The Reasonableness of the Church of Englands test and justness of her reformation asserted in answer to the Bishop of Oxon's fallacious reasons and precarious assertions against it : also the worship of images, adoration of the Host, and innovation of saints &c., proved idolatry by the catholick doctrine of the Holy Scripture, the ancient Fathers, and all reformed churches : by which the writings of Dr. Stillingfleet, Dr. Tillotson, Dr. Moore &c. are cleared from the charge of anticatholick, antichristian, fanatical &c.

AMong all the late Discourses I have seen, there is none that af∣fords Occasion of greater Surprize, than that Intitl'd Reasons for Abrogating the TEST, especially if we consider the Pre∣sent Station of the Author, and his Difference in Opinion, while moving in a Lower Orb, and was labouring for Promo∣tion. As to his present Quality, He is well known to be one of the Re∣puted Fathers of the Church of England, or Overseers of the Flock of Christ, to preserve it from all False Doctrine, Heresie, and Schism, &c. And therefore it cannot but be admir'd, that a Person who owes his Ec∣clesiastical Dignity to the Church of England, should so meanly Con∣descend, as if he saw his Dignity in danger, to plead for Transubstantia∣tion, and the Church of Rome, against the Charge of Idolatry, maintain'd as well by all the Reform'd Churches in General, as by that Establish'd by Law in these His Majesty's Dominions! Which is no more than to proclaim to all the World, that the Church of which he is at present a Consecrated Bishop, is a Schismatical Church. And this only upon the account of making it an Argument to overthrow the Test, which debars the Roman Catholick Peers from sitting in Parliament. Now that he seems to prove the Church of England to be Schismatical, in his making good his Argument against the Test, is plain; For he makes it his business to shew you, That Transubstantiation, as it is decided by the Council of Trent, is a Doctrine which has always been acknowledg'd by the Church of England; and that the Church of Rome is not guilty of Idolatry. Which if true, the Church of England can never justifie her self in her Separation from the Church of Rome. So that even Va∣rillas himself, could hardly have been so disingenuous as to have obtrud∣ed such a Fallacy upon the World.

But we shall not further digress, but trace our Author▪ and try on what solid Grounds his New Discoveries insist.

As to his first and second Reasons, I leave it to the Gentlemen of the Long Robe. Only I thought this old Saying might be inserted,

Turpius ejicitur quam non admittitur Hospes.

As for his Third Reason, That this Law is of an Ecclesiastical Nature. I cannot conceive how making Acts what Persons are to be admitted in∣to Places of Trust, can be of an Ecclesiastical Nature. It would seem that all Acts of an Ecclesiastical Nature, are either for the decision of some intricate point of Divinity, or for Enjoyning the decent perform∣ance of all things belonging to the Worship of God, or calling to account

those who are unruly, and walk disorderly, as the Apostle terms it, and Excommunicating such if Obstinate: But none of these can be said in the case of the Test. For here was no making of Decrees upon Divine Ve∣rities; that is, here was no Discussion of that Controversie of Transub∣stantiation and Idolatry, but only the Parliament supposing the Protestant Opinion in opposition to it, to have been a Truth received by our Church, and that upon Authority Competent, and continued for above a hundred Years, and that it was the only Test to distinguish one of the Church of Rome from one of our own Communion, and therefore enjoyned, that none should be admitted to sit in Parliament, or bear any publick Charge, but such as disowned Transubstantiation, &c. which is as much as to say, We order that none sit in Parliament, or bear any publick Charge, but such as disowned Transubstantiation, &c. which is as much as to say, We order that none sit in Parliament, &c. but those who are by Profession of the Church of England as it is now Established by Law. But this Argu∣ment being so Trivial, the very naming of it seems a sufficient Refutal; We therefore proceed to that he insists so much upon, and by which he seems rather to have designed to support the tottering Cause of the Church of Rome, than to impugn the Test.

His Fourth Reason why it ought to be Repealed, is, Because of the Un∣certainty and Falshood of the Matters therein contained: As first, That there is no Transubstantiation in the Sacrament of our Saviours Body and Blood. And secondly, That the Invocation of Saints and the Mother of God is Idolatry.

The Reverend Author follows exactly the Method of those he takes upon him to defend. Which is first to begin to bespatter those whom he alledges were Promoters of the Test.

He begins first to shew the Evil of imposing the Abjuration of Tran∣substantiation, and makes a great Bustle to shew the Unreasonableness of imposing an Oath, the Contents whereof are so abstruse, that it is hardly possible for Noblemen especially to come to the understanding of them. And to make his Putt good, he makes a very long Digression on the No∣tions of the several Schoolmen about Transubstantiation; where he ever and anon drops precarious Assertions, to wit, that the Catholick Church in all Ages, maintained the Real and Substantial Presence; but we meet not with any shew of Proof thereof. It seems he thinks the old 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is enough, that his Affirmation is evidence enough to prove the Truth of any thing. One would almost admire what he means in setting down those wild Notions of Scotists, Nominalists, &c. And indeed it can be with no other design than to consound his Reader; Yet in the end he gives you the Description of Transubstantiation, as it is in the 4th Chapter of the 13th. Session of the Council of Trent, in these words:

By the Consecration of the Bread and Wine, there is a Conversion of the whole substance of the Bread into the substance of the Body of Christ, and of the whole substance of the Wine into the substance of his

Blood; which Conversion is fitly and properly called by the Holy Ca∣tholick Church, Transubstantiation.

Now what moved him to rail so much against the Imposers of the Test, as imposing Propositions which Noblemen could not possibly un∣derstand? For certainly they must be of very mean Capacities who cannot understand the Decision 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 submit. It seems our Author has a very mean Opinion of the Nobility, while he so confidently averrs, that they neither do nor can understand it. For it is proposed in as plain and obvious terms as can be, though I confess a man must put a suspension (for that time at least) to Sense, Reason, and Religion, to believe it; and may therefore the easilier and safelier swear against it.

He proceeds to give you the Opinions of the several Communions differing from the Church of Rome; And he first begins with the Luthe∣rans. But what he speaks as to their Sentiments, we purposely wave. Seeing though they differ from the Church of Rome in that point, yet their Church differs vastly in her Opinion from all other Protestant Churches; yet they do not in the least own, that the Bread and Wine are transub∣stantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ.

Whereas our Author says, that the Helvetian Ministers maintained the Real Presence, we have Inserted the following passage out of their Con∣fession.

We do not then so joyn the Body of the Lord and his Blood with the Bread and Wine, as tho we thought that the Bread is the Bo∣dy of Christ more than after a Sacramental manner, or yet that the Body of Christ doth lye hid corporally under the Bread, so as it ought to be worshipped under the form of Bread, or yet that he that recei∣veth the sign receiveth also the Thing it self. The Body of Christ is in the Heavens, at the right hand of his Father, &c.

And he affirms, that the Bohemian Waldenses declare expresly, Bread and Wine are the very Body and Blood of Christ. The Reader may please to take notice of these words in their Confession,

Wherefore this Speech, Bread is the Body, and Wine is the Blood of Christ, is a Sacramental Speech, to wit, that these two distinct things, do remain the self same thing which in their own nature they be, and yet by reason of a Sacramental Union, or Sacramentally, they be that also which they signifie, and whereof they do testifie—. Now both good and bad use this Sa∣crament, yet the true Believers receive it to Life, and the Unbelievers to Condemnation: And tho both receive it outwardly, yet the Belie∣vers do receive it Spiritually, and so to their Salvation.

Nothing like, The Bread and Wine are the very Body and Blood of Christ here.

And, saith he, the Reformed French Church confess, that in the Lords Supper, not only all the Benefits of Christ, but his very Flesh and Blood are there exhibited to us; in the French Confession you may find these Words,

For altho

he be now in Heaven, and shall remain there till he come to judge the World; yet we believe that by the secret and incomprehensible Vertue of his Spirit, he doth nourish and quicken us with the Substance of his Body and Blood being apprehended by Faith. But we say that this is done Spiritually, &c.

Not a word of Transubstantiation here.

Then he proceeds to Calvin, and would make the World believe that he likewise asserted it. Whereas it's plain that he mean'd nothing else but a Spiritual Presence and a Spiritual Nourishment to the worthy Recei∣vers. But because our Author thinks he has got an Argument ad homi∣nem against Calvinists, I shall only set down a little from some of the fol∣low Paragraphs, and then let any one judge how the Words he cites, can be Interpreted in his sense.

