusion , That Religion is a kind of Justice towards God . And indeed if Divine Honour was not given to God as his Due and Right , it were no Honour at all , but rather a Benevolence .

4. The seventh ; The Right of that peculiar Honour or Worship we do to God is grounded either in the nature of his incommunicable Excellencies , or in his Excellencies so far as we know incommunicated to any Creature , or , lastly , in Divine Declaration or Prescription of the ways or Modes of thus or thus worshipping him , which himself has some-time set down .

The eighth ; That any Actions , Gestures or Words directed to any Creature as to an Object , which naturally imply or signifie either the incommunicable or incommunicated Eminencies of God , is the giving that Worship that is the Right and Due of God alone to that Creature , and that Injury against the Divine Majesty which is termed Idolatry . The evidence of this Conclusion may appear from hence , because there is no other way of Application of external Worship than by directing such significant Actions , Gestures , or Words , toward such a Being as to an Object .

The ninth ; That the using any of those Actions or Gestures , or doing any of those things that the true and supreme God did chuse and challenge in the setting out the Mode of his own Worship , towards or in reference to any Creature as to an Object , this also is that Injury against God which we term Idolatry .

The Reason is this , Because such a mode of Worship does thus manifestly appear to be the peculiar Right of God , which none can transfer to another but God himself . Wherefore this Right having not been communicated by him to any other , when-ever such a kind of Worship is used , it must be used to him , and to none else .

Nor can his dereliction of any such Mode of being worshipped warrant the use of it to any Creature afterwards , because no Creature can be God in those circumstances as he thought fit to institute such a Worship for himself in : For no Creature can be God at all , and therefore never capable of any of those Modes of Divine Worship which God ever at any time instituted for himself . Besides , if this dereliction and disuse of any Mode of Worship might make it competible to a Creature , then might we sacrifice Beeves and Sheep ( besides other Services of the Temple ) to any Saint or Daemon .

5. The tenth ; An omnipercipient Omnipresence , which does hear and see what-ever is said or transacted in the World , whether considered in the whole , or as distributed into terrestrial , celestial , and supercelestial , not onely all these Omnipercipiencies but any one of them is a certain Excellency in God , and , for ought we know , incommunicated to any Creature .

The eleventh ; That this Omnipresence or Omnipercipience terrestrial is one main ground of that Religious Worship due to God which we call Invocation . This is plain , that upon this very ground that God hears and sees ( though himself be invisible ) what-ever is said or done upon earth , he has the honour of being invoked any-where or every-where , and of having Temples built to him ; because he that is Omnipresent cannot be absent from his Temple , but is alway there to be invoked .

The twelfth ; That if Omnipresence or Omnipercipience , at least terrestrial , ( if not celestial , ) be not communicated to Saints and Angels by God , the Invocation of either is palpable Idolatry . This is manifest from the eighth Conclusion . For Invocation implies an incommunicated Excellency in the Saints or Angels , and ●o communicates that Right to them that appertains onely to God , and is that Injury against God that is called Idolatry .

So that it is a vain Evasion that pretends that we honour God the more in making him so good to the Saints and Angels , as to bestow this Excellency on them ; whenas yet his Wisdom has not thought fit so to do . For we are so far from honouring him hereby , that we injure him in giving his Right to another ; and we dishonour him in presuming he had done wiselier or better in doing what he has not done . Whenas indeed , if he were so lavish in imparting his proper Excellencies to Creatures as ●ome would make us believe he is , to palliate their own Idolatries , it were the next way to make men forget all Applications to God , and to cast him out of their memory , and take up with the more particular Patronages of Saints and Angels .

6. The thirteenth ; That our thinking such a Saint or Angel can hear us where-ever we invoke him , is no excuse for our Invocation of him , nor saves us from Idolatry , since all Idolatry committed in good earnest implies some Mistake , as has been noted in the fourth Conclusion .

The fourteenth ; That all the Modes or ways of the Communication of this Omnipercipiency to Saints or Angels are either very incredible , if not impossible , or extremely ridiculous as to any excuse for their Invocation . For the usual Residence of Saints and Angels being in sede Beatorum , as the Roman Church holds , and that place on the Coelum Empyreum above all the Stars , That the Angels and Saints should upon the account of the Exaltedness of their natures see and hear from thence , what is done or said from one side of the Earth to the other , is extremely incredible , if not impossible ; yea , sufficiently incredible , or rather impossible , though they had their abode on this side of the Moon .

And that they should see all things and transactions , hear all Prayers and Orations , in Speculo Divinitatis , is alike incredible ; a thing which the Humanity of Christ himself , though hypostatically united to the Divinity , did not pretend to . But that God should either in this Speculum or any otherwise advertise them that such a one prays to them that they would pray to him for that party , is it not at first sight above all measure ridiculous ?

And alike ridiculous it is to pray to Saint or Angel , as if they were present and heard our Prayers , when indeed they are absent , and cannot tell that we did pray , unless by some Intelligencers . This Devotion is an improper and unnatural act , and shews that we do that to an invisible Creature which is onely proper to be done to the invisible God ; and that therefore it is Idolatry , as giving that right of Worship to others which is onely congruous to him .

7. The fifteenth ; That though there were communicated by God to Saints and Angels at least a terrestrial Omnipercipiency , yet if he have not communicated the knowledge thereof to us , as most certainly he has not , the Invocation of them is notwithstanding a very presumptuous invasion of the ●indubitable Rights of God , and the intrenching upon his Prerogatives , and therefore as to the internal Act no less than the Sin of Idolatry .

The Reasons of this Conclusion are , First , That God concealing from us the knowledge of the communication of this Excellency , does naturally thereby intimate that he would not have them invoked , but reserves the Honour of our Invocation of an invisible Power unto himself onely .

Secondly , That whatsoever is not of faith is sin : and therefore the ground of Invocation of Saints or Angels being at least dubitable , their Invocation is sin ; and it being about the Rights of God in his Worship , what can it be better esteemed than Idolatry ?

Thirdly , This Principle of feigning or groundlesly conceiting , without any Revelation from God , that any Creatures are capable of such Honours as are God's indubitable Right and Prerogative , is the Forge and Shop , the Palliation and Pretense , for infinite sorts and odlyexcogitated varieties of Idolatrous Objects : and therefore so presumptuous and so abominable a Principle , which is the Mother and Nurse of such infinite ways of Idolatry and Injustice against God , even according to humane Reason ought to be declared against as Idolat●ous ; and consequently , all the practices thereupon are also to be declared Idolatry , because they spring from a Principle taken up which is such a fundamental piece of Idolatry and Injustice against God , and exposes him to all manner of Idolatrous Injuries .

Fourthly , To date to do an act we know not whether it may be Idolatry or no , and this needlesly , our Conscience not all compelling us thereto , this is to dare to commit Idolatry ; and the daring to commit Idolatry , and so to do defiance to the Majesty of God , what is it less than to be an Idolater ? For according to his inward man and the main Morality of the action he is so : As he is morally a Murtherer that , doubting or not knowing but that it is his own Friend , by luck killed his intended Enemy : For the sense is , that rather than not be revenged of his Enemy , he will not stick to kill his dearest Friend .

And finally , This Idolatry is the more discernable and aggravable in the Invocation of Saints or Angels , their Omnipercipiency being so extremely incredible , if not impossible or ridiculous , upon any ground , as appears by the foregoing Conclusion .

8. The sixteenth ; That the erecting of symbolical Presence with Incurvations thitherward , the consecrating of Temples and Altars , the making of Oblations , the burning of Incense , and the like , were declared by the supreme God , the God of Israel , the manner of Worship due to him , and therefore , without his Concession , this Mode of Worship is not to be given to any else ; as appears by Conclusion the ninth .

The seventeenth ; That the Pagans worshipping their Daemons , though not as the supreme God , by symbolical Presences , Temples , Altars , Sacrifices , and the like , become ipso facto Idolaters . This is manifest from the ninth , the fifteenth , and the foregoing Conclusion .

The eighteenth ; Though it were admitted that there is communicated to Saints and Angels at least a terrestrial Omnipercipiency , and that we had the knowledge of this Communication , and so might speak to them in a civil way , though unseen ; yet to invoke them in such Circumstances as at an Altar , and in a Temple dedicated to them , or at their symbolical presence , this were palpable Idolatry . The truth is manifest again from the ninth and sixteenth Conclusions .

9. The nineteenth ; Incurvation in way of Religion towards any open or bare symbolical Presence , be it what-ever Figure or Image , as to an Object , is flat Idolatry : in the Worship of Saints , Angels and Daemons double Idolatry ; in the Worship of the true God , single . The reason hereof is resolved partly into the ninth and sixteenth Conclusions , and partly into the nature of Application of Worship . For external Worship is not any otherwise to be conceived to be apply'd to asymbolical Presence , but by being directed towards it as towards an Object . Wherefore if Religious Incurvation be directed towards any Figure or Image as to an Object , this Figure or Image necessarily Receives this Religious Incurvation , and partakes with God ( if the Image be to him , ) in it ; which is manifest Idolatry . For the direction of our Intention here is but a Jesuitical Juggle . And therefore I will set down for Conclusion

The twentieh , That Religious Incurvation toward a bare symbolical Presence , wittingly and conscienciously directed thither , though with a mental reserve , that they intend to use it merely as a Circumstance of Worship , is notwithstanding real Idolatry .

The Reason is , because an external Action toward such a thing as is look'd upon as receptive of such an Action , ● and has frequently received it ) if it be thus or thus directed , will naturally conciliate the notions or respects of ●ction and Object betwixt these two , whether we intend , it or no. And it is as ridiculous to pretend that their motions or actions toward or about such a symbolical Presence are not directed to it or conversant about it as an Object , as it were for an Archer to contend that the Butt he ●●oots at is not the Scope or Object , but a Circumstance , of his Shooting ; and he that embraces his Friend , that his Friend is not an Object , but a Circumstance , of his Embracing . Which are Conceits quite out of the rode of all Logick . See the last Conclusion of the foregoing Chapter .

10. The twenty-first ; That the Adoration of any Object which we , out of mistake , conceive to be the true God made visible by Hypostatical union therewith , is manifest Idolatry . The Reason is , because Mistake does not excuse from Idolatry , by Conclusion the fourth and the fifth . And in this Supposition we miss of one part of the Object , and the onely part that single is capable of Divine Honour . For God to be disunited from this adored Object is in this case all one as to be absent : For God is not considered not intended in this act of Adoration but as united with this visible Object . Which respect of Union if it fail , that consideration or Intention also fails , and the Worship falls upon a mere Creature .

In brief , If out of mistake I salute some lively Statue or dead body for such or such a living man , though this Man or his Soul were present , and saw and heard the Salutation , yet I play the fool , and make my self ridiculous , and an conceived not to have saluted him I would : So if I do Adoration to any Object , suppose the Sun or some Magical Statue , for the true Deity visible , when as neither of them are so , I play the Idolater , and make my self impious , and have missed of the due Object of my Adoration .

11. The twenty second ; That the Adoration of the Host upon the presumption that it is Transubstantiated into the living Body of Christ is rank Idolatry . This appears from the precedent Conclusion . To which you may add , that the Romanists , making Transubstantiation the true ground of their Adoration of the Host , do themselves imply , that without it were so their Adoration thereof would be Idolatry . But that it is not so , and that their Ground is false , any body may be as well assured of as he can of any thing in the world : and no less assured that they are Idolaters according to their own Supposition and Implication , as Costerus indeed does most emphatically and expresly acknowledge it , if they be mistaken in their Doctrine of Transubstantiation ; as we shall hear anon .

The twenty-third Conclusion ; That Adoration given to the Host by Protestants or any else that hold not Transubstantiation is manifest Idolatry . The Reason is to be fetch'd from the nineteenth and twentieth Conclusions . For it is Religious Veneration towards a bare corporeal Symbol of the Divine Presence , and , to make the Action more aggravable , towards a Symbol that has Imagery upon it , and that of the person that is pretended to be worshipped thereby . What can be Idolatry if this be not ?

The twenty-fourth ; That the Invocation of Saints and Angels , though attended with these considerations , that both that Excellency we suppose in them , and which makes them capable of that Honour , is deemed finite , and also ( be it as great as it will ) wholly derived to them from God , yet it cannot for all this be excused from gross Idolatry . This is clear from the seventh , eighth , tenth , and so on till the sixteenth Conclusion . For though this Excellency be supposed finite , yet if it be so great as that it is no-where to be found but in God , it is his Right onely to have such Honours as suppose it . And though it be deemed or conceived to be derived from God , yet if it be not , we give an uncommunicate Excellency to the Creature , and rob God of his Right and Honour . And , lastly , though this Excellency were communicated , but yet the Communication of it unreveal'd to us , it were a treasonable Presumption against the Majesty of God , thus of our own head to divulge such things as may violate the peculiar Rights of his Godhead , and ( for ought we know ) fill the world with infinite bold examples of the grossest Idolatry : and therefore all our practices upon this Principle must be Idolatrous , and Treasonable against the Divine Majesty . Consider well the fifteenth Conclusion .

12. The last Conclusion ; That this pretended Consideration , that where Christ is corporeally present , Divine Worship is not done to his Humanity , but to his Divinity , and that therefore , though the Bread should not prove transubstantiated , the Divine Worship will still be done to the same Object as before , viz. to the Divinity , which is every-where , and therefore in the Bread ; this will not excuse the Adoration of the Host from palpable Idolatry .

For first , That part of the Pretense that supposes Divine Worship in no sense due or to be done to Christ's Humanity is false . For it is no greater presumption to say , that in some sense Divine Worship is communicable to the Humanity of Christ , then , that the Divinity is communicated thereto . In such sense then as the Divinity is communicated to the Humanity , which are one by hypostatical Union , may Divine Worship also be communicated to it ; namely , as an acknowledgment that the Divinity with all its adorable Attributes is hypostatically , vitally and transplendently residing in this Humanity of Christ . Which is a kind of Divine Worship of Christ's Humanity , and peculiar to him alone , and due to him , I mean , to his Humanity , though it be not God essentially , but onely hypostatically united with him that is ; and does as naturally partake of Religious or Divine Worship in our Addresses to the Divinity , as the body of an eminently-vertuous , holy and wise man does of that great Reverence and civil Honour done to him for those Excellencies that are more immediately lodged in his Soul .

Which Honour indistinctly passes upon the whole man : And as the very bodily Presence of this vertuous person receives the civil Honour , so in an easie Analogy doth the Humanity of Christ receive the Divine ; b●● both as partial Objects of what they do receive , and with signification of the state of the whole case , viz. that they are united , the one with the Divinity , the other with so vertuous a Soul . Hence they both become due Objects of that entire external Worship done towards them , to the one civil , to the other Divine .

And therefore , in the second place , it is plain , that there is not one and the same due Object capable of Religious Worship in either Supposition , as well in that which supposes the Bread transubstantiated , as in that which supposes it not transubstantiated . For in the former it is the true and living corporeal Presence of Christ , whose whole Suppositum is , as has been declared , capable of Divine Honour ; but in the latter there is onely , at the most , but his symbolical Presence , whose Adoration is Idolatry , by the nineteenth , twentieth and twenty-first Conclusions .

And lastly , The pretending that though the Bread be not transubstantiated , yet the Divinity of Christ is there , and so we do not miss of the due Object of our Worship ; this is so laxe an Excuse , that it will plead for the warrantableness of the Laplanders worshipping their Red cloth , or the Americans the Devil , let them but pretend they worship God in them . For God is also in that Red cloth and in the Devil in that Notion that he is said to be every-where . Nay , there is not any Object in which the ancient Pagans were mistaken , in taking the Divine Attributes to be lodged there , whether Sun ▪ Heaven , or any other Creature , but by this Sophistry the worshipping thereof may be excused from Idolatry . For the Divine Attributes , as God himself , are every-where .

To direct our Adoration toward a supernatural and unimitable Transplendency of the Divine Presence , or to any visible corporeal nature that is hypostatically united with the Divinity , most assuredly is not that sunk and sottish , that dull and dotardly sin of Idolatry . For , as touching this latter , to what-ever the Divinity is hypostatically united , or ( to avoid all cavil about terms ) so specially and mysteriously communicated as it is to Christ , the Right of Divine Worship is proportionably communicated therewith , as I have already intimated . And as for the former , That through which the Divine Transplendency appears is no more the Object of our Adoration , than the diaphanous Air is through which the visible Humanity of Christ appears when he is worshipped .

But the Eucharistick Bread being neither hypostatically united with the Divinity , nor being the Medium through which any such supernatural Transplendency of the Divine Presence appears to us , Adoration directed toward it cannot fail of being palpable Idolatry . For the Eucharistick Bread will receive this Adoration as the Object thereof , by Conclusion the nineteenth and twentieth . But the Adoration or any Divine Worship of an Object in which the Divine Attributes do not personally reside , ( in such a sense as is intimated in those words of St. Iohn , ( Ioh. 1. 14. ) And the word was made flesh , ) but onely locally , as I may so speak , this , according to sound Reason and the sense of the Christian Church , must be downright Idolatry .

CHAP. II.

His Answer to the first , second , and third Conclusions .

His first , second and third Conclusions , saith he , quite digress from the charge in hand , shewing what a grievous sin Idolatry is ; which is much more largely and Learnedly declared by our own Authors , and readily granted by them , with this further allowance ; that if he can fix the crime upon us with any shew of reason , we shall acknowledge our guilt to be of a double dye .

The Reply .

THese three first Conclusions do not digress from the charge in hand ; For as much as they tend to the better understanding of the nature of the charge : As for the first , it is plainly referred to in the sixth Conclusion : And the second and third yield their due Illustration to the fourth , which is framed by way of an Axioma discretum ; That though Idolatry be a sin of that hainousness , and provoke Gods wrath and Jealousie so , yet it does necessarily involve in it ignorance or mistake , &c. Which does seasonably prevent all vain excuses and subterfuges , all unskilfull extenuations of so deadly a crime ; Which I wish I could free the Church of Rome from . When as of the contrary , out of my love to the Truth and the Church of Christ , I am necessitated to prove her guilty thereof , not by shews of Reason , but by solid and irrefragable Demonstration . Which I pray God open their Eyes to see , that they may wash away their guilt of a double dye , by the tears of a timely Repentance .

Answer to the fourth and fifth Conclusion .

The fourth and fifth , saith he , tell us that Idolatry necessarily involves in it ignorance or mistake in the act of Worship . The fifth advanceth a step higher , and concludes very abruptly ; that because all Idolatry involves in it some ignorance or mistake , therefore no Ignorance can excuse from Idola●ry : very learnedly !

The Reply .

Not so learnedly neither , or rather not altogether so solidly , as you have set down my Inference in the fifth Conclusion from what preceeded in the fourth . For my own words are these in my fifth Conclusion ; That to be mistaken in the Object of Worship , or in the kind of Worship , or in the Application , cannot excuse any thing from being down right Idolatry ; for as much as none are in good earnest Idolaters without some of these mistakes . How very Learned this is , is another matter , but how firm and solid an Inference it is , I leave any one to Judge .

Answer to the one and twentieth , and two and twentieth Conclusion .

From the fourth and fifth , the Doctor , saith he , makes a long stride to his one and twentieth Conclusion ; where he peremptorily concludes , that because mistake does not excuse one from Idolatry , by Conclusion the fourth and fifth : Therefore the Adoration of any Object , which we out of mistake conceive to be the true God made visible by Hypostatical union therewith is mani●est Idolatry . But let us put the case , saith he , that some Christian contemporary to Christ our Lord , whilest he sojourned upon Earth , had through mere mistake adored some other person for Christ . Here the Query arises , whether this mans errour would have pleaded his excuse or no ? The reformed Churches of France in their Apology by Dally declare for the affirmative . And if this Errour be not Idolatry , he says , I shall never be able to prove what I aim at in my twenty-second Conclusion , That any Idolatry is committed though it should so fall out , that the Host untransubstantiated were exposed to the veneration of the people . For as no Adoration is here due , so none is intended , but onely to Iesus Christ adorable where ever he is . This is the main strength of his Answer to my twenty first and twenty second Conclusions .

The Reply .

The long stride that is made , is made by this Doctor of the Church of Rome , not by my self . I had rather he would have taken my Conclusions as they lye in order , which he does hugely neglect to do in this Chapter : But however I am his servant to attend his motions whither he pleases within the compass of this little Treatise . And to his Query upon the propounded case , I Answer , with the reformed Churches of France , if they speak no further then to the case of this man , ( for I never saw that Apology by Daille ) that this mans Errour would have pleaded his excuse : But not so as to argue him guiltless of Idolatry , but that his sin of Idolatry is more pardonable in these Circumstances ; pardonable I say , which implies a fault or sin . And so my fifth Conclusion holds good ; That to be mistaken in the Object of Worship , or in the kind of Worship , or in the Application cannot excuse any thing from being down right Idolatry , because mistake is necessarily supposed in any Idolatry that is committed in good earnest . But the invincibleness of the mistake , the sudden surprisedness , or inevitable changeableness of the mistake may be a ground , though not of making that to be no Idolatry which is , yet of excusing the person as to the severity of punishment . Whence you may see , that it was not for nothing that my Adversary moulded my fifth Conclusion into words of his own , that he might the easilyer have something to Cavil at .

But to let this pass , I say , the Mistake does not excuse , but the invincibleness , or inevitableness of the mistake , which it does in all other sins whatsoever . And in all Idolatries whatsoever , besides these committed in the Christian world , where ever they are committed upon invincible mistake . But as amongst the Heathen , those that worshipped the Sun suppose , taking it to be the supreme God , endued with understanding and Power , of making and Governing the Universe ( and Millions worshipped him under the Notion , and as it seems to me were in a manner inevitably , by reason of their education and want of opportunity of knowing better , detained in this Errour ) as these by all men are rightly judged to have been Idolaters , though more excu●able then they that have opportunity of knowing better , so it is in the case of this man my Adversary instances in , who surprised by an inevitable errour has his excuse to crave pardon ; but it is manifest that he has committed the fault or rather crime of Idolatry , in giving Divine Adoration to him that is not God . And if this were repeated and habituated act in him , he were as errand an Idolater as the Persians other Nations that worshipped the Sun .

For mistake even where it is not essential to a fault , does not destroy the nature of the fault : as suppose one having his hat flung off his head to day by some body he meet with in the streets , and next day meeting one like the party that did him the injury , should presently fling his hat off , the mistake does not take away the nature of this fault so as to make it no injury to this Party , but onely makes it more pardonable , it being not intended to an innocent person : How then can mistake even in faults to which mistake is essential change their nature from being what they are ? So that though the Idolaters of the Church of Rome were under invincible Ignorance , they would not for all that cease to be Idolaters , or though they were made such onely by sudden and inevitable surprise .

But this is not their Case , and therefore with the good leave of my Adversary , I must tell him , the Case he has put is not at all to the present purpose ; nor that of a Loyal Subject taking Hephestion for Alexander : All these Learned fetches will not serve his turn . The worshipping of the consecrated Host with them is neither upon inevitable surprise , nor invincible Ignorance , nor want of opportunity of knowing better : For that which is accustomary , and continual , is not surprise , nor is that Invincible Ignorance , which common sense , Scripture and Reason will so easily dissipate in a very ordinary Capacity . For who , unless he were under the Power of Diabolical delusion , but can easily undeceive himself by common sense , Reason and Scripture , that a Wafer which Mice and Rats will eat , cannot be that adorable 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , God-man , the Creator and Redeemer of us all . And then for opportunities of knowing better from others , what irrefragable evidences have the reformed Churches offered to the contrary , and how many Thousands have sealed their Testimony with their very blood ? Which is a sufficient occasion , I think , in so easie a Case to undeceive them , that are not given up , as the Apostle speaks , 2 Thes. 2 ▪ to believe a lye , for their want of the love of the Truth . So that the Adoration given to the Host upon the presumption of its being Transubstantiated , is most palpable and unexcusable Idolatry , according as my twenty second Conclusion infers from my twenty first , and that from the fourth and fifth . But to say , as no adoration is here due , so none is intended , but onely to Jesus Christ , adorable where ever he is ; is such a laxe Answer and unsound , that it will excuse the Persians worshipping the Sun , and indeed all the Idolatries in the world as well as the Romanists Artolatria , or Bread-worship ; which is a manifest Demonstration of the falsness thereof . For no serious Idolaters give nor intend any Worship , but such and to such Objects as they think it due to .

Answer to the sixth , seventh , eighth , tenth , eleventh , twel●th , thirteenth , fourteenth , fi●teenth , eighteenth and twenty fourth Conclusions , but more particularly to the eig●th , tenth and twel●th ▪ and first in a more general way .

These eleven Conclusions , says he , talk big against the Invocation of Saints . But the best speakers amongst them are the eighth , tenth and twelfth ; He should add the fifeenth also , that the foundation may be more square and stable : which I desire my Reader to read over , and then consider my Antagonists Answer in general to them . Behold then , says he , the Doctors Argument . Invocation implies an incommunicated excellency in the Saints , viz. an omnipercipient Omnipresence , atleast Terrestrial if none Celestial , and so communicates that right to them that appertains onely to God . Ergo , Invocation of Saints is palpable Idolatry . Now if we can but acquit our selves handsomely in a fair return to this Argument , all the rest that is to be found in the above said eleven Conclusions , will amount to no more then meer empty and insignificant Nothings .

The Reply .

Here I would understand of my Adversary , what he means by quitting of himself handsomely , and making a fair return to this Argument . For ● suspect in such fair and smooth language , there lyes some cunning slight , or trick of Legerdemain to impose upon his Reader , and keep the simple still in Ignorance . And therefore it is seasonable here to advertize them , That unless he bring evident proof out of the Holy Oracles of God , out of some Universal Council , that is really Universal , and held before the lapsed Ages of the Church , or from clear and convictive Reason , that an omnipercipient Omnipresence , at least Terrestrial , is an excellency communicated to the Saints ; that all what he says will be nothing to the purpose ; the ground of my Argument in those Conclusions touching the Invocation of Saints , being laid chiefly in this , That there is no convincing proof of any such omnipercipiency in the Saints , but that men doing no violence to their faculties naturally conclude the Contrary , and condemn the other conceit as a mere extravagancy . And then secondly , I advertise this , that though we should prove there is this omnipercipiency of the Saints , ( which yet he has not proved , and I am well assured cannot prove ) all the rest of my Conclusions will not Prove insignificant Nothings . For the fifteenth and eighteenth will have their use still . But I am well assured his handsom and fair return is so gentle and civil , that it has not ruffled the least hair of any of these Conclusions , in that he has done no execution upon the eighth , tenth , twelfth , and fifteenth on which the rest depend ; which we shall understand after we have set down the manner of his particular assault on these .

His Answer more particularly to the eighth , tenth , and twelfth Conclusions .

In order to this he casts the Centuries of the Church into two sorts , into those that were more ancient , not yet resolved whether the Saints entred into Heaven before the Day of Iudgement , or were confined to some other place of rest excluded from the beatifick vision , and those that are more Modern and resolved of that point . The former was the state of the Church till the Council of Florence , who cleared the Point , defining that the Souls of the ●ead , as soon as cleansed from all sin , are received into Heaven and see God clearly as he is in himself . Now his Argument proceeds in reference to these elder times thus , As for those elder Centuries , says he , before the Council of Florence , they held Invocation of Saints for an undoubted truth , though some of them doubted whether they heard our prayers or ●o ; because no Church-definition had as then ascertained them of their full beatitude ; let venerable Antiquity speak for it self by the mouth of a Saint Austin , who in his book De Cura pro mortuis , cap. 16. speaks thus . This question exceeds the reach of my judgement , how the Martyrs relieve those who are certainly assisted by them ? Whether they are present by themselves at the same time in so many several places where the benefit of their succour is received ? Or being retired from the Conversations of Men in some place proportioned to their Merits , and there interceding for the relief of those that call upon them , as we pray for the dead who are not really present with them , and know not how they are or what they do ; God Omnipotent and ever present , hearing the prayers of the Martyrs , grants to Men by the Ministry of Angels these helps , where he will , when he will , and how he will . Thus B. S. Austin , Here we have it , says he , from an undoubted work of this great Saint and Doctor ( owned by himself in his Retractations : )

First , That Invocation of Saints was the constant avowed practise of those elder and purer days .

Secondly , ( Contrary to the Doctors fifteenth Conclusion and all his Pharisaical scruples ) here is a sure and certain ground of this Invocation , viz. Unquestionable , ancient , and immemorial possession , and the often experienced benefit of it , by those who addressing themselves to the holy Martyrs mediation , were ( says St. Austin ) certainly assisted by them .

Thirdly , That the Saints presence at the same time in so many several places , ( which is equivalent to the Doctors Terrestrial omnipercipient Omnipresence ) does not at all in St. Austins opinion , either imply an Impossibility , or entrench upon any of the Divine excellencies : for then he would certainly have rejected it ; which yet he does not .

Fourthly , Waving this omnipercipient Omnipresence , St. Austin renders it easily intelligible , how the Saints might , ( even without that , and without the hearing our prayers ) relieve those that called upon them , viz. God omnipotent and ever present hearing the Prayers of the Martyrs , and granting to Men by the Ministry of Angels these helps when he will , where he will and how he will .

Out of all which I deduce , says he , this Inference which is home to the point , That if St. Austin be to be credited before Dr. More , It is good and profitable to invocate the Saints , though we know not whether they heard us or no. And till the Doctor can prove the contrary , his main Hypothesis upon which he builds ( viz. That an omnipercipient Omnipresence , is the onely ground of the invocation of Saints ) is fundamentally subverted , and all his vapouring pretenses of Idolatry end in smoke and phancy .

The Reply .

It would make even a serious man smile to observe what a fair and handsom return he has made to the ground of my Argument , comprised in those four Conclusions . I thought there was some circumvention and winding about to ensnare in such smooth words . And lo ! a marveilous fetch of wit , To prove from those Ages ( and this he must prove , or else he proves nothing to the purpose , that is , to excuse them from Idolatry ) wherein the Church knew not whether the Saints had any knowledge of our affairs or no , ( as vet not assured whether they enjoyed the beatifick vision before the day of Judgement ) that an omnipercipient Omnipresence was an excellency then communicated to them ; which seems to be the prospect of his first way of Arguing in general , or else that we may pray to them though they do not hear us at all : Which yet is as delirant an Action , as if one of us here in England should speak to an absent friend in the East Indies . And yet to invoke the Saints , uncapable of hearing us , is not onely equally absurd , but grosly Idolatrous ; by Conclusion eighth .

But let us see if he be more succesfull in his particular Applications , which I confess to me are so wondrous subtil , and his Collections from that Quotation of St. Austin so marvailous fine , that the dulness of my sight cannot discern the coherence . For first that he should collect , that the Invocation of Saints was the constant and avowed Practise of those elder days , from that Paragraph of St. Austin , is without all ground , and implies that St. Austin understood not his own meaning , and writ things contrary to his own Judgement . For himself was an Opposer and disallower of that fond and Idolatrous Superstition that began to creep up in his time , and a rejecter of it as a practise Uncatholick and against Scripture . So far was it from being a constant and avowed Practise in those days . A position that is both false in it self , nor any way deducible from any thing here in this Paragraph of St. Austin , as it is in the Latine Text. Which is , Et tamen generaliter orantibus pro indigentia supplicantium , that is , Praying in general for the relief or necessities of Suppliants : Which is not Suppliants to them , but to God , though at their Memorials . So that my Adversary in rendring supplicantium , of those that call upon them , has foisted in them , contrary to the meaning of St. Austin . For it is onely supplicantium in him , not supplicantium ipsis . Nor could St. Austin disallowing Invocation of Saints as an Impious Worship , conceive God so ready to hear their Prayers if they prayed to the Saints . For God heareth not sinners , nor could be the Author of so foul a sin , by fullfilling such petitions by the Ministry of his holy Angels , as is here said . Wherefore those that Invocated God onely and Jesus Christ , at the Monuments of the Martyrs , might be helped by the Prayers of the Martyrs , though they themselves were not prayed to . I say , men making their addresses to God through Jesus Christ , that they might be delivered from this or that evil , at the Memorials of the Martyrs might be healed and relieved , and this imputed some way to these Martyrs , their Prayers in general for them , ( God having a mind to improve their sufferings for a further propagation of his Church ) contributing to the effect . But that Invocation of Saints was no allowed nor avowed practise of the Church in St. Austins time is most certain , as any one may see at large in the Bishop of Armagh and Chemnitius and others , who have bestowed their pains on this point .

And therefore his second Inference is a meer Vaunt , That here is a sure and certain ground of Invocation , to wit , unquestionable , ancient , and immemorial possession , and the often benefit of it by those , who addressing themselves to the holy Martyrs mediation were certainly assisted by them , and that in those times when they knew not whether they heard their Prayers or no , whereby he would subvert the Truth of my fifteenth Conclusion . But it is apparent , if you Read those who are impartial searchers of Antiquity ; that this ground my Adversary alledges is a very rotten and Reprobate ground , which as it is not asserted by St. Austin here , so is it disapproved by him else where , and condemned as a wicked superstitious Innovation , begun amongst weak and ignorant Souls , against the sense and tenour of Scripture , and practise of the Catholick Church . And that therefore those helps that were afforded at the Monuments of the Martyrs , were to them that made their addresses to God through Jesus Christ . But if any happened to any that prayed to the Martyrs , it might well be either an Accident in Nature , or some officious delusion of the Devil , to plunge the Church into further Apostasie . So little force is there in this second Inference from the pretense of either avowed practise or effect , in the Age of St. Austin before the beatifick vision of the Saints was ratified , to enervate my fifteenth Conclusion . But on the contrary , if the Church had ratified the Invocation of Saints upon no assurance they had of their hearing our Prayers , they had notoriously lapsed the Christian World into Idolatry . And as many as took up that custom in those days , were assuredly Idolaters , as Epiphanius defines of his Collyridians . So that the Sallies of my Adversary hitherto are in vain .

And now for the third Inference , Does St. Austins doubting of the Martyrs , after what manner they yield their help to those that are helped by them , Vtrum ipsiper seipsos adsint , uno tempore 〈◊〉 diversis locis & tantâ inter se longinquitate discretis , confirm the belief that they are a● so far distant places at once to help , which my Adversary says is equivalent to the Terrestrial omnipercipient Omnipresence , which I deny to be in them ? Certainly no , But so venerable a Fathers doubting of it rather , makes the thing doubtfull . Nor do I think 〈◊〉 was of so slow a wit , but that if he had thought a little closer on the matter , he would have declared it out of all doubt , and concluded it impossible , that any finite Being should be in one moment of time at two distant places at once , a whole diameter of the ●arth removed one from another , and a semicircle , or at least a quadrant , distant in the surface of the Earth , if we reckon more places then two . For the motion must be either unconceivably swift , or the Saint intirely divided into two whole Saints in two distinct places at once . This I believe would have seemed little less then impossible to St. Austin , and plainly to entrench upon the Omnipresence of God ; sure I am it seemed so to Athanasius or whoever was Author of those Questions ad Antiochum , ( Quest. 26. ) 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . It is the priviledge of God alone to be found in more places then one at once . And Anastatius Nicenus , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . For neither can an Angel be seen in several places at once , but God onely can be so , who is uncircumscribable by any place , Quest. 89. But if St. Austin does but onely doubt , it is sufficient for me . For if we be not certain of the omnipercipient Omnipresence of the Saints , we have no warrant nor right to invoke them , as doing that honour to them , which is the undoubted Privilege of God , and thereby incurring the crime of Idolatry , by Conclusion fifteenth . For if there be no such omnipercipient Omnipresence communicated to the Saints ; it is plain from Conclusion , 12. That it is Idolatry . But if we know not whether this omnipercipient Omnipresence be communicated or no to them , then when we adventure to invocate them , we know not whether we commit Idolatry or no , that is , we do a doubtfull or uncertain action , and act not out of faith . But he that acts not out of faith does sin , and sins specifically that sin , which he doubts whether he so doing commits or no. As if he doubt whether such a thing be Extortion , and yet do it , he commits the sin of Extortion . So he that does an act which he knows not whether it is Idolatry or no , he commits the sin of Idolatry in adventuring to do it , as to the inward man ; but the Saints having no such Omnipercipiency , ( as any one that is free from Superstition cannot but be easily assured of ) it is Idolatry both as to the inward and the outward .

And now for his fourth Inference ; That waveing this omnipercipient Omnipresence , St. Austin renders it easily intelligible , how the Saints might relieve them that call upon them , viz. God omnipotent and ever present hearing the Prayers of the Martyrs , and granting to men by the Ministry of Angels those helps , &c. I have above plainly shown that St. Austin asserts no such thing as the Invocation of Saints in this Paragraph , or that the Saints are called upon ; But God being called upon at the Memorials of the Saints by suppliants , and the Saints praying in general for us , God is pleased to send relief to his suppliants by the Ministry of Angels . This is all that is affirmed by St. Austin ; which makes nothing to the proving , That according to St. Austin , though the Saints do not hear our Prayers , yet we may Pray unto them .

And therefore his general Conclusion of all which he so exults in , and says is so home to the Point , ( viz. That if St. Austin be to be credited before Dr. More ; It is good and profitable to invocate the Saints though we know not whether they hear us or no ) is a Castle in the Air , and stands upon no Foundation , since all the four Pillars that should sustain it are fallen into dust . For neither does St. Austin say , That it was the constant and avowed practise of those elder and purer days to invoke the Saints , not that any received help from the Martyrs by invoking them , nor does he assert , but doubt of the omnipresence Terrestrial of the Saints ; nor is it credible , but upon better consideration he as well as Athanasius and Anastatius , would have concluded it impossible ; nor lastly does he affirm , that God by the Ministry of Angels did relieve them that prayed to the Saints , but onely such as at the Memorials of the Saints prayed to himself .

But I will not content my self with this , but I will further add ; That if St. Austin and Dr. More be to be believed before this Doctor of the Church of Rome , it is very ill and pernicious to invocate the Saints whether they hear us or no. And concerning my own Judgment , I think this Doctor of Rome will confess there is no controversy . Now for the Judgment of St. Austin , I think he sufficiently declares himself , in his De Civitate Dei , Book 22. chap. 10. We build no Temples , says he , to our Martyrs as to Gods , but Memorials , as to dead Men , whose Spirits are alive with God ; nor do we there erect Altars on which we Sacrifice to the Martyrs , but to that one and Common God of the Martyrs and us . At which Sacrifice the Martyrs as Men of God , who by the confession of him have overcome the World , are recited in their place and order , but not invoked by the Priest that Sacrificeth . And in his 42. Epistle , You see , saith he , the most eminent head of the most Renouned Empire , stooping with his Diadem , and Praying at the Sepul●hre of Peter the Fisherman , namely , to God himself it is that he prayes , though at the Monument of Peter . And lib. 1. Confes. chap. 42. whom may I find that should reconcile me to thee ? was I to go to the Angels ? with what Supplication ? with what Sacraments ? many indeavouring to return unto thee ? and of themselves being not able , have , as I hear , attempted such things , and have been thought worthy to be ill-used , &c. And is there not the same Reason of the Mediation and nvocation of Saints . And against Parmenian , lib. 2. cap. 8. he says , That if St. John should say , You have me a Mediatour with the Father , I pray for your sins ( as Parmenian would have the 〈◊〉 to be a Mediatour betwixt God and the people ) who would look upon him as an Apostle of Christ , but as Antichrist . And in the same place , For if Paul were a Mediatour , the rest of the Apostles would be so too ; and if there were many Mediatours , how would that of Paul agree , who says their is one Mediatour , &c. And we know that Invocation in the most modest sense , is for the Mediation and Intercession of the Saints , that they may intercede for us . In a word if you consult St. Austin , he is so far from approving Invocation of Saints , that he is a diligent Opposer of it , as you may see more at large in Chemnitius . And still , which will make my Adversaries Argument weaker and weaker , if St. Austin had been an approver of it , yet that would not have proved , that it had been a constant and an avowed practise of those purer times , from the Apostles to St. Austins Age ; there being for 360 Years after Christ no Testimony for any such thing , none of the Fathers appearing for it , but determining point blank against it . But the Apostasie being to come in according to Prediction , about 400 Years after Christ ; if any Father , and St. Austin amongst the rest , should write any thing in favour of 〈◊〉 foul a crime , it would avail nothing with the prudent and unprejudiced . So that here is a ratiocination 〈◊〉 than nothing , and the smoke and phancy appears on my Adversaries side , but on 〈◊〉 clear and solid Reason . Nor need I use any ●urther Arguments to prove , that it is not good nor profitable to invocate the Saints , than what I have subnected to my fifteenth Conclusion . which sufficiently proves it is a sin : And I think sin will be held by no good Christian either good or profitable .

