rtIL\SONAELI!n]RS (The) of the Chnrch of Tiiglcinils Tost. . By which the writings of Dr. Stillingfleot, Dr. Tillotson, Dr. Moore, &c. .^rc cloiii from the chnrge of unti-cuthclick, antiohristian, fanatical, &-c. Printed in tho Year 1688 (London) V,T:G n -133. NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY EVANSTON, ILLINOIS ■m mk »«ms'm \i.« •V^j >n.ni«i, .-"fe ■», s«EE!!a5B»Lr^^ ^rJijKC PK VJsei -Vi® ,-A m0^ *.» *" Jilj* 4il /.Vis ■fc?^ VU V I 'i-j'^l' 'f "Kil 4'^5 ;'S-:V-'^*f >}. .•f'r=7Y,C "T, ^3^^' IT m f:^ s»^> m - •' ' ^ T, l; , , ■.»PSi I , -f <* -S'jf -< tl » v 'V umm Af^i^ t'c <«»■ ■»- > TV The Reafonablenefs of the CHURCHofENGLANDS EST. And Juftnefs of her R E F O R M A TIO N, Afferted j In Anfwer to the Bifhop of Oxen's Fallacious Reafons, and Precarious Afler- tions againft it. Alfo the Worfliip of IMAGES, Adoration of the HOST, and Invocation of SAINTS, iS'c, PROVED IDOLATRY, By the Carholick Dodrine of the Holy Scripture, the Ancient Fathers, and all Reformed Churches. By which the Writings of Dr.StillingJIeet, Dx. Tillotfon, Dr. Moore, &c. arc Cleared from the Charge of Anti- catholick, Antichriflianj Fanatical, is^c. For it ivas not an Enemy that Reproached me,' then / could have horn it,,—■ hut it was thou, a Man, mine Eciiial, my Guide, and my Acq^uaintance, Pfal. 55- V. 12, 13- , , . rr.nccd.'in the Year, MDGLXXXVIII. C > ) AMong all the late Dilcourles I have feen, there is none that af- fords Occafion of greater Surprize, than that Reafons for Abrogating the T EST y elpecially if we confider the Pre- lent Station of the Author, and his Difference in Opinion, while moving in a Lower Orb, and was labouring for Promo- tion. As to his prefent Quality, He i^^WelI known to be one of the Re- puted Fathers of the Church of England, or Overfeers of the Flock of Chrif, to preferve it from all Falfe Dodlrine, Herefie, and Schifm, &c. And therefore it cannot but be admird, that a Perfbn who owes his Ec- clefialtical Dignity to the Church of England, (hould fb meanly Con- delcend, as if he faw his Dignity in danger, to plead for Tranfabfiantia- tion, and the Church of Rome, againft the Charge of Idolatry, maintain'd as well by all the Reformed Churches in General, as by that Eftabiifli'd by Law in thefe His Majeity's Dominions! Which is no more than to proclaim to all the World, that the Church of which he is at prefent a Confecrated Bifhop, is a Schifmatical Church. And this only upon the account of making it an Argument to overthrow the Tefi, which debars the Roman Catholick Peers frpm fitting in Parliament. Now that he feems to. prove the Church of England to be Schifmatical, in his making good his Argument againft the Tejl, is plain ; For he makes it his biifinefs to (hew you, That Tranfubfiantiation, as it is decided by ihe Council of Trent, is a Dodrine which has always been acknowledg'd by the Church of England-, and that the Church of Rome is not guilty ot Idolatry. Which if true, the Church of England can never juftifie ' ' her felf in her Separation from the Church of Rome. So that even Fd- rillas himfelf, could hardly have been fo difingenuous as to have obtrud- ed fuch a Fallacy upon the World. But we {hall not further digrefs, but trace our Author, and try on what folid Grounds his New Difcoveries infift. As to his firft and lecond Reafbns, I leave it to the Gentlemen of the Long Robe. Only I thought this old Saying might be inferred, Turfius ejicitur quam ncn admittitur Hefpes. As for his Third Reafon, That this Law is of an Ecclefirfticai Nature. 1 cannot conceive how making Acfts what Perfbns are to be admitted in= to. Places of Truft, can be of an Ecclellaftical Nature. It would feem that all A(fts of an Ecclefiaftical Nature, are either for the decilion of fbme intricate point of Divinity, or for Enjoyning the decent perform- ance of all things belonging to the Worfhip of God,or calling to account li thofe - . 9. C ^) r:.w.'.i.'w«!ga»3B 23- tfiofe whoareunmly, and walk difbrderly, as the Apoftle terms it, and Excommunicating luch if Cbftinate: But none of thefecan be (aid in the cafe of theTefi. For here was no making of Decrees upon Divine Ve- rities; that is, here was no Difcuffion of that Controverfie of Tranfuh- Jiantiation and Idolatry, but only the Parliament fuppofing the Vrotefiant Opinionjn oppofuion to it, to have been a Truth received by our Church, and that upon Authority Competent,and continued for above a hundred YearSjand that it was the only Tej?. to diftinguiHi one ofthe Church of from one of our own Communion, and therefore enjoyned, that none fhould be admitted to fit in Parliament, or bear any publick Charge, but fuch as difowned Tra-nfubfiantiatwn, &c. which is as much as to fey. We order that none fit in Parliament, or bear any publick Charge, but fiich as difowned tranfubfiantiaticrt, &c. which is as much as to fey. We order that none fit in Parliament, &c. but thofe who are by Frofeffion of the Church of England as it \s now Eftabliftied by Law. But this Argii- ment being fo T rivial, the very naming of it feems a fufficient Refutal ; We therefore proceed to that he infills fo much upon, and by which he feems rather to havedefignedtofupport the tottering Caule^of the Church of Rome, than to impugn the Tefi. His Fourth Reafon why it ought to be Repealed, is, Becaufe of the Un- certainty and Faljlwod of the Matters therein contained : As firft, That there ts noTranfubfiantiation in the Sacrament of our Sax/iours Body and Blood. And fecondly,7l)<«fInvocation of Saints and the Mother of God is Idolatry. The Reverend Author follows exadlly the Method of thofe he takes upon him to defend. Which is firft to begin to befpatter thofe whom liealledges were Promoters of the Tefi. He begins firft to fliew the Evil of impofing the Abjuration of Tran- fubjiantiation, and makes a great Buftle to fiiew the Unreafonablenefe of impofing an Oath, the Contents whereof are fo abftrufe,that it is hardly poflible for Noblemen efj^ecially to come to the underftanding of them. And to make his Putt good, he makes a very long Digreffion on the No- tions of the feveral Schoolmen about Tranfubjlantiation ; where he ever and anon drops precarious Afiertions, to wit, that the Catholick Church in all Ages, maintained the Real and Subftantial Prefence ; but we meet not with any fhew of Proof thereof. It feems he thinks the old dvTOf is enough, that his Affirmation is evidence enough to prove the Truth of any thing. One would almoft admire what he means in fetting down thofe wild Notions of Scotifs, NominalsJls,&:c. And indeed it can be with, no other defign than to confound his Reader ; Yet in the end he gives you the Defcription of TranfubBantiarion, as it is in the 4th Chapter of the 13th. Seffion of the Council of Trent, inthefe words: " By tlte Confecraiion of the Bread.and Wine, there is a Converfion of "the whole fiibftance of the Bread into the fubltance of the Body of " Chrljf, and of the whole fubftance of the Wine into the fubftance of liis " Blood, " Blood *, which Converfion is fitly and propedy called by the Holy Ca-- • " tholickChurch, TraKjUhfiantiation. Now what moved him to rail fo much againfl: the Impofcrs of tliQ Tefiy as impofing Propofitions which Noblemen could not pofilbly un- derftand i For certainly they mcft be of very mean Capacities who cannot underftand the Decifion of that Infallible Church in this affair, and that goes beyond all the particular Notions of Schoolmen, and is the Rule to which they are all to fubmih It Teems our Author has a very mean Opinion of the Nobility, while he fb confidently averts, that they neither do nor can underftand it. For it is propofed in as plain and obvious terms as can be, though I confefs a man muft put a fulpenfion ( for that time at leaft) to Senfe, Realbn, and Religion, tb believe it; and may therefore the eafiUer and fafelier fwear againit it. He proceeds to give you the Opinions of the Teverul Communions pag. 28! differing from the Church of Rome \ And he firrt begins wnh the Lutbe- rans. But what he fpeaks as to their Sentiments, we piirpolely wave; Seeing though they differ from the Church of Rome in that point, yet their Church differs vaftly in her Opinion from all other Prottftant Churches; yet they do not in the leaft own, that the Bread and V/ine are tranfubf ftantiated into the Body and Blood of Chrifl. Whereas our Author fays, that the Helvetian Minifters maintained the pag. 31; Real Prefence, we have Inferred the following paffage out of their Con= felTion. " We do not then fb joyn the Body of the Lord and his Blood Hehet. with the Bread and Wine, as tho we thought that the Bread is the Bo- Cmfejf. " dy of Chrift more than after a Sacramental manner, or yet