CHAP. I.

The Contents.

The Introduction §. I. The Trent Council teach­eth that the Host or Sacrament is to be Worship­ped with Latria, as being truly God. §. II. And yet this Council doth acknowledg that by Christs Precept the Communicants do eat, and some of them do drink the Sacrament. §. II. Heathens, Jews, Christians do all pronounce it the extre­mity of folly to say or think that any man can eat his God. §. III. The Trent Council teach­eth that Christ is truly Sacrificed by their Priests. §. IV. To the Antient Fathers nothing did seem more brutish and absurd than to Worship as a God what men did Sacrifice, or Sacrifice what they did Worship as a God. §. V. The substance of the Sacrament being Christ truly God according to the Doctrine of the Roman Church, whatso­ever truly is affirmed of it must also truly be af­firmed of our Blessed Lord. §. VI. The Prophets and the Fathers deride the Heathen Gods. (I.) Because they are carried upon mens shoul­ders, they cannot go, and if they fall, they can­not rise up again. §. VII. (2.) because they may be carried Captive, and are not able to deli­ver or preserve themselves. §. VIII. (3.) Because they needed to be preserved by Officers appointed for that purpose under Lock and Key, and to be vindicated by their own votaries. §. IX. (4.) Be­cause in times of war and danger their Priests did hide them, and somtimes bury them in the [Page 2]earth. §. X. (5.) Because they were exposed to injuries of Fire, and consumed by it. §. XI. (6.) Because they were exposed to Rust and Moth, to Corruption, and the Injuries of the Weather. §. XII. (7.) Because they seemed to be contemned by those very Brutes who dung'd and gnaw'd upon them, &c. §. XIII. Ʋpon all these accounts the Host, or Roman God, is subject to the like derision, from §. VII. to the XIII.

§. I THE Holy Prophets make it their bu­siness to represent those Deities the Heathens Worshipped as impotent and lying vanities, and things most wor­thy of derision and contempt, but most unwor­thy to be Venerated: and thence conclude that that they who paid their Homage to them, were persons void of understanding and considerati­on, and given up to a judicial blindness. This is so largely represented by them, upon two ac­counts which more immediately did respect the Jewish Nation.

1. That when they were to go into Captivi­ty, and to be mixed with those Heathens, by whom these foolish Deities were Worshipped, they might be kept from learning of their ways. When you shall come to Babylon, Baruch vi. 4, 5. saith Jeremy, there you shall see Gods of Silver, Gold, and Wood, which create terror to the Heathens, nnd which are carried upon shoulders; fear therefore lest you should be confirmed to the Aliens, and be possessed with the dread of them, seeing the multitude before and behind that worship them.

2. That they who had already been seduced to the Worship of them, might be reclaimed by the consideration of so great a folly, and be in­duced [Page 3]to return unto the Worship of the True and Only God. Beware you be not like unto these Aliens, but say within thy heart, I ought to worship thee, O Lord. V. 6.

And if those Jews who, in this manner have transgressed, say these Prophets, will but re­member that Bel and Nebo, and all other Hea­then Deities are born upon mens shoulders, or the backs of beasts; that where they place them there they stand, and are not able to remove from thence, that they themselves are somtimes carried Captives, not being able to work deli­verance for themselves; If they remember this, and act like men, they must for ever be secure from these delusions. In Complyance with this practice of the Sacred Writers, the Christian Fa­thers in their Apologies, and other writings of the like nature, have used the same Topicks, the more effectually to reclaim the world from Hea­thenish Idolatry, smartly deriding the impotency of the Gods they worshipped, and seoffing at the folly of that Homage which they paid unto them.

If therefore that which the inspired Prephets and Primitive Professors of the Christian Faith, did so unanimously produce, (in plain derisi­on of the Heathen Deities, and whereby they endeavoured to demonstrate that they could not be truly Gods) doth equally concern that Host which by the Churh of Rome, and the Trent Council is declared to be the Christians God, and which on that presumption they require all Christians to worship with Latria, or with the Worship which peculiarly belongeth to the God of Heaven; as by applying what the Holy Pro­phets, and Primitive Christians have alledged a­gainst [Page 4]the Worship of the Heathen Deities, unto the Host, will be extremely evident; it follows undeniably that they who are not yet seduced to pay this Worship to the Host, must have suffici­ent reason to abstain from it; and also that they who have already been induced to pay this Homage to it, must have as powerful motives to reclaim them from so great a folly, as either Jew or Gentile had to renounce the Worship of their Heathen Idols.

And now to make the matter evident beyond all reasonable contradiction, I shall proceed to draw the Parallel betwixt the Adoration of the Romish Host, and that of Heathen Deities, so much derided by the Jewish Prophets, and the Christian Doctors.

And this I shall attempt, L. 5. p. 170. as saith Arnobius, in a Case like this, not that I take delight in thus exposing of the Romish Mysteries, or re­presenting of their Faith ridiculous; but that the Romanists themselves may plainly see what injury they cast upon their bon Dieu, of whom they are the Worshippers, the Keepers, and Aven­gers.

§ II 1. Therefore the Nullis itaque d [...]bitandi locus relinquitur, q [...]i [...] omnes Christi sidel [...]s pro [...] in Ca­tholicà Eccle­sià semper re­cepto, (N. B.) Latriae cultum, qui verò debetur Deo, huic Sanctissimo Sacra­mento in veneratione ex [...]i [...]eant; neque enim ideo minùs adorandum est, quò faerit à Christo, at s [...]mat [...]r institutum. Concil. Trid. Sess. 13. cap. 5. Trent Council teacheth, that it is not to be doubted in the least but that all Faith­ful Christians should exhibit the Worship of Latria to the Holy Sacrament, that is, the Consecrated Wafer, even that Worship which is due to God alone, and they pronounce Anathema against all persons who assert the contrary.

2. The reasons of this determination they assign in the ensuing words, Nam illum eundem Deum praeclentem in eo credimus adesse, q [...]m pater ae­ternus introd [...] ­cens in orbem terrarum, dicit, & adorent eum omnes Angeli Dei. Q [...]m Ma­gi procidentes adoraverunt; quem denique in Galilaea ab A­postolis adora­tum fuisse, Sere­ptura testat [...]r. ibid. for we believe the same God is present in the Host, of whom the Fa­ther said, let all the Angels of God Worship him, and whom the wise men of the East, and the Apostles Worshipped. And therefore the first Canon of the thirteenth Session of that Council declareth, that Si quis nega­verit, in San­ctissimae E [...] ­charistiae Sacramento contineri verè, realiter & substantialiter Corpus & sanguinem unà cum anima & Divinitate Domini nostri Jesu Christi, a [...] perinde totum Christum, anathema sit, 1. Can. if any person saith that in the Sa­crament of the Holy Eucharist Christs body and his blood together with his Soul, and his divinity, and so whole Christ, is not substantially contained, let him be accursed. And accordingly in the Orat. past miss [...]. Rythm of St. Thomas to the Holy Euchar [...]t, they speak thus, Deum meum te confitcor, I confess thee to be my God. Their Tenet therefore plainly is this, That the Consecrated Wafer is God united to the man Christ Jesus, latent under the species of bread.

3. Hence it must follow that, seeing they do eat this Consecrated Wafer, which is as truly God and man as Christ now glorified is, they do professedly eat the god they Worship; and that you may not doubt of this, the Council doth imme­diately subjoyn these words to the forementioned determination touching the Worship due unto the Host, the Sacrament is not the less to be ador'd, Sess 13. Cap. 5. vid. Supra. because, according to the institution of it, it is to be eaten.

4. Hence it doth also follow, that seeing they do drink what is contained in the Consecrated Cha­lice, and that according to their Doctrine, is whole Christ, God and man, contained under the [Page 6]Species of Wine; I say, hence it doth clearly follow, that they drink their God. This is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, most faith­fully discovered to you from their Authentick Re­cords, and if it only did assert that Christians stood oblig'd to be Cannibals, to eat mans flesh, and drink down human blood; even this asserti­on would contain what is repugnant to the na­ture of man, what hath been constantly esteemed by the sober Heathens, a barbarous and inhuman thing; and lastly that which by the Antient Fa­thers was disclaimed and rejected with the greatest horror. But then if we conceive the person who is thus devoured to be also God, and there­fore look upon this action as [...] the eating of our God and Maker, it is so full of horror, scandal, and amazement, that nothing can be more prodigious, or more blasphemously prophane, Heathers, Mahumetans, Jews, Christians, have with one voice declared that it is a demonstration of the extremity of madness, and stupidity, for any man to worship what he eats, or eat what he doth Worship; ( i.e.) to worship as the Church of Rome commands all men to worship under the highest penalties, and therefore it is plain Phrensie to imagine the determination of the Trent Coun­cil, and the Doctrine of the Church of Rome to be agreeable to truth.

When we call Wine Bacchus, saith Cicero, and our Fruits Ceres, we use the Cum frug [...]s Cererem, vi­num Liberum dicimus, genere nos quidem Ser­manis uti [...]ur usitato: Sed e [...] ­quam t [...]m amentem esse putas, qui illad quo v [...]scatur Deum credat esse? Cicero Nat. De [...]r. Lib. 3. common mode of speak­ing, but do you think any of us so mad as to ima­gin that which he eats to be his God? Averroes was a learned Heathen, who flourished about the XL Century when this portentous Doctrine first ob­tained [Page 7]in the Christian World, which he could not forbear to brand in this sort, Apad Person. E [...]. l. 3. cap. 29. p. 973. Vide etiam 12. Metaph. 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 thus he concludes, because the Christians eat what they do worship, let my soul go to Philosophers. Lib. 2. de Euch. Cap. 12. § 2. And Bel­larmin himself confesseth that this amongst the In­fidels was always judged to be stuliissimum para­doxum, as from the words, saith he, of Averroes doth appear. Hence as the highest calumny which the Mahumetans can cast upon us, we are by them reproached as [...] or the Devourers of our God. And Mounsieur La Boulay informs us that being angry with him, Voyag. Part. 1: cap. 10. p. 21. Armed. Ben. Edris apud Hosing. Hist. Eccles. Sec. 16. par. 2. p. 160. they amongst o­ther names of infamy, did call him Infidel, and Mange Dieu ( i. e.) an Eater of his God. Nay they affirm that by thus eating of his flesh the Christians use him worse than did the Jews that crucified him, because, say they, it is more sal­vage to eat his flesh and drink his blood, than only to procure his death: Baruch, vi. 72. the Prophet Jeremy in his Epistle to the Captive Jews, informs them that what the Babylonians worshipped should after­wards be eaten, and by this, saith he, you may know they are no Gods; Why therefore should not the same argument suffice to shew the vanity of the supposed Godhead of the Host? If (as it fol­lows there) these Gods which shall be eaten be a reproach unto the Country where they are adored, this Romish God must be a great reproach to all those Christian Countrys where he is eaten, and adored. Some of the Antient Fathers do represent this as the extremity of folly, that men should worship that which other Nations eat: If it be pious for all the worship God, saith [Page 8] Origen, [...]Contra Celsum. 5. p. 249. according to the custom of their Country, as Celsus pleads, then must some worship that which by other Nations is destroyed, or eaten, and consumed at meals; for some esteem it pious to worship a Crocodile, and to devour that which is adored by others, some count it piety to adore a Calf, and o­thers to Deifie a Goat; and would not these things introduce a great confusion into the Laws of Justice, Piety, Contra Gentes. p. 25, 26. and Religion? This Athanasius reckons as an instance of the abominable, and the repug­nant worship of the Aegyptians, that the same Fish which some of them did Consecrate as a God, was made the food of others; The Aegyptians (saith he) do adore a Calf, the Lybians worship Sheep, both which in other Nations are sacrificed and fed upon, this, saith he, is a certain indication of the folly of the Heathen worship, can we then possibly conceive these very Christians did dayly worship as their God, what they themselves and others who participated with them, did continually eat? Moreover some of the Fathers do repre­sent this as the most evident conviction of the folly of the Heathen Worship and Religion, that they devoured what they themselves adored; Do you not worship, Nonne & Apim bovem cum Ae­gyptiis adoratis & pascitis? p. 32. and also feed upon an Ox which you call Apis, saith Minutius, and is not this as great a folly as the worship of an Asses-head which without shew of reason you object against us Christians? They saith Theodoret) who changed the image of the incorruptible God into the likeness of Birds, and beasts, and creeping things, should have considered that some of those beasts were eaten by them; and should not they by parity of reason who adore the Host as their Creator and their in­corruptible God, [...] Com. in Rom. i. 23. consider that this Host is eaten by them? but they, saith he, through the extremity [Page 9]of madness and stupidity, did Deifie the Images of that God which themselves have eaten, and if the Host which they themselves confess to be truly stiled the Image of our Lord, be worshipped as a God, and eaten by them, must not the Roma­nists betruly charged with like stupidity and madness? 3. Some of the Fathers do expresly say that 'tis the extremity of madness to worship what we eat; and that God by the prohibition of unclean beasts, and by permitting his own people to eat the clean, designed to preserve them from the ir­rational folly of the Heathens, who worshipped birds and beasts, &c. God, saith Theodoret, seeing that men would fall to such extremity of madness as to worship beasts as Gods, the better to restrain that wickedness, permitted that they should be ea­ten; which in the judgment of Theodoret was the most natural preservative against this mad Idolatry; because, saith he, [...] qa. 55. in Genes. it is the highest folly or stupidity to worship what is eaten; God therefore doth pronounce some living creatures clean, and some unclean, that abborring the unclean they might not Deifie them. Again he adds, that God pronouncing some beasts unclean, and others clean, persuades us not to think that any of them could be Gods; for how can any man of sense think that to be a God which he abominates as unclean, Quest. XI. in Levit. p. 104. D. or which is offered to the true God, and eaten by himself. He farther saith, that God enjoyned the Jews to eat those Crea­tures which the Aegyptians worshipped as Gods, Ser. 7. ad Grae­cos Infideles. p. 150. ed. Sylb. that they might be induced to despise what they did eat. For knowing that they were superstitious, and yet were lovers of their Guts, he cures one Disease by another, and to their supperstition he doth oppose their appetites; for, causing them to abstain from Swines flesh as unclean, which was the only flesh, the [Page 10] Aegyptians fed upon, and by his Law permitting them to eat of other creatures, as being clean; he constrained them through lusting after flesh, to eat of the supposed Aegyptian Gods: The Author of the Questions and Answers to the Orthodox speaks to the same effect; [...] Resp. ad Quaest. 35. p. 412, 413. viz. that because in Aegypt all beasts were Deified, excepting Swine, God therefore calls some of them un­clean, some clean; and did permit them to Sacri­fice clean beasts, forbidding them to eat of the un­clean, by bath these things shewing they were un­worthy of the name and honor of the Deiey, both because they were sacrificed and eaten, and be­cause they were called unclean. Sith then the Roman Host is sacrificed and eaten, it must, by parity of Reason, be unworthy of the name and worship of a Deity. If God by permit­ting of his people to eat clean beasts, demon­strated to them that they could not be Gods, he, by commanding all Christians to eat the Host, must have demonstrated to them it is no God. If it be the extremity of madness to worship what is eaten by us; and if no man of wisdom can conceive that to be God, the Romanists must then be persons void of sense, and guilty of extremity of madness. Since then the Antient Fathers did pass as deep a censure on this God-eating, as did the wiser Heathens, Turks, and Jews, it must be certain that this new Article of the Romish Faith, that the same Jesus whom they dayly worship, is also to be eaten, by all faithful Christians, was utterly unknown in their days.

§ IV Again, The same Corpus & san­guinem suum sub speciebus pa­nis & vini Deo Patri obtulit; ac s [...]b ear [...] ­dem rerum sym­bolis, Apostolis, quos tanc novi Testamenti sacerdotes constituebat, ut samerent tradidit; & eisdem, eorúnque in sacerdotio suscessoribus, at offerrent praec [...]pit per haec verba, Hoc facite. Sess. 22. Cap. 1. Trent Council teacheth that Christ hath instituted that he himself should still be Sacrificed in the Church; or offered by the Priest under the signs of Bread and Wine: he therefore being God and man, he must have instituted the oblation of God-man to be continued in his Church.

2. They teach, U [...]a enim ea­demqae [...] Ho­stia. Sess. 22. Cap. 2. that the oblation which Christ once made upon the Cross, and which the Priest doth dayly make upon the Altar, is one and the same oblation: and so the same God-man is of­fered by the Priest. They also do expresly teach, that what they Si quis di [...] ­ [...]it in Sancto [...] Sacramento Christum unigenitum Dei sillium non esse [...] etiam externo, ado­randum, Anathema sit. Sess. 13. Cap. 8. Can. 6. is to be worshiped with La­tria, the worship proper to the God of Hea­ven.

§ V Now to the Antient Fathers nothing did seem more bruitsh and absurd than to esteem and worship as a God what men did Sacrifice. Why are you Sacrilegious against your Gods, [...] &c. p. 149. saith Ta­tian, ( as certainly you are) for you Sacrifice a Sheep and yet you worship it: you have a Bull in the Heavens and you Sacrifice the likeness of him. The Greeks being ignorant of God, [...] Clem. Strom. l. 6. p. 635. saith Clemens, not knowing him with that perfect know­ledg which the Christians have, they worship those things which God hath given them for meat, the Fowls of the Air, the Fishes of the Sea, the Beasts of the Field, and they Sacrifice their own food: and must not then the Romanist be also igno­rant [Page 12]of the true Christian knowledg of God, who doth both Sacrifice and Worship what God hath given him to eat? You do object against us Christians, saith Boum Capita, & capita ver­vecum, & im­molatis & coli­tis. Minue. p. 32. Praepar. Evang. L. 3. Cap. 12. Minutius, the worship of an Asses head, Who is so foolish as to worship it, or to conceive that others worship it, unless it be your selves, who do both Sacrifice and Worship the heads of Oxen and of Rams? That the Aegyptians did not con­ceive their Oxen to be Gods is very manifest, saith Eusebius, because they in their worship of the Gods did often Sacrifice them. This is a certain indicati­on, Contra Gentes. p. 26. saith Athanasius, of the folly and Atheisin of the Heathen worship, and an assurance that it can­not long subsist, that what One Nation doth esteem a God, another Sacrificeth, and what One Nation Sa­crificeth another worshipeth as a God; for though they do not Sacrifice those very numerical Calves, and Sheep which they have Consecrated as Gods, yet since they Sacrifice the like in kind, they seem to Sacrifice the same. The Indians worship Wine un­der the name of Bacchus, whilst others Sacrifice it to their Gods; the Aegyptians do adore a Calf, the Lybians worship Sheep, both which in other Nations are Sacrificed and fed upon. There is scarce a God in Aegypt who is not Sacrificed to Deities of other Countrys, so that they well de­serve to be the laughing stock of other Nations because they worship as a God not only what o­ther Nations, but what themselves do offer as a Propitiatory Sacrifice. God shews clean beasts to be unworthy of the name and honor of a Deity, because that they are Sacrificed, Quaest. & Resp. ad Orthod. Quaest. 35. vide supra. Adv. Graeons Serm. de Sacrif. p. 105. saith Pseudo-Justin. Lastly Theodoret declares that God did therefore cause the Jews to Sacrifice those beasts, which they before had worshipped in Aegypt, that by so doing they might learn not to esteem as Gods those things which [Page 13]they were wont to Sacrifice, and offer to him; this remedy, saith he, their wise Physitian did preseribe for their Aegyptian malady. From all which passa­ges it is extremely evident that to esteem or wor­ship that as God which we do Sacrifice, is in the judgment of the Antient Christians, to be Sacri­legious against God, and ignorant of the true knowledg of God; tis to be guilty of no less than folly and Atheism; 'tis as absurd as the wor­ship of an Asses head; 'tis that which justly ren­ders men a laughing stock to all their neighbors; and therefore 'tis manifest that Roman Cathalicks, the greatest part of whose devotion consists in this Mass-Service, this Sacrificing of that God they worship, must in the judgment of these Fathers be lyable to all those imputations. And seeing the Fathers do declare that God by per­mitting men to eat, and by commanding them to Sacrifice clean beasts, designed to convince them that they were unworthy the name and worship of the Deity, and to instruct them not to esteem that as a God which they were wont to Sacrifice to God: The Romanists by command­ing men to eat, and as they also do imagine to Sacrifice the Host, must be supposed to instruct and to convince them, it is unworthy of the name and worship of the Deity. [...] Anax­andr. apad A­thenaeum 1.7. p. 299. As therefore Anaxandrides said to the Aegyptians I can have no agreement which you because of the great dif­ference there is betwixt our customs and those which do obtain among you; for whereas you do worship Oxen, I Sacrifice them to the Gods: an Eel is by you honoured as a great God, by me 'tis eaten as delicious meat. So may we say unto the Roma­nists, We can have no communion with you, be­cause you worship that as a great God, which we [Page 14]do eat: and what you Sacrifice (at least in your imagination) we think most worthy to be wor­shipped, and therefore 'twill be ever far from us to Sacrifice it. Gen. xliii. 32. Vide Ainsw. in locum. 'Twas an Abomination to the Aegyptians to eat bread with the Hebrews, because the Hebrews did cat those Cattle which the Ae­gyptians worshipped, saith the Chaldee Parpahrase. And Moses would depart from Aegypt before he Sacrificed to his God, Exod. viii. 26. left he should Sacrifice to the Lord the abominations of the Aegyptians before their eyes (i.e.) the beasts which the Aegyptians worshiped, and therefore did abhor to kill, or to see killed for Sacrifice. We therefore who also do abhor, as all the Antient Fathers did, to see that Sacrificed and caten which we adore as God, cannot eat of this Sacred bread with those of Rane, but must first fly from Babylon, as it is Prophesied the Church should do, before we do commemorate that Sacrifice which they repeat.

§ VI 3. The substance of the Sacrament being Christ truly God and man according to the Doctrin of the Roman Church, whatsoever truly is affirmed of, or doth belong unto the substance of the Sacrament, must also be truly affirmed of our Blessed Lord. Now if we do compare those things, which are delivered in their Liturgy, and most Authentick Records, touching the Host, with what the light of Nature teacheth, and what the Scriptures, and the Holy Fathers have delivered in derision of the Heathen Gods which shall soon find that what the Scriptures and the Holy Fathers have offered to expose the HeathenGods to the con­tempt and indignation of their foolish votaries, L. 5. p. 160. doth more emphatieally expose that Host which by the Papists is worshipt as a true God, to the derision [Page 15]of mankind. And truly as Arnobius saith in a like case, and on like ground; so say I here, had the malicious Jew, or the vilest Infidel, designed to put affronts upon our dearest Lord, I know not by what method, they could have done it more effectually; since the disguises which the Romanists have put upon him, do certainly expose him al­most to all the scoffs which have, or can be cast upon the worst of Idols: nor did the Jews, or Herod load him with half the ignominy, which is now cast upon him by the doctrine and wor­ship of the Roman Church.

§ VII And to begin with those considerations which the Prophet Esa. doth suggest. Chap. xlvi. 1. To preserve the Captive Jews from paying homage to Bel and other Babylonish Idols, he informs them, that the Priests bear them on their shoulders, they carry them, and set them in their places; and where they are thus placed, they stand and remove not front it. Re­member this, salth he, and shew your selves men. Chap. x. 5. Bar. vi. 3, 4. They must needs be born because they cannot go, saith Jeremy, be not afraid of them. In his Epi­stle to the Captive Jews, the first thing he in­forms them of is this, that when they come to Ba­bylon they shall see their Gods of Silver, Gold, Wood, born upon shoulders, which the Nations fear; beware therefore, saith he, that you be not afraid of them, when you see the multitude behind them, and before them worshiping them; and (Verse 26, 27.) they are born, saith he, upon shoulders whereby [N. B.] they declare to men that they are nothing worth. They also that serve them are a­shamed, for if they fall to the ground at any time, Wisd. xiii. 16. they cannot rise up again of themselves. The Au­thor of the Book of Wisdom saith, that the Ar­tificer, when he hath made his Idol sets it in a Wall, [Page 16]and makes it fast with Iron; for be provideth for it that it might not fall, knowing that it was una­ble to help it self. On this account saith he, they are more to be blamed, than they who wor­shipped the lights of Heaven, who yet are not to be excused or pardoned. [...] Contra Gent. p. 17. The Heathen Gods, saith Athanasius, have no power to stand, or sit, but must remain in the same posture which the Ar­tificer hath given them, and therefore do afford no Argument or Character of their Divinity. Ibid. p. 16. What pardon can they hope for who place their confidence [...] in things unmoveable, Sermon. 10. ad Graecos p. 144. and worship them for the true God? saith the same Father, They can­not stand being not fastened with pins, and if they be not born by others neither can they go, so Theodoret. They are so rude and stupid, saith St. Cyril, that they carry up and down their Gods upon their shoulders, they see they are unable to move and are carried whither the bearer pleaseth, and yet they pray unto them, Cyril in Es. 1.4. p. 629, 630. whereas, saith he, what help canst thou expect from them whom thou perceivest to be void of sense and motion; but theu art as senslefs as they, and fallen into the most extreme stupi­dity. And to the like effect speak almost all the Fathers, who write in confutation of the Heathen Deities.

And yet these things do perfectly agree as well unto the Roman Catholicks bon Dieu as to those Idols which the Heathens worshipped; for the Trent Council hath determined that upon Declarat prae­terea Sancta Synodus, piè & religiosè admodum in Dei Ecclesiam indactum fuisse hunc morem, ut singulis annis peculiari quodam & festo die praecelsum hcc & venerabile Sacramentum singulari venerations as solemnitate celeoraretur, utque in processionibus reverenter & honorisicè illud per vias & loca pablica circum­feretur. Sess. 13. Cap. 5. Corpus Christi day this Host (i. e.) the Roman [Page 17]God, should be carried in Precession through pub­lick ways and places, at which times he is born upon their shoulders or their arms, and he must needs be born, because he cannot go, and when they come unto their tabernacula quietis, where their God must rest, he standeth in the place, in which they set him, and is not able to remove from thence. They also have determined, Porrò deferri ipsam sacram Eacharistiam ad infirmes, & have usum dili­genter in Eccle­siis conserva [...]i cum summà ae­quitate & ra­tione conjun­ctumist. Quare sancts haec Sy­nodus retinen­dum omnino sa­latarem hune & necessarium mo­rem statuit. Sess. 13. Cap. 6. — ut neque decidere, neque è pixide exca­ti Sacramen­tum queat. Ri­tuale Rom. p. 72. Ed. An­tuerp. 1617. Chap­ter the 6. of the same Session, that this God must be carried to sick people, and knowing that he is unable to help himself, they have provided, as did the Heathens, for their Idols, that he might not fall, nor be shaken out of the pyxis wherein he is kept saith the Roman Ritua! Moreover this God falls often to the ground, witness the Canon of the Mass which doth en­joyn Si hostia, &c. locus ubi cecidit mandetur & aliquantulum abrada­tur. that if the Consecrated Host doth fall upon the ground, the place on which he falleth shall be washed and somewhat scraped; witness the rea­son assigned by the Primum enim maximé cavendum erat, ne sanguis Domini in terram sunderetur. Catech. Rom. Part 2. Ch. 4. § 66. Roman Catechism, why the people are Sacrilegiously deprived of the Cup; viz. lest the blood should be spilt upon the ground. Witness those other Canons which command the Priest, when any of the blood doth fall upon the ground, Si per negligentiam aliquid sanguinis cecider it linguâ lambatur — Si super lapidem ceciderit Altaris, sorbeat sacerdos stillam — Si hostia con­sterata, vel aliqua ejus particula dilabatur in terram reverenter accipiatur. [...]an. de defectibus in Ministerio occurrent. with reverence to lick it up. And when this God is fallen, it is certain, that he cannot rise again without their help. Witness the words of the same Canon commanding, when the Host is fallen, that the Priest with reverence [Page 18]should take it up. And may not we then say unto the Romanists as doth the Prophet Esa, Re­member this and shew your selves men, bring it again to mind, O ye Transgressors? May we not hence conclude, according to the Prophet Jeremy, that the Roman Host, as to its supposed Deity, is no­thing worth? And when we see the multitude behind it, and before it worshipping, have we not reason to obey the Prophets Counsel, and to beware of being like them? Have not all they who serve it the same cause to be ashamed as had the worshippers of Heathen Idols? are not they equally blame-worthy, inexcusable, unpardona­ble, who worship that of which all these par­ticulars as truly are affirmed, as ever they were spoken of the Heathen Gods? May we not say with Cyril that they are rude and foolish, as senseless as their Host, and guilty of extreme stupidity?

