Concerning Idolatry in the Church of Rome, Reply to the answer

Concerning Idolatry in the Church of Rome · Reply to the answer

p. 9The Proposer of the Questions Reply to the Answer.

Madam,

I Did not expect that two bare Questions could have produced such a super-foetation of Controversies, as the Paper you sent me is fraught with; But since the Answerer hath been pleased to take this Method, (for what end himself best knows) I shall not refuse to give a fair and plain return, to the several points he insists upon, and that with as much brevity as the matter and circumstances will bear.

The Questions proposed were: 1. Whether a Protestant having the same Motives to become a Catholick, which one bred and born, and well grounded in Catholick Religion hath to remain in it, may not equally be saved in the profession of it?

The 2. Whether it be sufficient to be a Christian in the abstract, or in the whole latitude; or there be a necessity of being a member of some distinct Church or Congregation of Christians?

p. 10The first he saith, being supposed to be put concerning a Protestant continuing so, implyes a contradiction; but where it lyes I cannot see, for a Protestant may have the same Motives, and yet out of wilfulness or passion not acquiesce to them. He saw no doubt this supposition to be impertinent to the Question, and therefore in the second part of the 1. §. states it thus: Whether a Protestant leaving the communion of the Protestant Church, upon the motives used by those of the Roman Church, may not be equally saved with those who were bred in it.

The Question thus stated in its true supposition, he answers first, §. 2. That an equal capacity of salvation of those persons being supposed, can be no argument to leave the Communion of a Church, wherein the salvation of a person may be much more safe than either of them. But before I reply, I must do both him and my self right in matter of fact; and it is, Madam, that when you first addressed to me, you professed your self much troubled, that he had told you, a person leaving the Protestant communion, and embracing the Catholick, could not be saved. That we should deny salvation to any out of the Catholick Church, you lookt upon as uncharitable, and this assertion of his had startled you in the opinion you had before of the Protestant Charity. Whereupon you desired to know p. 11my opinion in the case, and I told you I saw no reason, why the same Motives which secured one born and bred, and well grounded in Catholick Religion, to continue in it, were not sufficient also to secure a Protestant, who convinced by them, should embrace it. This Madam, your self can witness, was the true occasion of your proposing the Question, and not as the Answerer supposes, that I used the meer Question it self as a sufficient Argument to perswade you to embrace the Catholick Communion. This premised, I reply, that the Answer he gives, is altogether forrain to the matter in hand, the Controversie not being between a Bred and a Converted Catholick on the one side, and a person supposed to be in a safer Church than either of them on the other: nor yet between two several Churches supposed to have in them an equal Capacity of salvation, but between a person bred in the Catholick Religion on the one side, and another converted to it from Protestantism on the other, whether the latter may not be equally saved with the former? Nor is it to the purpose of the present Question, to prove that it is of necessity to Salvation to leave the Protestant Church, and become a member of the Catholick, because the Question is only of the possibility, not of the necessity of Salvation. I say it is not necessary to the present Question to prove this, but rather belongs to the second, where I shall p. 12speak to it. Whether there be a necessity of being a member of some distinct Church? Which being resolved affirmatively by both parts, it follows then in order to enquire which this true Church is. As for the Example of a man leaping from the plain, ground into a Ship that is in danger of being Wrackt, meaning by that Ship (as I suppose he does) the Catholick Church. Some will be apt to think he had come nearer the Mark if he had compared the Protestant to a Ship, which by often knocking against the Rock on which the Catholick Church is built, had split it self into innumerable Sects, and was now in danger of sinking: his comparison was grounded only on his own supposition, but this is grounded on the truth it self of too sad an experience. But to leave words, and come to the matter. His second Answer is, §. 3. that all those who are in the communion of the Church of Rome do run so great a hazard of their Salvation, that none who have a care of their souls ought to embrace or continue in it. The first answer as I have shewed, was nothing pertinent to the present Question, nor comes this second any nearer the matter, for though it be supposed, that none ought to embrace or continue in the Catholick Church by reason of the great hazard, he saith, they run of their salvation, yet if they do embrace or continue in it, why may they not be equally saved, that p. 13is, with equal capacity; but this assertion, however beside the Question, he makes it his main business to prove, First, §. 4. Because those who embrace or continue in the Catholick Church are guilty either of Hypocrisie or Idolatry, either of which are sins inconsistent with salvation. And here he must give me leave to return upon him a more palpable contradiction, than that he supposed to have found in the Question, viz. to assert only, that those of the Catholick Communion run a great hazard of their salvation, and yet affirm at the same time that they are guilty either of Hypocrisie or Idolatry, sins inconsistent with Salvation: which reduced into plain terms, is no other but that they may be saved, though hardly, and yet cannot be saved. But to the Argument, The Church of Rome, by the Worship of God by Images, by the adoration of Bread in the Eucharist, and the formal invocation of Saints, doth require the giving to the Creature the Worship due only to the Creator; Therefore it makes the members of it guilty of Hypocrisie or Idolatry. The charge is great, but what are the proofs?