that the " Body of Chrift doth lye hid corporally under the Bread, fb as it ought " to be worfhipped under the form of Bread, or yet that he that recei- veth the fign receiveth alfo the Thing it felf The Body of Chrift is in " the Heavens, at the right hand of his Father, And he affirms, that the Bohemian JValdenfes declare exprejly, Bread and Ptge »f.' Wine are the verj Body and Blood ofChrijl. The Reader may pleafe to take notice of thefe words in their Confeffion , " Wherefore this Speech, " Bread is the Body, and Wine is the Blood ofChrip, is a Sacramental Speech, "to wit, that thefe two diftinft things, do remain the felf fame thing " which in their own nature they be, and yet by reafon of a Sacramental Union, or Sacramentally, they be that alfo which they fignifie, and " whereof they do teftifie Now both good and bad ufe this Sa- " crament, yet the true Believers leceive it to Life, and the Unbelievers " to Condemnation ; And tho both receive it outwardly, yet the Belie= " vers do receive it Spiritually, and fo to their Salvation. Nothing like. The Bread and Wine are the very Body and Blood of Chrift here. faith {\e,the Reformed French Church eonfefs, that in the Lords SuppeVf 37i' not only all the Benefits of Chrifi hat his veryFlejh and Blood are there exhibited to us; in the French Confeirion you may find thefe Words, " For altho ConfeJT, " he GaL A ^ 4 ; " he be now in Heaven, and (hall remain there till he come to judge " the World ; yet we believe that by the fecret and incomprehenfible " Vertiie of his Spirit, he doth nourifh and quicken us with the Subftance " of his Body and Blood being apprehended by Faith. But we lay " that this is done Spiritually, &c. Not a word of Tranfubftantiation 1 here. ' flag. 37. Then he proceeds to Cal'vin, and would make the World believe that [ he likewife aflerted it. Whereas it's plain that he mean'd nothing elle but i a Spiritual Prefence and a Spiritual Nourilhment to the worthy Recei- i vers. But becaule our Author thinks he has got an Argument adhomi- * mm againlt Calmnifis, I lhall only fet down a little from fome ot the fol- | low Paragraphs, and then let any one judge how the Words he cites, j can be Interpreted in his fenle. | Cah. In- " And hrll:, tr ily we mull not dream of fuch a prefence of Chrift in ftit. L.4. " the Sacr-ment, as tlie Sophifters of the Court of Rome have invented ; j C.i?' " as if the Body of ' Ihn:: Lically prelent, were touched with our Hands, broken with o a- iecth, and fwallowed with our Mouth. For Pope " J^tcholas ccimoit Berengarius to make this Form of Recantation. And ' i ^^3.14. "Set/. 14 Hepce Ipiung that for which the RowtfwiJTi | " contend more eagerly at this day, than for all other the Articles of " their Faith-— But it is a wonder that Men Ihould deviate into fuch Stus " pity and Ignorance, as to bring forth fuch a Monfter of Opinion, net " only contrary to the exprefs meaning of the Scripture, but the univer- "lal Conl'ent of the Ancient Church. Many more might be fet down, but by thefe the Reader may lee what a Champion Cal'vin has been for Jranjubfianuaticn. And by this the Reader may judge what weight is to be laid as to the pretended acknowledgments of other Proteftants in this point. But to take notice of all his Raileries againft feveral PfOteftanc ■Writers, would be too much labour, elpecially leeing any Intelligent Reader may eafily difcover them. Our Author afterwards falls foul of Bez,a, but Railery being his Talent, we muft give him his way. j Irom all thefe Premifes, he lays. That no one thing in the World is more j anf.t to be fet up for a Tefi, than Tranfubfiantiatun. I wonder what he I means r Has he found out any Churches acknowledging Tranfubfantiation I but thole of [he Church of Rome ? He has a llrange way of arguing; 1 but his Argument fhould run thus, Becaule all Proteftants acknowledge a kind of prefence of a Spiritual Nature, and which they profefs them- felves that they do not determine vvhatit is; Therefore it is a moft un- realonable thing to impofc Tranfubfiantiation, a thing plainly determined by the Church of as Matter of Abjuration, and then his Argu- ment would lofcall its ftrength. Nor does any thing in the Tejt contra- .di(ft the Opinion of any Proteftants, lb as it lliould be ftyled by our Au- thor, A Defame to Cbriftendom. For it only livears againft that Real Prefence which is maintaiu-.d by-the Chmchol Rome, and confifts in the Conver- . J IJJ ^ Coriverfion or Tranfubftantiatlon into the Body and Blood of Chrift after th® PiieftS; muttering the words, This is my Body. • The Ci'«rc/& o/" England, he fays, agrees "with tie Tradition hf the Catholieh !' Church both Reman and Refcfmed in [Afj'erting the certainty cf the Real Frefince. A 4^' . mighty Reconciler o' my word.' We always thought that there was a vaft dif- [ ference between us; but it fteras our Author has had the Iiappinefi to end ditfe- rences above any that have ever been before him. But he comes in with his Exceptions," the the true account of it hath been rmfera- hly pryltsced and difiurbed by the Oblique Prablifes of the Sacramentarians, Bene I alleris Domine, male probas. And to make good his accufation, he Libels Dr. St. as guilty of foihing in fbme Invifible Manufcript for his Opinion ; for his words feem to import fo much. But ^arey Why the Learned Author held his Peace lb long, wlieii ti Truth of fuch Conftquehce has fuffer'd fo much by his filence ? He will give us a fhrew'd Realbo to fufpeft that, he aims more at Preferment thandifcovery of Truth, elfe he would have mentioned thefe things before now. But how could thefe things be if the Real Prefence were the general Opinion, not only of our Church, but of all the Proteftant Churches i He goes on as much as he can to befpatter the Church whereof he pretends to'be a Member, as fulFering fb ma- , ny Innovations.ro be brought into her. And yet who thofc Innovators were he ' cannot tell; for fays he ( whoever they were. ) A very probable biifinefs that Innovations fhould be brought in contrary to the general fenfeof a Church,arid yet no body fnould know by whom. One would almoft think by his arguing, that he had^Tearned a little of the Mahumetan Sophiftry. ■ But let us hear what Innovations were brought in. It was made^ fays he, in the qth Tear of the Kings ?4?'47« Reign.thatrecifely when and by what Terfons is not knoovn, &C. It may be our Author has this from fbme Invifible Manufcript. For it is more like, that fiich a Tale in a Tub as this is fhould be of fuch Original, than that of Dr. St. It is no wonder if we cannot give a particular Account of what Corruptions were brought into the Church at a far greater diitance of time, if our Author is to feek to make thofe appear that were fb lately brought in. One thing is very much worth * the'Obfef ving that CAsi'ns Ccrreffondeney with the VrotcBcr gave a fatal blow to the Patr. 51; Refornuithn. It is llrange Calvin brought in this Innovation as to the Real Pre-- fence, when our Author pretends to bring him in above fo much for it. I will not fay he contradiRs himfelf, but leave it to the Reader to Judge, Bathe goes on. They appoint this Zuinglian Form, Take and eat this ( without men- tionof Body and Blood ) in remembrance that Chrijt died for thee. 1 wonder how our Author can carp at this when it is almoft the very words of our Saviour, Do this in Rerncsrhra.nce of me. And he goes on further yhat they were not fatis- lied with the alteration of the Old Foi m, but added a fierce Declaration to bar the Doflrine ol'Real and Eftential Pielence, which lee in the Kubrick alter the Communion, and our Author fets it down at large. Our Authoi is of a very moderate Temper, whorathrir tuan want an Argument that Noblemen Ihciild nor be impofed upon to fwear to Intricacies and FaliToods, mil render the Church he pretends to be a Member of Infamous ; for fb fhe mnli be it what he fays be true, that Hie .'uftered liich Innovations to be brought in contrary to her own and the' ienfe of ail Reformed Churches , and our Autiior himfelf Iikewife, for (wearing thofe things at his admilfinn. And his Authority mayiie valid a- gainlr lother Church, elpecially cvhen wliat he Ipeaks vetiefts againft him- felf. I f v.w" -r I find no is very good at the old way cf Traducing, Fortker ca- M- 53- fa^. 58. i$c. B^flnyan- juhJtanM- tton, p. 10. /!rt.