§ VIII 2. This Prophet laughs at Bel and Nebo, the Babylonish Idols, because they might be carried Captive, and were not able to deliver or pre­serve themselves; Esa. xlvi. 1, 2. Bel, saith he, boweth down, Nebo stoopeth, their Idols were upon the Beasts and upon the Cattel, they could not deliver the burthen, but themselves are gon into Captivity. The Pro­phet Jeremy, is very copious on this subject, de­riding thus the Heathen Deities: be hath in his right hand a Dagger and an Ax, but cannot deli­ver himself from War and Thieves, whereby they are known not to be Gods, therefore fear them not. Bar. vi. 15, 16. And again Verse 56, 57. More­over they cannot withstand any King or Enemy, nor are they able to escape from Thieves and Rob­bers. P. 27. To adore what thou hast taken, saith Minu­tius, is not to Consecrate a Deity, but thine own [Page 19]Sacrilege. They could not possibly be Gods the Romans worshipped, saith Tertullian, because the Romans first took them Captive, Apol. 2.25. and then worshipped them, so that their sacrileges were equal to their Trophies; their triumphs over the Geds they worshipped were as many as over the Nations they had Conquered. Shall not I look on this as a conviction of the importency of their Idols, [...] p. 34, 35. saith St. Clemens, that thieves and enemies can take and spoil them? What madness is it, saith Lactantius, L. 2. c. 4. p. 154. to fear that, of which thou fearest that it may be stoln! And Chrysostom, [...] Chrysost. Tom. 1. p. 447. upon occasion of that speech of Labans unto Jacob, Why hast thou stoln away my Gods? crys out, O hyperbole of madness! Are thy Gods such as can be stoln? Art thou not ashamed to say, why hast thou stoln away my Gods? Are thy Gods such, O Laban, as being about to be stoln are not able to defend themselves? Apud Orig. 1.2. p. 62. Celsus makes this objection against the Deity of Christ, that they cannot esteem him God, who by the Jews was apprehended, and who, though he fled, was taken, and carried bound to the High-Priest, for 'tis, saith he, unworthy of a God to fly or be led bound or Cative. And Christ himself would neither fly, when once his hour was come, nor yet be taken, till he had given sufficient demonstration that it was in his power, not only to escape from, but also to strike dead that band of men which came against him. In Esa. 1.4. p. 627. Whence doth the weakness of these ficiitious Gods appear, saith Cyril? In this, saith the Prophet, that they cannot escape from War, but are themselves made Captive, whereas had they been Gods, 'twas fit they should have both preserved their votaries and shewed themselves superior to their Enemies. Now that the Host, or God of Roman Catholicks, hath oft been stoln, or sacrile­giously [Page 20]taken from the Altar, the Romanists do not deny: They have had late experience of it, and have severely punished the offenders in that kind: Epist. ad carol. quint. In Itiner. and Geraldinus complains to Charles the V. and to Aegidius the Cardinal much like ano­ther Laban, that the Sacrament, the body of his God could not be safe from Thieves, Soothsayers, Magicians, Wizards, or from the fire of the wick­ed. That they conceive their God in danger to be stoln or carried Captive, is evident, because they have a Rubrick which commands the Priest, Si timeatur incursus hosti­um, Sacerdos accelerare pote­rit samptionem Sacramenti, omissis omnibus aliis. De de­feciibus Missae Cap. 10. D [...]retal. 1.3. Tir. 44. c. 1. Apud Jovium. if he fears the incursion of enemies, to make hast to eat him up, and to secure him in his belly, from the danger imminent; and a Decree made by Pope Innocent, that it be so well kept that no rash hand approach it: that he already hath been tri­umphed over by the Infidels, as well as other Roman Gods, and was not able to withstand the Enemy, is clear from the known History of Lewis the IX, who being beaten, and in great distress, even when his God was with him, gave him in pawn to the Aegyptian Sultan, who still by way of Triumph in his Escutcheon bears the likeness of a Pix and Wafer. Seeing then these things have frequently befallen the Host, and when they did, the Host did nothing to defend and help it self, may we not put the question to the Ro­manist, Dormiebat, ster­teb at in hostilia castra desage­rat! 1.4. p. 129. as doth Arnobius to the Heathens, Where was then their God, was he a sleep, was he snort­ing, or as persidious persons use to do, did he fly unto the Enemies Camp? May we not say as doth the Prophet Jeremy, Why do you not perceive that is no God which cannot save it self from War and Thieves? May we not speak unto them in the expressions of Lactantius, What madness is it to fear that of which thou fearest it may be [Page 21]stoln? May we not cry out with Chrysostom, O Hyperbole of folly! Are your Gods such as can be stoln? O the excess of Error, are they such as being stoln are not able to defend, or to preserve themselves? May we not look on this as a con­viction of the impotency of the Roman God, as Clemens did? May we not know according to the Prophet Jeremy he is no God, and therefore is not to be feared? And lastly may we not ad­mire, as doth the Author of the Qui ergo fu­rari possant; Isti hominibus sensam habenti­bus Dii debent videri? Clem. Recogn. 1.5. Cap. 15. p. 465. C. Recognitions, that men of sense should once conceive that to be God which can be stoln.

§ IX 3. Scriptures and Fathers do plentifully de­ride the Heathen Deities, because they needed to be preserved and vindicated by their own Vota­ries, and could not help, preserve, or vindicate themselves, when any danger was ready to be­fal them, or any bold affront was offered to them. And first the Prophet Jeremy declares the Hea­then Deities were neither to be feared, nor wor­shipped, because their Priests were forced to preserve them under Lock and Key; Bar. vi. 13. For as the doors are made fast on every side upon him that of­fendet the King, even so the Priests make fast their Temples with Doors, with Locks, with Bars, lest their Gods be spoiled by Robbers. O you, if you be certain, saith Arnobius, Adv. Gent. 1. p. 205. that your Gods be in their Images, and dwell there, why do you keep them under Lock and Key, under Bolts and Bars? why in the Cloysters? why do you protect them from Thieves and Night-Robbers by Church-War­dens, Sextons, and a thousand Watchmen? If you believe that they are Gods, and that they siis not from their Images, suffer them to take care of [Page 22]themselves, let the door of your Temple be always unlockt, and if, any person go about to steal them, let them shew forth their Divinity by punishing the sacrilege. [...] &c. Apol. 2. p. 58. Do they not see, saith Justin Martyr, that it is a wicked thing to say or think men should be Keepers of their Gods? How are they Gods that are defended by human Laws, and not by their own strength, and who are kept from Thieves by the defence of Cloysters? Recogn. 1.5. p. 454. B. Contra Gentes. p. 15. Ibid. p. 24. saith Clemens. This is a most stupendious thing, saith Athanasius, that even those whom they preserve and keep under their Custody, they serve, as if they were their Lords. On this ac­count, saith he, we do deservedly esteem them fools that from those Gods they do expect their needs should be supplied, who, as they are not ignorant, do need their care. Com in Es. p. 49. The Prophet, saith St. Cyril, shews the Council of the Jews to be ridiculous, if they do go about to save those Gods they wor­ship, for if they were Gods indeed, they rather should expect to be preserved by them. But they, con­demning their own sentiments, and testifying their inability to do any thing, succour their Gods. How then can they be Gods, [...] Ibid. Pudeat tutelam de iis sperare quos tu ipse tu­eris. Cyprian ad Demetr. p. 328. L. 2. c. 4. who stand in need of the assistance of their Votaries? They who do adore such Gods are really as senseless as their Gods; and it becometh every pious man to bid farewel unto their follies. It is your revenge, saith Cyprian, which doth defend them when they are hurt, and it is your safeguard which keeps them shut lest they should perish; but is it not a shame to worship them whom you defend, and to hope for safety from them, who by you are kept safe? And what perverseness is it, saith Lactantius, to fly for refuge unto them, which when themselves are violated remain unvindi­cated, unless their Worshippers revenge them? Now evident it is, that all these things may be as truly [Page 23]spoken against the Roman Host, as against any of the Heathen Deities. For first 'tis known that in the Roman Church the Host is kept safe locked within a Tabernacle; that they have Bolts and Bars, and Locks, they have their Ostiary and other Officers to Shut, Bolt, and Lock their Churches; There is a Decree of Innocentius the third in force amongst them, Ut in cunctis Ecclestis Eucha­ristia sub fideli custodia conser­vetur, ne possit ad illam teme­raria manus ex­tendi. Dercetal. L. 3. Tit. 44. C. 1. that in all Churches the Host be kept under safe custody, lest any rash hand should come at it. This Host is therefore under Lock and Key, and hath its Keepers, as much as any Heathen Idol; If any person doth affront it, when it is carried in Procession, or o­therwise reproach it; it is not left unto the Host to punish their Prophaneness, and to shew forth his Majesty, in vindication of himself; but he is either vindicated by the Inquisition, or the Ma­gistrate, or by the common Rout, or wholly doth remain unvindicated. May we not then enquire with Quid praestare colentibus pos­sunt, qui se de non colentibus vindicare non passant? D. Cyp. ad Demetr. P. 328. Cyprian, What can they do for their Votaries, who do nothing against their Contemners? Must it not be [...] a very wicked thing, ac­cording unto Justin Martyr, for Romanists to say, or think that is their God which they them­selves do keep? May we not upon this account cry out with him [...], O the stupor of such men! Must it not be ridiculous in them, according to St. Cyril, to consult its preservati­on? Is it not in the judgment of Athanasius, a most stupendious thing, that they should serve that as their Lord, which they preserve, and keep under their custody? Must it not be accord­ing to St. Cyprian, Lactantius, and Athanasius, their shame, their folly, their perverseness, to worship that which they themselves defend, and pray to that for safety which themselves keep [Page 24]safe? Lastly, must it not be extremely evident according to St. Clemens, and St. Cyril, that the Roman Host, which needeth the assistance of its votaries, and is both kept and vindicated by them, cannot be truly God, nor so esteemed by men of sense?

§ X 4. Bar. vi. 49. Moreover when there cometh any war upon them, the Heathen Priests consult, saith Jeremy, where they may with their Gods be hidden, how is it then that they perceive not that they be no Gods? Esa ii. 49. [...] &c. in Es. C. 2. Tom. 1. p. 1039. The Prophet Esa, as by the 70. he is translated, and by the Fathers Paraphrased, doth Prophesie to the reproach of Heathen Idols, that their Vo­taries should hide them, bringing them into Dens and Clefts of the Rocks, and holes of the Earth; and by declaring, saith St. Chrysostom, that they should hide themselves together with their Gods, and go under the Earth, he doth sufficiently expose or render them ridiculous. Let them be filled with shame, saith Cyril, In Esa. p. 51. who serve those Gods they hide before themselves, that they may not perish being exposed to the lucre of the Enemy. It is a ridiculous Coun­sel of the Jews to hide their Gods, saith the same Cyril; [...] &c. Vid. Sup. for by hiding them in Dens and Holes of the Earth, lest the Enemy should find and carry them away with other Captives, they condemn their own sentiments, and testifie their Gods are not sufficient to do any thing. And yet we know that in the times of persecution both by the Heat [...]en Em­perors, and the Arians, the Christians and the Orthodox, were forced to hide themselves in Dens, and Caverns of the Earth, and if they then had any use or knowledg of the Romish God, they often must have had him with them in the same Dens and Caverns. We know that Ro­mish Priests are forced still to hide themselves and [Page 25]their bon Dieu in all those places, where it is pe­nal to say Mass. Nay when they fear an Enemy the Mass Priest is commanded to eat up his God, and hide him in his stomach. How therefore is it, that they do not perceive he is no God? how is it that they do not see with Chrysostom, that they sufficiently expose him, while they do con­ceal him? or with St. Cyril, that they are ridicu­lous and men condemned by their own senti­ments, and that they by their practice testifie their God is not sufficient to do any thing? The Prophet Esa, saith Theodoret, Ad Graecos In­fideles, Serm. 10. p. 143, 144. doth tragically sing the downfal of the Heathen Idols, declaring that they shall hide the Gods, which they had made, and bring them into Dens and Clefts of the Rocks and Holes of the Earth; which Prophesie, saith he, it becomes not me so much to interpret, as you ingeni­ously to confess, that which hath often hapned; but if you will not do so; yet is it evident to all who have seen often times your Gods, which wicked men had hidden, intending by that concealment to pre­serve and succour them, dug out of the Earth by Pious Christians, and publickly exposed to the scorn of women and children. Now that which here Theodoret speaks of the Heathen Gods, that they were often buried in the Earth, and dug out thence by Christians, that which, saith he, the Prophet tragically mentions as the [...] or dissolution of those Idels, hath very often hapned to the Host; for by an antient Custom, which long prevailed, even against many Canons to the contrary, both in the Eastern and Western Churches the Host was buried with dead Corps, In Can. 13. Con. Tral. ibid. as Zonaras informs us; and Balsamon declares that even in his time the Consecrated Bread was put in­to the hand of the Antistes, and so he was commit­ted [Page 26]to the Earth; and I my self with many others have seen the Chalice in which the Sacred Blood was buried, dug up out of the Graves of divers Bishops buried in the Church of Sarum. And Humbert testifies concerning the Greek Church, Humbert. con­tra. Nicet. Tom. 4. Bibl. Patr. Part. 2. p. 247. C. that in the Eleventh Century it was their Custom Eucharistiam subterrare, to bury under ground the remains of the Holy Sacrament. If then the Prophet Esa, to express the great contempt the Heathens, in the times of Christianity should offer to their Idols, Esaiah ii. 20. Prophesied, that they should cast them to the Moles, what great contempt must they have offered to this Roman God, who lodged him with the Moles and Worms, and how un­likely is it that they who did so, should believe that what they buried was God? How certain must it be that what this Prophesie foretold, hath been fulfilled as frequently and truly upon the Roman Host, as upon any Heathen Idols? How easie was it also to dig up the Host, and to expose it to the view; nay that this hath been done, is evident from the relation which Ivo makes of the translation of St. Othmars body, L. 2. vitae Othm. C. 3. apud Sur. d. 16. Nov. together with the Sacrament from its own dormitory, to the Church of St. Gallus. And therefore all the in­ferences which the Fathers do hence make against the Deity and worship of the Heathen Gods, as strongly do conclude against the Host. Doth Cyril say, that when they hid them in the Caverns of the Earth, they could not then conceive them to be Gods? so may we say of Christians. Doth he say of that true God who is over all, that no man ever saw him concealed, that he was never hid­den, that he never sought the Clefts of Rocks or Mountains? we may accordingly conclude touching that Host, which lies so often hid, and [Page 27]hath so oft been buried in the Caverns of the Earth, that it can never be, [...], or God over all blessed for ever.

§ XI 5. The Prophet Jeremy declares that Heathen Idols were neither to be feared nor worshipped, because they were exposed to the injuries of fire, when fire falls upon the house of Gods of wood, Baruch, vi. 55. [...]. Clem. [...]. p. 35. their Priests will fly away but they themselves shall be burnt asunder like beams. I know the fire can con­vince thee, saith St. Clemens, and cure thy super­stition; if thou wilt cease from thy madness, the fire will bring thee to the light, for it hath burnt the Temple which was at Ephesus and Rome, &c. Where was the thunderer, saith Arnobius, ubinam fulni­nator, &c. l. 6. p. 207. when by the fire his Capitol, his worship, his wife, and daughter were censumed? Where was the Aegypti­an Serapis, when by a like misfortune he with his Isis and all his mysteries were burnt to ashes? They blush not, saith Athanasius, to worship wood, Contra Gentes. p. 15. l. 2. c. 4. p. 154. Vide Supra. and stones, as not considering that they do burn and tram­ple under feet the like, and that a little before they were of common use. They worship, saith Lactanti­us, things that may be burnt, and what a madness is it to worship that on the account of which we fear the fire? And yet tis certain that the Roman Host, Nunc videmus igni tradi quae­cunque remane­re contigerit inconsumpta. Hes. in Levit. viii. 32. Ivo. l. 2. c. 22.59. Burch. l. 5. c. 12, 50. Vide Supra. at least as far as we are able to discern, may be consumed or burnt by fire. Witness the Custom of the antient Christians, recorded by Hesychius, to burn all that remained after the celebration of the Eucharist; witness the Canons extant in Ivo and Burchardus, touching the burning of the too stale and mucid Host: Witness the sad complaint of Geraldinus that in Hispaniola the very body of his God was in great danger to be fired by the wicked; witness the very [Page 28] Si Musca vel aranea vel ali­quidaliud ceci­derit in Cali­cem —post Con­secrationem —Sacerdos extrahat eam & lavet cam vino, finità (que) Missâ comburat, &c. Missal. de de­fect. in Ministe­rio occur. Can. 5. Si per negligen­tiam aliquid de Sanguine Chri­sti cecilerit, lo­cus iste quan­tum satis est ra­datur & abrasio comburatur. ibid. Can. 12. Canon of the Mass, which peremptorily de­crees, that if a fly doth fall into the Chalice, then this God-drinking fly must when the Sacra­ment is finished, instantly be burnt, so also must that Earth on which this blood at any time is spilt, and consequently the God contained in the belly of the fly, or suckt in by the soft Earth must burn together with them. And will not therefore the same fire convince the Romanist, and cure his superstition too? May we not call upon him in the language of St. Clemens to for­sake his madness, and to be guided by the light of this Host-burning-fire? May we not ask, as doth Araobius, where was your Lord and God, when fire seized, as it hath often done, not only his Temples, and his Altars, but his very body? May we not with Lactantius say, What madness is it for you Romanists to worship that on the ac­count of which you fear the fire, as your own Geraldinus doth confess? Have we not reason to conclude with Athanasius that you therefore do not blush to pay this Homage to the Host, as not considering that you do burn the like, or think as did your Paludanus, Hostias conse­cratas quam­vis mucidas comburere im­mane sacrilegi­um. Pal. 4. d. 9. q. I. art. 3. Vide Tertul. de An. C. 51. Incende quod a­dorasti. Greg. Turon. L. 2. C. 31. p. 287. that even to burn a moul­dy Host, if it were truly God, must be immane sa­crilegium a very horid Sacrilege? Can we imagin that those Christians, who always deemed it a cruelty to burn the Carcass of the meanest Chri­stian, should burn the sacred body of that God they worshipped? Or would Remigius have counselled Clodovaeus, when he came to receive Christian Baptism, to shew his detestation of those Idols which he formerly revered by burning what he had adored, if, even Christians did believe that what they burned was to be worshipped as their God? To prove that Calvinists do offer the [Page 29]most vile affronts to Holy Saints and Martyrs, Bellarm. de Reliq. Sancto­rum. L. 2. C. 1. To. 1. Controv. 7. Bellarum tells us, that they have burnt their bodies and their Reliques and cast their ashes into Rivers. And must not then the antient Christians offer more vile contempt to their dear Lord, if they believed that Sacrament which they so customa­rily did burn, to be that sacred body which with the Deity, to which it was united, they wor­shipped as God?

§ XII 6. Again the Prophet Jeremy derides the Hea­then Idols, Bar. vi. 12. because they were exposed to rust and moth, from which they cannot save themselves, saith he, though they be covered with Purple Garments. L. 6. p. 262. Do you not see, saith Arnobius, that even these Images, whose feet and knees you praying touch, decay by reason of those drops of rain that fall upon them? that they dissolve by rottenness, and that they by the injuries of time do lose their form and are eaten out by rust? Now these things, saith he, which are plain before you, ought to instruct and to admo­nish you, that you do nothing, and pay your homage to vain things. And yet tis certain that the Romish God doth lie exposed to the like or greater inju­ries. It is in danger of being washed away by inundations, Si timeatur in­cursus hostium vel alluvionis, &c. witness the Canon of the Mass which doth provide, that in that ease the Mass-Priest should make hast to cat him up. Tis subject to the injuries of the wind, witness that Canon of the Mass, which saith, Si Hostia con­secrata vento dispareat. that if the Consecrated Host be blown away and disappear, the Mass-Priest shall prepare another. Tis lyable to be congealed by the cold air, Si in Hyeme Sanguis conge­letur in thalice, &c. witness that Canon which pro­vides that in this case it shall be thawed by be­ing put into warm water, or wrapped in warm cloaths. It may be subject to corruption, wit­ness that Canon which doth charge the Priest, [Page 30] if after Consecration he perceive the Host to be cor­rupted, to eat it up, Si Celebrans post consecrati­onem adverterit Hostiam esse corruptam, &c. de defect. Miss. or to preserve it reverently, or give it to be eaten by some other person. Lastly the Host is lyable unto such change of qualities as will convert it into poison, or render it destru­ctive to the lives of men. Witness the Henry VII. Albert. de Euch. l. 1. c. 19. p. 124. Emperor, the Victor 2, 3. idem ibid. Popes, and the Hen. Ebora­censis. Matth. Paris. in Ste­phano. Si aliquid ve­nenosum cecide­rit in calicem. ib: Si aliquid ve­nenatum conti­gerit Hostiam, &c. Archbishop, which have been poysoned by the Chalice, and witness also the provisions that are made in such a case by several Canons in the Mass, about the ordering of such poysoned wine. Now ought not these things, which are plain before them, to admo­nish and instruct the Romanist, that to adore this Host as God, is to imploy his service on that which he doth vainly call a Deity; for can it be sup­posed, without horror, that Christs immortal body should be corrupted, or that his precious blood be congealed by frost, or so invenomedas to destroy the lives of men.

§ XIII 7. The Scriptures and the Fathers do more especially deride the Heathen Idols, because they seemed to be contemned by the very brutes; Their Hearts, Bar. vi. 20, 21. saith Jeremy, are gnawed upon by things creeping out of the Earth, and when they eat them and their Cloaths, they feel it not. Ʋpon their bodies and heads sit Bats, Swallows, and Birds, and the Cats also, by this you may know that they are no Gods, therefore fear them not. You may learn, [...] p. 29. saith Clemens Alexandrinus. from the very birds [...] that their Images are void of sense; Erubescite vel sero at que ab animautibus mutis vias rati­onis accipite, &c. Arnob. l. 6. p. 202. for Swallows and other Birds cast forth their dung upon them, bearing no reverence towards either their Jupiter or Aesculapius, their Minerva, or Serapis. Blush at the last, saith Ar­nobius, and learn the ways of reason from these mute creatures, and let them teach you there is no [Page 31]Divinity in these Images, which they do not avoid, nor fear to dung upon, following the Laws and instinct of their nature; this is another sensible de­monstration from which he tells them they may learn the vanity of all that service which they pay unto them. How many things do these mute crea­tures (saith Minutius) judg touching your Gods? p. 26. The Mice, the Swallows, and the Kites perceive they have no sense, they gnaw them, they tread, they sit upon them, and if you do not drive them thence, will nest within the very mouths of your supposed Deities. Are thieves so foolish as to fear Priapus, saith La­ctantius, L. 2. p. 153. In Ps. 11 [...]. Con. 2. when even the birds do sit and dung upon him? Better it were, saith Austin, to worship Mice and Serpents, and such like Creatures; for they after a sort do judg of Heathen Idols, in which because they see no life, they do not fear the human shape. Now that these things may hap­pen to the Romish Host is evident from their own Canons, which speak thus, Si Hostia con­secrata dispare­at ab aliquo animali acce­pta. Missal. de defect. Miss. C. 3. S. 7. Ibid. C. 10. S. 5. vide supra. If any Consecrated Host be snatched up by some beast, and cannot af­terwards be found, another shall be Consecrated. If a Fly or such like Creature fall into the Cha­lice, he shall be taken out and burnt, or swallowed by the Priest; and reason good, because whole Christ, being contained in every particle of the blood, the little insect, if he drink any thing, must have him wholly in his Guts; Gages New Survey of the West-Indies. p. 447. Twas this occasioned the Conversion of Mr. Gage a Romish Priest, viz. his seeing a bold Mouse come from behind the Altar, and snatch a way his Wafer-God, and eat half of him up before he could be rescued from his teeth. This also is evident from reason, for will not any Mouse or Rat, Dog or Cat, following the laws or instinct of their na­ture, gnaw, eat, devour, the Roman Host, pro­vided [Page 32]that the Mass-Priest do not drive them from it? And if it be so horrid to conceive, according to St. Austin and Arnobius, that birds should nest even in the mouth of God, must it not be more horrid to conceive that God should be received, and drawn into the mouth and stomach of a beast? Would any of them scruple think you, if they had occasion and convenience to dung upon the Host or in the Chalice? And is it not then evident according to St. Clemens, that these beasts do bear no reverence toward the Roman God? Do they not perceive according to Minu­tius, and St. Austin, that it hath no sense? May we not wonder with St. Clemens, that Romanists have not yet learned from these birds their Host is an insensate being? May not this sensible de­monstration teach them, according to Arnobius, that there is no Divinity in any Host, and that their worship of it is a vain and fruitless service? Once was the time when Aegypt was made a­shamed of their chief God, Theodoret Hist. Eccl. l. 5. cap. 22. when they saw Mice creeping out of his belly; what would they have said, if they had seen their God creeping down, as the Mass-God doth into the belly of those Mice or Flys.

CHAP. II.

The Contents.

8. The Scriptures and Fathers deride the Heathen Deities, and say that we may knew they are no Gods, because they have no use of their outward senses. §. I. 9. Because they are made Gods by Consecration, and by the will of the Artificer, part of that matter which is Consecrated into a God, being exposed to common uses. §. II. 10. Be­cause they were imprisoned in their Images, or shut up in obscure habitations. §. III. 11. Be­cause they lighted Candles to them. §. IV. 12. Be­cause they clothed their Gods in costly Raiments. §. V. 13. Because they might be metamorphosed. §. VI. All this may truly be affirmed of the Ro­man Host, from §. I. to §. VI. The Roman God being eaten may be vomited up again, and voided at the draught. §. VII. An expostulation with the Worshippers of the Host in the words of Arnobius. §. VIII. All that the Fathers say against the Heathen Gods, is in the person of a Heathen retorted on the Adorers of the Host. §. IX. Corol­laries from what hath been already praved. 1. That the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, or of the Adera­tion of the Host as God, was not acknowledged by the Antient Fathers. §. X. A confirmation of this Corollary from three Considerations. 1. That the Heathens could not be ignorant of this sup­posed Article of Christian Faith, or of this pra­ctice of the Church, provided that they Antiently believed and practised as doth the present [Page 34]Church of Rome. §. XI. 2. That the Jews and Heathens left nothing unobjected which could with any shew of reason be offered from any other Doctrine or Practice of Christianity against the Deity and Worship of our Lord, and yet say nothing against this Doctrine, or this Practice. §. XII. 3. That the Fathers of the Church do largely answer all other scruples of Hereticks and Hea­thens which made them to suspect the Deity of Christ, but never say one word of this. §. XIII. This never was objected by Heretick or Heathen as an absurdity till the Eleventh or Twelfth Cen­tury. ibid. 2. Corol. That the Host cannot be truly God, and consequently that Church, by which it is Worshipped as God, is guilty of Idolatry. §. XIV. The proof of this Corollary is a suffi­cient vindication of the Church of England in the point of Schism, and a sufficient confutati­on of the whole Mass of the Roman errors.