Concerning the first he saith, §. 5. that in the Worship of God by Images, the Worship due to God is terminated wholly on the Creature. And surely this implies another contradiction, that it should be the Worship of God by Images, and yet be terminated p. 14wholly on the Creature; Nevertheless he proves it thus; The Worship which God himself denyes to receive, must be terminated upon the Creature; but God himself in the second Commandment, not only denyes to receive it, but threatens severely to punish them that give it, that is, that Worship him by an Image. Therefore it cannot be terminated on God, but only on the Image. To this Argument, which to be just to the Author, I confess I have not seen any where proposed in these terms, I answer, the first Proposition is built on a great mistake of the Nature of humane acts, which though they ought to be governed by the Law of God, yet when they swerve from it, cease not to tend to their own proper objects. Gods prohibition of such or such a kind of Worship, may make it to be unlawful, but hinders not the act from tending, whither it is intended; and consequently if it be intended or directed by the understanding to God, though after an unlawful manner, it will not fail to be terminated upon God: Thus when a Thief or a Murderer prayes to God to give him good success in the Theft or Murder he intends, though God denyes to hear any such Prayer, yet is the Prayer truly directed to him: and thus when the Iews offered to God in Sacrifice the blind and the lame, though he had forbidden it, yet was the oblation terminated on him, and therefore he reproves them for having polluted him, Mal. p. 151. 8. and to convince them the more of their evil doings: offer it now, sayes he, to thy Governour, will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person? Though the Governour deny to accept what is presented to him, yet it is truly offered to him by the presenter; and so, although God deny to accept such or such Sacrifice, yet it is truly offered to him, though the offering of it after a forbidden manner make it to be sin: Did not God refuse to accept the Sacrifice of Cain, and yet the Scripture, Gen. 4. 3. sayes expresly, that he brought an offering to the Lord? God had not respect to Cain nor his offering, but this did not hinder, but that Cains offering had respect to God, and was terminated on him. In like manner, though God deny such or such a kind of Worship; if it be offered though unlawfully by the Creature, yet is it terminated on him. The Proposition therefore which asserts, that the Worship which God denyes must be terminated on the Creature, I deny as absolutely false, and so will you too, Madam, when you shall see the sense of it to be no other, but that a wicked man cannot Pray to God, or Worship him in an unlawful or forbidden manner, who is therefore a wicked man because he does so. What follows from hence is, that though God should have forbidden men to Worship him by Images, yet it does not follow but the Worship so given, would be terminated on him. But now to speak p. 16to his second Proposition in which the main force of this Argument consists.