%.p. 283. Art. (3 382. Difp. of Chnjlian SubiSilioti, ( <5 ) ^ One would almoft think this a bold pracflice in a bold Writer thus toimpofe things which look fo like Forgeries upon the World. Nay one could fcarce think itlookt! k-' fenfe to call that an Innovation, which according to his own Conceffion was brought in but in the yth Year of K. Edward the VI. Reign, and confequently of the Reformation ; unleft our Author would likewife lay that the whole Proteftant Do-^rine was an Innovation.Efpecially feeing neither could they whofe Office it was to Reform, fee through all things at firft viewjnor pofli- bly, tyould they bring in all things requifite for a through Reformation at firft, but firft inform the Peoples Underftandings as to the feveral groft Errors of the Church of thatfo they might remove the unjuft Prejudices they might have had againft them, which might have occafioned great Difturbance had they been at firft Enaded. Dr. Burmtt lays he, has ofttn heard it [aid, that the Articles were frarndby Cranmer and Ridley ; iut whoever told him fo, knew no more than himfelf; and whoever tells him that it's not lb, knows as little; and one would think, that he who contradids an Hiftorian, fliould bring at leaft as ftrong Reafons for it, as he whom he contradids: ^nd yet all that our Author brings to make his Charge good, is a Conjedure: For he fays in the very next Paragraph j All that can be conjeHured, is, dec. He fays, " That in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Reign, when the Re- " formation was fetled in that ftate in which it ever after continued ; and that " new Declaration of the fecond Liturgy of King Edward, &c» was rejeded, " and the firft old Form of Diftribution was reftored, &c. But if (Ophow comes it that our Author has produced no Inftances of it from thofe who were then living ? And how comes it that that Declaration is ftill extant in the Rubrick, that they acknowledge no Prefence, lave only after a Spiritual manner I He pretends that the moft famous Divines of our Church, were ftiff Avouch- crs of his Real Prefence, and Inftanceth in Bifhop Andrews. But what he in- ftancethoutof him, makes very little for his piirpofe, as appears by thefe words in his Citation ; Only we defne nothing rafldy of its modus, neither do we curioufy enquire into it, no more than how the Blood of Cbrift cleanfeth us in our Ba^ti (m. Now feeing the Learned Bilhop fays that he will not cunoufly enquire into it no more than how the Blood, of Chrift cleanfeth us inBapcifin, and that is by all underftood in a Spiritual fenfe ( for no Church affirms that the Water muft be turifd into the Blood of Chrift for the cleanfing us) it muft needs follow, that he likewife underftood the Prefence of Chrift in a Spiritual fenfe, and confequently had no refped to a Corporal Prefence. And whereas he alledges Bifhop Poinet is of the fame opinion, our Author would have done well, if lie had read over that Citation of him in the Bifhop of Durham's Uulory of Tranfubflantiation, and be would have found thefe words at the clofe of it; Laftly, he affirms, ac- cording to the unanimous ccnfent of the Fathers, Fhat this Matter tnufi be underftood in a Spiritual fenfe, banijlnng all groffer and more carnal thoughts. And What thefe words import, let any man judge. Butbecaiife our Author is fbmuch for Inftances,! fhall likewife fet down a few. The firft is that of the Famous Bifliop Jewel, in his Anfiver to Harding; who proves, That to give the honour of God to a Creature, is manifeft Idolatry, as the Tapifls dom the Adoration of the Hojl, &c. Whiclihe would never have attempt- ed', bad he been for the Ccrporal Prefence. The next is that of Bilhop Bilfon, who proves the Church of Rome guilty of Idolatry j i. In theworftnp of Images, the having of which was never Catbclick ; and - ^ in 0i$i the VTorfhiffing of them was ever "wicked hy the judgment tf Cbrijls Church, 8lt. 2. In the Adoration of the Hofi; of which he Treats at large. A third is >of Bifhop Taylor, in thefe words: " Now by this Spiritual Prelence Bin- " of Chrift, we underftand Chrifl to be prefent, as the Spirit of God is prefent fincep'^'i-, " in the Hearts of the Faithful, by Blefling and Grace; and this is all that we ** mean, befides the Tropical and Figurative prefence. And p. 14. We (ay " Chrifts Body is in the Sacrament Really, but Spiritually; our meaning is, ** that it is prefent to our Spirits only; that is, fo as Chrift is not prefent to any * other fenfe, but tliar of Faith, or fpiritual fufception. And p. 13. In the Sacra- " ment is given us the true fubftance of Chrifts ^dy or Fhefh,but not Carnally, but Spiritually ; that is, not to our Mouths, but to our Hearts; not to be chew- " ed by Teeth,h\xt to be eaten by Faith. And p. 7. The Dodtrine of the Church ** of England, and generally of the Vroteflants in this Article, is this. That after the Minuter I/,'rf^ Body £? Mlood ofChnJi lo.is iW (J St. Bern. A.mo. Sertn. de canrt Do- mini Job. 6.56—63 Serm.de Vurif.B. Maria. Serm.de S.Mart. hi Exod. /.2.C.10. Cirnft A- and m 5ubftantially, but Sacramentally, and fo rejedJed the Cmutl Prtr/ence ■ 2nd Oral MmAucation, tho hemteved it^inharlh and uhdigdied expre'Tions'; Lanfranc.v'igo- rQufly„o|5ppfed ht.-n, ^but dliiefly upon this grbund, "That he was a Heretick_,hecauje he dijfenkd from the Church ofk^he. Ber 'engariv.s was'condemn'din^a Synod 2t Verdilles under Leo VA. and atlaftunder Ntchofas Ff. in tlie Council in the Year 1059. througli human Infirmity hfe revoked his-Opinion,; but beingitoucht with remorfe, he wrote againlt that Revocation. Berengarius beingdead, the True and Ancient Dodrrine he maintained, did not die with Hiip' For it was ftill conitantly maintained by St. Bernard, Abbot of CUirvaux, who lived about the beginning of the 12. Century. In his Difcourfe on the Lords Supper,- he joyns together the outward Form of the Sacrament, and tloe Spiritual Eficacyof it. And in his Sermon on the Puri- • f cation, vvflnch nOne doubts to be his, he fays, Abe Body of Chrift m the Sacrament, is the Feed . of the Soul, 720t of the Belly, therefqre.weeathimnut Curforalh, but in the manner that Chri(ids Meat, iti the fame manner .we underjiand, that be is eaten. And in his Sermon on St.Martttiy To this dayiznhhe, the fame Flejh is given-usfiit Spiritually, therefore not Corporally. About the fame tune Bj/pertus, Abbot oilmtiim, taught alio that the Bread and Wine in the Eucharijl are not'convcited into the Body and Blood of Chrift: His words are thefe; Tt>u mu(l .attribute all to the Operation of the Holy Gljef,who never fpoils or defines any Subftance he ujeth blip to that natural Goodnefstt had before, adds an invifible Excellency which it had tiot. ■ Or/jo, Biihop ofFrfingen, a Man every way Famous, lived in the fame Age j and he alfo believed, .2hd wi n, Thatthe Bread and TVine remain intljcEuchartf. As for the. word Iranfibfianiiation, ids hauliy to be found before the middle of this Centu- gric.inAn- ry: Forth'efirftthat m niionir,aie (" j Pecrus.Blejeiijls, who liyedunder Popethe tipift.p.iT 3d. and {^)'Stephen Educnjh, whole Age and Writings are very douutful. OEp.iAo Intlie 13. Century the•Bilnopef-/^owe began toexalt himfelf, not only' over the llniverfal f^jdeSacr. Church, but even over all theEmpir.es add. Kingdoms of the WorW. New Orders of Friars Altaris in fprung up in this Age, who difputed -fiercely againit tnany Dodtrincs of the Antient and Purer B.fpatrum. Clmrch, and amongtt the relt, againit that of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Chrilt. So that now there remained nothing but to Confirm this new Tenet, an^, impale itfo jaei em- ptor'ily in IheChriitian World, that none din ft hits againft it. This Pope Innocent'iht .Third bravely perfprmed. Who fucceeding Cclefltne the 3d; at 30 years' of age, unci following briskly the footlteps ofHildebrand cd\rd a Couhcil at in St.jolm Lateran.fX. was tl>e firlt- that ever made the New-devifcdDodtrineof an Aiticle of Eairii necellary to .Salvation. This is that Innocent, who to enlarge his Authority, wrought great Troubles to the Emperor Philip-, ftiiptO.''/jothe4th. of tbcEmpirci forced,fAw,King of England, to yield up into his hand this Kingdom;'and thatoMre/wwc/, and mat'ic th; m Tiibutary to the See'of Berne. Tie m Tlif.