§ I 8. THE Psalmist smartly doth deride the the Heathen Gods, Psal. exv. 5, 6, 7. because they have no use of any of their outward sen­ses, They have mouths, saith he, but they speak not, eyes have they, but they see not, they have ears but they hear not, noses have they, but they smell not, they have hands but handle not, feet have they but they walk not. Ch. xv. 14, 15. The worshippers of Idols, saith the Book of Wisdom, are most foolish, and are more miscrable, than very Babes, for they counted all the Idols of the Heathen to be Gods, which neither have the use of eyes to see, nor noses to draw breath, nor cars to bear, nor fingers of hands to handle; and as for their feet they are slow to go. They are upright as a Palm-Tree but speak not, saith the Prophet Jeremy. Chap. x. 5. Baruch. vi. 7. As for their tongue [Page 35]it is polished by the workman, yet are they but false and cannot speak. They are dumb Idols, saith the Prophet Habakkuk, Hab. ii. 18, 19. and have no breath at all in the midst of them. Wo therefore unto him that saith to the dumb stone arise, it shall teach. Dost thou not see, saith Clemens, Nonne vides quod quem ado­ras non videt. Recogn. L. 5. C, 16. that what thou wor­shippest cannot see or hear? Their minds have throughly drunk of the juyce of folly, saith Lactan­tius, of the adorers of the Heathen Idols; for having sense themselves, they worship things which have no sense, which neither did perceive when they were made, Nec enim sensum Consecratione sumpserunt. Lact. L. 2. C. 2, 4. Contra Gent. p. 15. nor do they know when they are worship­ped; for they receive no use of any of their senses from their Consecration; they have indeed a mouth but such a one as wants the use of teeth. Who would commiserate them, saith Athanasius, who seeing, worship those things which see not; who hearing, pray to that which heareth not; who being endowed with life, salute that as a God which doth not more at all? They have their senses and yet they have them not, for they have no use of them, giving no Character, no demonscration of their di­vinity thereby. St. Austin thought he had suffi­ciently disgraced the Heathen Deities by saying that the Priest did scare the seeing beast from the blind God, the bearing beast from the deaf God, Et illum non se moventem quasi potentem colit, à quo meliorem deterruit. Au­gust. in Ps. cxiii. Conc. 2. In Psal. cxv, the walking beast from him that could not move, and that he worships him as a powerful God, who hath not power to move himself. The Psalmist, saith Theodoret, doth many ways demonstrate the weakness of the Heathen Gods, saying that they have mouths and speak not, their Images have sen­suum domicilia, but are deprived of their operati­ons, and therefore they are more vile than the least of living Creatures, than even Gnats and Flys, which have the use of all their senses; and therefore they [Page 36]that make, and they that worship them, are like to them, because they being men indued with reason, and falling into such temerity, tis just that they should be depri­ved of their senses, as are the Idols which they wor­ship. They worship their Gods in the form of a dead body, In forma corpo­ris mortui ado­rant. In Psal. cxxxiv. saith Hilary, whose mouth is dumb, eyes dull, ears deaf, noses empty, hands feeble, feet stiff, and their whole body is immoveable, Now all these things which equal truth, may be affirmed of the H [...]st; and it is subject as much to all these scoffs as any of the Heathen Idols; for do not Roma­nists affert, and doth not their experience oblige them to confess, that Christ is in the Eucharist mortuo modo, Becau. de Sacr. in Specie. c. 19. qu 5. in the condition of a man wholly dead, void of all sense and motion, not being able to move one finger in his own defence? May we not therefore say of them in the words of Hilary, That they worship their God in formâ corporis mortui. Do they not sometimes chase the seeing beast from their blind God, the hearing beast from their deaf God, the walking beast from him that can­not move? And notwithstanding they adore the Host which cannot move, as an Almighty God. Must they not therefore have sufficient ground to see, that what they worship cannot see? must they not know that it receives no use of any of its senses by vertue of their Consecration? and that it gives no Character or demonstration of its divi­nity by any of them? Have we not then suffici­ent reason to conclude, as do the Fathers on the like account, and the inspired Prophets, that what the Romanist doth worship as a God, is a dumb Idol? and that it is not to be feared, that they who worship it are drunken with the juyce of folly; they are more miserable and foolish than the ve­ry babes? Or in the language of the Psalmist and [Page 37]of Theodoret, Hilary and Cyril, that they are, and deserve to be made like unto their Host, and be as sensless as it is. I remember Clemens in his Re­cognitions endeavours to confound and shame the Idol-Worshippers by this inquiry, Would any of you be like unto these Gods you worship? Would you so see as they see? So hear as they hear? And have no other use of any of your senses than they have? This sure would be a curse and a reproach unto you. Quales ergo Dii habendi sunt isti, quos imitari execra­bile sit cultori­bus suis? quo­rum similitudi­dinem habere contumelia est? Recog. L. 5. C. 15. p. 465. What kind of Gods most they be then, whom to be like would be an execration to their Worshippers, and a reproach? And may we not with great advantage ask the Romanist, would you be like your Host? would you so see as that sees, and have no other use of any of your senses than that hath? would you be swallowed down or eaten up by Flys, and Rats, and Mice, as that hath been? would you descend into the stomach, would you be buried, and burnt as he hath often been? If this be truly the condition of our bles­sed Lord, St. Peter had more cause to say when Christ instituted the Sacrament, than when he was about to suffer on the Cross, Master spare thy self.

§ II 9. The Prophet Esa speaks it to the shame of Heathens, Es. xliv. 16. that when the Carpenter had hewn down a Tree, with part thereof he makes a fire, with part he baketh bread, and with the residue he makes a God, he falleth down, he worshippeth, he prayeth to it. Hence he concludes, that God had shut their eyes that they could not see, and their hearts that they could not understand. The Potter, Wisd. xv. 7, 8. saith the Author of the Book of Wis­dom, of the same Clay makes both the Vessels which serve for clean and unclean uses, and em­ploying his labor lewdly, he maketh a vain God [Page 38]of the same Clay. Materias sorores esse instrumen­torum communi­um quasi fatum consecratione mutantes. Apol. c. 12. As far as I am able to discern, their Idols, saith Tertullian, are of like matter with our common Vessels and only become Gods by Consecration. Now do not all these scoffs return upon the Host with equal evidence? Is it not made of a like matter with our common bread, and only doth become a God by Consecration? May not one lump of Meal (to give an instance parallel to that of wood and clay,) be used partly to wrap up the Apothecaries Pills, and partly to make those Wafers which the Priest doth Con­secrate into a God? And then, as saith the Book of Wisdom in derision of the Heathen Idols, Ch. xiv. 20. that is taken for a God which a little before was not honoured as a man; and have we not then equal reason to conclude touching the Romanists, that God hath shut their eyes that they cannot see, and their hearts that they cannot understand? Perhaps the sione, P. 26. the wood, the brass, the silver, saith Minucius, is not yet God, when therefore is this God produced? Tis melted, made, tis carved, and it is yet no God, tis polished, framed and set up, but no God yet; but now behold, it is adorned, con­secrated, prayed unto, and then it is a God, when men will have him so to be and dedicate him to that use; And may not all this be returned upon the Host? Might not the Pagan say, You Chri­stians grind and sift, and bake your wheat and tis but yet a Wafer, you set it on the Altar, you elevate and cross it, but tis yet no God; at last you speak five words, with an intention to Con­secrate this bread into a God, and the thing is done, tune Deus est cum homo illum voluit & de­dicavit. Recogn. l. 4. c. 20. p. 458. Is it not plain, saith Clemens, that the Idol is metal framed according to the will of the Artificer, how then can any divinity be con­ceived [Page 39]in that which, if the Artificer had not been willing, had not been at all; and it is not more plain by the same argument that there is no Di­vinity in the Wafer, which if the Priest did not intend, and therefore was not willing to Con­secrate, would not be God at all, and which if the Baker would not have made, would not have been at all?

St. Austin, in his Book of the City of God, L. 8. C. 23. discourseth largely to this purpose, where first he introduceth Hermes asserting that some Gods, are made by men; this, saith he, at first hearing one would conceive he speake concerning Images, but these by Hermes are only stiled the bodies of the Gods, but to these bodies, this Hermes saith, men by their art do couple some invisible spirits, and this, saith he, is making Gods, this is that great and won­derful power man hath received, and as God is the maker of the heavenly Gods, so man is the maker of those Gods which dwell in Temples near to men, which in the language of the Schools is only this, God makes them by a new Creation, man by ad­duction, or by procuring their presence in the Image by virtue of their Consecration. Now these things, saith St. Austin, are vain, deceitful, pernicions, and sacrilegious, and it was the design of Christian Faith to free men from these Gods which man doth make; to this effect he cites the passage of the Prophet Jeremy, if a man makes Gods behold they are no Gods; now are not Roman Doctors in this sense the makers of that God they worship? do they not by the art of Consecration couple the Divinity of Christ unto his body? Do they not bring him down unto their Temples? And make him there to dwell with men? Whom, as the Scripture tells us, the Heavens must contain [Page 40]until the day of Judgment? Doth not their Conse­cration make him dwell, as saith the Heathen in Arnobius, under the signs? Wherefore their God, according to St. Austin must be no God. Or such a God as Christianity designed to free us from, and all their specious pretences touching this matter must be vain, pernicious, and sacrilegious.

§ III 10. The Fathers do despise and vilifie the Heathen Deities, because they were shut up, and as it were imprisoned in their Images. We do de­servedly account them mad, [...] Contr. Gent. p. 24. [...], &c. Tom. 5. p. 517. Lin. 28. saith Athanasius; who do not blush to call on them as Lords of Heaven and Earth, whom they shut up in little houses, hence, saith he, any man may learn their Atheism. Is it not the extremity of madness, saith St. Chrysostom, to conceive, they do not say, and do things filthy, rehen they endeavour to bring their Gods into the Images of wood and stone, and there to shut them up as in a Prison? The very Cyclops in Euripides when he was told that Wine was Bacchus, stands amazed and presently declares it an indecent thing that God should dwell in bettles or in skins, [...]; Eurip. in Cycl. v. 528, 530. These things seemed prodigies to him. Now we all know the Papists God is kept imprisoned in his box or Tabernacle, that he is put into a bag, or skin when the Priest carries him about his neck, that he may in the species of Wine, be put into a bottle, and was so by the antient Christians, and that he dwelleth in his little Box or Tabernacle, (as they are pleased to call the Box in which they place him) Arnobius is very copious on this sub­ject, Their Gods, In gypso ergo mansitant at (que) in testalis Dii vestri, l. 6. p. 203. saith he, can dwell in clay, and playster, and that such vile things may become more glorious, they suffer themselves to be shut up, and lie concealed in the restraint of an obscure habita­tion. This therefore, saith he, I desire to know, [Page 41]whether they go unwillingly into these mansions, Invitinè hoc faciunt? ibid. and forced into them by their dedication? or whether they do it willingly? If they do this unwillingly, what can constrain their Divine Majesty? If willingly, what is it that makes them to prefer these shells be­fore the heavenly mansions, since by so doing they lose the power of their Divinity? Are they free to quit those Mansions, when they please, or are they necessitated to stay there always? If they have power to leave them when they please, the signs may cease then to be Gods, and so it will be doubtful when they are to be worshipped, and when not. But if they are necessitated there to abide, what is more mi­serable and more unhappy than they are? Intelligere debe­mus in sigilliolis parvulis contra­here se Deos. p. 204. Besides sometimes their Images are very little, and sometimes very great, the Gods must therefore in the little ones contract, but in the great ones extend themselves, when they sit, stand, or run, the Gods must sit, stand, run, and must accommodate themselves to all the postures of the Image where they dwell. Again the gods, say you, dwell in Images, do they dwell every one wholly in each, or partly in one, and partly in another Image, so as to be divided amongst all their Images? One God cannot be wholly in them all at once, put case in many thousand Images of Vulcan, because what is but one, and singular by nature, cannot be multiplied into many, and yet be one, or yet preserve its own sim­plicity; for if you say the same being is in them all, all reason and integrity must perish from the truth, if that be granted, that one can at one time abide in them all, for then each God must be affirmed so to divide his very self, as that he shall be both himself. and be another; which because nature doth reject, re­fuse, and spurn at, either we must confess there are innumerable Vulcans, or that he is in none of all these Images, because he by his nature is [Page 42]forbidden to be divided amongst them all. Now all these things so palpably conclude against the Ro­man Host, that it is almost needless to make out the parallel. Doth not that God permit himself to be shut up, and lie concealed in an obscure ha­bitation? If he doth this unwillingly, is there not some restraint upon him? If willingly, what makes him to prefer these signs before the Hea­venly Mansions? Is he compelled to abide under these signs until the species be corrupted? If so, what is more miserable, or more unhappy than this God, who must abide under these species, even when they are devoured by the vilest vermin, or mixt with the most loathsom vomit. But if he may depart at pleasure, it will be always doubt­ful when this reserved Host is to be worshipped, and when not. Moreover when a great Loaf is Consecrated, according to the antient Custom of the Church, he must extend, and when a little Wafer, must contract his body. He must accom­modate himself to all the postures of the Wafer, move when it moves, stand still when it doth so, he must dwell wholly in every Consecrated Wa­fer (i. e.) in many thousand Wafers at a time, (which saith Arnobius, cannot be, it being in­consistent with his unity) or so divide his self from his own very self, as that he shall be both himself, and another; which nature doth reject, refuse and spurn at. Baruch vi. 19. Accendunt can­delas velut in tenebris agenti. Jam se cum his inanibus offici­is, stultissimos esse cognoscant &c. Lact. l. 6. p. 544, 545, 547.

§ IV 11. The Prophet Jeremy laughs at the Hea­then Custom of lighting Candles to their Gods: They light them candles, saith he, more than for them­selves, of which they cannot see one. They light Candles to God as if he was in the dark, saith La­ctantius, now can he be esteem'd compos mentis who offers for a gift Candles, or wax lights to him [Page 43]who is the Author of light. Their Gods, Num igitur mentis sue com­pos put indus est qui datori lu­minis candela­rum manus of­fert pro mune [...] p. 546. indeed because they are but Earthy, may want lights lest they should be in darkness, whose worshippers be­cause they understand not what is Heavenly, bring their Religion down unto the earth; and by these rites, more than by any other thing may their Gods be proved to be dead, because their rites are wholly earthy. As for our God who could create the Sun and Stars to be a light to men, he wants no earthly lights. When we assemble together, or publickly rejoyce, saith Nazianzen, [...]. 2. p. 106. Ed. Eton. let not our senses shine with sensible light, for this is the Heathen Custom at their new Moons: but let not us honor God with such things, which it becomes us not to use, but with pu­rity of soul, with the brightness of our minds, with lights that lighten the whole body of the Church, I mean with divine Theorems and Notions set upon a holy Candlestick and giving light to the whole world. Lawpades co­ram eo plures vel saltem una die noctuque perpetuo colluce­at. Ritual. p. 64. Semper lumine praecedente. ibid. p. 71. Cum cereis seu intortitiis comi­tentur. ibid. And yet we know the Church of Rome commands that at the least one lamp shall burn be­fore the Host continually, if not more; that when the Host is carried to the sick, there shall still be a light to go before it, and that the Parish mers or the Fraternity shall be called to attend upon the Sacrament with wax lights and torches. On Corpus Christi day, they are all, that run before it, to carry wax lights in their hand. Now of these lighted Candles, it truly may be said that the Host sees not one, which was the infamy the Pro­phet cast upon the Heathen Idols: We may accord­ing to Lactantius conclude the Romanists have lost their wits who do thus serve their God, that they understand not what is Heavenly, that they worship a dead thing: we may say unto our bre­thren as Nazianzen doth unto his fellow Christi­ans, Let us not honor God with such things, for it [Page 44]becomes not us to use them. And Lastly with the Prophet we may laugh both at their Host, and them who light unto it Candles more than for themselves, of which it cannot see one.

§ V 12. The Prophet Jeremy laughs at the Hea­then Priests because they cloath their Gods with costly rayment. Baruch vi. 72. You shall know them to be no Gods, saith he, by the bright Purple that rotteth upon them. They deck them with Silver and Gold, saith the same Prophet. Jer. x. 4. L. 2. C. 4. They provide for them hoods and pretious cloathing, saith Lactantius, who have no use of any covering, and vainly do adorn them with Gold and Jewels, and bring unto them fran­kincense and sweet odours. Whereas unto this Ro­man God belongs a Tabernacle as richly decked with Gold and Silver as can well be, Ritualé Rom. p. 64. a white veil, and two Clerks going before him. Cum thuribulis effumantibus, he therefore is accoutred much like a Heathen God: and if it were ridiculous to deck, to cloath, to incense them, so it must be equally ridiculous to do these things unto the Host.

§ VI 13. Moreover you Gods, saith Tatian to the Heathens, [...], &c. p. 149. [...]. Apol. 2. 57. are Metamorphosed, Rhea into a Tree, Jupiter into a Dragon. They are things, saith Justin, which have not the form or likeness of a God. And is not also that supposed Christ whcih Roman Ca­tholicks do worship Metamorphosed into a Wafer, and a drop of blood which also hath no-form or likeness of a God?

§ VII To conclude, it is affirmed by the Church of Rome, that their God being eaten, may by the squeamish stomach be cast up again, witness that Canon Si sacerdos evomat Eucharistiam. De defect. in minist. occur. Reg. 14. Which doth exhort the Priest when he doth vomit up the Sacrament to wipe it, and try once more to eat it. [Page 45]They also intimate that the Communicant may spit him out upon the ground, Ne sumpto Sa­cramento statim expuant. p. 64. Propter quod non danda est Exchari­stia habenti ta­lem fluxum quod integrum emittit hoc quod sumit. In 4. Sent. Dist. 9. q. 1. Art. 2. Si oh aliquem morbum species discenderent, consequenter & ipsam Corpus descenderet, & emitteretur, pu­dor enim non debet esse in causâ negan­di veritatem. In Sent. 4. Dist. 12. q. 1. Art. 3. witness the cau­tion in their Ritual, that after the reception of the Eucharist, they do not for a season spit, ne Sacra­menti species de ore decidant. And Lastly to com­plete their blasphemy, they do acknowledg that in diseases which take away digestion their God comes whole out of the draught: So it hath hapned, saith Paludanus, so it must happen in this case, saith Soto, for shame should not constrain us to deny the truth. Now to be spit out of the mouth, or cast out of the stomach, or to be ejected at the draught are the peculiar excellencies of this Mass-God, which all the follies of the Heathens can­not parallel. Pious and learned Origen demon­strates against Celsus, the uncleanness of that spirit, which inspired Pagan Prophets by the un­clean parts he entered: and upon the same ground one may guess at the holiness attributed to this God of bread, by the same parts he goes out of. I cannot write to this purpose, what a civil man could not read, or a pious one but think of, and therefore forbear to dilate on it. Learned men know what Rabbins say about the worshipping of Baal Peor. This new Idol is twice as bad: for certainly, neither antient nor modern Expositors thought hitherto, that Holy Scripture should call a Deity, Bosheth and Gillu­lim, that is a God of shame and dung, upon such a literal and proper account. D. Brevints depth of the Romish Mass. p. 78. Chap. 8.

§ VIII Here then we have just reason to enquire with Arnobius, Whether it were not better much to blas­pheme, L. 3. p. 106. Re­ctius multo est deos esse non credere quam esse illos tales. Id. l. 4. p. 151. revile, and speak reproachfully of Christ, than with pretence of piety to entertain such base unworthy thoughts, such monstrous conceptions of him? May [Page 46]not exclaim with him. Hoccine auai­ri sub mundi hoc axe, & l. 5. p. 173. What, shall such tings as these be read, or heard under the Cope of Heaven, and shall they who assert, and do them, be esteemed Saints, and pious men, the guides and keepers of Re­ligion? Estue aliquod sacrilegium hoc majus? Ibid. Is there any Sacriledg greater than this, or is there any Nation under Heaven which holds such im­pious opinions as these be, and doth betray her belief of them in her Sacred Mysteries? At least, I hope we may have leave to speak to Roman Catholicks as did this Father to the Heathens, Inscitiam no­stram at docea­tis or amas, quâ viâ intelligi possunt dii esse, nos eaim nihil horum sentimus habere vim Nu­minis. l. 4. p. 127. Ad haecci­ne nos sacra. &c. l. 5. p. 177 Hoscine nobis deos importatis, injligitis quo­rum similes nec vos esse nec ali­um velitis quenquam. ibid. humbly desiring to know, if they do verily esteem their Wafers to be Gods, How they can under, stand them so to be? for we, unless they will deprive us even of common sense, must say, we are not able to perceive that they have any Deity residing in them, or that they bear any similitude to our most Glorious Jesus. Why is it then that you compel us, not only by your Excommuni­caiton, but by Fire and Fagot, to the worship of such Gods? What say you, O you Romans, is this the sacred Worship which you by flames, exiles and slaughters, and which is more than all, by inquifi­tions would compel us to? Are these the Gods which you would introduce into this Nation, and in­flict upon us, to which you would neither wish your selves nor any if your kindred to be like? Do you not blush to object unto us our neglect to worship things so infamous, that it is better to believe that there are no Gods, than to imagine they are such as you do repre­sent them? And yet is our concernment less for what we suffer, than for what our excellent Re­ligion suffers by this Romish Worship. We should less value the reproach of Schismatick and Heretick you cast upon us; did not your Doctrine cast re­proach upon our Dearest Lord, the offence you give to us were more supportable; did not you also give offence both to the Jew and Gentile by [Page 47]your Wafer Worship; did you not harden them in infidelity; did you not by it minister just mat­ter of excuse for almost all the follies of the Hea­then Worship, and furnish them with a reply to those most excellent Apologies the Fathers made for our Religion, and those convincing demon­strations which they brought against that supersti­tion and Idolatry which then obtained. For to discourse a little in the person of an Heathen, and to retort upon the Christians the Arguments of these renowned Fathers.

§ IX Why should it be esteemed a thing so horrid, [...] Justin. chort. p. 38. Athan. contra gentes p. 12. Clem. [...] p. 23. Saturno infan­tes immolaban­tur. Minut. p. 34. that our Saturn should attempt to cat his Son, or that our Jupiter should banquet with the Aethiopi­ans on human flesh; if Christians think it sacred to eat and feast upon the Son of God? The Thy­estaean Supper is even by our selves esteemed so foul an action that the Sun could not behold it, and must it be the choisest part of Christian Worship to feed upon human flesh? Is it so prodigious in us to sacrifice our Sons and Daughters to Saturn, Moloch, or to other Demons, and is it not prodigious in you Christians to Sacrifiee the Son of God? Are we reproachful to our Jupiter by Sacrificing to him men, and is it not more infamous in you to Sacri­fice God Man to your Jehovah? Do we pollute our Temples with such Sacrifices, and are yours hal­lowed with the like? Do you conclude it barba­rous to be initiated into the service of Bellona, Sanguinis pabu­lo. Apol. c. 9. Cruoris hausut. Minut. p. 34. Jupiter homici­dio colitur. Minut. 16, by eating, saith Teritullian, by drinking humane blrod, say others; when you your selves are consecrated unto the Service of Jehovah, by drinking of the blood of Jesus? or is it so portentous to sacrifice to Jupiter, with human blood, and yet so pious to sacrifice to your Jehovah with the blood of God? Is it so monstrously absurd for us to think [Page 48]that when we carry an old Shield, Quid de senti­cis jam vitu­state putridis dicam? quae cum & portant, deos ipsos se ge­stare humeris suis arbitrantur Lact. l. 1. c. 21. Non ut Deus obscure per coeli evnlat sydera, sed velut ani­mal brutum vs­hiculum quo. sustineatur petit &c. Arnob. l. 7. p. 249. our God is car­ry'd upon our shoulders, and must it not be equal­ly absurd, for you to think that Wasfer which you carry in your hands, or on your shoulders, should be your Jehovah? Do you laugh at Aesculapius when he appeared like a Serpent, because he flew not in the Air, nor rode upon the Clouds, but only crept upon the earth, and seemed to want a Boat to waft him over, and to preserve him from the Sea; when your new Aesculapius can neither fly, nor wag, without the help of a Mass-Priest, nor pass the Seas without the like assistance? Do you ask what a ridiculous thing it is to hear that Jupiter was so incensed at the death of his Son Justin Cohort. P. 2. Athan. adv. Gent. P. 13. Tanto numini bumana fuerunt praesidia neces­saria. Jul. Firm. p. 20. Sarpe­to preserve him from the attempts of other Gods; and is it lest ridiculous to consider that your God is neither able, nor so much as willing to preserve himself from the attempts of man or beast? Do you reckon it a disgrace to our Palla­dium that when both Troy and Rome were burnt, it was preserved only by the care of man, and is it honorable for you to worship such a God as only is preserved by the same means from fire, thieves, and from brute beasts? Is it rational for you to ask, Quid isti dii pro Romanis possunt qui nihil pro su­is ad versus eo­rum arma valu­crunt. p. 28. as doth Minutius, What can those Gods do for the Romans, who could do nothing for their Vota­ries again the Roman Power? And is it not as ra­tional for us to ask what can that God do for us, should we turn Christians, who could do nothing for his Votaries against the Arms of the Aegypti­ans? [...] Just. ad Diogn. p. 492, 493. Do you conclude that we contemn, affront, reproach these Gods we worship, by shutting of them up, and by appointing Keepers for them, and must not you be also deemed reprochers and contemners of your God, who have your Keepers, [Page 49]Locks and Keys, for the securing of your Con­secrated Wafer? Or is it so ridiculous to see our Jupiter hiding himself from the insidiation of his Father, [...] A than. contra Gent. p. 13. and is it not as worthy of our laughter to see what care you take to hide your God from the incursion of an enemy or the inspection of the Protestant? Or to secure him from the Witch, or the Magician, yea even the Mouse or Rat? Is it an evidence, as your own Jerom hath declared, that what is properly burnt cannot be God, In Es. l. 12. p. 73. B. Hunc homines Deum putant? qui artus ejus & artus ejus & nervos cre­mari, &c. Lact. l. 1. c. 9. [...] Just. ad Diogn. p. 492.493. Quid vos mane­at qui haec co­litis considera­te. Jul. Firmie. p. [...]. and must your Host, which hath so oft been burnt, be the Great God of Heaven? Must the flames our Hercules endured declare he was no God, and will not the like flames declare the same touching your Sacramental Jesus? Is it suf­ficient confutation of our Deities that they may be exposed to rust or rottenness; and is it not as good a confutation of your Wafer God, that he grows musty, and is corrupted in the Stomach? Do you call upon us to consider what judgments may abide us for worshipping that Earth on which the winds do blow, and the rains fall, and is sub­ject to those tremblings which do betray its fears and its infirmities; and may we not entreat you to consider what judgments you may look for, who worship such a God, whom as you fear, and say, the flouds may drown, the wind may blow him quite away, and who hath often by our Earth been swallowed up together with the Temples where he did reside? Doth it become you so magi­sterially to ask touching our Gods, Hiemalia sen­tiant frigora, aut solibus tor­rentur aestivis, &c. Arnob. l. 6. p. 191. Whether they be exposed to winter colds, or summer heats, whether they lie obnoxious to the ineursions of an enemy, or to the bitings of wild beasts? when you your­selves confess your God both may and often hath been subject to these Calamities, and make pro­visions [Page 50]in your Rubricks for his defence against them? Indigetes illi cum ranis & pisciculis de­gunt. Arnob. l. 1. p. 20. Do you laugh at our Indigetes Dii, because they sometimes live with Frogs and Fishes, and may we not as freely laugh at your Sacramental God who doth not only often live with Rats and Mice, and such like vermin, but even creepeth down into their Stomachs and their Guts? [...]; Juit. ad Diogn. p. 49. Do you render us little better than insensate creatures because we worship that which is blind and dumb, that which wants motion, life and sense; and are you men of a much deeper reach who worship for a God that Wafer which is to all ap­pearance as void of life, sense, motion, as any of our Statutes are? Venerabar, O caecitas! lubri­catum lapidem, tanquam ines­set vis praesens adulabar. Ar­nob. l. 1. p. 22. L. 1. C. 20. Do you cry out, O your blindness! because you once did pray to an insensate stone, supposing some Divine virtue had resided in it; and is it lesser blindness to worship a thin Wafer upon the suposition of a Divinity united to it? Doth your Lactantites ask concerning our God Muta, what kindness can the dumb God do unto her Vo­taries; and may not we with reason, say of your Consecrated Wafer, Quid prestare colenti potest qui loqui non potest? Is not our Jupiter [...] i. e. our Scare-fly Jupiter more worthy of our a­doration, Clem. [...] p. 24. then is your Sacramental Jesus, who is not able to scare away or to remove the fly that fals into, or drinks him up? Cease then to pitty us, or to pronounce us blind, as doth your A­thanasius, Contr. Gent. p. 37. because we bear a reverence to what is void of life, when your own blindness doth more ra­tionally deserve our pitty. For do you judg it so absurd that we should venerate a stone like unto these we tread upon, [...]. Juit. ad Diogn. p. 492. and is it not absurd in you to worship what is like unto that bread and wine which goeth down into the draught? Doth it spoil the credit of our Gods, that other Gold and [Page 51]Silver might have been made like them, Just. Mar. ad Diogn. p. 493. had the Ar­tificer so pleased; and must it not then crack the Credit of your Sacramental God, that other Bread and Wine, and other Wafers might, if your Priest had peased to think upon them, been as good Gods as he? Do you laugh at us because when we do Consecrate our Wine unto the Gods, Ne vinum omne quod in callis at que Apothecis est est conditum esse sacrum in­cipiat. Arnob. l. 7. p. 236. Quid est aliud quam dicere tantum esto ma­ctus, quantum vole. Ib. p. 237. Nec carnis nec mentis oculis aspicit quod non potest esse deus, cujus pars igne combusta est. Hieron. in Es. l 12. p. 78. B. Dives afficie­bam contumeliis cum eos esse cre­debam ligna, la­pides, aut in hujusmodi re­rum habitare materia. Ar­nob. l. 1. p. 23. Non prima & maxima contu­melia est habi­tationibus deos habere distri­ctos, tuguriold his dare? Ar­nob. l 6. p. 191 we say mactus hoc vino inferio esto, adding inferio lest we should Consecrate that Wine which is contained in the Vintners Cellars. When any Roman Priest can with four words, and an inten­tion so to do, turn all the Wine in any Merchants Cellar into a Christian God? Do you think it so absurd that what Wine shall be Sacred to the Gods should thus depend upon the will and words of Heathen priests, when it depends upon the words and the intention of a Roman Priest what Wafer, and what Wine shall be transubstan­tiated into the Christians God? Do you ask why we perceive not with the eyes both of our senses and our minds, that what is partly burnt cannot be God; when you yourselves do not perceive that what is partly baked, and partly drunk in Taverns is no God? Do you admire at their blindness who, being Heathens, thought their Gods might dwell in wood or stone, or such like matter, when being Christians you are obliged. to believe your God doth dwell in Pyxes, Chalices, and Bottles, and in the belly of a beast? Do you affirm that we are contumelious to our Gods by shutting of them up in little houses, and making for them little Cotta­ges, and Cells, and Conclaves; and are not you more contumelious to your Jesus by making for, and cooping of him up in a small Pix and Ta­bernacle? bernacle? Is it ridiculous in us to light up Candles [Page 52]in the day time to our Gods; Lucernas meri­die vanas pro­stituere. Tert. Apol. C. 46. p. 35. Lact. l. 2. C. 4. p. 157. and must it not be so in Christians to do the like to their supposed God? Do you deride our Jove because he hat a golden cloth upon him, or is adorned with pretious Gar­ments; and shall not we esteem your God more worthy of our laughter who hath more Cloths and Trappings than a Lord Mayors horse? Do you ask the Heathen, Ab aestibus sese frigorihusque tutari. Arnob. l. 3. p. 1 8. In Alitem, tau­rum, & quod om­nia Genera con­tumeliarum transiliat, in formiculam par­vulam. Arnob. l. 4. p. 145. ib. L. 7. p. 249, 250. whether by clothing of his Gods, he seeketh to defend them from the wind and cold, and heat, and other inuries of the weather, when tis so casie to retort on you the same en­quiry? Is it so prodigious that our Jupiter should turn himself into a Bird, a Bull, a little Ant, that Saturn should be turned into a beast, and Aescu­lapius appear in the more ghastly Visage of a Ser­pent, and it is not as great a prodigy that your own Jesus should be converted into the shape of a thin Wafer, or a drop of Wine? Is it so ridicu­lous to conceive our Jupiter should be contracted into the lineaments of an Ant; Dare ambiguls contradictioni­bus locum essetne veras deus an nescio quid ali­ud longéque ab supera sublimi­tate sejuctum. Arnob. 16. p. 250. [...] p. 33. In Matth. xv. Tertul. in Apol. C. 13. and is it less ridicu­lous to see your Jesus shrink his whole Great self into the smallest crum of Bread, or drop of Wine? If such things gave men reason to suspect that they whom we adored as Gods were at the great­est distance from that sublimity, as your Arnobius saith, permit us to suspect the same of your own Jesus. In fine, is it so great an infamy to our God Fortune, that the Romans brought her to a Dunghil to be dedicated, thinking the draught a proper Temple for that God; and is it not a greater infamy to your own Sacramental Jesus, that, as your Origen declares from his own words, he go­eth down into the draught? Is it so horrid to con­ceive our Saturn should be turned in Cacabulum; and is it not exceedingly more horrid to conceive your God should be converted in illud quod dicere [Page 53]nolo? Let me then speak unto your Fathers, Cujus est pudo­ris, &c. l. 2. p. 93. Erroris alios & stultitiae condemnare & in erroris ejus­dem vitio de­prehendi. l. 3. p. 109. and Apologists, in their own language, I mean the words of your Arnobius, How impudent and shame­less is it to reprehend that in another which you do yourselves? to condemn others of stupidity and error when you yourselves are guilty of like crimes; and object that to the reproch of others which may be presently retorted, and will reflect on you with greater infamy?