We utterly deny that God in the second Commandment, forbids himself to be Worshipped by a Crucifix, for example, or such like Sacred Image; for such only are the subject of the present Controversie. What he forbids there, is to give his Worship to Idols: and this is clear from the Circumstances of the Text: First, Because this Commandment, if St. Austins Iudgement be to be followed, is but a part or Explication of the first, Thou shalt have no other Gods before me: Secondly, because the Hebrew word Pesel, in Latine Sculptile, is used in Scripture to signifie an Idol: Let them be confounded who adore Sculptilia, that is, Idols, saith the Psalmist, and so the Septuagint translate it in this very place foreign, an Idol, Thou shalt not make to thy self an Idol; so that it was an artifice of the Protestants to make their assertion seem plausible, to translate Image instead of Idol; and not a certain kind of Image neither, but any whatsoever. Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image. Now what is all this to Catholicks, who neither make to themselves, nor adore Idols, nor yield Soveraign honour or acknowledgement of Deity to any but God? We give indeed a veneration to Images, but the Image of God is not another God besides him, nor is the Worship of it the Worship of another p. 17God, but of him who is represented by it: for St. Basil saith, The Worship of an Image stayes not there, but is referred or carried to the prototype, or thing represented.

We give therefore an inferior, or relative honour only to the Sacred Images of Christ, and his blessed Mother, and Saints, not latriam, the Worship due to God, but Honorariam adorationem, a certain honorary Worship, expressed by kissing them, or putting off our Hats, or kneeling before them, much like the Worship given to the Chair of State, or the Kings Picture, or his Garment by the like actions; or to come nearer to the subject, such as was commanded to be given by Moses and Joshua to the ground whereon they stood, by putting off their Shoos, because it was holy; and by the Iews, in adoring the footstool of God,Ep. 17. ad Marcellam. or falling down before it, Psal. 98. 5. and in Worshipping (as St. Jerome testifies they did) that part of the Temple called the Holy of Holies, because there were the Cherubims (sacred Images ordered by God himself to be placed there) the propitiatory (representing Gods Throne) and the Ark, (his footstool) In a word, such as the Protestants themselves give to the Name of Iesus when they hear it spoken, by putting off their Hats, and bowing at it, or to the Elements of Bread and Wine in the Supper, by kneeling before them, as figures representing the death of Christ. If condescendence to the conscience p. 18of weaker Brethren, will permit to own they have any honour or veneration for them, or for the Altar before which they how. To conclude this point, the Objector brings a Text, which forbids us to give the Soveraign honour due to God, to an Idol: but let us hear out of Scripture an express Text that it is not lawful to give to holy Images, and other things relating to God, an inferiour or relative Worship, such as we have declared, and that will be to the purpose.

§. He aims to conclude the Catholick Church guilty of Idolatry, from the adoration of the bread (as he believes it) in the Eucharist. Now to do this, he ought to prove, that what we adore in the Eucharist, is bread indeed. But instead of that, he brings a comparison between our adoration of Christ in the Eucharist, and the Heathens adoration of the Sun: viz. That the Papists by the same Argument, make the Worship of the bread in the Eucharist not to be Idolatry, which would excuse the Heathens Worship of the Sun and of their Statues from Idolatry; For if it be not therefore Idolatry, sayes he, because they suppose the bread to be God, then the Worship of the Sun was not Idolatry in them, who supposed the Sun to be God. I shall not complain here of the unhandsomness of the expression, that Catholicks suppose the bread to be God, just as the Heathens supposed the Sun to be God: p. 19whereas he knows, that Catholicks believe, that the substance of the bread is changed into Christs body; but shall answer to the Argument, That the Worship of Christ in the Eucharist, is not Idolatry, because we only suppose him to be really present under the form of bread, but because we know and believe this upon the same grounds and Motives upon which we believe (and those Motives stronger than any Protestant hath (if he have no other than the Catholick to believe) that Christ is God, and consequently to be adored. And therefore that you may the better see the inefficaciousness of the Argument, suppose it dropt from the Pen of an Arrian against the adoration of Christ as God, and it will be of as much force to evince that to be Idolatry, as it is from the Objection to prove the adoration of him in the Eucharist to be so, see there how an Arrian might argue in the same form. The same Argument which would make the grossest Heathen Idolatry lawful, cannot excuse any act from Idolatry: but the same Argument, whereby the Protestants make the Worship of Christ (a pure man, sayes the Arrian) not to be Idolatry: would make the grossest Heathen Idolatry not to be so: For if it be not therefore Idolatry, because they suppose Christ to be God, then the Worship of the Sun was not Idolatry, by them who supposed the Sun to be God, &c. Now the same answer which solves the Arrians argument p. 20against the adoration of Christ as God, serves no less to solve the Objectors Argument against the adoration of him in the Eucharist, since we have a like Divine Revelation for his real presence under the Sacramental Signs, as we have for his being true God and Man.