And first, truly we must not dream of such a presence of Christ in the Sacrament, as the Sophisters of the Court of Rome have invented; as if the Body of Christ locally present, were touched with our Hands, broken with our Teeth, and swallowed with our Mouth. For Pope Nicholas caus'd Berengarius to make this Form of Recantation. And Sect. 14. Hence sprung that Transubstantiation, for which the Romanists contend more eagerly at this day, than for all other the Articles of their Faith— But it is a wonder that Men should deviate into such Stu∣pity and Ignorance, as to bring forth such a Monster of Opinion, not only contrary to the express meaning of the Scripture, but the univer∣sal Consent of the Ancient Church.

Many more might be set down, but by these the Reader may see what a Champion Calvin has been for Transubstantiation. And by this the Reader may judge what weight is to be laid as to the pretended acknowledgments of other Protestants in this point. But to take notice of all his Raileries against several Protestant Writers, would be too much labour, especially seeing any Intelligent Reader may easily discover them. Our Author afterwards falls foul of Beza, but Railery being his Talent, we must give him his way.

From all these Premises, he says, That no one thing in the World is more unfit to be set up for a Test, than Transubstantiation. I wonder what he means? Has he found out any Churches acknowledging Transubstantiation but those of the Church of Rome? He has a strange way of arguing; but his Argument should run thus, Because all Protestants acknowledge a kind of presence of a Spiritual Nature, and which they profess them∣selves that they do not determine what it is: Therefore it is a most un∣reasonable thing to impose Transubstantiation, a thing plainly determined by the Church of Rome, as Matter of Abjuration, and then his Argu∣ment would lose all its strength. Nor does any thing in the Test contra∣dict the Opinion of any Protestants, so as it should be styled by our Au∣thor, A Defiance to Christendom. For it only swears against that Real Presence which is maintained by the Church of Rome, and consists in the

Conversion or Transubstantiation into the Body and Blood of Christ after the Priests muttering the words, This is my Body.

The Church of England, he says, agrees with the Tradition of the Catholick Church both Roman and Reformed in Asserting the certainty of the Real Presence. A mighty Reconciler o' my word! We always thought that there was a vast dif∣ference between us; but it seems our Author has had the happiness to end diffe∣rences above any that have ever been before him.

But he comes in with his Exceptions, tho the true account of it hath been misera∣bly perplexed and disturbed by the Oblique Practises of the Sacramentarians. Bene asseris Domine, male probas.

And to make good his accusation, he Libels Dr. St. as guilty of foisting in some Invisible Manuscript for his Opinion; for his words seem to import so much. But Quaere, Why the Learned Author held his Peace so long, when a Truth of such Consequence has suffer'd so much by his silence? He will give us a shrew'd Reason to suspect that he aims more at Preferment than discovery of Truth, else he would have mentioned these things before now. But how could these things be if the Real Presence were the general Opinion, not only of our Church, but of all the Protestant Churches? He goes on as much as he can to bespatter the Church whereof he pretends to be a Member, as suffering so ma∣ny Innovations to be brought into her. And yet who those Innovators were he cannot tell; for says he (whoever they were.) A very probable business that Innovations should be brought in contrary to the general sense of a Church, and yet no body should know by whom. One would almost think by his arguing, that he had learned a little of the Mahumetan Sophistry. But let us hear what Innovations were brought in. It was made, says he, in the 5th Year of the Kings Reign, tho precisely when and by what Persons is not known, &c. It may be our Author has this from some Invisible Manuscript. For it is more like, that such a Tale in a Tub as this is should be of such 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 distance of time, if our Author is to seek to make those appear that were so lately brought in. One thing is very much worth the Observing that Calvins Correspondency with the Protector gave a fatal blow to the Reformation. It is strange if Calvin brought in this Innovation as to the Real Pre∣sence, when our Author pretends to bring him in above so much for it. I will not say he contradicts himself, but leave it to the Reader to Judge. But he goes on, They appoint this Zuinglian Form, Take and eat this (without men∣tion of Body and Blood) in remembrance that Christ died for thee. I wonder how our Author can carp at this when it is almost the very words of our Saviour, Do this in Remembrance of me. And he goes on further that they were not satis∣fied with the alteration of the Old Form, but added a fierce Declaration to bar the Doctrine of Real and Essential Presence, which see in the Rubrick after the Communion, and our Author sets it down at large. Our Author is of a very moderate Temper, who rather than want an Argument that Noblemen should not be imposed upon to swear to Intricacies and Falshoods, will render the Church he pretends to be a Member of Infamous; for so she must be if what he says be true, that she suffered such Innovations to be brought in contrary to her own and the sense of all Reformed Churches; and our Author himself likewise, for swearing those things at his admission. And his Authority may be valid a∣gainst his Mother Church, especially when what he speaks reflects against him∣self. However I find he is very good at the old way of Traducing, Fortiter ca∣lumniare aliquid adhaerebit.

One would almost think this a bold practice in a bold Writer thus to impose things which look so like Forgeries upon the World. Nay one could scarce think it lookt l••ke sense to call that an Innovation, which according to his own Concession was brought in but in the 5th Year of K. Edward the VI. Reign, and consequently of the Reformation; unless our Author would likewise say that the whole Protestant Doctrine was an Innovation. Especially seeing neither could they whose Office it was to Reform, see through all things at first view; nor possi∣bly, would they bring in all things requisite for a through Reformation at first, but first inform the Peoples Understandings as to the several gross Errors of the Church of Rome, that so they might remove the unjust Prejudices they might have had against them, which might have occasioned great Disturbance had they been at first Enacted.

Dr. Burnet, says he, has often heard it said, that the Articles were fram'd by Cranmer and Ridley; but whoever told him so, knew no more than himself: and whoever tells him that it's not so, knows as little; and one would think, that he who contradicts an Historian, should bring at least as strong Reasons for it, as he whom he contradicts: And yet all that our Author brings to make his Charge good, is a Conjecture: For he says in the very next Paragraph; All that can be conjectured, is, &c.

He says,

That in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Reign, when the Re∣formation was setled in that state in which it ever after continued; and that new Declaration of the second Liturgy of King Edward, &c. was rejected, and the first old Form of Distribution was restored, &c.

But if so, how comes it that our Author has produced no Instances of it from those who were then living? And how comes it that that Declaration is still extant in the Rubrick, that they acknowledge no Presence, save only after a Spiritual manner?

He pretends that the most famous Divines of our Church, were stiff Avouch∣ers of his Real Presence, and Instanceth in Bishop Andrews. But what he in∣stanceth out of him, makes very little for his purpose, as appears by these words in his Citation: Only we define nothing rashly of its modus, neither do we curiously enquire into it, no more than how the Blood of Christ cleanseth us in our Baptism. Now seeing the Learned Bishop says that he will not curiously enquire into it no more than how the Blood of Christ cleanseth us in Baptism, and that is by all understood in a Spiritual sense (for no Church affirms that the Water must be turn'd into the Blood of Christ for the cleansing us) it must needs follow, that he likewise understood the Presence of Christ in a Spiritual sense, and consequently had no respect to a Corporal Presence. And whereas he alledges Bishop Poinet is of the same opinion, our Author would have done well, if he had read over that Citation of him in the Bishop of Durham's History of Transubstantiation, and he would have found these words at the close of it: Lastly, he affirms, ac∣cording to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, That this Matter must be understood in a Spiritual sense, banishing all grosser and more carnal thoughts. And what these words import, let any man judge.

But because our Author is so much for Instances, I shall likewise set down a few.

The first is that of the Famous Bishop Jewel, in his Answer to Harding; who proves, That to give the honour of God to a Creature, is manifest Idolatry, as the Papists do in the Adoration of the Host, &c. Which he would never have attempt∣ed, had he been for the Corporal Presence.

The next is that of Bishop Bilson, who proves the Church of Rome guilty of Idolatry; 1. In the worship of Images, the having of which was never Catholick;

and the Worshipping of them was ever wicked by the judgment of Christs Church, &c. 2. In the Adoration of the Host; of which he Treats at large.

A third is of Bishop Taylor, in these words:

Now by this Spiritual Presence of Christ, we understand Christ to be present, as the Spirit of God is present in the Hearts of the Faithful, by Blessing and Grace; and this is all that we mean, besides the Tropical and Figurative presence. And p. 14. We say Christs Body is in the Sacrament Really, but Spiritually; our meaning is, that it is present to our Spirits only; that is, so as Christ is not present to any other sense, but that of Faith, or spiritual susception. And p. 13. In the Sacra∣ment is given us the true substance of Christs Body or Flesh, but not Carnally, but Spiritually; that is, not to our Mouths, but to our Hearts; not to be chew∣ed by Teeth, but to be eaten by Faith. And p. 7. The Doctrine of the Church of England, and generally of the Protestants in this Article, is this, That after the Minister of the Holy Mysteries hath rightly prayed, and Consecrated the Bread and Wine, the Symbols become changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, after a Sacramental, that is, in a Spiritual Real manner; so that all that worthily Communicate, do by Faith receive Christ really, effectually to all the purposes of his Passion, the Wicked receiving not Christ, but the bare Symbols only.