And thus you see my Antagonist full● routed in his first method of attempting my four chief Conclusions , viz. the eighth , tenth , twelfth , and fifteenth , he pretending that invocation of Saints may be without Idolatry , though we know not whether they hear us or no ; which was a more oblique and incongruous Method , and less likely to bring about what he would have .

His more direct Answer to the above said four Conclusions .

His secand Method is more natural , direct and pertinent , if he can make his attempt good , viz. That ●e have a certain or sufficient knowledge , that the Saints have at least a Terrestrial Omnipercipiency , and hear all those that pray to them ; which they , 〈◊〉 , most certainly do . 1. From their blissfull vision of God ▪ not gainsaid by Protestants , and determined by the Council of Florence . 2ly . It is to be proved by the appearance of Devils upon the Invocation of Witches and Sorcerers . 3ly . From the Aequality of the Saints with the Angels , Mat. 22. 30. 4ly . And lastly , From the weakness of the Objections taken from the ●ncredibility of the Modes of this Omnipercipiency of the Saints . Because , potest constare de re quando non constat de Modo rei , which I allow to be a sound Maxime . This is the sum of all the force he has to make out a certain or sufficient assurance , that the Saints hear our prayers : Which by the way is to be understood of every particular Saint that is called upon by chance , or else its little to the purpose . And then again it is worth the nothing , That if it were possible to bring certain or sufficient proof , that every particular ●aint hears us , it will not follow that a Religious Invocation is competible to them , which the Circumstances of the Romish Worship argue to be given to them , but onely a civil calling to , or asking them to do this or that . For no honour bu● civil is due to them , as St. Austin himself up and down asserts . And it is further to be noted , that if they do not hear us , the Invocation then is not civil , but non-sensical , and which is worse , Idolatrous , by Conclusion twelfth . And therefore let us examine particularly the Arguments he produces to make good the contrary , namely that they do ●ear , and we should add , by the intrinsick vertue of that state they are in . But let us see at large how he proves they hear us at all .

The Reply .

His first Argument is , That they enjoy the 〈◊〉 ●●●●tifick Vision , not gainsaid by Protestants , 〈◊〉 ●●termined by the Council of Florence . 〈…〉 some of the Protestants not gainsaying , 〈…〉 enjoy the beatifick Vision , prove they 〈…〉 rather do not they deny it , in denying that the consummation of our Happiness , which is the 〈…〉 Vision , is till the Resurrection , 〈…〉 appear , and we then being transformed 〈…〉 glorious Similitude , shall thereby see him 〈…〉 but till then few or no Protestants 〈…〉 a beatifick Vision . And it they did , how 〈…〉 prove but that they are mistaken ; especia 〈…〉 Scripture seeming to defer that great and 〈…〉 Happiness till that day : though they do not 〈…〉 them a pleasant rest , and enjoyment of the Divine favour before then ?

But the Council of Florence , a general or Oecumenical Council , has determined the point , and therefore we may be certain that the Saints do already enjoy the beatifick Vision . The words of the Definitive sentence , as is supposed , of the Council , are , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . To see clearly the Triune God himself as he is . And the Speculum Trinitatis , the clear Looking-glass of the Trinity is answerable to this stile of the Council . So that I must contess , if there be sufficient Authority in this Council , my Adversary has so fast hold of me , that I must acknowledge that they have determined , That purified Souls do enjoy the beatifick Vision before the day of Judgment . But there are many things that make me think that this Council has not authority enough to assure any prudent man that this Position is true .

For first it determines also for Transubstantiation and the universal Supremacy of the Pope , declaring him to have the Power and right of ruling and governing the whole Church . The former of which is manifestly impossible , the latter grosly injust against Christ the only universal head of the Church , and against the particular supreme Heads of Christian Nations and Kingdoms , over whom this Synod declares the Pope set over to govern as supreme . Which by how much more it seems to favour the Popes immoderate ambition , by so much it seems more certainly to deviate de via Spiritus 〈◊〉 , and show the Council not to be infallible but rather actually Erroneous . And if they were so in these things that are more obvious and discernible , viz. That a wafer or a piece of bread is not Jesus Christ the Son of God , Nor the Pope the universal Soveraign of all Christendom ; may not any one justly wonder how they became Infallible in determining what is the state of the Saints in Heaven , themselves having never looked into that Looking-glass of the Trinity , nor experienced what it is to see God as he is . Mat. 5. 8. Blessed are the pure in heart , for they shall see God . And again , psal. 17. 15. When I awaken into thy likeness , I shall be satisfied therewith , viz. with the Eternal Righteousness of God , whereby we become like him , and so see him as he is .

Secondly , If this opinion of the beatifick Vision had been true , and usefull for the excusing of the Church from Idolatry in the Invocation of Saints , as my Adversary seems to insinuate , surely the Holy Ghost would have revealed it more timely . For this Council of Florence was not held till about 1440 or 50 years after Christ ; wherefore it coming so extreme late , it is a sign , it is onely a device found out by men to stop the mouths of them that object against the Invocation of Saints , from their Incapacity of hearing our Prayers .

Thirdly , Besides these flaws , the certain●y and infallibility of this Council is blasted from the clear prediction of the Apostasy of the Church after about 400 or 500 years after Christ . And therefore we Protestants do well to have no great regard to any more then the four first general Councils .

Fourthly and lastly , Though this Council had the face and appearance of a free Oecumenical Council , it was not at all so in reality and Truth . The Greek Bishops and others of that Clergy , being many ways necessitated against their own Judgments and Consciences to subscribe that form , which the Emperour Iohannes Paleologus and Ioseph the Patriarch had upon politick Ends , with some few others , contrived . So that Sylvester Sguropalus a person of singular integrity and Judgment , and a perpetual witness of the transactions of that Council , as in particular he has noted , how the the Bishop of Ephesus was denied his Florens , because he was so inflexible to the purposes of the Pope . How the Latines produced a false and adulterate Creed of the seventh general Council , affirming that it was so read 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 with the addittament of Filioque in that Council . How the Emperor observing that his Clergy was for the greatest part of them against the Latine Church in their votes , found a device to deprive all of votes but the Bishops and Coenobiarchae . How falsely and fraudulently they read the places of the Fathers , mutilating them , and mangling them as they pleased , and was most for their purpose . How that after all this ado , but ten of the Bishops and Coenobiarchae gave their votes for 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 for the procession of the Spirit from the Son , seventeen against it . H●w ●ereupon consultaion was held again of purging the Council , but that way declined both the Patriarch and the Emperour dealt under hand with the most effectual perswasions of fear and hope that they could . And at last how they brought it to this , that thirteen Bishops gave their votes for 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , but the Coenobiarchae's votes were made null by a trick , least they should have turned the scales again . How the Lay Courtiers even to the Physicians and meaner sort of Officers were enabled to vote , when so many of the Reverend Clergy were by devices made vote-less . And lastly , when by these arts they had got a plurality to declare for 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , and the Emperour made a long speech extolling the present Synod , and delivering his own suffrage to close all : How his Greyhound that constantly followed him to the Council , and lay on a silk cushion wrought with Gold , at the Emperors feet every Session , and in so many Sessions had lain still , both when the Emperour spake , and also others , did now so soon as the Emperour began to speak set up a shril howling note , modulated to the very cadences of the Emperours Oration , nor could they by any sneaping of him , or threatning him , keep him from so doing : Which , says he , many look't upon as an inauspicious sign .

This is also observable , How nothing but 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , was so much as disputed in the Synod : But the Emperour with some few of his own , the Cardinals ever and anon visiting him , and propounding Questions to him , added four more Articles as agreed upon , amongst which , by the by , there is no mention of the bea●ifick vision , which I observe others also to omit . And how Nicenus made a long and eloquent speech in publick , which contained things as agreed on by the Greek Church which yet they knew nothing of , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , but it was altogether a pack't device : but that however most of the Greek Clergy , what by promise , what b● threatnings and urging necessit●s , ( for the Bishop of Nicomedia poor man was fain by friends to beg a new Cloak of the Pope , that he might not disgrace the Solemnity by the squalour of his old apparel ) much against their wills were brought off to subscribe the form , and make their appearance at the celebration of the union . I say , besides these particulars and many more that this Sguropulus sets down , which plainly shows , that this was not a Synod held per viam Spiritus sancti ; he in general also tells us , That it was indeed an Oecumenical Synod , no man can deny , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , But no man that was there will ever affirm that they came to any Synodical sentence or determination ▪ For after the publick disceptations ceased , nothing was inacted ; 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , but all things were transacted in hugger-mugger , by a few Prelates both on the Emperors part and the Popes , the rest of the Greek or Latine Bishops knowing nothing : and much more to this purpose may you read in this accurate describer of this Florentine Council . But it is sufficiently evident already how little ground there is in this Florentine Council , to found any mans belief of any Conclusion they are said to have defined , and to venture on so hainous a sin as Idolatry , as certainly Invocation of Saints is , be it called civil Worship or Religious ; if they hear us not , when the Authority of this Council is so uncertain or rather null , which my Adversary would make use of to prove that they do hear us , because purified Souls injoy the beatifick Vision before the Day of Judgement according to that Councils determination .

And if my Adversary would teach his Party here to evade , by saying what ever this Council may prove , it is well known that the Council of Trent has concluded the same opinion ; I Answer , that the three first things alledged against the Council of Florence , are also alledgeable against the Council of Trent , and besides they have determined for the Communion in one kind , and for the worshipping of Images , expresly against the word of God , whereby we cannot but be well assured of their Fallibility . Besides that it is evident at it is neither a free nor general Council , but a company of men contrived together for the Interest of the Pope , thirteen new Cardinals , all Italians , being made by him at a clap toward the end of the Synod , besides much garbling of the Council before . And the Holy Ghost is also said at the time of their setting to have Travailed from Rome to Trent in a Portmanteau , another evidence how much that Synods proceedings were per vi● Spiritus sancti . And therefore to adventure to commit so hainous a crime as Idolatry , upon so weak a pretence as the Authority of such a Council , what can be more horrid ?

Butadmit the Saints do enjoy the beatifick Vision , how is it proved that the beatifick Vision is such as implies the sight and hearing of all visible and audible Objects here on Earth , or that to a meer Creature it would be any happiness at all , but rather an unhappiness and a burdensom and unseasonable distraction . Din quis vivendo multa quae non volt videt . Wherefore it is most reasonable to conceive , that onely such things are exhibited to them by God , as they are particularly concerned in . And that all things and Persons of this caliginous Globe , are not obtruded on them in the beatifick Vision , where there is infinitely more then will fill them of better Objects . And therefore the beatifick Vision as to this Point , will amount to no more then to one of those ●odes of the Saints knowing when we pray unto them ; which I think I have not without cause declared to be absonous and absurd as to the solving of this difficulty , in my fourteenth Conclusion . And we may further here take notice , that they make God an abettour of a very incongruous Act , the putting up Prayers to a finite invisible Power , which of himself knows not whether he be prayed to or no , unless God be so officious as to give him notice of it . The thing therefore is so incredible in it self , and supported by so weak Authority of the Florentine and Tridentine Councils , that no certain or sufficient assurance can from hence be had thereof .

Now for the next Argument , fetch'd from the Devils appearing upon the Invocation of Witches or Sorcerers● I conceive it has little force to prove that any particular Saint invocated by name , does presently of himself hear the lnvocations of his Clients , though some be in America , others in the East-Indies , others in Italy at the same time . Which I deny that any particular Devil can do : And therefore the Inference will be infirm , to conclude that Saints hear the Prayers of their Suppliants , when they are particularly called upon , and at whatsoever distant parts of the Earth at the same time ; because some particular Devils hear Sorcerers so , when there is no proof they do . Any particular Devil may step in if Magically invoked , to delude a sinner , and when Covenant is once made , that very Familiar by name may be ready to assist being invoked ; but this falls very short of proving , that a Devil let him be at what distance he will from a Suppliant , that he hears , or that he can hear and assist many Thousands of Suppliants in many Thousand far distanced places at once . Which Incapacity not onely of a Devil but a Saint makes their Invocation Idolatry by Conclusion twelfth .

But at last my Adversary knocks at the door of the most important Topick of all , for the proof of the Saints knowing the Prayers of their Suppliants ; I mean the holy Scripture , and if he produces any place there to prove they hear when we speak to them : I will so far forth yield up the cudgels to him , as to acknowledge a civil calling to them , or desiring them to do this or that for us , that is really in their power to effect , may not be absurd . The place he cites is Matth , 22. 30. The Saints are as the Angles of God in Heaven , says he , and of the Angels it is written , See ye despise not one of these little ones , for I say unto you , their Angels in Heaven 〈◊〉 see the face of my Father which is in Heaven , Matth. 18. 10. And again , There shall be joy in Heaven upon one sinner that repenteth , Luke 15. 7.

To the latter I Answer first , if it were the priviledge of Angels , through the excellency of their own nature , to know at what distances soever they are at when men prayed to them , why was the Invocation of Angels laid asleep all the time of the Mosaical Law ? and why spoken against by the very Gospel ? or what warrant has the Church of Rome to invoke Saints , more then the Iews to invoke Angels ? But moreover I Answer to that of Matth. 18. 10. The sense , of the Angels in Heaven always seeing the face of Christs Father which is in Heaven , is not , that by enjoying the sight of God they obtain thereby a terrestrial Omnipercipiency , and see and hear all things transacted here on Earth ; but the phrase of seeing the face of Christs Father in Heaven , signifies , that they are those Angels that also Minister and wait before God and are Assistents at the Divine Schechina or that inimitable glory whereby God reveals himself to the Angels and blessed Spirits , and gives Oracles for the ministration of his Kingdom . The Angels I say , that assist holy men on Earth , are of so great excellency , that they are in Heaven part of the Satellitium that always wait on God who is in Heaven ; which also implies that they are one while on Earth , another while in Heaven , a●cending and descending to negotiate the affairs of the Church , receiving Oracles and commands from the Divine Schechina . But instead of these Oracles of importance , if the Divine Schechina should tell St. Peter , or St. Paul , or St. Apollonia , and the rest of the Saints ever when any pray to them in such infinite distinct places , and some great numbers put together , praying to some or other of the Saints , let any indifferent man judge how incongruous it is . It is sufficient in the mean time , that no such terrestrial Omnipercipiency is to be proved in the Angels from this Text. Nor do's Luk. 15. 7. imply any such thing . For the Angels ascending and descending as Iacob saw them in his Divine Vision , on the ladder that reached from Earth to Heaven , those that ascend from Earth tell them in Heaven of the good news of converted sinners , and so this Text implies no such terrestrial Omnipercipiency as my Adversary would insinuate . But then in the last place , suppose this terrestrial Omnipercipency were competible to the Angels , it does not follow from Mat. 22. 30. that the Saints already enjoy it . For the entire Text runs thus , For in the Resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage , but are as the Angels of God in Heaven . But I hope my Adversary will not , with Hymeneus and Philetus , affirm the Resurrection is past ; and if not so , he must acknowledge even from this Text himself produces , that this Angelical priviledge of the Saints , in seeing all things in the face of God , is yet to come , if there were at all any such Angelical priviledge .

The last thing he alledges for this Point , is the weakness of our Objections from the Modes of this Omnipercipiency of the Saints ; because , Potest constare de re quando non constat de modo rei . But I answer , à posse ad esse non valet consequentia . If we had indeed the like assurance of the thing it self , That one particular Saint invocated by never so many , and at never so far distant places at once , did hear the Prayers of all those Suppliants , as we have of the Divinity of Christ and the Triunity of the God-head , then though I could not reach the particular Mode how it was , yet I would believe it . But when all manner of Modes producible of a thing seem absurd and incredible , and in the mean time there is no assurance of the Reality of the thing it self , it argues great levity of mind to give belief to such a thing that it at all is . And it is not meer levity in things of such great Importance , as the Rights of God , and the danger of Idolatry , but an irreligious and giddy Temerity ; Which I pray God keep all men from .

In the mean time it is very apparent , that his attempts against my eighth , tenth , twelfth , and fifteenth Conclusions are frustraneous , and that they stand as firm as ever , he haying neither proved that we may invocate the Saints , we being uncertain whether they hear us or no , nor yet proved it certain that they do hear us ; which were the two Methods whereby he could have undermined these four Conclusions . And therefore they standing firm , still it is manifest from his own supposal , that the other seven , viz. the sixth , seventh , eleventh , thirteenth , fourteenth , eighteenth , and twenty fourth , stand firm and unshaken also . We proceed now to his Answers to the remaining Conclusions in the order I find them .

His Answer to the ninth Conclusion .

Against this Conclusion he argues thus ; Incurvation of the body , according to my sixteenth Conclusion , is one of the Actions or Gestures which God did chuse in the setting out the Mode of his own Worship . Ergo , Incurvation towards or in reference to any Creature is Idolatry . But now , says he , if this be true , Abraham who used this Incurvation to Men and Angls , Gen. 18. and 23. and the beloved Disciple of Iesus , who reiterated the like Incurvation towards the Angel , Apoc. 22. 8. were Idolaters . And therefore my Conclusion cannot be true , that is laden with so great an absurdity . This is the main of his Argument .

The Reply .

In Answer to which I desire the Reader to peruse my sixteenth Conclusion . My words are these , That the erecting of a Symbolical presence , with incurvations thither ward , &c. I do not say that simple Incurvation is one of the Actions or Gestures , which God did chuse to set out the Mode of his own Worship by , ( for Incurvation of the body in general is neither Religious nor Civil , but may be either , as all men know ) but that it is Incurvation toward a s●mbolical Presence , which God appropriated to himself , as a Religious Mode of Worship due to himself onely . Simple Incurvation is permitted , and has been used , without any scandal to God or Man , both unto Men and Angels . Now neither Abrahams , nor St. Johns Incurvations being to the symbolical Presences of the Angels they bowed to , my sixteenth Conclusion is unconcerned in it , nor does it therefore at all enervate my ninth , as is plain at first sight . For it does not at all imply that either Abraham , or St. John were Idolaters in their bowing to Angels or Men.

His Answer to the sixteenth Conclusion .

The sixteenth , seventeenth , nineteenth and twentieth talk much , says he , of a symbolical Presence , and Incurvation towards it ; whereof the sixteenth refers to the ninth and hath its Answer there .

The Reply .

How infirm my Adversaries Answer is to the ninth and unsatisfactory you have already seen , and therefore , I having already replied to it , it is evident that his Answer to this sixteenth wants no further Reply .

His Answer to the seventeenth Conclusion .

To this , saith he , I have already answered , shweing that the Pagans gave the Worship and Title of Deities to their Daemons , and therefore became ipso facto Idolaters .

The Reply .

To that pretended Answer , I have made a full and perspicuous Reply above , which if the Reader be pleased to turn back and peruse , the more he looks on it , I do not question but the more he will be satisfied with it .

His Answer to the nineteenth Conclusion .

Here , saith he , I would know of the Doctor , whether the Name of a person be not a symbolical Presence in its kind as well as an Image . For as much as both of them are signs or tokens representing the same thing , with this onely difference that the Image represents it to the eye , the Name to the ear . And why then may we not bow to the Image of Iesus as well as to the name of Jesus , or how can the one be condemned of Idolatry , but the other must incur the like brand .

The Reply .

The Doctor Answers , that the Name may be a symbol , as Aristotle has defined . 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 Aword or Name may be a symbol of that conception I have in my mind , says Aristotle , but he says nothing of its being a symbol of the external Object . But let that go ; Though it be a symbol , yet it is very unnatural to conceive it a symbolical Presence , not is any where called so , nor accounted so by any one . Besides , a symbolical Presence must be a standing permanent representation of that which it is the symbolical Presence of , consecrated and intended for that purpose . How unna●ural therefore is it to conceit a name , that is no sooner sounded but vanishes from the senses , to be a symbolical Presence , but onely a meer note or symbol to help our memories , and to be part of speech and discourse : So plain is it , there is not the same reason of the Image of Jesus , and the Name of Jesus . No● is the second Commandment against bowing to sounds but Images : Nor do we , which is best of all , bow to the Name of Jesus , but at the Name of Jesus , as I answered above . And if it could be proved that the Name of Jesus were a symbolical Presence of one kind , as my Adversary phrases it ; so long as it is not of that kind my nineteenth Conclusion speaks of , and founded on the second Commandment , what is it to the purpose ? Or if it were included , unless that of the second to the Philippians commanded to bow to it in such a sense , which my Adversary will be never able to prove , what will it avail ? But I have even over-answered this Objection . And it is already too too manifest , that though bowing at the Name of Jesus be no Idolatry , bowing to the Image of Jesus may be palpable Idola●●y .

His Answer to the twentieth Conclusion .

To me , this Conclusion , saith he , seems big with a spirit of contradiction , as being manifestly against Scripture , against the practise of the Church of England , and lastly against Dr. More himself . First , Against Scripture , As is manifest , ( besides what we have said , says he , in Answer to the last Conclusion of the first Chapter ) from the Incurvation the Scripture commands to the Name of Jesus , which is as much a Religious Incurvation as any we give to t'ose symbolical Presences called Images .

Secondly , Against the Church of England , who bow the knee at the Eucharist to the bare Figurative or symbolical Presence of Christs natural flesh and blood ; and therefore they useing this Religious Incurvation towards a symbolical Presence , are Idolaters ; Nor can excuse themselves by a mental reserve , they intending it onely as a circumstance of their Worship , because that is declared Equivocation , in this very Conclusion and the foregoing one .

Thirdly and lastly , This Conclusion is against my self , Because my sixteenth Conclusion openly avoucheth , That the erecting of a symbolical Presence with Incurvation thitherward , was declared by the supreme God the God of Israel one of the manners of worship due to him ; but my twentieth runs counter and stifly presseth , That Religious Incurvation towards a symbolical Presence ( without exception of any ) wittingly and conscientiously directed thither , is real Idolatry . These two Conclusions , saith he , are as perfect a contradiction , as to say , All Religious Incurvation toward a symbolical Presence is Idolatry , Not all Religious Incurvation toward a symbolical Presence is Idolatry .

The Reply .

To all which three I Reply , and First to the first , That what he has said in Answer to the last Conclusion of my first Chapter , I have replied to already and plainly proved there is nothing therein that clashes with the Scripture . And as I said before , so I again repeat , that we are not commanded to bow to the name of Jesus , but , if it be understood of any external Ceremony , onely at the name of Jesus ; and with all , though the Incurvation be Religious , that his name is no symbolical Presence , as I declared before . Never any one phancied a name any such thing , so that it is a meer shift to amuze the ignorant .

To the Second , that the Bread and Wine are no symbolical Presence or Figure of the very Person of Christ , nor do I know that any Protetestants hold that any Blood or Flesh of Christ not actuated by his humane Spirit , nor joyned with the Divinity is capable of Divine or Religious Worship , sith nothing is capable thereof but God . But a symbolical Presence is the representation of some Person or thing , erected to represent the thing o● Person conceived by them that erect it , adorable ' But we do not conceive the Body of Christ killed and Sacrificed , and his Blood shed out of his Body adorable ; unless it could be proved , what yet is impossible , that it was even then Hypostatically united with God , when it was disunited from the Soul . So that the broken Bread and the Wine are but commemoration tokens of the Body of Christ killed and Crucified , and his Blood shed for us , this commemoration being as it were a feast upon a Sacrifice , as the Apostle intimates , ( 1 Cor. 5. 7. ) after the Lamb is perfectly slain . Nor is any man on his knees at the Communion in order to direct their kneeling to the Bread or Wine in any sense , but they are on their knees afore hand in their Prayers and Devotions to God and Christ , and it is ex accidenti , as I may so speak , that they are on their knees when they receive the holy symbols ; So far are they from wittingly and conscientiously directing any Religious Worship toward them : but the symbols are brought to them in such a posture as the Communicant is found in at his Devotions , whose face happily was not so much as derected to the Communion Table while he was at his Devotion , and his heart , as it is said , sursum corda , wholly carryed to Heaven . This I confess is a pretty gird of my Adversary , and a cunning justling me as it were against my own Church as much as he can ; But it is manifest that what I have here delivered in this Conclusion is agreeable enough with the Rites of our own Church , as well as with Truth it self .

To the third I Answer , That my twentieth Conclusion is not truly recited . For my words run thus , That Religious Incurvation toward a bare symbolical Presence , wittingly and conscientiously directed thither , &c. He has left out the most emphatical word in the sentence , viz. [ bare ] . And hence you see how unseasonable his Parenthesis is , [ without exception of any ] For when I restrain my Assertion to bare symbolical Presences , it is evident that I except those that are covered and concealed from the eyes of the people ; As the Cherubins were on the Ark of the Covenant . So that it was a great oversight , to say no worse , in my Adversary to leave out that Monosyllabon which was of such principal signification in the sentence . But it being in , as it was manifestly in and before his eyes , in the Conclusion he pretends to confute , this twentieth Conclusion is no contradiction at all to the sixteenth . All Religious Incurvation towards a bare symbolical Presence is Idolatry , says this twentieth Conclusion : But does the sixteenth say , Not all Religious Incurvation toward a bare symbolical Presence is Idolatry ? It says no such thing . But does onely imply that some symbolical Presence may be bowed towards without Idolatry , as that over the Ark of the Covenant , it being not bare or open , but hid from the eyes of the people ; nor yet that bowed to as to an Object neither , but onely as a circumstance of Worship . Let the Reader judge how heedlesly at least , if not disingenuously , my Adversary has dealt with me in this assault , and withall how firmly and clearly I have maintained my own .

His Answer to the two and twen●ieth Conclusion .

My twenty first he gives here no brush against . Of the two following he speaks thus . The twenty second , and twenty third Conclusions weakly cavil at the adoration of the Host as Idolatrous , either in Catholicks or Protestants . But these petty Nibblers at the most blessed and ever adorable Sacrament , shall have their Answer in the next Chapter , when the Doctor treats of this subject ex protesso ,

The Reply .

His Answer is marvellous lofty and full of despiciency towards his Antagonist , and all of his mind . But I do not impute this so much to the pride of my Adversary as to his cunning and prudence , that he may by this Scheme of confidence keep his Parties devotions warm to the adoration of the most blessed and ever adorable Sacrament , as he phrases it : And we indeed will also acknowledge the consecrated bread , an holy and blessed symbol of the body of Christ , but we adore onely our Celestial Lord and King , who sits at the right hand of his Father in glory ; and take it as a great reproach done to him , that those of the Romish Religion should pretend that a morsel of Bread or a Waser , after a few words of the Priest should become this Lord of glory . And meaner and more petty Nibblers than we , even those small and contemptible Animals , ordinarily called Mice , offer such an Argument against so grand an Absurdity as may well puzzle the subtilest of your School-Divines , viz. How this consecrated Host , if it be Christ himself in his own Body and Person , should suffer himself to be eaten up by a Mouse : You will say , that the Mouse onely eats up the species or external shew of a Body not any real Body at all , and that though Christ be contented to go along with the species when Men eat the Sacrament , yet if a Mouse light on it , as soon as she nibbles at it he slips out of the way . I must confess I know no other subter-fuge but this

But this seems to me a meer shift , Nor do I think that any will deny , but that if the Mouses stomach were searched presently after she has eaten this consecrated Bread , that the Bread , or call it the species , will be found there , and certainly endewed with such Attributes as are the specifick Attributes of Body , that is with Divisibility and Impenetrability , which being the essential and specifick Difference whereby Body is Body , it is plain , that what they call species is really a Body or substance ; but the Body or substance of the Bread is transubstantiated into the Body of Christ , therefore it is evident that the Body of Christ is in the belly of the Mouse , if Transubstantion be true . Which plain consideration methinks , might be sufficient to awaken any one that is not in a very dead sleep or incurable Lethargy out of all conceit that a consecrated Water does become Personally and Corporeally Christ himself . For if it be He , though he humbled himself indeed so very extraordinarily in the behalf of us Men , yet it is not at all credible , that he would make himself so vile and cheap as to suffer himself to be devoured by a Mouse .

And if this Argument chance to be less pleasing , yet the recalling it to my memory is to be imputed to the scornfull expressions of my Adversary , who makes us such petty Niblers in our argumentation ; Whenas if he had not overlooked , in this lofty mood of his , my twenty first Conclusion , this twenty second could not but have appeared to him perfect demonstration , upon the suposal that Transubstantiation is but a conceit , and no solid Truth ; which is the main Argument of the next Chapter .

His Answer to the twenty third Conclusion .

His present Answer to my twenty third is this , For Protestants indeed to adore the Sacrament who believe no Corporeal presence of Christ there , would be a like Crime , as for an unconverted Iew to adore Iesus Christ in whom he believes not . But what is this to the Doctors purpose .

The Reply .

My Antagonist here acknowledges it a great sin , even a Crime in a Protestant to adore the Sacrament , as well as for the Jew to adore Jesus Christ , when he does not believe on him . Let me then here note by the by , how great a Crime it is in them , who as much as in them lyes , force men to commit so great a sin by their unchristian Persecutions . But I would ask further what Crime it is that the Jew and Protestant here commit . Certainly the Jew's can be no less then Idolatry in the internal , being that he has assented to the practise of what he thinks in his own Conscience is Idolatry , the giving of Divine Worship to a meer Crea●ure . And so much at least is true of the Protestant that adores the Sacrament , But the Sacrament being not Christ , he is also guilty of Idolatry in the compleatest Circumstances , and becomes an Idolater as well in the external as internal Act.

And if you ask what this is to the Doctors purpose ; he will tell you , that his purpose is to per●●●●● all men as much as he can to deal uprightly and not to dissemble . So that it is an intimation to as many as are not perswaded of Transubstantiation , that they would not abuse themselves in communicating in your service , they not being able to do it without apparent Idolatry .

His Answer to the twenty fifth Conclusion .

To the twenty fourth he Answered above , where you have also my Reply . To this twenty fifth or last , he onely says , touching my Objection there raised and Answered , that he will leave the Doctor to the pleasure of his own thoughts , raising his airy Castle with one hand , and beating it down with another .

The Reply .

To which my Reply is onely this , let the Reader seriously peruse this my last Conclusion , and consider whether the Objection I raise be not material , and whether the solution thereof be not solid . And let him also impartially judge if I have not , though briefly , yet very clearly and perspicuously showed the Invalidity of all my Antagonists Objections against the Conclusions of these two first Chapters of my Antidote . We proceed now to the third .

CHAP. III. That the Romanists worship the Host with the highest kind of ● orship , even that of Latria , according to the Injunction of the Council of Trent ; and that it is most gros● Idolatry so to do .

I. AND having thus clearly and distinctly evinced and declared what is or ought to be held Idolatry amongst Christians ; let us at length take morefull notice of some Particulars wherein , according to these Determinations , the Church of Rome will be manifestly found guilty of Idolatry , and that according to the very Definitions of their own Council of Trent . As first , in the Point of the Adoration of the Host , touching which the very words of the Council are , Latriae cultum , qui vero Deo debetur , Concil. Trident. huic sanctissimo Sacramento in veneratione esse adhibendum : and again , Siquis dixerit , Self . 3. cap. 5. in sancto Euc●aristiae Sacramento Christum non esse cultu Latriae etiam externo , adorandum , & solenniter circumgestandum populóque proponendum publicè ut adoretur , Anathema sit .

2. This confident Injunction of gross Idolatry , as it is certainly such , is built upon their confidence of the truth of their Doctrine of Transubstantiation . For the Chapter of the Adoration of the Host succeeds that of Transubstantiation , as a natural , or rather necessary , Inference , therefrom . Null●● itaque dubitand● locus relinqui●ur , &c. That is to say , The Doctrine of Transubstantiation being established , there is no Scruple left touching the Adoration of the Host , or giving Divine Worship to the Sacrament ( or Christ , as it is there called , ) when it is carried about , and exposed publickly in Processions to the view of the people .

But the Doctrine of Transubstantiation being false , it must needs follow , that the giving of Divine Worship to the Host is as gross a piece of Idolatry as ever was committed by any of the Heathens . For then their Divine Worship , even their Cultus Latriae , which is onely due to the onely-true God , is exhibited to a meer Creature , and that a very sorry one too ; and therefore must be gross Idolatry , by the twenty-first and twenty-second Conclusions of the second Chapter .

3. But now , that their Doctrine of Transubstantiation is false , after we have proposed it in the very words of the Council , we shall evince by undeniable Demonstration . Per consecrationem Panis & Vini conversionem fieritotius substantiae Panis in substantiam Corporis Christi , Concil. & totius substantiae Vini in substantiam Sanguinis ejus ; Trident. quae conversio convenienter & propriè à Sancta Catholica Ecclesia Transubstantiatio est appellata . Sess. 3. cap. 4. And a little before , cap 3. Si quis negaverit in venerabili Sacramento Eucharistiae sub unaquaque specie , cap. 3. & sub singulis cujusque speci●i partibus , can . ● . separatione factâ , totum Christum contineri , Anethema sit . In which passages it is plainly affirmed , that not onely the Bread is turned into the whole Body of Christ , and the Wine into his Bloud , but that each of them are turned into the whole Body of Christ , and every part of each , as often as division or sepa●ation is made , is also turned into his whole Body . Which is such a contradictious Figment , that there is nothing so repugnant to the Faculties of the humane Soul .

4. For thus the Body of Christ will be in God knows how many thousand places at once , and how many thousand miles distant one from another . Whenas Amp●itruo rightly expostulates with hi● Servant Sosia , and rates him for a Mad-man or Impostour , that he would go about to make him believe that he was at home , though but a little way off , while yet he was with him at that distance from home . Quo id ( malúm ! ) pacto p●test fi●ri nunc ntí 〈◊〉 hícsis , ● domi ? And a little before , in the same Colloquie with his Servant , Nemo unquam ●omo vidit , saith he , nec potest fieri , tempore uno homo idem d●obus locis ut simul sit . Wherein Amphitruo speaks but according to the common sense and apprehension of all men , even of the meanest Idiots .

5. But now let us examine it according to the Principles of the learned , and of all their Arts and Sciences , Physicks , Metaphysicks , Mathematicks and Logick . It is a Principle in Physicks , That that internal space that a Body occupies at one time is equal to the Body that occupies it . Now let us suppose one and the same body occupy two such internal places or spaces at once ; This Body is therefore equal o those two spaces , which are double to one si gle space ; wherefore the body is double to that body in one single space , and therefore one and the same body double to it self . Which is an enormous Contradiction .

Again , in Metaphysicks ; The body of Christ is acknowledged one , and that as much as any one body else in the world . Now the Metaphysical Notion of one is , to be indivisum à●se , ( both quoad partes and quoad totum , ) as well as divisum à quolibet alio . But the Body of Christ being both in Heaven , and without any continuance of that body , here upon Earth al●o , the whole body is divided from the whole body , and therefore is entirely both unum and multa : which is a perfect Contradiction .

6 , Thirdly , in Mat●ematicks ; The Council saying that in the separation of the 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 equal● 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 ●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 c●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 . ●herefore it was , and it was not , at the same time . Which is against that fundamenta● 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 * * See Paul . Fag , upon Deut. 8 10. own mouth , ( as well as distributed it to ● 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 , John 15 ▪ 5. Gen. 41. 27. 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 spake , 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 unavoidabl● follow and themselves cannot deny it , that they are most gross and palpable Idolaters , and consequently most barbarous Murt●●rers , in killing the innocent Servants of God for not sub●itting to the same Idolatries with themselves . Costerus the Iesui●e speaks expresly to this Point , ( and conson●ntly , I think , to the Suppositions of the Council ) viz. That if their Church be mistaken in the Doctrine of T●ansubst●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 to●rable who w●rship some golden or si●ver Statue , Francise . Cosler . Enchirid ▪ Controv ▪ cap. 12. or some Image of any other Materials , for their God , as the Heathen worshipped their Gods ; or ar●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 ●orship a bit of Bre●d , as hitherto the Christians have done all over the w●r● for so many hundred years , if the Doctrine of : ransubstantiation be not true .

What can be a more full and express ackno●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 fi●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 ●octrine to speak Catholick language . The Council of Trent ( even as quoted by himself ) mentions not the ●ost but onely the ●●oration of the Blessed Sacrament or ( which is the same ) of Iesus ●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 ●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 t●e consecrated Bread , and it is familiar in common sp●●ch to understand the Host in that sense . As when they say , At the elevation of the Host , and , As the Host passes by , a●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 s●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 Latri● of theirs is turned into Idolatry by the twenty first , twenty second , and twenty fifth Conc●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 , Transu●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 an● stage Drollery . But let this pass as a pleasant skirmi● before the main charge .

The Reply .

If it was not indecorous for St. Paul to quot● 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 ●t never was seen nor is it possible that 〈◊〉 body can be 〈◊〉 two places at once . But if this Testim●● does not like you , you may remember how I showd you above , That Athanasius and Anastatius ancient Christians declare , ●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 ●uthority of P●autus , but in t●e sense of all mankind as I have in●ima●ed , who by common suff●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 〈◊〉 A●versary endeavoured to smother , by a Rhetorical flourish , and nimble-paced Transition 〈◊〉 those fetc●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 ●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 〈◊〉 s●aces , What needs that , Mr. Doctor , sa●s he , It is enough that in each of those two space● it be onely equal or commensurate to that determina●e place it there occupies , suppose of six cub●●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 rare●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 en●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 , be●cause the supreme or extimate Heaven is in no place ; which yet is to be understood of no ex●ernal place . But Eustachius and other School●hilosop●ers , and all that hold an internal place ● which Truth is plainly demonstrable ) do hold that it is in a place internal , upon which our Argument goes , but is equally true of locus externus . Nor then will this high flight beyond 〈◊〉 supreme or extimate Heaven serve for any ev●● 〈◊〉 . For as much as we speak of Bodies placed ●n this side of 〈◊〉 extimate Heaven , and no Bo●y can b● found amongst Bodies , but it will be 〈◊〉 cumscr●bed b● the ambient superficies of the next Bodies about it , that superficies of the ambient Bodies that do immediately compass 〈…〉 Body being its place . And every Body ●ill h●ve such a place that is found on this 〈…〉 extimate Heaven . This is a Truth that 〈◊〉 be denied . And our Question is 〈◊〉 onely of suc● Bodies as are on this side 〈◊〉 extimate Heaven . From which the unseasonablen●ss of my Adversaries subter●uge is plainl● d●cerned , which in no sense will serve his turn , unle●s for the amuzing the minds of the People .

To 〈◊〉 Second Answer I return this ; To the first 〈◊〉 thereof , That it is not onely enough to him but it is also en●ugh to me that in each of the two ●paces the Body be equal to that de●erminate place it t●ere occupies , understanding either an internal or external place . For suppose one and the ●ame Body at each place at ●nce 〈◊〉 either an internal or external place of such a quantity , of six Cubits suppose , which it cannot fill unless it be commensurate to them , it is plain it fills as much space as comes to twelve Cubits , if six and six make twelve , which is as sure as two and two make four . And therefore that it is equal to twelve Cubits , because it plainly fills up the space of twice six Cubits . Or how ever at the same time fills the ambient superficieses that would exactly fit twice six Cubits in several . There is no greater demonstration of equality then this , which the Geometricians call 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , or Co●gruentia . So certain is it that a Body adequately filling two places of six Cubits big at once , has it self the magnitude of twelve Cubits : But the Body is supposed but one and the same Body in both places , and therefore can be but six Cubits . Wherefore it is both six Cubits and twelve Cubits at once , that is to ●ay , it is double to it self at the same time , which is impossible .

Nor does the Second part of my Adversaries Answer evade this Impossibility : That it will no more follow that a Body occupying at ●he same time two places , and so being equal to those two places , which are double to one single place , that the Body is double to it self , then that a Body of one Cubit ●a●ified into a double dimension and therefore occupying a double space is double to it self : Or the rational ●oul informing a Bod● of a span length at first , but 〈◊〉 the same Body grown another span , is thereby double to it self . For not at all to quarrel with the mistake of the nature of Rarefaction , which I must confess I take to be the Cartesian way not the ●ristotelean , and candidly interpreting his meaning , in those words , ( a body of a span length and then grown up to another span ) which grown up to another span naturally implies the Body not double but octuple to what it was before , passing by these and medling onely with his own meaning , ( as it may be hoped ) and Hypotheses , the examples do not at all reach the present purpose . For speaking in his sense , a body of one Cubit rarified into a double dimension is double to it self unrarified ; that is , It is as big again as it was when it was unrarified . But it is not as big again or double to it self at the same time , but double it is to what it was before . And the same is to be said of the soul , ( in such a sense as extension is applicable to her , and increase or decrease of it , namely by dilatation and contraction Spiritual ) that it is double when the Body is grown as big again as it was when it was but a span long , to what it was when the Body was but a span long . But here in the present Case a Body is demonstrated double to it self , compared with it self and its present condition at the same time : Which is impossible , viz. That the same Body should be double now to what it is now . That it now should be as big again as it self is now . For neither can the Soul her self be said to be now as wise again as she is now , but onely as wise again as she was some time ago . And so my Adversaries Answer does not at all reach the point in hand . And therefore my Demonstration stands firm and unshaken , of the Impossibility of Transubstantiation from this Argument taken from Physicks , as any unprejudiced eye may easily discern . Nor had we any need here to consider the continuity or discontinuity of places . But all is clear from what we have thus briefly represented .