§ X Hence we may be assured that the portentous Doctrine of Transubstantiation, Corol. I. and of the Adora­tion of the Host as God, was not acknowledged or received by these Antient Fathers who spake so many things which are most plainly inconsi­stent with, and perfectly destructive both to that Doctrine, and that worship. For, 1. Let any man of reason judg from what hath been dis­coursed, whether all these considerations which have been offered from Scripture, and from the Fathers to expose Heathen Gods to the derision, and reproch of all men, and to reclaim the Hea­then from his Superstitious follies, do not equally concern the Roman Host! For that this Host is Sa­crified and eaten, that it is carried on mens shoulders, or in their arms and hand, and standeth in the place where it is set; that care is taken by them that he may not fall; that he already hath been stoln out of St. Sulpitius Church at Paris, out of the Church at Boloyn, and out of other Churches; that this God hath been carryed Cap­tive, hath been purloyned by Thieves, Magicians and Wizards, that he is under Lock and Key, under the custody of men, and is defended by Human Laws, and vindicated by Human Power, that he is often hid, and hath been often buried in the earth, that he hath been exposed to the [Page 54]flames, and to the injuries of wind and weather, that he is sometimes gnawed upon by things creeping out of the earth, that he hath not the use of eyes to see, or ears to hear, or hands to handle, or feet to go, that he doth dwell and hath been oft inclosed in Pixes, Tabernacles, in Chalices, and Bottles, that he hath Candles lighted to him of which he sees not one, that he is clothed with costly Rayment, is strangely me­tamorphosed, and lastly that by confession of some Roman Doctors he goes down into the draught, all this hath been already shewed, and cannot ra­tionally be denyed, and yet all these are things objected by the Fathers to the reproach of Heathen Deities; these were the chief conside­rations which they offered to prove that Hea­then Gods were but dumb Idols, or inferior Crea­tures, on these accounts they did continually charge the Heathens with Superstition and Idola­try, and did endeavor to dissuade them from the owning of these Gods, the practising that wor­ship which they received from the Tradition of their Fathers. And can it reasonably be ima­gined that they, who thus condemned others, did the same things themselves, and only did in­vite them to exchange their Heathen, for a Chri­stian Deity, subject to all that infamy, contempt, and drollery which they cast upon the Heathen Gods, and way of worship? Can it be reasona­bly thought that all those Fathers, if they had practised, and believed as now the Papists do, would speak such plain and frequent contradicti­ons both to their practice, and their Doctrine, and talk as if they equally intended to confute, and render infamous the worship of the Christian, and the Heathen Deities? Let any reasonable per­son [Page 55]judg whether these apprehensions and asser­tions, ( that to worship as a God what we do eat is an abominable and repugnant worship, a certain indi­cation of the highest folly, stupidity, and the extre­mity of madness,) could proceed from men who dayly worshipped as the Highest God, what they themselves did eat? or whether they who wor­shipped as God that very Host which they did sa­crifice unto God, could solemnly declare, as the forementioned Fathers often do, that to adore as God what we or others Sacrifice, is to be Sacrilegious against God, and ignorant of the true knowledg of God, to be guilty of folly and Atheism; and to do that action which will justly render us a laughing stock to all our neighbors. If this was the deport­ment of all those Holy Fathers, we have just reason to cry out, Ʋbi fides! ubi pudor! and to conclude that they had not one Grain of honesty, or shame, or prudence in them.

Since that this Wafer-worship hath obtained amongst the Latins, what Romanist will say with Origen, the Sacrament, that is the God he wor­ships, according to our Saviours words, is voided at the draught; with Pseudo Justin that what we eat or sacrifice cannot be worthy of the name or honor of a God: With Cyril, that they are rude and stupid who carry up and down their God upon their shoulders, or with St. Chrysostom, that it is an hy­perbole of madness to own that for a God which may be stoln. Since then the Fathers without di­stinction, or exception, do frequently assert these things, and many more of the like nature, it is extremely evident that they were not worship­pers of the Host, as is the present Church of Rome; for if no man would thus speak who doth as the Papists do, surely these Fathers were [Page 56]far enough from Popish practices in this parti­cular.

Moreover let it be considered, 1. Whether the Fathers would afford the Heathens this great ad­vantage to retort all that they argued against the worship of their Gods, and to assert that that which they condemned in them, was only what they dayly practised themselves, and taught all Christians to observe; which certainly they did, if they believed and practised as doth the present Church of Rome.

And, 2. Whether the Heathens, if this occa­sion had been offered, would have been wholly silent, and negligent of this advantage? Put case, I say, these Pagans knew that all which by the Christians was objected against their worship, and their Gods, was of an equal force against the worship of the Christian Host; that this Host was owned by them as the Highest God, and yet was carried in their hands, because it could not go, was kept by Sextons under Lock and Key, was sometimes burnt, and sometimes buried in the carth, that it was clothed with costly Raiment, void of all apparent sense and life as any of the heathen Idols; how could the Heathens, being acquainted with these things, and many others of like nature, abstain from saying, Thou art inex­cusable, O Christian, whosoever thou art, that judgest us on these accounts, for thou that judgest dost the same things. For further confirmation of this Argument consider,

§ XI 1. That the Heathens could not be ignorant of this supposed Article of Christian Faith, and this supoosed practice of the Church of Christ, provided that the Christians really believed, and [Page 57]practised always as doth the present Church of Rome. For,

1. The Fathers do themselves declare that 'twas impossible they should conceal from Pagans what was done in their assemblies; thus, to that false suggestion that Christians did eat the blood of infants, that they were guilty of cating hu­man flesh, it is replyed by Athenagoras, Legat. p. 38. B. that if the Christians did so, it was impossible that ha­ving servants more or less, they ould conceal this from them. We increase dayly, Proficiente mul­titudine reorum quid ita non proficit multitu­do nuntiatorum Nationes. C. 7. Apol. 7, 8. saith Tertul­lian, and the more we do so, the more we must be hated; now the number of the guilty thus increa­sing, how is it that the number of informers is not greather? Our conversation is more known, you know the days on which the Christians meet, you oft beset, detain, oppress us in our private meetings, but yet who ever came upon us whilst we were eating of an Infant; were we guilty of these things, when any persons came to profess the Christian Faith, the Priest must first inform him that such things were to be done, or, Postea cognos­cant necesse est. being once admitted into their Communion, he must behold them done, and how could such a one, saith he, abstain from the divulging of them? And if the Priest did first inform him that if he would become a Christian he must worship that which to all his senses, would seen Bread and Wine, as the Great God of Heaven, or if, being once admitted to the Holy Sacrament, he was instructed so to do, and be­held all other Christians doing so, how could this Proselyte abstain from the divulging of this wor­ship? for this by Infidels and Heathens was al­ways judged, saith Bellarmine, L. 2. de Euch. c. 12. §. 2. Ex illis. a very foolish Pa­radox, this was to worship a new God obnoxi­ous to almost all those follies and infirmities, [Page 58]which had engaged them to renounce their Hea­then Gods.

2. That Christians could not conceal this pra­ctice from the Jew and Gentile, will be extremely evident from this consideration, that many my­riads who embraced the Christian Faith were by the heat of persecution driven back to Paganism, and therefore were concerned to save their cre­dit by divulging what they esteemed most lyable to exception in the Christian Faith, or practice, and therefore to divulge this foolish Paradox, as by the Gentiles, this plain impossibility, as by the Jews it was esteemed. For not to mention the Apostacy of all the Asiaticks, 2 Tim. i. 15. and of Phygel­lus and Hermogens, when Nero raged against the Christians. Euseb. Hist. Ecc. l. 4. c. 15. p. 129. Epist. ad Tra­jan. l. 10. Ep. 97. Euseb. H. Eccles. l. 5. c. 1. p. 156, 160. & c. 2. p. 167. The Apostacy of Quintus the Phry­gian with many others under the persecution of Trajanus, when many who had formerly been Chri­stians declared to Pliny they had ceased to be so, some three, some more, some twenty years ago. Nor the revolt of tose ten Gauls under the Persecution of Aurelius Verus, who fell, with many others from the Christian Faith, nor those who under the sixth Persecution were forced by the severity of torments which Scapula inflicted on them, to desert that Faith: I say not to in­sist on these less notable defections: St. Cyprian complains that by the furty of the eighth Per­secution, Ep. 8. §. 6. Christianity did suffer very much, that they were very few who then stood firm; but they who languished were very numerous; Ep 9. §. 4. that the Church then with tears lamented the fall and funerals of very many; De lapsis §. 2. that there was then a manifold decay of that once numerous people which professed the Chri­an Faith; Ibid. §. 5. that even at the first onset of the threat­ning enemy the greatest number of the Brethren be­trayed [Page 59]their Faith. The like we find recorded by Dionysius of Alexandria even of the chiefest of the Christians, Apud Euseb. Hist. Ecc. l. 6. c. 40. p. 238. B. C. Hist. Eccl. l. 8. C. 2. p. 294. at the first conflict in the tenth Persecution many thousands even of the Rulers of the Church apostatised saith Eusebius. Lastly, who knows not that the Apostate Julian was once a Reader in the Church; and also that he re­ceived Christian Baptism, and as a consequent of that the Blessed Sacrament? That in the time of his Apostacy he prevailed on very many, Hist. Ecll. l. 3. C. 13. Partly by flatteries, partly by bribes, and partly by torments to fly back to heathenism, and to renounce the Christian Faith, as Socrates relates? Now it is absolutely impossible that these Apostates should be ignorant of such a constant and notorious pra­ctice of the Christians, as the adoration of the Host must be, provided that it was then worship­ped by them as their God and Saviour.

§ XII 2. It may deserve to be considered in confirma­tion of this argument that both the Jews and heathens left nothing unobjected which could with any shew of reason, be offered frm any other doctrine or practice of Christianity, or any fame concerning it, though never so ill grounded, against the Deity and Worship of our Lord, Vel impossibile esse vel incon­gruens ut Deus in uterum se mulieris inclu­deret. Lact. l. 4. c. 29. Arnob. l. 7. p. 249. Tatian. p. 159. Lact. l. 4. c. 22. & 29. Ceisus apud Orig. l. 1. p. 51, 54. l. 2. p. 62. Minut. p. 25. or the profession of the Christian Faith. They scoffed at all that any way was lyable to an exception from the Conception of our Lord, to his Ascension. They very frequently declare that 'twas impossible, or at least incongruous that God should be included in a Virgins Womb, and that it is unworthy of a God to be made man, or to appear unto us in the form of man, or to descend unto these lower Regions; that it did not become the son of God to fly to Aegypt, to escape the wrath of Herod; that a body so born, and nourished with meat as our Lords body was, [Page 60]could not be deemed the body of a God, Lact. Ibid. they con­fidently say that Divine Majesty could not subject it self to those infirmities which might expose him to the derision and contempt of men? Were Christ a God, say they, why did he make himself so weak, and so contemptible as to become obnoxious to punish­ment from men? Why did he suffer violence from mortal men? Why did he not repel their force by his Superior power? Why did he not shew forth his Majesty before his death? Why was he haled, as impotent, to the judgment Seat, condemned as a criminal, or slain as mortal? Why lastly was he not able to roul away the stone from his own Sepulchre, Celsus apud Orig. l. 5. p. 269. but needed an Angel to perform that work? Now they who say these things, and offer these, as they supposed, convincing arguments that our Mes­siah could not be the Son of God, or a fit ob­ject of Religious Worship, could not have waved those more plausible pretences to except against his Deity which this supposed adoration of him in the Host afforded. For is it not more incon­gruous that God should be included in the Sto­mach, not only of the vilest wretch, but of the meanest brute, than that he should be for a time included in the hallowed womb of the most Bles­sed Virgin? Is it not less ridiculous to say God once appeared in the form and fashion of a Man, than that he constantly doth lie concealed under the form of Bread and Wine? Is it unworthy of a God to fly to Aegypt? and must it not be more unworthy of him to be carried Captive thither? Is it beneath his Majesty to take upon him the in­firmities of living flesh, and is it not much more beneath him to take upon him the infirmities of dead insensate flesh, and even after his Ascension to come down among us as inactive as Aesops [Page 61]God of Frogs? Is it absurd to say that God des­cendeth to the Earth, and is it not much more absurd to say that he descends into the Stomach or the Draught? Can not that be the body of a God which feeds on ordinary meat, and must that be his body which it self is eaten? Doth not this Sacramental Jesus make himself as weak, and as contemtible, and doth he not as much ex­pose himself to the derision both of Jew and Gen­tile by this conversion into a little Wafer, as ever he was subject to in his infirmest state on Earth? Is he not as unable in the Sacrament to scare a­way the Mouse that gnaws upon him, as in the Sepulcher he seemed to be to roul away the stone? Doth he not shew less power there for the repel­ling of the Thief, the Wizard, the Fly, the Ver­min, than whilst he was on Earth he shewed for the repelling of his Murtherers? Can it rational­ly be supposed that they who did so constantly object all the fore-mentioned particulars to the reproch of Christ, and those that owned and worshipped him as God from the beginning of Christianity, till the full triumph of it over Hea­thenism; should never once object what in all these respects is more ridiculous, had they then known, what if it had been true, they must have known, viz. that this was then the faith and pra­ctice of the whole Christian World, that every Christian believed the Sacrament was truly God, and worshipped it as God? In the declining Ages of the Church, when this Idolatry obtained a­mong Christians, the Jew, Mahometan, and Hea­thens did constantly deride and pour contempt on Christians upon this account. Now the re­proach of Christians is not that they are Galileans, or worshippers of him that hanged on the three, but [Page 62]that they are God-Eaters. Si hostia Deus e [...], [...]r situ ob­ductus corrum­pi [...]? Cur d pteribus & mu­ribus corrodi­tur. Quaest. Jud. Amstel. Edit. An. 1662. p. 346. On this account they do pronounce us, and that deservedly, to be the most absurd and foolish Sect, that ever yet appeared in the world; and ask so boldly, if your Host be God, why is it that by waxing mouldy he corrupts? why is it that the Bats and Mice do gnaw upon him? What then can be the reason that those more sub­tile Heathens, and malitious Jews which lived in former Ages of the Church, should offer nothing of this nature for their own defence, or the con­viction of their adversaries; but only this, that the belief and practice of the Christians of those former times gave no occasion to these objections and retorts?

§ XIII Lastly, To strengthen and confirm the argu­ment, it may deserve to be considered (1.) That the Fathers of the Church do very largely answer, and upon all occasions encounter all the other scruples which did possess the minds of Hereticks, or Heathens, Turpe hoc Deo & indignum hoc Dei filio. Apud Tert. de carne Christi c. 4. Apud August. contr. Faustum Manich. L. 3. Cap. 6. [...] Con. E­phes. Act. 3. p. 335. v. Act. 1. p. 265. [...]. apud Cy­ril. lib. 6. adv. Jul. and make them to suspect our Jesus could not deserve to be adored, or owned as a God, or that he did not really assume the nature and infirmities of man, or verily sustain the igno­minies, and dolors of the Cross. When the Marcionites and Valentinians conceived it was im­proper for the Son of God to be conceived in the Womb; the Manichees that it was an unworthy thing to think the God of Christians should issue from a Womb; when Nestorius declared that he could not endure to worship one that was two months old, or nourished with milk. When Julian scoffed at the Christians for saying that the Virgin Mary was the Mother of God; when they, I say, suggested all these things, the Fathers spared no pains to satisfie them in all these par­ticulars. Lactantius doth for this very reason in­sist more largely on one of these particulars, be­cause, [Page 63]saith he, this very apprehension, L. 4. c. 29. p. 448. that it was impossible, or at the least incongruous, that God should be included in a Virgins Womb, was that which cau­sed many to turn Hereticks. Now since it is ex­tremely evident that it is more improper, incon­gruous, unworthy, to think the God of Christians should descend into, and be included in the sto­mach of the most vile communicant, in every Pyx and Bottle that contained the species of consecra­ted bread and wine, in every flye that suck'd in the least drop of Holy Wine, or every Mouse that swallowed the least crum of Hallowed bread, why is it that these Holy Fathers do never offer the least word to rid this greater scruple out of the minds of men? or to Apologize for this portentous incongruity, compared to which, all that the Here­tick or Heathen could object were very trifles? Why do they not consider one of all those great objections against the adoration of their Sacra­mental Jesus, which from their very words we have collected? If you reply that they had no occasion so to do, because this adoration, nor any of the consequents thereof, were ever scrupled by the worst of Hereticks. I answer this is very true, that among all the formentioned Hereticks, and many other, who were so highly scandalized at the humiliation of our Saviour, that they denyed either his Deity or his Humanity, or the reality of all his sufferings, we find not one that ever did except against the adoration of him in the Sacra­ment, against the eating of their God, the mixing of him with their spittle, or with the ferment of the most depraved stomach; during a thousand years we find not one complaint from any Here­tick that any Christians owned or worshiped a God who presently went down into their stomachs, [Page 64]and was exposed to the teeth of vermine; this re­ply therefore I confess is true, but then it is the strongest confutation of the adoration of the Host, and that Transubstantiation which the Romanists assert, that can be possibly conceived, it being ab­solutely impossible for any rational person to ima­gine that all those Myriads of Hereticks should be so highly scandalized at the Cross of Christ, and those infirmities he suffered in the flesh, and yet that neither they, nor any other Christian should, for a thousand years, once scruple, or be scanda­lized at those greater imperfections, and more pal­pable absurdities which this supposed Sacramental God was subject to; nay more, that they should all believe, and should allow that doctrine, and that practice which did most palpably refute those very Heresies which they had broached: this be­ing a most perfect demonstration against the Ebi­onites, Photinians, and all those swarms of Here­ticks who questioned the Deity of Christ, that he was worshipped with Latria in the Sacrament, only upon the presumption of his Deity, and therefore, if he there deserved that worship, must be God. And this is also a perfect demonstration against the Marcionites, Docetae, Valentinians, and all those Hereticks who held that Christ assumed apparent, but not substantial flesh, that he had only the appearance of a body, but no true real body, and against the Nestorians, and Eutychians, who taught, that after Christs ascension his human na­ture was absorpt and changed into the divine; against all these, I say, this is a perfect demonstration, that in the Sacrament Christs Body and his Flesh are truly and substantially contained, and therefore that he had a true substantial body, and that his human nature still remains. At the close of the twelfth [Page 65]Century, when this Idolatry began to shew it self among the Latins, how many Myriads were bran­ded with the name of Hereticks for their stiff op­position, both to this practice, and to the do­ctrine on which it doth depend; and can it be imagined that in all former Ages of the Church of Christ, in which so many Heresies abounded, not any single person should once have broached this new Heresie, more obvious than any of them all, had the known doctrine and practice of all for­mer Ages administred the like occasion fo to do? [...]. Gr. p. 29. lin. 50. [...] ib. p. 30. lin. 1. (2.) These Fathers in their Apologies do very carefully take notice of any thing delivered by them which they imagined the Heathens might retort upon them. When Theodoret had confu­ted the Heathen Polytheism, and had confronted to it the Rule of Moses and of Christ, Who, saith he, doth command us to worship the Creater only, N.B. he adds, that they perhaps may say the Christians are not observers of the rule, because they worship the whole Trinity, and not the Ʋnity exclusively. [...]. p. 104. lin. 50. And then he gives a copious Answer to that objection. In his seventh book having derided Pagan Deities, because they seemed to be pleased with the blood and fat of beasts, he very honestly confesseth that Heathens might plausibly object the like against the God of Israel, Contra Julian. l. 4. p. 125. D. because he also did require such Sacrifices to be offered to him. The very same obje­ction is taken notice of, [...] Cyril. contra Jul. l. 1. p. 9. A. and answered by Cyril of Alexandria. Again the Fathers frequently ob­ject unto the Heathens that diversity of Sects, and of opinions which was to be found among their Philosophers, but then they spare not to acknow­ledge that this objection may be retorted against them, and then proceed to give what answer they think fit unto it. And when Tertullian had argu­ed [Page 66]that the Heathen Gods must be unjust, Hot utique in Deum vestrum repercutere est. Apol. c. 41. if they by reason of the faults of Christians were induced to hurt their own Votaries, he adds, that Hea­thens might retort this argument upon the Christians God, and then proceeds to vindicate his God from that objection. And yet, if in his days the Romish Sacramental God had by all Christians been ac­knowledged and adored, not only this particular, but almost all that he, and the forementioned Fa­thers had offered against the Heathen Deities, might have been evidently retorted, as we have seen already, on the Christians God. Why there­fore did they not confess ingenuously in all those cases, hoc & in Deum nostrum repercutere est, that they might be retorted on the Christians God? and spend some time in vindication of their Sa­cramental God from these retorts?

§. XIV 3. From what hath been discoursed, Gorol. II. we have as great assurance as sense and reason, and the concurrent judgment of mankind can tender, that the Host cannot be truly God, and consequently that the Trent Council doth oblige all Christians, as much as in them lyes, to worship that as God which is not truly so, and that the Members of the Roman Church are guilty of Idolatry by giving to it that worship which is due to God alone. This charge, I know, doth very much afflict the Romanists, because they clearly see that if it be made good against them, our Church is justified in her refusal of communion with them; seeing without consenting to, and frequent practice of Idolatry, we cannot be admitted to communion with them, whence it will naturally follow that their Church must be as truly guilty of a wretched Schism, as Jeroboam and his ten tribes were, and consequently that the Major part of the Western [Page 67]Church may be Schismaticks, by virtue of these impositions; and that no persons separating, on the account of the Idolatry required by the Church of Rome, from the external communion of that Church, can incur the guilt of Schism: that the Roman and other Western Churches united with it, and the supposed head thereof, St. Peter's imagi­nary Successor, is not that true Church-guide to which we are obliged to submit: that a reforma­tion may be lawful against the definitions of that Church: that abuses in Doctrine and practice may be reformed by a National Church against, and then much more without that Authority: that National Churches and Councils are not absolutely subject to Patriarchal. Hence doth it plainly fol­low that the doctrine of Transubstantiation, the Sacrifice of the Mass, the half Communion, must be false: hence also it is evident that we cannot safely acquiesce in the judgment of the Major part of our Church Governours, concerning either the sense of Scripture, the Doctrine of the ancient Church, or the consent of Fathers, or any article of faith defined by them, nor safely practise all they do impose; and consequently we may rest assured they are not infallible, and therefore that there is no necessity for preservation of the Church from Sects and Heresies, that they should be infallible, nor is there any promise of an infallible assistance in their definitions in the Holy Scripture; nor can it possibly be necessary to Salvation to believe the determinations of those Councils which by the Romanists are styled general. Hence also it is evident that there can lye upon us no obligation to believe or yield assent to any Doctrines defined by them, and consequently that this submission is not the only means of suppressing Heresies and [Page 68] Sects; that to dissent from any Doctrine received or defined by them can be no mark of Heresie; that there may be great hazard to the vulgar in adhe­ring to the decisions of that Church, that a right judgment may be assured; that these Church Gover­nours have erred in making this decision; that Christians without this infallibility may be suffici­ently secure in points of faith; that certainty from sense and reason may rationally be pleaded for some Doctrines against the definitions of that Church, and her supposed General Councils; that all that R. H. hath said for confirmation of any of these propositions must be false. And lastly, that if a Church committing and teaching Idola­try is no true member of the Catholick Church, the Church of Rome must cease to be so.

CHAP. III.

The Contents.

The objections of the Romanists against the charge of Idolatry are considered and answered; as 1. The Ob­jection that the Prophets have foretold that all Ido­latry should be extirpated by the preaching of Christ and his Apostles, is answered. §. I. Obj. 2. That if the Church of Rome be guilty o Idolatry then the whole Church of Christ, for many Ages, before Luther, must be charged with the same guilt, an­swered first in general. §. II.. In particular by shewing, (1.) That Image Worship was not then received in the greatest part of the Western, and in some part of the Eastern Church. §. III. (2.) That the worship of Saints departed with mental prayer, or upon supposition of their acquain­tance with the secret desires of the supplicant, was then no article of faith in the Western Church; nor is it yet received in the Eastern Church as such. §. IV. (3.) That many in the Western Churches did not then, and that the Eastern Churches do not yet give Latria to the Host. §. V. That this practice is no necessary consequent of the Doctrine of Transub­stantiation, nor is it necessary that they who do maintain a Doctrine must practise every thing which follows from it. ibid. A large account of the Greek Mass. § VI. A full answer to all that R. H. offers from that Mass, to prove the Host is worshipped with Latria by the Greeks. §. VII. In the times of Arianism Idolatry prevailed over the major part of the Church Catholick, and both [Page 70]the Fathers and the Romish Doctors teach that in the time of Antichrist it will prevail much more. §. VIII.

§ I THESE being therefore unavoidably the consequences of this crime of which they are accused, not only by the Church of England, but all other Protestants, they do with all their wit and subtilty endeavour to demonstrate the falseness of this ac­cusation, and muster up whatsoever they are able to produce and plead for their excuse. And there­fore whatsoever of this nature I have met with in their writings, I will impartially consider, and then shall leave it to the judgment of the discern­ing Reader to determine whether that which they offer in their own defence doth carry in it any weight proportionable to what we have discour­sed here, and other treatises have offered, to justi­fie this accusation of the Church of England.