Our Author after all, thinks he has made his Advers••ries quit the Field, and leaves it to the Ingenuity of Mankind, to judge whether any thing can be more bar∣barous, than to make the Renouncing a Mystery so univer••ally received, a State TEST. (Not so barbarous neither, as to punish Dissenters with Pillories, Whipping Posts, Rods, Axes, Scourges, &c.) And yet when he hath done his utmost, there is not one of all the above-cited, either Persons or Communities, save our dear Brethren of the Church of Rome, that approves of Transubstantiation, or the Conversion of the Bread and Wine into the very Body and Blood of Christ; which is the Particular swore against in the Test.

He charges the Sacramentarians with profane Boldness, for insisting on the Natural Impossibility of the Thing it self to the Divine Omnipotence, and so of prescribing Measures to the Divine Attributes: But he might as well say one were profanely bold, that should affirm, That it were not possible even to Divine Om∣nipotence, that the Author Of the Reasons for Abrogating the Test, should at the same minute of time, both Write in favour of the Papists, and not write in fa∣vour of the Papists, i. e. that it is impossible that our Author can at the same In∣dividual Minute of time write for them and not write for them. For the other has been proved as manifest a contradiction as this is.

We shall not trouble the Reader with further tracing our Author as to this Point, it being a hard matter to find him any where. But shall briefly give an account of the rise of Transubstantiation, and then shew its Repugnancy to Scri∣pture and Reason.

About the Year of our Lord 900, horrible darkness overspread the Church of Christ: Nothing of soundness either in Doctrine or Manners, the Popes, Bishops, Priests were Rude, Flagitious, Wicked, whence, that Age by Writers was called Ʋnhappy, Sad and Miserable. In so great Darkness what wonder is it if the grossest Errours prevailed? Then began that Opinion of Oral Eating of the Body of Christ in the Holy Supper. For Paschasius Ratbertus Abbot of Cor∣bie, and Amalarius Bishop o•• Trevir, introduced a kind of Substantial Conve••sion & Presence. Rabanus Maurus Archbishop of Montz, and John Erigenae a Scot, a very Learned Man, who ac∣knowledged only a Figurative Sense of the Words, which latter while he opposed that gross Manducation was Stabb'd by his Schollars with a Penknife at the Instinct of the Monks.

After that Berengarius Archdeacon of Andegavia, being very well seen in Augustines Writings vindicated the true Doctrine about the Holy Supper, teaching, That the Body & Blood of Christ was

in the Bread and Wine not Substantially, but Sacramentally, and so rejected the Carnal Presence and Oral Manducation, tho he uttered it in hars•• and undigested expressions; Lanfranc vigo∣rously opposed him, but chiefly upon this ground, That he was a Heret••ck, because he dissented from the Church of Rome. Berengarius was condemn'd in a Synod at Vercelles under Leo IX. and at last under Nicholas II. in the Lateran Council in the Year 1059. through human Infirmity he revoked his Opinion, but being toucht with remorse, he wrote against that Revocation.

Berengarius being dead, the True and Ancient Doctrine he maintained, did not die with him. For it was still constantly maintained by St. Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux, who lived about the beginning of the 12. Century: In his Discourse on the Lords Supper, he joyns together the outward Form of the Sacrament, and the Spiritual Efficacy of it. And in his Sermon on the Puri∣fication, which none doubts to be his, he says, The Body of Christ in the Sacrament, is the Food of the Soul, not of the Belly; therefore we eat him not Corporally, but in the manner that Christ is Meat, in the same manner we understand that he is eaten. And in his Sermon on St. Martin; To this day, saith he, the same Flesh is given us, but Spiritually, therefore not Corporally.

About the same time Rupertus, Abbot of Tuitium, taught also that the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist are not converted into the Body and Blood of Christ: His words are these; You must attribute all to the Operation of the Holy Ghost, who never spoils or destroys any Substance he useth but to that natural Goodness at had before, adds an invisible Excellency which it had not.

Otho, Bishop of Frisingen, a Man every way Famous, lived in the same Age; and he also believed, and writ, That the Bread and Wine remain in the Eucharist.

As for the word Transubstantiation, it's hardly to be found before the middle of this Centu∣ry: For the first that m••ntion it, area Petrus Blesensis, who lived under Pope Alexander the 3d. andb Stephen Eduensis, whose Age and Writings are very doubtful.

In the 13. Century the Bishop of Rome began to exalt himself, not only over the Universal Church, but even over all the Empires and Kingdoms of the World. New Orders of Friars sprung up in this Age, who disputed fiercely against many Doctrines of the Antient and Purer Church, and amongst the rest, against that of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ. So that now there remained nothing but to Confirm this new Tenet, and impose i•• so perem∣ptorily in the Christian World, that none durst hiss against it. This Pope Innocent the Third bravely performed. Who succeeding Celestine the 3d. at 30. years of age, and following briskly the footsteps of Hildebrand, call••d a Council at Rome in St. John Lateran, & was the first that ever made the New-devised Doctrine of Transubstantiation, an Article of Faith necessary to Salvation.

This is that Innocent, who to enlarge his Authority, wrought great Troubles to the Emperor Philip; stript Otho the 4th. of the Empire; forced John, King of England, to yield up into his hand this Kingdom, and that of Ireland, and made them Tributary to the See of Rome. He was proud and ambitious (says Mat. Paris) and ever ready to commit the most wicked Villanies, so he might be recompensed for it. This was the Man, who in his Lateran Council pronounced that Transubstantiation should be made an Article of Faith; and when the Council would not grant is, did himself by his own Arbitrary Power, against which none durst open his Mouth. For those Canons which at this day go under the name of the Council, are none of his, but meerly the Decrees of Pope Innocent, first writ by him, & read in the Council, and disliked by many, and afterward set down in the Book of Decretals under certain Titles, by his Nephew Gregory the 9th.

Having thus given a breif account of the rise of this gross Heresie, I shall now endeavour to shew the gross Absurdity of it by the following Arguments.

1. This Opinion makes Christ guilty of gross Nonsense in his Institution of the Holy Supper. For his words are; Take, eat; this is my Body; do this in Remembrance of me. Now if that Bread had been Christs real Body after Consecration, his saying, Do this in remembrance of me, must have been Egregious Nonsense. For we neither do nor can remember things present, the act of Memory or Remembrance being such as always respects a Thing absent or past.

2. This Opinion infers, that God deludes his Creatures, which so much as to think of him is most horrible Blasphemy. But if it were true, that after Consecration the Wafer and Wine were become the Body and Blood of Christ, then must it be of necessity said, that God deluded his Creatures, for he represents it to all the Senses; under the same appearance as before Consecra∣tion, and yet as they say, it is quite another thing; to wit, the Body and Blood of Christ. And can there be greater Juggling in the World than this would be? And suppose this to be a Damna∣ble Mistake, should not he positively be the cause of their Sin, and consequently damn them for that which they had all the reason in the world to adhere to, seeing that they were to adhere to the testimony of their Senses, in so far as they were capable of perceiving Material Objects. And the Body of Christ being Material, can be prescribed by the Senses, and so cannot be reckoned among those Mysteries the Apostle speaks of, which Eye hath not seen, nor hath

nor heart perceive, &c. For those things the Apostle speaks of, are things of an im∣material and spiritual Nature, which cannot by themselves make any Impression on the Senses, and besides, otherwise transcend the thoughts of Men, such as the My∣stery of the Trinity, &c. But that cannot be said of the Body of Christ, seeing Eyes have seen it, and as a Body, it could enter into the Heart of Man to conceive of it, as being corporeal and finite.

3. A Sacrament or Sign, is different from that thing whose Sign and Sacrament it is. Now, they must all acknowledge, that the Bread and Wine, even after Consecra∣tion, (for before it cannot be called a Sacrament) is a Sacrament or Sign of the Body and Blood of Christ; therefore, even after Consecration, it is different from the Body and Blood of Christ. The Proposition is clear, for it is a notorious contradiction, to say the thing signifying, and the thing signified, are one and the same thing, and as much as to say, the thing signified, is not the thing signified, &c. which to any will appear.