His Answer to the Argument from Metaphysicks in this fifth Paragraph .

To my Metaphysical Argument that infers , that the Body of Christ will be Divisum à se , and both Unum and Multa . First he Answers to the first part ; If divisum à se secundum substantiam , I deny it , If divisum à se quoad locum , transeat . To the Second , That it will not be Unum & Multa , but onely Unum in Multis , one and the same in many places .

His second Answer is , that I go upon a false supposition , That essential Vnity is derived from the Vnity of local Presence , not from the Intrinsick Principles of the subject . For unless this be granted , Plurality of local Presence at once will not prove a thing divided from it self .

His last Answer is , That by this and my former Argument I put armes into the hands of Infide●s against the Mystery of the Holy Trinity . For it will follow , saith he , That one and the same Divine Nature being in three distinct Persons at once , the same Nature will be treble to it self , as much as the same Body being in two places at once will be double to it self . And secondly , that one Divine Nature being in three distinct Persons it will be as much Divisa à se ( besides that it will not be Divisa ab aliis , viz. from the three distinct Persons with which it is really identified ) as a Body will by being in two distinct places at once . Th●s is the bare edge and full strength of his Answers against my Metaphysical Argument . As for his Rhetorical Flourishes and Boasts , they are no part of any proof , and I list not to meddle with such things .

The Reply .

To the First part of his first Answer I Reply , That it is plain that it is divisum à se secundum substantiam , both quoad totum , and quoad partes , because it is separate or distant so many yards or so many miles suppose from it self , nothing of it self being between . As distant and separate as two several Individual Bodies at the same distance , that is to say , A is as many yards or miles distant from A quoad integram suam substantiam , as to its intire substance , as B is from C. But B is really distant or separate from C suppose twenty yards or miles , as to their intire substances . Ergo , A is distant or separate from A twenty yards or miles as to its intire substance , nothing of its substance being between . So that it is both present with it self and absent from it self at the same time twenty miles , and may be many thousands according to this impossible Hypothesis . In so much that it is plain this part of his Answer is weak and insufficient . To the other part I say , That it manifestly follows from my former Reply , ( that shows plainly that A is distant and separate from A which is a plain and palpable Division of A wholly and intirely from it self ) That A is not Ens unum , but Entia multa or plura , because the very definition of Ens unum is , that it be indivisum à se. This is perfect demonstration to any ones whose eyes are not obstructed with prejud●ce .

And now to his Second Answer , I deny that I go upon any such supposition , That Essential Unity is derived from the unity of local Presence . But what I contend for is this , T●at unity of local Presence is a necessary consequence of Essential Unity : Nor can any finite Essential Unity be in any m●re than one place at once , as Athanasius and Anastatius also have concluded . And there may be as ne essary and indubitable reasonings ●rom the property of a thing as from its intrinsick Principles . As a man may as certainly conclude such a Triangle to be a Rectangle Triangle from the equality of the Power of the Hypotenusa to the Powers of the sides including the Angle subtended by the Hypotenusa , as from the very definition of a Rectangle Triangle it self . And though the ubi of a Being be not essential to it , yet we are sure what ever is is some where , & quod nusquam est nibil est . From whence it is apparent how weak my Adversaries Inference is , That unless essential Unity be derived from the Unity of local Presence , it will not follow that the same Body being in divers places at once is divided from it self , any more than it is divided from its intrinsick Principles , which it can never be by Plurality of local Presence , they being wholly extrinsick to the subject . Which is the same as if he should contend that a Man may be and yet be no where , because Vbi or Place is extrinsecal to him . Or that his Soul may be neither wiser , nor less wise , nor equally wise with others ; or his Body neither taller , nor less tall , nor equally tall with others , and yet be , these being onely external respects and comparisons , and not in the definition or ●ssential constitution of a Man . To all which I add , That the very intrinsick Principles of any one ●eing supposed to be in two Places are divided from themselves , that is , are distant or s●parate so many Yards or Miles , as is plain from my former Arguing . As suppose Plato were at the same time at Athens and Thebes , the intrinsick ●rinciples of Plato , to wit , his Soul and Body would be both divided from themselves at this distance , and constitute two Plato's . These things are so plain , that it is a wonder to me that they can be hid from any Mans eyes , that does not wilfully wink against them ; or rather that any Man can wink against them , though in humour or for ends best known to himself he may talk against them .

Now to his third and last I Answer ; Who does the greater disservice to the Catholick Church he or I ? I dealing bonâ fide and plainly demonstrating that to be an errour that cannot be hid from the unprejudiced , it being in a subject so easily comprehensible to all mens perceptions , I mean the nature of a Body ▪ and the impossibility of what they pronounce thereof . And it being an Opinion unknown or disown'd by the Fathers of the Church , I mean this Opinion of Transubstantiation , not avowed by any Council till about four or five hundred Years ago , when as the Doctrine of the Trinity was repeatedly ratified in the Primitive times by general Councils above 1200 Years ago , with what reason is it that my Adversary will allow no greater certainty of the Mystery of the Trinity then of Transubstantiation , which has such palpable and easily deprehensible and plainly demonstrable contradictions in it . Is not this to put weapons into the hands of In●idels with a witness ? But I hope I shall easily wrest them out again by a sufficient Reply to this third Answer of my Adversary .

In the First part therefore , I say , his supposition is very gross and incompetible to the Divine Nature . As if it were in the three Persons as one hand phancyed in three distinct distanced gloves at once , or one finger in three distinct finger●stalls filling them out in several with its presence , whenas the Divine Nature and the Persons are promiscuously said to be in one another , ( Iohn 17. 21. ) I in thee , and thou in me ; And Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity . Peter Lumbard not unskilfully resembles the Trinity and Divine Nature , to the Mind and the three Powers in the Mind , Memory , and Understanding , and Love , or Will. These three , saith he , out of St. Austin , are not three Lives but one Life , not three Minds but one Mind , one Essence . He descants further on this Similitude , but it is enough to hint thus much , that from hence also it is manifest , That the Divine Nature is not in the three Persons , as one finger that fits three distinct distanced finger-stalls , but as the Memory , Understanding , and Will , are adequately every-where where the Mind is by a Metaphysical Coincidency and ●ongruity , so also is the Presence of the three Persons and Divine Nature every where coincident and adequate : Nor is the Divine Nature any more repeated according to the number of Persons , then the Essence of the Soul is according to the number of those three Powers , Memory , Vnderstanding , and Will. So that nothing more can be concluded then thus , That the number of the Persons are triple to the Divine Nature which is but One , as the Powers of the Soul or Mind are triple to the Soul or Mind that is but One. And what inconvenience is there in this ? Do not all Men say , that there are three Persons though but One Divine Nature ? But he would bring a thick Night upon Truth , that gross Errour also might find harb●ur under that Covert .

In the second part of his Answer there seems also to be a supposition as Uncatholick and false as the former . As if the Divine Nature in the three Divine Persons were as One common general Humane Nature in three Men , suppose Pythagoras , Plato , and Socrates ; when as according to St. Austin and others , The Divine Nature is to the three Divine Persons ra●her as the Rational Soul or Mind to the three Powers , Memory , Understanding , and will : ●his is as near as in this impe●scrutable Mystery we can come , speaking in a Parable with that ancient Father . And we must say so rather than acknowledge any similitude with that of the common humane nature in Pythagoras , Plato , and Socrates , least we run into that dreadfull absurdity of making more Gods than One. But now speaking according to the sense of St. Austin , it is plain that that One Divine Nature being not in the three Persons as one general humane nature in three Men , but the Union and mutual inexistence being as that of the Soul and her Powers , it is plain I say , that tha● One Divine Nature will be no more divided from it self by being thus inexistent in the three Persons , than the Soul will be divided from her self by reason of her three Powers , Memory , Understanding , and will , or M●ns , Notitia & Amor , or Sapientia & Amor , which Peter Lumbard contends to be the proper titles of the Son and Holy Ghost ; which also is very consonant to the doctrine of the ancient Phílosophy of the Jews and Greeks touching their Trinit● . And lastly as the Soul is sufficiently divisa ab aliis in a Metaphysical sense , though she be really identi●ed with her three Powers , so is the Divine Nature sufficiently divisa ab aliis though it be identified reall● with the three Persons . So that my Adversar● does here nodum in scirpo qu●rere out of an ill will to the clearness of my Arguments which he would thus obliquely obscure , and teach the Infidel to cavil against the solid Mystery of the Trinity , because neither himself nor any else can make good that false Opinion of Transubstantiation . Which how pious and warrantable an act of him it is , let any man judge . This is onely to cast dust into the eyes of the Vulgar to dishearten them from endeavouring to see the Truth .

His Answer to the Argument from Mathematicks in the sixth Paragraph

This Argument is meer Cob-web stuff , half an eye may look through it ; For these words of the Doctor , ( That a part of the Division is equal to the whole ) either refer to the species ( and then it is false that a part of the Division is equal to the whole ) or they point at the Body of Christ ( and then the words are de subjecto non supponente ) for there is no division of any part of Christs Body from the whole .

The Reply .

I will not say , That my Adversary looks through too thick a Cob-web to discern the force and scope of my Argument . But this I will say , that he has plainly missed it . For the very absurdity that I drive at is , that in dividing suppose an entire consecrated Host into two parts , ( in which one entire consecrated Host there is but one continued Body of Christ , veiled as he says , but co-extended with the species ) that in the dividing this Host or species of the Host if you will , that one continued Body of Christ there before , is discontinued and separated into two as sure as it is in two places at once . And what , I pray you , is this but to be divided into two ? And being Division here is into two intirely the same with the divided , what is it but to be divided into parts of a Division which singly are equal to the whole , contrary to that common Notion in Euclid ? Or if you think this less absurd , to be divided into two wholes ? For they may be called either , in such an Hypothesis , as brings in the con●usion of all things .

His Answer to the Argument from Logick in this sixth Paragraph .

This , says he , is the same in effect with the former and requires no new Answer . Because these his trisling expressions if applied to the separated species are false , if to Christs Body then they proceed upon a false supposition , as hath been declared in my Answer to the third Objection .

The Reply .

That this Argument stands upon the same supposition that the former , I grant , But that the supposition is false I may well deny , having proved it true in my Reply to his former Answer . Nor is this Argument altogether the same in effect , because it illustrates the grand absurdity of the opinion it oppugns from new Maximes . So little tri●ling is the argumentation which I have here produced . But it is the Policy of my Antagonist to slight and make himself merry with such things as are too solid to be really Answered . For this is succedaneous to a real Confu●ation in the eyes of the Vulgar , and it may be of more consequence with them , that are taught not to examine but believe : In which Method he shows himself an egregious Artist in his attaque upon my next Objection , where he begins with some few scoptical and undervaluing Reflections as he calls them . But a Man of his parts and wit cannot but know that they are insignificant to any but the Vulgar , before whom he thinks it very conducing to seem to trample on his Antagonist right loftily acting his part as it were on a Stage .

His Reflections on some Passages in my Argument from that fundamental Principle in Logick and Metaphysicks in this sixth Paragraph , together with my Replies thereunto .

First , saith he , a knowing Reader cannot chuse but smile to see ( Can be ) or a capacity of Being brought in for a piece of an Argument to prove that a thing is not . That individual thing that can be , saith the Doctor , and is to be made of any thing , is not . So my Adversary in his first Reflection . To which I Reply , That some knowing Reader it may be , may not onely smile but laugh quite out while he observes to what pretty shifts my Adversary is pu● , to make the Doctor , as he calls him , seem an old doting fool to the heedless and ignorant . For the knowing Reader will easily discern , that ( That that can be ) is not to be disjoyned from the rest of the sentence , but that ( made ) is to be referred 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 to ( be ) in both places , and that the sense is , ( though the sentence is then less succinct and elegant ) That that individual thing that can be made or is to be made of any thing , is not .

But here he makes another oblique Reflection , and observes how fondly the Doctor playes the confident Dogmatizer asserting as evident , That that individual thing that can be and is to be made of any thing , is not ; As if forsooth it were evidently demonstrable , that that individual thing which is to day in actual being could not possibly be destroyed and made anew again to morrow by a second generation . Reply , This is a very oblique and distorted Reflection indeed and cast off quite from the mark it should aim at ; nor does it at all respicere Titulum , the Argument in hand , which is our ever blessed Saviours Body never to be destroyed . So that this Answer is onely an argute Cavil . For my Antanist is not so short sighted but he could easily discern , that I understand the individual thing I speak of to be such a thing as being once made is not to be destroyed . And therefore to quit my self of my Antagonists crafty Evasions , I will mould my Proposition into a consistence more full and close , that there may be no holes nor chinkes for a slippery wit to creep through , and shall argue t●us That thing that once made is never to be destroyed , when ever it may be truely said of it , That it can be made and is to be made of any thing , it then is not . But the Body of Christ is a thing that once made to exist , is never to be destroyed . Therefore when ever it is truely to be said of it , That it can be made or is to be made of any thing , it then is not . But Transubstantiation even now says , That the Body of Christ can be made and is to be made of Bread or a Wa●er consecrated ; Therefore according to the doctrine of Transubstantiation , the Body of Christ is not But we know certainly and both the Scripture and the Church Universal do restifie , that the Body of Christ is : Therefore if Transubstantiation be true , The Body of Christ both is and is not at the same time , against that Logical and Metaphysical Principle . Idem non potest esse & non esse simul , Is not this as clear as the Meridian Sun ?

But he has not done yet , To say the Body of Christ is to be made of the Consecrate Bread , is suc● an unhappy absurdity with my Antagonist , that he reflects on that in the third place even with the eye of pitty . It is pitty , says he , to observe his words in the next Proposition . The individual Body of Christ is to be made of the Wafer consecrated . Which implies as if the Wafer were the material cause of Christs Body . What Philosophy ever spake so Unphilosophically ? Reply , Good lack ! what Tragedies are here raised upon not an half-penny of harm done ? If my Antagonist had but observed the many significations of 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 in Aristotles Metaphysicks , he might easily have observed more significations of 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 or of , than the Material cause . But he proceeds ,

Yet to make amends he immediately contradicts himself and adds , That the Wafer is turned into his individual Body ; which is a much different thing from being made of the Wafer , Reply , Water is turned into Ice or Crystal or into Wine by a Miracle , and Lead , by Chymical transmutation , into Gold ; how much is that different , from Ice or Crystal and Wine being made of Water , and Gold of Lead ?

But the particle ( for ) saith he , goes beyond wonder . The individual Body of Christ is made of the Wafer Consecrated ( mark the word ) for it is turned into his individual Body : Which is a piece of as Learned Non-sense , as if he said in open terms , Because the Wafer is turned into Christs Body by a total Conversion , which excludes a Material cause , therefore his Body is made of the Wafer by generation , which requires a Material cause . Thus unfortunate are the Arts and Sciences when they ingage against Gods Church . Reply , Would not one think that in this high bluster and swaggering language he had plainly proved his Antagonist a meer dotard in matters of Divinity ? But let us reflect a little on the Reflecter , And first upon his Hyperbolical wonderment on the particle ( for ) . Crystal is made of Water , for Water is turned into Crystal , Vineger made of Wine , for Wine is turned into Vineger , Gold sometime made of Lead , for Lead sometimes is turned into Gold . Is the use of ( for ) in such cases as these so wonderfull ? Or were it not a wonder if ( for ) were not used upon such occasions . And yet my Antagonist cannot abstain from calling it a piece of learned Non-sense ; though not half so Learned as the making of a Child of two spans long , but double to the same Child when but one span long , which yet I had the candour gently to connive at . Nor do I understand any sense in this saying of m● Antagonist , That a total conversion excludes the material Cause , if he will allow the matter to be such . For certainly the whole Bread includes the matter of the Bread as well as the form , and the form perishing , else it were Bread still , what remains but the matter of the Bread to be turned into the Body of Christ and to become formally and individu●lly his Body . And whether this may be called generation or no is a 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ▪ It is no such generation as is ordinarily seen in Nature , but being it is such a conversion , changing or mutation , as whose terminus is substance , ( 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , Physic. lib. 5. says Aristotle 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 it is properly and simpl● generation . So fortunate are the Arts and Sciences when they engage for Gods Church against Errour and Falshood .

But the best jest is yet behind , All the stir and bluster he makes and crowing over me is , because I say , The Body of Christ is made of the Wafer , which is the v●ry language of the School-men and the Fathers . For besides that conficere corpus Christi is an usual phrase with t●em . St. Ambrose plainly says , Vbi accessit consecratio de pane sit Christi caro . And again , Scrmo Christi creaturam mutat & ●ic ex pane fit Corpus Christi . The Body or flesh of Christ is made of the Bread . Which ex pane , according to my Adversaries own sense , designs the material Cause . And St. Austin , Corpus Christi & sanguis virtute Spiritûs sancti ex panis vinique substantia efficitur . The Body and Blood of Christ is made of the substance of the Bread and Wine . No words can signifie the material Cause more fully then these expressions . So that now my Antagonist may clap his wings and crow over St. Austin , and St. Ambrose for their learned Non-sense , as well as over me . Thus unfortunate is humour , wit , and eloquence , when it will ingage against true Religion , sound Philosophy , and right Reason . But he knows this was but a farce to the people , and does ingenuousl ▪ at last acknowledge he has said nothing as yet in Answer to my Argument , in that he says he does but now come to it .

His Answer to the Argument from that Logical and Metaphysical Principle , Nothing can be and not be at the same time , in this sixth Paragraph .

I come now to his Argument , saith he ; Transubstantiation implies that the same thing is and is not at the same time . This , says he , I deny . First , because Physicks have rendred it probable that a thing which actually is may be reproduced without losing its actual existence . And if we should say that Christs Body is thus reproduced in the Sacrament , it will not follow that the Body of Christ is , and is not at once , viz. before the Consecration ; But onely that it is by a first production , and is not by a second production till after the Consecration .

Secondly , That when the Host is converted into the Body of Christ , there is no necessity of the granting of the production of a new Body which was not before , but onely that the Body begins to be where it was not before . As in the augméntation of our Bodies there is no need of a new Soul , but the same Soul occupies those parts of matter that have accrewed to the Body in its augmentation . The first is verbatim out of him . The second Answer contains the full strength of his own words .

The Reply .

To the first Answer I Reply , That it has no basis , For Physicks exhibit no such probability , nor has he nor can he produce the least Instance thereof . But in the mean time it is worth the taking notice of in this Answer , how well assured in his own mind , for all his external cavilling before , my Adversary is , That the meaning of that Proposition of mine , That that individual thing that can be and is to be made of any thing , is not , was intended by me of such things as which once made are not to be destroyed : or in such a sense as this , That that individual thing that can be made or is to be made of any thing , in that point of time that it is to be made , is not . Which is an Axiome noematically true . And therefore to say that a Body is by a first production , but yet still remaining produced is to be again produced entirely , even while it remains produced , that is to say , that it remains produced already in that very point of time that it is to be produced , is plainly to confess that the very same individual thing is produced and not produced , or unproduced at the same time . For the terminus productionis is one and the same individual body A. Now according to Aristotle and the common sense of all men , all production whether Accidental or Essential has its contrary termes and proceeds à Privatione ad Actum , from Privation to Act. So that let A be Accident or Essence , A must be supposed not to be that it may become A , or be made A ; supposing A such an Individual Body , when it is to be produced the Termini Productionis are non-A and A. That which is to be made A , from not being A it becomes A. Otherwise it being the same Individual Body and being before , it could not of not being this Individual Body become this Individual Body A , but onely A would be in a new place . Which is no Essential production as is here supposed , but onely local mutation ; and consequently the Individual Body A is not produced , when it is thus supposed reproduced . And therefore if it be really reproduced , as is pretended , it is a demonstration that it then was not . Wherefore it being certain that our Saviours Body does not cease to be ; if Transubstantiation be true that pretends it reproduced , it necessarily implies that it then is not . And therefore it plainly is and is not , according to that doctrine , at the same time . Besides , if it were possible that A , suppose Socrates , could be produced while Socrates is in being , it can be no otherwise then thus , that is to say , That another man exquisitely Socrates , to whom Socrateity is fully and essentially communicated in all points , is also produced . But then this will also follow , that Socrates is now become a Genus , and this and that Socrates are the species infimae of it , which we usually call Individuals , and so they will not be idem numero but diversa numero and consequently not the same Persons . And so the same Individual Socrates or the same Individual A will be produced and not produced at the same breath . For things that differ numerically cannot be the same Individuals . So impossible every way is this first Fiction , and implies still the same Repugnancy . For i● in the second production , the individual Body of Christ be produced , it necessarily argues that Body before not to be his individual Body , so that his Body then was not , according to the doctrine of , Transubstantia●ion , which yet certainly was , and therefore if that doctrine be true , it is again true , That the Body of Christ is and is not at the same time .

To the second Answer I Reply , First , That it is apparently repugnant to the very Definition of Transubstantiation by the Council of Trent . Which saith , ' That there is a conversion of the whole substance of the Bread into the substance of the Body of Christ . Which , say they , is fitly and properly called Transubstantiation . But if there were no production of the Body of Christ , but onely the causing of it to be where it was not before , this would not be properly Transubstantiation , but mutatio Localis . But in the action of Transubstantiation the terminus is substantia not Locus , it being the transubstantiating one substance into another .

Secondly , If the Body of Christ be not produced , but there be onely mutatio Localis ; the substance of the Bread either remains or is annihilated . That the Bread remains is expresly against the doctrine of the Roman Church . That it is annihilated , is to give the power of Annihilation to a creature which is onely proper to God , and to supose that every consecration of the Host annihilates so much of the matter of the Universe ; which mustneeds seem very harsh and absurd to any unprejudiced Judgement . Besides that there is this palpable repugnancy in it , That whereas Transubstantiation is said to be the conversion of all the substance of the Bread into Christs Body , this plainly implies that there is the conversion of none at all into it , it being all annihilated and exterminated out of the Universe . To say nothing of the Accidents of the Bread remaining after this Annihilation , it being unconceivable where they should be subjected , or that any modes of substance should be separated from their substance , and exist without it . And then to what end it should be that the species of the Bread should appear by the Divine Omnipotency , the substance of Bread being annihilated . When it would conduce far more to our belief of the corporeal Presence of Christ , in lieu of the annihilated Bread , if those species did not appear , or were so changed that they seemed much above the nature of ordinary Bread . Which things being not , it is a plain Judication to the unprejudiced , that the Bread is still Bread after the Consecration . Else God would be found exercising his Omnipotency , in exhibiting such perfest species of Bread and Wine in such a way as is most effectual to drive all Christians to the misbelief of the pretended Mystery of Transubstantiation : Which were a grand absurdity and incompe●ible to the Divine Wisdom and Goodness , if that Mystery were true .

And thirdly and lastly , for his quaint allusion to the Soul , which being the same yet extends it self into new parts of matter accrewing to the Body in its augmentation ; it is a pretty offer of wit , but in my apprehension it extremely falls short of the present Case . For the Soul being still one and the same Spirit undistanced from it self and uninterrupted can contract and extend it self within moderate bounds . But to imagine Christs Body in Heaven by extending it self from thence to the Earth upon every consecration of the Host , continuedly , so to become present where it was not , is to make him even perpetuall● in a manner to have a monstrously big and mishapen Body , stretched out into parts God knows how many Thousand miles long , which any judicious minde and of a quick sense cannot but hugely abhor from thinking on . But this being not , He must either come down from Heaven upon the Consecration and Annihilation of the Bread , leaving Heaven quite for the time , and ever and anon travail on Earth , and so swiftly as to be in many places at once , and some many Thousand miles distant one from another , which how absurd it is has been often intimated ; which also seems to clash with , Acts 3. 21. Or else as it were taking leave of himself in Heaven and parting from himself and yet leaving himself behind he comes down to supply the room of the annihilated Bread . Orlastly , he is present in the room of the said Bread , without at all passing from Heaven to Earth . Both which seem altogether impossible and unconceivable , For how can one and the same Body go from a place and yet leave it self entirely behind in the said place , and so as it were divide it self entirely from it self ? Or how is it possible it should be found in two distant places , without passing at least as great a space as that which lyes directly betwixt ? These things are clearly and perfectly impossible . And if they were not , yet are they quite beside the cushion , this Answer balking the doctrine of Transubstantiation established by the Council of Trent .

So plain is it every way , That neither this nor his former Answer enervates any thing the force of my Argument which proves that Transubstantiation implies that the same thing is and is not at once . And therefore this Argument together with all the former against Transubstantiation , notwithstanding all the Assaults of my Adversary , remaining so manifestly strong and invincible , let the impartial Reader judge whether I have cryed Victory before my time or behaved my self any way in down-bearing words Hector-like , as he says , and not rather like a true Trojan , or to speak more properly in so weighty a Cause , like a sincere Christian , speaking the Truth from my very heart , as I find it in the innate and indeleble characters writ by Gods own finger in the understandings of all Men that will open their eyes to Read them , even those indubitable first principles of Physicks , Metaphysicks , Mathematicks , and Logick , and the common sense of all mankind , learned and unlearned . So far am I from those Arts and sleights of Men , who managing a wrong Cause do swagger and vapour to set off a fals●ood . Truth needs no such ill Artifices of wit ; My Adversary indeed swaggers much here in bearing us in hand that the difficulties of the Trinity are equal or greater then these of Transubstantiation , and so harpes again on the same string , but to this I have sufficiently Answered above , and yet it may be I may touch upon it again in the close of my next Reply .

His Answer to the eight Paragraph touching Costerus the Jesuite .

My Antagonist does altogether decline saying any thing to my seventh Paragraph , which I desire my Reader considerately to peruse , and observe the great judgement and discretion of my Opponent in so doing . But to that about Costerus in this eighth Paragraph he Answers thus . Here is , saith he , the ground of Costerus his concession , That if the true Body of Christ be not in the Sacrament of the Eucharist , the Church of Rome in that point is in such errour and Idolatry as never was seen or heard of . Namely , because Christ then had dealt unworthily with his Church , in leaving them to fall into such Idolatry by occasion of his own words , and by consequence would not be the true Christ ; And therefore the adoration of the Eucharist would be not onely a mistake as to the Circumstance but also as to the Object , there being no such adorable Object in the world as a true Christ according to this supposition , and so the Cultus Latriae would be exhibited to a meer Creature . And adds , That if Transubstantiation can be proved a meer Figment he will willingly grant as much as Costerus to the full . This is the main of his Answer and the full strength thereof .

The Reply .

This is an adventurous Answer indeed which hazards the Divinity of Christ , nay the making him an Impostor and all the Churches of Christendom single Idolaters at least , and themselves double Idolaters , who then Worship not onely a meer Man , but the symbolical presence of a meer Man , which is double Idolatry by Conclusion 19th . Chap. 2. but this is a cunning though a very evil fetch of my Adversary meerly to elude the Testimony of Costerus , viz That the Divinity of Christ standing , and he still acknowledged the true Christ , ●et the Adoration of the Eucharist is Idolatry , un●●s Transubstantiation be true . Which most certainly is the sense of Costerus in that place , Chap. 12. N. 10. nor did he dream of any such consequence as my Adversary pins upon him ; as if he meant that then Christ would not be the true Christ if Transubstantiation were not true , and that thence the Idolatry would proceed . But I will set the whole argumentation of Costerus before my Readers eyes , and let him judge , whether his Argument be such as my Adversary pretends . If in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the true Body of Christ be not contained , Christ dealt unworthily with his Church , whom throughout the world for 1500 years together , he has by occasion of his own words left in such errour and Idolatry as was never in the whole world seen or heard of . And then follows that which I have cited in this eighth Paragraph . For the errours of those , &c. which makes up the whole Argument .

Where I Observe , First , that there is not the least men ion or intimation , That Christ would not be Christ if his words , This is my Body , did not signifie properly but ●iguratively , but rather firmely supposing him to be Christ , he would not do any thing so unworthy of his own Office and Dignity ▪ as to use words in such a way as should occasion the Church to plunge into so foul Idolatry for so long a time ; acknowledging that it would be Idolatry though he were the true Christ , but that he being so would not use such words but in their proper sense , that he might not occasion that Idolatry . I say in the first place , there is no such thing in this place of Costerus as my Antagonist puts upon him . And then secondly I affirm , That no man in his wits could be so devoid of either Reason or Piety , as to say , in good earnest , That if these words of Christ , This is my Body , be to be understood figuratively , and not literally or properly , Christ is an Impostor , that is , is not the true Christ , which is expresly the sense which my Antagonist would pin upon this passage of Costerus . For first it is well known that it is usual in the Hebrew idiome , in which Christ spake , as it is not unfrequent also in other tongues , to use the verb substantive [ est ] when the subject and predicate in a proposition is signum and significatum , or if you will when the subject and predicate are those Arguments which Logicians call Similia . So our Saviour ●ays elsewhere , I am the Vine , I am the door . And St. Paul says , 1 Cor. 10. 4 The rock was Christ ; besides the examples I have produced in the foregoing Paragraph . Will any Body therefore that has the least dram of Reason or Religion in him , when , ( This is my Body ) may so naturally , and according to the idiome of the ●ongue signifie , This is the sign or symbol of my Body , or this is the Representation of my Body , that is to be broken or crucified for you , affirm , that unless it signifie , This is my very Body indeed , flesh , blood , and bones , Christ must be an Impostor ? Nay when Christ himself so plainly affirms , ( Mat●h. 26. 26. ) that it is Bread For he affirms of that Bread which he had used no consecration to , that even that was his Body .

Indeed if he had first done something to it for the transmutation of it , and then taken it up and said , This is my Body , here had been more colour of pretence , that it was not ordinary Bread . But he says of this Bread as yet unconsecrated , That it is his Body , and therefore he plainly affirms , that Bread remaining still really Bread is his Body , which can be in no sense so but in a figurative one , that is to say , That it is the sign or symbol of his Body ; Wherefore when our Saviour does so plainly affirm , that the Bread is but the symbol of his Body , is it any fault in him , that the Church of Rome or any lapsed Church else will so perversly and absurdly understand it , as if it were the very Body of Christ it self upon Consecration ? as if our Saviour Christ had declared it so to be ?

And besides this affirmation of our Saviour we may add the Attestation of his Evangelists , whom he lead into all Truth . Does not St. Luke expresly say , C●ap . 22. 19. He took Bread and gave thanks and brake and gave it to them saying , This is my Body which was given for you , do this in remembrance of me . What can possibl● be more plain then this ? He gave what he brake , he brake what he took , and what he took was Bread , and of this Bread which he gave , brake and took , he says , This is my Body ; Wherefore it is evident that of the Bread he pronounced , according to the Testimony of St. Luke , That it was his Body . But Bread cannot be his Body otherwise then symbolically , or by way of token or remembrance , and therefore he adds , Do this in remembrance of me . Now memory is not of things present but of things absent . All which circumstances do so emphatically import , that the Bread is but still a sign not the Body of Christ himself , that the most cautious Lawyer could scarce express any ones mind in a conveyance more certainly and expresly . And yet our Saviour must be an Impostor if he did not mean by This is my Body , This is my real Body , the same that hung upon the Cross , and was born of the Virgin Mary . Can there be any thing more injurious to Christ and Christian Religion then this ?

Add unto all this , That besides that Christ himself and the Evangelists declare that it is Bread and not the natural Body of Christ , it is demonstratively impossible to be so , and openly repugnant to all our senses , which alone would assoile our Saviour from being an Impostor , the words being easily to be understood in a figurative sense .

But I hope by this , my Adversary blushes that 〈◊〉 has pinned so uncouth and incredible a sense on this Argument of Costerus , and will acknowledge that Costerus used this Argument onely as a probability ; namely , That Christ being so certainly the true Christ , it is not probable that he would deal so unworthily with his Church as by these words , This is my Body , occasion so great Idolatry in this Artolatria , or Bread worship continued so long in it , and that therefore it is not Bread , but the real Body of Christ ; which yet is as well argued or rather far worse , then if the Anthropomorphites of old should have argued thus : That certainly God would not have dealt so unworthily with his Church , as to occasion so hideous an errour and blasphemy , that the eternal God has limbes and shape like a Man , from those words , Let us make man after our own Image , if so be he have not so . And that therefore he has the lineaments and shape of a Man .

But besides this , where there is no pretense from Scripture to any such thing , it is plain that the Church for as long a time have defiled themselves with the Invocation of Saints and worshipping of Images , which are gross Idolatries as well as this ; nay indeed when the Scripture is expresly against it . Which yet , if you will believe the Romanists themselves , have possessed the Church as many hundred years as this worshipping of the Eucharist , though they be all really Innovations upon the lapse of the Church , as the skilfull in Antiquity do abundantly prove . And for this gross errour of Transubstantiation , it was not confirmed by any Council till about 1200 after Christ .

Wherefore what an intolerable injury and calumny is it against the sacred Person of Christ , to cast this Bread-worship upon him , as if by the occasion o● his words it was introduced , when indeed both against his words and against all sense and Reason the lapse and corruption of the Church has broug●t it in with other Idolatrous opinions and mispractises . But when all this is so , to say Christ is not Christ , that is , That Christ is an Impostor , if these words , This is my Body , be not literally to be understood , as if it were his very true natural Body , flesh , blood , and bones , I leave to any one to judge , if it be not so groundless and so hideous a reproach , that it will be hard to find any name ill enough for it .

And here I profess , I cannot but stand i●finitely astonish'd at the bold Rhetorick of my Adversary , and such like Patrons of the Roman Cause : who for the swaggering of the credulous people into a belief of Transubstantiation , do not stick to own it as reasonable and certain as that Iesus is the Messias , or that the Mystery of the holy Trinity is true . When as the Mystery of the holy Trinity has been no less then three or four times confirmed by general Councils in the more pure Times of the Church , before her grand Apostasy , and Christ always held the true Messias , nor can it be doubted but he is so by any that is a Christian ; and may be demonstrated to be so to any that do doubt , if they approve themselves but idoneous Auditors . Nor can there be any Reason or demonstration brought against the Mystery of the holy Trinity , ●o far forth as the Scripture and the ancient Councils have defined any thing therein ; But the Triunity of the eternal Deity has seemed to the best and wisest Philosophers so reasonable and venerable a Tradition , that without any force or fear of any external Power , they have embraced it of themselves and spoken many things therein very cons●nant to the Christian verity . And therefore this Myster● , though it be competently obscure , whereby it becomes more venerable , to say it is as repugnant and as impossible to Reason as Transubstantiation , whenas it was Confirmed by so many general Councils in the purer times of the Church , and intimated by so many places of Scripture , as also is the Divinity of Christ most expresly and indubitably , and his Messias-ship not questioned bv any Christian ; to set these Fundamentals of our Religion on the same tickle point , nay on the same impossible point that Transubstantiation stands upon , not countenanced by any Council , till about four or five hundreds years ago , and repugnant to Scripture and Common sen●e , and to the very first Principles of all solid knowledge and science , were it not charitably to be interpreted a ranting piece of Rhetorick to befool the ●ulgar ; as if they would say , As sure as Christ is the Messias and that the Mystery of his Divinity and of the Triunity of the Godhead is true , Transubstantiation is so ; it● ere either a careless disregard what became of Christianity , or a subdolous and operose endeavour of betraying it , and oblique insinuation , that Transubstantiation and the rest of those Mysteries of our Religion are alike false and impossible . But I hope better things of my Adversary , and that he is rather an over officious propugner of a beloved falshood , and of so great interest to his Church , then a sly Impugner or Betrayer of these sacred Truths .

And now , I hope , I have fully cleared all the Objections that my Antagonist has brought against this third Chapter , or any Paragraph therein : So that it remains invincible and unshaken , That the Opinion of Transubstantiation is not onely false but impossible , and consequently the Adoration of the Eucharist palpable Idolatry . Which my Adversary himself cannot deny , no more than Franciscus C●sterus who has so expresly affirmed it , as I have shewed in this eighth Paragraph .

As for that further o●fer towards a plausibilility for the Truth of Transubstantiation , ( for the Mystery of the holy Trinity wants no such small apologies ) that the seeming Impossibility thereof , is an Argument of its being a doctrine Divinely inspired , and that that saying rightly here takes place , The more incredible the more credible : These are fine Lullaby-songs to be sung to babies half asleep ; But we have most evidently demonstrated , even as clear as Noon-day , that Transubstantiation is not a seeming Impossibility but a palpable and real one . And as for that saying , The more incredible the more credible , it is a foundation so large , that all the Figments , even the most extravagant of all the Religions of the World may equally be founded upon it , and by how much more incredible and impossible any Figment , is by so much the more stronger faith it ought to obtain , and may the more firmly be supported by this Foundation . For the more impossible the more incredible , the more incredible the more credible . As for example , the more incredible it is that Mahomet put the Moon into his bosome , and that it came out at each sleeve divided into two , and that he straitways sodered it together , and sent it back whole to Heaven again , the more incredible this story is , the more credible it is . That is , saith my Antagonist , ( for he explains this venerable Aphorism ) By how much the more incredible the Mystery is ; if we onely consult our senses and the bare sentiments of the natural Man , by so much the more credible it is that there lyes a Divine Revelation at the bottom . Cannot the Mahumetan defend his Religion as wisely as thus from this ground ?

It is not a sign of our meer natural or unregenerate estate when we will not nor can believe things that are apparently repugnant to the indeleble Principles of natural Understanding . But it is a sign of their being the slaves of the Man of sin in a doub ●esense , who can swallow such gudgeons . For for this cause God sends them strong delusions , saith the Apostle , ( 2 Thes. 2. ) that they may believe alye , because they love not the Truth but have pleasure in unrighteousness . But ( Iohn 8. 36. ) if the Son makes us free by his spirit of real Regeneration , then are we free indeed , even from all such Impostures as these , while the world ( Apoc. 17. 8. ) wonders after the Boast , and the strange stories that he utters . But we know who those are that are excluded out of the holy City , even every one that ( Apoc. 22. 15. ) loves and makes a lye , and those certainly are none of the Regenerate . And who should those be that love and embrace l●es , but those that take up such Principles that they cannot discern a lye or withhold their assent from it ? For the more Impossible , which should turn any Mans stomach from believing , makes it but the more Incredible , and the more Incredible the more Credible .

But we have harped too long on a string which will sound over harsh to such ears as are less accustomed to Truth . My main purpose I had dispatch'd before , But I could not but say something to the fine popular fetches of my Adversarie , who cunningly insinuates into the minds of the unskilfull and simple , that it is a sign of a more then ordinary Religious and regenerate estate , far removed above the meer natural Man , to believe things that are plainly and apertly repugnant to the light of Nature and right Reason . For this is such a gap as may let in the grossest falsities and Immoralities that can be invented , and that upon the shew of Religion and Supernaturality . For giving up their faith to their Priest and his Church , the more incredible the Act to be good or Doctrine true , the more credible . What therefore may not Men be brought to believe and act upon so unsound a Principle ? I pass now to his fourth Section , which encounters all my three next Chapters at once .

CHAP. IV. The gross Idolatry of the Romanists in the Invocation of the Saints even according to the allowance of the Council of Trent , and the authorized practice of that Church .

1. BUT we will fall also upon those Modes of Idolatry wherein the Church of Rome may seem less bold ; though indeed this one , that is so gross , is so often and so universally repeated every-where in the Roman Church , that by this alone , though we should take notice of nothing farther , Idolatry may seem quite to have overspread her like a noisom Leprosy . But , how-ever , we shall proceed ; and first to their Invocation of Saints . Touching which the Council of Trent declares this Doctrine expresly : Con●il . Trident. Sess 9. Sanctos utique unà cum Christo regnantes Orationes suas pro hominibus offerre , bon●mque atque utile esse suppliciter eos invocare ; & ob beneficia impetranda à Deo per Filium ejus Jesum Christum , ad eorum oratines , operam auxiliumque confugere . Where Invocation of Saints is plainly allow'd and recommended : and besides their praying for us , or offering up our Prayers to God , it is plainly imply'd that there are other Aids and Succours they can afford , if they be supplicated , that is , invoked with most humble and prostrate Devotion . And the pretending that this is all but the way of procuring those good things we want from God , the first Fountain , and that through his Son ●hrist ; that makes the Saints the more exactly like the Pagans Dii medioxumi , and the Daemons that negotiated the affairs of men with the highest Deity .