But what if Catholicks should be mistaken in their belief? would it then follow, that they were Idolaters? Dr. Taylor an Eminent and leading man amongst the Protestants, denyes the consequence. His words are these, in the Liberty of Prophecying, Sect. 20. Numb. 26. Idolatry, sayes he, is a forsaking the true God, and giving Divine Worship to a creature, or to an Idol, that is, to an Imaginary God, who hath no foundation in Essence or Existence: And this is that kind of superstition, which by Divines is called the superstition of an undue object: Now it is evident, that the object of their (that is, the Catholicks) adoration (that which is represented to them in their minds, their thoughts and purposes, and by which God principally, if not solely, takes estimate of humane actions) in the blessed Sacrament, is the only true and eternal God, hypostatically joyned with his holy humanity, which humanity they believe actually present under the Veil of the Sacramental Signs; and if they thought him not present, they are so far from worshipping p. 21the bread in this case, that themselves profess it Idolatry to do so; which is a demonstration (mark that) that their soul hath nothing in it, that is Idolatrical. If their confidence and fanciful opinion (so he terms the faith of Catholicks) hath engaged them upon so great a mistake (as without doubt, he sayes it hath) yet the will hath nothing in it, but what is a great enemy to Idolatry. Et nihil ardet in inferno nisi propria voluntas; that is, Nothing burns in Hell, but proper Will. Thus Dr. Taylor; and I think it will be a task worthy the Objectors pains, to solve his Argument, if he will not absolve us from being Idolaters.

§. 7. He proceeds to prove, that Catholicks are guilty of Idolatry, by their Invocation of Saints.: And his Argument is this; If the supposition of a middle excellency between God and us, be a sufficient ground for formal Invocation, then the Heathens Worship of their inferiour Deities, could be no Idolatry, for the Heathens still pretended, that they did not give to them the Worship proper to the Supream God, which is as much as is pretended by the devoutest Papists in justification of the Invocation of Saints. To answer this Argument, I shall need little more than to explicate the hard words in it; which thus I do. By persons of a middle excellency, we understand p. 22persons endowed with supernatural gifts of Grace in this life, and Glory in Heaven, whose prayers by consequence are acceptable and available with God, what he means by formal Invocation, I understand not well: but what we understand by it, is desiring or praying those just persons to pray for us. The Supream Deity of the Heathens is known to be Jupiter, and their inferiour Deities, venus, Mars, Bacchus, Vulcan, and the like rabble of Devils, as the Scripture calls them, The gods of the Heathens are Devils. The terms thus explicated, 'tis easie to see the inconsequence of the Argument, that because the Heathens were Idolaters in worshipping Mars and Venus their inferiour Deities, or rather Devils, though they pretended not to give them the Worship proper to Jupiter their Supream God: Therefore the Catholicks, must be guilty of Idolatry, in desiring the servants of the true God, to pray for them to him; upon this account we must not desire the prayer of a just man, even in this life, because this formal Invocation will be to make him an inferiour Deity.