4. If in Baptism, after Consecration, the Water is not turned into the Blood of Christ, then in the Lords Supper, the Bread and Wine, after Consecration, is not tur∣ned into the Body and Blood of Christ: But that in Baptism, the Water is not chang∣ed into the Blood of Christ, all are agreed, Therefore not in the Lords Supper. The Consequence is clear, For Baptism is the Initiating Sacrament, and begets as it were a new Creation in the Soul, or Regeneration, as our Saviour terms it, whereas by the Lords Supper, that Image that is Created is kept up; which is no greater work at least than the first creating of it. And if so be that that first change is be∣got in the Soul, without Transubstantiating the Water into the Blood of Christ, by the Power of God unknown to us, why should we assert that in order to the Lords Supper's operating its blessed Effect upon the Soul, the Bread and Wine therein made use of, must be Transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of our Lord? For the Parity holds.

I shall add some Instances out of the Fathers, to shew that that Doctrine of the Real Presence (as the Romanists hold it) was not heard of in their days.

Theodoret says, Jesus Christ hath Honoured the Visible Symbols with the Name of his Body and Blood, not in changing their Nature, but in adding the Grace.

The Bread of the Sacrament, saith Chrysostome, is called Bread before it is Sanctified; but Divine Grace having Sanctified it by the Ministry of the Priest, it is no longer called Bread, but it is judged Worthy to be called the Body of Christ.

Pope Gelasius, at the end of the Ninth Century: Certainly, saith he, the Sacra∣ments of the Body and Blood of Christ, which you receive, are something that is Divine; whence also it is, That by them we are made Partakers of the Divine Nature; and ne∣vertheless they still retain the Nature and Substance of Bread and Wine.

A Council of the East, Assembled at Constantinople, Anno 754. declares, That Jesus Christ Commanded us to offer the-Image of his Body, a Thing chosen, to wit, the Substance of the Bread.

Innumerable more might have been produced, to prove that it was the constant received Opinion, even till the Ninth Century; For the first that ever Wrote against it, was, that Paschasius Ratbertus, made mention of above.

This gross Opinion had its Original from a gross and carnal Understanding of Christ's Words, John the 6. And if any consider the occasion of that Discourse, they will find no such Doctrine designed by Christ; For it was occasioned from the Jews following Christ, because they had been filled by a Miracle. Christ tells them, They must Labour for the true Food of the Soul, to wit, Himself; and thence makes a comparison between Bread, which is the Food of the Body, ad Himself, who is the true Nourishment of the Soul: And all along shews, that the Food of the Body Pe∣risheth,

but that of the Soul endureth for ever; after the same manner that he spake of the Living Water, to the Woman of Samaria, John 4. And when the Multitude supposing him to mean by these Words, Except ye Eat the Flesh, and Drink the Blood of the Son of Man, ye shall not have Life in you; that they must Carnally and Orally Eat his very Body, which was then speaking to them; they lookt upon his Doctrine as Salvageness it self; and from that Time many went away from him: And while his Disciples themselves Murmured at it, he saith unto them, Does this offend you? Ver. 62. What if you see the Son of Man go up where he was at first? 63. It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the Flesh profiteth nothing; The Words that I speak, they are Spirit and Life: From which, it is plain, That he designed nothing less than this Oral Manducation; For the eating of Man's Flesh, but more especially the eat∣ing of what they Worshipt, hath been among all Nations accounted abominable.

And hence, says Cicero, When we call Wine, Bacehus, and our Fruits, Ceres, we use the common manner of speaking; but do you think any of us to be so Mad, as to ac∣count that which he Eats to be his God?

And Averrhoes, a Famous Heathen Philosopher, who lived about the Eleventh Century, when this Monstrous Doctrine of Oral Manducation had a little obtain'd in the Christian Church, expressed himself thus against it: I have enquired into all Religions, and have found none more foolish than the Christians, because that very God they Worship, they with their Teeth devour: And concludes thus, Because the Christians Eat what they do Worship, let my Soul go to the Philosophers. Hence the Mahometans, as the highest Calumny they can cast upon us, reproach us, As Devourers of our God. Nay, they affirm, That by thus eating of his Flesh, the Chri∣stians use him worse than the Jews did, who Crucified Him; Because, say they, it is more Salvage to Eat his Flesh, and Drink his Blood, than only to procure his Death.

It is observable, That from some Hereticks of the First Century, the Capernaists, &c. gross Interpretation of the 6 Chapter of St. John's Gospel, sprung that abomi∣nable Custom, of initiating them with a draught of an Infants Blood, and eating the Flesh of it; which Barbarous Custom is supposed to owe its Original to Simon Magus. And the Heathens of those days, charged the Practise of those Monstrous Hereticks on the True Church of Christ: Of which Salvianus saith thus, They sup∣posed that we were initiated into our Religion by two abominable Villanies, by Incest and Murther: Incest of the Holy Matrons, and Murther of Infants; who, they believe, were not only Butchered, but likewise Devoured by us.

We next proceed to our Authors second Head, to wit, of Idolatry, where we shall first consider it as to Image Worship, and secondly, as to Invocation of Saints, &c.

Our Author, first holds out what a damnable Sin this is; and truly, in that we agree with him. And therefore he takes it very Hainously; Such an Indictment should be preferred against the greatest part of Christendom; and truly if there were not strong Presumption at least for it, they were very much to blame of breach of Charity that attempted it.

But in this Case, we may justly say to the Author, Medice cura teipsum; for no Man could prefer a Bloodier Indictment against that best part of Christendom than he, while he said, We Condemn neither Turk nor Papist, on any other ground than this, that the one gives Worship to a Lewd Impostor, the other, to a senceless piece of Matter.

He desires, Men would lay aside their Indecent Heats, and Soberly enquire into the Nature, and Original of Idolatry: And concludes his Paragraph, with, Wishing to God there be nothing worse at the bottom of it, seeing it has always been set up as the Standard against Monarchy. I thought always that to be a more dangerous Stan∣dard set up against Monarchy, of the Popes takeing upon them to Excommunicate

Kings: Inferiour Priests and Friers, such as, Ravillac and Clement, Murdering them (and yet the same Assassinates justified in their Barbarous Murder, by the Popes themselves, or they are basely Belyed) than any Notion of Idolatry. But, that out Author may remember, That, Men as Loyal as himself, and as far from being Fanatical or Ʋnlearned, have entertained different Notions of Idolatry, from his I shall Insert the following Passages.

Bishop Whitgift saith, I do as much mislike the distinction of the Papists, and the in∣tent of it, as any Man doth, neither do I go about to excuse them from Wickedness, and (without Repentance and God's singular Mercy,) damnable Idolatry. There are three kinds of Idolatry; one is, when the true God is Worshiped by other means and ways than he hath prescribed, or would be Worshiped. The other, is when the True God is Worshiped with False God's. The third, is when we Worship False God's, either in Heart, Mind, or in external Creatures, Living or Dead; and altogether for∣get the Worship of the True God. All these three kinds are detestable, but the first is the least, and the last the worst. The Papists Worship God, otherwise than his Will is, and otherwise than he hath Prescribed, almost in all points of their Worship; they also give to the Creature, that which is due to the Creature, and Sin against the first Table; yet are they not, for all that I can see or learn, in the third kind of Idolatry.

Bishop Abbot, in his Answer to Bishop, affirmeth, That the Church of Rome, by the Worship of Images, hath matched all the Idolatries of the Heathens, and brought all their Jugling devices into the Church; abusing the Ignorance and Simpli∣city of the People, as Grosly and Damnably, as ever they did.

Arch Bishop Laud, in his Conference, saith, The Antient Church knew not the Adoration of Images; and the Modern Church of Rome is too like to Paganism, in the practice of it, and driven to Scarce Intelligible Subtilities in her Servants Writings, that defend it, and this without any Care had of Millions of Souls, unable to under∣stand her Subtilities, or shun her Practise.

I hope our Author, will not call these Learned Writers Fanatical, Ʋnlearned, or Ʋncharitable, &c. And yet they here prefer a Bloody Indictment against the great∣est part of Christendom.

To pass by his Notions, at the first Corruption of the World by Idolatry, He says, As soon as the Israelites sat down at the Foot of Mount Sinah, God's care was to make further provision against Idolatry, where he gives the Ten Commandments; where∣of the first four, are directly levelled against Idolatry. Let us see how he makes good his Argument.

First, says he, He enjoyns the Wo••ship of himself, who, by his Almighty Power, has delivered them from their Egyptian Bondage.

Observe, how Candidly our Author Comments upon the First Commandment, set∣ting down only the Positive part thereof, whereas it has also a Negative Sense, as appea••s from the very Words. Thou shalt have no other God's before Me. And this is a very cunning Artifice of his; the most probable way to explain it, so as to vindicate them from the charge of Idolatry: For if this Command run only Positive, and the second Negative, then he would have a very great advantage: The first would run so, Thou shalt pay me that Worship that is due to me: And the second; thus, Thou shalt not pay that Worship which is due to me, to any Graven Image.