2. I say then that , though they went no farther then thus , even this is down-right Idolatry which the Council of Trent thus openly owns , ( and consequently the whole Church of Rome , ) as appears from the third , fourth , fifth , sixth and eighth Conclusions of the first Chapter ; as also by the fifth , seventh , eighth , tenth , eleventh , twelfth , thirteenth , fourteenth , fifteenth and twenty-fourth of the second . But if we examine those Prayers that are put up to the Saints , their Invocation is still the more unexcusable .

3. Wherefore looking to the publick Practise of the Church of Rome , authorised by the Popes themselves , the Invocation of a Saint does not consist in a meer Ora pro nobis , as people are too forward to phansy that the state of the Question , ( though the meer invoking of them to pray for us would be Idolatry , as is already proved : ) but , which is insinuated in the Council it self , there are other more particular Aids and Succours that they implore of them , and some such as it is proper for none but God or christ to give : Such as Protection from the Devil , Divine Graces , and the Joys of Paradise . But as the things they ask of the Saints are too big for them to be the Disposers of ; so the Compellations , of the Virgin Mary especially , are above the nature of any Creature . Whence this Invocation of Saints will appear a most gross and palpable Mode of Idolatry in that Church . As I shall make manifest out of the following Examples , taken out of such pieces of Dèvotion as are not mutter'd in the corners of their Closets , but are publickly read or sung with Stentorian Voices in their very Churches . I will onely give the Reader a taste of this kind of their Idolatry ; for it were infinite to produce all we might .

4. And first , to begin with the smaller Saints , ( as indeed they are all to be reckoned in comparison of the blessed Virgin , to whom therefore they give that Worship which they call Hyperdulia , as they give Dulia to the rest of the Saints , and Latria to God alone , and to Christ as being God : ) That Prayer to S. Cosmas and S. Damian is plainly a Petition to them to keep us from all Diseases , as well of Soul as of Body , that we may attain to the life of the Spirit , and live in Grace here , and be made partakers of Heaven hereafter .

O Medici piissimi , Qui Meritis clarissimi In Coelis refulgetis , A peste , clade corporum Pr●servetis , & operum , Moribus nè langueamus : Nec moriamur spiritu , Sed Animae ab obitu Velociter surgamus ; Et vivamus in Gratia , Sacra Coeli palatia Donec regrediamur .

5. Such a piece of Devotion as this is that to S. Francis : Sancte Francisce , properè veni ; Pater , accelera ad populum , qui premitur & territur sub onere , palea , luto , latere , & sepultos Aegyptio sub sabulo nos libera , carnis extincto vitio . Which is plainly a Prayer to this Saint that he would deliver us from the bondage and drudgery of Sin , which is onely in the power of our great Saviour and Redeemer Christ for to do .

That Invocation of S. Andrew is also for that spiritual Grace of duly Bearing the Cross here , that we may obtain Heaven afterwards . Iam nos foveto languidos , Curámque nostrî suscipe , Qu● per Crucis victoriam Coeli pet●mus gratiam . But that to S. Nicolas is against the Assaults of the Devil : Ergò piè nos exaudi Assistentes tu● laudi , Nè subdamur Hostis fraudi , Nobis fer auxilia . Nos ab omni malo ducas , Vitâ rectâ nos conducas , Post ●anc vitam nos inducas Ad aeterna gaudia . The like Devotion is done to S. Martin , S. Andrew , S. Iames , S. Bartko●omew , and others , though not in the same words .

6. When I have given an example or two of their Prayers put up to their She-Saints , ● shall a little more copiously insist on those to the blessed Virgin . They beg of S. Agnes the greatest Grace that God is able to impart to the Soul of man , that is to say , to serve God in perfect Love . And this Gift this one poor single She-Saint is solicited to bestow on all men . Ave , Agnes gloriosa Me in fide serves recta , Dulcis Virgo & dilecta , Te exoro precibus : Charitate da perfectâ Deum , per quem es electa , Colere piè omnibus . That Devotion put up to S. Br●gitt is , that she would play the skilfull Pilot , and lead us through all the tempests and hazzards of this World so safely , that at last , by her good Conduct , we may attain to everlasting Life . The Rhyme runs thus : O Bregitta , mater bona , Dulcis Ductrix & Matrona , Nobis fer suffragia ; Naufragantes in hoc Mari Tuo ductu salutari Duc ad vitae bravia .

7. But that to S. Cath●rine is a piece of Devotion something of an higher strain , or rather more copious and express : But so great a Boon they beg of her as is in the power of none to give but God alone .

Ave , Virgo Dei digna , Christo prece me consigna , Audi Preces , praesta Votum ; Cor in bono fac immotum . Confer mi●i Cor contritum ; Rege Visum & Auditum : R●ge Gustum & ●lfactum , Virgo sancta , rege Tactum . Vt in cunctis te regente , Vivam Deo pur● mente . Christum pro me interpella , Salva Mortis de procella . Superare fac me Mundum , Nè demergar in profundum , Nè me sinas naufragari Per Peccata in hoc Mari. Visita tu me infirmum , Et in bonis fac me firmum . Agonista Dei fortis , Praestò sis in hora mortis . Decumbentem fove , leva , Et de morte solve saeva ; Vt resurgam novus homo Civis in coelesti domo .

8. Now it is observable in this devotional Rhyme to S. Catharine , that whereas the Council of Trent advises men , ad sanctorum orationes , opem auxiliumque confugere , that in these many Verses there are not passing two or three that are an entreating of the Saint to pray for us , but to aid and succour us in such a way as the Story of the Saint and the Allusion to her Name most naturally leads the phancy of the Devotionist to think sutable for her : As if she were the giver of Courage , of Patience , and of Purity of mind , and was to comfort and support us in the very Agony of death by her presence . Which Petition is very frequent to other Saints also . So plain a thing is it , that this Invocation of the Saints is not a mere desiring of them to pray for us .

But here the Devotionist commits the whole Regimen of both his Soul and Body unto this Saint , to rule all his Faculties and senses , and begs so high Vertues and Graces , as that none but God can supply us with them ; as I intimated at first . Whence the Invocation upon that very account also must appear most grosly Idolatrous , as Gro●ius , who yet is no such foe to the Papists , does expresly acknowledge and declare .

CHAP. IV.

His Answer to the first and second Paragraphs in this Chapter .

This the Doctor ( namely what the Council of Trent has defined in the first Paragraph ) termes the making the Saints more exactly like the Pagans Dii Medioxumi , and the Daemons that negotiated the affairs of men with the highest Deity . Now to prove that this kind of invocation of Saints is down right Idolatry , and by consequence that we are worshippers of false Gods , he conjures up a Spirit , which ●or it s many names and bad qualities may well be termed Legion , viz. the third , fourth , fifth , sixth , and eighth Conclusions of the first Chapter . As also , the fifth , seventh , eighth , tenth , eleventh , twelfth , thirteenth , fourteenth , fifteenth , and twenty fourth Conclusions of the second Chapter . But I ●ope my Answer to these Conclusions , in the first and second Section of this Discourse , will prove Exorcisme enough to lay this foul unclean Spirit of ●alumny , and silence its Impertinencies .

The Reply .

THis Answer would recommend it self from a scheme of confidence and unexpected piece o● Drollery ; he phancying , as it seems , every n●mber writ in words at length , of the fifteen Conclusions I refer to in my second Paragraph , so many figures cast to conjure up a Legion of Devils . But he must remember that there are Legions of good Angels also , and that such were those that Michael was General over when he fought against the red Dragon . And these Conclusions of mine do fight against the red Dragon revived , that Idolatry too too Paganical ( though gilded over with the fair pretense of Christianity ) that is so visible in the Church of Rome . So that if these Conclusions be a Legion , they are a Legion under Michael and therefore good Angels , and victorious as his were notwithstanding the boast of my Adversary . For I have most clearly proved above , that he has produced nothing to enervate them . And therefore these Conclusions remaining firm , even according to my Adversaries own Concession that which I declare in this second Paragraph is firm also , viz. That what the Council of Trent doth openly own in my first Paragraph is down right Idolatry . For my Adversary has no way to avoid it but by recourse to his Confuations of the above said Conclusions . Which I have apparently demonstrated already to be no Confutations at all , in my Replies to them , which is needless here to repeat . And therefore I go on to his further Answers to these three Chapters , which are all of them in a manner in general : As first ,

His first general Answer touching the fourth , fifth , and sixth Chapters of my Antidote .

In the rest of his fourth and two ensuing Chapters , saith he , the Doctor acts a new Person . For laying aside his former Conclusions and Demonstrations , he trades now wholly in Quotations , languishing or doting about Questions and strife of words .

The Reply .

I perceive nothing by my self but that I am the same person still , but having out of the Conclusions named in the second Paragraph demonstrated such an Invocation of Saints , as the Council of Trent approves of and requires , to be down right Idolatry , which common people pretend to be no more than an Ora pro nobis , which yet is Idolatry too ; I go on not languishing , but hail and hearty , I thank God , nor doting at all I hope , but rationally deducing from the forms of Invocation used in the Roman Church , that they naturally and plainly signifie more than an Ora pro nobis . And it is the force and distorsion that my Adversary and his party ordinarily use to excuse these things , that raises Questions and strife of words ; when if they did not use this art and force to distort the sense of them , there could be no strife at all .

His second general Answer .

Amongst these Quotations we are to meet with a great dearth of Reason : three entire Chapters having much ado to furnish out matter for one argument , and that a poor one , God knows .

The Reply .

Every form of Invocation is a Reason for the Conclusion I aim at , which is to prove from either the manner of compellation , or from the nature of the Objects of the Prayers made to the Saints , that the Invocation is Idolatry , and a crass kind of one too . How then is the Argument but one ? and how a poor one ? This is plainly intimated in the third Paragraph of this fourth Chapter .

His third general Answer .

My business is , saith he , to lay down and amuse my Reader with a number of let Forms of Invocation of Saints , scarce ever mentioning the Churches Publick Prayers and Liturgies , Litany , Canonical hours , Pontifical or Ritual , but the Rosary of our Lady and the Mary Psalter .

The Reply .

I thought it sufficient in my third Paragraph to signifie in general , that the examples I give are taken out of such pieces of Devotion as are not muttered in the corners of their Closets , but are publickly Read or Sung with Stentorian voices in their very Churches . I suppose my Antagonist does not expect I should set down in what Churches they are Sung , but to what Saints , which may be done in several Churches .

His fourth general Answer .

As to the Fidelity of his Quotations , saith he , I can neither accuse nor acquit him . But I shall allow him all the fair play in the world by supposing his Allegations to be true , and freely take them upon trust : Though his carriage hitherto gives no great Cause to suspect him guilty of too much candor in that kind .

The Reply .

To which I briefly Reply , That I have set down all things in this book bonâ fide , without any design of imposing any way upon any one , writing nothing , but what I am in my own Conscience perswaded to be true . Nor can imagine what my Adversary should mean by saying , That his carriage hitherto gives no great Cause to suspect him guilty of too much candor in that kind . I would not do any thing of this kind knowingly and wittingly for any thing in the World . How ingenuously he deals with me in this , let his own Conscience tell him ; which he seems to indeavour to satisfie by the Equivocalness of the Calumny .

His fifth general Answer .

That since the new charge of Idolatry from all these forms of Invocation of the Virgin Mary and other Saints is this , That their Suppliants ask of them such things as are onely in the Power of our great Saviour and Redeemer Iesus Christ to grant , let us single out , saith he , one of the most harsh sounding forms of Invocation that is to be found in all the three Chapters , suppose Domina salvum me fac , Blessed Lady save me , and if this may admit of an Orthodox sense , and that by clear warrant from Scripture , then I hope the rest that are not so seemingly unjustifiable as this , may in all reason be excused from that odious Epithet of Idolatrous . Now , says he , it is very possible , that he that makes this form of Invocation a piece of his Litany , Domina salvum me fac , Blessed Lady save me , may be in no more danger of Idolatry thereby than St. Paul was when writing to the Romans ( Rom. 11. 14. ) he uttered these words , If by any means I may provoke to emulation those which are of my flesh and might save some of them . Or when he speaks to the Corinthians ( 1 Cor. 9. 22. ) I am made all things to all men that by any means I may save some . And therefore if any well-meaning suppliant had prayed to the Apostle in this very form of Prayer , Holy Apostle save me ; What Idolatry had it been to petition St. Paul for a favour which he professed himself both ready and able to grant . For here the Apostle clearly supposeth in himself not onely the Will but the Power of saving Souls . My Adversary uses larger circuits and ambages of wit and Rhetorick , but this is the very substance of his Argument , and such as wherewith he would elude the force of all my cited formes of their Invocation of Saints . But how well he can effect it we shall see in the process of the matter .

The Reply .

I Reply therefore , that though my Antagonist have used a great deal of plausible wit and smoothmouthed Eloquence , yet what he has said is far from solid Truth . For to omit for the present that this form of Praying , Domina salvum me fac , is not the harshest passage in all my Quotations , yet it is so harsh that those sayings of St. Paul to the Romans and Corinthians will not justifie it . For we must remember that St. Paul elsewhere says , 1 Cor. 3. 6. that Paul may plant and Apollos may water but God gives the increase ; whereby he plainly declares it not to be in his power nor in any ones power else to save a man from eternal death . But that it is in the Power of God alone . And therefore it is evident that in those places he professes onely that he used all the means he could or the most seasonable he could to save them But no Logick will ever evince , that therefore he thought it to be or that it was in his power to save them he speaks of , but onely to use his best indeavour in his subordinate way of action and leave the success to God . And therefore it is rashly and falsly imputed to the Apostle both against his own profession and against the truth of the thing , namely , That he clearly supposes in himself not onely the will but the power of saving Souls ; Which are the very words of my Antagonist .

And I do not question , but if any one had in his time been so silly or wicked as to have kneeled to St. Paul with eyes and hands lifted up to him and said , Holy Apostle save me , he would have rent his garments and protested against it as an enormous and Idolatrous petition , and have been carryed with a great deal of zeal and indignation against so sinfull an Action ; As Iacob was moved against Rachel , when she said to him , Gen. 30. give me children or else I dye . To whom the Patriarch replied with much anger , What am I in Gods sted ? intimating what an impious and idolatrous act it was , so bluntly and absolutely to ask that of him which was onely in the Power of God to give . Lo , children and the fruit of the womb are an heritage and gift that cometh of the Lord , saith the Psalmist , Psal. 127. 4. How much more then is it , to be made a child of God and an Inheriter of eternal Salvation . This is in no Mortals power to give and therefore cannot be asked of any Creature without Impiety and Idolatry by Conclusion the 8th . Chapter 2. And therefore , Holy Paul save me , could not but have seemed to the Apostle a Petition blasphemous and Idolatrous , nor could he have well born that compellation of Holy Apostle without some reproof like that of our Saviour to him that called him good Master , Mat. 19. 17. why callest thou me good , there is none good but onely God . But we out of the rash Idea's of our own corrupt minds phancy such things gratefull or tolerable to the Apostle , which would really have proved horrid and intolerable to him .

His sixth general Answer .

But yet as if the Apostle had in himself the power of saving Souls , ( they are his own words ) and as if this Petition , Holy Apostle save me , were a lawfull and blameless Petition , he further would improve the supposition thus , That forasmuch notwithstanding as the Apostle has not in himself the power of saving Souls , in the quality of a God , but as instrumental to their Salvation by his Prayers and Preaching , it is manifest that Holy Apostle save me , can signify no more than Holy Apostle teach me the way of Salvation , or Holy Apostle pray for my Salvation : And yet this form of , Holy Apostle save me , being legitimate , it will follow that , ( taking our measures from the Apostles o●n words and meaning ) Blessed Lady save me , will also be a lawfull form of Prayer , it signifying no more , than Blessed Lady pray for my Salvation . And so all the forms of Prayer , saith he , assigned by the Doctor taken in the sense of the Apostle will amount to no more than a meer Ora pro nobis . And thus with her in the Proverbs , Prov. 30. 20. he has neatly wiped , as he makes show , his own mouth , and the mouth of his party , and says , we have done no wickednss .

The Reply .

There are two things asserted in this Answer , First , that all the forms of Invocation that I have recited in these three Chapters amount to no more than a meer Ora pro nobis . And then , that this is deducible from such grounds . Now as to the first , as I shall more particularly confute that Assertion , when I shall afterwards run through the Paragraphs of these Chapters , so I shall here in general intimate that the Assertion is plainly repugnant to the very words of the Council of Trent : Which says , That it is good and profitable ad Sanctorum orationes , opem , auxiliumque confugere , where besides their Prayers and Intercessions , there are other helps and assistences intimated . And therefore these Forms of Invocation I have recited in these Chapters , mentioning other help and assistence , besides their praying and interceding for their Suppliants , how is it possible but according to the indication of the Council they understand these Helps and Assistences , as things distinct from their meer Interceding or Praying for us .

But now I further say , That the grounds here offered of this Assertion , will not hold . For first I have already proved , that the Apostle does not affirm any Power in himself of saving Souls , there being no such Power in him ; nor his words to the Romans and Corinthians implying any such thing , and himself elsewhere professing against it . So that he has not the power of saving of Souls in himself , neither in the quality of a God , nor in any sense . For to have the power of saving of Souls in himself as an Instrument , is a repugnancy , and plainly implies that he has not the power of saving of Souls in himself , no more then a chissel has of carving in it self , or a pencil of limming , or an Harp or Lute of playing a lesson . And therefore , Holy Apostle save me , would be as good sense as , Lute or Harp play me a lesson . Indeed David says , Psalm . 57. Awake Lute and Harp . But then by a seasonable Epanorthosis he straitway adds , I my self will awake right early : For if he get not up before them and finger them , they will certainly lye dumb and silent . And so is the very word whether writ or spoken by the Apostle or others ; so are all Prayers put up by any one , if the Spirit does not assist and God say Amen to their Prayers , all is ineffectual , all is as perfect dumbness and silence as in an Instrument hung up against the wall . Besides that the mere Praying to another that a thing may be granted is a plain Argument , that the thing is not in that parties power that so devoutly askes it . So that though there be a great deal of fineness and subtilty in these Arguments of my Adversary , yet we see they are plainly intangled and contradict one another . And therefore it is not sense , bluntly and absolutely to ask that of one that is not in his power to give , but onely to try and intreat it , if he can so procure it of another .

It is manifest therefore , that Holy Apostle save me , and Blessed Lady save me , are groundless and incongruous forms of speech , and plainly ●ignifie that to be asked of a Creature which is not in the power of any to give but God alone . ( Iohn 6. 44. No man comes to me unless my Father draw him , ) and consequently the implying that to be in the Creature which onely is in the Creatour , are Idolatrous forms of speech by the eighth Conclusion of the second Chapter . And thus we see my Adversary is far from proving by this fetch , That all the forms of Invocation which I have recited amount to no more than an Ora pro nobis . Which though it were true , as it is most manifestly false , yet the Reader is to remember , they are down right Idolatry by the second Paragraph of this Chapter . And most Paganically so while these Petitions are put up before the Image , at the Altar , and in the Temple dedicated to this or that Saint . And thus I have fully Replied in the general to the general Answers of my Antagonist to these three Chapters , which are all the Answers he has given . I shall take occasion to make some more particular Replies to some of them as I run through the Paragraphs of these Chapters , especially in reference to his last general Answer and his second , proving plainly , that the sense of these Invocations are more than an Ora pro nobis . And that greater things are asked and greater Compellations used then are competible to mere Creatures to give , or be invocated by . In the mean time it is plain , that the rest of his fourth Section falls of it self by vertue of what has already been spoken .

Vpon the fourth Paragraph .

In this Prayer to St. Cosmas and St. Damian it is observable how the Devotion is framed with a sutableness to the condition of the Saints when they dwelt on Earth . And therefore Cosmas and Damian having been of the faculty of Physick here , they are made to retain it still , but in an higher degree and to have the power of curing both Body and Soul , as if by their merits they had obtained such a Privilege from God . And that Souls departed are exercised about such things as they were taken up with in this life , was also the Opinion of the ancient Heathen , as you may see in Virgil , Plutarch , Maximus Tyrius , and others . People may find evasions for any thing , but considering the Council of Trent mentions Ayds and Assistences distinct from their Intercessions , and the second Council of Nice , to which the Council of Trent attributes so much to , produces Instances hereof , any one that has but half an eye will easily discern this meaning I have given to be true . And that the Invocation of these Saints is not a meer Ora pro nobis , but the craving of them such peculiar ayds and helps as are supposed proper for them to give ; contrary to my Antagonists last general Answer .

Vpon the fifth Paragraph .

Which is also manifest out of the Invocation of St. Francis in this next Paragraph , Sancte Francisce properè veni , &c. For St. Francis being desired to hast and come to his people plainly intimates it is not a mere Ora pro nobis ; ( For that he might , one would think , most conveniently perform in Heaven before the face of God ) but by his Presence and Assistence to his Suppliant to deliver him from the ●oul bondage and burden of sin ; carnis extincto vitio , he himself having been such an eminent example of Mortification here on Earth , and therefore being now endewed with a peculiar Power of helping men to mortifie sin and to deliver them from that bondage , accordingly as was observed in the former Petition . Which is a boon too great for any but Christ himself to give . So that it is gross Idolatry on that account also . St. Andrew's being crucified on the Cross is supposed likewise to have intitled him to the right and Power of inabling men to bear the Cross. But whether St Nicolas was famous also for incountring the Devil in his life time I know not . What has been said already on this Paragraph is sufficient to prove that the Invocation of Saints are not a mere Ora pro nobis .

Vpon the sixth Paragraph .

That Prayer to St. Agnes is both for a boon alone to be given by God , and is plainly directed to her in a form so far from an Ora pro nobis , that it is , Te ex●ro pr●cibus . I pray you to keep me in the right faith , or , Grant you that all may serve God in perfect Charity . And so the Prayer to St. Brigitt calls her , dulcis ductrix , and says , tuo ductu salutari duc ad vitae bravia . By your safe guidance bring us to the reward of everlasting life . Which can by no ways be reduced to an Ora pro nobis , which may be a further Reply to his second and last generall Answer .

Vpon the seventh Paragraph .

Upon this Paragraph or the Hymn to St. C● tharine in it , I need say no more than I have already said in my next Paragraph concerning it , which my Reader may considera●ly read over , and then observe with himself not onely touching this present Invocation but also the former , how fully that of the Council of Trent ad Sanctorum orationes , opem auxiliumque confugere , agrees with their forms of Invocation to Saints , which is not onely to pray for them , but to give them further ayds and assistences according to the proper privileges that they are supposed by their merits to have obtained , and some so great , that they belong onely to God , whence the grosness of the Idolatry is further argued , and a further Reply made to his second and last general Answers .

But for the intitling of the Saints to a power of assisting correspondent to some Action , or condition of life of theirs here , I have observed in several other forms of Invocation in their Hortulus Animae printed at Dilinga , cum facultate Superiorum : As to St. Thomas , O glorious toucher of the wounds of our Lord Iesus , do thou vouchsafe to establish us thy Suppliants in the faith of him whom by touching , thou deservedst , to acknowledge to he God . And to St. Ambrose , O most blessed Bishop and greatest Doctor Ambrose , who teachest the safe way , guide thou the course of my life , &c. And to St. Austin , O glorious light of the Church help us to profit in the precepts of God , and in thy Doctrine , &c. Where it is again observable , they make their direct addresses to these Saints , and upon account of what it is peculiar for them to help them in , and that it is not a mere Ora pro nobis , but in the mean time abundantly conformable to the words of the Council of Trent .

CHAP. V. Forms of Invocation of the blessed Virgin used by the Church of Rome egregiously Idolatrous .

1. ANd if they can contain themselves no better in their Devotions towards these lesser Saints , to whom their Church-men will allow onely the Worship they call Dulia , how wilde and extravagant will they shew themselves in their Addresses to the Virgin Mary , the Mother of God , to whom they allow the Worship they call Hyperdulia ? And that is the thing I will now take notice of , though not according to the copiousness of the S●bject ; for it would even fill a Volume . But some Instances I will produce , and those such as are publick and authentick , as I intimated at first . In the Rosary of the blessed Virgin she is saluted thus : Reparatrix & Salvatrix desperan●is Animae , Irroratrix & largitrix spiruualis Gratiae , Quod requiro , quod suspiro , mea sana Vulnera , Et da menti te poscenti Gratiarum munera ; ●t sim c●stus , & modestus , dulcis , fortis , sobrius , ●●us , rectu , circumspectus , simultatis nescius , Eruditus , & munitus Divinis eloquiis , Constans , gravis , & suavis , benignus , amabilis , ●orde prudens , ore studens veritatem dicere , Malum nolens , Deum volens pio semper opere . A very excellent Prayer , if it had been directed to a due Object . But such things are asked as are in the power of none but of Iesus Christ himself , as he is God , to give .

2. For the Virgin Mary is here made no less then a Saviour and giver of all spiritual Graces ; as she is also a giver of eternal Life in what follows in Prose . Peccatorum consolatrix , infirmorum curatrix , errantium rev●catrix , justorum confirmatrix , desolatorum spes & auxiliatrix , atque mea promptissima adjutrix , tibi , Domina gloriosa , commendo ●odie & quotidie Animam meam ▪ ut me in custodiam tuam commendatum ab omnibus malis & fraudibus Diaboli custodias , atque in ●ora mortis constanter mihi assistas , ac Animam ad aeterna gaudia perducas . Here is the commending of the Soul of the Devotionist into the Protection of the Virgin , that he may be kept from all Evil , and from the Frauds of the Devil , and that she would assist at the hour of death to convey his Soul to the eternal Joys of Heaven .

3. Like that at the end of the Rosary ; Cor meum illumina , fulgens Stella Maris , Et ab hostis machina semper tuearis . O gloriosa Virgo Maria , mater Regis aeterni , Libera nos ab omni malo , & a poenis I●ferni . Which is a Petition for Illumination of heart , for Security from the Devil and from eternal Death : which is onely the Privilege of the Son of God , the eternal Wisdom of the Father , to grant , who is said also ( Apoc. 1. 18. ) to have the Keys of Hell and of Death .

4. But the thing which is very observable , and which I mainly drive at , is this , That the Roman Church toward the latter end , before the Reformation broke out , had run so mad after the Patronage of the Virgin , that they had almost forgot the Son of God , and spent all their Devotions on her , whom they do at least equalize to Christ , and so really make her , as well as some love to call her , the Daughter of God , in as high a sense as Christ is his Son : as will farther appear in the process of our Quotations . As in that Prayer to the blessed Virgin that follows in Chemnitius : Te , mater illuminationis cordis mei , te , nutrix salut●●meae m●ntis , te obsecrant quantum possunt cuncta praecordia mea . Exaudi ▪ Domina , adesto propitia , adjuv● potentissima , ut mundentur sordes mentis meae , ut illuminent●r te●ebrae meae . O gloriosa Domina , Porta vitae , Ianu● salutis , Via reconciliationis , Aditus recuperationis , obsecro te per salvatricem tuam foecunditatem , fac ut peccatorum meorum venia & vivendi gratia concedatur , & usque in finem hic servus tuus sub tua protectione custodiatur . Which Petition and Compellations , saving what belongs to the Sex , are most proper and natural to be used towards Christ . But the Virgin is here made our Saviour and Mediatour in the feminine gender .

5. As she is again most expresly in that Prayer to her in her Feast of Visitation :

Veni , praecelsa Domina Maria ; tu nos visita : Aegras mentes illumina Per sacrae vitae munera .

Veni , Salvatrix s●culi ; Sordes aufer piaculi ; In visitando populum Poenae tollas periculum .

Veni , Regina gentium ; Dele flammas reatuum ; Dele quodcunque devium ; Da vitam innocentium .

In which Invocation the Virgin Mary is plainly called the Saviour of the World , and pray'd unto for spiritual Illumination of the Soul , and for the purgation thereof from the filth both of Sin and Guilt : whereby she is plainly equallized to the Son of God , and made as it were a She-Christ , or Daughter of God .

To this sense also are those Prayers put up to her in her Feast of the Conception and of the Annunciation : But it were infinite to produce all . Read that Prayer in 〈◊〉 sung to her by the Council of Constance : It is a perfect ●mitation of the ancient Prayer of the Church to the Holy Ghost .

CHAP. V.

Vpon the first Paragraph .

IN that Prayer to the blessed Virgin in this Paragraph are such Compellations as if they were in the masculine gender were onely proper for God and Christ , and such things are asked as are in their power onely to give ; which is a further Reply to his second general Answer .

Vpon the second Paragraph .

And the very same may be said of the Invocation in this second Paragraph out of the same Rosary of the Virgin , which though my Adversary seems desirous to signifie his slighting of , yet he dare not deny but that it passes current with them . And why may I not produce what forms of Invocation I please which are allow'd amongst them , and are made use of in the devotions of them that are of the Church of Rome ? For this does plainly prove the Idolatry that Chuch is lapsed into . But if some few flowers out of the Hortulus Animae may be more gratefull to him , he shall find what will amount to as much as is in the above said Rosary . For in a Recommendation to the blessed Virgin we read thus ; I commend unto thee blessed Virgin , my whole Body and Soul and my whole life , the five senses of my Body , all my actions and my death , who art with thy Son Christ blessed for ever and ever . What can be said more to Christ or God himself ? This is surely more than an Ora pro nobis , Pray for us . For in a Recommendation immediately going before , the form is : Precor te , I pray thee , that thou wouldst keep me from sins , from scandals , from all the Confusion of humane life , from unclean thoughts , from all perils of Soul and Body . And some few leaves before in the Canticum ad Virginem , it is said , Dignare dulcis Maria nunc & semper nos sine delicto custodire . O sweet Mary vouchsafe to keep us now and for ever without sin . As if they had a mind to turn the Te Deum , into a Te Deam ; and indeed in this Canticle they have indeavoured it as near as they can . But this in it verbatim Answers to , Vouchsafe to keep us this day without sin , in the Te Deum . I will close all with that Rhyme in their Oratio ad beatam Mariam . Esto custos cordis mei , Signa me timore Dei , Confer vitae Sanctitatem Et da morum honestatem ; Da peccata me vitare Et quod justum est amare , O Dulcedo Virgin●lis Nunquam fuit nec est talis . Can any one be the keeper of ones heart b●t God that knows the hear● ? This therefore is such a sweet strain of Devotion as never was heard till the lapse of the Church into gross Idolatry . And yet all this and a great deal more is in that Hortulus Animae , which questionless is a most delicious Paradise with those of that Church , and has a sufficient stamp of Authority upon it . Which I speak in reference to his third general Answer . Nor have I gathered any examples of Invocation but such as the Author I have them out of does expresly profess to have been confirmed by publick Authority , and to have been in publick use . See Chemnitius his third part of the Examination of the Council of Trent , pag. 135. I do not profess to have all their Rituals , and Pontificals and Rosaries by me , but what I have by me and under my eye are so like what Chemnitius has produced , that I think it the greatest folly and stupidity in the World to misbelieve his Quotations .

Vpon the third Paragraph .

As for Example in the Invocation in this Paragraph , Cor meum illumina fulgens stella Maris ; why should I at least doubt of that form , when I have before mine eyes in Hortulus Animae ; Esto custos cordis mei , Signa me timore Dei . Out of both which in the mean time there may be a further Reply to his second general Answer , or an In●stance of one of those Generals in my general Reply to that Answer .

Vpon the fourth Paragraph .

That I take notice , that these Invocations imply that the Virgin Mary is the daughter of God , is in reference to my Exposition of the Epistle to the Church of Thyatira , which the Reader , if his Genius lead him to such things , may please to peruse . But in the mean time they implying so plainly that the Virgin is the daughter of God in such a kind of sense as Christ is his Son , it plainly appears from hence , that the Invocation is not a mere Ora pro nobis , or the Pra●ing for such things as are not greater then is in the power of any Creature to give ; which therefore again is a further Reply to the second and last general Answers .

Vpon the fifth Paragraph .

Besides that she is again in this Invocation made the daughter of God in that high sense , and that the same Arguments that prove ●er Titles bigger imply the boons she can bestow to be greater then what is competible to a mere Creature , and so it respects the second general Answer of my Adversary ▪ It is plain also from veni and visita , that it is impossible to be understood of a mere Ora pro nobis , contrary to my Adversaries last Answer . And lastly it is to be observed in reference to his third general Answer , that this song in her Feast of Visitation must be in the number of those forms , quae publicè in Eccl●sus legunt●r & magnis ●oatibus proclamantur Chemnitius . speaks . And the like is to be said of her Feast of Conception , and Annunciation , in Reply to the said third general Answer . As also of that Prayer sung to her at the Council of Constance , in imitation of Veni Creator Spiritus , as that in Hortulus Animae is of Te Deum Laudamus . And why should I doubt of that when I see this before mine eyes ? But instead of V●ni Creator Spiritus , which is the usual Prayer to the Holy Ghost ; it is here , Veni mater Gratiae , Fons misericordiae , Miseris Remedium ; Veni lux Ecclesiae , Tri●tibus laetitiae Nunc infunde radium , &c. And now let any one judge whether these are the words of suppliants onely saying , Ora pro nobis . For whereas it is said , Veni lux Ecclesiae , Nunc infunde radium ; O come thou light of the Church , Now infuse thy rayes ; This is both a calling her to them not a bidding her pray for them in Heaven , and also the styling her the light of the Church and upon that account Praying her to illuminate them , it is plain they suppose her from self to shine forth upon them . And the like might have been observed in that Form , Paragraph 3. Cor meum illuminae fulgens stella Maris . So manifest over and over again is it , That those formes of the Invocation of the Saints must be more than an Ora pro nobis , against his last general Answer .

CHAP. VI. More Forms of Invocation of the blessed Virgin out of the Mary-Psalter , so called , exremely Idolatrous and Blaspemo●s .

1. WE will now onely note some passages in the Mary-Psalter , as it is called , wherein how much at that time the Church of Rome had thrust themselves under the Protection and Patronage of the Virgin , and made her the Daughter of God , instead of approving themselves faithfull touching the Rights and Prerogatives of the Son and his Worship , will be most notoriously evident . I will begin with the thirtieth Psalm : In te , Domina , speravi ; non confundar in aeternum . Ingratiam tuam suscipe me ; inclina ad me aurem tuam , & in moerore meo laetifica me . Tu es fortitudo mea & refugium meum , consolatio mea & protectio mea : ad te clamavi cùm tribularetur cor meum , & exaudisti de vertice collium aeternorum . In manus tuas , Domina , commendo spiritum meum , meam totam vit●m , diem ultimum . This is that whole Psalm to the Virgin : just in such a form and with such a repose of spirit as David prays in to God himself .

2. But we will content our selves with transcribing onely some select pieces . As Psalm 71. Resperge , Domina , cor meum dulcedine tua . Fac me ob●ivisci mi erias hujus vitae : Concupiscentias aeternas excita in anima mea , & de gaudio Paradisi inebria mentem meam . And again , Psalm 104. Salus sempiterna in manu tua est , Domina , qui te dignè honoraverint suscipient illam . Clementia tua non deficiet à seculis aeternis , & misericordia tua à generatione in generationem . And Psalm 117. Dispositione tua mundus perseverat , quem tu , Domina , cum Deo fundast● ab initio . Tuus totus ego sum , Domina ; salvum me fac , quoniam desiderabiles sunt laudes tuae in tempore peregrinationis meae . No man can say more to , or expect more from , the eternal God himself .

Whence they make the eternal Godhead as hypostatically united with the Virgin as with Christ himself , and carry themselves to her as if she were as properly the Daughter of God as he the Son . For else how could she be said to have everlasting salvation inher power , and to have laid the Foundations of the world from the beginning with the eternal Deity ?

3. There are also other passages in this Psalter whereby they make the Virgin Mary a She-Christ , the Daughter of God , as he is the Son of God ; and that is by the applying of the very Phrases spoken of him in the Scripture , unto her . As in Psalm 2. Venite ad ●am omnes qui laboratis & tribulati estis , & refrigerium & solatium dabit animabus vestris . And Psalm 81. Terge foeditatem meam , Domina , quaesemper rutilas puritate . Fons vitae , influe in os meum , ex quo viventes aquae profluunt & emanant . Omnes sitientes venite adillam , & de fonte suo gratanter vos potabit . This is the gift of the Spirit , belonging onely to Christ to give to them that believe on him . And he is also said ( Iohn 7. 37 , 38. ) to be the ease and rest of all them that are weary and heavy laden , Matth. 11. 28.

And again , Psalm 46. Omnes gentes , plaudite manibus , psallite in jubilo Virgini gloriosae . Quoniam ipsa est portae vitae , janua salutis , & vianostrae reconciliationis , spes poenitentium , solamen lug●ntium , pax beata cordium atque salus . This is attributed to the Virgin , when as it is Christ alone that is the way of Salvation and Reconciliation with God .

4. This is a foul and tedious Subject , and therefore to make an end at length , let us consider the Blasphemy of the 41. Psalm . Quem●dmodum desiderat cervus ad fontes aquarum , ità ad amor●m tuum anhelat anima mea , Virgo sancta . Quia tu es genitrix vitae meae , & altrix reparationis carnis meae : Quia tu lactatrix Salvationis animae meae , initium & finis totius salutis meae . Here is that attributed to the Virgin which is said of Christ , that he is the Author and Finisher of our Faith and Salvation . Nay , the Creation or Generation of our life and flesh , as well as our Salvation , is here ascribed to the Virgin . Which can have no sense or truth , unless she were 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , God-woman , in that sense that Christ is 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , God-man , and as I said , were as properly the Daughter of God as he is the Son of God .

5. As she is expresly called in her Litany , Filia Dei , the Daughter of God . Which , considering what high Titles they give her both in that Litany and elsewhere , as Illuminatrix cordium , Fons misericordiae , Flumen sapientiae , Mater D●i , Regina coeli , Domina mundi , Domina coeli & terrae , would be but a dwindling Title , ( it belonging to all women that are believers , ) if there was not some such raised and sublime sense of it as I have intimated .

And therefore their Addresses to her being as if she were , as I said , a She-Christ , and the Daughter of God in as high a sense at least as Christ is the Son of God , and she being called the Daughter of God in the Litaniae Mariae , in her Litany or publick Supplication to her , it is plain , that in that Interval of the Church wherein this most conspicuously and notoriously happened , the Church of Rome , by reason also of the abundance of their Devotions then to the Virgin , might be said to be rather the Worshippers of the Daughter of God then of the Son of God . And that therefore the Spirit of Prophecy ●oreseeing these times , whenas for such a space he called Rome Pergamus , this succeeding Scene coming on , he might very well change the Title of Pergamus into that of Thyatira , with a derisorious Allusion to the occasion of the name of that City , from the news of a Daughter being born to Nicanor . As if God Almighty had the like occasion of changing the name of Pergamus into Thyatira , from the Romanisls turning the Virgin Mary into the Daughter of God .

6. For a stop to which Insolency Christ seems on purpose in the Epistle to the Church in Thyatira to resume to himself the Title of the Son of God , Apoc. 2. 18. notwithstanding that he is called the Son of man in the Vision in the foregoing Chapter , Apoc. 1. 13. out of which he ever draws a description of himself for an Entrance before each Epistle to the Churches . Which , in my judgement , is a thing specially well worth the marking ; and that this making the Virgin Mary the Daughter of God in this Interval , might alone be a sufficient occasion of changing the name of the Church of Rome from Pergamus to Thyatira . But other things that are apposite are also comprehended by a Prophetical Henopoeia .

7. But this is an Overplus to our Present purpose , which was mainly to discover the gross Idolatry of the Church of Rome in the Invocation of their Saints , and especially of the Virgin Mary ; and how both the Definition of the Council of Trent is Idolatrous in this Point , and much more the Practice of the Church countenanced by publick Authority .

8. For this Mary-Psalter it self , that has the most enormous and blasphemous Forms of Idolatrous Invocation of any , is not the private Contrivance of some single , obscure , superstitious Monk , but bears the Title of that Seraphick Doctor ●t . Bonaventure , once Cardinal of Rome : Which is no small publick countenance thereto . And that nothing might be wanting to the grace and furtherance of so devotional a piece of Idolatry , there was instituted a peculiar Society , entitled the Fraternity of the Mary-Psalter , confirmed afterward by Sixtus the fourth , many Indulgences being added Anno 1470. And Innocent the eighth added to these Indulgences plenary Remission à poena & culpa once in their life , and once in articul● mortis , to as many as entred into that Fraternity .

9. And in such case stands the Church of Rome at this very day , that is to say , she is still Thyatira , notorious for her Idolatrous Worship of the Virgin Mary . But the Interval of the true Church in Thyatira ceased upon the Reformation , when we cast off the Pope , or suffered I●zebel to delude the Servants of God no longer , nor to debauch them with Idolatrous Modes of Worship . But this is onely by the bye .