< _ tpa}proud andnnihitious (laysM.tt. Paris) and ever ready tocommit tlocmofi wicked.Viltanies, fobc joan^Bcgss bereco'mpenfd for it. Tl-.iswas the Man. who in his Later.mCouncilyiiiomanced that Ang iw. be made an Article of Failh ; .indwhent'ne ConnpitAvotikl not grant Matd ar. hiiittelf by his own Arbitrary Power, againft w-hich none durft open his Mouth. For tn Iltji. Canons which at this day go under tlienameof the Council,are none 6fhis,hut meerly the ill j)e(;rees ot Pope hmccent, lirit writ by him,& ie.idin the CounPil, and dilii'-.td by many, anci sfttn-ttt afperwardfe: clown intl'e Bobk of Decretals Under ce;tainrit]es,l)y hisjlt'phtw G/r^(»7tlie otln 1 it. hmoc. Having thus given a breif account of the rife of t'uis grolkilerefie, I fhall now endeavour to "5' _ • ftiew the grofs Abfiirclity of it by the following Arguments. ^ Mat.Par. - - in Hifi. ad An. 121 5* 1, This Opinion makes Chrtft guilty of grofs Nonfcnieiu his Inftitution of thelloly Supper. For his.wordsare J Take, e.if, this is my Bsdy,. do this in Bomcnd'rance of me. Now if that era had been C/.T;/?r real Bocly after CohfethUton, his Faying, Do this in rcmcmhrarcc of me, niiift have been Egregious Nont'enfe. For we-neither'do norcim remember things prefcmt, tbeatft -of Mdinory or Remembrance being fuch as altvays refpedlsa 'fhing abfciu or pair. 2. Phis Opinion infers, that God deludes his Creatures, which lb much as to think of him is moll horiible Blafphemy. But if it w«rc true, th.it after Confccration the Wafer.ind Wine were become the Body-and Bloocl of Chift, then muft it be of neccuity fnd, that God deluded his -Creanues, forhe repi efentsir to all the Scufes, under-the fame appe.arance. as before Confeera- tion, and yet as they fay, it is qiiile another tlfn.g; to wit,-the Body and Bloocl of C/ftv/r.And can there be gre.uerjtig-grmg in the V/brld than this would be.^ And fiip'pofethistobe .1 D.,mua- mm them for to adhere ion, and yet as they fay, it is qiiile another tlfn.g; to wit,-the Body and Bloocl ol Chnft.An •an there be gre.uerjtig-grmg in the V/orld than this would be.^ And fiippofethistobe .1 D.mm? ble .Midai.e, ihouldnct hepofiiively bethe caiiit of limir Sin,and coniequtntly clar that-which tlicy liad all t'nereafon in tlie world to atlhcic t-i, feeing that they were tothe tejiimonyof ti-cirSc;?ies, in fofarasthey \vue c.ip.ibleof -perceiv'.n.g Material Objetfts. A'ld the .Body of'Chriil: being Material, can bepreiViioecl -b) *-hv SciUes, and fo c.mnot Ic iccPcned among thofe .Myfteries the Apof.le (peaks of, which Eye imtlt not fccn, nor li-'.h f nor heart p^erceive, &c. For thofe things the ApolHc'tpeaks ot, are tnmgs oian im- I material and (isiritual Nature, which cannot by themfelves make any Impremon on 1 the Senfcs, and hefides, othcrwife tranlccnd the thoughti of Men, fiich as the My- I " ftery of the Trimtj^dcc. But that cantiot be faid of the Bodj of Ghri ft, feeing Eyes have f fccn it, and as a ^dy, it could enter into the Heatt of Man to conceive of it, as being corporeal and finite, 3. A Sacrament or Sign, Is different from that thing whofe Sign and Sacrament it is. Now, they muft all acknowledge, that the Bread and even after Confetra- tion, (for before it cannot be called a Sacrament) is a Sacrament or Sign of the Bodf and Notd of Chrtfi j therefore,even after OjnfecratioOjit is different from thcBedf arid Biaod of Chrift. The Propofitionis clear,for it is a notorious contradiftion, to fay the thing fignifying, and the thing fignified, are one and the fhme thing, and as much as to fay, the thing fignified, is not the thlng'fignified, &c. which tojany will appeah 4. If in Baptifm, after Confecration, the Water is not turned into tht BUod of Chrifi^ then in the Lords Supper, the Bread and IVine, after Confecration, is not tur- ncd into the BodjzndiBlood of Chrifi: But that in Baptifm, the Water is not charrg- ed into the Bload of Chrifi, all are agreed. Therefore not in the Lords Supper. The Confequcnce is clear. For Baptifm is the Initiating Sacrament, and begets as it were a new Creation in the Soul, or Regeneration, as our Saviour terms it, whereas by tlie Lords Supper^ that Image that is Created is kept up which is no greater work at Icaft than the flrft creating of it. And if fb be that that firft change is be- got in the Soul, nxxhontTratifubfiantiating the Water into the Blood of Chrifi, by the Power of God unknown to us, why ffould we alTert that in order to fh^ Lords Sup^per^s operating its bleffed Effcdl upon the Sou!, the Bread and IVtne thcrem made uft of, muft be Tranfubfiantiattd into the Body and Blood of out Lard.^ For the Parity holds, I fhall add Ibme Inftances out of the Fathers, to (hew that that Doc'irine of the 'Beal Frefence (as the Romanifis hold it J was not heard of in their days. Theo^r-et Jefsts Chrifi hath Honoured the yfihle Symbols with the Name of Diul. i. his Body and Blood, not t» ehanging their Nature, but in adding the Grace. The Bread of the Sacrament, faith Chryfofiome, is called Bread before it is Santhfied-, Epijl ai but Divine Grace having Sar.Eltfied tt by the Minifiry of'thePriefi, tt is no longer called Bread, but it is judged Worthy to be called the Body of Chrift. FoY>e GeUfiui, at the end of the Ninth Century. Certainly, 'faith he, the Sacra- GcUp. de ■ments of the Body and Blood 0/ Chrift, which you receive, are ftmething ih.it is Divine j duobus »> whence alfa it is, That- by them we are made Partakers of the Divine N.nure ■, and verthelefs thej fidl retain the Nature and Subfiance of Bread and Wine. CS" A Council of the£^»/, AfTembled at CenfiantinopU, Anno declarer, That jEutyck JefusChrift Commanded us to offer the Image of his Body, aThing chofen, toW:t, the Condi. Subfi ance of the Bread. Innumerable more might have been produced, to provethat it was the'conftant received Opinion,even till the Ninth Century j Forthefirft that ever Wrote againft it, was, that Pafchafius Ratbtrtus, made mention of above. This grofs Opinion had its Original from a grofs and carnal llndcrftandlilg of Chrifi's Words, fohn the 6. And if any confider the occafion of that Difcourle, they will find no {^uch Dodrine defigncd bv Chrifi; For it was occafioncd from the Jews following Chrifi, becaufe they had been Med by a Miracle. Chrifi tells them. They mufi Labour for the true Food of the Soul, to wit, Himfelf; dnd thence makes a comparilbn bet ween. which is thcFoc^ of the Body, ad Himfelf, who is the itrueNourifimienc ^ the Soul: And all along (hews, that the Food of the Body Pe- rirberlr, 11B V rifhcih, but that of the Soul cndurcth for ever, after the fame manner that he fpalce of Liv'mgWAter ^ tqthe'^oma.nof Samaria^ ^ohnj^. And when the Multitude fiippofing him to mean by thele Words, Except ye Eat the Elefh^ dnd Drink the ^at>, ft' ®/ 'f y in yOf* i that they muft Carnally and * ' Orally Eat his very Bedy^ which was then (peaking to them ; they lookt upon his Dodtrine as Salvagenels it felf ^ and from that Time many went away from him: And while his Difciples thcmfclves Murmured at it, he (aith unto them. Does this offend you f Ver, 62. What if yeu fee the Son of Man go up where he way at firfit 63. Jt is the Spirit that o^mckenetJs^ the Flejh profiteth nothing-. The Words that J fpeak^ they are Spirit and Life: From which, it is plain, That he defigned nothing lefs than this Oral Manducation For die eating of Man's Fle(h, but more efpecially the eat- ing of what they Worfliipt, hath been among all Nations accounted abominable. De Nat hence, (zys Cicero, When we call Wine, Bacchus, and our Fruits, Ceres, ntfe Deer, j* uf^ the common manner of fpeaking j hut do you think ary of us to be fo Mad, as to ac' count that which he Eats to be-his God ? kxA Averrhoes, a Famous Heathen Philo(i)pher, who lived about the Eleventh Century, when this M'onftrous Doftrinc of Oral Manducation had a little obtain'd in the Chriffian Church, expreflcd himfelf thus againft it: I have_ en^^uired into all Jpud Per- Religionsy and have found none more foohjh than the Chrihians, becaufe that very ran. ie God they Wor/hip, they with their Teeth devour : And concludes thus, Becaufe the Eucb.l.i, Chrlftians Eat what they do Werjhip, let my Scul go to the Fhilofophers. Hence jfjp Mahometans, as the higheft Calumny they can caft iiponns, reproach us, uis Deveurers of our Cod. Nay, they affirm, That by thus eatingof his Flefh, the Chri- fiians lift him worft than the ?ews did,, who Crucified Him; Becaufe,Lay they, it is more. Salvage to Eat his Flejh, and Drink hU Blood, than only to procure his Death. It is obftrvablc, That from (bme Hereticks of the Firfl Century, the Capernaifls, 8cc. grofs Interpretation of the 6 Chapter of Sr. John's Gofpcl, fprung that abomi- nable Cuftom, of initiating them with a draught of an Infants Blood, and eating the Flefh of it; which Barbarous Cnftom is fuppoftd to owe ks Original to Simon . Magus. And theof thofc days, charged the Pradlife of theft Monftroiis Prmiden on the True Church of CAny?; Of w'k\c\\Salvianus faith thus. They fup- ' pofed that we were initiated into our Keligion by two abominable Vi'anies, Inccff and Murther ; Inc^^tof the Holy.Vizirons, and Murther foHr, are direfliy. levelled againjl Idolatry. Let us Jee how he makes hiS Argument, Firjl, fays he, Heenjoytisthe Worjhip of himfsif; who, by his Almighty Fewer, has Hid,, dehveredthem from their FpyypixdXx Bondage. Obfcrvc, howCandidly om Author Coiiiments upon the Firft Commandment, fet- • ting down only tlx; Pofitive