Had the Romanists thought of this way of maintaining the first and second Com∣mands to be different, so as to be yet free from any charge of Idolatry; in their Wor∣shipping of Images, they might have freed themselves of that suspicious Guilt, incur∣red by expunging the Second: For it argues a Guilt in them, in so far at least, that they fear the Common People would take that to be the plain and obvious Meaning

of it; which we maintain, and consequentl•• might suspect them of Jugling in this point. And I humbly-think, our Author, seeing he is so much in their Vindication, might have said somewhat in their Justification, as to that Cancelling of the Second Commandment; especially when there lies so heavy a Curse upon those, who either add to, or diminish from the Law of God.

But that his Notion will not hold Good, appears by the Words themselves, Thou shalt have no other God s before me: That is, I am the only True God, who Created the World, and all things therein; preserve them by my Omnipotent Arm, and besides those common Providences, have manifested a particular Care over you, in bring∣ing you out of the Land of Egypt; and expect that you especially Worship and Adore me, and none but me: And so, here the Lord sheweth them the True Object of Worship; to wit, that it is neither Sun, Moon, nor Stars, &c. but himself alone; and consequently prohibits in this Commandment, the Adoration of Sun, Moon, and Stars, and all other false Gods.

Our Author is no less Ingenuous in his Explication of the Second Command, for he leaves out the most material Word in it, Make, which very Word will Mar his True, and only Notion of Idolatry; to wit, Worship of the Sun, &c. For, certainly God would not forbid them to make the Sun, for that was above their Power. Nor, Secondly, can he be said here meerly to forbid making an Image of the Sun, as a Symbol of it; for the Worship of the Sun it self, being forbid in the First Command, as also all other false Deities; none could be so Brutish, as to imagine that God would take up a New Commandment, in forbidding to make or Worship the Image of those false Deities. It remains therefore, That the Second Commandment must run thus, Thou shalt not make any Representation or likeness of Me, nor shalt Worship me, by any likeness or Representation of me, by any thing that is in Heaven, on Earth, or in the Waters under the Earth; which was as plain as could have been said, Ye shall make, nor bow down to no Representation or likeness whatsoever.

And, That this is the scope of this Commandment, may further appear, from Deut. 4.15, 16, 17, 18, 19. where the Lord himself explains that Command, ver. 15. Take ye therefore good heed unto your selves: [As if he had said, I know you are strangely byast from the True way of Adoring me, which I have appointed; and are very prone to set up a way after your own Invention; to wit, by making a visible Representation of me, which is highly derogatory to my Glory; and there∣fore I warn you, over and over again, take heed to your selves] (for you saw no manner of similitude, on the day that the Lord spake unto you out of Horeb, out of the midst of the Fire.) q. d. Had I design'd that you should make any External Likeness or Similitude, or Representation of Me, I would have appeared to you in some Similitude, and appointed you to Worship me under that Similitude; but I did it not, and I do hereby shew you, That I did not appear to you in any Simi∣litude, that you might not presume to Worship me, under any Similitude, which is so odious to me. Ver. 16. Lest you corrupt your selves, and make you a Graven Image, the similitude of any Figure, the likeness of Male and Female, 17. The like∣ness of any Beast that is on the Earth, the likeness of any winged Fowl, that is on the Earth; the likeness of any thing that creepeth on the Ground, &c. A sufficient enu∣meration of all the kinds of likenesses, and does necessarily import thus much, Thou shalt make no Graven Image, nor no likeness of any Thing, to make use of in those Acts of Adoration which are due to me, as I am Soveraign Creator of all Things, and your God by a special Relation. Then, Ver. 18. he proceeds to cau∣tion them to beware of a more gross sort of Idolatry, which strikes immediately against the First Commandment: And lest thou lift up thine Eyes unto Heaven,

Heaven, and when thou seest the Sun and the Moon, and the Stars, even all the Host of Heaven, thou shouldest be driven to Worship them, and Serve them, which the Lord thy God hath divided unto all Nations under the whole Heaven. Nothing can be more plain, Than that there are two kinds of Idolatry forbidden here; to wit, Lest you corrupt your selves, and make a Graven Image; and lest that when thou seest the Sun, &c. thou Worship them, and Serve them: And therefore, that of worshipping the Sun, Moon, &c. is not the true and only Notion of Idolatry: And if we observe the Order of the two sorts of Idolatry, mentioned above, they give us no small hint how the one disposeth People to receive the other, even on this account, as it is the Na∣ture of all Sin, and particularly of this which God has declared to be so dishonour∣able to him, to darken the Powers of the Soul, and weaken the Conscience, which is that Primum Mobile in the Soul; and if pure, the whole Soul keeps right in its Mo∣tion; but if once defiled, the whole frame of the Soul turns into Confusion, and be∣comes Captive to the Sensitive Part, and then who knows what horrid Abominations the Soul may be guilty of. And it is likewise very usual with God, when People thus dishonour him, not only to withdraw his Holy Spirit from them, but even actually to harden them, as he did Pharoah, when he would not let his People go. This is clearly pointed at in Act. 7.41, 42. And they made a Calf in those Days, and Offered Sacri∣fice unto Idols, and rejoyced in the works of their own hands; then God turned and gave them up to worship the Host of Heaven. Most plainly pointing at two sorts of Idola∣try; and the one consequent upon another, as a just Punishment inflicted on them by God, for their dishonouring Him in making Symbols, and Representations of Him. I am afraid our Author's true, and only Notion of Idolatry, will scarce en∣dure the Test.

I now proceed to his Comment upon the Third Command; and thus you have him: The English of the Third, says he, if it were rightly Translated, runs thus; Thou shalt not give the Name of the Lord thy God to a Vanity or Idol: A strange Version of it. I desire to know how by this Sense, on this Command, the Reverend Author will prove those Persons Guilty of Perjury, who gave the first Birth and Original to the Test. For, allowing of this Interpretation, they cannot be guilty of Perjury, by affirmng a Lye, by the Name of the True God, in so far as they never gave the Name of God to a Vanity and Idols. But to wave this, I am sure the Debauchee's of the Nation, the Dammee's, that make it their constant Practice to tear the Sacred Name of God, must needs have a great. Vene∣ration for our Author; for they never had such favourable Entertainment from any that ever we heard of before; for in their common Oaths they do not give the Name of God to an Idol, and so were only traduced before by Anticatholick, Un∣christian, and Fanatical Notions of Blasphemy, whereas they were guilty of no such thing. Would our Author put but such a Catholick and truly Christian sense upon three or four more of the Commandments, I cannot see but that Party were obliged to return Thanks to him from all parts of the Nation, for delivering them from those 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 the Septuagint renders it; yet 'tis plain that it was never a generally receiv'd sense among the People of the Jews, as appears by their great Reverence to the Name of God, particularly that great Name by which he manifested himself, viz. Jehovah, which they pronounced but very seldom, and that upon very solemn occasions.

And tho our Author determines the only design of God in the Fourth Command∣ment, to be only to keep People from Idolatry; yet I doubt not; but God had other ends, to wit, the advancing of true Holiness; for its possible that a Church may be

free from any sort of our Authors Idolatry, and yet be abhorred by God, like that People of whom our Saviour spake, That drew to him with their Lips, but their Hearts were far from him. And that Church in Laodicea, in the New Testament, could not be charged with Idolatry, and yet was loathsome in Gods account.

He instances the Golden Calf set up by the Israelites in Moses absence, and he con∣cludes, that it was nothing else than an old Egyptian Idol: But I would seriously ask our Author, how it could be possible that the Israelites did Worship the Calf as the Symbol of some Egyptian Deity, as he alledges. For first, the occasion of it was, not on the least pretence of Infidelity as to the true God, but only because Moses had been so long absent from them, and they knew not what was become of him, and therefore they bid Aaron make them Gods that should go before them. Now, it cannot be supposed, that they could have been so strangely stupid, as to have Worshipped the Egyptian Gods at that time, if we consider what manifold wonders the True God wrought for them in the Land of Egypt, how heavily he laid his Hand upon the Egyptians, and yet in the mean while preserved them from those Plagues; they could not then be ignorant that the God whom they Worship∣ped, was of infinitely greater power than those the Egyptians worshipped. And they could not have so soon forgot that great Deliverance he wrought for them at the Red Sea, when the Egyptians were Drowned; they could not certainly but be then sensible that the God they served, was of infinitely greater Power than those the Egyptians worshipped. And but a little before, the Law was promulgated with Thunderings and Lightnings: Is it possible they could so soon have shaken off the dread of that God who had appeared so terrible to them? And further, even at this very time, when this Image was made, he Miraculously fed them with Manna, they could not but remember that they were never fed so in Egypt, and so they could not but acknowledge that that great God was infinitely to be prefer∣ed before the Egyptian Gods. But that very passage above cited of St. Stephen, They made a Calf in those Days, and Offered to the works of their own Hands, (certainly then not to the Sun, for that was not the work of their Hands) then God turned, and gave them up to Worship the Host of Heaven. Now, how could it be said, that he gave them up to Worship the Host of Heaven, if they were guilty of that Idola∣try then, when they Worshipped the Calf. Lastly, There is no Imitation given in the whole Story, that they fell into the Heathen Idolatry; for afterwards, when they fell into it, the particular Names of the God's are mentioned, as, Baal-Peor, Moloch, Remphan.