But if some Sect of Heathens, as the Platonists, did attain to the knowledge of the true God, yet St. Paul says, they did not glorifie him as God; but changed his glory into an Image made like to corruptible man, adoring and offering Sacrifice due to God alone, to the Statues themselves, or the inferiour Deities p. 23they supposed to dwell or assist in them. Which inferiour Deities St. Austin upon the ninety sixth Psalm, proves to be Devils or evil Angels, because they required Sacrifice to be offered to them, and would be worshipped as Gods. Now what comparison there is between this worship of the Heathens inferiour Deities, and Christians worship of Saints and Angels, let the same St. Austin declare in his twentieth Book against Faustus the Manichaean, chap. 21. Faustus there calumniates the Catholicks (the word is St. Austins) because they honoured the Memories or Shrines of Martyrs, charging them to have turned the Idols into Martyrs, whom they worship (said he) with like Vows. The Objection you see is not new, that Catholicks make inferiour Deities of their Saints. Faustus long ago made it, and St. Austins answer will serve as well now as then. Christian people, sayes he, do with religious solemnity celebrate the memory of Martyrs, both to excite to the imitation of them, and to become partakers of their Merits, and be holpen by their prayers, but to that we erect Altars, not to any of the Martyrs, but to the God of Martyrs, although in memory of the said Martyrs; For what Bishop officiating at the Altar, in the places where their holy bodies are deposited; does say at any time we offer to thee Peter, or Paul, or Cyprian? but what is offered to God, who p. 24crown'd the Martyrs, at the memories or Shrines of those whom he crowned, that being put in mind by the very places, a greater affection may be raised in us to quicken our love, both to those whom we may imitate, and towards him by whose assistance we can do it. We worship therefore the Martyrs with that Worship of love and society, with which even in this life also holy men of God are worshipped, whose heart we judge prepared to suffer the like Martyrdom for the truth of the Gospel. But we worship them so much the more devoutly, because more securely, after they have overcome all the Incertainties of this world; as also we praise them more confidently now reigning Conquerors, in a more happy life, than whilst they were sighting in this; but with that Worship, which in Greek is called Latria, (and cannot be expressed by one word in Latin) for as much as it is a certain service properly due to the Divinity, we neither worship them, nor teach them to be worshipped, but God alone. Now whereas the offering of Sacrifice belongs to this Worship (of Latria) from whence they are called Idolaters, who gave it also to Idols, by no means do we suffer any such thing, or command it to be offered, to any Martyr, or any holy soul, or any Angel: And whosoever declines into this Error, p. 25we reprove him by sound Doctrine, either that he may be corrected, or avoided.— And a little after. It is a much less sin, for a man to be derided by the Martyrs for drunkenness, then ever fasting to offer Sacrifice to them. I say to sacrifice to Martyrs, I say not to sacrifice to God in the memories (or Churches) of the Martyrs, which we do most frequently, by that rite alone, by which in the manifestation of the New Testament he hath commanded Sacrifice to be offered to him, which belongs to that Worship, which is called Latria, and is due only to God. This was the Doctrine and practice of Christian people in St. Augustines time, and that he himself held formal Invocations a part of the Worship due to Saints, is evident from the prayer he made to St. Cyprian after his Martyrdom. Li. de Bapt. cont. Donat. c. 1.Adjuverit que nos Beatus Cyprianus orationibus suis, &c. Let Blessed Cyprian therefore help us (who are still encompassed with this mortal flesh, and labour▪ as in a dark cloud) with his prayer, that by Gods grace we may, as far as we are able, imitate his good works. Thus St. Austin, where you see he directs his prayer to St. Cyprian, which I take to be formal invocation; and for a further confirmation of it, we have the ingenuous Confession of Calvin himself, Instit. li. 3. ch. 20. n. 22. where speaking of the third Council of Carthage, in which St. Austin was p. 26present, he acknowledged it was the custom at that time to say, Sancta Maria, aut Sancte Petre Ora pro nobis; Holy Mary, or Holy Peter pray for us.

But now Madam, what if after all this, he himself shall deny, that any of the opposite Tenets are Articles of his faith, viz. That honour is not to be given to the Images of Christ and his Saints, that what appears to be bread in the Eucharist, is not the body of Christ: That it is not lawful to invocate the Saints to pray for us. Press him close, and I believe you shall find him deny, that he believes any one of these Negative points to be Divine truths; and if so, you will easily see his charge of Idolatry against us, to be vain and groundless.

Having thus given a direct and punctual answer to his argument, I must now expect as much charity from him, as is consistent with Scripture and Reason. How much that is, you will see in his third Answer to the first Question. But to proceed.