Object. 1 And, 1. It is objected, that the Scripture doth inform us, and the Prophets have foretold us, that all Idolatry should be extirpated by the preaching of Christ and his Apostles, and that his Kingdom was always to continue, and therefore that the Church of Christ could not apostatize so far as to enjoyn and allow the belief and practice of Idola­try. If Doctor Stilling fleet will not deny, saith, T. G. what God hath promised by the Prophet Zacha­ry, Behold, P. 125. the days come, and I will destroy the names of Idols from off the earth, and the memory of them shall be no more; and this not for four or five hundred years, but to the end of the world, for the Kingdom of Christ is to continue always, let him give glory to God, and acknowledge his charge of Idolatry to be false, and that Christ hath done [Page 71]what he promised to do, that is, to deliver us from all Idolatry. Answer 1 Now to this slender Argu­ment, I answer, that the same Prophets have in­formed us that God did promise to put his laws into the hearts of Christians; Jer. xxxi. 33. Esa. xi. 9. Esa. lx. 21. that they should never depart from him, that the knowledge of the Lord should cover the earth as the waters cover the Sea; that the people of Zion should be all righteous. Let then T. G. give glory to God, acknowledge that the Church of Rome, which by their own confessions, and upon evident proof from all the writers of these Ages, was over-run by ignorance and barbarity, and overwhelmed with wickedness, during the 10, 11, 12, 13. Centuries, was not the Church of Christ, or else confess the vanity of his own infe­rence. Moreover the same Prophets have infor­med us that the preaching of the Gospel should have this influence upon the world, that they should beat their swords into plow-shares, Mich. iv. 3. Hos. xi. 18. Esa. xi. 9. and their spears into pruning books; that Nation shall not lift up a sword against Nation, neither shall they learn war any more; that he would remove the bow, the sword, and the battle out of the earth, and would make them to lye down in safety, and that they should not hurt or destroy in all his holy mountain. Let then T. G. give glory to God, and acknow­ledg that Rome Christian which hath been the cause of more wars, and shed more blood than even Rome Heathen did, is very unlike to be Christs holy mountain, or else confess the weakness of what he thus infers from this passage of the Pro­phet Zachary. Let him charge God with the fai­lure of his promise, or confess that all these places do only shew that the Doctrine of the Gospel doth naturally tend to work these blessed effects in all that cordially embrace it, though through [Page 72]the perverseness, lusts, the superstition and cor­rupt interests of men, it be far otherwise; and then he hath an answer to this slender scruple, viz. that what he cites from Zachary doth not affirm that after the coming of our Saviour there should be no Idolatry amongst professors of Christianity, but only that his Doctrine had a signal tendence to the extirpation of it, did not the wickedness and superstition of men, deserted by God, and given up to the delusions of the Devil, incline them to the practice of it. 3. The words of Za­chary do only say that God would cot off Idols out of the Land (of Judah) not out of the whole earth; he doth not say that God would cut off all Idols, but only the names of those Idols which they formerly had worshipped; in which sense in was admirably true, for after their return from Babylon they superstitiously abstained from that I­dolatry, which they had formerly committed. And, 4. This objection may be as speciously ur­ged by the Arian Idolaters, and the whole Hea­then world, as by the Roman Church; for since the words of Zachary, as they are rendred by T. G. contain a promise that God would cut off the names of Idols from the earth, it doth as much assure us that after the coming of our Saviour, and after the promulgation of his Gospel, through the world, there should remain no Idols, nor any worship of Idols in the whole surface of the earth, as that there should remain no Idols amongst those who do profess the Christian Faith.

§ II If the Church of of Rom. R. H. disc. p. 75. say they, be guilty of Idolatry in worshipping the Host, or Images; or praying to departed Saints, then the whole Church of Christ for many Ages before Luther, must have been guilty of Idolatry; for the same [Page 73]practices, say they, for which we do affirm the Church of Rome to be Idolatrous, are, and for many Ages were used in the Eastern Church. Answ. That the same practices on the account of which we do affirm the Church of Rome is guilty of Idolatry are, and for many Ages before Luther were used in the whole Church of Christ, can never be made good by Roman Catholicks; in answer therefore to this whole Argument it is sufficient barely to deny, what they precariously do assert in this particular; and call upon them to prove that which they do with so much con­fidence affirm, by some more cogent and effe­ctual medium than the pretended silence of Histo­rians touching such persons as did not comply with this Idolatry. For, 1. There is no neces­sity that all who did not inwardly believe these Doctrines, should outwardly declare so much, when they considered that they were likely to do themselves the greatest mischief by a free decla­ration of their minds, and the Church but little good, by reason of the prevalency of these er­rors, Multa hujusmo­di propter non­nullarum vel sanctarum vel turbulentarum personarumscan­dala liberius improbare non audeo. Epist. ad Januar. p. 372. Dementie est ti­bi pernitiem accersere, si nul­li prosis. Apud Hotting. Hist. Eccl. Sect. 16. Part. 2. p. 29. Vid. etiam. p. 24, 25. and the blind Zeal of many for them. For if St. Austin in his days found reason to com­plain that some corruptions had so generally ob­tained that though he judged they ought to be redressed, yet, as he tells us, he durst not freely disapprove them: it is no wonder that, in these latter times of wretched ignorance and looseness, men should be more shy of reprehending those corruptions which in their judgments they di­sliked, concluding with Erasmus that it was madness (though they were convinced as, he saith, he was, that it was very good that some things should be changed that had obtained in the Church:) to hazard their own lives by speaking [Page 74]their minds freely, when they could do but lit­tle good, and being more desirous it should be done by others than themselves. Who knows not that when the reformation was begun by Zuingli­us, and Luther, they were encouraged, and ap­proved of by the best and the most learned of that Age? And that innumerable persons did presently embrace and testifie their approbation of their Doctrine, which is an evidence beyond exception of their good inclinations to it. Doth not Elias complain that all besides himself in Israel had shamefully revolted to Idolatry? and yet we are assured by God himself that the was certainly deceived. And if such a great Prophet erred in his judgment, touching his own time, and his own Country, why may not you mistakein thinking that in the former Ages of the Church, all the professed members of it did bow the knee to your Baal?

2. There is no necessity there should be Histo­ries or Records of all those persons who disliked any of the practices which commonly obtained in the Church; Apud Hott. Hist. Ecc. Sec. 16. Part. 2. p. or were possessed with that hatred of the false worship generally received, Cat. test. ver. l. 19. p. 867. as Wesselus was: or said as did Domitius Calderinus, when by his friends constrained to go to Mass, Eamus sanè ad communes errores. Nor,

3. Is it necessary that all the Histories and Re­cords of this kind which have been written should remain, and much less that they should continue perfect and uncorrupted, especially con­sidering your Church, which had lately all the power in her hand, hath been so wickedly indu­strious by her Indices expurgatorii to corrupt all Histories, Records, and Monuments of Antiqui­ty which make against her. But to omit all these advantages, I shall ex abundanti shew the falshood [Page 75]of this suggestion in all those three particulars out of those Records which yet remain, and have es­caped her destructive hands: And,

§ III 1. Idolatry, as it imports [...], The worship or religious service of an Idol, or the similitude of any thing in heaven or earth made to be worshipped in the service of Reli­gion; I say Idolatry, in this, which is the prime and natural import of the word, was not the practice of the whole Church of Christ for ma­ny Ages before Luther: For, 1. The German and the French Churches, saith Cassander, Consult. Cap. de Imag. p. 201. after the Council held at Frankfort, most constantly conti­nued for some Ages in that sentence which they first received from the Church of Rome, viz. That Images were neither to be broken nor yet to be worship­ped. If then the German and French Churches con­tinued firm in this opinion for some Ages after the Council held at Frankford A. D. 794. they must have constantly maintained it in the VIII. and the IX. Centuries. And that they held the same opinion in the IX. Century is evident from Ago­bardus Bishop of Lyons, who was make Bishop by consent of the whole Clergy of that Nation. For he wrote a Book against this Image-Worship, Sect. 30. wherein he hath declared, that it is contrary both to Scripture and Tradition and the Doctrine of the Old Roman Church; Sect. 35. and also that whosoever wor­ships any molten or graven Image doth not honor God, Quod omnes tum in Gallia ut eti­am Sirmondo observatum est consentiebant Balhuz. Not. in Agobar. p. 88. or Angles, or holy men, but Idols; and in which he doth fully Answer the exceptions and evasi­ons of the Roman party. And yet Balbuzius and Sirmondus do ingenuously confess that Agobardus hath writ only that which the whole Church of France did then acknowledge. Moreover in this IX. Century the Second Nicene Synod was declared [Page 76]to be a Pseudo Synod, or falsly to retain the name of Synod, L. Contra Hinc­mar. Laudun. Cap. 20. Ad. A. D. 792. A. D. 794. Chrot. A. D. 794. because it Decreed for Image-worship, by Hincmarus Rhemensis, and Ado Viennesis. In the X. Century it is so stiled by Regino Abbas Pru­miensis, In the XI. by Hermannus Contractus an Author of great Credit and Reputation in the world. And that the Germans continued of the same mind in the XII. Century, Lib. 2. de Imp. Isaachi An­gel. F. 199. is evident from the plain words of Nicetas Choniates who saith that then among the Germans and Armenians the worship of Holy Images was equally forbidden. And that the French Church then believed the Doctrine of the Second Nicene Council to be against the definition of the Orthodox and Antient Fathers, is evident from the Continuator of Aimoinas, De Gestis Fran­corum, l. 5. c. 28. who plainly tells us that the Fathers of the Nicene Synod otherwise decreed concerning Image=worship, than the Orthodox Doctors had before defined. And Ivo Bishop of Chartres then declared this to be the judgment of the Council of Eliberis, Nos illas non adoramus, l. 1. c. 3. Num. 1. that Pictures ought not to be worshipped, but that they only should be memorials of what is worshipped. Was it then received by the French Church in the XIII. Century? No, Durandus a French Bishop in his Rationale doth expresly say, we do not wor­ship Images; and he moreover gives this admo­nition to them that do so, L. 4. C. 39. N. 3. If neither men, nor Angels are to be worshipped, let them consider what they do who under pretence of Piety do worship di­vers Images, for it is not Lawful to worship that which is made with hands. Was it then received in the XV. Comp. Theol. in explic. praecepti primi. Ed. Paris. 1606. Century? No, Gerson Chancellor of Paris who flourished Anno Domini 1420. saith, we do not worship Images, and that they are forbid­den to be worshipped, and that the words of the commandment, Thou shall not bow down to them [Page 77]nor worship them, must be thus interpreted, Thou shall not bow thy body or thy knees unto them, thou shall not worship them with the affection of thy mind. When therefore was it that this Image-worship obtained in the Gallican Church? Answ. Pithoe­us doth ingenuously confess that it is but of yesterday; If we be willing, saith he, Praes. in Hist. P. Diaconi. seriously to confess the truth, it is but very lately that our people began to be in love with Images.

Moreover in the VII. Century it was condem­ned by Karolus Rex Franciae misit Synodalem li­brum ad Bri­taniam, sibi à Constantinopoli directum, in quo, proh dolor, mul­ta inmconvenien­tia & verae fidei contraria repe­richantur, max­imè quod poene omnium Orien­talium docto­rum unanimi assartione con­firmatum fuerit, Imagines ado­rari debere, quod omnino Eccle­sia Dei execra­tur, contra quod scripsit Albinus Epistolam ex authoritate di­vinarum Scri­pturarum mira­biliter dictatam illamque cum eodem Synodali libro in persona Episcoporum & principum nostrorum Regi Francorum attulit. Hoveden Annal. Part. 1. ad. A. D. 792. Simeon Dunelm. ad. A. D. 793. M. Weslmo­nast. A. D. 793. Alcuinus (Tutor to Charles the Great, and Scholar of Venerable Bede) who wrote an Epistle against the Synodal Book of the Second Nicene Council, wherein it was asserted that Images ought to be worshipped; which Epistle be­ing marvelously confirmed by the Authority of the Holy Scriptures, he carried to the French King in the name of the English Bishops and Prin­ces. This Image-worship was condemned also by the Church of England in the XII. and XIII. Centuries: For Simon Dunelmensis an Oxonian Doctor, and Roger Hoveden their chief Professor, and Matthew Westmonasteriensis do all concurr in this assertion, that in the Second Nicene Synod are many things contained which are inconvenient, and contrary to the true faith, and that in that Council was established a Decree that Images should be worshipped, which thing the Church of God wholly abhors. Where note that in these Wri­ters we find not the least hint of a distinction be­twixt due and undue worship of an holy Image, or betwixt worship which the Church of Christ allows, [Page 78]and worship which the Church abhors, nor do they say the Nicene Council doth assert eam adorati­onem Imaginibus deberi quam Ecclesia Dei execratur, P. 146. as T. G. in his translation of these words, doth very fraudulently insinuate, but they say only that the second Nicene Council had declared Imagines adorari debere, quod Ecclesia Dei execratur, that Ima­ges were to be worshipped, and that this was the Doctrine which Gods Church abhorred.

It was condemned in the XIV. Century, by Robert Holcot, one of our Country men, and Pro­fessor in Oxford, Com. in lib. Sap. Cap. 13. voce Infelices. who plainly doth assert, That no adoration is to be given to any Image, nor is it lawful for any man to worship Images.

It was condemned in the XV. Century, by Gabriel Biel, In canone Mis­sae. lect. 49. an Oxonian Doctor, who determines that to be the truest Sentence which holds, That a­ny Image is not to be worshipped, either for it self con­sidered as it is wood, or stone, or metal, nor yet conside­red as a sign er Image. And that the Christian faith permits them to be reserved in the Church, non ut ipsae adorentur, not that they should be worshipped, but that the minds of faithful men might be excited to give reverence to them whose Images they are.

It was condemned, in the same Century, by Cornelius Agrippa, De vanit. sci­entiarum. cap. de Imagin. who saith, That the corrupt custom and false Religion of the Heathens hath infected our Religion, and hath introduced into our Church Images and Idols, and many barren pompous Cereonies, none of which were found or practised among the pri­mitive professors of Christianity. It was condem­ned by Polydore Virgil, De invent. re­rum. l. 6. c. 13. who doth acknowledge that it is testified St. Jerom, that almost all the anti­ent Fathers did condemn Image-worship for fear of Idolatry.

It was condemned in the XVI. Century, by the excellent Cassander, who saith, Consult. cap. de Imagin. P. 205. It was to be desired that our predecessors had stood firm in the opinion of their Forefathers, viz. that I mages were neither to be worshipped, nor to be broken down. And page 210, It seemeth fit, saith he, to be advised, if matters could be thus contrived, that things should be reduced to that moderation which they obtained in the more an­tient Church of Rome, and Germany, and France; ut rerum gerendarum monumenta, non cultus instru­menta habeantur, that is, that Images be used or retained as monuments of things past, but not as in­struments of worship.

It was condemned in the same Century, Com. in Act. Apost. cap. 7. by Ferus a very Learned Person, who Preached at Mentz: for the expresly saith, that Images are to lerated in the Church, that they may admonish, not that they may be worshipped, for otherwise they can admit of no excuse. And to assure us that his pri­vate judgment was very sutable to the prevailing judgment of those times, we find the same deter­mination made by a Council held at Mentz. A.D. C. 14. 1549. during the Session of the Trent Council, which speaks thus, Let our Pastors accurately teach the people that Images are not propouuded to be wor­shipped or adored, but that we may by them be brought to the remembrance of those things which we ought pro­fitably to call to mind.

It was condemned also by the Church of Co­logn, In Antididag. Colon. cap. de Imag. which saith thus, We Christians, when we bend our knees before the Image of the Holy Cross, do not adore the very wood, but him who died upon it for our sins, and doth conclude with Gregory the Great, that it is not lawful in any wise to worship any thing that is the work of our own hand.

Moreover, from the XII. Century to the Re­formation, it was condemned by the Waldenses, the Albigenses, and the Hussites, who spread them­selves throughout the greatest part of Europe, and propagated their Doctrine through France, Spain, England, Scotland, Italy, Germany, Bohe­mia, Saxony, Polonia, Lithuanid, and other Na­tions.

Lastly, Dr. Still. de­fence. p. 837.838. This Image-worship was condemned by the Armenians, from the VI. Century, to this present time. For they having begun their Schism before this practice found any countenance in the Church of Christ, not only do refuse to worship Images, but roundly do pronounce Anathema on them that do so.

§ IV 2. We say the Roman Church is guilty of Idolatry in worshipping the Saints departed, because they worship them with mental prayer, believing that they understand the secrets, or inward motions of the hearts of them who put up to them mental prayers. Now this we say was never any Article of Faith, Sess. 25. p. 527, 528. even in the Latine Church, till the Trent Council had determined that they who said it was a foolish thing to put up mental prayers to Saints depar­ted were guilty of impiety, and did pronounce Ana­thema On all that held or thought the contrary; till then, I say, it was no Article of Faith, even in the Western Church: For in the XII. Century, this Question was moved by the Master of the Senten­ces, whether the Saints do hear the prayers of sup­pliants, and the desire of petitioners do come unto their notice; and this Answer is returned to it, that it is not incredible that the souls of the Saints, Lomb. Sent. l. 4. Dist. 45. which in the secret of Gods presence are joyed with the illustration of the true light, do in the contemplation of it understand the thing that we done abroad, as [Page 81]much as appertaineth either to them for jay, or to us for help. Anselmus Landunensis who lived in the same Century notes this, that Ausim saith, Glass inter [...]. i [...] Esa. lxiii. that the dead, even the Saints, do not know what the living do, no not their own sons. L. 2. de animd. Hago de Sancto Victore saith that, the spirits of the dead be there where they do neither hear nor see the things that are done, or fall out to men in this life; and again the dead indeed to not know what is done here whilst it is here in doing; Decr. p. 2. Caus. 13. qu. 2. cap. 29. and Gratian resolveth the same question by the Authority of Esaiah. In Sun. Part. 4. l. 3. Tr. 7. qu 6. cap. de Orat. In the XIII. Century we are informed by Altissiodorensis that many did affirm that we do only pray impro­perly unto Saints, because we pray to God that by the merits of the Saints we may be helped. N. B. And Alexander Halensis determines that God alone is simply to be invoked, Qu. 92. M. 1. Art. 4. and that the Saints rather pray with us, than are prayed to by us. In the XIV. Cen­tury, Gabriel Biel having set down the reasons which in his time were urged against this opinion that the Saints departed knew the desires of men on earth, In Can. Miss­lect. 30. confesseth that they moved not only He­reticks but other Christians to deny it, and at the last concludes no more than this, that it is probably said that God reveals all things which are offered to them by men, whether in magnifying and praising them, or in praying to them, Ibid. iect. 31. In 4. Sent. dist. 45. qu. 4. and imploring their help. And the determination of Scotus is in effect the same, viz. That it is probable that God doth specially reveal to him that is in bliss such of our prayers as are offered to him. Pr [...]oe [...] in quest. de orat. sancto­rum, &c. Miss­in Bibl. C [...]ll. Mert. Oxon. And John Sharp in the University of Oxford, did publickly dispute these questions, of praying to the Saints, and praying for the dead: because, saith he, it was esteemed by some famous men, and not without probability, N. B. that such suffrages and prayers [Page 82]were superfluous in the Church of God, although some wise men thought the contrary; whence it appears that what is now de fide, (if indeed it be so) was then only probable; and might as free­ly have been denyed by Orthodox and Pious Chri­stians, and persons famous in their times, as by reputed Hereticks. Aen. Snlv. de Orig. Eohem. c. 35. Ep. 19. ad Joh. Molin. p 1 109. Edit. Paris. 16 16. In Cant Serm. 6. Hist. Bohem. cap. 35. In the XV. Century the Thabo­rites maintained that the Saints Triumphant were not to be prayed to. And in the XVI. Century Cassander freely doth confess that it was not necessa­ry to hold that the Saints did understand our prayers. And of this judgment were the Waldenses from the XII. Century to the Reformation, of whom St. Bernard doth confess that they derided them who prayed to Saints. Aeneas Sylvius that they judged in vain to ask the suffrages of Saints departed seeing they could not help us; Adv. Sectam Valdens. p. 68. and Seysel adds that they affirmed that the petitions which were put up unto the Blessed Virgin, or any other Saints, were vain. Now these Waldenses had such multitudes of followers as caused Bernard to complain; Bern. Ep. 240. That by reason of them, the Churches were left without people, and the people without Priests.

2. Although some of the Eastern Churches do put up their petitions to Saints departed, yet they ingenuously confess they do it not upon an apprehension that the Saints do hear them, but only because they judg this service acceptable to God whether they hear or not, they therefore may be rationally charged with superstition in this case, but not with that Idolatry which is now taught and practised, or at the least allowed of by the Church of Rome; because they do not pray to Saints departed, upon such principles as do ascribe unto them the knowledg of the heart, or do require or suppose in them any farther know­ledg [Page 83]than is consistent with a creature: this will be evident from the confession of the Greek Pa­triarch, 1 Resp. Patri­arch.Hierem. ad Theol. wir­t [...]b. cap. 21. who saith in the behalf of his whole Church: We do not invocate properly the Sai is, but God, for neither Peter nor Paul hear any of those that invocate them, but the grace and gift that they have according to the promise, I will be with you to the end of the world. 2. This will be still more probable from that opinion which is gene­rally received among them, viz. that the Saints before the day of judgment, do net enjoy the beatifick Vision; this is the judgment of the Sacra [...]s p. 24. Russians, the [...]. p. 13. Moscovites, the Scarga. l. 2. c. 12. Greek Church; of the Bricrw p. 154. Armenians and Bricrw p. 174, 179. Marenites and more especial­ly of the Brierw p. 154. Jacobites who believe that the souls of just men do remain on the earth till the day of judgment. Now in the judgment of the most famous Doctors of the Church of Rome our pray­ers are only to be directed to such Saints as do enjoy the Beatifick Vision.

§ V That practice which we now insist on as the most clear and undeniable conviction of the Ido­latry committed in the Roman Church, viz. the adoration of the Host as God, was not in any Age before the Reformation, nor at the Reformation, nor is it yet the practice of the whole Church of Christ.

For, 1. The Doctrine of Transubstantiation on which it depends, was V. Dr. whithy Idol. of the R. ch. p. 87, 99, 100. by the confession of some learned Romanists, no Doctrine of Faith be­fore the Council of Lateran, and if it had not been for that Council, it might, say they, even now be lawful to oppugne it; It was, say others, not very antient, it was determined of late; the truth of which confessions hath been irrefragably made good by Mr. Aubertin.

2. About the time of the Reformation this Doctrine was not owned by all Christian Churches; Albertin. p. 965.977, 978, 982, 986, 987. for 'twas rejected by the Lollards in England, the Waldenses in the Confines of France and Italy, by the Thaborites and Hussites in Bohemia. Brierw p. 173. V. Joh. Lasic. de Rel. Arm. Lit Aethrop. Alphons. Jes. Edit. A. 1626. It was then, and is still rejected by the Armenians, as is apparent from the testimony of Nicephorus and their own Liturgy, and by the Habissines, or midland Aethiopians, whose Liturgy, as even the Jesuites confess, is stuffed with errors, and among others with this that they affirm the bread to be Christs body, which, as Bellarmine and others do confess, can be true only in a Figura­tive and Metaphorick sense.

2. Although we should admit that all the Eastern Churches do at present hold that Christs body is corporeally present in the Holy Sacra­ment, yet hence it will not follow, as some Ro­manists conceive, that they do worship with La­tria this most Holy Sacrament: For our Lords Body is no due object of Latria, and that his Soul and his Divinity is there united to his body, they do not affirm, nor can it be collected from these words, this is my body broken, and my blood shed for you, his body broken, and his blood shed, being his body and his blood disunited, or in a state of actual separation from his soul: if you collect from reason, that if his body be there pre­sent, his Divinity must be there also, because it is united hypostatically to the body, and therefore never separated from the body, as R. H. Fre­quently insinuates. I answer, 1. That if we must not be permitted to use our reason to con­fute this Doctrine, neither are you to use your reason to establish it; for why a demonstration against a Doctrine should not as well destroy the [Page 85]supposed truth of that Doctrine, as a demon stration for it should confirm its truth, I am not able to conceive. Besides, is it a contradiction to assert that Christs Almighty power may repro­duce his body, not thus united to his soul, and his Divinity, or not! If it be not, then may his body be thus extant in the Holy Sacrament: If you say it is a contradiction to assert that the same body should be united to the word and not united; I Answer, if the same body of our Lord, may be both eaten, and not eaten, eaten by them who have received the Host, and not eaten by them who have not yet received, eaten in the Host received, not eaten in the Host reserved, if it may be under the species of bread, and not under the species of bread, under the species of bread as it is in the Holy Sacrament, and not under the species of bread as it is in Heaven; why may it not be united to the word, and not united to the word, united to the word as it is in Heaven, but not united to the word as it lies sensless on the Altar. When therefore R. H. doth so often mind us that Christ body was never separated from the divi­nity. I Answer, that this is a most certain truth, when it is spoken of his Natural and Glorified body, but is not so when it is spoken of his Sacra­mental body, of which ten thousand things may be asserted, which agree not to his Celestial body.

3. As it is certain that the Lutherans do hold the Consecrated Elements to be Christs real body and blood, and yet do never tender the worship of Latria to them, so may the Eastern Churches also do, nay it is certain that they do not tender the worship of Latria to them, as the Papists do, and are obliged to do by the custom and com­mand of their Church. Sacranus doth inform us of [Page 86]the Russians, that they do not adore the Consecra­ted Elements. Neither the Greeks, nor Russians do perform any worship to them, saith the Jesuit Scarga. L. 3. de Sacr. Euch. c. 21. The Greeks aster the Consecration of the Elements exhibit none or very little reverence to them, saith Arcadius; moreover the Cophti, and the Habassines do not so much as elevate the Con­fecrated. Host, nor afterwards reserve it, as doth the Church of Rome, Brievw p. 158, 167. which is a farther evidence that they do not adore it with the worship of La­tria.

But saith R.H. this adoration is a necessary con­sequent of the belief of the real presence; Galde disc. 3. ch. 8. §. 82. n. 3. to this I Answer, 1. by denying that this is any necessary consequence of the belief of Transubstantiation, and if it were so, we have hence reason to presume the doctrine of Transubstantiation cannot be anti­ent, seeing this necessary consequence of it was not observed in the Western Church before the XI. or XII. Century, this adoration being not pra­ctised, and much less enjoyned by the Church till then, De Cub. Lat. l. 7. cap. 44. & l. 3. cap. 19. as Mr. Dally hath demonstrated. 2. I An­swer, that nothing is more frequent than for Chur­ches, and persons to maintain a doctrine, and yet in practice to disclaim the necessary conse­quences of that doctrine. I hope R. H. doth urge against us nothing, but what he thinks will ne­cessarily follow from our doctrine, and yet he knows we do disclaim his inferences, and may, in due time, shew him we have sufficient reason so to do. Ibid. p. 265, 266.