But here on the contrary, Aaron expresly proclaims A Feast to the Lord, and the People accordingly met, and Offered their usual Offerings; whereas, had it been the Egyptian Idolatry, their common Sacrifices would have been Abominations; they must not have Sacrific'd Sheep and Oxen as they were wont to do, as our Author himself acknowledges.

Our Author, next mentions the Calves set up by Jeroboam, 1 Kings. 22.20.27. And he saith, Its plain, that these Calves were set up by him, as Idols or Symbols of a new or Separate Religion from the Tribe of Judah. It is plain Jeroboam's design was not to pervert the People from the Worship of the True God, to that of the Hea∣then Idols, but only to divert the People of Israel from going to Jerusalem; fearing lest if the People should Yearly go up to Jerusalem to Worship, they should be again reduc'd to their Allegiance, to Rehoboam, and so cast off his Usurpation. Now, the occasion of the Kingdoms coming to him, was from Solomons falling to Heathen Idolatry, 1 Kings. 11.33. Which would make him more cautious of falling into it, especially at his first entrance. In Ahabs Idolatry, the occasion and description of it

is given, 1 Kings. 11.33. and the God the Worshipped particularly mentioned. But of Jeroboam it is only said, that he set up the Calves at Dan and Bethel, and said unto the People, it is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem; Behold thy Gods, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Israel, we have brought Thee up out of the Land of Egypt, 1 Kings. 12.28, 29. How easie had it been for him to have said, that Jeroboam Worshipped the Gods of Egypt, had that been his intention! And Jeroboam would have argued much better, that they had hitherto been in a great mistake, concerning the True God, and not meerly as to the place of his Worship, which is all he speaks against; for he con∣tinued the same Feasts and way of Worship that were at Jerusalem.

But if this of Jeroboam is Heathen Idolatry, how comes the Sin of Ahab to be called so much greater than that of Jeroboam? How comes John at the same time, to boast of his Zeal for the Lord, when it is said of him, that he departed not from the Sins of Jeroboam, viz. the Golden Calves of Dan and Bethel, 2 Kings 10.16, 19. How comes the Prophet not to Reprove Jeroboam, for the Gods he Worshipped, but for the Altar; this was a very small Fault in respect of the former, had Jero∣boam been guilty of Heathen Idolatry. And how comes the Worship of God to be preserved in the Ten Tribes, after their Captivity, when they still continued their Separation in Religion, from the Kingdom of Judah, 2 Kings 17.28. For certainly, if the Samaritans had only desired Information concerning the Worship of the God of Israel, after the way of Jerusalem, they would have sent thither for it: But be∣cause they sent into the Land of the Captivity, for a Priest to be sent to them; it is plain, the former differences still continued.

From all which, it's plain, that Jeroboam did not fall into Heathen Idolatry; and yet we see he is charged with Idolatry in Scripture, tho' not Heathen Idolatry, like that of Ahabs, for it is said, That he had done Evil above all that were before him; and had gone and made him other Gods, and Molten Images, to provoke God to Anger, and had cast him behind his Back: Which charge, may sufficiently Inform us how great a Sin this of Worshiping the True God, by Images, is.

The Second Head of Discourse, is, That the Gods that they worshipped, at that time, were nothing but the Heavenly Bodies, or the Sun, as the Supream Deity.

But, how can it be supposed, that Men of Sense and Understanding should be∣lieve that to be a God, which is altogether void of Understanding? And if the greatest Part of the World acknowledged such for Gods as had no Understanding, how could the Notion of the One Supream God be preserved among them?

Our Author goes about to Prove, That this was the Idolatry of the Heathens, by the Testimony of Eusebius: But he might have remembred, That this Passage is extant in his Third Book, De Prepar. Evang. that tho Porphyrie seemed to think that the Egyptians looked not beyond the Sun, Moon, and Stars; yet he acknow∣ledges, that they represented the Creator with an Egg in his Mouth. Now, if they acknowledged a God, how can it be said, That they Worshipped the Stars, without any Notion of a Supream Deity?

He brings in likewise Diodorus Siculus; but it seems he has not much Read him, or he would have been loath to have brought Him in, who makes so much against him; for in his First Book, after the Celestial Gods, he Treats of Men and Women Deified, of Osiris, Isis, and Tryphon; and says, That Osiris was equally Honoured with the Celestial Gods.

Eusebius in his Chronicles, saith, from the Testimony of Berosus, That tho' they Worshipped the Sun, under the Name of Baal, yet they believed a Supream God, whom they acknowledged to have produced all things. And by the Testimonies of Plutarch and Zenophon, the Persians owned a God above the Sun.

And Macrabius never affirm'd, That they had no Sense and Apprehension of a Supream God, but says in the beginning, that he speaks only of Sub-celestial Gods; and that the Antients believed that the Sun was Governour of the World. But where he speaks of the Supream God, he saith, That the Antients never made an Image of this God, because they thought him so far beyond our Conception. And so these several Authors, our Author quotes, do him very little Service in maintain∣ing his True and Only Notion of Idolatry.

Our Author says, It is no less Malice than Folly, to charge Idolatry upon all Christians of the Roman Communion. It consists, he says, of these Three Heads.

• 1. The Worship of Images.
• 2. Adoration of the Host.
• 3. Invocation of Saints.

And, whereas he justifies their making Images, from the Instance of the Cheru∣bims: It is plain, there is a vast difference: For, as Idolatrous as the Jews were, they never paid any Worship to the Cherubims, as the Papists do, even by their own Concessions to Images. They never Invocated Cherubims, as the Papists do their Crosses, Images, &c. But in all their Acts of Worship, shewed that they paid no Worship thereto, by their continual use of this Expression: Thou God that dwel∣lest between the Cherubims.

He saith, That if it follows that something more is required to make Idolatry than the use of Images, our Author has a particular Talent in the Art of Sophistry, through his whole Book, by foisting in Sentences of Ambiguous significations: For either, by use of them, may be meant a setting up of them in that Place; for Or∣nament, or by Vertue of a Command, without making any Application to them, in Acts of Worship, as the Jews did in this Case; for it is more than certain, they would never have presumed to do such a thing, unless they had had a par∣ticular Command of God: Or it may be taken for an actual making use of them in Acts of Worship. In the former Sense, the Jews made use of the Cherubims, to their Images, but not in the latter; for it is plain, That they never directed any Act of Worship thereto; which, yet 'tis plain the Papists do. And if the Jews had done any such thing, God would have declared against it, and no doubt would rather have caused them to be taken away, than had his Worship thereby polluted. A plain Instance of which we have in Scripture, in a thing no less of Divine Ap∣pointment than the Cherubims were; to wit, the Golden Serpent: For tho God ap∣pointed that to be kept, in remembrance of his curing them; and looking upon it, when they were stung by the Fiery Serpents, and likewise as a Type of our Sa∣viour, as he himself declares to Nicodemus; yet when the People committed Ido∣latry therewith, the Good King destroyed it. By the way, I would ask our Au∣thor, whether they committed that Idolatry with it, which he says is the True and only Notion of Idolatry; to wit, if they Worshipt the Sun thereby? certainly he will not say that. And I hope he will not say, they Worshipt it self, so as to account it a God; for it is not probable, they could be so stupid in such a Good Kings Reign, especially when the Scripture does not say they committed so gross Ido∣latry with a Sacred thing as that, even under the worst of their Kings, and those who were most prone to Idolatry. Nay, 'tis plain, That when they Worshipped strange Gods, they did not think there was any Divinity in the Image it self; and that hence they are called the Gods of the Zidonians, Ammonites, &c. Now, it is impossible that they could imagine that that Image, inclosed in their Temples, could be the Deity of that People whose Gods they Worshipt, but only that they set up an Image, to represent that GOD whom the Ammonites, &c. Worshipped. And it remains then, that they designed by the Serpent to Worship the LORD

and it may be paid such an honour to it as the Papists term Douleia; and •…•…eeing that was reckoned Idolatry by God, our Author will please to •…•…ardon us, if we do not receive his true and only Notion of Idolatry.