In the mean time it is abundantly manifest , that the Invocation of Saints in the Roman Church is not onely the praying to them that they would pray to God for us , but the asking Aids of them , and such frequently as are in the power of none but of God , and of Christ as he is God , for to give ; and therefore is still the grosser Idolatry .

CHAP. VI.

Vpon the first Paragraph .

IT is observable that as the Canticum to the Virgin in Hortulus Animae is an Imitation of Te Deune Laudamus , and the Prayer sung to her by the Council of Constance an Imitation of the Hymn to the Holy Ghost , Veni Creator Spiritus : So is this Psalm of the Mary-Psalter an Imitation of the thirtieth Psalm , which is a Prayer to God Almighty , to Jehovah himself ; beginning , In te Domine speravi non confundar in aeternum . Which is Verbatim here applied to the Virgin Mary , and there is no change of the word Dominus , but putting Domina for it , which changes onely the gender not the signification . As if it had been Deus and they should have turned it Dea. And Dominus ( which is so translated from the Greek 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , which in this sense some Cri●icks , if I remember right , deduce from 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , which is 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ( to be ) that 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 may Answer to Iehovah , Essentiator ) signifies here not a Lord in a civil sense , but is the same that Iehovah and 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , God the Creator and Essentiator of all things , or that which is the Fountain of all Essence and is Essence it self necessary and eternal . This is Dominus in this Psalm , and therefore to call the Virgin Mary here Domina with the rest of the words of the beginning of this Psalm , is as much as if they should say , In te Dea ( in the highest sense imaginable ) speravi , non confundar in perpetuum , which is Idolatry of the deepest dye . To give such an Attribute to the Creature , as implies the highest perfections that are in the Creator himself . Thus unadvisedly have they done , by making such humoursom Imitations in words of such Devotions as are proper alone to God . For to excuse it by saying , they can put another sense upon , it will not serve : For I dare say one may put such a meaning on the whole Lords Prayer as that the words may be used to the Pope , with a continued coherence of sense , partly proper , partly figurative , if such shifts would serve the turn . And yet I hope none of the Church of Rome will stick to say , that , if one should kneel to the Pope , and say the Lords Prayer to him , making him the Object thereof , but it would be apert blasphemy and Idolatry . But we proceed ; And as for Exaudivisti de vertice collium ●ternorum , it is another Privilege too big for a Creature , as if the Virgin were omniscient . But the whole form of the Devotion is such , which I have already noted , as if it were Davids own Praying to God himself , and not an Orapro nobis , against his last general Answer ; as what went before was against his second .

Vpon the second Paragraph .

And in Reply again to the same second Answer , Here is also attributed to the blessed Virgin what is too big for any Creature , Everlasting salvation is said to be in her , Psalm 104. And again , Psalm 117. Domina salvum me fac , if understood of eternal salvation as my Adversary understands it . But besides this is these two Psalms of the Mary-Psalter , in further Reply to that part of his fifth general Answer that singles out Domina salvum me fac for the most harsh passage of all ; In my mind Clementia tua non deficiet à saeculis aeternis seems more harsh , and to imply that her mercy is ab aeterno in aeternum , which no mercy can be but that of God alone . But , Dispositione tuâ Mundus perseverat quam tu Domina cum Deo fundasti ab initio , does plainly make Domina our Lady , to be Dominus Iehovah , or the Aeternal wisdom , the Son of God by whom the world was really made and is governed . And this surely is far more harsh than Domina salvum me fac , against his fifth Answer .

Vpon the third Paragraph .

That out of the second Psalm of the Mary-Psalter , Cleanse my filthiness O blessed Lady who always shinest with purity , Flow into my mouth O fountain of life out of which proceed living waters . How can this be a mere Ora pro nobis , it being so plainly an address to the blessed Virgin to purifie her suppliant by her own purity , and to flow in upon him as being her sels the fountain of life , which is against his last Answer general .

Vpon the fourth Paragraph .

The Compellations of the blessed Virgin in this Paragraph out of Psalm 41. are too great for a mere Creature , and therefore may be instanced in by way of Reply to his second general Answer .

Vpon the fifth and sixth Paragraphs .

These two Paragraphs refer to my Exposition of the Epistles to the seven Churches ; which if the Reader have any inclination to such speculations and will peruse them , he will read these and some few more Paragraphs of this my Antidote with more pleasure .

Vpon the seventh Paragraph .

That the Definition of the Council of Trent in this point is Idolatrous , is abundantly demonstrated in the second Paragraph of the fourth Chapter , from such Conclusions as I have above plainly proved no assaults of my Adversary have at all weakened . But the Accessions to make this Idolatry still more gross , is that it is so evident from these usual forms of Invocation , that the Compellations of some of the Saints at least are incompetible to any Creature , and they are asked such things as no Creature is able to give , and so , as if they were to be given by themselves and not by begging them of God for us .

Vpon the eighth Paragraph .

What is said here may serve for a more full Reply to my Antagonists third general Answer , in that particular that concerns the Mary-Psalter , it bearing this Authority and Authentickness with it . For it goes under St. Bonaventures name , though I will not avow him to be the Authour of i● . But the Countenance and Authority of two Popes is even more than enough to ratifie it for a genuine piece of devotion of the Church of Rome .

Vpon the ninth Paragraph .

To the former part of this ninth Paragraph , I have no more to say than what I have said already on the fifth and sixth . The second part it is not impertinent to take notice what it intimates against the second and last Answers of my Adversary , viz. That I have not onely proved in these three Chapters that Invocation of Saints is Idolatry though it were onely for an Ora pro nobis , but also that according as the Council of Trent it self doth insinuate , there are special aids and helps , besides praying for us , asked of the Saints and so great ones , as also so great Compellations , as are incompetible to a mere Creature to give or receive ; Which makes t●e Invocation twice or thrice more gross than a mere Ora pro nobis . To all which you may lastly add these aggravating Circumstances which are very frequent , That these Invocations are made at their Festivals in Temples , at Altars and Images consecrated to them , that nothing may be wanting to the most formal Idolatry imaginable . See Conclusion the eighteenth of the second Chapter .

We see therefore the gross Idolatry of the Romanists in the Invocation of Saints , even according to the allowance of the Council of Trent and the authorized practise of their Church , beyond all exception evidenced and demonstrated .

CHAP. VII . That the Doctrine of the Council of Trent touching the Worshipping of Images is Idolatrous , and the Reason of the Doctrine weak and unsound .

1. AND thus much for their Idolatry in the Invocation of Saints . Let us now consider what the sense of the Council of Trent is touching the worshipping of Images . Concil. Trident. Sess. 9. Imagines porrò Christi , Deiparae Virginis , & aliorum Sanctorum , in templis praesertim , habendas & retinendas esse , e●sque debitum honorem & reverentiam impertiendam . Quoniam honos qui eis exhibetur refertur ad Prototyp● , quae illae repraesentant ; ità ut per Imagines quas oscul●mur , & coram quibus caput ap●rimus & procumbimus , Christum adoremus , & Sanctos , quorum illae similitudinem gerunt , veneremur . Id quod Conciliorum , praesert●m verè secundae Nicaenae Synodi , Decretis contra Imaginum oppugnatores est sancitum .

The meaning of which in brief is this , That the Images of Christ , of the blessed Virgin and other Saints , are to be had and retain'd in Churches , and that due honour and reverence is to be done to them . For which are produced two Reasons . The first , In that the Honour that is done to the Images is referred to the Prototypes . The second , In that this Injunction is but what the second N●cene Council had of old decreed .

2. To which ● answer , That thus much as the Council of Trent has declared touching Images is plain and open Idolatry by the seventh Conclusion of the first Chapter , and expresly against the Commandment of God , who forbids us to make any graven Image to bow down to or Worship . But the Council of T●en● says , Yes , ye may make graven Images of the Saints , and set them up in their Temples , and give them their due Honour and Worship ; nay , ye ought to do so ; and instances in the very act of Bowing or Kneeling and prostrating our selves before them . This Definition of the Council is so palpably against the Commandment of God , that they are fa●n to leave the second Commandment out of the Decalogue , that the people may not discern how grosly they go against the express Precepts of God in their so frequent practices of Idolatry . See the first , ninth and tenth Conclusions of the first Chapter ; as also the third , fourth , fifth , eighteenth , nineteenth and twentieth of the second .

3. Nor can all their Tricks and Tergiversations and subtil Elusions serve their turn . For undoubtedly the Decalogue was writ to the easie capacity of the people , and therefore their hearts and consciences are the best Interpreters . Not the foolish Evasions and Subterfuges of perfidious Sophisters , who , to the betraying of weak Souls to Idolatry and Damnation , and for the opening their Purses , would make them believe that the Council of Trent's enjoyning of Images in Churches , and the honouring them or worshipping them and bowing down before them , can consist with God's forbidding to make any graven Image , and to bow down to it and worship it . So that I say , the Council it self does appoint flat Idolatry to the Christian world to be practised . And it being so monstrous a thing , I pray you now let us consider the Reasons why they do so .

4. The first is , Because the Honour done to the Image is referr'd to the Prototype . But I answer , that this Reference is either in virtue of that Similitude the Images have with those persons they represent , which the words of the Council seem to imply , at least touching the Saints , quorum illae similitudinem gerunt : as when we praise a Picture of such or such a person , that it is a very comely and lovely Picture , this praise naturally has a reference to the Person whose Picture it is , in virtue of the similitude betwixt the Picture and the Party .

Or else this Reference , without any regard to personal Similitude , is from the Direction of the Intention of the Devotionist , that he intends upon the seeing and bowing , suppose , to the Image of Christ , the blessed Virgin , or any Saint , to take this occasion to worship Christ , the blessed Virgin or the Saint thereby , the Image being but at large a symbolical Presence of them , it being not regarded whether the Symbol or Image have any personal Similitude with the party it represents or no.

5. But now as for the former it is evident , that it is infinitely uncertain whether any Image of Christ , the blessed Virgin , or of this or that Saint , be like the carnal figure of these persons while they were alive upon earth , or no. Nay , it is in a manner certain to the contrary , none of these holy Souls being given to such follies as to have their Pictures drawn while they were alive . See my Mystery of Iniquity , Part 1. Book 1. chap. 14 ▪

But being it is extremely improbable but an Image should be like some or other , that are either now alive , or have lived on the earth since the beginning of the world , according to this first supposition , this Honour or religious Worship intended to Christ , the blessed Virgin , or any other Saint , will not onely miss them , but certainly fall on some other who , in stead of being Saints , haply are or have been very vile and wicked persons .

6. But besides , no ●aints are worshipped before they be in Heaven , nor indeed are properly Saints till then ; and the Glories in their Pictures that are about their Heads shew plainly that they intend to represent the Saints in their present condition of Glory in Heaven . Whence it is plain that the Images are nothing like them they are made for . For how can these Images of brass or stone or wood , or any other materials , bear the Image of a seearate Soul , which all the Saints are for the present ? And what likeness can there be betwixt the glorious body of ●hrist Heavenly and spiritual , and an Image of any terrestrial matter ? No more than betwixt a piece of Dirt or Soot and the Sun or bright Morning-star .

And , which is most of all to be considered , what terrestrial Image can possibly represent him that is truly 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , God-man , and is not the Object of our Adoration but as he is this Divine Complexum as well of the Divinity as the Humanity ? But what Statuary can carve out the Effigies of the Deity ? So that the pretense of this Reference of the Honour to the Prototype in this first sense thereof is very weak and vain . Nor , though there were this natural Reference , would it follow that we are to honour them this way , it being so plainly forbid , and there being better ways then this , viz. the commemorating and imitating their Vertues .

7. And for that second sense , it is indeed disinvolved of those former Difficulties ; but greater here occurr . For as touching our Saviour Christ , forasmuch as his pretended Image is but his symbolical Presence , the doing of Divine Worship towards it is again plain Idolatry , as appears by that Example of the Israelites , who worshipped the golden Calf in reference to Iehovah , as appears plainly in the Story , Exod. 32. 4 ▪ 5. And for the blessed Virgin and the rest of the Saints , that Incurvation toward their symbolical Presences is flat Idolatry , is manifest from the eighth , ninth and tenth Conclusions of the first Chapter , and the fifth , nineteenth and twentieth of the second of this Treatise .

And indeed thus to make the Images of the Saints so called onely their symbolical Presences , and so to Worship them before these Images , is an attributing Divine Honour to them . For this naturally does declare that they have at least a terrestrial Omnipresency , which no invisible Power which we know has but onely God . But to make a low Obeisance to an absent person God knows how many millions of miles off , is still a more forced and ridiculous thing . And therefore the saluting of the Saints thus at their symbolical Presences or Images , and in the mean time acknowledging them to be in s●de Beatorum , ( which they do , and must do , unless they exclude them Heaven , ) is to acknowledge one Soul to fill Heaven and Earth with its presence , which is that vast Privilege of God Almighty onely ; and therefore this Worship to them is gross Idolatry , as supposing such a Perfection in them as is no-where but in God .

Besides what was intimated before , that let this Reference be what it will , there being an Incurvation or Prostration before Images , whether they be mere Symbols or exact Representations , it must be ipso facto ●dolatry by the seventh Conclusion of the first Chapter . From whence it follows , that the Saints are not honoured by this worshipping of their Images , but hideously reproached , it supposing them to be pleased and gratify'd with that which is an abomination to the Lord , and a gross transgression of his express Commands . It implies , I say , that they are ambitious , vain glorious and rebellious against God . And therefore they that the most vehemently oppose this way of honouring of them by Images and Invocations are the most true and faithfull Honourers of them , they so zealously vindicating them from the great Reproaches these others cast upon them . So far are they from being guilty herein of any Rudeness or Clownishness against the Saints of God .

CHAP. VII .

His Answer to the first part of the second Paragraph .

There was no Answer to be given to the first Paragraph , it being merely the setting down what the Council of Trent defines about the worshipping of Images . But to the first part of the second Paragraph his Answer is this ; Here the Doctor , says he , gives us a learned Antithesis betwixt the Commandment of God and Decree of this Council . But how weak , frivilous and Pharisaical this Antithesis is , I have sufficiently declared in my Answer to the second and seventh Conclusions of the first Chapter . This is his whole Answer to this part of the Paragraph .

The Reply .

AS to that he says it is a learned Antithesis , I Reply , That it is a plain , conspicuous and obvious Antithesis , so obvious , that it has caused your Church to hide the second Commandment from the sight of the Vulgar . To the ill language you give me I Reply nothing , but that of the Apostle . 1 Pet. 3. 9. Not railing for railing . And for your pretended Answer to the second and seventh Conclusions of my first Chapter , I refer my Reader to my Reply to it , and appeal to his judgement if it be not satisfactory .

His Answer to the second part of this second Paragraph .

He uses long ambages and circuits in his Answer to this second part , but the main matter occurs in the the end of his Answer , which is this , That I ought to have proved that which I call the second to be a Commandment really distinct from the first ; And that the understanding is not the same whether we divide the Precepts of the first Table into three or into four Commandments . This he absolutely omitting to do , saith he , his charge proves a mere Calumny , and bearing false witness against his neighbour . And so while he pleads for his second , he very uncharitably breaks his ninth Commandment .

The Reply .

The whole frame of his Answer , if I had taken it from the beginning to the end , is so weak and slight , that I half suspect he was invited to it merely for that last conceits sake ; to break ajest betwixt the second and ninth precept upon his Adversary . For first , though I should admit the understanding would be the same though the first Table were divided but into three Commandments , so no words of the first Table were left out ; nay though the first Table were called one Commandment or Decree touching our duty towards God , yet my charge against the Church of Rome for leaving out so great and so material a part of this Decree , or of the first Commandment if you will , would not be a jot mitigated thereby , the understanding being the same , as my Antagonist himself confesses , whether it be held one Commandment , or two . For if it be held one Commandment yet it is plainly divisible into these two parts which we call the first and second Commandments . And this that we call the second Commandment , and you the second part of the first Commandment , being really one and the same , and you acknowledging you leave out that part of the Commandment , where then is the Calumny ? any more then if one should accuse another that he took away two shillings six pence , and he should Reply , it is an unworthy slander , it was onely half a crown that he took away : would not this to any indifferent judge seem a very pleasant Apology to clear one of the Theft ?

But now in the second place , Though St. Austin and St. Hierome ( ●eter Lombard says it is Origen and Austin ) may differ in their Opinion about the first and second Commandment , whether they be one or two Commandments , yet I presume the more ancient , and the more general sense of the Church is that they are two . And it is well known that Origen flourished long before Austin : But it is acknowledged of all hands out of the word of God , that there are just ten Commandments , neither more nor less . Now the Church of Rome that would have the first Table consist but of three Commandments , is constrained to divide the last Commandment into two ; which is against the Antiquity of the distinction of the Greek and Hebrew Text into verses . For it is observable that both in the Greek and Hebrew Text , though the length of some of the Commandments has occasioned them to be divided into more verses than one , yet they no where have crouded two Commandments into one verse ; in so much that they make , Thou shalt not kill , Thou shalt not commit adultery , Thou shalt not steal , three distinct verses : Whence it is plain that that which we call the tenth Commandment is really but one Commandment , as being contained in one verse ; and that , Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife , is not a whole Commandment distinct from the rest contained in that verse .

Besides , which is hugely remarkable ; if , Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife , be one intire Commandment , viz. the ninth ; part of the tenth Commandment , viz. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours house , is set before it , which is not a thing credible . But there is no absurdity nor inconvenience , supposing it but one Commandment , that , Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours house , is set first in Exodus , and , Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife , is placed first in Deuteronomy . This methinks should be enough to the impartial to demonstrate , that that which we usually call the tenth Commandment , is not to be divided into two but is all one entire Commandment ; and that therefore the first and second Commandments ordinarily so called cannot be one Commandment but two , that there may be ten .

To all which you may add , that but even a moderate smattering in Logick may easily discover the tenth Commandment usually so called to be but one , and the first and second Commandments so called to be really two ; namely , from the consideration of their Objects . Now the Object in the tenth Commandment is but one in General , viz. the keeping our desires from other mens goods of what nature soever , Thou shalt not covet any thing that is his ; That is the general of the whole Commandment plainly : And House , Wife , Servant , Oxe , Asse , are but particulars belonging to this general , and by the same reason that you make an intire Commandment of any one of these Particulars , you may of every one of them , and so divide the last Commandment at least into five , which is very absurd . But as the Object of the tenth Commandment shows it can be but one , so the Objects of the first and second plainly show they must be two Commandments , because their Objects are distinctly two . The first having for its Object the onely one true God whom alone to retain we are plainly taught or commanded by that Precept ; the second having for its Object Graven Images or whatsoever similitudes of things , which we are strictly forbid any way to wor●hip . So plain every way is it , That that which we call the second Commandment is the second Commandment , and that there is not the least show of calumny , in saying , They have left out the second Commandment in their Catechisms .

But yet it is further observable , that if the first and second Commandments were to be held but one Commandment , there can be no so rational ground as this , That the second has a close subserviency to the first , and that it is added that we may keep the first more intirely and have no more Gods in any sense , than one : Which implies therefore that worshipping of Images Gods does interpret as the making more Gods to our selves then one , or that it is a necessary Concomitant of making to our selves more Gods then one , as is too too apparent in the Religion of the Gentiles , nor can be enough lamented in degenerated Christendom . Which eagerness after Idol-Gods the true God most severely prohibits , and show's himself so much the more solicitous and zealous here against worshipping of Images , by reason of the great Proclivity of mankind to that more than to Polytheisme , or the not believing that there is onely one supreme God the Creatour and Governour of all things . But the great danger is , that acknowledging this , yet they may either defile his Worship with Images , and make those Images Gods by worshipping them , or Worship Doemon● and Saints in Images and Pictures , and so accordding to the custom of the Heathens make more Gods than one , though but one supreme and others inferiour to him . There is such a pruriency and precipitant inclination in humane nature to these superstitions , that to put a stop to it . God addes such a rousing Commina●ion at the latter end of this second Commandment or the second part of the first , as my Adversary would have it . For I am a jealous God that visits the iniquities of the Fathers upon the Children to the third and fourth Generation of them that hate me ▪ As if he declared them more particularly 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 haters of God as well as hatefull to him who will presume so hainously to affront him as to make Images to Worship them or any Object by them .

Which second Commandment therefore with this direfull Commination added to it , being so effectual a bar and so point blank against the Idolatry practised in the Roman Church , my Adversary must give me leave to suspect , that it is not , as he says , left out to ease the memory of the Vulgar of so long a lesson , but to obliterate it out of their mind and memory , or rather to never let them have the sight of that which would certainly make their Consciences tremble when they saw the practises of the Church which they are obliged to , so plainly contrary to the word of God . But that they have also left out the tenth and eleventh verses about the Sabbath , that may be for a better blind for this , and also that people may not be imbrued with an over religious regard to the Lords day , least they should find offence at the licentiousness of that day too , and note that many Saints days are more solemnly kept , then that wherein the Creation of the world and Redemption by God our great Saviour and Redeemer is celebrated at once . But I have insisted on this Argument longer than I intended . I hope long before this the discerning Reader perceives , That the crime lyes where it did , and that my charge in this point is no Calumny .

His Answer to the fourth Paragraph .

My third Paragraph he passes over sicc● pede , nor excerps any thing out of it , lest it should prove too wholsome food for his misled Party . But to my fourth Paragraph he answers ▪ thus , ( p. 74. 75. ) Then he supposing , saith he , that neither of these are maintainable , he infers that by no means can the honour done to the Image be referred to the Prototype or Thing represented . But to the Argument I Answer , That this Reference is in vertue of that similitude which the Image has with the Prototype as including the direction of the Intention of the Devo●ionist ipso facto , that is supposed to be a rational Agent . And therefore the Doctours disjunctive Dilemma is very vain and defective . This is his Answer in general to my disjunctive Dilemma , as he calls it . But before this Answer he unmethodically propounds my Arguments against the first member of the Dilemma . But I shall reduce all to the order of my Paragraphs ; and Reply to this general Answer first .

The Reply .

I say therefore , That there is a great defect and mistake of my Adversary in his not apprehending the full scope of my Argument . For it is not merely to prove that the Honour done to the Image cannot be any of these two ways referred to the Prototype , but that it cannot be referred so as to quit the Act of Idolatry , as I have intimated at the end of the sixth Paragraph , and at the beginning of the last part of the seventh . Now there being but two ways of referring this honour to the Prototype , and the Council seeming to insinuate a fitness from the similitude of the Images to their Prototypes , I mainly impugne that in my fifth and sixth Paragraph , his Answer to which we shall here omit . But for the sense of his present Answer in general to the Dilemma , if I understand him it is this , That there being a similitude of signification as well as of figure ( as he tells us anon ) which is implied in the direction of the Intention of the Devotionist , and that therefore represents the Prototype to his mind , whether there be similitude of figure or no , that this makes my Dilemma vain and defective , as disjoyning or dividing those things one from another , that are found together in every reference of the Devotionist . This is the best sense I can make of his perplext and obscure Answer ; To which I Reply , That although there be that similitude of signification ( though in the mean time it be very improperly so called ) included in the intention or mind of the Devotionist in the referring of the Image to the Prototype , and so is a kind of note of remembrance to him , yet being sometimes , this thing may be like the thing which it is a note of , and have the similitude of Figure as well as of Signification , and sometimes merely the similitude of Signification , it is plain there is ground enough to raise this bipartition of Reference of the Image to the Prototype , it being sometimes of Images that have merely similitudinem Significationis , sometimes of those that have similitudinem Figurae also , which the Council insinuating some greater fitness in , I impugne in the abovesaid Paragraphs . In the mean time to them that understand Logick , it is plain that my Dilemma is neither vain nor defective .

His Answer to the fifth Paragraph .

I argue in this Paragraph against the referring the honour done to the Image unto the Prototype by vertue of similitude ▪ 1. Because it is uncertain whether the Figure of Christ the blessed Virgin and the rest have any likeness to them . 2. And that it is hugely probable they may be like some body else and those none of the best . To the former he Answers , That the honour done to the Image may be referred to the Prototype , though there be no personal similitude of Figure betwixt the Image and the Person it represents , but onely the similitude of Signification , the Image signifying the Dignity , Gravity , or other perfections of the Prototype . And this similitude of Signification he would prove to be where there is no personal similitude of Figure , because man is said to be made after the likeness of God though there be no personal similitude of Figure betwixt them . And he who honours man , saith he , as he is t●e image of God , honours God in his Image . And if therefore where no similitude of Figure , much more where a specifical similitude of Figure , the honour done to the Image may be referred to the Prototype , as it happens in the Case of the Images of Christ and his Saints .

To the second he Answers , that the Case the Doctor puts is more than possible . Because the Images of the Angels or Cherubims over the Ark had no personal similitude with the Angels but with some terrestrial Creatures , yet the honour done to them was referred to the Prototypes .

The Reply .

To the former I Reply , That the honour done to the Image may be referred to the Prototype ( or rather that to which the Image is erected ) though there be no similitude of Figure . But I deny that any such honour or Worship can be done to the Image with reference to the Prototype without Idolatry , as I have declared and proved in my seventh Paragraph . And now this hitherto being the safest Answer my Adversary can make , I understand not why he should not stick to it and balk the first part of my Dilemma , but that he has a mind to infuse Idolatry by what follows in his Answer to this Paragraph , into his heedless and credulous party . Whereunto tends also the proof of his Assertion , That there may be a similitude of signification where there is no similitude of personal Figure , from , Let us make man after our own Image . As if that the personal similitude betwixt God and Man mentioned in the Scripture respected that of external Figure , and therefore could be onely of Signification ; whenas it is understood of internal righteousness and true holiness , this is the Image of God in which man was created ; In which there is not onely a similitude of Signification , but of real and personal likeness . But this was onely to bring in that sly sa●ing , He who honours man as he is the image of God , honours God in his Image . Whenas there is no man honours man in reference to God as you pretend to honour the Image of Christ terminating your Worship in him . But we do civil honour onely to men , and in bowing to them onely signifie our inclination and readiness to do them all good offices of love service and in the mean time acknowledge there is that in them that is worthy of civil honour and esteem . And lastly , I say , as to the pretense of specifick similitude of Figure , it signifies no more as to the intended honour of an Individual , then if there were no similitude at all . 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . For not to signi●ie one determinate thing is to signifie nothing , as Aristotle says . But by vertue of the direction of our intention , we may make any thing signifie any thing .

To the second I Reply , That if the Case the Doctor puts be more than po●●●ible , then it is probable or possible , so that he yields what I would have . But I will not yield him that he has brought a fit instance , or that he has spoke right in that Instance . For neither were these Cherubims ●ntended for the symbolical presence of Angels but of God , nor was any honour done to the Cherubims or their Prototypes , although here again he slily would infuse this poyson of Idolatry into his ignorant Party , though with a reproach to God and Moses .

His Answer to the sixth Paragraph .

To the first part of this Paragraph he Answers ; That the Images of the Saints represent them such as they were upon Earth , onely with an additional mark of a Crown or Lawrel to signifie their triumphant state in Glory ; And then , That an Image may be like to a separate Soul as well as to an Angel or Cherubim , he would infer from that Opinion of the Platonists , who make separate Souls invested with aereall or aethereal Vehicles as well as the Angels .

To the second he Answers , that if a terrestrial Image cannot represent that Person who is 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 God-man , then neither can a terrestrial eye represent him , and so the Apostles whilest living did never see that Person who was 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 God-man , which is no less then blasphemy ; as implying that that Person called Iesus Christ whom the Apostles dayly beheld with their eyes , was not 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 God-man .

The Reply .

To the first I Reply , That unless my Adversary here suppose what he can never make good , that they have the true effigies of the Saints such as they were upon Earth , he is never the near ( as to this first curiosity ) whether he phancy them represented such as they were on Earth , or such as they are now in Heaven . But being Religious Worship is not due to them till they be canonized , to represent them such as they were on Earth , is to represent them in Order to Religious Worship , such as they were before they were capable of Religious Worship . And the Lawrel and Crown he talks of , those are not on their Images or Statues , but onely a Glory over their Heads in their Pictures , so far as I remember , of which the genuine signification is , That that picture stands for them such as they are now in glory , and there is the same sense of their Statues and of their Pictures . Moreover , his supposal is false and contrary to his own Assertion before , when he asserts that the Images of Cherubims or Angels are like in Figure to the Angels themselves , as if there were Ox-headed and Lyon-headed Angels . And lastly , suppose we should be so courteous as to grant him the doctrine of the Platonists that Souls separate have aereal or aethereal Vehicles , what would this advantage him they allowing no settled Figure to them ? And if there were an humane Figure allowed , when we have no knowledge what was their individual terrestrial Figure , how shall we know what is their aereal or aethereal ? And though the Figure was known , what terrestrial matter can express that lively enravishing spiritual beauty that is in those lucid Vehicles ? So that though the Figure were 〈◊〉 the form which is the life of the Figure would be quite lost , and be nothing near so like the separate Soul as the dead carcass of the greatest beauty on Earth , after four days lying in the grave , would be to the said party when alive . So that my Adversary in his Answer to this first part seems to indulge to humours and fetches of wit , rather than to reason soberly , and so as to prove a personal likeness betwixt the Saints and their Images .

And this in like sort may be said of his Answer to the second part , which is indeed an odd unexpected fetch of wi● , but hugely rude and harsh , that would pretend to fix on my Argument the horrid crime of blasphemy , when it is in truth the asserting the transcendent excellency of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Christ , not the denying of it , which were an hainous piece of blasphemy against the Son of God indeed . I say therefore that when I ask , what terrestrial Image can possibly represent him that is truely 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 God-man ? that no mans mind that is not very extravagant could ever phancy that I meant any other Image , then what is external to our sight , which that in our eye is not . Again , it is manifest that I mean it of some Image that represents the absent , and invisible Humanity of Christ by reason of its absence ; and not such an Image as a Parelion or a Paraselene are , that do not represent the Sun or Moon but by vertue of the presence of those Luminaries . Nor did t●e Image of Christ in the eyes of the Apostles or other men represent Christ any otherwise then by 〈◊〉 of his Presence . But it is plain to any that will not cavil , that I understand my own words of such Images as represent the absent , as the Statue of Caesar , of Virgil , and the like . And then lastly I flatly deny that the Image of an external Object in the eye , is terrestrial . For the Image is not in the nervous bottom of the eye but butts onely upon it , as the Images let in upon white paper through a Hole in a dark room . That Image is not fixed nor subjected in the paper , but in the ethereal matter that touches the paper And so the Image is in the ethereal matter that touches the bottom of the eye , not in the bottom of the eye it self . But ethereal matter is not terrestrial , and therefore this no terrestrial Image .

Unto all which I add , That it does not follow but that , though the Image in the eye , call it terrestrial or ethereal , had not the adequate or principal power of representing Christ God-man to the Apostles when he was on Earth , yet , the presence of our Saviour and the Divine graces of his Person shooting through that Image into the Souls and hearts of the beholders ( faith being wrought in them by the spirit of God according to his eternal purpose ; as it is written , No man cometh to me , unless my Father draw him ) they might behold him and give that Testimony that St. Iohn does of him , Iohn 1. The word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us , and we beheld the glory of him as the glory of the onely begotten Son of God , full of grace and truth . But for others that saw the humane Presence of him who is truly 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , though they could not discern him to be such or to be the Messias , so far as they saw it chiefly to be imputed to his humanity being present , and not to the Image in the eye , which but for his Presence could not represent him to the Soul . But I hope the wicked and unbeliever no● discovering his 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 does not at all argue him not to be 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 God-man . And now if the Image impressed by the very presence of Christ had not not the natural Power of representing that Divine Complexum God-man , according to both the natures , how far short shall Images of wood or stone , or what ever materials be from representing him being absent ?

In the mean time it is apparent how rash and inhumane my Antagonist is , to charge me with blasphemy upon such slight and toyish pretenses as he is pleased to take up , and every way so weak and insignificant . I have insisted on this longer than was needfull : But I was invited so to do , because my Adversary here seems to have intended to make a show of induing his confutations of this seventh Chapter with so great Triumph ; when indeed he has one nothing at all , he having not taken notice of the close of this ●ixth Paragraph , that declares and proves , that though there were this natural reference of Images to their Prototypes by reason of personal similitude of Figure , yet it would be Idolatry to Worship them .

Vpon the seventh Paragraph .

Which I do more-f●lly inculcate in the beginning of the last part of this seventh Paragraph . And in the first and second part thereof copiously demonstrate , that though these Images have the similitude of Signification onely , as he loves to call it , and not of Figure , yet it is Idolatry over and over again to Worship them . Which Hypothesis he chiefly or rather onely adheres to , and has sported and playd away his time in superfluously and weakly trifling against the first part of my Dilemma , is if he would make good the similitude of Figure betwixt the Images and Prototypes when he seems to believe neither any truth nor necessity of it : but onely to make a show of confuting this seventh Chapter , when he has left the latter end of the sixth Paragraph , and this whole seventh untouched , which is the main drift of all ; namely to shew , that whether the Images have any similitude with their Prototypes or no , yet it is Idolatry to Worship them , and that therefore the Council of Trent has no subterfuge in this regard to excuse themselves from the charge of Idolatry , in appointing the honour they appoint to them .

CHAP. VIII . The Doctrine of the second Council of Nice touching the Worship of Images , ( to which the Council of Trent refers , ) that it is grosly Idolatrous also .

1. BUT now as for the other Reason of these Tridentine Fathers , whereby they would support their Determination in this point , Viz. the Authority of the second Council of Nice held about the year 780 , ( to omit , that long before this time the Church had become asymmetral , which yet is a very substantial Consideration ) I shall only return this brief answer . The God of Israel , which is the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ , has given this express command to his Church for ever , Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image , thou shalt not bow down to it , nor worship it . But the second Council of Nice says , Thou mayst and shalt bow down to to the Image of Christ , of the blessed Virgin , and of the rest of the Saints . Now whether it be fit to believe and obey God , or men , judg ye : I might add farther , men so silly and frivolous in the defense of their Opinions , so false and fabulous in the Allegations of their Authorities and the recitall of miraculous Stories , as Chemnitius has proved at large in his Examen of the Council of Trent .

2. I will give an Instance or two . Mat. 5. 15. No man lighteth a candle and putteth it under a bushell ; therefore the Images of the Saints are to be placed on the Altars , and Wax-candles lighted up before them , in due honour to them . Again , Psalm 16. But to the Saints that are on the Earth : But the Saints are in Heaven , say they , therefore their Images ought to be on the Earth , &c. As for the Miracles done by Images , as their Speaking , the Healing of the sick , the Revenging of the wrong done to them , the distilling of ro●id drops of balsame to heal the wounded , sick or lame , their Recovering water into a dry Well , and the like , it were too tedious to recite these Figments .

But that of the Image of the Virgin , to whom her Devotionist spake when he took leave of her , and was to take a long Journey , intreating her to look to her Candle , which he had lighted up for her , till his return , I cannot conceal . For the Story says , the same Candle was burning six months after , at the return of her Devoto . An example of the most miraculous Prolonger that ever I met withall before in all my days . Such an Image of the Virgin would save poor Students a great deal in the expense of Candles , if the thing were but lawfull and feasible .

3. From these small hints a man may easily discover of what Authority this second Council of Nice ought to be , though they had not concluded so point-blank against the Word of God . But because that Clause in this Paragraph of the Council I have recited , Id quod Conciliorum , praesertim verò secundae Nicaenae Synodi , &c. may as well aim at the determination of what these Fathers mean by that debitus honor & reverentia which they declare to be due to the Images of Christ and the Saints , as confirm their own Conclusion by the Authority of that Nicene Council , we will take notice also what a kinde of Honour and Reverence to Images the Nicene Council did declare for , and in short it is this ;

That they are to be worshipped and adored and to be honoured with Wax-candles , and by the smoaking of Incense or Perfumes , and the like . Which smells rankly enough in all conscience of Idolatry , as Grotius himself upon the Decalogue cannot but acknowledge . But this is not all . The Invocation of Saints , their Mediation and propitiating God for us for adoring their Images , ●ealing of Diseases , and other Aids and Helps , besides Ora pr● nobis , are manifestly involved in the Worship of these Images , according to that Nicene Council .

4. And truly , according to the Collections of Photius in Iustellus , one would think that they meant the Cultus Latriae to the Image of Christ , they using the word 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , as if that Worship which was done to the Image passed through to Christ himself , which would not be sutable to him , if itwere not Divine Worship . And where that word is not used , yet the sense makes hugely for it . As in this Paragraph touching the second Council of Nice according to Photius ; 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 .

This seventh Synod , saith he , ( that is to say , the second of Nice ) with joint suffrages hath established and ratifj'd the worshipping of the Image of Christ , for the honour and reverence of him that is expressed by it ; this Worship and Honour being done in such manner as when we approach the holy Symbols or Types of our most holy and Divine Worship : ( for the word is 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . ) For we do not stop at them , nor restrain our Worship and Devotion to them , nor are we divided toward heterogeneous and different Scopes or Objects ; but by that Service and worship of them that appears divided are we carried up devoutly and undividedly unto the one and indivisible Deity . Whereby it is plainly declared , that that very Worship which passes to the Deity is done towards the Image of Christ first or jointly , as being one and the same undivided Worship in truth and reality ; as also that this Worship is that Worship which is called Latria , and is due to the highest God onely .

5. But that Religious Worship is done to the Images of all the Saints seems imply'd in what comes afterwards , where it is said , that this second Council of Nice , ( which Photius calls 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . That this Council has not onely established and appointed that the Image of Christ should be honoured and worshipped , but the holy Images of the Virgin Mary and of all the Saints , according to the excellency and venerability of their Prototypes . For even by these are we carried up into a certain unitive and conjunctive vision , and thereby are vouchsafed that divine and supernatural con●●nction or contact with the highest of all desirables , that is , God himself .

6. Can any thing more inflame the Souls of men with that mystical lust after Idols then the Doctrines of this Nicene Synod ? For as for the Image of Christ , the same Devotion and Worship is done to that which is done to God himself . And for the Images of the Virgin Mary and the rest of the Saints , though that Worship is allotted them onely that is proportionable to their Prototypes , yet they are worshipped such a way as that thereby ▪ while we adhere to their Images or Statues , we are declared to be made fit for and to be vouchsafed a tactual Union with God himself . What Philtrum more effectual to raise up that Idolomania , that being mad and lovesick after Images and Idols , then this ? What can inrage their Affections more towards Idolatry , then to phansie that while they worship Idols , and cling about dead Statues , that very individual act ( and therefore it cannot be too intense ) is that wherewith they are united to , and lie in the very Embraces of , the everliving and true God ?

7. The sense of the Synod is , according to the representation of Photius , that we worship and unite our selves with God as well in the worshipping the Images of the Virgin and of other Saints , as in the worshipping of the Image of Christ . So that all is Religious Worship , and consequently gross Idolatry , it being done to Stocks and Stones and such like sensless Objects . For the drift of all Idolatry is , when it is questioned , and craftily defended , that through the Worship of Daemons and Images they reach at the Worship of , and the joyning their Devotion to , the first and highest God-head . Wherefore the Council of Trent declaring with the second Council of Nice , that is to say , the blind leading the blind , they have both fallen into this dreadfull Pit of Idolatry .

CHAP. VIII .

Vpon the first Paragraph .

TO this first Paragraph he has given his Answer already in what he has said to the first Paragraph of the former Chapter , viz. Here the Doctor gives us a learned Antithesis between the Commandment of God and Decree of this Council . The like Rhetorical flourish he uses against the second Council of Nice , &c. See my Reply to his Answer on that Paragraph . There is no need of any thing new to be said .

His Answer to the second Paragraph .

To that about the weak reasonings of the Council , which he says I would gladly father upon them , he pretends to think it a child of my own brain till I take the pains to prove it is none of mine . Touching the Miracles there mentioned ; But whereas , saith he , the Council recites some Miracles in favour of the due honour given to the Images of Christ and his Saints , these he most profoundly confutes by an unanswerable laughter . This is the main if not all to this second Paragraph .

The Reply .

To the first I Reply , It is Chemnitius , not I , that fathers those subtil reasonings upon the Fathers of the Nicene Council . And though I have not had the time nor curiosity to examin the History of the Council my self so throughly and exactly as to affirm of my own notice that this is the very reasoning of the Nicene Fathers , yet this I will say for Chemnitius , that I find him , so far as I can see , carefull in the main of his account of things , not omitting that of the seventh Action which my Adversary alledges so triumphantly against Photius ; Which we shall consider anon . As for that of ●salm 16. I am sure they bring it in impertinently enough . But can any thing be more impertinent than that of Pope Adrian , who influenced the Council , in his letter to Irene and her son Constantine , where pleading zealously for Image-Worship he urges these places of Scripture , Vultum tuum Domine requiram , Psalm 26. Ad vultum tuum depre●abuntur omnes divites plebis , Psalm 44. And again , Psalm 4. Signatum est super nos lumen vultus tui , &c. Thy face Lord will I seek , Lord lift thou up the light of thy Countenance upon us . Therefore Images are to be erected and lights set up before them , as if the light of Gods Countenance were to be reflected from these painted Statues , or his face to be sought in looking up to graven Images which his Soul abhors . But such seems to be the arguing of Pope Adrian to these two Princes . And as for the middle Quotation , it is very modestly or very cunningly done of the Pope , that he did not take a greater share of that verse , and say , In muneribus vultum tuum deprecabuntur omnes divites plebis . But then the plot had been more easily smelt out , that the Zeal for Images was in reference to the Oblations and gifts brought to them . This tast may suffice to let the Reader understand what shre●d Reasoners they were in that Council , when the Pope himself , who inspired all by his influence , reasons at such a rate as he does .