§ IV And whereas R.H. doth endeavour to prove that the Greek Church agree with them in gi­ving of this adoration to the Consecrated Host, from certain passages of the Mass used among them; that the disingenuity and weakness of his [Page 87]pleas may be more evident, Which are all taken from the Author of the Tract sty­led Perpet. de la Foy, &c. and answered by Mr. Dally de cult. Lat. c. 3. c. 19. Chrysost. To. 6. p. 983. [...]. p. 9.4. Ib. l. 29, 30. Ib. l. 35, 40. I shall at large relate their manner of proceeding in the performance of their Mass, and then return a satisfactory An­swer to what he offers from these passages for confirmation of his vain presumption. First then the Greeks begin this Mass with worship­ping or bowing thrice towards the East before the Image of our Saviour, and of the Blessed Virgin. Soon after they bow thrice before the Table on which the Sacred Gifts, that is the Bread and Wine is placed, though yet they be not laid upon the Altar to be Consecrated. Then the Priest saith, O God be propitious to me a sumer, and have mercy on me; and again, O our Saviour, thou being nailed to the Cross, and pierced with a Spear, hast redeemed us from the Curse of the law, and opened the fountain of eternal life, glory be given to thee; then taking the Oblation ( i.e. the Bread which hath the figure of a Gross impressed upon it, cal­led Sigillum) into his left hand, and the spear in­to his right hand, he fastneth the Lance into the right side of the Cross upon the Bread, Ib. l. 39. Ib. l. 41. and saith he was brought as a sheep to the slaughter; then fastning it in the left side, he adds, that as an innocent lamb which is dumb before the shearer, L. 43. he openeth not his mouth: then fastning it in the up­per part of the Cross he adds, P. 985, l. 1. in his humiliation his judgment was taken away; then he fasteneth it in the lower part and adds who can declare his Ge­neration? L. 8. his life was taken away or lift up from the earth. Then the Deacon saith sacrifice Sir, L. 10. and the Priest sacrisiceth him, N. B. saying. L. 13. The lamb of God which taketh away the sms of the world is facrifieed for the life and salvation of the world. [Page 88]Then the Deacon saith pierce him Sir, L. 14. and the Priest pierceth him with the Spear saying, one of the Soldiers with a Spear pierced his side, L. 16. and forth­with came forth blood and water. After this fol­lows a Prayer to this effect, P. 986. O God our God, who sentest the living bread which is the nourishment of the whole world, viz. our Lord Jesus Christ, to be our Saviour and Redeener, bless this oblation, and re­eeive it upon thine beavenly Altar. After this the Priest and Deacon worship thrice before the Holy Table, P. 987. l. 30. P. 989. l. 42. then the Priest takes thence the Holy Gospel, and gives it to the Deacon, and so they make their lesser ingress, P. 9 [...]0. and both how their heads; then the Deacon brings the Holy Gospel to the Bi­shop, if he be present, and he kisseth it, if he be not present, the Priest Salutes it, then all the people Reverence the Gospel, Goer Not. in Mul, Chrysost. p. 125. n. 74. P. 990. i. 17. L. l. 18. the Priest or Deacon saying, Come let us worship and fall down to Christ; then the Deacon elevates it, saying [...] this is the true wisdom; then the Deacon worship­ping, and the Priest after him, they bring it to the H. Tribunal, and so the Deacon doth again place it on the Holy Table, and afterwards worship­ping it with reverence, P. 991. the Deacon comes to the Desk or Pulpit where the Holy Gospel is to be read, P. 992. and the Priest saying, let us hear the Holy Gospel, Ibid. the Deacon reads it; then followeth a Prayer of the Catechumens intreating God to look favourably upon them who bow their necks to him; after this followeth a Prayer said by the Priest silently, that God would enable him his Priest, by the power of the Holy Ghost, P. 994. to stand before his holy Table, and offer his holy and immaculate body and his precious blood; for to thee, saith he, do I how my neck, that thou wouldest grant that these gifts may be presented, or offered to thee, by thy [Page 89]sinful and unworthy servant, for thou art he that offers and art offered, received and given, Christ our Lord, or as the words may be rendred, who dost present and art presented, who receivest, and art given; then they adore three times, and then the Deacon saith God be merciful to me a sinner; Ib. l. 34. L. 38. then saith he to the Priest, elevate Sir, who removing the Veil called the aer, which covered the Poly Dish and Cup, the Deacon takes the Holy Dish upon his Shoulders, and the Priest the Cup, then coming to the Holy Altar, Ib. l. 44. they say to themselves Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord, then when the Holy Dish is taken down from the Deacon, the Priest speaks thus, [...] P. 995. Joseph an honorable person taking thy incorruptible body from the Cross wrapped it in fine linnen, and preparing it for bu­rial with spices, laid it in a new Sepulcher; L. 13. then they bow thrice before the Holy Table, then fol­loweth a Prayer, after the placing of the Holy Gifts upon it, Ib. l. 35. that God would enable them to of­fer gifts and spiritual Sacrifices, for their sins, and grant them to find grace before him, and that he would accept their sacrifice, and cause his Holy Spirit to rest upon them, and upon the gifts there present. P. 996. Ib. l. 30. L. 31. P. 996. l. 43. P. 997. Soon after the Priest worships thrice and saith, I will love thee, O Lord my strength, my for­tress, and refuge, and after him the Deacon wor­ships thrice; then saith the Priest, lift up your hearts, the people answer, we lift them up unto the Lord; then saith the Priest, let us give thanks unto the Lord, the people answer, it is just and meet to worship the Father, Son and Holy Ghost; then the Priest relates bow our Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread, Ib. l. 25. and blessing, hallowing and breaking of it, he gave it to his disciples, saying; then the Priest bows his head, [Page 90]and blesseth the Holy Bread, saying with a loud voice, L. 30. L. 40. [...]. this is may body broken for you, and of the Cup, drink you all of this, this is my blond of the New Testament shed for you, &c. then the Priest adds, out of thine own we offer thine own to thee. All which is done the doors of the Chancel being shut, L. 35. Goar Not in Miss. Chrysost. p. 139. n. 132. p. 998. and the people seeing nothing that is done; then the Priest adds this Prayer, We offer to thee this rati­onal and unbloody sacrifice, beseeching thee to send thy Holy Spirit upon us, and upon these gifts that are before us; then the Priest and Deacon worship thrice before the Holy Table, Ib. l. 10, 11. and say, God be merciful to me a sinner; then saith the Deacon, bless Sir the Holy Bread, L. 17. so the Priest crosseth thrice the Holy Gifts, and saith with a low voice, make this Bread the precious body of thy Christ, L. 18. to this Prayer the Deacon saith Amen; then saith the Deacon, bless Sir the Holy Cup, and the Priest blessing it, L. 21. L. 23. L. 28. L. 30. saith, make that which is in the Holy Cup the precious blood of thy Christ, changing them both by the Holy Spirit; and so the Deacon doth reve­rence to the Priest, then after the Lords Prayer the Deacon saith, P. 1001. bow down your heads to the Lord, the people answer, we bow down Lord to thee; then the Deacon bowing down his head a little, and seeing the Priest worshipping, doth himself worship, and to let us know that this worship is performed to God the Father, this Prayer imme­diately follows, L. 8. Look down, O Lord, from Heaven upon us that bow our heads to thee, for we bow not to flesh and blood, but to thee, the dreadful God, turn thou, O Lord, the mysteries which lie before us, to us all for good, according to our several needs, for the sake of thy only begotten Son, then follow­eth the Prayer cited by R.H. Attend, L. 20. O Lord, &c. then the Priest and Deacon worship, saying [Page 91]thrice, God be merciful to me, a sinner, L. 24.26. Non ita tamen ut à populo con­spiciatur elevat Graeca sacerdos Goar. Ibid. n. 158. l. 28, 30. and all the people also worship, but all this is done before the elevation, and whilst the people do not see the Host. When the elevation is made (which yet the people do not see) the Priest saith, Holy things to Holy persons, and the people answer, there is one Holy, one Lord Jesus Christ; then the Priest breaks the Holy Bread, and saith, L. 35. The lamb of God is broken and divided, the Son of the Father who is broken but not divided, who is always eaten, but not consumed. Then the Deacon worships, and after that the Priest giving him the Holy Bread, he takes it; and both bowing their heads before the Holy Table, the Priest saith, I believe, Lord, P. 1002. and confess that thou art Christ the Son of the living God, &c. and again, Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my sorded roof. Then calling the Deacon to receive the Cup, he comes and worships, saying, behold I come to the immortal King; and again, P. 1003. I believe Lord and con­fess, &c. as before, then they open the Gate of the Holy Altar or Tribunal, and the Priest and Deacon taking the Cup with reverence, say to the people, come with fear of God and Faith, L. 13. L. 14. and the people answer, blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord, and so the Bread and Wine are distributed to them.

§ VII From this short view of the Greek Mass, it will be casie to answer all that R. H. offers to persuade us that the Host or that the Body and Blood of Christ, contained under the species of Bread and Wine, is worshipped with Latria by the Greek Church. And,

1. That they give the worship of Latria to the Sacrament, or Consecrated Host cannot be proved from any adoration which the Priest persorms be­fore [Page 92]he takes the Holy Bread to communicate with it, or from the Reverence the Deacon doth exhibit before he receives the Chalice, or from the adoration of the people.

For, 1. It is not certain that this reverence or worship is exhibited by Priest or Deacon, or by the people, to the Sacrament there placed upon the Table, and not to Christ spiritually and in­visibly present: The contrary seems to be plain from that Prayer which doth immediately follow the admonition to perform this reverence. For the Deacon having said, how bown your heads to the Lord, the Chorus answers, we bow down, Lord, to thee. Then the Priest Prays thus, We give thee thanks, O invisible King, who workest all things by thine infinite power; look down O Lord from heaven upon us that bow our heads to thee. We bow not to flesh and blood, but to thee the dreadful God, turn thou O Lord the mysteries which lie before us, to us all for good for the sake of thine only begotten Son. Which Prayer is evidently made not to flesh and blood, not to the mysteries themselves, and therefore not to the Host, not to our Lord Jesus Christ, but to God the Father for the sake of his Son Christ, to him therefore was the ado­ration both of Priest and people made. 2. Sup­pose we that by these actions they intended to reverence the Consecrated Host, it will not fol­low that they did reverence it as God, but only as a Sacred Creature. We see they worship and bow before the Image of our Lord, and of the Blessed Virgin, Lit. Bas. apud Goar. p. 166. before the Holy Table, and the Gifts, they worship the Holy Bible, and bow when they receive the Hollowed Gifts, Sym. Thessal. p. 225. apud Goar. or Holy Bible into their hands, and both the Deacon and the people worship the Priest that Celebrates, and [Page 93]yet I hope R. H. doth not imagine that they in­tend to give Latria to the Priest, the Bible, the Gifts, the Table, or the Image of the Blessed Vir­gin; that therefore which in the Mass they often do to things which are not in their own judg­ments, fit objects of the highest worship, can be no evidence, when it is done unto the Host, that they intend to pay the worship of Latria to it.

2. Nor doth this follow from the Prayer thus cited by R. H. Attend, O Lord Jesus Christ, Guide ubi Sk­pra. from thy Holy Habitation, come and sanctifie us, who resi­dest above with Father, and here art invisibly present with us, and be pleased by thy mighty hand to com­municate to us thy immaculate body, and thy preci­ous blood and by us to all the people. Where note 1. That R. H. fraudulently leaves out these words [...], Which words are in both the Liturgies of Basil and St. Chrysostom, and are only left out in Amphi­lochius de vita Sancti Basilii. Goar. not. in Miss. Basil. p. 187. Sym. Thessal. apud Goar. p. 229. & 222. [...] Off. Sancte Bap­tism. v. Goar. p. 353. which plain­ly do demonstrate this Prayer is made not to the Sacrament, nor yet to Christ considered as invi­sibly present there; but to Christ sitting on the Throne of his Kingdom. 2. Here is no Prayer directed to the Host or Sacrament, as in the Ro­man Liturgies, but only an acknowledgment that Christ invisibly is present with them whilst they celebrate by his powerful virtue in the Sa­crament, on which account the Priest saith, Christ is in the midst of us, and in this sense they do con­ceive him present in the Sacrament of Baptism, and present in the hallowed Gifts, and present when the Gospel is read.

Nor will this follow from that Prayer which the Priest tenders to Christ saying, [...] Enable me thy' Priest by the power of the Holy Ghost to stand be­fore [Page 94]thy Holy Table, and offer thy Holy and imma­culate body, and thy pretious blood, for to thee do I bow my knee, and grant that these Gifts N. B. may be presented to thee by thy sinful and unwor­thy servant, for thou art he who offerest and art of­fered, who receivest, and art given, Christ our Lord, where 1. Observe that this Prayer is said long before the Consecration of the Elements, the bowing therefore of the Priest to Christ, is only to him spiritually present with the hallowed Gifts. Note 2. That these words thou offerest, and art offered, &c. are spoken immediately of the oblation of the hallowed Gifts which the Priest is said [...] to present (not of Christs body and his blood which he is said [...] to sacrifice) in these Gifts Christ is Typically represented, [...] Sym. Thess. 16. p. 225. Apud Goar Not in Chrys. Miss. N. 36. Miss. Chrysost. p. 985. Sym. Thess. p. 233. and is given; because there is an Image and re­presentation or demonstration, as saith Cabasilas, of his passion, and yet Christ doth receive them upon his Heavenly Altar, and doth present them to the Father.

4. This practice is not proved, because the Eastern Churches say after the Consecration, God be merciful to me a sinner, for this they often say before the Consecration, it is said by the Deacon when he prepares the Holy Dish and Cup, M. Chryst. p. 984. Ib. p. 994. M. Basil. p. 169. apud Goar. when he doth fume the Sacrament not yet Consecra­ted, and in many other places. Will therefore R. H. plead that they make such addresses to the Holy Dish, and Cup, and the Ʋnconsecrated Ele­ments.

Nor 5. Will it avail to prove this practice, that when the Cup is Elevated, and when the Laity are called to come with fear and love, they say, blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord, for this is also said before the Consecration by [Page 95]the Priest, M. Chrysost. p. 994. Ib. p. 997. and Deacon at the Completion of the greater. ingress of the hallowed Gifts, and by the people before the Consecration.

Nor 6. From the Priests saying, when he Ele­vates the Consecrated Bread, Holy things to Holy persons, to which the Quire answers, there is one Holy, one Lord Jesus Christ, for though R. H. conceives this is so spoken in relation to the Ele­vated Host, and is a confession that the Host is that Lord Jesus Christ they speak of, yet Symeon Thes­salonicensis will inform him, Apud Goar. p. 228. that it is only an una­nimous confession of the Incarnation of the Son of God, who reigneth over all, and that it is as if they should have said, Who of us is pure, who holy? there is one only holy Jesus Christ, who lovingly doth sanctifie us.

Nor 7. From what the Priest saith when he breaks the Consecrated Bread into four pieces, [...]. Chrysost. Miss. p. 1001. Goar in Not M. Chrysost. p. 163. viz. the Lamb of God is broken and divided into parts, the Son of the Father who is broken, and not divided, eaten, and not consumed, but sancti­fieth those that partake of him. For the Consecra­ted Bread being broken in memory and imitati­on of Christs Passion, it being broken, the Lamb of God, and the Son of God may be said to be broken, it being distributed and eaten; the Lamb of God may well be said to be so, as also to be cut into four parts; though I suppose R. H. will not allow such a dissection of the true natural body of our Lord; and not only of the Conse­crated Bread they say break him Sir, &c. but of the Unconsecrated Bread pierce him Sir, Miss. Chrysost. p. 985. Sacrifice him Sir, and when the Priest hath pierced the Gifts he saith, One of the Souldiers pierced his side; when he sacrificeth them, he saith, The Lamb of God which taketh away the sms of the world is sacri­ficed, [Page 96]will therefore R. H. hence infer that they believe the Ʋnconsecrated Bread and Wine to be naturally and properly the Lamb of God and truely sacrificed? if not, he cannot make the like infe­rence from the like words used after Consecra­tion.

Nor, 8. Is this proved from that Confession and Prayer which the Priest makes when he pre­pares himself for the reception of the Holy sa­crament, viz. I believe, Lord, and confess that thou art Christ the Son of the living God, and again, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come un­der my sordid roof: For, 1. The Priest indeed confesseth that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the living God, Matth. xvi. 16. in the words of St. Peter, but not that the Sacrament is so, he now makes that Con­fession for himself which a little before the peo­ple had made for themselves, which was to do what every tongue at the last day should confess, saith Thess alonicensis, Apud Goar. p. 228. viz. that Jesus was the Christ, to the glory of God the Father. 2. The Prayer which follows this Confession is, that this Jesus would make him partaker of his precious body and blood, wherefore the Priest doth not direct his Prayer to the body and blood, [...] Min. Bas. apud Goar. p. 173. but only to Christ for them. 3. The Priest sollicites Christ to en­ter not only into his body, but his Soul, into which Christs Body cannot enter, that he would united them to the holy body and blood of Christ, that worthily receiving the holy Mysteries they may have Christ dwelling in their hearts, and be made the Temple of the Holy Ghost; not surely Christ as to his body, but his word and Spirit, and so they do themselves expound themselves, praying that they partaking of the sanctified things, and being enlivened by them, may be united to Christ their [Page 97]true God (who saith, Miss. Myst. Ante consecrat. apud Goar. p. 197, 198. he that eateth my flesh and drink­eth my blood dwelleth in me and I in him) that his word dwelling and walking in them they way be made the Temple of the Holy Spirit.

Nor lastly will this follow from the Deacons saying, when he is called to receive the Sacrament, behold I come to the immortal King: For, 1. He doth not say, the Sacrament is that immortal King, but only that Christ present, or in the midst of them assembled is so; Christ being therefore in­visibly present as they assure us, and he himself hath promised, in all his Ordinances, and more especially in this by which he spiritually dwelleth in, and is united to the due Communicant, well may be say when he receives those Elements with which such blessings are conveighed, behold I come to the immortal King: Goar in Miss. Chrys. n. 110. 2. It is their custom in their Liturgies to speak of that which repre­senteth any thing, as if it were the thing it self. Goar in Miss. Chrys. n. 74. Sym. Thess. ib. p. 222. [...]. Goar. p. 478.510. [...]. Ibid. They speak of the Holy Bible as if it were Christ himself, when it is carried by the Priest, they say, come let us worship Christ, when the Priest enters with it into the Chancel, they add lift up the gates, viz. that the King of Glory may come in. Be­cause this Gospel bears some representation of the Son of God, thus also in the Office of the little Habit, and the Angelick Habit, the Supe­rior tells the Monk when he stretcheth forth his hand unto the Gospel, behold Christ is invisibly present here, when the Monk takes the Sizzers out of the Gospel, thou takest them, saith he, from the hand of Christ, and why may not the Sacra­ment be styled the Immortal King, by the same Metaphor by which the Gospel is here styled Christ, v. Dallaeum de Cult. lat. l. 7. cap. 11. without intending to perform any higher wor­ship to it, than what they pay unto the Gospel. [Page 98]What R. H. further urgeth from Cabasilas is on­ly from a false Translation, and so deserveth no consideration.

To conclude, Sacramentum debito cultu tractet, religiose colat. Humiliter adorent. Genu­flexus adorat. Rit. p. 63, 64. Missal. saepius. vide ibid. Ryth­mum S. Thomae ad S. Euchari­stiam. there be two signal differences betwixt the worship of the Host prescribed in the Roman Church and that which is observed in the Greek; that whereas in the Mass and Ritual of the Roman Church, we find frequent injunctions Religiously to worship, and humbly to adore the very Sacrament, and frequent intimations of worship due unto it, whereas they pray unto the Sacrament, and frequently acknowledg it to be their God, there is not any thing of this nature to be found in any of the Eastern Liturgies.

2. Whereas the Roman Host is by them wor­shipped as God, not only during the Celebrati­on of the Sacrament, when Christ invisibly is present, but also when it is placed upon the Al­tar, and there Sacramentum Eucharistiae non servatur apud nos in templis, ut fit hic apud Euro­paeos. Christoph. Licanatus Ae­thiopum legatus apud Hotting. Hist. Eccl. Sac. 16. p. 44. vide Damian, à Goes de Moribus Aethiop. p. 506. reserved in the Pyx, and when it is carryed in Procession. The Eastern Churches have no such custom of placing it upon the Altar in a little Box, or carrying it in [...]. Metroph. Cri­topulus. Pomp to be a­dored by the people; now in these adorations performed to the reserved Hosts consisteth more especially and plainly, the Idolatry of Roman Votaries.

§ VIII But 2. If by the Christian world R. H. and others do understand all Christians without ex­ception declaring for, and practising those things which we esteem Idolatrous, we say that no such [Page 99] Idolatry hath been admitted by the whole Church of Christ, but if they understand only the greater part of Prelates, or the most numerous part of Christians, and say, as R. H. doth, Cuid. di c. 2. c. 5. §. 63. n. 2. that they must be reputed as the whole, I Answer that Ido­latry may in this sense prevail over the Christian Church, as formerly it did over the Church of Israel and Judah. For as in the days of Elias there was so great Apostacy, as that the Prophet said, I only am left alone, and yet God had his Church preserved in those 7000 who bewed not their knees to Baal, so may it also be in the Church of Christ, there may be an Apostacy so great as to prevail on the most numerous party in each Christian Church, and yet there may remain, be­sides those numerous Churches and Persons we have reckoned up, even many thousands of the Roman Church who did not in their hearts be­lieve, or in their practices submit to their Idola­try. The Roman Doctors, as well as Antient Fa­thers, do acknowledg that this hath been the state of Christians, and that it shall be so again; they do acknowledg that when Arianism prevailed, thus it was; Act. 6. p. 409. the second Nicene Council informs us that Arius, Aetius, Eunomius, Eudoxius, [...]. and others were the men by whom the Devil brought again into the Christian world that Idol-worship which had been rooted out, and that through the as2istance of the Emperors, [...] Ibid. [...] Ibid. the disease grew strong and preva­lent, so that all principalities contended for it, saith the Latine, were over-powered by it, saith the Greek, and when almost all the world had joyned themselves to the prevailing part, God raised up St. Basil, as an Elias under Ahab, to support the Priesthood which dfter a manner was now fallen. This is the relati­on of that great Apostacy made by Gregory Nyssen [Page 100]who lived in these times, and approved by the Second Nicene Council, and more particularly by the Author of the answer to the Constantinopolitan Synod, v. Whitbies Ans. to Cressie, ch. 9. §. 21. p. 118. and the truth of this assertion hath been proved already from the clear testimonies of Na­zianzen, Basil, Vincentius Lyrinensis, and divers o­thers, to whom add that of Athanasius who com­pares the Pious and Orthodox in his time to Elias and the Prophets, Ep ad Solit. vitam agentes. hid by Obadiah in a Cave, and who tells us that where there were any Ortho­dox persons, they did either thrust themselves into the Dens and Caverns of the Earth, or solitarily wander in the Deserts. Gaide. disc. 2. ch. 2. §. 26. n. 2. Ibid. §. 27. n. 3. Now let the indifferent Reader judg whether from such sayings we find no ground to affirm that Arianism at any time had in­fected or pessessed a major part of Christianity, as R. H. confidently saith, and whether when these things were spoken no question could be made but that the major part of the Prelates of the Ʋniversal Church professed the Catholick Faith. I am sure the words of the forementioned Fathers by no means will admit of such a sense, and therefore R. H. thought fit not to produce them, but to spend a long Harangue, full of intolerable faults, in confutation of their testimonies, under the Covert of confuting Protestants. Moreover it is the judgment both of the Fathers, and of Ro­man Catholicks, that when the reign of Antichrist prevails, Ep. 71. p. 864. the Church will be reduced to the like Estate. St. Basil considering the wonderful pre­valency of Arianism, crys out, hath the Lord quite deserted his Church, is it the last hour, and doth the defection now take place by which the Son of per­dition is to be revealed. In Sophon. c. 2. St. Jerom saith, however it may seem at the first view absurd, he that consi­dereth that of the Apostle, in the latter days there [Page 101]shall be perillous times, &c. and that of Christ, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find Faith upon the earth? will not wonder at the extreme desolations of the Church, Chap. xviii. 18. which by the reign of Antichrist will be brought to solitude. Theophylact on that of Luke, shall he find Faith on the earth? speaks thus, the Lord asketh the question because then there shall hardly be found any Faithful, Op. imperf. in Matt. Hom. 49. for so greatly will the Son of perdition prevail as to seduce, if it were possible, the very Elect, And St. Chrysostom adds that the sacrifice of Christians will be destroyed by Antichrist, Christians will fly to the Deserts, none being left either to enter into the Church, or offer an Oblation to God. Ep. 80. ad Hesyc. p. 236. P. 219. Edit. Colon. A. P. 1603. Add to this that Prophetick testimony of St. Austin, that in the time of Anti­christ the Church shall not appear, being eclipsed by the persecutions of ungodly men, and that of Ephraim Syrus (or whosoever is the Author of that Tract which bears his name) that men should ask whe­ther the Gospel be continued upon earth? and answer should be returned in the negative. v. Hieron in locum. And thus that place in Daniel Ch. ix. 27. He shall cause the Sacrifice, and the Oblations to cease, is expounded by Hilary, and by Hippolytus and by Apollmarius of the time of Antichrist.

And in this the Fathers are followed by whole Troops of Papists, in the times of Antichrist, saith Pererius, there shall be no sacrifice in publick places, In Dan. p. 888. Non quod omnes sunta fide ca­tholicâ, sicut exponunt ali­qui, recessuri sed quam major pars credentium discedel à fide. De Pontifi. Rom. l. 3. c. 7. neither shall any publick honor be given to it: the Holy Fathers tell us, saith the same Pererius, that then all Christians shall be either Martyes, or Apostates, or shall lie concealed like wild beasts in Dens and Solitudes. Lyra upon the Thessal. ii. 2. saith that the Apostle seems to speak of a departure from the Catholick Faith, not that all shall recede from it, but that the major part shall do so. Bellar­min [Page 102]adds that it is certain that it will be so. L. 13. Doct. Prin. c. 2. L. 2. de temp. nov. c. 15. To the same purpose speak Stapleton, Acosta, with divers others. And all this they ground upon those passages of the Revelation which seem ve­ry concluding to this sense, and clearly to in­tend it, as the slaughter of the two witnesses, by whom the Orthodex members of the Church is understood, the flight of the woman, that is the Church, into the Desert, and the worship which the whole world will then pay to the Beast. Where note that these Witnesses, which repre­sent the Church, are but two, and they at last are slain, Rev. xiii. 7, 16. [...]. Aret. in locum. and that the Dominion of Antichrist is over all Kingdoms, Tongues and Nations, and he is said to cause the earth and him that dwelleth therein to worship him, and both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive his mark. All which seemeth to signifie as much as the testi­inonies forecited. Now seeing it is Prophesied concerning Antichrist, that he should exalt himself above all that is called God, Rev. ix. 20. and of the people of those Antichristian times, that they should worship Devils, and Idols of Gold and Silver, and of Brass and Stone, and of Wood which can neither see nor hear nor walk, Rev. xiii. 12. and that the earth and they that dwell therein should become worshippers of the Beast, and of his Image, therefore it must be also Prophesied that Idolatry should reign, and spread it self over the Christian World.

CHAP. IV.

The Contents.

Ob. 3. That if the Church be guilty of Idolatry, the Gates of Hell would have prevailed against her, Answered by shewing that by this phrase, the Gates of Hell, errors in Doctrine or Corruption in manners cannot be understood, but only the state of death. §. I. Ob. 4. That if the Church be Idolatrous she cannot be Holy, Answered by shewing what is the Holiness of the Church vi­sible. § II. Ob. 5. We grant the Papists may be saved and consequently must grant they are not guilty of Idolatry, Answered (I.) by shewing that moderate Papists grant that Protestants may be saved, whom yet they charge with Heresie, and Schism, and such like damning sins. §. III. (2.) That their Repentance for their unknown sins, and consequently their unknown Idolatries, may obtain mercy for those who wanted means of better information. §. IV. (3.) That in the same circumstances we believe that Idolaters may be saved. ibid. Ob. 6. The Church of Rome cannot be guilty of Idolatry because we do acknow­ledg her to be a true Church, Answered (I.) By shewing that true Church may still continue so to be when it is guilty of Idolatry. § V. (2.) That the Church of Rome may be a true Church in that large sense in which the Protestants confess she is so, and yet be guilty of Idolatry: they on­ly saying that she is a true visible Church in that sensein which Heretical and Idolatrous Churches [Page 104]may be so. §. VI. To admit the Church of Rome to be in this sense a true visible Church is sufficient to justifie the Ordination and Succession of our Clergy. (I.) Because the Ordination of Hereticks is valid. §. VII. And so is also the Ordination of Idolaters. §. VIII. Some of our Divines acknowledg that in the Church of Rome, when Luther first begun his Reforma­tion, there was a saving profession of the truth of Christ. §. IX. This acknowledgment is explained, and the inference thence made, that the Church of Rome was not then Idolatrous, though Idolatry prevailed much in it. ibid. Ob. 7. That if the Church of Rome be truly charged with this crime, she must be guilty of Heathenish Idolatry, an­swered by shewing that she is so only in that sense in which all Idolatry may be stiled Hea­thenish. §. X. And (2.) by divers instan­ces of such Idolatry, which in the judgment of the Romanists themselves, is not exclusive of salva­tion. ibid.

§ I Ob. 3 AND this is all that is needful to be said in answer to this Argument. p. 125. But yet ex abundanti I will add some re­marks upon those Arguments which T. G. and R. H. do further offer to demonstrate (1.) That the whole Church of Christ cannot be guilty of Idolatry, which is the minor propo­sition of this objection. And first, T. G. thus Ar­gues, that if the Church, which is Christs King­dom, could Apostatize so far as to enjoyn and allow the belief and practice of Idolatry, the Gates of Hell would have prevailed against it, but the Gates of Hell cannot prevail against it. Ergo.

Answ. These words, the Gates of Hell, do not con­tain a promise of preservation of the Church from sin, or error of what kind soever, but only signifie that all true Christians who die in the Lord, shall be delivered from death, and shall obtain a joyful Resurrection; For the Gates of Hell in Scripture phrase do never signifie the power of Heresie, or Satan, sin, or error, but both in the Old Testament, the Jewish writers, and the Antient Heathens, it constantly is used to signifie the state of death, as will be evident to any person who consults the places cited in the Synopsis, and doth with them compare the passages in which this phrase is used in the Old Testament, and in the Jewish writers. I said, Es. xxxviii. 10. saith Hazekiah, in the cutting off of my days [...], I shall go to the Gates of Hell, I am deprived of the residue of my years, and what is in the Hebrew [...] the Gates of death, is by the Septuagint Translated [...] the Gates of Hell, Chap. xvi. 13. Mac. v. 37. [...]. Prae­par. Ev. l. 1. c. 3. p. 7. D. Job xxxviii. 17. Thou hast the power of life and death, saith the Author of the Book of Wisdom, [...], thou bringest down to the Gates of Hell and raisest up again: They cryed to the Lord to have mercy on them now being even at the point of death, [...], at the Gates of Hell: Nor did Eusebius doubt the truth of this ex­position of the words, for he declares that God had hereby promised that the Church should not be overcome by death, and that by virtue of this one voice, Ʋpon this rock will I build my Church, and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against her, the Church continues not subdued by her enemies, nor yielding to the Gates of death. (2) This Scripture may concern the Church [Page 106]considered as invisible, Ecclesia in iis est qui aedifi­cant supra pe­tram, i. e. qui audiunt verba Christi & faci­unt. Aug. de unit. Eccl. c. 16. c. 18. De Bapt. l. 6. c. 3. 24. Contr. Don. l. 3. c. 18. Orig. in Matt. Hom. 1. not as visible, for, as the Fathers say, it concerns those only which are built upon the Rock, and such are only they who hear the words of Christ, and do them. Now as in the defection of the Church of Israel to Idol Worship, 7000 souls remained who had not bowed the knee to Baal, so may it be in the defection of the Church visible into the like sin.

§ II Ob. 4 But saith R. H. of the Catholick Chuch, Disc. p. 75. we say in our Creed I believe one Holy Catholick Church, but how is it Holy if it may fall into, and teach so gross and so manifold Idolatry?