part thereof, whereasit has, aUo-a Negative Scn-fe, as • ap;)cars from the very Words. Thou Jhalt have no other Godls before Me. And this is a very cunning Artifice of his j themoft probable way to explain it, fbasto . ■ vindicate them hem.tlte charge of For if this Command nm only Fefitive, . ' and ihe fccohd -Negative, then he would have a very great advantage: The firjl would run Co, Thou fhaltpay me that iVorfbip that is due tome : And thethus, Thou jhalt not pay that W'jrfhip .which is due to me, to any Graven- Image. Had the Remanifis thought of this way of maintaining the firft and fecondCe^Ai- mands to be different, fb as to be yet free from any charge of Idolatry,- in their Wor- Ftixppwxgof Images, they might have freed ihenifelves of that rufpicioiis Guilt, incur- reel by expunging the Second; For it argues a Guilt in them, in fo far at leaft, that they fear tlie Common People would la.ke that to be the plain and obvious Meaning. D 2 of ©fit; which we ma'mraln; ami confequentlv might fufped them of Juglii,gin this "point. And nnimibly think, otir Luther, feeing he is fo much in therr Vindication, might have faid fomewhat in their Jiiftification, as to tltat Cancelling of the Second Commandment} efpscially when there lies fo heavy a Ciufc upon thofe, who either add to, or diminifli from tlte Law of Gad. But that his Notion will not hold Good,appearsby theWords \hzm^c\st:s,ThanJhalt huve no otherCSq&s before mei Thdt i«, [ amtheonly True God., who Created the World, and all things thferein j prefervc them by my Omnipotent Arm, and bcfides thoft common Providences, have manifefted a paitiailar Care over >eu, in bring- ine you out of the Laird of Egyftt j and cxpeft that you efpecially Worfhip and Adore me^ and none but me: And fo, here the Lord fheweth them the True Objed ofWorftiipi to wit, that it is neither >?«», Moon, mt Stars, &c. bnt himfeifalonc; and confequently prohibits in this Commandment, the Adoration of Shh, Moon, and and all other falfe jr Our Anthtr is no lefs IngeniioffS m his Explicafion of the bccond Command, for he leaves out the moft material Word in it. Make, which very Word will Mar his True and only Notion of Iddatry; to wit, Worfhip of the Sun, &c. For, certainly God would not forbid them to make ihe5;!f«, for that was above their Power. Nor, Secondly, canlic be faid here mecrly to forbid making an Image of the Smi, as a Sv'mbolof ir; fbrthe Worlhipof the Sun itfelf, being forbid in the f;r/ Command, as alfb ail other falfe Deities i none cotfld beTo Brutifh, as to imagine that God Would take tip a New Commandment, in forbidding to make Worfhip the Image of thofe faife Deities. Itrennams therefore, That the Second Commandment muft run thus, T%ou Jhaltnot make any Rcprefentation or hkenefs of Me, nor jhalt Worjhip mi hi a"!y likefsefs or Reprtfentationof me, hy any thing that is in Heaven, on Earth, or )ft the Wafers under the Earth; which was as plain as could have been faid, Te fhaHmake., nor bovo down to no Reprefentatien or Hkeneft whatjoever. n t t And That this is the ftopc of this Commandment, may further appear, flom ' Deut A ic 16,17,18,19. wherethe Lord himfclfexplains that CfwwwW, ver. If. Take )e therefore good heed unto .your felvet: C As if he had faid, I know you are ftrangely byaft from the True way of Adoring me, which I have appointed; and are vW prone to fetup a way after yonr own invention j to wit, by making a vifible fcprefentationofme, which is liighly derogatory to my Glory; and there- fore I warn yon, over and over again, take-heed to your fclvesl (for you faw no manner c ffimilitude, on the day that the Lord fpake unto yeu out of Uotth, out of the midfi' of the Fire ) q. d. Had 1 defign'd that you fhould make any External Likenefs or SimiUtude, or Reprefentation of Me, I would have appeared to you in fbmeSimilitude, and appointed you to Worfhip me under that Similitude; but I did it not and I do hereby fhew you, That I did not appear to you in any Srmi- litude ^hat you might notprefume to Worfhip me, under any Similitude, which is fo <^ioUs to me. Ver. 16. Left you corrupt your felves, and make you a Graven Image, the Jimilitude of my Figure, the likenefs of Male and Female 17. The like- nets of any Beaft that is on the Earth, the hkeneft of any wtngedToyvl, that uon the Earth- the likenefs of any thing that creepeth on the Ground, &c. A fufficient enu- mcration of all the kinds of likenefles, and does ncccffarily import thus much. Thou fhalt make no Graven Image, nor no likenefs of any Thing, to make ufeof in thofe A<5ts of Adoration which arc due to me, as I am Soveraign Creator of all ■i«. Things and your God a fpecial Relation. Then, Ver. 18. he proceeds to can- tion them to beware of a more grofs fort of Idolatry, which ftrikes immediately againft the Commandment.: And kji thou Ifi up thjtM Rtyto Heaven, \ \ C '3 ) i^eAvett, And Vfhtn thou feefi tht Sun And the Moon, And the Star*, even aU the Hoft of Heaven, thou Jhouldtjl he driven to Worjhiv thtm^ And Serve thcm^ which the Lord thy Go(\ hAth divided unto a'l Nations under the whole ticzven. Nothing can be more plain, Than that there are two kinds offorbidden here j to vrir, Lefi you corrupt your [elveSy and make «€ Graven Image; iand lefi that when thou feefi the Sun &c. thoH\Sox(ii\\) them, and Serve them: And therefore, that of worfliipping the Suny Moony &c. is not the true and only Notion of Idolatry: And if we obfervc the Order of the two forts of Idolatry^ mentioned above, they give us no fmall hint how the one difpofethPeople to receive the other, even on this account, as it is the-Na- tureof all Sin, and particularly of this which has declared to be fo dilhonour- able to him, to darken the Powers of the Soul, and weaken the Confciente, which is that Vrimum Mobile in the Soul j and if pure, the whole Soul keeps right in its Mo- tionj but if once defiled, the whole frame of the Soul turns into Confufion, and be- comes Captive to the Senfitive Part, and then who knows what horrid Abominations the Soul may be guilty of. And it is likcwifc very ufual with GoX when People thus dtfhonour him,Jnoc only to withdraw his Holy Spirit from them, but even actually to harden them, as he did Vharoah,when he would not let his People go. This is clear]/ pointed at in uiH. 7. 41,42. ^nd they made a Calf in thofe Days, and Offered Sacri- pee unto Idols, and rejoyced in the works of their own hands j then God turnecLandgave them up to worfhig the Hofi of Heaven. Moft plainly pointing at two forts-of- Idola- try, and the one confequent upon another, as a jiift Punilhment in flirted on them by Cod, for their diOionouring Him in making.Symbols, and Reprefentations of Him. I am afraid our Author's true, and only Notion oi Idolatry, will fcarce ent- dure the Tefi. I now proceed to his Comment upon the Third Command i znd thus you have him : The Englifh of the Third, fays he, if it were rightly Tranjlated, runs thus | Them (halt not give the Name of the Lord thy Cod to a Vanity or Idol: A ftrangc Vei fion of it. I defire to know how by this Senfe, on this Command, the Reverend Author will prove thofe Perfons Guilty of Ptfr/wry, who gave the fir ft Birth and Original to the Tefi. For, allowing of this Interprefttion, they cannot be guilty of Perjury, by aflirmng a |Lye,. by. the Name of the True God, in fo far at they never gave "the Name of God to a Vanity anJ Idols. But to wave this, I am fure the Debauchee's of the Nation, the Dammee's, that make it their r conftant Prarticc to tear the Sacred Name of God, muft needs have a great Vene, ration for our Author; for they never had fuch favourable Entertainment from any that ever we heard of before; for in their common Oaths they do not gwe the - Name of God fo'an'ld >1, and Co were only traduced before by Anticatholick, Uuf chriftian, and Fanatical Notions of Blafphemy, whereas they were guilty of no fuch - thing. Would our Author.put but fuch a Catholick and truly Chriftian fenfe upon three or four more of theComrnandmcnts, I cannot fee but that Paitywere obliged to-return Thanks tohim from all parts of. the Nation, for delivering them from thofb Torments the Fanatical Notions of Men about that they call'd Sin hath created to them. But by our Author's leave,. however he pretends tlic Septuagint rendeis it j yet'tis plain that it was never a generally receiv'd fenfe among the People of the Jews, as appears by their great Reverence to the Name of God, particularly that great Name by which he manifeftedhimfclf, viz.. . Jehovah, tyhich they pronounced but very feldom, and that upon very folemn occafions. - And tho our Author determines the only defign of God in the Foitrth Command- Tag. yp, ment, to be only to keep People