3. Our Author may be answered by one of his own Authors (and •…•…uch as maintains no Anticatholick Unchristian Principles) Thomas Aquinas. His words are;

They were not set up to be Worshiped, but for the sake of some Mystery: viz. the Sanctum Sanctorum Resembled Heaven; the Ark as the Foot-stool of God who was incomprehensible, and therefore no resemblance of him was there; the Mercy-seat his Residence; the Cherubims represented the Company of Heavenly An∣gels waiting on him, whom they were forbidden to Worship, since that was due to God alone.

Our Author comes off with a fair shain, If it be no Idolatry to Worship towards an Image, after all their Frights they fairly give up the Cause to the Church of Rome. Where again observe his Equivocation, Worship to∣wards an Image. For it may be either taken barely for Worshipping to∣wards a place where the Image is, and without any respect 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 service; Or it may be taken for Worship towards the Image it self, so as the Person directs him∣self immediately to the Image and pays it some Adoration, and that this is Idolatry, hath been already evinced from Scripture: Nor has our Au∣thor for all his bustling, vindicated her from the Aspersion of it.

I shall only Insert an Argument or two out of the Fathers of Constanti∣nople; the first is against Images of Christ, thus:

That all the Represen∣tation of Christ allowed us by the Gospel, is that which Christ him∣self Instituted, in the Elements of the Lords Supper, whose use was to put us in remembrance of Christ. No other Figure or Type being chosen by Christ, as able to Represent his being in the Flesh but this. This was an Honourable Image of his quickning Body made by him∣self; which he would not have of the shape 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 Person; and as the Body of Christ was really Sanctified by the Divine Nature, so by Institution this Holy Image is made Divine through sanctification by Grace.

2d. Of the same Fathers Arguments against the Image of any other:

Because these being the chief, there can be less reason for any others besides; that there is no Tradition of Christ or his Apostles for them: No way of Consecration of them prescribed, or practised; no suitable∣ness in the use of them to the design of the Christian Religion, which being in the middle betwixt Judaism and Paganism, it casts off the Sa∣crifices of the one, and not only the Sacrifices, but the Idolatries of the

other: And it is Blasphemy to the Saints in Heaven, to call in th•…•… Heathen Superstitions into Christianity, to honour them by: That it〈…〉〈…〉 unbecoming their Glory in Heaven to be set upon Earth in dull a•…•… senseless Images: That Christ himself would not receive Testimon•…•… from Devils, though they spake Truth; neither can such a Heatheni•…•… custom be acceptable to the Saints in Heaven, though pretended to b•…•… for their Honour. That nothing can be plainer in the Gospel than tha•…•… God is a Spirit and will be Worshiped in Spirit and in Truth, to whic•…•… nothing can be more contrary than the going about to honour Go•…•… by Worshiping any Image of himself or his Saints.

As to his 2d. the Adoration of the Host. They can be no more excuse•…•… from Idoletry in their Worshiping of it than the Heathen; for that they give Adoration even to what they see in it is plain, and if they Worship that which according to themselves is nothing but the Accidents, they are worse than the Heathen who Worship only Substances.

2. They are not sure but they may be imposed upon so as to commi•…•… Idolatry even in their own sense of it; for either through the Juggling or carelesness of the Priest an unconsecrated Wafer may be presented to them instead of a Consecraeed one. And,

3dly. Seeing it has been proved, and has been the Opinion of all the Ancient Church, till about the 9th. Century, that the Bread and Wine are not Transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ, it must of necessity follow, that they are Idolatrous in Worshiping it.

When they are charged with Idolatry for Worshiping Saints and Angels, as also Images, they labour to shift the Argument by saying, they give only Douleia, but not Latria, which is due to God alone. But for all their sub∣tilty they cannot get one place in Scripture to bear them out in this Di∣stinction; for the Scripture uses them both indifferently, without any respect had to inferior or superior Worship. But I desire that they will shew us some ground for their Distinction, how many degrees of Worship go to make up a Douleia, and how many a Latria; for as to their External Adora∣tion it is the same Posture when directed to an Angel, or Saints, as when directed to God, their Affection and Zeal seems likewise the same; nay; and their very External Words are likewise the same, viz. asking things of an Angel, &c. after the same manner as if it were an Independent Being, and consequently his Honour is given to the Creature. As in the Antiphona on the Apparition of Michael the Arch-Angel, he is praid to come and help the people of God. And in the Feast of the Guardian Angel, re∣commended to all Catholicks by Paul V. in the last words of the Breviary: They are praid to defend them in War, that they may not perish in Gods terri∣ble Judgment. In the Hymn to the Holy Apostles they are praid to com∣mand the Guilty to be loosed from their Guilt, to heal unsound minds, and to

encrease their Vertues, that when Christ shall come, they may be partakers of eternal Glory. The Reader may plainly see here, that it is not said, Pray to God for us; which if they did, they were blameable enough; but do it for us, your selves, as if the Angels and Apostles were all Independant Be∣ings. And I am sure, such absolute Worship as that is, cannot even in their own Sense be termed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; for they cannot express it in higher Words to God himself.

2. Those Acts which pre-suppose in a Creature, one of the highest Per∣fections we can conceive are Idolatrous. But so it is that the Invocating of Angels implies one of the highest Perfections we can conceive to be in them, for we must imagine that they know when we Invocate them, otherwise if we did not believe them to know and take notice what we said unto them, we would not do it. And upon this supposition, that they do hear us, we must Attribute to them the highest Knowledge which we can conceive; as, suppose so many Persons at the same time Pray from the most distant places of the Earth to St. Michael, Peter, Paul, &c. we must believe, both that they hear those different Prayers of the Persons supposed to be in so distant places, at the same Minute; and likewise that they can judge of their Sincerity, for we cannot expect to have an Answer of our Prayers, without our Sincerity be known. Whereas the Scripture plainly says, Tbat God is the judge of Hearts. And pray what higher Notion can we have even of Omniscience it self.

3. That Action which supposes God to be unmindful of his Servants, must needs be highly displeasing to him. But this Praying to Saints to Interceed for them, supposes God to be unmindful; and that therefore he must be put in Mind of it by Saints and Angels; and likewise that Christ is not so Faithful in his Mediatory Office as he should be. All which are notorious Blasphemies.

It may not be amiss here to set down some Instances of the Fathers, Opinions, as to the Invocation of our Blessed Virgin, &c.

Epiphanius saith, Maries Body was Holy indeed, but yet not God, she was indeed a Virgin and Honourable, but she was not propounded for Adoration, but her self Worshipped Him, who as concerning his Flesh was Born of Her.

Austin saith, Let not the Worship of Dead Men be any Religion unto us, be∣cause if they have lived Holily, they are not to be accounted of, as that they should seek such Honour, but rather they will have him to be worshipped of us by whom being Illuminated, rejoyce that we should be fellow Servants of their reward. They are therefore to be honoured for Imitation, not worshiped for Religion sake. And again, We honour them with Love, not with Service. Neither do we erect Temples unto them, for they will not have themselves so to be honoured of us, be∣cause they know that we our selves being good are the Temples of the high God. And in another place, Neither do we Consecrate Temples, Priest-hoods, Holy

Rites, Ceremonies, and Sacrifices unto the same Martyrs, seeing not they, but their God is our God, &c. We neither Ordain Priests for our Martyrs, nor Offer Sacrifices.

Ambrose saith, They are wont to use a miserable excuse, saying, that by these Men we may have access unto God, as to a King by Earls. Go to, is any Man so Mad, I pray you, that being forgetful of his own Salvation, he will Challenge, as fit for an Earl, the Royalty of a King? And a little after, These Men think them not Guilty, that give the honour of God's Name to a Creature, and leaving the Lord, worship their Fellow Servants.

We shall now give a short account how Images were first brought in, as also the Invocation of Saints. And the first that brought in Images is Paulinus, Bishop of Nola, and Sulpitius Severus, (although before their Time, they had in some places painted Images, as appears from Epiphanius cutting the Vail whereon Christ was Painted) for Historical use, or Ornament of their Churches. But there is not the least proof of any Adoration given them then; their only use at that Time being Histori∣cal, Ethical, or Politick. Yet they are blameable for making that use of them; for that Historical use, in a little Time, degenerated into Idolatry.

As to the Invocation of Saints, it owes its Original to the Panegyrick Orations of St. Basil, Nyssen, and Nazianzen, who being great Orators, used several Rhetorical Flourishes in their Declamations, sometimes using Compellations to the Dead, as if they were present before them; and sometimes Imploring their Intercession; so that what they did meer∣ly for Eloquence of Speech, gave occasion to the Unlearned to fall into that gross Error.