Answ. Even as the Church of Israel and Judah was Holy, notwithstanding their Idolatry and wick­edness, and the City of Jerusalem was Holy, notwithstanding the wickedness of the people that lived in it, the Church is therefore always Holy, Expos. on the Creed. p. 343. saith the Reverend and Learned Bishop Pearson, 1. In reference to the vocation by which all the members of it are called, and se­parated from the rest of the world to God, which separation in the Language of the Scri­ptures is a sanctification, and so the calling be­ing Holy, 2 Tim. i. 9. for God hath called as with an holy calling, the body which is separated by it may well be called Holy. 2. In relation to the Of­fices appoined, and the powers exercised in the Church, which by their institution and ope­ration are holy, and so that Church for which they were appointed, and in which they are ex­ercised may be called Holy. 3. Because whoso­ever is called to profess Faith in Christ, is there­by engaged to Holiness of life, according to the words of the Apostle, let every man that nameth [Page 107]the name of Christ depart from iniquity. 4. The Church is stiled Holy because the end of consti­tuting a Church in God, was for the purchasing a Holy people, and the great design of it was for the begetting and increasing Holyness, that as God is originally Holy in himself, so he might communicate his sanctity of the Sons of men, whom he intended to bring to the fruition of himself, to which without a previous Sanctifi­cation they cannot approach, because without Holiness no man shall see the Lord. But as for real inward Holiness, either it is necessary to constitute a member of the visible Church, or it is not, if it be not, then can it not be necessary to constitute any part of the whole Church visible, and consequently it is not necessary to constitute the whole, and so it is not necessary to believe that the Catholick visible Church is thus Holy; if it be said that this inward Holiness is necessary to make a member of the visible Church, then are none to be reckoned, or approved of as mem­bers of the Chuch visible, who are not inwardly Holy, nor is a wicked Bishop or Church-Governor, to be obeyed, because such are not members of the Church, and are without the Church, and therefore have no right to Govern these within.

2. Seeing I can have no assurance that any members of a Council are inwardly Sanctified, it follows that I can have no assurance of the truth of their definitions, because I can have no assu­rance that they are members of the Church to which the promise of Divine assistance is con­fined, Disc. 3. ch. 10. §. 115. unless perhaps R. H. will say that the acceptation of their definitions is an evidence of the Sanctification of the Major part of the Coun­cil, which he may say with as much reason as [Page 108]that it is an evidence that they were truly Or­dained and Baptized.

Ob. 5 § III Moreover it is objected that Protestants confess that Papists may be saved, from which confession it will follow that they are not Idolaters, because the Scriptures frequently declare that no Idolater can be saved: P. 75. Idolatry, saith R. H. is an error which excludes from salvation, for it must needs be a mortal sin, and so unacknowledged and unre­pented of, it must not only hazard, but destroy sal­vation.

Answ. To this objection we answer, 1. By retortion, thus it is confessed by Papists that Proestants may be saved, from which confession it will follow that they are not guilty either of Heresie or Schism, because the Scripture hath declared concerning these offences, Gal. v. 21. that they who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God, that Protestants may be saved, is confessed implicitely and con­sequentially, 1. By those who do assert that even an Heretick, Vide St. Clar. Problem. 15. whilst he conceiveth his own Sect more credible, is not obliged to believe, because the Faith is not sufficiently propounded to him, for if he be not obliged to believe, he cannot sure be damned for not believing what the Church proposeth. 2. That they are to be excused who labor under the want of Teachers. 3. That they do, many of them, labor under that ignorance which is invincible, and therefore doth excuse from sin, it is confessed more expresly by many sober Papists, Exomol. p. 546. Ed. Par. 1647. for Mr. Cressy hath declared in be­half of all his Brethren, that Catholicks will not doubt to say that to many thousands of our Religion, neither their Heresie, nor their Schism shall prove de facto damnable, but that, sup­posing they die with an intention to renounce [Page 109]whatsoever of their opinions should appear to them to have been erroneous, their invincible ig­norance N. B. caused by Education, misinfor­mation of Catholick Doctrines, &c. may pro­bably find pardon from our merciful judg. The incomparable Chillingworth concludes from the Concessions of Mr. Knot, Ch. 1. Part. 1. S. 4. that whatsoever Prote­stant wanteth capacity, or having it, wanteth sufficient means of instruction to convince his Conscience of the falshood of his own, and the truth of the Roman Religion, may be saved not­withstanding any error in his Religion; which is indeed the conclusion of Mr. Knots discourse in these words, thus we allow Protestants as much Charity as Dr. Potter spares us, for whom he makes ignorance the best hopes of salvation; 2. That no­thing hinders but that a Protestant dying a Prote­stant may die with contrition for his Schism and Heresie, and doing so may be saved, for saith Mr. Knot, when the man that is esteemed a Prote­stant dyeth, we do not instantly conclude him in Hell, because we know not what light might have cleared his errors, or what contrition retracted his sins. And this is sutable to the determination of many Ro­man Catholicks, that Christians may be absolved who are ignorant of that which under pain of mortal sin they are obliged to know, because they may be contrite for their ignorance and be desi­rous to learn. Prob. 15. p. 97. Sancta Clara speaking of our Eng­lish Protestants, saith thus. I wholly judg many of them free from all crime, and that if, after Bap­tism received, they exert acts of contrition, they may be saved, and I piously hope many of them are thus actually saved, and this I judg to be the more common sentence of the Doctors, because it is commonly so Preached in their Churches. [Page 110]Moreover R. H. himself cannot be ignorant that it doth pass for current Doctrine in their Schools, that ignorant persons may innocently be Hereticks, 1. S. Clar. Prob. 15. p. 99. when they are by their Priests misled into the grossest Heresies; that Lay-men erring with their Teachers, are by the common doctrine of the Schools and Doctors wholly excused from all fault. Idem Ibid. Estius in Sent. I. 2. dist. 42. §. 7. That all the seven Ca­pital sins by reason of the imperfection of the act, or other circumstances may become only venial; that igno­rance invincible excuses from sin, and that there may be ignorance invincible even of the things commanded or forbidden by the law of nature or the Decalog, and therefore of the Idolatry forbidden in that Deca­log; how can he then pronounce so decretorily against the Church of Rome, that no Salvation could be had by any of her members, provided they were guilty of Idolatry, without a contra­diction to these avowed Tenets of the most fa­mous Doctors of the Church of Rome? And where­as the Bishop of Chalcedon saith, that Protestants do allow Salvation to the Roman Church, and to formal Papists; but Roman Catholicks do deny saving Faith and Salvation to the Protestant Church, and to formal Protestants, and grant it only to such Protestants as are invincibly ig­norant of their errors, who are not formal Pro­testants, but rather Protestantibus credentes, per­sons deceived by giving two much trust to Prote­stants: Bishop Brambal answers, Reply Chap. 6. §. p. 224. Ed. Dublin, 1677. that we say the very same, viz. that we allow not saving Faith or Salvation to formal Papists, but to such as err in­vincibly, and are prepared in their minds to re­ceive the truth, when God shall reveal it. Such are not formal Papists, but Papistis credentes, such as give too much trust to Papists.

§ IV 2. To this enquiry, Serm. 6. ad Pop. Part 1. p. 335, 336, 337. how can Idolaters living and dying so without repentance, as the Papists do, be saved? It is excellently answered by the Reverend and learned Bishop Sanderson, in these words, I do not so excuse the Idolatry of our Forefathers, as if it were not in it self a sin, and that without repentance damnable, but yet their ignorance being such as it was, nourished by education, custom, tradition, the tyranny of their leaders, the fashion of the times, not with­out some shew also of piety and devotion, and themselves withall having such slender means of better knowledge; though this cannot excuse them from sin without repentance damnable, yet it much lesseneth, and qualifies the sinfulness of their Idolatry, arguing that their continuance in it was more from other prejudices, than from a wilful contempt of Gods Holy Word and will, and as for their repentance it is as certain that as many of them as are saved do repent of their Idolatries, as it is certain no Idolater, nor other sinner can be saved without repentance. But then there is a double difference to be obser­ved between repentance for ignorances, and for known sins, the one is that known sins must be confessed and repented of, and pardon asked for them in particular, that is, where God al­loweth time and capacity, every kind of them must be particularly confessed; whereas for ig­norances it is sufficient to wrap them up all to­gether in a general and implicit confession, and crave pardon for them in the lump, as David doth in Psalm xix. saying, Lord cleanse me from my secret sins. The other difference is this, that known sins are not truly repented of but where they are forsaken; But ignorances may be care­fully [Page 112]repented of, and yet still continued in. The reason is, because they may be repented of in the General, without special knowledge that they are sins, whereas without such special knowledge they cannot be reformed. Some of our Forefathers then might not only live in Po­pish Idolatry, but even die in an Idolatrous act, and yet have truly repented (though but in the General, and in the croud of their unknown sins) even of those very sins, and have at the same instant true Faith in Jesus Christ, and other Graces accompanying Salvation. Now from these answers it is evident,

1. That we only grant that Papists may be saved in such circumstances in which we do be­lieve Idolaters may be saved also. For, as the Roman Casuists conclude, that albeit the Scri­pture saith no fornicator shall be saved, yet doth not this conclude against those persons who are deceived with a Leah instead of Rachel, as good Jacob was; and albeit the drunkard be excluded by the same Scripture from Salvation, yet will not this condemn a holy Noah, who knew not that the wine he drank would have such ill effect upon him; and albeit the Scriptures say no Mur­therer shall have eternal life, yet will not that con­clude against thoe persons who in simplicity of heart do serve their Prince in an unlawful war; so neither will those Scriptures which say no Ido­later shal have eternal life, exclude the person who through like ignorance of fact, or right, commits Idolatry. And thus Quae omnia non nisi secun­dum quandam peccati perfecti­onem accipi de­bent, cum allo­qui constet eti­am ex ipsâ Scriptura in his peccatorum Generibus de­linqui posse ve­nialiter. Esti­us in Sent. l. 2. dist. 42. §. 4. in all these passages of Scripture, saith Estius, which in the general make the effect of sin exclusion from Christs Kingdom, destruction and eternal death, or in particular do reckon certain kinds of sins [Page 113]amongst those works of the flesh which exclude from Heaven, in all these passages, saith he, we are to understand the Scriptures only to speak of sins in general, or of those kinds of sins secun­dum quandam peccati perfectionem, i.e. when they are knowingly committed, and persisted in, and when they are not any way retracted by Repen­tance; for otherwise it is clear even from Scri­pture, that in committing of these kind of sins men may be only guilty of a venial fault.

2. Hence it appears that the Charity we ex­ercise towards the Church of Rome in this parti­cular, is only that Charity which they themselves have taught us, and which they exercise to others in like circumstances, when they pronounce them guilty of sins in their own nature damnable, and that it is not any necessity which lies upon us so to do, as R. H. wrongfully suggests, Disc. p. 78; but it is only love of truth, and evidence of reason, which is the ground of this our Charity. We being fully satisfied that the God of mercy will not condemn the person who sincerely doth Repent of all his unknown trespasses, by reason of those errors of his understanding which he was not able to correct, or which in his unhappy circum­stances, he hardly could discover to be errors.

3. I answer, that if the defect of a particular Repentance for, or an acknowledgment of eve­ry mortal sin committed by a Christian, will cer­tainly obstruct the possibility of his Salvation, then the Salvation of a Papist must be exceeding hazardous upon their own avowed Principles, for it is evident beyond denial, and proved by a late Author, that Roman Casuists do teach, The Practical Divinity of Pa­pists, &c. that Murther, Fornication, Uncleanness, Adultery, Theft, Lying Anger, Revenge, Reviling, Drunken­ness, [Page 114]and Covetousness, which is Idolatry, and all those sins which by the Scriptures are pro­nounced mortal, and so exclusive of the soul from Heaven, are either in some cases, which may often happen, none at all, or only venial sins; 'tis also certain that these Casuists are often sub­ject to very gross mistakes in passing this deter­mination, when a sin is venial, and when 'tis mortal, and very often contradict each the other, nay some of them confess they are not able, [...] [...]um. [...]ialia [...] à Gra­ [...]i non ex­ [...]imur, tace­ [...]citra culpam [...]ssunt. Sess. 14. c. 5. af­ter all their study, to lay down any certain rules in this particular. If then the Lay-man being deceived by his Priest judge that to be only a venial sin, which in reality is mortal, he being also taught by the trent Council, and his Roman Doctors, that he may without fault, conceal a ve­nial sin, and not at all confess it, he according to the Doctrine of R. H. must be condemned to eternal misery, for following the judgment of his blind mistaken Priest.

Ob. 6 §. V It is objected that a true Church, R. H. Disc. 78. whilst it con­tinues so to be, cannot be guilty of Idolatry, since therefore we acknowledg the Church of Rome to be, and to continue a true Church: we cannot truly say that she is guilty of Idolatry.

Answ. It is already truly answered by the Reverend and Learned Dr. Stilling fleet, Answ. to Sev. Treat. Part. 1. p. 20. that this objection is very disingenuous, because it doth not an­swer any of those Arguments which we have used to prove the Church of Rome Idolatrous, but only doth oppose the judgment of Charity to that of Reason, which doth engage us to con­clude they are Idolatrous, and therefore to be­lieve that, if Idolatry be not consistent with the true being of a Church, we err in this our Cha­ritable judgment, and therefore stand obliged to [Page 115]reverse it. For instance, suppose one of the Church of Judah, should have called the Chuch of Israel, in the time of Jeroboam a true Church, because they did acknowledg the true God, and did admit the Law of Moses in all other matters; and did believe the acknowledg­ment of those truths to be sufficient to preserve the essentials of a Chuch among them, and af­terwards the same person should endeavour to convince the Ten Tribes of their Idolatry in wor­shipping God by the Calves of Dan and Bethel; would this be thought a sufficient way of an­swering him to say, that he contradicted himself by granting them a true Church, and yet char­ging them with Idolatry! No, the true conse­quence would be that he thought some kind of Idolatry consistent with the being of a Church, and if this were not so, his Charity must be mistaken, provided that his reason could not be gainsayed.

2. That a true Church may yet continue so to be when it is guilty of Idolatry, may be made evi­dent from the consideration of the Jewish Church. For first, that the whole Church ws guilty of Idolatry in worshipping the golden Calf the Ro­manists do not deny; the Scriptures having clearly said, that by so doing they changed the image of the incorruptible God into the Similitude of a Calf. Ps. cvi. 19, 20. That they who worshipped the Calf did offer Sacrifice to an Idol, Acts vii. 41. and more expresly that they were Idolatrous, 1 Cor. 10.7. 2. That notwithstanding this Ido­latry, they still continued to be Gods Church and People, if he had then a Church on earth, is evi­dent, and therefore Verse 14. it is said that God repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his peoples.

Moreover that the worship of the Calves which Jeroboam had set up in Dan and Bethel was Idola­try, is evident from these considerations, 1. That it was a worship like to that of the Golden Calf, which we have proved to be Idolatrous. 2. God so esteemed this action, for thus he speaks to Je­roboam, 1 King. xiv. 9. Thou hast done evil above all that were before thee, for thou hast gone and made thee other Gods and molten Images to provoke me to anger. 3. These Calves are by the Scripture called Idols, Hos. viii. 4, 5.

2. That even from the time of Jeroboam to the Captivity of Israel the worship of the Calves was the Established Religion of the Ten Tribes. For, from the time of Jeroboam even to the days of Hosea, that is, the time when Israel was carried away into Assyria, we find not any King of Israel who Reigned above one Month, of whom it is not said expresly that he walked in all the ways of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, and in his sin wherewith he made Israel to sin. Moreover it is said expresly that when once Jeroboam had prevailed with Israel to commit that great sin of worshipping the Calves of Dan and Bethel, the Children of Israel walked in all the sins of Jero­boam which he did, they departed not from them, till the Lord removed Israel out of his sight. Whence it must necessarily follow that from the days of Jeroboam to the Reign of Hosea, the Church of Israel continued in her Idolatry.

3. That God during that time, or at the least some portion of it, did still esteem and own them as his Church and people; for Jehu was by a Prophet of the Lord Anointed King over the people of the Lord, N. B. even over Israel. 2 Kings ix. 6. Israel was therefore then the people of the Lord, [Page 117]though they continued in the sins of Jeroboam, as also Jehu did, 2 Kings x. 29. 2 King. xiii. 6. 2. In the days of Jehoahaz it is Recorded that the Children of Is­rael departed not from the sins of Jeroboam, who made Israel to sin, but walked in them, 2 King xiii. 23. and yet it is Recoded also that then the Lord was gracious to them, and had compassion on them, and respect to his Covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and would not destroy them, nor cast them from his preence as yet. Now his Covenant with Abra­ham, Isaac, and Jacob, was this, that he would be their God, and the God of their seed after them; to have respect to this Covenant, must therefore be to continue still to be their God, and own them for his people. 3. They with whom God was present, amongst whom he walked, in the mid [...] of whom he dwelt, and with whom he was; God in Covenant, were still his Church and People; and he was still their God, according to his promise, Lev. xxvi. 11, 12. I will set my Tabernacle amongst you, and will walk among you, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God. And indeed God in Scripture is said to walk among them by his gracious presence in his Tabernacle, 2 Sam. vii. 6. 1 Chron. xvii. 5. Psal. ix. 11. cxxxv. 21. Es. xviii. 4. Joel iii. 21.2 Chr. vi. 2. xxxvi. 15. Psal. lxxiv. 7. lxxvi. 2. lxxix. 7. Es. xviii. 4. Joel iii 17.2 King xiii. 23. Hos. xi. 9. he dwelt among them by dwelling at Jerusalem, in that Temple and that City, or by continuing his special presence there, and upon this account in Scripture the Temple is oft stiled his dwelling place. Now even in the times of the Idolatry of Israel, and Judah, God still was pre­sent with them, he walked and dwelt among them, and was their God in Covenant, he, I say, was still graciously preent with, he walked and dwelt among them, for yet he had not cast them from his presence, he was still the holy one in the midst of Ephraim, he was not yet departed from [Page 118]them, for he by way of commination saith Wo unto them, Hos. ix. 12. when I shall depart from them. After that they had even broken God with their whorish hearts which had departed from him, and with their eyes which went a whoring after their Idols, yet the glory of the Lord was not departed from the Sanctuary, but still appeared in the Temple, Ezek. vi. 9, 13. Ezek. ix. 3, 4. x. 3, 4. xviii. 19. Ezek. xvi. 20. and between the Cherubims, they after this bare sons and daughters unto God. Moreover that he was still their God in Covenant, appears from those expressions of the Prophets, when pleading in behalf of this backsliding people, they speak thus: Break not thy Covenant with us, thou art our Father, Jer. xiv. 21. Es. lxiv. 8, 9. Jer. iii. 14. we are all thy people; turn O backsliding Children, for I am married to you, and from innumerable places, in which he owns them for his people still, and is not yet ashamed to be called their God.

This will be farther evident from the New Testament, for in the Church of Corinth there were many of the strongest Christians, who be­ing in thier Consciences convinced that an Idol was nothing, and so could have no power to de­file the meat which had been offered to it; did upon this presumption sit down with others in the Idol Temples, and eat and drink that which they knew was offered to the Idol. This the A­postle plainly tells them was Idolatry, that it was in effect to have communion with Devils, 1 Cor. x. 7, 11, [...]0, 21, to drink he cup of Devils, and to be partakers of the table of Devils, and yet he clearly doth insinuate that they who through that error or mistake, were guilty of this Idol worship, might still re­main his Christian brethren and beloved.

Moreover that Babylon was the Mother of Har­lots and Abominations, that she commanded all her subjects to commit spiritual Fornication or Idolatry, St. John doth frequently inform us; Rev. xviii. 4. and yet that even here God had his Church and People, is evident from that voice from Heaven saying, Come out of her my people, for how could God have said, Come out of her my people, had he not then preserved alive within this Throne of Satan, a people to himself? Lastly the Jewish Synagog in the days of our Saviour Christ, had taken away the Key of knowledg, Luke xi. 52, Matt. xxiii. 13. they neither entered them­selves into his Kingdom, who were the keepers of that key, nor suffered others so to do. That little knowledg which remained among them was damnably corrupted, not only with the Saducean Heresie, which mightily prevailed amongst the wealthiest of them, but also with the leaven of the Scribes and Phraisees, who had by their Tra­ditions made void the Law of God, Matth. xv. 6; 9. and rendered his worship vain; these Scribes and Pharisees are by the Baptist styled a Generation of Vipers, Matth. iii. 7. Matth. xxiii. by Christ Blind foolish Hypocrites, persons that coald not scape the damnation of Hell. Of the whole people Christ pronounceth that they were of their father the Devil, Joh. viii. 44. and his works they would do, and yet God had his Church even then a­mong them, in which both Zacharias, Elizabeth, the Virgin Mary, and our Lord was born, of which both he, and his Apostles were then mem­bers, and into which they were admitted by Cir­cumcision. Their Priests were owned by our Sa­viour who sent the Lepers to them, Matth. viii. 4. Matth. xxiii. 2, 3. he acknow­ledged that these Scribes and Pharisees still sat in Moses Chair, and that obedience was therefore due unto them in all lawful matters. Nor could [Page 120]it possibly be otherwise, seeing Christs Church and Kingdom was not begun till after his own Resurrection, nor do we read of any that were added to the Church till then.

Answ. §. VI 3. Tha the Church of Rome may be a true visible Church in that sense in which our English Protestants confess she is so; i. e. as having truth of visible existence, though not truth of doctrine; and yet be guilty of Idolatry, will be apparent from these considerations,

1. That the notion of a visible Church which they lay down, as the true ground of this their Charitable judgment, containeth in it nothing inconsistent with the practice or allowance of Idolatry. For to the visibility of a Church, say they, is only requisite an outward profession of those things which supernaturally appertain to the very essence of Christianity, Eccl. Pol. l. 3. §. 1. p. 126. and are necessarily required in every Christian man. So the judicious Mr. Hooker.

Now among the things which supernaturally appertain to the essence of Christianity, they do not reckon Moral Righteousness and Honesty of life, because although the want of these excludeth from Salvation, yet are they not of supernatural Revelation, but are discovered to us by the light of Nature; they are the duties as well of Hea­thens, as of Christians; and so concern us, saith Mr. Hooker, not as Christians only, but as men.

Hence they infer that every thing which ex­cludeth from Salvation excludes not from the visible Church, this therefore cannot be, say they, essential to the being of a Church visible, that it doth hold or practise nothing which excludeth from Salvation. For instance, Despair, want of Charity, secret Infidelity, the proud and envious spirit, are all exclusive from Salvation; but none [Page 121]of them exclude a person who outwardly pro­fesseth all the essentials of Christian Faith, from being a true member of a Chuch visible. Should we then grant that the Idolatry now practised in the Church of Rome, was totally exclusive of Sal­vation, it would not follow that she did not con­tinue a true visible Church in the forementioned sense. Agreeable to this we are told by Zanchy, De Nat. dei Praefat. p. that in spight of Satan the Church of Rome re­tained still the chief foundations of the Faith, though weakned with the Doctrines of men; it retained the publick Preaching of the word of God, though in many places misunderstood and misconstrued, the Invocation of the name of Christ, though joyned also with the Invocation of dead men, the administration of Bap­tism instituted by Christ himself, howsoever defiled with the addition of many superstitions, so as toge­ther with the Symbol of the Covenant, the Co­venant it self remained still in her; the Church of Rome therefore is yet the Church of Christ. Apud Bishop Hall, To. 2. p. 94. In the Roman Church, saith Dr. Primrose, God doth still keep his word in the Old and New Tetament, as the contract of his Marriage with her, in her is the true Creed, the true Decalog, the true Lords Prayer, in her Christ is Preached, though corruptly, in her the Trinity and Incarnation of Christ are believed, in her the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are prayed to, though in an unknown tongue to the most part, in her the little Children are Baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and no man will deny that their Baptism is a true Sacrament whereby their children are born to God, seeing we do not rebaptise them, when leaving them, they join to us: Who then can deny that she is a true Church, seeing out of the true Chuch there is no Baptism, and the Church alone beareth Children to [Page 122]God? Now the belief of all these things here mentioned by Dr. Primrose and Mr. Zanchy are well consistent with the practice and allowance of Idolatry, and therefore in their judgments the truth of the visible Church may be consistent with it also.

2. They also add that a true visible Church may still continue so to be, even when she most deserves to be Divorced, provided God doth not give her a Bil of Divorce, remove her Candlestick or take away the Kingdom of God from her. Two things are requisite, Lect. in Apoc. p. 430, 431. saith Episcopius, to Ʋn­church a people, 1. That she merit a Divorce by reason of some deadly or fundamental error. 2. That God doth deal with her accordng to her merit by sending her a Bill of Divorce, both these are neces­sary to cause a Church to be so, for as a wife by being an Adulteress doth not yet cease to be a wife, whilst her own husband will acknowledg her, and not Divorce her from him, so is it with the Church of God. The Church of Sardis is by Christ owned as a Church, though as himself pronounceth, Ibid. p. 521. V. Hall, To. 2. Tr. of the Old Religion, p. 76. she only had a name to live, but really was dead. The being of a Church, saith Bi­shop Davenant, doth principally stand upon the action of God calling men out of darkness and death, to the participation of light and life in Christ Jesus, so long as God continues this calling to a people, though they, as much as in them lies, darken this light, and corrupt the means which should bring them to Life and Salvation in Christ, yet where God calls men to the participation of life in Christ by the Word, and by the Sacraments, there is the true being of a Church, let men be never so false in the exposition of Gods word, or never so untrusty in mingling their own Traditions with Gods Ordinances. Thus the [Page 123]Church of the Jews lost not the being of a Church when she became an Idolatrous Church. Thus to gran that the Roman was and is a true visible Church, though in Doctrine a false, and in practice an Idolatrous Church is a true assertion, and of greater use and necessity in our Controversie with Papists about the perpetuity of the Christian Church, than is understood by those that gainsay it.

3. They say that a true visible Church ceaseth not to be so, though she doth add to the profes­sion of those essentials which constitute her a true visible Church, such tenets as by unseen consequence do overthrow some of them. The Church of Rome, saith Bishop Hall, Advertis. p. 51. professing to hold those things diectly which by inferences she close­ly overthrows, she is a truly visible Church, but an unsound one: Again the Church of Rome, saith he, under a Christian face hath an Unchri­stian heart, overturning that foundation by necessary inferences which by open profession it avows, that face, that profession, those avowed principles, are enough to give it claim to the true outward visibility of a Christian Church, nor can those inferences Dis­church it, whilest those main principles are kept alive in that crazy and corrupted body. And again p. 63. if we measure the true being of a visible Church, by the direct maintaining of Fundamental Principles, though by consequences indirectly overturned, and by the possession of the word of God and his Sacra­ments, though not without foul adulteration, what judicious Christian can deny that the Church of Rome hath yet the true visibility of a Church of Christ? In respect of the common truths yet professed among the Papists, they may, Apud Bishop Hall, To. 2. Part 2. p. 82. saith Dr. Pri­deaux, and ought to be termed a true visible Church in opposition to Jews, Turks, and Pagans, who di­rectly [Page 124]deny the foundation, howsoever their Antichri­stian additions make them no better than the Syna­gogue of Satan.

4. They, whilst they do allow her to be a true visible Church, do also say she is Heretical, and do allow Heretical Churches to be true visi­ble Churches, Advertise­ment. p. 51. also that which Rome holds with us makes it a Church, saith Bishop Hall, that which it obtrudes upon us, makes it Here­tical; and elsewhere to this question, is the Church of Rome still a part of the truly existent visible Church of Christ? Reconciler, p. 61. He answers; Surely no other­wise than an Heretical and Apostatical Church is, or may be. Their Roman Church, saith Dr. Cra­kenthorp is Heretical, yet must she be accounted both, to be in the Church, and be a Church, not simply, not according to the integrity of Faith, not according to any inward virtue, Defens. Eccl. Angl. adv. Spalat. c. 16. not so effectually that it should avail to Salvation for a man to be in it; but yet a Church it is in some respects, accord­ing to the external profession of Faith, and of the word of God, accordin gto the Administration of the Sacraments, according to some Doctrines of true belief, by which as by so many outward ligaments, she is yet knit to the Orthodox and Ca­tholick Church. And to this Question, Is the Roman Church at this day no part of the Church of God? Appen. part 3. p. 883. our learned Dr. Field thus answers. Sure­ly as Austin noteth that the societies of Hereticks in that they retain the profession of many parts of heavenly truth, and the ministration of the Sacrament of Baptism, are so far joined with the Catholick Church, and the Catholick Church, in and by them bringeth forth children to God; so the present Roman Church is still in some sort a part of the visible Church of God, but no otherwise than [Page 125]other societies of Hereticks are, in that it retaineth the profession of some parts of heavenly truth, and ministreth the true Sacrament of Baptism to the Sal­vation of the Souls of many thousand Infants? We must acknowledg even Hereticks themselves to be, though a maimed part, yet a part of the Church visi­ble, saith the judicious Hooker, Eccl. Pol. l. 3. §. 1. if the Fathers do any where, saith he, as oftentimes they do make the true Church of Christ, and her com­panies opposite, they are to be construed as se­parating Hereticks, not altogether from the com­pany of Believers, but from the fellowship of sound Believers.