from Idolatry 5 yet I doubt not, but God had other Olds, to wit, the advancing-of true Holmefs 5 fbr ttspoflible ihat.a Church luay be E ■ " C »4 ) free from arryfort of our'Authors Idolatry, and yet be abhorred by God, like that People of whom our Saviour fpake, That drew to him with their Lips., but their Hearts were far from him. And that Church in Laodicea, in the A/eip Tefiament, could not be charged with idolatry., and yet was loathfome in Gods account. He inftances the GoImm Calf let up by tire Ifraelites in Msfes abftnce, and he con- eludes, that it was nothing elft than an old E^jptian Idol: But I would ferioufly ask our Author, how it could be pofTible that the Ifaelites did Worfhip the Calfai the Symbol of fome Egyptian Deity, as he alledges. For firft, the occafion •of it was, not on the Icaft pretence of Infidelity as to the true God, but only becaufe Mejes had been fo long abfent from them, and they knew not what was become of him, and therefore they bid Aaron make them Gods that fliould go before them. Now, it cannot befuppofed, that they could have been fo ftrangely ftupid, as to have Worflripped the Egyptian Gods at that time, if we confider what manifold wonders the True God wrought for them in the Land of Ej,ypt, how heavily he laid his Hand upon the Egyptians, and yet in the mean while preferved them from thofe Plagues 5 they could not then be ignorant that the God whom they Worfhip- "pcd, was of infinitely greater power than thofe the Egyplians worflripped. And they could not have fo foon forgot that great Deliverance he wrought for them at the Red Sea, when the Egyptians were Drowned; they could not certainly but be thenfenfible that the God they ferved, was of infinitely greater Tower than thofe the Egyptians worflripped. And but a little before, the Law was promulgated with Tnunderings and Lightnings: Is it poflible they could fb foon have fhaken off the dread of that God who had apjreared lb terrible to them? And further, even at this very time, when this Image was made, he Miraculoufly fed them with Manna, they could not but remember that they were never fed fo in Egypt, and fb they could not but acknowledge that that great God was infinitely to be prefer- ed before the Egyptian Gods. But that very paflage above cited of St. Stephen, They made a Calfin thefe Days, and Offered to the works of their own Hands, fcertainly then not to tire Sun, for that was not the work of their Hands } then God turned, and gave them up to Worjhip tZelioif of Heaven. Now, how could it be faid, that he gave them up to Worfhip theof Heaven, if they were guilty of that Jdola- try then, when they Worfhipped the Calf. LajHy, There is no Imitation given in the whole Story, that they fell into the Heathen Idolatry; for afterwards, when they fell into it, theparticular Names of the God's arc mentioned, as, Baal-Peor, Moloch, Remphan. But hereon the contrary, Aaron e^^xefty proclaims A Fcafl to the Lord, and the People accordingly met, and Offered their ufual Offerings; whereas, had it been the Egyptian Idolatry, their common Sacrifices would have been Abominations ; they muft not have Sacrific'd Sheep and Oxen as they were wont to do, as our Author himfelf acknowledges, Om Author, next rnentions the Calves fet up by feroboam, 1 Kings. 20.27. 'And he faith. Its plain, that thefe Calveswere fet up by him, as Idols or Symbols of a new or Separate Religion from the Tribe of Judah. It is plain Jeroboam^s defign was not to pervert the People from the Woi-fhip of the True God, to that of the H^a* then Idols, but only to divert the People of Ifratl from going to ferufalem; fearing left if the People fliould Yearly go up to Jerufalem to Worfhip, they fhould be again reduc'd to their Allegiance, to Rehoboam, and fo caft off his Ufurpation. Now the occafion of the Kingdoms coming to him, was from Solomons felling to Heathen Idolatry, t Kings. 11. 35. Which would make him more cautious of falling into it efpccidly at his firft-entrance. In Ababs Idolatry, the occafion and defcription of it ( 115^) isglvcn, iKlngs. ii. 33. and the God he Worftiipped particularly mentioned. But ofJeroboAmit is Only faid, that he fetup the Calves at Dan and Bethti, arid'faid Ufito the People, it is too much for you to go up,to Jcrufalem-, Behold thy Gods, 0 IfracI, vpe have brought "Thee up out of the Land of I 12.28. 29. How eafie had it been for him to have faid, that Jeroboam Worfliipped the Gods of Egypt^ had that been his intention! And Jeroboam "Would have argued fnuch better, that they had hitherto been in a great miftake, concerning the True God, and not meerly as to the place of his Worfliip, which is-all he fpcaks .againft ; for he con- fmuedthe fame Feafts and way of Worfhip that were at ferufalem. But if this of Jeroboam is Heathen Idolatry, how comes the Sin of Ahab to be called fb much greater than that of 'Jeroboam ? How comes Jehu at the fame time, to boaft of his Zeal for the Lord, when it is faid of him, that he departed not from the Sins of Jeroboam, viz., the Golden Calves of Dan znd Bethel, t Kings 10,16,19, How comes the Prophet not to Reprove Jeroboam, for the Gods he Worfhipped, but for the Altar; this was avery fmall Fault in refped: of the former, had Jero-^ boam been gmky ol Heathen Idolatry. And how comes the Worfhip of God to be preferved in the Ten Tribes, after their Captivity, when they ftill continued their Separation in Religion, from the Kingdom of Jndah, 2 Kings 17.28. For certainly, if the Samaritanshzd. onlydefired Information concerning the Worfhip of the Ged of Ifrael, after the way of Jerufalem, they would have fent thither for it: But be- caufc they fent into the Land of the Captivity, for a Triejl to be fent to themj it is plain, the former differences ftill continued. From all w'hich, it's plain, th.zt Jeroboam did not fall into Heathen Idolatry, and yet we fee he is charged with Idolatry in Scripture, tho' not Heathen Idolatry, like that of Ahabs, for it is faid, That he had done Evil above all that were before him j * Ktngs ■ and had gone and made him other Gods, and Molten Images, to provo^ God to Anger, and bad cafi him behind his Back: Which charge, may fufnciently Inform us how great a Sin tWs of Worfliiping the True God, by Images, is. The Second Head ofDifcourfe, is. That the Gods that they worpsipped, at that P4g,$^ time, were nothing but the Heavenly Bodies, or the Sun, as the Supream Deity. But, how can it be fuppofcd, that Men of Senfe and Underflanding fhould be- lieve that to be a (jo^^,which is altogether void of Underftanding ? And if the greatcft Part of the World acknowledged fuch for Cods as had no Underftanding, how could the Notion of the One Supream God be preferved airiong them ? Our Author goes about to Prove, That this was the Iddatry of the Heathens, Pag. by the Teftimony of Eufebim: But he might have remembred, That this Paffage is extant in his Third Book, De Prepar. Evang. that tho Porphyrie feemed to think that the Egyptians looked not beyond the Suit, Moon, and Stars; yet he acknow- ledges, that they reprefented the Creator with an Egg in his Mouth. Now, if they , acknowledged zGod, how can it be faid, That they Worfhipped the Stars, without any Notion of a Supream Deity ? . He brings in likewife Diodorm Siculus j but it feetns he has not much Read him, or he would have been loath to have brought Him in, who rrsakcs fb much againft him; for in his FirftBook, after the Celeftial Gods, he Treats of Men and Women Deified, of Ofris, Ifs, and Trypbon-, and fays, That Ofns 'was equally Honoured vyirh the Celeftial , Eufebius in his Chronicles, faith, from the Teftimony of Serf us. That tho'tjhey Worfhipped thcSfe», under theNamcofR^/, yet.they believed, a Supream- .whom they acknowledged to have produced all things. And by phe Terfimonles of Plutarch and Zenophon, the Perfans oAvned a God above the Sinf. And ( i5 ) And Mdero^ius never affirm'd, That tliey had no Senfe and Apprehenfibn of s Supream Codi but fays in the beginning, that he fpcaksonly of Sub-celeftial Gods; and that the Anticnts believed that the Sun wsis Governour of the World. But where he (peaks of the Su'prcam Cod, he faith, That the Anticnts, never made an Image of tnisC7ff'-certainly he will not fay that. And I hope he will not fay, they Worfhipt it felf, fo as to aQcount it zGod-, for it is not probable, they could be fo ftupid in fuch a Good Kings Reign, efpecially when the Scripture does]not fay they committedfo grofs Ida- latry with a Sacred thing as that, even under the worft of their Kings, and theft who were moft prone to Idolatry. Nay, 'tis plain, That when they. Worfhippcd ftrangeGods, they did not think there was any Divinity in the Image it felf; and that hence they arc called the Cods of the Zidenians, jimmenites, &cc. Now, it r» iinpofllble that they could imagine that that Image, inclofed in their Temples, could < be the Deity of that People wbofc Gods they Worlhipt, but only that they fet up an Image, to rcprcfent that GOD whom the Zmmonites, See, Worlhipped. And it remains then^ that they defigncd by- the Setrcnt to Worfhip the L O R D . aixd.; and it may be paid fuch an: honour to it as the Papifls term Douleia ;'and feeing that was reckoned Idolatry by God, our Author will pleafe to pardon us, if we do not receive his true and only Notion of Idolatry. 