Now to the second part I have nothing to Reply , but that I think it not so commendable carriage for a mans self to laugh when he tells a story that is ridiculous ; and therefore it is a breach of Charity , at least of Civility , to affirm that I laughed , where it was not good manners so to do ; he not possibly hearing me laugh at such a distance as he was removed from me when I writ this Paragraph ; which makes me believe that he himself could not but laugh at the recital of such incredible stuff , and so measured my Corn by his own Bushel .

His Answer to the third Paragraph .

From laughing , saith he , he immediately falls alowring , and the Reason is , because this Council declares that it is lawfull to burn Candels , Incense , and Perfumes in honour of the Saints before their Images ; which he in an angry mood concludes to smell rankly of Idolatry , even by the Authority of Grotius himself upon the Decalogue . This is all in Answer to this third Paragraph , saving his falling foul upon Grotius .

The Reply .

It is not unworthy Observation of what a Scenical or Histrionical Genius this Roman Doctor my Adversary is , that can raise Comedies and Tragedies thus upon such slight occasions ; I must confess I am sorry for the Idolatries of their Church , but that I did either laugh before or lowre now is onely the Poetical phancy of my Antagonist so to imagine . But that the Council of Nice does appoint t●e burning of Incense and the lighting of Candles before the Images , I shall prove in its proper place . In the mean time I would have my Reader take notice that [ even by the Authority of Grotius himself upon the Decalogue ] are the words of my Adversary not mine , which are these , As Grotius himself upon the Decalogue cannot but acknowledge . I give little to the Authority of Grotius in himself , but to the clearness of the Case , that such an one that did so glaver and fawn upon the Church of Rome and endeavour to gratifie her every where to the utmost he could , yet was ashamed to venture to gratifie her in a point so clearly against her as this , and therefore could not but acknowledge , though against his will , that the burning of Incense before Images is Idolatry .

His Answer to the fourth Paragraph .

Instead of Answering to that Quotation of Photius which plainly implies that the Council of Nice has allotted the Worship of Latria to the Image of Christ , he according to his usual Art would make the World believe , that I clash again here with our Church of England , out of my own positions or Conclusions . But the thing he here repeats is Crambe bis cocta , heartless and sapless stuff , as indeed I proved it to be at first . The sum of his Answer is this , That when the Sons of the Church of England bow their knees at the Eucharist , which to them is a Symbolical presence , whether they terminate this act of Worship on the Eucharist or Symbolical presence , or profess it does 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , pass on to Christ , in the first they will be absolute Idolaters by the twentieth Conclusion of my second Chapter , in the second they will be obnoxious to what I urge here against the Nicene Council ▪ One would think they meant the Cultus Latriae , &c. This , I say , is all be seems to be concerned in upon this Paragraph . For his exception against Photius his Authority followes in the next .

The Reply .

But to this , such as it is , I Answer , or rather say that I have Answered it already upon his first proposing of it ; where I deny that we of the Church of England take the Bread or Wine to be any symbolical Presence to be bowed to , but mere symbolical Instruments of commemorating the Passion and Crucifixion of our Saviour , mere holy Elements consecrated to that use . And that we do not kneel to them , or at their approach , but are at our Devotions afore in a posture of Prayer to God and Christ , which these Symbols when they are given to us find us aforehand in . So that this is a mere Cavil against the Sons of the Church of England and against my self , devised and repeated by my Adversary to fill up the defect of better Answerings .

His Answer jointly to the fourth , fifth , and sixth Paragraphs :

His next pretense is to prove positively by the Testimony of Photius that this Council gives the worship of Latria to the Image of Christ . But the Doctor , says he , had plaid his Master-prize , if he had given all this rabble ( he means both the Quotations ) in the Councils own words , but instead of that he feeds upon Reversions , at the second hand takes his Quotations from Photius ( a Person of as much credit as himself ) and makes Photius the Paraphrast and Interpreter of the Councils meaning . But what if the Council say no such thing ? Nay what if the Council deliver the quite contrary doctrine ? How blank then will the Doctors charge look , upon the discovery of such Disingenuity ? And truly had the Doctor but taken so much as a cursory survey of Catholick Authors on this Subject , he might have found them frequently and truly quoting this very Council , Act. 7. to prove that the Image of Christ is not to be honoured with the Worship of Latria : but that such honour and reverence is due to Images in general , as to the Books of the Gospel and the holy utensils of the Altar . This is all , touching this Chapter , the rest is raillery and humour , which I leave this Roman Doctor to enjoy himself in . But by the by in the next ●e pretends that I have omitted the Translation of 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 in my second Quotation of Photius in this ; which therefore I shall touch upon .

The Reply .

That these Quotations out of Photius prove that which I produce them for , my Adversary cannot deny , supposing the Authority of Photius were Authentick ; Which he vilifies upon no grounds , nor has any that I know so to do . He was the Patriarch of Constantinople , the Chief or Head of the Greek Church where this Council was held , And was Patriarch not long after this Council . And his place and dignity in the Church , and very Genius you may be sure would make him very carefull to understand a Council of so great importance as this : And for his Parts and Learning , he was extraordinarily famous . Concerning which I cannot here abstain from interserting that high Elogium which that Learned Prelate of our Church Dr. Creighton gives him in his Preface to the History of the Florentine Council . Illustri Photio Doctiorem in omni genere literarum , prudentiorem in rebus gerendis , omnis Iuris Divini humanique peritiorem nunquam quovis solio vel Romae Papam vel Constantinopoli Patriarcham sedisse puto . And again in the same Preface , Aequalem Photio nulla aetas dedit , nulla dabit . And this Photius it is that describes the seven general Councils in his Epistle to Michael Prince of Bulgary , in none of which , for his own Credit , can a man think he would willingly be taken Tripping , or that he would say any thing contrary to the sense of this Council of Nice , which the Bishop of Rome had assuredly a Copy of as well as himself , and would have been ready to discover him if he falsified in any thing ; especially these two Sees being in Competition for that Principality of Bulgaria to whether Church it should be adjoined , they being but lately Converted to Christianity . And therefore in all likelyhood Photius would take special heed how he spake any thing contrary to the sense of this Council . Nay , what will you say , if I prove that Photius has spoke exquisitely according to the sense of the Pope of Rome himself , ( I mean of Pope Adrian who influenced this Council of Nice ) as also of the Council it self ; who will be blank then ? or who ought to blush for his Temerity and Disingenuity ?

Let us therefore take notice what Pope Adrian says in his letter to Irene the Empress and her son Constantine . That the Worship or honour done to Images does 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 or pass to the Prototype , such passages as these in Pope Adrians letter do plainly signifie . In the whole Christian World , says he , the holy Images are honoured or worshipped by Believers , ut per visibilem vultum ad invisibilem Divinitatis Majestatem mens nostra spirituali affect● rapiatur , which he speaks more especially in respect of the Image of Christ . And a page or two after , Creatura non terrenam speciem honorat sed coelestem ipsam figuram reveretur . And in the page following , Non enim lignum adoratur sed id quod in ligno conspicitur & memoratur , honorificatur . And a little above he quotes Ambrose to Gratian the Emperor , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . What , says he , out of Ambrose , when we adore the Divinity and the flesh of Christ do we divide him ? God forbid . And then presently out of Ep●phanius Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , i. e. If a King have his Statue or Image , is he presently two Kings ? no by no means : The King is still one together with his Image . And now we have heard Pope Adrian Patriarch of Rome , let us hear what Tarrhasius Patriarch or Pope of Consta●inople speaks , who presided in this Nicene Council , and does fully and plainly agree to this letter of Adrian writ to Irene and the Emperor her son , he and the whole Synod professing , that they ought to receive Images , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , &c. and the said Images made to Christ who is God , to our immaculate Lady the holy Mother of God , to the holy Angels and Saints to adore and Worship them with respective affection , in the mean time plainly directing or devoting their faith and Latria to the onely one true God , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 .

All which Quotations considered together plainly intimate what Photius has declared in that which I have produced of him . That there is a 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 of that Worship which is done to Images , and that it passes to the Prototype ; which therefore must be such as is worthy the Prototype , and therefore Latria in the Image of Christ . This Diabasis or passing of the Worship to the Prototype is so manifestly and so principally aimed at , that in some of these sentences I have recited , they deny any honour at all done to the Image , declaring that the Terres●rial form is not honoured but the Celestial , nor the wooden Image , but that which is signified by i● ; and yet that the Image and Person is one , to make sure of but one Mode of Worship which is due to the Person or Prototype , and that there is no dividing of the Worship more than of the Person : which is exactly according to Photius his description of this Council , Pa●●graph 4. Nor are we divided toward heterogeneous and different scopes and Objects , but by that service and Worship of them that appear divided are we carried up devoutly and undividedly unto the one and indivisible Deity , to the onely one true God , as the Council and Tarrhasius concludes in this 2. Act. Compare with this also the latter Clause of the Quotation out of Photius in the fifth Paragraph . So that hitherto Photius has exquisitely represented the mind of the Council .

Let us now hear what is said Act. 7. to which my Antagonist appeals . The last definitive sentence therefore of the Council as much as respects our business is this . 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . that is , We define with all care and earnestness that holy and adorable Images be set up , and that they be honoured with salutations and adorations , but not in such sort as according to the tenour of our Faith is the true Latria which belongs onely to the Divine Nature ; but in such sort as we salute and Worship the Figure of the pretious and vivificative Cross , the sacred Books of the Gospel and other holy Things . And that there be added also Lights and Incense for the honouring of them , as was the Pious custom of the ancients . For the honour of the Image passes to the Prototype , and he that worships the Image worships the person which the Image doth express .

This is in full as much as respects the point in hand out of Act. 7. of this Nicene Council according to the Greek Text as Severinus Binius has set it out : And the word 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 is plainly used here . According to which and to those passages in Pope Adrians letter , and the Consent thereto of Tarrhasius and the whole Council , Act 2. it is manifest that Photius has given an account of this Council , terminating no Worship in the Images no● any thing used in our Religion , but onely in God himself , or in the Saints , or rather not in the Saints neither , but 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , as both the Council and Photius faithfully following the footsteps of the Council do declare . But now in this last definition of the Council , to say they give to no Image that Worship which is Latria , and then afterwards to say , The Worship done to the Image does 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 pass to the Prototype , is plainly to say they give Worship not Divine to Christ , and so declare he is not God ; which makes me hugely suspect , that 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 till we come to 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 has been foisted in since Photius his time . But Photius living not long after the Council , perused uncorrupted copies thereof ; And truely that this is foisted in it is an argument to me , in that the sense seems so lame and bungling , as if the party knew not how to express his mind in the language . For it should be naturally , either 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , &c. Not giving them , contrary to the tenour of our faith , the true Latria which belongs onely to God , or else , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , &c. Not giving them the true Latria , whic● , according to the tenour of our faith belongs onely to God . For the definition of what is the true Latria is not so properly any Article of our Faith and Religion , but that the true Latria belongs to God alone .

And therefore the first reading was in all likelyhood thus ; That holy and adorable Images be set up , and that they be honoured with salutations and adorations in such sort as we salute and Worship the figure of the blessed and vivificative Cross , the sacred Books of the Gospel , and other holy Things . And that there be added also Lights and Incense , &c. For the honour of the Image passes to the Prototype ; Where we might take notice of the unskilfull blunder and gross confusion in the Latine Translation which is caused by not taking notice , that [ we define ] is to be repeated 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , before [ And that there be added also Lights and Incense , &c. ] But one thing more especially is to be observed here , That the Council does look at the burning of Incense and setting up Lights as an Act of Latria if before the Image of Christ , and as a Religious Worship be they before what Image they will , for immediately after [ And that there be added also Lights and Incense , &c. ] there follows , For the Honour done to the Image passeth to the Prototype .

But I will add unto all this , that suppose the foisted words which we have excluded should be retained and allowed of , yet if we improve that Epither of Latria to what it seems to aim at , it will not at all justle with Photius his sense nor other parts of the Council . For 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 true Latria , here naturally signifies that Latria which is Terminative on the Object , which can belong to no other but God . And therefore is counter-distinct to that Latria which does 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 and is Transitive , which cannot belong to God , because there is none greater nor higher than He to whom it should pass : whence it is plain that the Transitive Latria is not the true Latria as being incompetible to God the highest Object . So that Cultus Latriae transitivus or respectivus , that is , which hits so on one Object , that it tends to an higher and better , is allowed by the Council to the Image of Christ , though not Cultus Latriae terminativus . Which Bin●us also plainly acknowledges in his Notes on this seventh Act of the Council . Which is the very sense of Photius ; And which this foisted sentence at least does not obscure . but doth rather imply , That this to the Image of Christ is Latria too , but not vera Latria , viz. Terminative but Transitive onely ; which is the Thing , as I said , which Photius asserts .

And now for that passage in the second Quotation 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , the genuine sense of it will be hence easily understood . For Latria belonging to the Image of Christ according to the sense of the Council and of Photius , and to Christ himself according to the sense of all Orthodox Christians , the Analogy will be thus . Let Christ himself be 24. and the Worship due to him , viz. Latria , 18. Let the Virgin Mary be 8. every Saint else 4. Now 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 we necessarily conclude , as 24 to 8 , so 18 to 6. As 24 to 4 , so 18 to 3 , that is to say , As Christ is to Mary , so is Latria to Hyperdulia , and as Christ is to any other Saint , so is Latria to Dulia . But according to the Council and Photius who give Latria also to the Image of Christ ; Then as Christ is to Mary , so is the Worship of the Image of Christ which is Latria , to the Worship of the Image of Mary , which must therefore be Hyperdulia . And as Christ or Mary to another Saint , so the Worship of the Image of Christ or Mary to the Worship of the Image of another Saint . The former therefore being Latria and Hyperdulia , this last must be Dulia : The Worship of the Image of the Saint must be Dulia , as well as of its Prototype : Which is the very same that Alexander Halts , Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventure those ancient School-men , who writ above 400 years ago , do affirm , That the same honour is done to the Image that is done to the Prototype . That the Images have according to the excellency and venerability of their Prototypes , some Latria , some Hyperdulia , and some Dulia . And thus I think I have proved my Translation of that passage , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , &c. to be very right and full , which he says is the onely material word in that Citation , pag. 86. l. 13. and have made it manifest , that the very Analogy Photius aimes at concludes the sameness of honour to Image and Prototype . And which is my main drift of all , I have sufficiently evinced that Photius has given the most natural and genuine sense of this Nicene Council . According to which my Adversary even in his own conceit and opinion cannot but conclude the Church of Rome , which refers her self to this Council , to be gross Idolaters . And who , I pray you , ought to be blank now ?

Vpon the seventh Paragraph .

That my Antagonist Answers nothing to this seventh and last Paragraphs , must be either because he thinks he has Answered it already by denying that sense of the Council which Photius represents , or because he thinks it unanswerable . If the former , I have made good that Photius his sense of the Council is the most genuine and natural . If the latter , we have the day in this Point without any more to do .

Nor can I imagine what may occur that may seem at all to lessen the certainty of that sense of Photius , unless that passage of Constan●ine Bishop of Constantia , Act 4. where giving his vote for the worshipping of Images ( as if forsooth there was any fear that he should give that Worship to the Image of a Saint that is due to the holy Trinity ) he is made to reserve 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ( by which is understood 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , to the super-essential and zoarchical Trinity . The former part of which is so without analogy , and the latter so turgid and preterscriptural , and this caution so solitary , not one of the Bishops making any such caution but himself ; and lastly , so superfluous in respect of what goes before in the form of profession approved by them , ( Where they declare they do not Worship 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , the painted wood or stone , but that through these by the eyes of their mind they are carried to the Prototypes , according to that of Basil the great , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ; which is a sign they pretend not one Worship for the Image and another for the Prototype , but that it is one Worship though the Image to the Prototype , ) that I must confess to me it makes Bishop Constan●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 ●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 ●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 Con●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 , constr●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 heard 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 ●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 himse●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 D●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 ●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 so well known , that I need not quote any Authours . And that this is the practice of the Roman Church jointly and coherently with their Worship of Images , is manifest to all the world ; and that therefore it is as arrant Idolatry as Paganism it self , and consequently real Idolatry by the third Conclusion of the first Chapter . And lastly , it is to be noted that the Council of Trent , naming the debitus Honor of Images , and not excepting these in known practice then among them , must of all reason be conceived to mean these very Circumstances , as Paganicall as they are , of the Worshipping of them .

7. And the rather , because they do pretend to rectify some Miscarriages in the business of Images , as any unlawfull or dishonest Gain by them , all lascivious Dresses of the Images , all Drunkenness and disorderly Riot at their Feasts , and the like . Which methinks is done with as grave caution against Idolatry , as if they had decreed that all the Whores in Rome should forbear to go in so garish apparell , that they should be sure to wear clean linen , to be favourable to poor younger Brothers in the price of a night's Lodging , that they keep themselves wholsome and clean from the Pox , and the like ; which were not the putting down , but the establishing , of whores and Whoredome in the Papacy . And so are these Cautions touching Images . Exceptio firmat regulam in non exceptis . Wherefore these Circumstances of Idolatry being not named by the Tridentine Fathers in their Exception , they are thereby ratify'd . Which yet are so like the old Pagan Idolatry , that Ludovicus Vives , one of their own Church , could not abstain from professing , non ●osse aliquid discrimen ostendi , nisi quòd nomina tanium & titulos mutaverint ; That onely the Names and Objects were changed , not the Modes , of the ancient Idolatry of the Heathen .

8. If the Council of Trent would have really and in good earnest rectify'd their Church in the point of Images , they should have followed the Example of that skilfull and famous Physician Dr. Butler , they should have imi●ated his Prescript touching the safe eating of a Pear , viz. That we should first pare it very carefully , and then be sure to cut out or scoup out all the Coar of it , and after that fill the hollow with Salt , and when this is done , cast it forthwith into the Kennell . This is the safest way of dealing with those things that have any intrinsick Poison or Danger in them . See those most wholesome and judicious Homilies of our Church of England against the Perill of Idolatry .

9. And thus much shall serve for the setting out the Idolatry of the Church of Rome so far as it seems to be allow'd by the Church it self . But for those more gross Extravagancies , which , though they have connived at , yet they would be loath to own upon publick Authority , I will neither weary my self nor my Reader by meddling with them . Such as the making the Images to sweat , their Eyes to move , the making them to smile , or lowre and look sad , to feel heavy or light , or the like . Which does necessarily tend to the engaging of the people to believe and have assiance in the very Images themselves , as those Consecrations also imply which I cited out of Ch●mnit●us , and which that Rhyme seems to acknowledge which they say to that Face of Christ which they call the Veronica . Which Rhyme runs thus : Nos perduc ad patriam , felix ô Figura , Ad videndam Faciem quae est Christi pura . Nos ab omni macula purga Vitiorum , Et tandem consortio junge Beatorum . And with such like blinde Devotion do they likewise speak to the Cross : O Crux , spes unica , Hoc Passionis tempore A●ge piis Iustitiam , Re●sque dona Veniam . This must sound very wildly and extravagantly to any sensible ear . And yet the invoking any Saint before his Image for Aid and Succour , ( the Image bearing the name and representation of the Saint , ) with Eyes and Hands lift up to it , is as arrant talking with a sensless Stock or a Stone as this , See Ch. 〈◊〉 Conclus. 10. and as gross a piece of Idolatry , though approved of by the Authority of the Roman Church . But I intended to break off before .

CHAP. IX .

His Answer to the first Paragraph .

That the image of Christ , says he , may be worshipped ●ith ●●e ●orship of ●atria ( though expres●y contrary to the Doctrine of the second Council of Nice ) is the commonly supposed Opinion of St. Thomas and St. ●onaventure . But there is a great difference betwixt , is to be wors●ipped , and may be worshipped . And besides it is hard to say , what the meaning of these two Doctors is , they wind about so , and enter into such nice distinctions , &c.

The Reply .

AS to the being contrary to the Council of Nice , I Reply , That I have already shown that it is most consonant thereto , both from Photius and the Council it self . And therefore Thomas and Bonaventure being such very ancient Schoolmen , about 400 years ago , and therefore much nearer to the Nicene Council , it is most likely they followed the air of that Council and of Pope Adrians letter to Irene and Constantine approved by that Council . And it is incredible that Pope Adrians letter and the sense of the Council concerning so great a point , and ●f so high importance , should be unknown to the Church of Rome , especially the more learned of them , for above four hundered years together . Touching [ May be worshipped ] and [ Is to be worshipped ] I demand whether any undue Worship may be given to the Image of Christ . If therefore that Worship which may be given is due and fit , it is plain it is to be given or ought to be given ; which questionless was the Opinion of both Thomas and Bonaventure . And lastly , As to the winding into nice distinctions , what distinctions are here but onely of Terminativè , and Relativè , or Transitive ? which are intelligible enough , viz That Latria cannot be given to the Image of Christ Terminativè but onely Relativè , or Transitivè , It must 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , pass to the Prototype as the Council of Nice speaks . That is to say , We must do Divine honour to the Image of Christ that Christ ultimately may be honoured thereby , which is plainly to commit gross Idolatry to the glory and honour of Christ . And therefore my Adversary durst name none of these nice distinctions , not because they are above the capacity of the Vulgar , but because even a Vulgar capacity can easily observe the folly and futility of them .

His Answer to the second Paragraph .

First , he says , That my alledging of Azorius is a proofless Accusation or Calumny against them . I suppose , because ● cite not the very place and words . Secondly , Touching the Doctrine z●rius witnesses of , he says it is so far from being the constant Opinion of their Theologers , that it is now generally rejected by them , unless limited by that qualifying distinction of 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ; which he says I have forgot or purposely omitted in my long Translation out of Photius , though the onely material word in the whole citation . For he contends that the Worship due to the Image and the Prototype , is Analogically though not Univocally the same ; which he would have intimated in that passage of Photius , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , and that therefore I have purpose●y omitted the Translation of it . He streams out a great deal further in this second part of his Answer to this Paragraph , but what ever is material I shall have an eye to in my Reply .

The Reply .

To that of Azorius , I have no more to say than thus , to prove it no Calumny ; That his words Instit. Moral . part 1. lib. 9. cap. 6 are these , Constans est Theologorum sententia imaginem eodem honore & cultu honorari & coli quo colitur id cujus est Imago . What can be more express ? Touching the doctrine it self , I note from the very intimatition of my Adversary , that he cannot well deny , but that it has been the general doctrine of their Church though now it is not , they being Apostates , as it seems , from the Opinion of Pope Adrian , the steers-man of that Council of Nice , whom yet they now make a Fallible Mortal , renouncing his Opinion and the Councils , as I think I have plainly proved above . And then to what he says , Unless limited by that qualifying distinction of 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , which I purposely omitted in Translating of Photius . First , I say , I did not omit the Translating of it ; For I render 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , thus , According to the excellency of the Prototypes , [ according ] here being the same that pro ratione , and that the same that 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . But , not onely notwithstanding this passage , but from this very passage have I demonstrated , according to the mind of Photius and the Council , that one and the same Worship , even univocally the same , is to be given to the Image and the Prototype . Of such confessed Idolatry has their . Church been found guilty of till of late , even according to my Adversaries Concession .

But now , Secondly , with my Adversary to say , They are onely Analogically the same , is a phrase of uncertain signification , whether it is to be understood Logically or Geometrically . If Logically , it is as much as to say , That the Worship to the Image and the Prototype agree in one immediate Genus Analogum . As in those words that I suspected foisted into the Council , there is mention of 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , by which suppose were meant the highest and most principal Latria , which is excepted there as undue , suppose to the Image of Christ ; but that there may be some other Latria that is . Wherefore the Genus Analogum that is immediate to these two Latria's , is a Latria common to them both , and the two Latriae under it , the one to Christ , the other to his Image , are the species of this Genus . And so in like manner of Hyperdulia to the blessed Virgin and of Dulia to the rest of the Saints , these words used in respect of their Images and of themselves must be the species of those common genera , Hyperdulia and Dulia . But according to the Rudiments of Logick the species of a Genus Analogum do really , though one dependently of the other and less principally , partake of the common nature of the Genus ; which being either Latria , Hyperdulia , or Dulia , and all these Religious Worship , it is manifest Religious Worship is given to all the Images .

But now if we understand that the Worship done to the Image and the Prototype is . Analogically the same in a Geometrical sense , we are first to take notice , that Analogy in Geometry requires four termes ; as , in A , B : : B , C. or A , B : : C , D. And therefore the four Termes in this Case , will be , Christ , the Worship of Christ , Christs Image , the Worship of Christs ●mage : As Christ to t●e Worship of Christ , so Christs Image to the Worship of Christs Image . Now if you will say , The Worship of Christ and the Worship of Christs Image is one and the same Term in this Analogy , you ipso facto declare , that , seeing the Worship of Christ is Latria prope●ly so called , the Worship of Christs Image is so also . You see therefore how gross a thing it is to say the Termes are Analogically the same in this Geometrical way , it implying also a Parity betwixt the Image of Christ and Christ himself . And the same inconvenience will recu● though you take them alternately : As Christ to Christs Image , so the Worship of Christ to the Worship of Christs Image . Here again if the Worship of Christs Image and the Worship of Christ be the same , it will follow that there is a Parity betwixt Christ and his Image , which is Impossible . But you will say , the Worship of Christ , and the Worship of Christs Image is Analogically the same , That 's the thing you mean . But you seem not to know what you mean your selves : If you mean in that Logical sense above , you have your Answer already ; If you mean in a Geometrical or Arithmetical sense , if I should use your freedom of speech elsewhere , I might say more than that it is not sense . For the Termes including a proportion are not called Analogically the same , but the proportions included betwixt each two Termes , which make up the four Termes proportional , are rightly said to be the same ; As in 6 to 3 , and 4 to 2 , the proportion betwixt 6 and 3 is the same proportion that betwixt 4 and 2 ; but neither 6 and 3 nor 4 and 2 are Analogically the same . Therefore nothing with any sense can be said this Geometrical way unless this , That there is the same proportion betwixt the Worship of Christ and the Worship of his Image , that there is betwixt Christ and Christs Image . But this is far from saying the Worship of Christ and the Worship of his Image is Analogically the same ; there being no sameness of Termes including proportions in these Cases , unless the Termes be equal , as in 10 , 10 : : 5 , 5 ▪ or 10 , 5 : : 10 , 5. But thus will the Image of Christ have Latria due to it as well as Christ himself . But such muddy and confounded Doctrines must needs be the mothers of confounded Notions and distinctions . But supposing , As Christ to his Image ( which must be the ground of proportion betwixt the two Worships of Christ and Christs Image ) so the Worship of Christ is to the Worship of Christs Image ; the Image of Christ beingin a most absolute sense infinitely inferiour to Christ himself , what kind or share of Worship that is to terminate on his Image , can be imagined so mean , but it will be really too much ? and therefore the fittest proportion will be none at all . And how will lighting up Candles and burning Incense before Christs Image , which is plainly Religious Worship , yea Sacrifice and therefore Latria , as I have proved above , and yet enjoyned by this Council of Nice , bear so little proportion to the Worship of Christ himself , as his Image does to him , which is infinitely inferiour ?

Things therefore succeed so ill this Arithmetical way that I half phancy my Antagonist to affect the Logical , though I must confess I know not which he would be at , he is so off and on ; which made me show the unsuccesfulness of both . But let the Reader judge of his words , pag. 87. As the Man and the painted Man are Analogically the same , so the honour done to the painted Man and the Man himself , are not univo●ally but Analogically the same ; which he applies to Images and Prototypes . By saying not Univocally but Analogically the same , ( though a few lines before he expresses himself in a Geometrical way ) he seems to make a Man and a painted Man two species under one Genus Analogum , whenas a Man and a painted Man are termes equivocal ; As if Thomas and Bonaventure when they declared the Worship given to the Image and the Prototype to be the same , meant equivocally the same ! What is all this but Tergiversation and Equivocation ? No question there●ore but Thomas and Bonaventure meant as Photius , and Photius as the Nicene Council , and the Nicene Council as Pope Adrian . And that Religious Worship is meant to Images in their worshipping them , is plain from that Clause ; 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . That besides Salutation and Adoration , they were to add the setting up Lights and burning of Incense in honour to them . For the honour done to the Image passes to the Prototype . Now as I above noted , burning of Incense is a Sacrifice , and setting up Lights was a piece of Religious service in the Pagan Religion to their Daemons and a kind of Oblation , and it is here plainly expressed to be done in honour to the Images , out of all which it is apparent that it is Religious Worship . And then , in that it is said 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , to pass to the Prototype , that is a further Confirmation thereof , and intimation that it is that very Worship that is competible to the Prototype ; whether Christ , the blessed Virgin , or any other Saint , to all whom Invocation is expresly competible according to the Council of Trent it self ; which yet is comperible to no invisible Power , but the very God●ead . But Pope Adrian in his Letter to Irene and Constantine says expresly , that Images and their Prototypes are lookt upon but as one , and therefore their Worship bu● as one ; not one to the Image the other to the Prototype , ( accordingly as Photius hath faithfully declared the sense of the Council ) but one Religious Worship passing through the Image to the Prototype : As those that should Worship the Moon through a glass window with the picture of the Moon in it . I do not at all doubt but this was the genuine and true sense and air of that second Council of Nice .

And therefore my Antagonist must give me leave to give credit to Azorius , ( who , by the by , does also declare , that it is the sense also of the Council of Nice and of Trent ) when he tells us this is the constant Opinion of their Theologers , especially the more ancient Schoolmen , as Alexander Hales , Thomas Aquinas , Bonaventure , &c. as keeping to the right sense of Pope Adrian and this seventh general Council called on purpose to decide this matter of Images . And if you have changed of late from this Rule , it is but a concession how grosly you were lapsed into Idolatry before . Nor are you yet a jot mended , by saying it is Analogically the same Worship , it still remaining Religious Worship terminated in the Images t●emselves ; which is a gross blot , and makes the matter worse than before . But to make the Worship equivocally the same , is such an equivocating quibble to put on these two Saints of Rome , St. Thomas , and St. Bonaventure , that all the honour done to their Images will not recompense this injury done to their Memorie .

And thus I have used my Christian liberty , which my Adversary so courteously allowes me , in impugning Gabriel Biel , and whosoever else do corrupt the genuine sense of Thomas Aquinas , and Bonaventure , with such pittifull glosses . And whereas he says the Council of Trent never mentions any such Worship of Latria due to the Image of Christ ; I Answer , it mentions the Council of Nice , and refers to the sentence of that Council , which assuredly was the same that Azorius says is the constant Tenet of Theologers . And thus consequentially at least does the Council of Trent declare for Latria to the Image of Christ . Besides , as I have noted ; Azorius is of Opinion that the Council of Trent of it self is of this judgement . But of this enough , Not has he any thing else on this second Paragraph which may not easily be Answered from what is said already .

His Answer to the third Paragraph .

Here is a Calumny , saith he , of the first Magnitude , most uncharitably implying that the Roman Church prayes to Images as the Heathen did to their Idol-Gods . The charge is so gross that no person but one remove from a fool can either believe the Doctor , or think he believes himself .

The Reply .

Truly I think there were very few among the Pagans that were so silly and unwise , as to take the very wood and stone they prayed to for a God , but for the Image of that God they prayed to , towards which they doing their devotions hoped to be heard . There might be some so sottish amongst them , as I have heard a story long since of an old woman amongst you , who having done her devotions to the Image of the Virgin , and being asked by one that stood by , what Lady she prayed to , to her in the Church , or to her in Heaven ; what talk you to me , says she , of our Lady in Heaven ? I pray to this Lady before my eyes . I will not deny but there may have been such sottish old wives amongst the Pagans too ; But assuredly for the most pa●● neither you nor they profess to pray to the very Image of wood or stone , but to the Prototype it is consecrated to . And now say , whether this Calumnv of the first magnitude has not melted into a liquid Truth : There is no praying to the Image terminatively but to the Prototype before the Image , in either the Pagan , or Pagano-Christian Religion , unless by such doting old wives as that story goes on . The very meanest and most ignorant of the Indians will profess , they do not take their Pa-Gods , or Idols , to be Gods ▪ or Worship them as such , but Worship God in them , as I am certainly informed by a carefull inquirer into those things .

His Answer to the fourth Paragraph .

Chemnitius his word , says he , is no proof with us , who is a known Sinon , a person of that tryed integr●ty , as that he that never trusts him shall be sure never to be deceived by him . This he makes another Calumny .

The Reply .

But this , I say , is a kind of an equivocating form of rayling against a very eminent person , for his great learning and faithfull industry in supporting the Truth . But why a Sinon I pray you ? Si miserum fortuna Sinonem Finxit , vanum etiam mendacemque improba finget . If he undertook a miserable Cause , destitute of all Truth and solidity , as your Party does in such Points as we are upon , then indeed there were some temptation for him to do as some at least of you do , to use slights , and shifts , and tricks , to foist in , and to expunge by expurgatory Indexes , to feign any thing plausible for your own advantages : but our Cause being firm of it self , we are put to no such devices ; but if we were destitute of Truth on our part , would willingly imbrace it where we find it . Or if you could phancy Chemnitius a Sinon , could you phancy him such a fool to quote Consecrations out of a known Pontifical , where every body might see there is no such thing . I am glad I have the Ritual by me , which I make use of in the next Paragraph , that proves that there is such a thing as Consecration of Images in your Church to be prayed before , and the Saint whose Image it is to be invoked before it . But in that Consecration , you will say , there is no mention of Thundring and Lightning , and Storms to be chased away by these Images consecrated . But I beseech you what more of absurdity or incredibility , that the Church of Rome in honour to their Saints should consecrate their Images to these purposes , than that she should consecrate bells to the said uses ? as you may see abundantly in Durandus his Rationale , lib. 1. cap. 4. Pulsatur & benedicitur Campana ut fruges , mentes & corpora credentium serventur , procul pellantur hostiles exercitus & omnes insidiae ●nimici , fragor grandinum , procelia turbinum , impetus tempestatum & fulgurum tempe●entur , infestaque ton●trua & ventorum flamina suspendantur , spiritus procellarum & Aereae Potestates perterreantur , &c. When they consecrate bells to such mighty Powers and effects as these , can any man that is but one remove from a fool , doubt whether they would consecrate the Image of St. John and the blessed Virgin to such like purposes ? Their Agnus Dei is also consecrated to the like uses , as you may see in the same Durandus , lib. 6. cap. 79. And in the above said Ritual you may observe I know not how many things to the like purpose , The Cross , Oyle , Salt , Water , and the like : So that he must be very weak that can misbelieve this Quotation of Chemnitius out of the Pontifical he mentions , or that it is any Calumny to produce his Testimony , or improper for me to use it , though he be a Protestant , my scope being not onely to grapple with the adverse Party , but also to confirm our own .

His Answer to the fifth Paragraph .

There is no such expression , says he , in the whole Prayer , as Grant O Virgin , or Grant O Saint , but Grant O God . How then do we here make the Virgin and other Saints , fellow-distributers of Grace and Glory with Christ himself ? Much less do we make them fellow distributers of Grace and Glory with Christ upon their own Merits , who have no Merits of their own , but such as flow from and have their absolute dependence of the Merits of Christ . And least of all are they here made fellow-distributers of Grace for the service done to them in kneeling and praying before their Statues ; there being no such causal as that ( For ) specified at all in the Prayer .

The Reply .

To all which I Answer , It is true , it is not said ▪ Grant O Virgin , nor Grant O Saint , but Grant O God ▪ because this is a form of consecration of the Images of Christ , the Virgin or any other Saint ; to wit , Prayer to God ( not to the Virgin or any other Saint , not made before any of their Images already consecrated , as he would make his simple folk believe whom he indeavours to keep in ignorance ) but is , I say , a Prayer to God , that whosoever shall invoke Christ , the Virgin , or such a Saint , whose Image is a consecrating , may be heard , and obtain by the Merits and Intercession of the party they pray to , grace here , and glory hereafter . This is the plain sense of the Consecration . And it is plain it is through their own Merits , though they may be supposed inabled so to merit be vertue of Christ . And if an Invocation of the Virgin , or any other Saint , before their Images , by their Merits and Intercession ( which is the usual form of Invocation as you may see above ) procure Grace here and Glory hereafter , are not they fellow-distributers of Grace and Glory with Christ ? And does not the very form of Consecration imply that they are Distributers , that is to say , that the Saints by their Merits and Intercession do procure Grace here and Glory hereafter for their Suppliants , upon the very account of their earnest and humble supplication to them before their Images , as being a means to this end and therefore Causal thereto ? But I do not exclude herein the vertue of the Intercession and Merit of our highest Mediator Jesus Christ no more than the form of Consecration . Yet these notwithstanding are like the Dii Medioxumi or Daemons of the Heathens , who were the lowest Negotiators of humane affairs with the Divine Powers . So that the strenghth of this Paragraph rests firm for any thing my Antagonist has alledged against it , as any one may perceive who lists to consider on it .

His Answer to the sixth Paragraph .

To that about Wax-candles burning before their Images and the Oblation of Incense smoking before them , he says , I pretend , but do not prove to be Idolatrous , and that therefore it is a Calumny . To that of Temples and Altars he says again , they erect them to God alone , reserving onely a secundary honour for the Saints . This is the sum against this Paragraph .

The Reply .

To the first , I Reply , That it is very plain that burning of Incense was a Sacrifice to God in the Mosaical Law , which Incense was burnt before His symbolical Presence in the Sanctum Sanctorum , And I add also that the lighting the Lamps before him in the same place was another part of this Mosaical service to him , which is some-how imitated by the Pagans in lighting Candles before the Images of their Daemons . In both which respects it is plain , that to do thus to the Images of the Saints is Idolatrous . And by thus doing the Saints are intended to be honoured according to the very Nicene Council , that presently upon the mention thereof , says , The honour done to the Image passes to the Prototype : wherefore that these actions are Idolatrous is plain already , and is more clearly confirmed from the third Conclusion of the first Chapter ▪ and the ninth of the second .

To the Second , I Reply , That the very Rubrick of the Ritual I have so often named ( in the form of consecrating and laying the first stone of the Church ) says thus , Nominando Sanctum vel Sanctam in cujus honorem ac nomen fundatur Ecclesia . Is not this plainly a consecration to the honour and name of the Saint ? And again in the Form of consecrating the Church and the Altar , Te rogamus ut hanc Ecclesiam & Altare ad honorem tuum & women Sancti tui N. pargare & benedicere digneris , where questionless [ ad nomen Sancti ] includes honorem in it , which was expresly signified before in the consecrating the Foundation-stone , and is also included in the signification of nomen . We do not pretend that you equalize the Saints , in these doings , with God himself , but that you make them partake of true Religious Worship , though in a less share or in a more secundary way , with God in these dedications of Temples and Altars to them as well as to God , though not principally , or equall● . Suppose a Pantheon dedicated to Jupiter and the rest of the Gods , no man would say it was dedicated with equal honour to the rest as to him , and yet the dedicating of it to the rest would be Idolatry , as being Religious Worship as well as his , though not at the same pitch ; wherefore these excuses are very weak and insignificant .

His Answer to the seventh Paragraph .

I shall not foul my paper with taking notice of such uns●emly brothel-language as fills up his next page . It is enough to say , it is more than becomes a modest Doctor . This is all to this Paragraph .

The Reply .

Certainly if this Paragraph were not before the Readers eyes to peruse , he would think the Doctor a man of very soul and obscene language . If it be the language of the holy men of God in the Scripture , If it be not more than becomes a modest Prophet , a modest St. John , Apoc. 17. 2 , 4. a modest Jeremy or Ezeki●l to compare Idolatry to whoredom in broader terms than I have done , certainly what I have said here is not more than becomes a modest Doctor . But it is the Policy of my Adversary to fling away with a seeming disdain from what he knows not how to Answer . For this plain Similitude pinches hard and carries along with it a demonstration , that the Council of Trent have not taken away Idolatry from their way of honouring of Images , but confirmed it . He slips by my eighth Paragraph also , as conscious it is too true what I utter in that similtude likewise . And I hope he now sees more clear than ever , that the pr●●ence of honouring Images is quite to be cast out of the Church , there being no good sense to be made of it any way .