Lastly, They also do assert that an Idolatrous Church may yet continue to be a true Church vi­sible. Lo, say the Romanists, Reconcil, p. 64, 65. we are of the true visible Church, why then forsaken? Ans. Alass poor souls, saith Bishop Hall, do they not know that Hypocrites, leud persons, Reprobates, are no less members of the visible Church? what gain they by this but a deeper damnation? to what purpose did the Jews cry the temple of the Lord, whilst they despighted the Lord of that Temple? They are of the vi [...]le Church, but shamefully Idolatrous in practice. Our Saviour, saith Mr. Hooker, ubi Supra. compareth the Kingdom of Heaven to a Net which gathereth toge­ther good Fish and bad, and to a Field where Tares, manifestly known and seen of all men, do grow in­termingled with good Corn, and even so shall con­tinue to the consummation of the world. When the people of God worshipped the Calf in the Wil­derness, when they adored the Brazen Serpent, when they bowed the knee to Baal, and served the Gods of the Nations, when they burnt Incense, and offered Sacrifice to Idols, true it is the wrath of God was most fiercely inflamed against them, and [Page 126]they were forsaken of God in respect of that singu­lar mercy wherewith he kindly embraceth his faithful children, howbeit retaining the Law of God, and the holy Seal of his Covenant, the sheep of his vi­sible flock, they continued even in the depth of their disobedience, and rebellion; wherefore among them od always had a Church not only because be had thousands who never bowed the knee to baal, but even they whose knees were bowed to Baal, were also of the visible Church of God. Of the same judg­ment are Bishop Davenant, Dr. Primrose, Zanchy, and Episcopius, in the fore-cited places.

§ VII Now to admit the Church of Rome to be, in the large sense, a true visible Church of Christ, serves no designs of Popery, and is sufficient to justifie the Ordinations, and succession of the Clergy of the Church of England. For (I.) admit the first Reformers of our Church received their Or­dination from those Bishops which were them­selves guilty of Heresie, or Schism, or both, and therefore no true living Members of Christs bo­dy, nor any other ways to be reputed Members of the Church visible than Schismaticks and Here­ticks may be. This is abundantly sufficient to justifie our Ordination and Succession, and our en­trance into the visible Church by Baptism con­ferred by them. For of the Baptism of Here­ticks without exception, and therefore of those Hereticks, who by the judgment of the Univer­sal Church have been esteemed Idolaters, Sess. 7. cap. de Bapt. Can. 4. the Church of Rome in her Trent Council hath deter­mined that it is valid, and hath pronounced an Anathema, on those who say the contrary. Jews, Hereticks, Part 2. Cap. II. Sect. 24. and Infidels, may confer true Baptism, saith the Roman Catechism, as many Antient Fa­thers, and Decrees of Council teach, particularly [Page 127]the General Council of Constantinople, and the sixth General Council held in Trullo, the Coun­cil held at Florence, and the Lateran Council.

Moreover that the Ordination of Hereticks is valid, Preface to his Answer to se­veral Treat. Sess. 7. Can. 9.23. Can. 4. Cap. 68. Act. 1. the Learned Dr. Stillingfleet hath largely proved from the definition of the Trent Council, from the Code of Canons of the African Church, from the judgment of the se­cond Nicene Council, from the General recep­tion of this Doctrine in the Roman Church, for as Morinus witnesseth, De Sacris Ord. Part 3. Exer­cit. 5. c. 1. n. 12. the opinion of the validity of Orders conferred by Hereticks hath only obtained in the Roman Church during the last four Centuries, to which I add the definition of the first Nicene Council in the Case of the Cathari, Can. 8. [...]. Con. Nicen. 2. Act. 1. p. 68. or the Nova­tian Hereticks, that they returning to the Catholick and Apostolick Church should remain in that Order of Clergy in which they were only receiving [...] (or the imposition of hands for benediction and reconciliation) and that if any of them were found either in Villages, or Cities, to be the only Bishops that were there Ordained, they should continue in that same rank. Whereas concerning the Pauliani, who, as St. Austin thinks, De Haeres. Cap. 44. did not observe the es­sentials of true Baptism, the Council doth deter­mine that, if any of them should be found among the Clergy, they should be Rebaptized, and then receive [...] or Ordination by some Bishop of the Catholick Church, Can. 19. so that the Ordination of the Novatian Hereticks, who were very numerous, and whose Bishops had continued in a long Suc­cession at Constantinople, Ephesus, Socrat. Hist. Eccles. l. 2. cap. 38. p. 114. l. 7. cap. 11. at Cyzicum, and in most other places, is by this great and holy Synod here pronounced valid, and they who were Ordained by their Bishops were not re­ceived into the Church as Greeks, or degraded into [Page 128]the rank of Lay-men, whereas, by reason of some fundamentla error in the case of Baptism, it is determined that the Pauliani who were of their Clergy, should be by Baptism admitted first into the Church, and then by Ordination of the Bishop into the number of the Clergy. The judg­ment of St. Austin is so clear in this point, that we need nothing more to evidence the Faith and practice which then obtained in the Church. For, that the Ordination of Hereticks is valid, he both asserts against the Donatists, and proves by these two mediums. 1. That their Baptism being valid, according to the determination of the Church; their Ordination must be deemed so; there is no reason, Lib 2. Contra Epist. Parm. c. 13. saith he, that they who cannot lose their Baptism should lose the power of giving Baptism to others, for they both of them are Sacra­ments, both of them are given by Consecration, one when the person is Baptized, the other when he is Ordained, and therefore in the Catholick Church, it is not lawful to reiterate either of them. 2. Be­cause, saith he, a person who, after his Ordina­tion in the Church Catholick, Non sunt rursus ordinandi, sed sicut Baptismus in eis, ita Or­dinatio mansit integra, qua in praecisione erat vitium non in Sacramentis quae ubicunque sunt ipsa vera sunt. Ibid. becomes an Here­tick must not at his return to the Church be Re­ordained, and therefore neither must he be Re­ordained who hath received Ordination out of the Church Catholick, and hence it is, saith he, that if any Bishops of the Donatists are won over to the Church, and it doth seem convenient that they should bear the same Offices, which formerly they did, they are not by the Church Ordained, but as their Baptism, so their Ordination remains intire. By this determination the Doctors of the Ro­man Church are generally swaied, so that there is, saith Bellarmine, Bell. 1.4. de Rom. P [...]ntif. C. 10. § at em­tra. scarce any Catholick who knows not that they who are Baptized by Hereticks are [Page 129]Baptized truly, and they that are Ordained by Hereticks are Ordained truly, when the Heretick that Ordains is truly a Bishop, at least, as to his Character.

§ VIII 2. That the Ordination made by those Here­ticks who really were, or by the Church have been condemned as Idolaters or persons guilty of more hainous crimes, when these Ordainers were true Bishops, was esteemed valid by the Church, the same Learned Person hath demon­strated, Desence of his Discourse. part 2. Chap. 4. p. 795, 798. 1. From the judgment of the second Nicene Council in the Case of Meletius, who was ordained by Arian Bishops, and whose Ordina­tions were accounted valid by an Alexandrian Synod in their Synodal Epistle, Eccles. Hier. l. 2. cap. 10. § 9 which, saith Pe­tavius, contains the faith received in the whole Church Catholick, and in the Synodal Epistle of the first Nicene Synod, which, saith Petavius, Idem App. To. 3. Eccl. Hier. l. 2. c. 3 § 4. determined that they who were constituted and confirmed by my­stical imposition of hands, should be received into the Communion of the Church, and enjoy their functions with these provisions, that they should be in every Church and Parish after those Bishops and Presby­ters which were ordained by Alexander Bishop of Alexandria, that they should have no power of elect­ing whom they pleased, nor of propounding of the names of those whom they thought fit to be chosen into the body of the Clergy. 2. This he doth prove from a fuller testimony of the general sense of the Church of that age, Hist. Eccles. l. 1. c. 28. recorded by Ruffinus con­cerning the admission of those who had received orders from the Arian Bishops to the exercise of their Priestly Office, with which decree of the Alexandrian Council about the receiving the Arian Bishiops and Priests, upon disowning their Heresie, Adv. Lucifer. init. though Lucifer did quarrel, yet Jerom saith that [Page 130]it was universally received by the Church: This will be farther evident from the 7. Canon of the second General Council of Constantinople, and from the 95. Canon. of the Synod held at Trullo, in both which Canons it is determined that the Arian Baptism should be esteemed valid, Contra Epist. Parmen. lib. 2. c. 13. Sess. 23. c. 4. Synod. Ephes. Epist. ad Theod. & Vale t Impe­rat. Act. Synod. cap. 7. Audemus Ana­thematizare Ne­storii Idolola­triam in homine. 2 Nic. Concil. Act. 7. Epist. ad Constantinum & Iren. Act. 1. p. 68. E. Haer. 80. n. 3. [...]. 10 Act. 1. p. 72. E. [...]. Act. 1. p. 77. E. [...] Act. 4. p. 236. A Act 6. p. 357. B. [...] Act. 1. p. 77. C. Act. 3. p. 160. D.E. and not to be reiterated, and therefore, as S. Austin doth infer, they must esteem their Ordination also valid and not to be reiterated. Because in the Sacrament of Orders as well as Baptism, saith the Tret Council, an indelible Character is impressed. Moreover.

That the Nestorians were Idolaters hath been declared by the Church, and yet their Ordina­tion by the same Church hath been accounted valid, saith the second Nicene Council.

That the Massaliani or Euchytae were worship­pers of the Devil, Epiphanius doth inform us, and yet their Ordinations were allowed by the third General Council of Ephesus, and it was there de­creed, saith the Second Nicene Council, that as ma­ny of their Clergy as would renounce their He­resie and return to the Church should remain in the number of the Clergy.

Concerning the Heresie of the Iconoclasts, it is determined by the members of the Second Ni­cene Council, that it is [...] the worst of evils and of vHeresies, What shall we esteem them, saith Tarusius, who sitbvert Sacred Images? They must be counted, saith the Synod, as Atheists, Jews, and enemies of the truth. They who reject them are like to Jews and Samaritans, faith the same Synod; and again if the making of Images be likened to Idols, the mystery of our redemption is made void, saith the same Council: and yet this very Coun­cil doth determine that even these very persons who confessed that they were born, and bred up in [Page 131]this worst of Heresies, should be admitted into the Order of Priesthood which they had formerly re­ceived, and doth accordingly admit them.

Moreover from the Trent Council I thus argue, that power which is not Temporary, and there­fore never can be taken away, continues with Idolatrous Priests and Bishops, as well as with o­ther Hereticks, but according to the definition of the Trent Council, that power which is given in the Sacrament of Orders, impressing on the receiver an indelible Character never can be taken away; For so they do expresly testifie in these words. Because in the Sacrament of Order as well as Confirmation and Baptism a Character is impressed, In Sacramento ordinis Character imprimitur nec delert auferri po. Sess. 23. 4. which neitehr can be blotted out, nor taken away, N.B. This holy Syned justly condemneth their opinion who hold that Priests of the New Testament have only a temporary power. Lastly, agreeable to this determination of the Trent Council is the determination of the Schools, for that every Bishop is a Minister of Scred Orders is so true, saith Estius, In Sent. l. 4. dist. 25. § 3. that no Crime how enormous soever, as Heresie, Schism, Apostacy, nor any censure how weighty soever, as V.G. that of Ex­communication, can hinder the validity of any Ordi­nation made by such a person, even out of his own Jurisdiction, provided he observe the due rites of Or­dination in things essential to that Sacrament. This doctrine, saith he, is sufficiently confirmed by the continual practice of the Church, which never reor­dained any who returned from any Heresie or Schisin whatsoever in which they were ordained. Men, saith Petavius, De Eccl. Hier. l. 2. Cap. 9. § [...]. may be deprived of the Communion of the Church, of all honour, dignity, function, and power ecclesiastical, as was the case of Anthimus the in­truder into the See of Constantinople, and may be censued as unfit to be accunted Christians, which [Page 132]was the censure that Felix the Third, and a Ro­man Synod past upon Acacius, but when the Church by proscribing, and condemning them hath taken from them all it can, it cannot ake away the power of Baptism and Ordination, and therefore the Church Catholick hath judged that they who were Baptised and Ordained by Hereticks, and Schismaticks have both true Baptism, and true Orders, and hath rejected those that think other­wise as Hereticks, which both innumerable Synods, and Orthodox Fathers among whom Austin doth excel, have proved against the Luciferians, the Donatists, the Arians, and other Pests of the Church.

§ IX There be some eminent Divines among us, who are, I hope not without reason, more can­did in their apprehensions of the Roman Church before the Reformation admitting it to have con­tinued, when Luther and his friends began their Reformation, to have been a Church, in which Salvation might be had, not only for the ignorant, but also for many others who did not open­ly renounce Communion with her. That we yield no more to our Adversaries now than for­merly we did, Appendix part 3. p. 880. saith Dr. Field, in that we ac­knowledge the Latine or Western Churches, sub­ject to Roman Tyranny, before God raised up Luther, to have been the true Churches of God in which a saving profession of the truth of Christ was found, and wherein Luther himself received his Christianity, Ordination, and power of Mi­nistry; I will first shew that all our best, and most renowned Divines did ever acknowledg as much as I have written. Now that which doth induce them thus to judg, was the consideration of these things.

1. That notwithstanding those very many and very grievous errors which then obtained too generally, and which were too much coun­tenanced by the most powerful members of the Roman Church, there still remained a profession and acknowledgment of so much truth, as be­ing joyned with Piety might be sufficient to bring her members to eternal life. If at this day, saith Bishop Ʋsher, Sermon be­fore his Maje­sty at Wansled. p. 28. we should take a survey of the several professions of Christianity that have any large spread in any part of the world, as of the Religion of the Roman, and the Resor­med Churches in our quarters, of the Aegyptians, and Aethiopians in the South; of the Graecians, and other Churches in the Eastern parts, and should put by the points wherein they dif­fer one from another, and gather into one bo­dy the rest of the Articles wherein they all do generally agree, we should find that in those propositions, which without all controversie are universally received in the whole Christian world, so much truth is conteined, as being joyned with holy obedience may be sufficient to bring a man to everlasting Savlation; neither have we cause to doubt but that as many as do walk according to this rule (neither overthrow­ing that which they have builded up, by super-inducing any damnable Heresies thereupon, nor otherwise vitiating their holy Faith with a lewd and wicked conversation) peace shall be upon them and mercy. Which doctrine he confirms, 1. from the constant practice of the Apostles in their first receiving men into the society of the Church. For, saith he, in one of the Apostles ordinary Sermons we see there was so much matter delivered as was sufficient to convert [Page 134]men to the Faith, and make them capable of Baptism, and (yet) these Sermons treated only of the first principles of the Doctrine of Christ in these first principles, therefore must the foun­dation be contained, and that common unity of Faith, Ibid. p. 20. which is required in all the members of the Church. Again p. 16. As there is a com­mon Salvation, so is there a common Faith which is alike precious in the highest Apostle, and the meanest believer, for we may not think that Heaven was prepared for deep Clerks only, and therefore besides that larger measure of know­ledge whereof all are not capable, there must be a rule of Faith common to small and great, which as it must consist but of few propositions, for simple men cannot bear away many, so is it also requisite that these Articles should be of so much weight and moment, that they may be sufficient to make a man wise unto salvation. If then Salvation by believing these common principles may be had, and to Salvation none can come who is not first a member of the Ca­tholick Church of Christ, it followeth that the unity of Faith generally requisite for the incor­porating of Christians into that blessed Society, P. 17. is not to be extended beyond these common prin­ciples. Which may farther be made manifest unto us by the continual practice of the Catho­lick Church herself in the matriculation of her Children, and first admittance of them into her Communion. For when she prepared her Ca­techumeni for Baptism, and by that door received them into the cougregation of Christs Flock, we may not think her judgment to have been so weak as to omit any thing herein that was essen­tially necessary for the making of one a member [Page 135]of the Church. Now the profession which she required of all that were to receive baptisin was, for the Agenda or practical part, an abrenuntia­tion of the Devil, the World, and the Flesh, with all their sinful lusts, and works, and for the things to be believed, an acknowledgment of of the Articles of the Creed, which being per­formed solemnly, she then baptized them in this faith, intimating thereby sufficiently that this was that one faith commended to her by the Apostles, Ibid. p. 17. as the other that one Baptisin which was appointed to be the Sacrament of it. And that the creed of the Apostles as it is explained in the latter Creeds of the Catholick Church, was esteemed by the general suffrage of the Greek and Latine Fathers, and the whole Antient Church, See P tters answer to Cha­rity Mistaken, § 7. from p. 216. to 233. Mr. Chill. c. 4. § 83, 8 [...]. Bi­shop Tayor, diss part. 2. l. 1. § 4. a sufficient Summary, or Catalogue of fundamen­tals, that even by the Trent Council, the Trent Catechism, and the best learned Romanists, it is acknowledged so to be, is very largely and con­vincingly demonstrated by many eminent Wri­ters of our Church.

2. They add that those prevailing doctrin [...]s which thwarted the great fundamentals of our faith, and made salvation more difficult, were indeed docrines strongly then prevailing in, but not received and owned as Articles of Faith by all themembers of the Church of Rome. Answ. to Cha­rity Mistaken. § 3. p. 64, 65. In the latter Ages before the Reformation, saith Dr. Potter, though the Court of Rome by cunning and violence had subdued many noble parts of Christendom under her yoke, yet the servitude of that Church and her misery was somewhat more supportable, because these base and pernicious adjections were not yet the publick decisions or tenets of any Church, but only the private con­ceits [Page 136]of the domineering Faction. Of the Church, l. 3. chap. 8. p. 85. We most firmly believe, saith Dr. Field, all the Churches of the world wherein our Fathers lived and dyed to have been the true Churches of God in which undoutedly Salvation was to be found, and that they which taught, embraced and be­lieved those damnable errors which the Roma­nists now defend against us, were a faction only in the Church, as were they that denyed the Re­surrection, urged Circumcision, and despised the Apostles of Christ, in the Churches of Co­rinth and Galatia. So Bishop Brambal fre­quently, Dr. Potter. § 3. p. 76. Others do charge these things not on the Church but Court of Rome, betwixt which two there might be some considerable di­stinction then, though now there is no diffe­rence betwixt them in any of those Doctrines which concern the objects of their worship.

3. Dr. Field Ap­pend. part. 3. p. 881. They add that the Roman Church that then was, though it had in it all the abuses and superftitious observations it now hath, yet it had also others who desired the removal of all those abuses and superstitious observations which we have removed; the Roman Church which then was, was the whole number of Christians sub­ject to Papal Tyranny, whereof a great part de­sired nothing more than to shake off that yoke, which, as soon as he began to oppose himself, they presently did; but the Roman Church that now is, is the multitude of such only as do mag­nifie, admire, and adore the plenitude of Pa­pal power, or at least are contented to be under the yoke of it still. The gross corruption of the service of the Church was then complained of by all good men, Idem. Append. to his third Book of the Church. p. 190. and amongst other Articles of Reformation they desired that the Breviaries and Missals might be purged. Now in respect [Page 137]of those persons who were the prevailing faction of the Church, maintaining these corrupt Doctrines as Articles of Christian Faith, and upholding these superstitious abuses and pertinaciously per­sisting in their errors, the Roman Church, saith Dr. Field, was verè Ecclesia truly a Church, Append. 3. part p. 882. that is, a multitude of men professing Christ, and Baptized, but not vera Ecclesia a true Church, that is a multitude of men holding a saving pro­fession of the truth in Christ. But in respect of those who groaned under the yoke, who secretly disliked and disowned her corrupt Doctrines, and earnestly desired and wished the Reformation of her superstitious abuses, and of those also who submitted to them only for want of better in­formation in those obscure times, the Roman Church was vera Ecelesia a true Church, that is a multitude of men holding a saving profession of the truth in Christ. So the Church of the Jews at the coming of Christ had in it the Scribes, Pharisees, and Saduces, as well as Za­chary, Elizabeth, Simeon, and Anna; in respect of the former it was truly a Church, but not a true Church; in respect of the latter it was a true Church.

Ob. But why then did not these persons, if they were of any considerable number, more publickly oppose what they so much disliked?

Answ. If you look into Father Pauls History of the Council of Trent, you will find them cen­suring most of their determinations, you will find there the German Bishops determining against the adoration of Images in a Provincial Council, and delcaring that the Saints departed are to be ho­nored but with the worship of society and love, P. 278, 279. as also gadly men may be honored in this Life. Which [Page 138]Explications, saith Father Paul, being well con­sidered do shew how much the opinions of the Catholick Prelates of Germany do differ fromt hose of the Court of Rome, youwill there also find sthem quarrelling with that saying of the Synod that Divine worship was due to the Sacrament, as improper, and saying it was well corrected in the sixth Canon which said, that the Son of God was to be worshipt in the Sacrament. 2. There was no reason to expect more open opposition of these Doctrines and abuses, there being no probability of success against the Court of Rome which was then very powerful, and had not only worsted mighty Princes, but used extreme severity against such dissenters, destroying them without all mercy; V. Mr. Dodwel Answer to Qu. 2. p. 59, 67. which had all the Bishops engaged to them by their oaths, and worldly interests, which lastly declared all things Heresie in which men differed from them, and prosecuted them, upon that account, with the extremest infamy and highest punishments: here then we have a true Western Church, not Idolatrous, before the Re­formation, in which Salvation might be had.

Ob. 7 § X But saith R.H. if the Church of Rome be guilty of that Idolatry with which the Writers of the Church of England charge her, Discourse p. 76, 77. she must be guilty of Heathenish Idolatry, for according to Dr. Stillingfleet and others, her Idolatry is the same with that of Heathens, and surely that excludeth from Salvation, and must be incon­sistent with a true Church.

Answ. When we say the Idolatry of the Church of Rome is the same with that of Heathens, we do not mean that it is so either in reference to the object, viz. those evil spirits which the Hea­thens worshiped, or in respect of the rites with [Page 139]which they worshipped their Deacons, viz. human sacrifices, and unclean performances, but only in this respect that both of them do worship the creature for the Creator; or give that worship to the creature which belongs to God alone. 2. Although the Papists be in some single actions guilty of Idolatry, yet do they in the general ser­vice of their lives give God the honor due to him; they pray to God, trust in him, they praise and love him, and perform to him all the positive duties of the first Table, though they do not perform them all to him alone, whereas the Hea­thens paid their whole worship to their Demons, and gave no worship to the God of Israel, they were without God in the world, Ephes. ii. 12. saith B. Paul, and God was without service from them, Rom. i. 21. and even they that knew God yet did not glorifie him as God. Now that Idolatry which robs God of his whole service, performing it intirely to evil spi­rits, or in an undue manner, may very well be damnable, and inconsistent with the being of a Church; whilst that which is consistent with the performance of all those positive duties which we ow to God, and doth not wholly rob him of any part of our Religious worship, may not de­serve so hard a censure. This is apparent 1. From the instance of St. Leo, Sermon 7. in Nativ. Dom. who speaks of some foolish persons who from some eminent places did adore the rising Sun, a thing which some Chri­stians think they do so Religiously, that before they enter into the Church of St. Peter the Apo­stle, Quibus ad sug­gestum area su­perioris ascendi­tar. which is dedicated to the one true and living God, having got up the Stairs which lead to the ascent of the High Altar, turning their bo­dies they bend them to the rising Sun, bowing their necks in honor of that splendid Orb, which [Page 140]we are troubled to see done, partly out of igno­rance, and partly from a Paganish spirit. For though perhaps some worship rather the Crea­tor of this bright light, than the light it self which is a creature, yet ought they to abstain from the appearance of this service, which when one who hath left the worship of the Gods, shall find among us, will he not retain that part of his old opinion as probable, which he sees common to Christians, and to Heathens? Let therefore that perversiness which is to be con­demned, be rejected from the practice of the faithful. Nor let the honor which is due to God alone be mingled with their rites who serve the creature, for the Holy Scripture saith, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve. Matth. iv. 10. Job xxxi. 26, 28. And blessed Job, If I beheld the Sun when it shined, or the Moon walking in brightness and my heart hath been secretly enticed, or my mouth hath kissed my hand, this is a very great ini­quity, and a denial of the most high God: Where 1. Observe that he concludes this practice to be plain Idolatry, because, as he insinuates, it is the giving of that worship to the light, which is a creature, which is due only to the Creator of that light, It is, saith he, the honor which is due to God alone, the honor which is forbidden by Scripture which saith, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, &c. and which good Job refused to do, because it was a virtual denyal of the God above. 2. Observe that it was Heathenish Ido­latry, it was Idolary proceeding, saith St. Leo, from a Pagan spirit, common to Christians with the Heathens, it was the old opinion of those who had left the Heathen Worship. And 3. Not­withstanding this, it was performed by some [Page 141] Christians from an apprehension that they were Religious in so doing, they therefore had no in­tention either to deny, or dishonor God by this service paid unto the Sun, and therefre St. Leo calls them Christians, and beloved Christians; he saith, they did it partly out of ignorance, and sins of ignorance we know, if they be generally re­pented of, exclude not from Salvation. 2. The Host not Consecrated is a meer creature, the wor­ship therefore of the Host not Consecrated with Latria, must be Idolatry, because it is the giving of that worship to a creature which belongs alone to the Creator. And yet it may, and oft doth happen by the confession of the Multae sunt causae propter quas potest ac­cidere ut Chri­stus non sit prae­sens: ut si sa­cerdos non sit Batizatus, vel non sit ritè or­dinatus, quod pendet ex mul­tis aliis causis quibus fere in infinitum pro­gredi possumus. Suarez. in 3. Th. qu. 79. Art. 8. disp. 65. § 2. Romanists through many secret defects, which do not fall under the Cognisance of him that worships, that the Host presented to the adoration of the peo­ple is not Consecrated; it therefore may, and oft doth happen, that they who absolutely wor­ship with Latria the supposed Host, are guilty of material Idolatry; and yet I hope R.H. would not condemn all those to everlasting misery, who do incur this guilt in his own Church; here there­fore is a second instance of Idolatry which in their own opinion is not damnable, nor doth ex­clude a person from being a true member of the Church: 3. It is ingenuously confessed by many Romanists, that many of the ruder sort among them are guilty of Idolatry (1.) in worshipping of Images: For, saith De vanit. Sci­ent. Cap. de I­mag. where he also asks, Cur auferimus glo­riam Deo, tribu­entes eam pictu­ris ac statuis, ac si possent trahe­re in contempla­tionem Dei. Cornelius Agrippa, it is not to be spoken how great superstition, I might say Idolatry, is fostered among rude people by Image-worship; while the Priests connive at these things, and make no small gain by it. Durand. Rat. l. 1. c. 3. num. 4. Durandus Mi­matensis saith, that weak and simple people by in­discreet, and too much using of Images may be [Page 142]drawn to Idolatry. Biel. Canon. Miss. lect. 49. lit. v. p. 114. B. Consult. Cap. de Imag. p. 206. And Gabriel Biel add that some people are so foolish as that they think some Deity, or Sanctity to be in Images. Cassander saith, it is more manifest than that it can be denyed, that the worship of Images and Idols hath too much prevailed, and the superstitious humor of people hath been so cockered that nothing hath been omitted among us either of the highest adoration, or vanity of Painims, in worshipping and adoring Images. L. 6. De invent Rerum c. 13. p. 423. Polydore Virgil complains that the people are grown to such madness that this Piety (of Image-worship) differs little from impiety. For there are many rude and stupid persons who adore Images of wood, stone, marble, and brass, or painted win­dows, not as signs, but as though they had sense, and they repose more trust in them than in Christ, or the Saints to whom they are dedicated. More­over they themselves confess that where the wor­ship of the Image of a Divine person is not tran­sitive, but terminative, that is, where it stays in the Image, and passeth not to the exemplar; their Divine worship is terminatively given to the Image, that is unto a creature. Now seeing it is certain that the common people in worship­ping the Images of Christ, and of the Blessed Tri­nity, do oft not mind God, when they do cu­stormarily pay an act of adoration to these Ima­ges, much less direct that act by an intention of their minds unto the Prototype, their address be­ing then actually to the Image, and the mind not transferring it so much as by one thought towards the Prototype, it will necessarily termi­nate in the Image, if any where, and so be cer­tainly Idolatry. A second instance of this nature is in the worship of the Saints departed: For in this Ludovicus Vives doth confess that many Chri­stians [Page 143]often sin venerating Saints of both Sexs no o­therwise than they serve God himself N.B. neither do I see, Annot. in Aug. de C.D. l. 8. c. 27. saith he, in many of them what difference there is between their opinion concerning the Saints, Christiani vetu­li & seniculi qui non minus fidunt aut tri­buunt divis quam Deo. uti­nam ment [...]ar & nulli sint hujus­modi. Annot. in 2 Tim. c. 3. P. 118. G. and that which the Pagans held of their Gods: Claudius Especaeus complains that in his time there were among them old and decrepid Christians who trusted, and attributed no less to Saints, than unto God himself, concluding with this honest wish, would to God I lyed, and that there were no persons of this kind. Now if R.H. will not con­demn all these unto the Pit of Hell, he must ac­knowledg that some Idolatry may be consistent with Salvation, although it be the same in kind with that of Heathens.