3. Our Author may be anfwered by one of his own Authors ( and fuch as maintains no Anticatholick Unchriftian Principles) thomas Aijuinas, His words are'; * They were not fet up to be Worlhiped, but * lor the fake of fome Myflery ; viz. the Santlum Santhrum Refembled * Heaven ; the Ar^ as the Foot-flool of God who was incomprehenlible, * and therefore no refcmblance of him was there; the Mercy-feat his * Refidence; the Clierubims reprefented the Company of Heavenly An- * gels waiting on him, whom they were forbidden to Worlhip, fince * that was:due to God alone. Our Author comes off with a fair fliam, j^if he no Idolatry to Worfhzp p. iz^ towards an Image j after all their Frights they fairly give up the Caufe to the Church of Rome. Where again obfervc his Equivocation, Worlhip to- wards an Image. For it may be either taken barely for Worfhipping to- wards a place where the Image is, and without any refpeft to it, no more than they knew not of any Image's being there; no man will call that Idolatry ; but that will do the Church of Rome no fervice 5 Or it may be taken for Worlliip towards the Image it felf, fo as the Perfon direds him- felf immediately to the Image and pays it fome Adoration, and that this is Idolatry, hath been already evinced from Scripture: Nor has our Au- thor for all his buftling, vindicated her from the Afperfion of it. I fliall only Infert an Argument'or two out of the Fathers of Conflanti' nople ; the firft is againft Images of Chrift, thus: ' That all the Reprefem * ration of Chrift allowed us by the Gofpcl, is that which Chrift him- * felf Inftituted, in the Elements of the Lords Supper, whofe ufe was to *put us in remembrance of Chrift. No other Figure or Type being * chofen by Chrift, 'as able to Reprefent his being in the Flefli but this. * This was an Honourable Image of his quickning Body made by him- * felf; which he would not have of the lhape of a Man to prevent Idola- * try; but of a common Nature, as he took upon him the common * Nature of Man, and not any Individual Perfon ; and as the Body of ' Chrift was really Sanftified by the Divine Nature, fo by Inftitution * this Holy Image is made Divine through fanftification by Grace. xd. Of the fame Fathers Arguments againft the Image of any other i * Becaufe thefe being the chief, there can be lefs reafon for any others \ ' befides; that there is no Tradition of Chrift or his Apoftles for them i ^ No way of Confecration of them prefcribed, or pradfifed; no fuitable- ' nefs in the ufe of them to tlie defign of the Chriftian Religion, which ' being in the middle betwixt 'judaijm. and Fagantjm,^ it cafts off the Sa- ' crifices of the one, and not only the Sacrifices, but the idolatries of the F fther; _ _ V y * other: And it is Blafphemy to the Sahts in Heaven, to call in the * Heathen Superftitions into Chriftianity, to honour them by : That it is * unbecoming their Glory in Heaven to be let upon Earth in dull and * fenfelefs Images: Tliat Chrift himfeif would not receive Teftimony ' from Devils, though they fpake 7 ruth; neither can luch a Heathenilh * cuftom be acceptable to the Saints in Heaven, though pretended to be 1 for their Honour. That nothing can be plainer in the Gofpel than that ' God is a Spirit and will be Worlliiped in Spirit and m Truth, to which 1 ' nothing can be more contrary than the going about to honour God * by Worihiping any Image of himlelf or his Saints . As to his xd. the Adoration of the Hojl. They can be no more excufed from Idoletry in their Worfliiping of it than the Heathen j for that they give Adoration even to what they fee in it is plain ^ and if they Worlliip that which according to therafelves is nothing but the Accidents, they are worfe than the Heathen who Worlhip only Subftaaces. X. They are not fure but they may be impofed upon fo as to commit Idolatry even in their own fenfe of it; for either through the Juggling or carelefnefs of the Prieft an unconfecrated Wafer may be prefented to thern inltead of a Confecraeed one. And, 3 dly. Seeing it has been proved, and has been the Opinion of all the Ancient Church, till about the ^th. Century, that the Bread and Wine arc notTranfubflantiated into the Body and Blood of Chrifl, it mud of neccQlty follow, that they are Idolatrous in Worihiping it. When they are charged with Idolatry forWorfiiiping Saintsxind Angels^ ss alfo Aw^5(?^,they labour to fliift the Argument by faying, they give only Doukia^ but not Latria^ which is due to God alone. But for all their fub- tilty they cannot get one place in Scripture to bear them out in this Di- ftindionjfor the Scripture ufes them both indifferently,without any refpe£t had to inferior or fuperiorWorlhip.But I dellre that they "Will Ihew us fome ground for their piliinclion, how many degrees of Worlhip go to make up a Douleia, and how many a Latria; for as to their External Adora- tlon itis the fame Polfure when directed to an Angela or Saints^ as when directed to God, their Affeftionand Zeal feems likewife. the fame ; nay,- and their very External Words are likewife the fame, viz. asking things of an Angel., &c. after the fame manner as if it were an Independent Being, and confequently his Honour is given to the Creature. As in Antiphona on the Apparition of Michael the Arch--Angel, he hpraid to 224. come and help the people of God. And in the Feaft of the Guardian Angel^tQ- commended to all Catholicks by PW V. in the laft words of the Breviary : They are praid to defend them in War, that they may not perijh in Gcds terri- comm-ir "jiidgment. In the Hymn to the Holy Apohies they are praid to com' mand the Guilty to he loofedfrom their Guilty to heal imfound mtnds, and to '5- ' encreaje ( '9 ) '^^7 cm{etheWVertues,th(it whenChriflJhall comehey may l>epartakers ofeternat Glory, The Reader may plainly fee here, that it isnot faid, Tray t9.God for Hs} which if they did, they were blameable enough ; but do it for us, your felves, as if the Angels and Apoftles were all Independant Be- ings. And I am fure^ fuch abfolute Worftiip as that is, canriot even in their own Senfe be termed Aou\d« j for they cannot cxprefs it in higher Words to God himfelf. 2. Thofe which pre-fuppofe in a Creature, one of the higheftPcr- feftions we can conceive arc Idolatrous. But fo it is that the Invocating of Angels tmplics one of the higheft Pcrfedions we can conceive to be in them, for we muft imagine that they know when we Invocate them, otherwife if we did not believe them to know and take notice what we faid unto them,we would not do it. And upon thisfuppofition, that they do hear us, we muft Attribute to them the higheft Knowledge which we can conceive; as, fuppofelb manyPerfbns at the fame time Pray from themoftdiftantplacesof the Earth toSt. "Peter, Paul, &c. wer muft believe, both that they hear thofe different Prayers of the Perfbns fuppofed to be info diftantpiaccs, at the fame Minute; and likewife that they can judge of their Sincerity, for we cannot exped to have an Anfwer of our Prayers, without our Sincerity be known. Whereas the Scripture plainly fays, That God is the judge of Hearts. And pray what higher Notion can we have even of Omnifcience it fclf. 3. That Attion which fuppofes God to be unmindful of his Ser vants, muft needs be highly difplcafing to him. But this Praying to Saints to Intcrcccd for them, fupj^es God to be unmindful; and that therefore he muft be put in Mind of it by Saints and Angels j and likewife that Chrift is not fb Faithful in his Mediatory Office as he fhould be. All which are notorious Blafphemies. It may not be amifs here to fet down fomc Inftances of the Fathers, Opinions, as to the Invocation of our Bleflcd Virgin, &c. Epiphanius faith, M2Lnc$ Body was Holy indeed, but yet not GoA-, peewas Contra indeed a Virgin and Honourable, but fhe was not propounded for Adoration, Coly. rid. but her felf Worjhipped Him, who as concerning his Flefli Was Born of Her. « Auftin laith. Let not the Worftoip of Dead Men be any Religion unto us, be- Dt tutra , caufe if they have lived Holily, they are net to be accounted of,as that they fhould 'Ijydg.c.uJt, feek^ fueh Honour, but rather they will have him to be Worfhippedofus by whom being Illuminated, rejoyce that we fhould be fellow Servants of their reward. They are therefore to be honoured for Imitation, not worjhipedfor Religion fake. And ^gz\n,Wc honour them with Love,not with Service. Neither do wecrell Ibid. Temples unto them, for they will not have themfelves fo to be honoured of us, be- caufe they know that we our felves being good are theTemples of the high God, iJeCiv. Del And in another place. Neither do wrCottJecrateTemplcs, Prlefl-hoods, I-lolyi. s.t. 17, G Rites, 18S . ( 30 )■ CeremtnieSy and Sacrifices'unto the fame Martyr Sy feetn^ not thej^ but their Go^ is awrGod, &e. We neither Ordain Priefis for oar Martyrs^ nor Offer Sacrifices, Jn Kom,c.u Ambrofc faith, They are wont to ttfe a miferable excHfe^faying, that by thefe Men we may have accefs unto God, as to a King by Earls, Go to, is any Man fa Mad,l frayyott, that being forgetful of hit oWn Salvation^ he wUiChallengej ibid, ** Early the Royalty of a King ? And a little after, Thefe Men think them not Guiltyy that give the honour of God'r Name to a Creature, and leaving the Lordy worfhip their FelloW Servants. Rom. Rift. We fhall now give afhort account how Images were firft brought in, £«/.». as alf) the Invocation of Saints. And the firft that brought in Images lot. (Se. jg Biftiop of NoUy and Sulpitius Severus, ( although before their Time, they had in fome places painted Images, as appears from Epiphanim cutting the Vail whereon Cllrift was Painted ) for Hiftorical ufe, or Ornament of their Churches. But there is not the leaft proof of any Adoration given them then ; their only ufe at that Time being Hiftori- cal. Ethical, or Politick. Yet they arc blameable for making that ufe of them; for that Hiftorical ufe, in a little Time, degenerated into- Idolatry. As to the Invocation of Saints, it owes its Original to the Panegyric Orations of Sc. Bafil, Nyjfen, and NarJanrjeny who bsing great Orators,, ufed feveral Rlictorical Flourifhes in their Declamations, fbmctimcs- ufing Compcllations to the Dead, as if they were prcfent before them; and fometimes Imploring their InterccfTton; fo that what they did mcer- ly for Eloquence of Speech, gave occafion to the Unlearned to fall into, that grofs Error. In the days of the Emperonr PhiUppicusy a newControverfiearorea- bout the Adoration of Images; fin this Emperonr caiifed to remove the Images of Chrifiy Mary, and the Saints out of the Churches, and Or- dained that none fhould Worfhip them ; the Popes of Rome ftoutly main- tained the Adoring of Images, and therefore Excommunicated the Em- perour. The Original of this Controvcrfie was thus : When fohn, a Monothehte Monky was Eledled Patriarch of Conjlantiruiple, a Council- was called there to Examine him as fo his Doftrine, where he was Con- derrn'd of Hertfe. The Pepe, in commemoration of this A(5t, caufed • the Images (if all ihofe who were frrdent at this Council be fet up in the- Porch of St.Pe/cr : which occafioncd a Controycrfie between xht Greeks zntX Latins ■, the former avouching that they fnould be Abrogate, as de- ftrucftive to Piety, and the latter maintaining them. Lee Ifaurus the Third Emperour of this Name, being Offended with this abominable Ida- iatry Publifhed an Edicft, An.yiG. That nonefheuldWorfhip 'aky Image. He al~ fp caufed a V Images bet hrevyn dow»,Ptfiures defaced,and all the IVaSs whitened. Gregory Gregtry the Third, when he heard thereof, Excqmniuuicatcd LeaSt who Langned at his Thundrings, feying, He u an Idolatbr, and is Exctm- Tttftnicated himfelf i he was therefore called Iconomachsu. To him Succeeded Canflamine CapronympUy a great Abhorcr of ImSges^ who alfo calling the qth. General Council at Confiantinople, Condemned the Wor(hippers of Images asldolators, &c. caufed all the.Images to be removed out of the Churches, and would not fomuch as fuffer them to be ufed privately. In the zd. Council of Nice 787. by the Influence of Irene and her Son Canfiantinc the 6th. it was decreed, That Images (hould not only be kept fbr Hiftorical ufe, but alfo Adored, Saluted, df'c.This Irene caufed the Body of Confiantine Copronimw to be digged up,and publickly Burnt j and caufed her Sons Eyes to be put out, becaufe. he threw down fomc Images. Upon hearing of the proceedings of tiiis Council, Charles the Great called a Council at 794. of gooBifhops : whofe chief bufinefs was the Controverfie about Images; and they approved their Hiftori- cal ufe, but condemned the Worfhip of them, the zd. Hicent Council was reieded, and the Caroline Writings publiftied againft that Pfeud-Council, which fopeJdrian in vaip endeavoured to maintain. Yet in Progrefs of Time it univcr.rally prevailed in the Churclu What grofs Idolatries they commit in, their Prayers to the. BlefTed jja^j.j^,,^ Virgin, the Reader may judge by the Forms they ufe to Invocatc hcrv/l; ifgj. by. In tire prefcnt Roman Breviaryy reftored according to the Council ofp" 9^3- Tf-enf, by feveral Popes may read, Hail Blejfed Virgin., thou alone haft DeftroyedallHerejiis in the World, And again, ViHchfafe to let mepraifeThee O Holy Virgn, and five me ftrength againft thy Enemies. And in the Hymn frequently ufed in !?iler Office, and particularly on that day (he is not only called the Gate of Heaven; but (he is intreated to, loofetheBonds . of the Guilty; to give light to the Blind, and to drivfe away our Evils, and to fliow her felf to be a Motlier, as in the Mafs Book Printed at Faris, 1634. By the Authority of a Mother Command the Redeemer. They Pray to her therein for Puritjyof Life, and a fafe condiKfl to Heaven. Innumerable more might be mentioned, bat thefo mayfuffice to inform' the Reader of their Idolatries, more than to accumulate multitudes oF Arguments Ard all this Idolatry committed in their Addrefies tvr her,reems to pro- ceed from a grots Notion of an Eternal State, to wit, that thofe External ' I Relations that proceed here from a Married St:ue, fuch as Husbands and Wives, Parents and Children, wcre'.in force in that Life of Rlcfledneft; whereas our Saviour himfelf fays in his Anfwcr to that Unanfwerable OhK0i[or\ (as themfelves thought) of the Sadduces again it th.e Refurredion of the Dead; The Children of thisvtorldMarry and are given in Marriage-, But ^3^^ ( 2IT~~~ JB0t Jh4lL be J Accounted werthy to attain that Worlds and the Refurre^wn front the Dead, neither Marry ner aregiven in Marriage-—For they are hke unto the jngels, Src.' Luke 20.34,3 f, 36. And if rhey arc like unto the Angels, then undoivbtedlv all thofe External Relations that have fo much force here,arc there at an End. Had they confidercd our blefled Saviours own Words as to her, while one of the Multitude cried, Blefled is .the Womb that bare Thee, and the Pap that gave Thee Suck ., replying. Yea rather, Blejfed are they that hear the iVord of God, and do it. And it is very Obfervable, that when One came and told him, That his Mother and Brethren flood without, defiringto ]peak with him-. He Anfwered and &id unto him that told him. Who is my Mother ? and, who are my Brethren i He ftretched forth his Hand towards his Difciples, and faid, Behold my Mother and my Brethren j For whofoever Jhall do the Will of my Father which is in Heaven, the fame is my Brother, Sifler, or Mother. As alfb that in all places of Scripture, where He is brought in anfwcring her, he Prefaces it with this Word Woman. By all which, 'tis plain that our Saviour did plainly Caveatc his Church, againft thofe dangerous Errors about his Mo- ther, which have finGe crept into the Chriftian World, to the unlpcakable Difhonour of His Name, and Stumbling-block of fews, Mahometans, and .Heathens; which, in all probability, diall never be Converted to^heir J Lord and Saviopr, as long as fuch grofs Errors are kept up by thofe chat take upon thcmfelves the Name of Chriftians. I fl-jall conclude this Difcotitfe in the Words of that Religious and Learned Prince, King the Firflr, where fpeaking of the Controvcr- fies between Us and theChuichof Rome, he comes to that point of the James'/Relicks of Saints. But for the worjhipping either of them, or Images'f-1 faith he, account it Damnable Idolatry; and adds. That the Scrip- tures are fo dir.cEily, vehemently andpun£lua"y againfl it, as I wonder what Brain of Man, or Suggeflion of Satan durfi offer it to Chriflians; and all mufi be Salved with nice and Philofophieal DiflinElions—, Let them there- fore that maintain this Doftrine, anfwer it to Chrift, at the Latter Day, when he fha'l accufe them of Idolztry and then 1 doubt if he will be paid with fuch nice and fophiflical DifiinEHont. FINIS. i ' ■ • f .i V w5vyv •SfU^Uiiii imm iMSM il>iirnn;!i!«!' liliiia