§. 8. He brings a Miscellany of such opinions and practices (as he calls them) which are very apt to hinder a good life, and therefore none who have a care of their salvation, can venture their souls in the communion of such a Church, which either enjoyns, or publickly allows them. He reckons up no less than ten. 1. That we destroy the necessity of good life, by makeing p. 27the Sacrament of Penance (that is, confession and absolution) joyned with contrition, sufficient for salvation. And do not Protestants make contrition alone, which is less, sufficient for salvation? But perhaps the joyning of confession and absolution with contrition, makes it of a malignant nature: If so, certainly when the Book of Common Prayer in the visitation of the sick, enjoyns the sick man, if he find his conscience troubled with any weighty matter, to make a special confession, and receive absolution from the Priest in the same words the Catholick Church uses, it prescribes him, that as a means to prepare himself for a holy death, which in the judgement of the Objector, destroyes the necessity of good life.

2. Catholicks, he sayes, take off the care of good life, by supposing an expiation of sin (by the prayer of the living) after death: But certainly the belief of temporal pains to be sustained after death, if there be not a perfect expiation of sin in this life, by works of penance, is rather apt to make a man careful not to commit the least sin, than to take off the care of a good life. And though he be ascertained by faith, that he may be holpen by the charitable suffrages of the faithful living, yet this is no more encouragement to him to sin, than it would be to a Spendthrift to run into debt, and be cast into Prison, because he knows he may be relieved by p. 28the charity of his Friends. If he were sure there were no Prison for him, that would be an encouragement indeed to play the Spendthrift. And this is the case of the Protestants in their denyal of Purgatory.

3. The sincerity of Devotion, he sayes, is much obstructed by prayers in a language which many understand not. If he speak of private prayers, all Catholicks are taught to say them in their Mother Tongue: If of the publick prayers of the Church, I understand not why it may not be done with as much sincerity of devotion, the people joyning their intention and particular prayers with the Priest, as their Embassador to God, as if they understood him: I am sure the effects of a sincere devotion, for nine hundred years together which this manner of Worship produced in this Nation, were much different from those we have seen since the readucing of the publick Lyturgie into English, as is manifest from those Monuments, which yet remain of Churches, Colledges, Religious Houses, &c. with their endowments, and in the conversion of many Nations from Heathenism to Christianity, effected by the labours and zeal of English Missionaries in those times, &c. But this is a matter of Discipline, and so not to be regulated by the fancies of private men, but the judgement of the Church; and so universal hath this practice been both in the Primitive Greek and Latine Churches, and is p. 29still (by the confession of the (Protestant) Authors themselves of the Bible of many Languages, Printed at London, Anno 1655.) in most of the Sects of Christians, to have not only the Scriptures, but also the Liturgies and Rituals in a Tongue unknown, but to the Learned among them: that who will dispute against it, must prepare himself to hear the censure of St. Austin, Ep. 118. where he saith, That it is a point of most insolent madness, to dispute whether that be to be observed, which is frequented by the whole Church through the world.

4. He sayes, The sincerity of Devotion is much obstructed, by making the efficacy of Sacraments depend upon the bare administration, whether our minds be prepared for them or not. In what Council this Doctrine was defined, I never read; but as for the Sacrament of Penance, which I suppose he chiefly aims at, I read in the Council of Trent, Sess. 14. Falso quidam calumniantur, That some do falsly calumniate Catholick Writers, as if they taught the Sacrament of Penance did confer Grace without the good motion of the receiver, which the Church of God never taught nor thought. But I am rather inclined to look upon this as a mistake, than a calumny in the Objector.