His Answer to the ninth Paragraph .

To that of the smiling , and lowring Images , he says , That I charge their Church with connivence at such Vnchristian Impostures as have ever been the Object of her s●arpest Censures , not backing my Accusation with any single Instance . To the Veronica and to O Crux spes Unica , he Answers ; To the first , that it is no part of any Ecclesiastick Office . To the second , that I might as well compare the Invoking God Almighty before the Ark of the Cove●ant to this devotion of speaking to the Cross , as the praying before Images , and make them both alike talking with a stock or stone . This is the main of his Answer in brief : If there be any further pretense of Reason , I shall mention it and meet with it in my Reply .

The Reply .

To the first I Reply , That it is a witty fetch to require of me an Instance of connivence at a fault which , as soon as it is known , is no interest of them that are to punish it to connive any longer at it . For those smiling , lowring and eye-rowling Images , so soon as they are deprehended to be such by Art and not by Miracle , they loose the effect they are intended for , which is to bring more plenteous Oblations to the Church . But for as much as these tricks of the Images cannot but be known to the wise of the Clergy , the Bishop and others under him , to be tricks and not Miracles , and they suffering them till open discovery or complaint , why may they not be said to connive at them ? or why was I bound to bring an Instance of their connivence in so short a Treatise , more than my Adv●rsary of any sharp Censure of their Church against these Impostures ? which he being deficient in● , I will help him with one Instance here in our own Nation in the time of Popery .

In the Abbey Church at Boxley there were two famous Images , one of St. Rumwald , a stone statue of the bigness of a little boy , the other was called the Ro●d of Grace . There was no admission here but upon a treble Oblation , one to the Confessor , the other to St. Rumwald the touch-stone of clean life , and the last to the Rood of Grace . Now to those that offered frankly to St. Rumwald it was most easie to lif● him ; but on the contrary ( by reason of a pin which the keepers could put in and take out at their pleasure ) to those that offered faintly , it was immovable . So that it was a pleasant spectacle to the by-standers , to see a great lubber not able to lift that which a boy or a girle had taken up before . But he was made heavy to those whose Offerings were light , and light to those whose Offerings were more weighty . But they having passed this tryal of clean life , they then were admitted to the Rood of Grace . In which Image stood a man inclosed , and with many wyres made the Image goggle with the eyes , and nod the head , move and shake the jaws , according to the value of the gi●t that was offered . If it was a small piece of silver he would hang the lip . If it were a piece of gold then would his jaws go right merrily . Thus were the people abused and beguiled for a certain time .

I but you will say , certainly some of the Prelates , so soon as it was discovered , severely punished the Imposture . Nay I will tell you more , One of the Prelates discovered it , namely Archbishop Cranmer , and the Image with all its engins was openly shewed at Pauls Cross , and torn in pieces by the people . Did not I tell you so ? will my Adversary reply ; But in the mean time let me tell him again , that it is well known how inclinable then Archbishop Cranmer was to Protestantism , if not a Protestant in his judgement . But we speak of the Connivence of the Popish Clergy in this point , and desire one Instance of any such discovery of Imposture by them , that could any longer have been concealed . And if not , where is the Calumny of Connivence ?

And for the Prayer to the Veronica , be it no part of any Ecclesiastick Office , yet it is in your approved Devotion-books , such as Hortulus Animae ; and this Veronica is showd solemnly once a year to the people to spend their devotion on ; and lastly Pope Iohn the 22d . is said to have granted a thousand years indulgence to them that repeat the whole Prayer , of which I have set down but a third part .

And in the last place , For that he says , The praying before the Ark to God Almighty ( which Ark and the things in it and about it are wood ) may as well be said to be talking with stocks and stones as the praying before the Image of a Saint and the Cross in such formes as are used to them , is a most sensless and absurd speech , to say no worse . For the disparity is manifest . For did the Jews ever say , O Ark hear me , or , O Cherubims hear me . But here is plainly speaking to the Cross , which is but a piece of wood , ( in this form ) Hail O Cross our onely Hope , increase righteousness to the righteous , and pardon our sins . Besides , neither Ark nor Cherubim was in their sight to speak to , But the Image of St. Peter , or the Blessed Virgin is before their eyes , and they bear the names of these Saints , ( as the Image of Christ does his ; of which one Johannes in the Nicene Council declares , if any one call it or inscribe upon it , This is Christ , he does nothing amiss therein ) and are as it were these very Saints represented to us in Figure and Person ; and therefore when we speak to these wooden Personages , saying , O blessed Virgin , O holy St. Peter , &c. is not this infinitely more like talking to stocks and stones , then when the Jews having their faces toward the Ark , which yet was vailed from them , mentioned God alone ? nor was there any wood-work , nor stone-work there , that was called God or Jehovah . But what will not they say , that are in a bad Cause , to make a show to desend themselves ?

But for O Crux ave spes Vnica , he would excuse the gross absurdity of it , ( For none can excuse the Idolatry , when they yield Latria to the true Cross and contend what kind of Religious Worship is due to the Type of it ) by saying that by Crux here is not meant the Cross but Christ crucified on the Cross. So that it is but a figurative speech , The Cross for Christ upon the Cross , Metonymis subject● ; as it is used , 1 Cor. 1. 18. For the preaching of the Cross is to them that perish foolishness , that is , says he , Christ crucified on the Cross. But it is immediately in the former verse , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , left the Cross of Christ be made of none effect , Then immediately follows , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , which is plainly an Ellipsis , and 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 is to be understood 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , And so the whole is , For the preaching of the Cross of Christ , &c. As it is taken , Gal. 6. 24. God forbid that I should glory in any thing saving in the Cross of our Lord Iesus Christ , whereby the world is crucified to me , and I unto the world . This is that which is foolishness to them that perish , but the Power of God to them that are saved . So that there is no ground for a Metony●nia Subjecti , when an Ellipsis is so naturally understood , which will not at all serve his purpose . And the Metonymy indeed very poorly .

For it does not follow , because by a figurative speech the Subject may be put for the Adjunct ; or the Symbol for the Person it is compared to in speech , that therefore we may ( and yet seem to be in our wits ) make Prayers or speeches to these Subjects or Symbols . The Cherubims are the seat of the Divine Presence ; should the Jews therefore have said by a Metonymy , O golden Cherubims come and help us ? And because men talk of the infallible chair at Rome , meaning the Popes , would any but a mad man propound questions to the chair , and not to the Pope himself , to be resolved ? And our Saviour Christ says , Apoc. 22. I am the bright morning Star , which is a figurative speech ; Can therefore any one with eyes and hands lift up to the morning Star , say unto it , O bright morning Star illuminate my understanding , increase righteousness to the righteous , and pardon our sins , but he will be lookt upon as an Idolater and Star-worshipper ? and to say he means Christ the morning Star will not excuse him from mere madness and delirancy , if it could from Idolatry . And how much better , I pray , is it to speak to a piece of wood ? nay , to the figure of another piece of wood ? For Christ was not crucified on the wood they speak to . But by speaking to this piece of wood , they would be understood to speak to another piece of wood on which Christ was crucified at Ierusalem ; nor yet to that piece of wood neither , but to Christ hanging on the wood , and that now at such a time as he is off of the wood , and is in Heaven to be spoke to himself as a gracious Intercessor , that we may not call on this stock or that stone , but make our immediate addresses to him in word and heart , that he would be graciously pleased to intercede with his Father for us .

To all which you may add , That comparing this passage of the Prayer with that which goes before , Arbor decora & fulgida , Electa digno stipite Tam sancta membra tangere ; Beata cujus brachiis secli pependit pretium , and how within a line or two after follows , O Crux ave spes Vnica , &c. it is demonstratively plain , that it is the Cross it it self , not Christ meant in this passage ; unless you will make Christ his own Cross to hang upon , and make him distinct from his own Body and members . Whence the Absurdity and Idolatry of this devotion is most clearly manifest , and that it is no Calumny to charge them with it . The rest of this Section is 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 if you will , and I will leave my Antagonist to injoy himself in the reek and perfume thereof .

CHAP. X. Severall important Consectaries from this clear Diseovery of the gross Idolatry of the Church of Rome ; with an hearty and vehement Exhortation to all men , that have any serious regard to their Salvation , to beware how they be drawn into the Communion of that Church .

1. THus have we abundantly demonstrated that the Church of Rome stands guilty of gross Idolatry according to the conc●ssions and Definitions of their own Council of Trent ; that is to say , though we charge them with no more then with what the Council it self doth own , touching the Adoration of the Host , the Invocation of Saints , and the Worshipping of Images . But we must not forget , in the mean time , that the Crime grows still more course and palpable looking upon the particular forms of their Invocation of the Saints , and the Circumstances of their worshipping their Images , and yet ratify'd by the Popes , and corroborated by the uncontrolled practice of their whole Church : Which therefore must in all reason be the Interpreter of the minde of the Council . So that there is no evasion left for them , but that they are guilty of as gross and palpable Idolatry as ever was committed by the sons of men , no less gross then Roman Paganism it self .

2. From whence , in the next place , it necessarily follows , that they are the most barbarous Murtherers of the Servants of God that ever appeared on the face of the Earth . For indeed if they had had Truth on their side so far , as that the things they required at the hands of the Dissenters had been lawfull , ( though not at all necessary ; ) yet considering the express voice of Scripture , which must be so exceeding effectual to raise consciencious Scruples , and indeed to fix a man in the contrary Opinions , besides the irrefragable Votes of common Sense and Reason , and the Principles of all Arts and Sciences that can pretend any usefulness to Religion in any of its Theoreticall Disquisitions ; I say , when it is so easie from hence , if not necessary , for some men to be born into a contrary consciencious Persuasion , it had undoubtedly even in this case been notorious Murther in the Pontifician Party , to have killed men for dissenting from the Doctrine and Practice of their Church .

But now the Murtherers themselves being in so palpable an Error , and requiring of the Dissenters to profess Blasphemies and commit gross Idolatries with them , which is openly to rebell against God under pretense of obeying Holy Church , as they love to be called , they murthering so many hundred thousands of them for this Fidelity to their Maker , and their indispensable Obedience to the Lord Iesus Christ , this is Murther of a double dye , and not to be parallel'd by all the barbarous Persecutions under the red Dragon , the Pagan Emperours themselves .

3. From which two main Considerations it follows in the third place , that , considering the fit and easie congruity of the names of the Seven Churches and of the Events of the seven Intervalls ( denoted by them ) to the Prefigurations in the Visions , there can be no doubt but that by Balaam mentioned in the Epistle to the Church in Pergamus , wherein Antipas , that is , the Opposers of the Pope , are murthered , the Papal Hierarchy is understood ; as it is also by the Prophetess Iezebel in the Epistle to the Church in Thyatira , who was also a Murtheress of the Prophets of God , and both of them expr●●ly Patrons of Idolatry , as is manifest in the very Text.

Nor is it at all wonderfull that Balaam and Iezebel , the one a man , the other a woman , should signifie the same thing . For the false Prophet and the Whore of Babylon in the following Visions of the Apocalypse signifie both one and the same thing , viz. The Hierarchy of Rome , from the Pope to the rest of their Ecclesiastick Body .

4. And what I have said of the Vision of those Seven Churches , the same I say of all those Expositions of the thirteenth and seventeenth Chapters of the Apocalypse ▪ and that of the little Horn in Daniel ; namely , The words of the Prophecies being so naturally applicable to the Affairs of that Church , besides the demonstration of Synchronism , that the weight of those two foregoing Conclusions being added thereto , there cannot be the least doubt or scruple left , but that those Interpretations are true ; and that the Church of Rom● is that Body of Antichrist , that Mother of Fornications and Abominations of the Earth , that is , of multifarious Modes of gross Idol●tries , or that scarlet Whore on the seven Hills , that is also drunk with the bloud of the Saints , and with the bloud of the Martyrs of Iesus .

5. And that therefore , in the fourth place , in the Church of Rome the Poison exceeding the Antidote ▪ there can be no reason that Salvation should be hoped for there . It is a sad and lamentable Truth , but being a Truth , and of such huge moment , it is by no means to be concealed . What God may do in his more hidden ways of Providence , he alone knows . And therefore we cannot say that every Idolatrous Heathen must perish eternally : But to speak no farther then we have commission , and according to the easy tenour of the Holy Scriptures , we must pronounce , though with great sadness of heart , that we have no warrant therefrom to think or declare any of the Popish Religion , so long as they continue so , to be in the state of Salvation ; and especially , since that voice of the Angel which sounded in the Intervall of Thyatira , saying expresly , Come out of her , my people , that ye be not partakers of her sins , and receive not of her plagues ; and the Apostle in his first Epistle to the Corinthians , Chap. 6. 9. Be not deceived , neither Fornicatours , nor Idolaters , nor Adulterers , &c. shall inherit the Kingdome of God . And those of the Church of Rome are bound to continue Idolaters as long as they live , or else to renounce their Church ; and therefore they are bound to be damned by adhering to the Roman Church , unless they could live in it for ever . For he that dies in such a capital si● as Idolatry without Repentnce , nay , in a blind , obstinate perseverance in it , how can he escape eternal Damnation ?

6. But though we had kept our selves to the Apocalypse , the thing is clear in that Book alone , ch. 22. ver. 14 , 15. where all Idolaters are expresly excluded from the Tree of Life : Blessed are they that do his Commandments , ( and one of them , though expunged by Rome , is , Thou shalt not worship any graven Image , ) that they may have right to the tree of life , &c. For without are dogs , and Sorcerers and Whoremongers , and Mortherers , and Idolaters , and whoso loveth and maketh a Lie . All these are excluded the Heavenly Ierusalem , and from eating the Tree of Life . Of which who eateth not is most assuredly detain'd in eternall death . As it is written in the foregoing Chapter , Apoc. 21. 8. that Murtherers , and Whoremongers , and Sorcerers , and Idolaters , and all Liers , shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone ; which is the second Death . What sentence can be more express then this ?

7. But besides this Divine sentence against them , they are also 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , they are self condemned , or at least give sentence against themselves , while they so freely pronounce that no Idolaters are to be saved ; which they frequently do , to save their own Church from the reproach of Idolatry . For , because some Protestants have declared for the Possibility of Salvation in the Romish Church , they farther improve the favour to the quitting themselves of the guilt , from others hopefull presages that by an hearty implicit Repentance of all their sins ( even of those that are the proper Crimes of that Church , ) they may , through God's mercy in Christ , be delivered from the punishment .

This piece of Charity in some of our Party they turn to the fencing off all imputation of Idolatry from themselves , arguing thus ; That no Idolaters can be saved : But those in the Romish Church may be saved , according to those Protestants opinion : Therefore those in the Romish Church are no Idolaters .

But most assuredly while they thus abuse the Charity of some , even by their own Proposition they must bring the sentence of condemnation from all the rest upon their own heads , as they have herein given it against themselves , in saying that all Idolaters are damned , or that no idolater can be saved . For it is demonstrated as clear as the Noon-light , in this present Discourse , that the Church of Rome are Idolaters .

8. And in that of those of our Church that say they may be saved upon a sincere and hearty implicit Repentance of all their sins , ( wherein they include the Idolatries and all other Miscarriages which they know not themselves guilty of , by reason of the blinde Mis-instructions of their Church , ) no more is given them by this then thus , viz. That they are saved by disowning of and dismembring themselves from the Roman Church , as much as it is in their power so to do , and by bitterly repenting them that they were ever of that Church as such , and by being so minded , that if they did know what a corrupt Church it is , they would forthwith separate from it . So that in effect those of the Roman Church that some of ours conceit may be saved , are no otherwise saved , if at all , then by an implicit renouncing Communion with it , which in Foro Divino must go for an actual and formal Separation from it .

In which Position if there were any Truth , it will reach the honest-minded Pagans as well ; but it can shelter neither , unless in such Circumstances , that they had not the opportunity to learn the Truth , which since the Reformation , and especially this last Age , by the mercy of God , is abundantly revealed to the world . So that all men , especially those that live in Protestant Nations or Kingdoms , are without all excuse ; and therefore become obnoxious to God's eternall wrath and Damnation , if they relinquish not that false Prophetess Iezebel , as she is called in the Epistle to the Church in Thyatira , who by her corrupt Doct●ines deceives the people , and inveigles them into gross Idolatrous Practices .

9. Thus little is conceded by those of our Reformed Churches that speak most favourably of those in the Church of Rome . And yet this little must be retracted , unless we can make it out , that any of that Church are capable of sincere and unfeigned Repentance while they are of it . For to repent as a Thief , because he is afraid to be hanged , is not that saving Repentance . But to repent as a true Christian none can do , unless he has the Spirit of God , and be in the state of Regeneration .

For true Repentance arises out of the detestation of the ugliness of Sin it self , and out of the love to the pulchritude and amiableness of the Divine Life and of true Virtue , which none can be touched with but those that are Regenerate or born of God . Now those holy and Divine Sentiments of the new Birth are so contrary to the Frauds and Impostures , to the gross Idolatries and bloudy Murthers of the Church of Rome , which they from time to time have perpetrated upon the dear Servants of Christ , that it is impossible for any one that has this holy sense , but that he should incontinently fly from that Church with as much horrour and affrightment as any Countrey-man would from some evil Spectre , or at the approach of the Devil .

10. He that is born of God sinneth not , saith S. John : 1 John 5. 18. How then can they be so born whose very Religion is a Trade of sin , and that of the highest nature , they ever and anon exercising gross acts of Idolatry ? besides that they are consenting ( by giving up their belief and suffrage to the murtherous Conclusions of that Church ) to all the barbarous and bloudy Persecutions of the Saints that either have happened or may happen in their own times , or ever shall happen , by that Church ; they become , I say , guilty thereof by adjoyning themselves to this bloud-thirsty Body of men , with whom the Murther of those that will not commit Idolatry with them , and so rebell against God , is become an holy Papal Law and Statute .

And therefore , I say , how can any man conceive that those men are born of God who are thus deeply defiled with Murtherous and Idolatrous Impurities , but rather that they are in a mere blind carnal condition , and uncapable , while they are thus , of any true and sincere Repentance , and consequently of repenting of their daily Idolatries which they commit , and ordinarily ( to make all sure ) in ipso articul● mortis , and therefore are out of all capacity of Salvation while they are members of that Church ? As plainly appears both by this present Reason fetch'd from the nature of Regeneration , as also from the judgement of the Romanists themselves touching the state of Idolaters after this life , and chiefly from the express sentence of the Spirit of God in Scripture , as I intimated before .

11. And therefore , in the fifth and last place , it is exceeding manifest how stupid and regardless those Souls are of their own Salvation , that continue in the Communion of the Church of Rome ; and how desperately wild and extravagant they are who , never having been of it , but having had the advantage of better Principles , yet can find in their hearts to be reconciled to it . This must be a sign of some great defect in Judgement , or else in their Sincerity , that they ever can be allured to a Religion that is so far removed from God and Heaven .

12. But this Church , as the woman in the Proverbs , is , I must confess , both very fair of speech and subtil of heart , and knows how to tamper with the simple ones right skilfully . She knows how to overcome all their carnal senses by her luxurious Enticements . She has deck'd her bed with coverings of I apestry , with carved work , with fine linens of Aegypt . She has perfumed her bed with M●rrh , Aloes and Cinnamon , Prov. 7. 16 , 17. She entertains her Paramours with the most delicious strains of Musick , and chants out the most sweet and pleasing Rhymes , to Iull them secure in her lap : Such as those Idolatrous forms of the ●nvocation of the Virgin Mary , and of other Saints , which I have produced , of which she has a numerous store . Unto which I conceive the Prophet Isay to allude in that passage touching the City of Tyre , representing there mystically the relapsing Church of Rome : Take an harp , go about the City , thou harlot that hast been forgotten , make sweet Melody , sing many Songs , that thou mayst be remembred , Isa. 23. 16. See Synop●is Prophetica , Book 2. ch. 16.

13. She gilds her self over also with the goodly and specious ●itles of vnity , Antiquity , ●niversality , the power of working Miracles , of Sanctity likewise , and of Infallibility ; and boasts highly of her self , that she has the power of the Keys , and can give safe conduct to Heaven by Sacerdotal Absolution ; and , if need be , out of the Treasury of the Merits of holy men of their Church , which she has the keeping and disposing of , can adde Oyl to the Lamps of the unprovided Virgins , and so piece out their Deficiency in the works of Righteousness . Such fair speeches and fine glo●ing words she has to befool the judgements of the simple .

14. But as to the first , it is plain that that Vnity that is by Force is no fruit of the Spirit , and therefore no Sign of the true Church : nor that which is from free Agreement , if it be not to good Ends. For Salomon describes an Agreement of Thieves or Robbers , heartening one another to spoil and bloudshed , and to enter so strict a society as to have but one purse , Prov. 1. 14. And therefore for a company of men , under the pretense of Spirituality , to agree in the inventing or upholding such Doctrines or Fictions as are most servlceable for a wor●dly design , and for the more easily riding and abusing the credulous and carnal-minded , thereby to be masters of their Persons and Wealth , this is no holy Unity , but an horrid and unrighteous conspiracy against the deluded Sons of Adam .

15. And for Antiquity and Universality , they are both plainly on the Protestants side , who make no Fundamentals of Faith but such as are manifestly contained in the Scripture : which is much more ancient , and more universally received , then any of those things upon ▪ whose account we separate from the Church of Rome , which are but the fruits of that Apostas●e which , after four Hundred years or thereabout , Synop● . Prophet . lib. ● . c. 5. the Church was to fall into according to Divine Prediction . So that we are as ancient and universal as the Apostolick Church it self , nor do we desire to appear to be the members of any Church that is not Apostolicall .

And for their boasts of Miracles , which are produced to ratifie their crafty Figments , they are but Fictions themselves framed by their Priests , or Delusions of the Devil , according as is foretold concerning the coming of Antichrist , that Man of sin , ( which the Pope and his Clergy most assuredly is , ) namely , that his coming i● after the working of Satan , with all power , and signs , and lying wonders , 2 Thess. 2. 9. So that they glory in their own shame , and boast themselves in the known Character of Antichrist , and would prove themselves to be Holy Church by pretending to the Privileges of that Man of sin , and by appealing to the palpable signs of the Assistence of the Devil . For from thence are all Miracles that are produced in favour of Practices that are plainly repugnant to the Doctrines of the Holy Scriptures .

16. But now , as for their Sanctity , what an holy Church they are , any one may judge upon the reading of the Lives of their Popes and History of their Cardinals , and other Religious Or●ers of that Church of Rome ; how rankly all things smell of Fraud and Imposture , of Pride and Covetousness , of Ostentation and Hypocrisy ; what monstrous examples of Sensuality their Holinesses themselves have ordinarily been , of Fornication and Adultery , of Incest and Sodomie ; to say nothing of Simonie , and that infernall sin of Necromancy . But for Murther and Idolatry , those horrid Crimes are not onely made familiar to them , but have passed into a Law with them , and are interwoven into the very Essence of their Religion . Judge t●en how holy that Church must be , whose Religion is t●e establishment of Idolatry and Murther . Of the latter of which Crimes the holy Inquisition is an Instance with a witn●ss . And yet that Den of Murtherers , whose Office it is to kill men for not committing Idolatry , with the Church of Rome must needs bear the title of Holy .

17. And for their pretense of Infallibility , it is expresly predicted in the Apocalypse of S. Iohn , as well as their laying claim to Miracles . For as the two-horned Beast is said Apoc. 13. 13 to do great Wonders , and to bring fire from Heaven , which two-horned Beast is the Pope and his Clergy ; so Iezebel , which is the same Hierarchy , is called the Woman that gives to her self the title of a Prophetess , Apoc. 2 20. whose Oracles you know must be infallible . For she does not mean that she is a false Prophetess , though indeed and in truth she is so . And the Pope with his Clergy is judged to be so by the Spirit of God , in that he is called the false Prophet , Apoc. 16. 13. as well as the two-horned Beast , in those Visions of S. Iohn .

And while he pretends himself to be a Prophet , even without Divine Revelation , one may plainly demonstrate that he is a false one from this one notorious Instance of Transubstantiation ; which is a Doctrine repugnant to common Sense and Reason , and all the Faculties of the Mind of man , and bears a contradiction to the most pla●n and indubitable Principles of all Arts and Sciences , as I have proved above . So that we may be more sure that this is false , then that we feel our own bodies , or can tell our toes and fingers on our hands and feet . Judge then therefore whether is more likely , that the Church of Rome should be infallible , or Transubstantiation a mere Figment , especially it being so serviceable for their worldly Advantages , and they being taken tardy in so many Impostures and Deceits . So that Infallibility is a mere Boast .

18. And now for their Sacerdotal Absolution , that they can so safely dismiss men to Heaven or secure them from Hell thereby , this power of their Pri●st is such another vain Boast as that of Transubstantiation . Except a man be born again , he cannot enter into the kingdome of God . John 3. 3. And the form of words upon one's Death-bed can no more regenerate any one , then their Quinqueverbiall Charm can transubstantiate the Bread and wine into the Body and Bloud of Christ . Where the form of Absolution has any effect , it must be on such persons as are already really regenerate and unfeignedly and sincerely penitent : which I have shewn to be incompetible to any one so long and so far forth as he adheres to the Roman Church . So that in this case one Aethiopian does but wash another , which is labour spent in vain .

There must be a change of Nature , or no externall Ceremony nor words can do any thing . For the form of Absolution is not a Charm , as I said , to change the nature of things , but onely a Ticket to pass Guards and Scouts , and to procure safe conduct to the Heavenly Regions . But if by Regeneration and due Repentance one has not contracted an alliance and affinity with the Saints and Angels , but is really still involved in the impure and Hellish nature , the grim Officers of that dark Kingdome will most certainly challenge their own , and they will be sure to carry that Soul captive into a sutable place , let the flattering Priest have dismissed her hence with the fairest and most hopefull circumstances he could . This is the most hideous , the most dangerous and the most perfidious Cheat of that Church of Rome that ever she could light on for the damning of poor credulous Souls , that thus superstitiously depend on the vain breath of their Priest for the security of their Salvation .

19. And yet they are not content with this Device alone to Iull men secure in wickedness , but besides their pretense of singing them out of Purgatory by mercenary Masses , and pecuniary Redemptions , by Pardons and Indulgences , and I know not what Trumperies , they allure men to come into their Church as having that great Store and Treasury of the Merits of Holy-men and women , their works of Supererogation , which they pretend to have the keeping and disposing of . So that a poor Soul that is bankrupt of herself , and has no stock of Good works of her own , may sufficiently be furnished for love or money by the Merchants of this Storehonse . Which , besides that it is a blasphemous Derogation to the Merits of Christ , is the grossest Falshood that ever was uttered .

For these Holy men , as they are called , and Virgins , were , God wot , themselves most miserable Sinners , and died in most horrid Idolatries , as dying in the Practices of that Church ; and he that comes to that Church does necessarily become a gross Idolater himself ; besides that he sets to his seal and makes himself accessory to all that innocent bloud , the bloud of those many hundred thousands of Martyrs for the Protestant Truth , which that Woman of bloud that sits on the Seven Hills has with the most execrable Circumstances imaginable so frequently murthered . So that a Soul otherwise passable of her self would be necessarily drown'd in this one foul Deluge of Guilt : so far is she from having any relief or advantage by reconciling her self to the Church of Rome .

20. Wherefore who-ever thou art that hast any sense or solicitude for thy future state and Salvation , believe not this Woman of subtil lips and a deceitfull heart , and give no credit to her Fictions and high Pretensions ; but the more she goes about to magnifie her self , do thou humble her the more , by shewing her her ugly hue in the glass of the Holy Scriptures .

If she boast that she is that holy Ierusalem , Psal. 122. 3. a City at Unity within it self , whenas the rest of the World are so full of Sects and Factions ; tell her that she is that carnal Ierusalem , wherein Christ in his true Members hath been so barbarously persecuted and murthered , and that the Stones of her buildings are no living stones , but held together by a mere iron violence , and the Cement of her walls tempered with the large effusion of innocent bloud ; forasmuch as she is that two-horned Beast that gave life to the Image of the Beast , Apoc. 13. and caused him to decree that as many as would not obey his Idolatrous Edicts should be slain . This is the power of your Unity , which is not from the Spirit of God , but from the spirit of the Devil , who was a Murtherer from the beginning . But the Division of us Protestants is both a sign of our sincere search after the Truth , and a more strong Testimony against you of Rome , in that we being so divided amongst our selves , yet we so unanimously give sentence against you : your Miscarriages and Crimes being so exceeding gross , that no free eye but must needs discern them .

21. If she vaunts of her Antiquity ; give her enough of it , and tell her she derives her pedigree from that great Dragon , the old Serpent , Apoc. 12. 9. that is called the Devil and Satan , that Murtherer of mankind . Ye are of your father the Devil , saith our Saviour , and the works of your father will ye do . Iohn 8. 44. We grant that the Visage and Lineage of your Church reaches even beyond the times of the Apostles , the two-horned Beast reviving the Image of the Pagan Beast , the great red Dragon , by bringing up again his old bloudy Persecutions and Idolatries . It suffices us , that our Church began with the Apostles ;

If she glories in her Vniversality , and in her large Territories ; tell her she is that GREAT City which spiritually is called Sodom and Aegypt , where our Lord was crucified : Apoc. 11. And that she is Babylon the GREAT , the mother of Fornications and the Abominations of the Earth .

If she boast of the power of the Keys , and of Sacerdotal Absolution ; tell her that he that is holy , he that is true , he that has the Key of David , he that openeth and no man shu●teth , and shutteth and no man openeth , Apoc. 3. that is to say , our Lord Iesus Christ , will never part with these Keys to his inveterate Enemy , that notorious Man of Sin , or Antichrist .

If she spread before thee her goodly wares of mercenary Masses , of Pardons and Indulgences , of the mutuatitious Good works of their pretended Holy men and women , or the Wealth and externall Glories of their Church , and varieties of rich Preferments and Dignities ; say unto her , that she is that City of Trade of whom it is written , that no man buyeth her merchandise any more ; and again , Alas , alas ! that great City that was cloathed in fine linnen and purple and scarlet , and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls : For in one hour so great riches are come to nought . For her Merchants were the great men of the Earth , and by her Sorceries were all Nations deceived . And in her was found the bloud of Prophets , and of Saints , and of all that were slain upon the Earth , Apoc. 18.

22. If she would amaze thee with the stories of the wonderfull Miracles done by her ; tell her that she is that two-horned Beast Apoc. 13. 13 , 14. that doth great wonders , and that deceiveth them that dwell on the Earth by means of those Miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the ten-horn'd Beast ; or that false Prophet working Miracles , Apoc. 19. 20. and deceiving them that receive the mark of the Beast , and worship his Image , who together with the Beast is to be taken , and cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone ; or lastly , that Man of Sin and Son of perdition , 2 Thess. 2. 9. whose coming is after the working of Satan , with all power , and signs , and lying wonders .

If she would inveagle thee with her pretenses of Infallibility , tell her that she is that Woman Iezebel , Apoc. 2. 20. that calleth her self a Prophetess ; or the Prophet Balaam , Apoc. 2. 14. that insnared the Israelites in Idolatry ; and that very false Prophet that together with the Beast is to be cast alive into the lake of burning brimstone , Apoc. 19. 20.

23. And lastly , if she would gull thee with that specious and much-affected Title of Holy Church ; tell her that the Spirit of Truth in the Divine Oracles , let her commend her self as much as she pleases , gives no such Character of her , but quite contrary , declaring the See of Rome to be the Seat of Satan Apoc. 2. 13. and their Church his Synagogue Apoc. 3. 9. the Pope and his Clergy to be Balaam the son of Bozor Apoc. 2. 13 , 14. who loved the wages of unrighteousness , and who was the Murtherer of Christ's faithfull Martyr Antipas ; to be that Woman Iezebel who calls her self a Prophetess , but was indeed a Sorceress , and a murtherer of the true Prophets of the Lord Apoc. 2. 20. to be also that false Prophet , that is to be taken alive , and cast into the lake of fire and brimstone Apoc. 19. 20 to be that great City that spiritually is called Sodom and Aegypt , where our Lord was crucified Apoc. 11. 8. to be the Beast that has the horns of a Lamb , but the voice of the Dragon , Apoc. 13. 11. decreeing Idolatries and cruel Persecutions against God's people ; to be that Babylon the great , Apoc. 17. Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth ; the Woman on the seven Hills that is drunk with the bloud of the Saints and with the bloud of the Martyrs of Iesus ; and lastly , to be that Man of Sin , 2 Thess. 2. that notorious Antichrist , that opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or is worshipped , whose coming is with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish , because they receive not the love of the truth that they may be saved . For which cause God sends them strong delusion , that they believe a lie . That they all might be damned that believe not the truth , but have pleasure in unrighteousness . As well 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , as 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , as well all they that love the Romish Lies and Impostures , as all they that invent them , are here plainly declared in the state of Damnation .

With this Nosegay of Rue and Wormwood antidote thy self against the Idolatrous infection of that strange Woman's breath , Prov. 5. 3. whose lips yet drop as an hony● comb , and ●er mouth is more smooth then oyl . And be assured that that cannot be the true Holy Church wherein Salvation is to be expected , which the Spirit of God has marked with such unholy and hellish Chara ●ers , let her boast of her own Holiness as much as she will .

24. And if she return this Answer to thee , That this is not to argue , but to rail in phrases of Scripture ; do thou make this short Reply , That whiles she accuses thee of railing against sinfull and obnoxious men , she must take heed that she be not found guilty of blasp●eming the holy Spirit of God . I confess these Propheticall Passages apply'd to such persons as to whom they do not belong were an high and rude strain of Railing indeed , and quite out of the road of Christianity and common Humanity : But to call them Railings when they are apply'd to that very Party to whom they are really meant by that Spirit that dictated them , is indeed to pretend to a sense of Civility towards men , but in the mean time to become a down-right Blasphemer against the Holy Ghost that dictated these Oracles .

And that they are not mis-apply'd , any impartial man of but an ordinary patience and comprehension of wit may have all assurance desirable from that demonstration of the truth compriz'd in the eight last Chapters of the first Book of Synopsis Prophetica ; to say nothing of the present Exposition of the Seven Epistles to the Seven Churches in Asia .

25. Wherefore , O serious Soul , whoever thou art , be not complemented out of the Truth and an earnest pursuance of thine own Salvation from a vain sense of the Applauses or Reproaches of men , or from any consideration what they may think of thee for attesting or standing to such Verities as are so unwelcome to many ears , but of such huge importance to all to hear . For no less a Game is at stake in our choice of what Church we adhere to , that of Rome or the Reformed , then the Possession of Heaven and eternal Life .

Wherefore stand stoutl● upon thy guard , and whensoever thou art accosted by the fair words and sugar'd speeches of that cunning Woman , ( who will make semblance of great solicitude for thy future Happiness , most passionately inviting thee to return into the bosom of Holy Church , ) be sure to remember what an Holy Church she is according to Divine description ; and that if thou assentest to her smooth Persuasions and crafty Importunities , thou dost ●pso facto ( pardon the vehemence of expression adventure thy self into the jaws of Hell , and cast thy self into the arms of the Devil , Matth. 23. 15.

God of his mercy give us all Grace to consider what has been spoken , that we may evermore escape these Snares of Death . Amen .

THE END .

CHAP. X. The Answers of my Antagonist to this 10th . Chapter , and my Replies put together without any distinction of Paragraphs .

HItherto I have reduced my Antagonists Answers to the Paragraphs of each Chapter . But now he does so overflow with humour , wit , and confusedness , and walks so alo●t in Generals , that I cannot reduce this last Section of his on my last Chapter to any such particular distinctness , but must make what I can of things in that order they lye .

First then , my hearty Exhortation to men to take heed how they be drawn into the Communion of the Church of Rome he phancies may fitly be called Dr. Taylor revived , or a second Dis●asive from Popery : Whereupon he takes Occasion to give the different Characters of Dr. Taylor and my self . For Dr. Taylor is a Person , says he , of a more refined and plausible Insinuation , a smooth tongue and o●ly Expression , cloaking his many and great Disingenuities with fair glozing words in an affected strain of Scripture phrase , pretending to the power of Godliness . But Dr. More is a Polemical man , of a quite different Temper , His fiery zeal wears no mask , His disputing is open rayling , and his Arguments blustering words not always too much concerned whether true for alse .

To which I Reply ▪ Whether he call my hearty Dehortation Dr. Taylor revived , or a second Diss●asive from Popery , he may please his own p●ancy in that , he shall find me a man of great humanity and facility in matters of that kind : And let Dr. Taylor be of one temper and my self of another , so there be no Immorality in these different tempers , that is all one to me also . But when he talks of the great Disingenuities of Dr. Taylor , I suspect they are nothing else but great and hard Arguments against the errors of the Roman Church , which they cannot Answer ; The same crime that I have been guilty of all along this book hitherto , and it 's ●ell I be not charged with great disingenuities my self at last ; which now I think on 't , I have been already under an harsher term , he calling that calumny in me , who seem to be a more rude Writer , which in Dr. Taylor that more smooth and oyl● Arguer he termes a disingenuity . But it 's needless for me to say any thing more of Dr. Taylor , his learned and eloquent writings will Answer for him and themselves too .

But now for my own Charge , That I am ●olemical ; I am sure I am neither Souldier , n●r disputacious Schoolman . But if I be Polemical or warlike , it is in that war●are whose weapons are spiritual , as the Apostle speaks , 2 Cor. 10. 4. for the pulling down strong holds and inveterate Imaginations , raised against the truth of God and the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ . And for my fiery zeal that wears no mask , the Apostle says , Gal. 4. 18. It is good to be zealous in a good matter , and as good to be zealous against a bad one . And is not the spirit of God resembled to fire ? Which where it appears in truth it will burn off all masks of Hypocrisy and make men walk in all simplicity of Conversation before God and before men . But why is my disputing open railing ? If I speak any thing false , witness of the fal●hood : But if the corruptions of your Church be such , that they cannot be named by their proper Names , such as all solid Theolog● , Philosophy and ordinary humane Laws would call them ; in calling them so , am I a Rayler , or you very great and enormous sinners ? I speak of those two grand crimes Idolatry and Murder , which are interwoven into your Religion . And whet●er my Arguments be blustering words or solid Reason , let any indifferent Reader judge by what has passed ●itherto in your pretended Confuration of this Antidote against Idolatry , and in my ●o clearly proving my Reasonings therein to remain sound and unshaken for all the Battery you could lay against them . And whereas you add , not always too much concerned whether true or false , it is such an equivocating Imputation , that look one way on it , it says less than is true . For I confess I am never too much concerned whether I speak true or false , especially considering of what moment the things are I write of . But if you mean I am not always enough concerned , whether what I affirm be true or false : The tree is known by its fruits ; ●●ow me where I have trip't ; or if I have any where trip't , prove that it was out of carelesne's whether it was true or false which I uttered . And this I think he pretends he will show in this Dehortation of mine : For immediately he adds ,

Witness the Contents of this Chapter , whereof I shall give my Reader a brief Extract drawn up in the Form of an Homily , yet in the Doctors own words and charitable Dialect . Thus then begins the Dissuasive . Repl. This is a Dissuasive of my Adversaries own making , whom though I acknowledge a man of Wit and Eloquence yet I will not trust him in making speeches for me ; and se●ing his Dissuasive is pretended but an Epitome of mine , and mine being already under the eye of the Reader , I hold it altogether impertinent to set down his , especially he putting his for mine , and calling it so , adding at the end of it , This is Mellifluous Dr. Mores sweet harangue , &c. The truth is he has made as dry and lank an Homily as he could , and heaped up those Titles their Church is adorned with in the Apocalypse , barely and nakedly without the Occasions and circumstances I bring them in upon , to make himself and his party merry , and to make my serious Exhortation to deceivable People that they take heed of the frauds and danger of that Church , to look ridiculously . But this is one Artifice of theirs amongst the rest , when the weight of Reason and Religion presses on them to any purpose to slip from under it by some ludicrous jest , or profane raillery . Wherefore letting this drollery pass , let us observe what in good earnest he would weaken my Exhorration by , or where is that place in it where he will make good that Imputation against me , that I am not enough concerned whether what I say be true or false .

Now I would gladly know , says he , what there is in all this discourse , which an ingenuous Son of the Church of England will not be heartily ashamed of , and even blush for the Doctors sake ? Repl. Why did you then make such a silly Oration in my name , that all the ingenuous Church-men in England should be ashamed of it ? as well they might , if I had made such a jejune lank piece of stuff as your officiousness has made for me . But for mine I dare say , there is no ingenuous Son of the Church of England ( unless ●ou measure the I●genuity and Disingenuity of men by their affection and disa●fection to the errors of your Chuoch , as you seem to do in Dr. Taylor ) much less any genuine Sons of our Church , but will approve of the firmness , reasonableness and seasonableness of such an Exhortation .