In the days of the Emperour Philippicus, a new Controversie arose a∣bout the Adoration of Images; for this Emperour caused to remove the Images of Christ, Mary, and the Saints out of the Churches, and Or∣dained that none should Worship them; the Popes of Rome stoutly main∣tained the Adoring of Images, and therefore Excommunicated the Em∣perour. The Original of this Controversie was thus: When John, a Monothelite Monk, was Elected Patriarch of Constantinople, a Council was called there to Examine him as to his Doctrine, where he was Con∣demn'd of Heresie. The Pope, in commemoration of this Act, caused the Images of all those who were present at this Council be set up in the Porch of St. Peter: which occasioned a Controversie between the Greeks and Latins; the former avouching that they should be Abrogate, as de∣structive to Piety, and the latter maintaining them. Leo Isaurus the Third Emperour of this Name, being Offended with this abominable Ido∣latry Published an Edict, An. 726. That none should Worship any Image. He al∣so caused all Images be thrown down, Pictures defaced, and all the Walls whitened.

Gregory the Third, when he heard thereof, Excommunicated Leos, who Laughed at his Thundrings, saying, He is an Idolator, and is Excom∣municated himself; he was therefore called Iconomachus.

To him Succeeded Constantine Capronymus, a great Abhorer of Images, who also calling the 7th. General Council at Constantinople, Condemned the Worshippers of Images as Idolators, &c. caused all the Images to be removed out of the Churches, and would not so much as suffer them to be used privately.

In the 2d. Council of Nice 787. by the Influence of Irene and her Son Constantine the 6th. it was decreed, That Images should not only be kept for Historical use, but also Adored, Saluted, &c. This Irene caused the Body of Constantine Copronimus to be digged up, and publickly Burnt; and caused her Sons Eyes to be put out, because he threw down some Images.

Upon hearing of the proceedings of this Council, Charles the Great called a Council at Frankfort, 794. of 300 Bishops: whose chief business was the Controversie about Images; and they approved their Histori∣cal use, but condemned the Worship of them, the 2d. Nicene Council was rejected, and the Caroline Writings published against that Pseud-Council, which Pope Adrian in vain endeavoured to maintain. Yet in Progress of Time it universally prevailed in the Church.

What gross Idolatries they commit in their Prayers to the Blessed Virgin, the Reader may judge by the Forms they use to Invocate her by. In the present Roman Breviary, restored according to the Council of Trent, by several Popes may read, Hail Blessed Virgin, thou alone hast Destroyed all Heresies in the World, And again, Vouchsafe to let me praise Thee O Holy Virg••n, and give me strength against thy Enemies. And in the Hymn frequently used in her Office, and particularly on that day she is not only called the Gate of Heaven; but she is intreated to loose the Bonds of the Guilty; to give light to the B••ind, and to drive away our Evils, and to show her self to be a Mother, as in the Mass Book Printed at Paris, 1634. By the Authority of a Mother Command the Redeemer. They Pray to her therein for Purity of Life, and a safe conduct to Heaven. Innumerable more might be mentioned, but these may suffice to inform the Reader of their Idolatries, more than to accumulate multitudes of Arguments

And all this Idolatry committed in their Addresses to her, seems to pro∣ceed from a gross Notion of an Eternal State, to wit, that those External Relations that proceed here from a Married State, such as Husbands and Wives, Parents and Children, were in force in that Life of Blessedness; whereas our Saviour himself says in his Answer to that Unanswerable Objection (as themselves thought) of the Sadduces against the Resurrection of the Dead; The Children of this world Marry and are given in Marriage;

But they which shall be accounted worthy to attain that World, and the Resurrection from the Dead, neither Marry nor are given in Marriage—For they are like unto the Angels, &c. Luke 20.34, 35, 36. And if they are like unto the Angels, then undoubtedly all those External Relations that have so much force here, are there at an End. Had they considered our blessed Saviours own Words as to her, while one of the Multitude cried, Blessed is the Womb that bare Thee, and the Pap that gave Thee Suck; replying, Yea rather, Blessed are they that hear the Word of God, and do it. And it is very Observable, that when One came and told him, That his Mother and Brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him; He Answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my Mother? and, who are my Brethren? He stretched forth his Hand towards his Disciples, and said, Behold my Mother and my Brethren; For whosoever shall do the Will of my Father which is in Heaven, the same is my Brother, Sister, or Mother. As also that in all places of Scripture, where He is brought in answering her, he Prefaces it with this Word Woman. By all which, 'tis plain that our Saviour did plainly Caveate his Church, against those dangerous Errors about his Mo∣ther, which have since crept into the Christian World, to the unspeakable Dishonour of His Name, and Stumbling-block of Jews, Mahometans, and Heathens; which, in all probability, shall never be Converted to their Lord and Saviour, as long as such gross Errors are kept up by those that take upon themselves the Name of Christians.

I shall conclude this Discourse in the Words of that Religious and Learned Prince, King James the First, where speaking of the Controver∣sies between Us and the Church of Rome, he comes to that point of the Relicks of Saints. But for the worshipping either of them, or Images, I must, saith he, account it Damnable Idolatry; and adds, That the Scrip∣tures are so directly, vehemently and punctually against it, as I wonder what Brain of Man, or Suggestion of Satan durst offer it to Christians; and all must be Salved with nice and Philosophical Distinctions—, Let them there∣fore that maintain this Doctrine, answer it to Christ, at the Latter Day, when he shall accuse them of Idolatry; and then I doubt if he will be paid with such nice and sophistical Distinctions.

FINIS.

Notes

• Page. 6.
• Pag. 9.
• Page 25.
• Pag. 28.
• Pag. 31.
• Helvet. Confess.
• Page 2•…•…
• Confess. Bohem.
• Pag. 37•…•…
• Confess. Gall.
• Pag. 37.
• Calv. In∣•…•…tit. L. 4. C. 17. Sect: 12.
• Sect. 14.
• Pag. 46.
• Ibid.
• pag. 47.
• Pag. 51:
• Pag. 52.
• pag. 53.
• pag. 58.
• pag. 58, 59, &c.
• Hist. Tran∣substantia∣tion, p. 10.
• Art. 8. p. 283. Art. 14. p. 368. & 382.
• Disp. of Christian •…•…ubjection, •…•…t. 4. p. 319
• Real Pre∣sence, p. 15.
• pag. 62.
• pag. 6••.
• •…•…t. Bern. •…•…. 1120. •…•…erm. de •…•…aena Do∣•…•…ini Joh. •…•…. 56—63. •…•…erm. de •…•…urif. B. •…•…ariae. •…•…erm. de •…•…. Mart. •…•… Exod. •…•…2. c. 10. •…•…hrist A∣•…•…ric. in An∣•…•… •…•…pist. p. 13.
• a

  Ep. 140
• b

  de Sacr. •…•…ltaris in •…•…. patrum.
• 〈…〉〈…〉 Hist. •…•…an Regis •…•…ngliae. Mat. Par. •…•… Hist. •…•…in. in •…•…latin. in •…•…it. Innoc.
• •…•…at. Par. •…•… Hist. •…•…l An. •…•…15.
• Dial.
• Epist: Caesar.
• Gelas. duabus Christ•• tur. ad Nestor. Eutych•…•… Concil. Const. Act. N•…•… 2. Act.〈…〉〈…〉
• 〈…〉〈…〉. 53.
• •…•…at. 3.
• 〈…〉〈…〉 Per∣•…•…le •…•… l. 3. •…•…. 973.
• 〈…〉〈…〉. de •…•…en.
• 〈…〉〈…〉 69. •…•….
• 〈…〉〈…〉. Ec∣•…•… •…•…olit. •…•… 286.
• Defence the Answ•…•… of the A¦m••n. Tr. 8. p. 152
• Tom. 2. Pag. 110
• Pag. 277.
• Pag. 77.
• Ibid.
• •…•…t. 4.5.
• 〈…〉〈…〉 16. •…•… 17.
• 〈…〉〈…〉 8.
• Pag. 7•…•…
• 〈…〉〈…〉 81.
• 1 Kings 14.9.
• Pag. 94▪
• Pag. 96▪
• 〈…〉〈…〉 125.
• 〈…〉〈…〉
• p. 125.
• Brev. p. 224.
• Commun. Apost. p. 29.
• Contra Coly. rid.
• De vera Relig. c. ult.
• Ibid.
• De Civ. Dei l. 8. c. 27.
• 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Rom. c. 1.
• Ibid.
• Horn. Hist. Eccl. p. 102. &c.
• Rom. Bre••. A. 1663. p. 983.
• K. James's Works p. 303.