Here is I conf●ss , quoth he , stout railing , Disingenuity more than is necessary for a Doctor , &c. Repl. Here the Reader may be pleased to take notice of the special sense of Disingenuity with my Antagonist , namely , that it is the plainly speaking such Truths as argue the gross errors and perillous Enormities ●f the Church of Rome . Whenas it is ten thousand times more disingenuous , according to the law of God and Nature , to smother Truth to the great and real injury of both the Church of Rome and our own . And then for my stout Railing , which else where he calls that ●nmanly Rheto●ick of Railing , let us put them together , The stout unmanly Rhetorick of Railing . I demand , If it be either ferine or womanish with a plain open Constancy to declare those Truths that are of such vast Concern and of so perspicuous a clearness to those that do not wilfully wink against them ? Or if the propriety of language , and to declare according to the nature and true Notion of things , and that without all ill will , be any form of Rayling ; Unless Adam in the state of Innocency railed when he gave names according to the natures of the Creatures ? And this great Clamour against me of Railing , is because I call Idolatry Idolatry , and the killing of men because they will not commit Idolatry with the Church of Rome , barbarous murder . But if he mean because I call the Church of Rome by those Titles the Spirit of God calls her in the Apocalypse , my Apology is already made in the twenty fourth Paragraph of this 10th . Chapter . Which I desire my Antagonist , and every one it may concern , in the fear of God to● peruse , and to consider the latter part of it touching those eight last Chapters of the first book of my Synopsis Prophetica , and my Exposition of the seven Epistles to the seven Churches of Asia . In both which Expositions , I challenge any diligent searcher to show any considerable flaw that will lessen the certitude of them for the main , or if they think there is the least faultering in this proposal , let them show any flaw at all if they can . For as for my self , though I have been an anxious searcher after Truth , I was never yet satisfied concerning any , more palpably than of these I speak of . Which , God knows , I do not speak in the way of Boasting , but merely to excite the ingenuous to try the strength and evidence I find them , that they may thereby , after a manner whether they will or no , feel it also themselves and find it . Nor do I use those Names of Infamy wherewith the Spirit of God has branded the Pontifician Clergy , nakedly and without occasion , as my Antagonist has framed his frigid , flaccid and insipid Dissuasive which he would father upon me ; but upon the Church of Romes false boasts of her self , whereby to tempt ours to her Idolatries , I put in their mouths what the Spirit of God says touching her in the Apocalypse , and other places of Scripture : Whereby is understood plainly how the Mystery of Iniquity is with them , and how when they make a specious show and boast of being one thing , the Spirit of God judges them the quite Contrary .

But further he adds ; That this Exhortation of mine is an ill-grounded and Schismatical Discourse , Dr. Thorndike himself being Vmpire in the Case . Repl. As for Dr. Thorndike I shall consider him at t●e close ; In the mean time it is apparent that my Exhortation is very well grounded , it being grounded upon sound and clear Reason and the Holy Scriptures of God , than which there is no ●u●e● ground in the world . And certainly no genuine Sons , what ever the ingenuous Sons of the Church of England may do , will ever say that it is Schismatical whenas the main end of it is to keep the members of our Church ●rom making any Schism or separation from us , and from betaking themselves to the Church of Rome , who has separated herself from the purity of the Gospel .

But after this , most inhumanely and injuriously he parallels this faithfull and unexceptionable Exhortation of mine made to the people to keep them from the deceits and inticements of the Church of Rome , that they may not separate from the Church of England and Apostatize to her , to the bitter and rebellious Trumpeters of war in the late distempered times , who loudly out of the Pulper thundred into the peoples ears , Curse ye Meroz , yea curse ye bitterly , &c. And there are not wanting in this Nation , says he , those who can find Rome in England to make Meroz of it when they please . Repl. Then they are those chiefly that are of your Emissaries gendring and fomenting . But it is well known to all the world , that it has been precisely and particularly my care and labour to distinguish what is truly Antichristan from what is not , that the Church of England might be cleared from such Imputations , and the saddle set on the right Horse ; As you may see , Preface to my Idea of Antichristianism , Sect. 8. and in the two last Chapters of Synopsis Pro●hetica For my own part I dare say , there is none that know me either personally or by my writings that will not readily acknowledge , that nothing can be more removed from bitterness , persecution , tumult and rebellion , then that Spirit that I am of . No could I in those very times of rebellion and tumult forbear to testifie in publick my disgust thereof , in these mean Rymes but of sound and good sense . Immortality of the Soul , Book 2. Cant. 3. stanz . ● . Can wars and jars and fierce Contention Swoln Hatred and consuming Envy spring F●om Piety ? No , 'T is Opinion That makes the riven Heavens with trumpets ring And thundring Engins mundrous balls out-sling , And send mens groaning Ghosts to lower shade Of horrid Hell . This the wide world doth bring To divastation , makes mankind to sade , Such direfull things doth false Religion pers wade . But true Religion sprung from God above Is like her fountain full of charity , Embraceing all things with a tender love , Full of good will and meek expectancy , Full of true justice and sure verity In heart and voice , &c. It is not our telling you plainly and apertly , according to Truth and Scripture , what is hainously amiss in you , that can be any prejudice to our own Church , but it is the excusing you and dissembling your great crimes by extenuating termes , and your aggravating every little Ceremony of ours , such as kneeling at the Communion and the like , to make us odious to the ignorant people , that makes us suspected of Romanism . But this is one of your Arts amongst many others to make those that are the most hearty well-willers to the Church of England the most suspected by them . But Truth and Innocency bids defiance to all your devices .

But in the mean time where is the charge made good of being so little concerned whether I speak true or false in this Exhortation of mine ? Why , at last it is this , That I so peremptorily aver , that no Protestants allow them a possibility of Salvation , but onely in case of such a Repentance as implies an absolute renunctation of their Religion and its Idolatrous doctrines and practises by diso●ning of and dismembring themselves from the Roman Church . Which , says he , will scarce appear pardonable in the eyes of his fellow Doctors . Repl. This is a charge founded upon the eighth Paragraph of this tenth Chapter , I desire the Reader to peruse the Paragraph and compare it with his charge : where , after [ disowning and dismembring themselves from the Roman Church ] he omits a special ●lause which immediately follows , viz. [ As much as it is in their power so to do . ] Which is quite another t●ing from actually renouncing of their Church , while they have not the opportunity of discovering her gross Errors ; but that their general Repentance is so hearty and unfeigned , that it would descend to this particular upon the detection to them of the foul errors of that Church . And this I hope will not onely be pardonable but acceptable to those eminent men of our Church , Arch-bishop Laud , Bishop Abbot , and the rest he names out of Bishop Laud , Relation Sect. 35. who examined to the bottom will appear of the same mind with my self . And for that of Mr. Hooker in his Discourse of Iustification , Sect. 17. where he sa●s , For my part I dare not deny possibility of their Salvation , who have been the chiefest Instruments of ours . Which Quotation , which my Adversary so much glories in ▪ it is evident , is n●thing at all to the purpose . For as much as he speaks not here of those of the Church of Rome since the Reformation but be●ore , when the state of the Church was the Woman in the Wilderness , as is manifest both from the sentence it self quoted and the Context . But if Mr. Hookers Authority be of any weight with you , do but look into the foregoing Section , and he will tell you the Church of Rome hath plaid the Harlot worse then ever did Israel . And now I demand , for a Christian who is part of the Body of Christ to adjo●n himself to the Church of Rome , what is it but to make a member of Christ the member of an Harlot ? as the Apostle speaks , 1 Cor. 6. 15. And is that , I pray , the next way to the Capacity of Salvation ? But this by the by .

After this he brings in Dr. Potter and Dr. Hammond , glorying much of the charitable principles of the Church of England and Objecting want of charity to them , for maintaining that Protestancy unrepented destroyes Salvation : Now if the Objectors should retaliate and say , that Popery unrepented destroyes Salvation , I would willingly be instructed , saith he , by Dr. More , wherein lyes the charity and moderation they boast of . Why , I 'll tell you ; In this , ● hat whereas Protestancy , that is , Christian Religion quatenus reformed from the errors of Rome wants no repentance , and the Errors and mispractises of the Church of Rome are so hainous and enormous , that most Protestants , comparing the Crimes of that Church with the menaces of Scripture , do conclude the Adherers thereto in the state of Damnation without any more to do , so soon as they adhere unto it , Dr. Hammond and Dr. Potter are so charitable , that though men dye in that Church , yet by a general sincere repentance , such as implies that if their Errors and mispractises were discovered to them to be such they would forthwith leave the Communion of that Church , declare they may be saved , which is the same I profess too . But we declare in the mean time , that it is perfect madness in any one to go over to such a Church in which there is no Salvation but upon supposition that if we knew the gross Errors and mispractises of it , we would presently renounce Communion with it , which if we did not we should certainly be damned .

But behold a third fetch also ; Nothing is more current , saith he , amongst them , when they are pressed with the Crime of Schism , then to return the Charge upon us from other grounds , saying , that as the Donati●ts and Luciferians were , so we are Schismaticks in cutting off from the Body of Christ and hope of Salvation other Churches from which we are divided in Communion . From which he would infer , that we should make our selves Donatists and Luciferians if we should cut them off from hope of Salvation . To which I Reply , That this must be current onely amongst them that phancy themselves pressed with the Crime of Schism . But , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ! How soft and yielding must they be , how weak and feeble , that can phancy themselves pressed with such an Objection ? Certainly those must be but very few , And therefore this Answer must be current but with a very few . Our constant Answer is , that they are Shismaticks that depart from the Communion of the truly ancient and Apostolick Church . Of whose lineage we do avow ou● selves to be , and do plainly and irrefragably prove it . And therefore you are Apostates from us and Schismaticks that you do not cast off your enormous errors and hainous practises , and Communicate with us . But with the Lucif●rians and Donatists you make your selves more holy , and call us Hereticks when your selves are really the Hereticks and Schismaticks . In this are you like the Donatists and Luciferians , and unjustly take upon you to cut us short of Salvation . But does it thence follow , we justly declaring you debar'd of Salvation by reason of your open Idolatries and Murders of the innocent people of God , that we become thereby also Donatists and Luciferians ? let any indifferent man judge .

But the last and strongest prop of so bad a Cause , is the great and venerable Authority of Dr. Thorndike an ingenuous Son of the Church of England . Of whom he says , In regard I have mentioned so eminent a person and member of the Church of England as Dr. Thorndike , I shall make bold to turn him into the lists against Dr. More . The Antithesis of their doctrines is very remarkable ; for they run diametrically opposite one to another . 1. Dr. More affirms the Worship of the Host in the Papacy to be Idolatry . Dr. Thorndike ( ch. 19. ) denies the Worship of the Host in the Papacy to be Idolatry . 2. Dr. More holds that the placing and reverencing Images in Churches is Idolatry . Dr. Thorndike ( ch. 19. ) holds that the placing and reverencing Images in Churches is not Idolatry . 3. Dr. More will have Invocation of Saints to be inexcusable Idolatry . Dr. Thorndike ( ch. 16. ) excuses Invocation of Saints from Idolatry . 4. Lastly , Dr. More exhorts all men to separate from the Church of Rome , as Idolaters . But ●r . Thorndike ( ch. 1. ) avows to all the world , that those who separate from the Church of Rome as Idolaters , are thereby Schismaticks before God . When the two Doctors are fully agreed upon these Points , Dr. More shall hear more from me , if he desires it . In the mean time I shall intreat him to respite my pen for some other Employment .

Repl. Dr. Thorndike , I confess , is a Person , whom his years and repute of Learning have made venerable . But what is this to the point in hand ? to the proveing the Charge of my being less regardfull then I should be in this Exhortation whether I speak true or false ? This is a mere popular Topick , and this your whole last Section , wherein you would fain offer something against this last Chapter of my Antidote , but a loose and weak stroke of Rhetorick to drive the simple into your Church as I have seen men drive Geese or Turkies on the high way to London , with a stick and long string with a red cloth tyed at the end of it ; as you annex the splendid name of Dr. Thorndike at the end of this Section , to either scare or incourage poor Souls to your Communion . But does Dr. Thorndikes being of another mind from me prove that I am in the wrong ? If this be to con●u●e a man , I can easily con●ute Dr. Thorndike himself , by shewing that Persons not onely of very eminent Learning , but of clear and terse judgments , differ from Dr. Thorndike in all these four Antitheses . Mr. Ioseph Mede of our Colledge , who was so modest a Soul , that though he had worth to furnish out I know not how many Doctorships never commenced Doctor , let us for the time , to make the Comparison more plausible , call him Doctor as well as my Adversary does Doctor Thorndike , and then say , Dr. Thorndike denies the worshipping the Host to be Idolatry , Dr Mede affirms it to be Idolatry ; Dr. Thorndike holds the honouring of Images in Churches to be no Idolatry , Dr. Mede affirms it to be Idolatry , &c. Where is Dr. Thorndike now ? Nay suppose I should put that eminently Learned Prelate of the Church of England and of singular clearness of Reason and Judgement , Bishop Downham once of Christs Colledge , in the balance with Dr. Thorndike , who in these things is exquisitely of the same mind with Dr. Mede , in what elevation would Dr. Thorndike appear then ? The same I may say of the Archbishop of Armagh , Bishop Jewel , Arch-bishop Abbot , and several other Bishops and Doctors of our Church , who at least joyntly , if not in several , will surely counterpoize the weight of Dr. Thorndikes name . Indeed I might say the whole Body of our Church , as subscribers to the Homilies of our Church , affirm in all these points against Dr. Thorndike . Nay I dare with all confidence assert that no man can make any good sense of the 13th . and 17th . Chapters of the Apocalypse , but he will plainly discern that the very Spirit of God himself has declared against him . What poor and simple Souls then must they be that can be scared out of the Truth or kept in Error by such Topicks as these ? Dr. Thorndike is not of the same mind with Dr. More , therefore Dr. More uses blustering arguments not much concerned whether true or false . For my part I desire no man take my Arguments or Assertions upon trust , but do appeal to Scripture and his own Reason whether what I say be not true , and would have him examine them accordingly . And therefore Dr. Thorndike must not be offended though I yield not to his name , though I have a due respect for him , till I have tried the strength of his Arguments , in each Antithesis to my Assertions .

As to the first Antithesis therefore where he denies the Worship of the Host in the Papac● to be Idolatry , Cap. 19. the short and long of his Argument is this , That no Papist worships the Elements of the Eucharist nor the Accidents of it for God . Therefore no Papist in this Worship is an Idolater . He V● orships not the Elements of the Eucharist because he does not believe them to be there , Nor the Accidents , as they call them , because he believes them to be no part of the Body of Christ into which the consecrated Bread is Transubstantiated . But to this I briefl● Answer , That the Bread Transubstantiated into the Body of Christ and Hypostatically united with the Deity there where the Accidents shew us ( so that they become that very Person God-man ) is the intended Object of their Worship and Adoration , being visible to them merely in vertue of those Accidents or species that are like Bread . Now therefore it is plain if there be no such thing as Transubstantiation , that their Adoration passes upon a mere untransubstantiated piece of Bread instead of the Body or corporeal presence of Christ , supposed to be veiled with those Accidents of Bread ; which therefore is plain Idolatry . For in that they are mistaken in their Object and intended no Worship to a piece of Bread but to Christ , does not excuse the Idolatry by the 4th . and 5th . Conclusions of the second Chapter . See also Conclusion 21. and 22. as also the last Conclusion of the same Chapter . I have represented Dr. Thorndikes Argument with the utmost strength I could possibly , and yet it is no other than you see .

To the second Antithesis , Dr. More , says he , ho●ds that the placing and reverencing of Images in Churches is Idolatry . Repl. I do not hold that the mere placing of Images in Churches is Idolatry ( though I must confess I had rather have their room than their Company ) but onely the worshipping of them . And now let us hear what Dr. Thorndike ( Chap. 19. ) alledges to the contrary ; ●n doing honour , saith he , to the Images of Saints there can be no Idolatry , so long as men take them for Saints , that is , Gods Creatures , much less to the Images of our Lord . ●or it is the Honour of our Lord and not of the Image . And a little after to the like sense , For indeed and in truth it is not the ●mage but the Principal ( the Nicene Council calls it Prototype ) that is honoured by the honour that is said to be done to the Image because it is done before the Image . This is the sum of his Argument to prove that Image-worship is no Idolatry . Now in order to the better understanding my Answer , you are First to take notice that both my Adversary and Dr. Thorndike understand such Images as have honour done to them in the Church of Rome , viz. Images dedicated or consecrated , as you have an example of the form above , and therefore such as are the symbolical Presences of their Principals or Prototypes . Secondly , That this honour here mentioned in general by Dr. Thorndike is the Honour done and allowed by the Church of Rome unto Images , viz. Invocation before them , Incurvation , setting up Wax-candles and burning Incense before them . No● that the doing of this honour to these Images is not Idolatry , Dr. Thorndike would prove upon the Principel of Pope Adrian and the second Council of Nice ; Because the Honour does 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , passes from or through the Image to the Principal , in so much that the Principal alone seems to be worshipped not the Image ; And this Principal being either the Saints or Christ , so long as we remember the Saints to be Gods Creatures it can be no Idolatry , much less in the Image of Christ , since the Principal or Prototype there is God .

Repl. To the first of which I Answer , That the Primitive Christians knew the Emperor to be Gods Creature , and even eo nomine because they remembred him to be Gods Creature would not cast a few grains of Incense into the fire in honour of him though it cost them their lives for not doing of it . And the departed Souls of the great Heroes or Benefactors among the Heathen , whom they after death made Damons and worshipped them , were known well enough to be Gods Creatures , that is to say , the off-spring of the highest Numen , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 — as the Heathen Poet could sa● ) and y●t no Christians doubt but they were Idolaters in worshipping them . And therefore by the third and fourth Conclusions of the first Chapter the worshipping of the Images of the Saints though terminating on the Saints themselves is Idolatry . Besides Incurvation to an Image , such as is here practised , is Idolatry by the seventh and eighth Conclusions of the same Chapter . See also the nineteenth Conclusion of the second Chapter .

And then for the Image of Christ , though Christ be God , yet to Worship God by an Image is Idolatr● ; By the nineteenth Conclusion of the second Chapter , and by the second Commandment , and the ●earfull vengeance on the Israelites for worshipping the golden Calf , which not withstanding was the symbolical Presence of Jehovah .

And for the pretense that the Worship is done onely before the ●mage not the Image ; since the Image is a symbolical Presence dedicated to Christ or this or that Saint , and that these are the Instances of Honor debitus , viz. Incurvation toward it , burning Incense and the like , used by the C●urch of Rome and specified by the Council of Nice to which the Council of Trent does refer , it is manifest that these honours are done to these Images as well as to their Protoypes ; as appears further from the tenth Conclusion of the first Chapter , and the twentieth of the second ; which Conclusions are improvable also to the case of burning of Incense , and lighting up wax-candles , and bringing of Oblations to these symbolical Presences , which please the simple people when they visibly behold their Masters to whom they pay their Religious Tribute or Offerings , whether Money or money-worth . What Idolatry can be more Pagan-like than this ? So little satisfactory is it what Dr. Thorndike produces for the freeing of the Church of Romes Image-worship from Idolatry .

To the third Antithesis , Dr. Thorndike , says he , excuses Invocation of Saints from Idolatry . Repl. Truly upon my perusal of that Chapter in Dr. Thorndike , I think my Adversary has little reason to brag of the Excuse there made for it . For First , Dr. Thorndike does sreely confess the Saints know nothing of our particular necessities unless God reveal them to them . Secondly , he accuses Invocation of Saints of Novelty , as not being owned and used by the Church till a good while after Constantine . Thirdly , he says the abuse has increased so far that the same things are desired of them , ( of the Virgin Mary especially ) and in the same terms in which t●ey are desired of God even in the holy Scriptures . Fourthly , That the appearance of Devotion to the mother is visibly an● outwardly no less than to the Son ( which is equal to that to God himself ) whence any mean Logician may infer , that the appearance of Devotion to the Mother is no less than that to God himself . Does not this hugely excuse the Romish Invocation of Saints from Idolatry ? But you 'l say , Certainly I am mistaken in the place . No , no , Iam not . Now comes the Excuse ; So that were there not a profession of that Church extant , contradicting the proper sense of such Prayers to the Saints , and forceing them that address them , unless they will contradict themselves , to abate their own meaning , and to expound them to signify no more than the Saints obtaining that of God which they are desired to grant of themselves , they could not be excused of Idolatry . Of which the brief sense is , That unless the profession of the Church contradicted their Practise , which is Idolatrous , viz. their profession of one God the giver of every good and perfect gift , ( for I know no other publick Profession then that he can mean ) they cannot be excused of Idolatry . As if professing things repugnant to Idolatry , and in the mean time committing it against their Profession , could save them from being Idolaters , more than from being Murtherets and Adulterers , because they profess the Decalogue . Or as if there being a Society of men that did in Special manner profess Civility , and yet would call any one all the ill names imaginable , might put it off by saying , these names and railings are indeed utterl● repugnant to our publick Profession if they be taken in their proper sense ; and therefore you must interpret them in such a sense as is not repugnant to our known Profession ; For we declare to all the world that we are civil Gentlemen and very much every mans humble servant . Would this seem a solid excuse and not rather matter of laughter to all that heard it ? Such an Excuse might excuse the Heathen who held one supreme God fountain of all things , in all the Idolatrous Rites of worshipping their Daemons . For they might say , no other sense is to be given of those Idolatrous Rites then will consist with the belief of one supreme Deity the Fountain of all Good . Nay , they of the Roman Church might Sacrifice whole Hecatombs of Oxen to their Saints , and excuse it , because it is not to be taken in the proper sense of such Sacrifices , but in such a sense as is consistent with the knowledge and profession of the onely one true God . So that that which is an excuse for any Idolatry , is indeed an Excuse for none .

And besides this , Dr. Thorndikes excuse , though it were solid as to this particular point of Idolatry , yet it is too scant to reach others . For the mere Invocation of this or that particular Saint for an Ora pro nobis , it implying such an excellency as is in God alone , ( according to Dr. Thorndikes own acknowledgment ) will be Idolatry , by the eighth Conclusion of the second Chapter of my Antidote . And then considering their Canonization , the erection of dedicated Images or symbolical Presences to them , the belief that some are proper to intercede for one thing others for another , and that offerings are brought to them upon the good either expected or obtained by their negotiations for us , what is this Invocation thus circumstantia●ed different from the Invocation of the Dii Medioxumi of the Heathen which all will say is Idolatry ? And therefore this must be Idolatry , by the third and fourth Conclusions of the first Chapter . See also the eighteenth of the second . So that in an ill hour has my Adversary brought Dr. Thorndike to be a compurgator of his Church from the stain of Idolatry in the business of Invocation of Saints . But it may be he will make amends in the last Antithesis .

Dr. Thorndi●e , says he , ( Chap. 1. ) avers to all the world , that those that separate from the Church of Rome as Idolaters are thereby Shismaticks before God . Repl. I confess he does say so . And I never read it but am surprized with amazement at it , that any one that professes himself a Protestant , should adventure to pronounce such a speech . For my own part I can profess truly and unfeignedly ( and I think there is not any one but will believe me that knows me or has read my writings , especially my Mystery of Godliness and my Dialogue , where drawing the best and the most benign representation I can of Providence and the affairs of the world in all Ages as to Religion , I strain my little Wit to the utmost to make the Idolatry of the Pagans look as tolerably and excusably as I can ) I say I profess unfeignedly that I am not conscious to my self of any superstitious hurry or fright and over scrupulous fear of committing Idolatry where none is to be committed , that carries me into this judgment touching the Idolatries of the Church of Rome ; nor can any thing possibly tempt me to it , it being so contrary to my nature to find any more faults in the world then needs must ; and I think any one will easily discern it is not any way for my Interest to declare this fault I find , if it were not true . But it is pure and impartial Reason , and something better and higher in my esteem than Reason , that does assure me of the ●ruth of what I do in this Case thus pronounce against my own natural Inclination and Interest . Whence I am well assured , that in all integrity of Conscience other men having the fear of God before their eyes may be also fully persuaded to these Idolatries I charge the Church of Rome with , and consequently be necessarily ingaged to quit her Communion , and separate from her . Now what Protestant , nay what Christian would ever think , or whisper within himself , much less aver to all the world , that such a separation is Schism before God , or in Foro Divino ? especially considering that the Opinions and Practises for which the party separates are not Catholick but After-Inventions and Customs of the Church degenerating , as Dr Thorndike himself cannot deny . This instance I give , at least in Foro Divino , certainly would be no Schism , though the Church of Rome were guilty of no Idolatry . And therefore I am sorry so venerable a Person should be so rash and precipitant in his censure against his fellow-Protestants .

But in the mean time will my Adversary say , It is apparent not withstanding that Dr. Thorndike has quitted the Church of Rome of the charge of Idolatry in this last Antithesis . Repl. I grant he supposes you no Idolarers , but how does he prove you none ? I have demonstrated over and over again in my Antidote that you are Idolaters , and you have not been able to inervate one proof . Now let us consider the demonstrations of Dr. Thorndike upon which he builds his assertion so prodigiously Paradoxical to all Protestants , a thing never uttered by any member of the reformed Churches before . I have poized his weights , and fathomed the measures of his Reasonings to the utmost length and extent of them , but find all too light and scant to make good so strange a Conclusion . The utmost he says to prove you no Idolaters is this ;

First , saith he , The Church of Rome is a true Church , but a true Church presupposeth the profession of so much of Christianity as is necessary to the Salvation of all Christians , and therefore men may be saved in the Church of Rome . But no Idolaters can be saved . Therefore the Church of Rome are no Idolaters .

Secondly , The Church of Rome being a true Church must needs profess the true God , and therefore if they believe that which they profess they cannot honour any Creature as they honour God , knowing every Creature to be an infinite distance below him , and therefore they cannot be Idolaters .

Thirdly and lastly , A true Church , which therefore professes the onely true God , does necessarily profess to detest all Idolatry ; Which detestation of Idolatry the Church of Rome does expresly profess , which profession therefore unless they expresly renounce they cannot expresly be Idolaters .

This is the utmost ( and represented to the utmost ) of Mr. Thorndikes Reasons whereby he would prove the Church of Rome to be no Idolaters ; All which he makes to depend upon that grand Assertion , That the Church of Rome is a true Church .

To which before we can say , I or No , we must understand what is meant by a true Church . For , true , sometimes signifies as much as pure and sincere without mixture of any other with this Nature or formal Essence which is really here . As that is said to be true Wine that has no other liquour mingled with it , and that true Gold that is not adulterated with any base alloy . And in this sense I flatly deny the Church of Rome to be a true Church . But there is another sense of true which excludes not impurity or some hurtfull superaddition to the nature and form of the thing , the true formal nature of the thing still existing there : As some subtil poyson conveyed into Wine , the Wine is true Wine still ; And an house infected with the Plague , or whose walls are over-run with the Leprosie is a true house still ; Or , if it be not too homely a comparison , a pair of Sheep-clippers shears fallen into the pitch-pan , and so all over besmeared with pitch , is a true pair of shears still ; all these having the true and essential form whereby they are constituted such . And they have an aptitude in themselves for those ends they were made , though their actual usefulness is for the present taken away or turned into the contrary by what incumbers them or is added to them ; but the definition of Wine , an House , and pair of shears dot● still belong to them and is truly predicated of them .

Now therefore though I will neither aver nor deny the Church of Rome to be a true Church , you making so ill use of all our fair and ingenuous Concessions , yet I will suppose with Dr. Thorndike the Church of Rome to be a true Church ; and that to be a true Church , is to profess all those Articles of the Christian Faith , to have that form of Government , suppose Episcopal , which was in the Primitive Church , to administer the Sacraments in that form of words the Primitive Church did , and in a word to profess so much of Christianity and preach it , as of it self , if there were no other Impediments added , would be sufficient to Salvation . And so supposing the Church of Rome to profess all those things which the true and unapostatized Church professed , ( which were then and are still of themselves effectual for Salvation if men be not wanting to themselves ) in this regard I confess she may be said to be a true Church . For so much as such a definition of a true Church would be competible to her . But all this supposed and admitted , I utterly deny that there is any validity at all in Dr. Thorndikes Arguments to prove she is not an Idolatrous Church . For a true wife according to definition of Law , yet may be a soul adulteress and noisomly infected with the disease of her Uncleanness , and a true House may be infected with the Plague , or stand in Pestilential air , or be infested with the Devil or evil Spirits .

And now therefore to Answer to his first Argument , I say it does not follow because the Church of Rome is a true Church men may be saved in it , because a thing may truly be , what it is said to be , by reason of its intrinsick form and nature , and yet notwithstanding be in such Circumstances , that unless it be extricated out of them , it is made quite useless for the end it was ordained , and for which it has still an aptitude were it extricated and cleared from the present Incumbrances , and admixtures ; as in the example of the pair of Shears , of the House , and of the Wine with poyson in it , and the like ; Which for the present , though it be a true House , a true pair of Shears , true Wine , &c. yet they are not good . They retain the form but fall short of the end , nay are quite opposite to it . And so they in the Church of Rome , though a true Church , fall short of their Salvation , nay fall into eternal damnation by reason of the deadly poyson in their Church which they wilfully keep infused in it .

To his second Argument I Answer , That t●ey that profess the true God may notwithstanding commit Idolatry , as I have demonstrated at large in my Idea of Antichristianism , Chap. 6. and Chap 8. of the first Book . And no man doubts but the Israelites committed Idolatry even then when they professed the Worship of the true God . And the Indians at this day who Worship their Pa-gods and are universally accounted Idolaters , I am certainly informed have a clear notion of the true God the Creatour of all things . Besides , this Argument of Dr. Thorndikes supposes that which is notoriously false , as if there could be no Idolatry unless the Creature were so honoured as if it were done to God himself : Which is abundantly confuted out of the third , fourth , fifth and sixth Conclusions of the first Chapter of my Antidote . And lastly , they do de facto give that honour to the Creature that is due to God alone . And there is no arguing against experience .

His last Argument I conceive is the infirmest of all , and the Conclusion the faintest o● all , 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 . Chapter●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 , The●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 agai● 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 for all the Nonsense in the world that ever was , is , or can be writ or spoken . But men can no more make what figures they please in Rhetorick then they can make what Moods they please in the three figures in Logick . But all must be measured by the end of each Art , Bene disserere in the one , and Bene dicere in the other ; what is not consentaneous to the former can be no Precept in Logick , and what not to the latter none in Rhetorick . And if there be the pretence of the use of any figure acknowledged in Rhetorick , which is not consentaneous to that end , the figure thus pretended to be used cannot be used , but the words will at the peril of the speaker remain in their proper sense . As if some wretched extravagant fellow should venture to begin his Prayer thus , O infinitely weak , unwise , and unholy Lord God , and pretend it is an Irony , and that he speaks by contraries , would this excuse him from horrid blasphemy ? Surely no. For the use of the Figure in this place is not consentaneous to the general End of Rhetorick which is Ars bene dicendi , which no loathsom , disharmonious and absurd speech can agree with . Wherefore if a figure cannot be admitted here where there is one to which it is so obvious to refer the speech , how can the pretence of a figure excuse that speech which it will puzzle any man to find a figure to refer it to . As for Example , if one should pray thus to St. Francis , O holy St. Francis give me the spirit of Grace in this life , and eternal Glory in the life to come . Upon which one crying out , Down right Idolatry , if he that addressed this absurd and Idolatrous Prayer , should say he meant figuratively , intending no more then thus , O holy St. Francis pray to God to give me the spirit of Grace , &c. this speech also being so loathsom , harsh and scandalous can be no figurative speech but is necessarily shut up in the proper sense of the words , and as the other was horrid blasphemy , so this is down right Idolatry , as Dr. Thorndike speaks .

This is clear demonstration to any one that considers the case impartially ; whence it is plain that this sourth Antithesis betwixt Dr. Thorndike and my self is quite broke a pieces , and that we are agreed in this , That to separate from the Church of Rome upon the account of Idolatry is not Schism before God . For as much as to pray to the Saints for those things which God alone can give , as all Papists do , is in the proper sense of the words do●n right Idolatry . And I have plainly demonstrated there is no changing the sense of the words by a figure , for as much as there is no figure to refer the speech to , or if there were , there is no legitimate use of any such figure , because it would be no ornament or perfection of speech but a loathsom blemish thereof , and therefore no more a figure than a piece of dung hung at the Ear in a string is an Ear-Jewel .

Wherefore , as I said , Dr. Thorndike coming so readily off , of himself , in this fourth and last Antithesis , which indeed is founded in a breach also upon the third Antithesis , he so plainly declaring such an Invocation of Saints to be down right Idolatry which yet all Papists use ; for all they cannot but remember the Saints to be Gods Creatures , and therefore commit Idolatry with them though they remember them to be Gods Creatures ; Which enervates also the second Antithesis , he indeavouring to prove that the honouring the Images of the Saints would be no Idolatry so long as we remember them to be Gods Creatures ; I cannot but hope if he had lived and perused this carefull and distinct Disceptation , he would have come off in all . For how could he stick in the first An●ithesis , at the acknowledging their Idolatry in the worshipping the Host ? Whenas , though they think the Bread is not there , yet they conceiving the individual matter of the Bread transubstantiated into the Body of Christ , and so Hypostatically united with the Divinity , and upon that account pursue it with their devotion and Divine Adoration , hit upon the said Individual matter untransubstantiated and remaining Bread still , and so do plainly give Divine Adoration to Bread , as much as the Persians to the Sun who take it for the Supreme Intellectual Deity .

But take him agreed no further then he actually was before he dyed , which is so far as to declare all the Church of Rome down right Idolaters , he does thereby freely acknowledge the Church of England and other Protestant Churches to be no Schismaticks either before God or before men . Nay , says he , ( Weights and Measures Chap. 1. ) if the Papists be Idolaters , we are t● own the separation for our own Act and to glory in it . For it is done by Gods express Command , Come out of her my people , &c. Apoc. 18. 4. But for the Papists being Idolaters , whatever the declarations of Dr. Thorndike are , my demonstrations in my Antidote and what occurs in my Reply do evidently and irrefragably evince it in all Points they are charged with . And thereupon you see what an agreeable Conclusion comes from us both . It is Gods express Command to come out of her .

And if this be not Agreement enough , conconsidering Dr. Thorndike has now laid down that load of ●arth that depresses the mind , and is , as we in Charity hope , among the blessed , I question not but he clearly discerns his mistakes in all four Antitheses betwixt us . So that it is very credible that the two Doctors are agreed fully in these Points , though I pronounce it with some peril of bringing my Antagonist upon me again , who craves respite for his pen onely so long as till the two Doctors be fully agreed , but then Dr. More , says he , shall hear more from me if he desire it .

But we being thus fully agreed , yet I confess I shall desire to hear no more from you , unless you will imitate your fellow-Combatant , and wear no Mask , but do as I do , speak verily as you think and bring no Arguments but such as you in your own Conscience think true and concluding ; and then I dare say the Game will soon be at an end . But there may be made a show of Confutation in infinitum to amuse or quiet those of your own Party that have not the leasure or capacity of reading and understanding what is Written . But if you think to make any Rejoinder , if I find you bring any thing material more than what you have suggested already , I will , God willing , take the pains to Answer ; but if not , I shall neither give you nor my self any further trouble , but leave the world to judge . And so , Fellow-Combatant , I bid you heartily farewell . And that you may be the better assured I part with you in Charity , and that I may appear to you clear of that Imputation of Uncharitableness which you labour so in this last Section to cast upon me , peruse the fifth Paragraph of this tenth Chapter , as also the Parable in the Preface to my Antidote ; which you seem to have been loath to take notice of , that you might with better show accuse me so much of uncharitableness as you here have done . But it being so lively a Representation of the real and sincere Charity of those Ministers of the Gospel , that plainly and faithfully tell those of your Church the great peril of continuing in it , I will close all with that Apology .

There was a certain Knight bravely mounted , as it might seem , and in goodly equipage , in bright Armour , a rich Scarf about his Shoulders , and a large plume of Feathers in his Helmet , who was bound for the Castle of Health , seated on an high Hill not unlike to the Domicilium Salutis in Cebes his Table , which therefore he easily kept in his eye . But the way he was in , being something stony and rough , and leading not so directly as he thought , to the desired Castle , he diverted out of the way , and descended into a green Plain ; but not knowing whether it was all passable to the Castle , called to some Loyterers there in the field to inquire of them ; who came right willingly to the Knight , scraping many legs to him , and desiring him to tell his demands .

There was an old Shepherd likewise not far off , who , by that time this idle people had got to the Knight , had come down to him also . Friends , said he , to those men he called , Is the way passable and safe through this green Plain to vouder Castle ? pointing to the Castle of Health with his warder ; very safe , may it please your Worship , said they , and shrugging their Shoulders , and scraping many Legs , asked a Largess of the Knight , pretending they had been at common work not far off , whereupon the Knight put his hand into his pocket and gave them liberally . But are there no Bogs , said he , nor Lakes betwixt this and the Castle ? Some small inconsiderable Sloughes it may be , said they , but you will meet with the Holy society of the Wipers every where , who will be ready to wipe you as clean as a Clock before you come at the Castle . And being so excellently well mounted as we see you are , namely upon that famous steed the infallible-footed Aplanedo , so good an Horse as that he never stumbles , your Worship need fear no disaster at all : Besides , the Beast , God bless him , has a Nose like any Hound , and by a miraculous Sagacity , without any Reason or Humane Literature , with an unerring certainty he can smell out the right way , and so secure you from all danger . To say nothing how excellent he is at the swimming any Water , and how he can tread the very Air he is so high m●tald and light Footed . Onely be sure to keep fast in the Saddle .

And then , Sr. Knight , said the Shepherd , if the wind blow fair , the plumes in your Helmet may help to support you both ; but if not , some Angel from Heaven may take you by the Crest of your Helmet , as he did the Prophet H●bbakuk by the hair of his head , when he carried him through the air from Iudaea to Babylon .

The Knight looking back ( for he was not aware of the Shepherd at this time ) What conceited old man is this , said he , that talks thus phancifully ? May it please your Worship , he is a Shepherd , said they , and has a flock on yonder little Hill hard by ; but he is one of the most self-conceated old Fools that ever your Worship met with in all your days : He thinks that all skill and knowledge lyes within the compass of his bald pate and wrinkled fore-head , though few or none are of the same Opinions with himself . Sr. Knight , said the Shepherd , I pretend to no skill nor knowledge but what is certainly within my own Ken ; but what I know I love to speak freely . And I tell you , Sr. Knight , unless you be stark staring mad you will never follow these mens Counsels , nor venture over this Moor to that Castle : for you will be swallowed up Horse and Man into a fathomless Lake of ill-sented mire , for all the nice Nostrils of Aplanedo . You was in a more hopefull way before , though something rough ; but it is so streight before you come at the Castle , that you could never have got through unless you had left Aplanedo behind you . He 's an old Cholerick Dotard , said those other fellows ; be but sure to keep the Saddle and we dare warrant your Worship ( our lives for yours ) that Aplanedo will carry you safe through all dangers .

Wherefore upon the renewal of the high conc●it the Knight had before of his Steed , and those confident Animations of his Mercenary Counsellers , he set on in a direct line toward the Castle over this Moor , the Shepherd looking after him to see the event . But the Knight had not rid two or three Bow-shots from the place , but the Shepherd saw them suddenly sink Horse and Man into the ground , so that they were both buried alive in the mire .

Whereupon fetching a deep sigh after so Tragical a Spectacle , he returned with a sad heart and slow pace towards his Sheep on the top of the Hill , drailing his Sheephook behind him , as they do their Spears , at the Funeral of a Souldier : whom his Dog followed with a like soft pace , hanging down his head , and letting his tail flag , as if he had a mind to conform to both the sorrows and postures of his Master . But those other false Companions had somewhat before this got to a lone Ale-house not far off , to spend the Knights Largess merrily with a bonny young Hostess , and in plenty of good Ale and Cakes to celebrate his Funeral .

Now I dare appeal to the Judgment of any indifferent Reader which of these Parties , the old free-spoken Shepherd , or those Mercenary Flatterers , had the greater share of Charity : and would have him consider with himself in what a sad condition those of the Church of Rome are , who having the opportunity of being better instructed , as the Knight had , are yet led away Captive by such cunning Deceivers , which is the main state of the Controversie . Iohn 15. 22. If I had not come and spoken unto them , they had not had sin ; but now they have no excuse for their sin , saith our blessed Saviour in the Gospel .

THE END .