5. He sayes, The sincerity of devotion is much obstructed by discouraging the p. 30reading of Scriptures, which is our most certain Rule of Faith and Life. Here he calls the Churches prudential dispensing the reading of Scripture to persons, whom she judges fit and disposed for it, and not to such whom she judges in a condition to receive, or do harm by it, a discouraging the reading of Scriptures; which is no other than whereas St. Paul, Coloss. 3. 21. enjoyns Fathers not to provoke their children, lest they be discouraged; one should reprove a Father for discouraging his child, because he will not put a Knife or Sword into his hands, when he foresees he will do mischief with it to himself or others; the Scriptures in the hands of a meek and humble soul, who submits its judgement in the interpretation of it to that of the Church, is a Sword to defend it: but in the hands of an arrogant and presumptuous Spirit, that hath no Guide to interpret it, but its own fancy or passion, it is a dangerous Weapon, with which he will wound both himself and others. The first that permitted promiscuous reading of Scripture in our Nation, was King Henry the eighth; and many years were not passed, but he found the ill consequences of it; for in a Book set forth by him in the year 1542. he complains in the Preface, That he found entred into some of his peoples hearts an inclination to sinister understanding of it, presumption, arrogancy, carnal liberty, and contention: p. 31which he compares to the seven worse Spirits in the Gospel, with which the Devil entred into the house that was purged and cleansed. Whereupon he declares that for that part of the Church ordained to be taught, (that is, the Lay people) it ought not to be denyed certainly, that the reading of the Old and New Testament is not so necessary for all those folks, that of duty they ought and be bound to read it; but as the Prince and Policy of the Realm shall think convenient, so to be tolerated or taken from it. Consonant whereunto, saith he, the Politick Law of our Realm, hath now restrained it from a great many. This was the judgement of him, who first took upon him the Title of Head of the Church of England; and if that ought not to have been followed in after times, let the dire effects of so many new Sects and Fanaticisms, as have risen in England from the reading of it, bear witness. For as St. Austin sayes,Tract. 18. in To. Neque enim natae sunt Haereses; Heresies have no other Origen but hence, that the Scriptures which in themselves are good, are not well understood, and what is understood amiss in them, is rashly and boldly asserted, viz. to be the sense of them. And now whether the Scriptures left to the private interpretation of every fanciful spirit, as it is among Protestants, be a most certain Rule of Faith and Life, I leave to your self to judge.

p. 326. He sayes, The sincerity of devotion is much obstructed by the multitude of superstitious observations never used in the Primitive Church, as he is ready to defend, he should have said to prove; for we deny any such to be used in the Church.

7. By the gross abuse of people in Pardons and Indulgences. Against this, I can assert as an eye-witness, the great devotion caused by the wholsome use of Indulgences in Catholick Countreys: there being no Indulgence ordinarily granted, but enjoyns him that will avail himself of it, to confess his sins, to receive the Sacraments, to pray, fast, and give alms, all which duties are with great devotion performed by Catholick people, which without the incitement of an Indulgence, had possibly been left undone.

8. He sayes, The sincerity of devotion is much obstructed, by denying the Cup to the Laity, contrary to the practice of the Church in the solemn celebration of the Eucharist for a thousand years after Christ. This thousand years after Christ makes a great noise, as if it were not as much in the power of the Church a thousand years after Christ, as well as in the first or second Century to alter and change things of their own nature indifferent, such as the communicating under one or both kinds, was ever held to be by Catholicks. But although the Cup were not then denyed to the Laity, yet that the p. 33custome of receiving but under one kind was permitted, even in the primitive Church, in private communions, the objector seems to grant, becasue he speaks only of the Administration of it in the solemn Celebration, and that it was also in use in publick Communions, is evident from Examples of that time, both in the Greek Church in the time of St. Chrysostome; Sozomen. li. & Hist. c. 5. & Niceph. li. 13. c. 11. S. Leo Ser. 4. de Quad.and of the Latin in the time of St. Leo the great. As for the pretended obstruction of Devotion, you must know Catholicks believe that under either species or kind, whole Christ true God and man is contained and received; and if it be accounted an hindrance to devotion to receive the total refection of our soul, though but under one kind, what must it be to believe that I receive him under neither, but instead of him have Elements of Bread and Wine? Surely nothing can be more efficacious to stir up Reverence and Devotion in us, than to believe, that God himself will personally enter under our Roof.

The ninth Hinderance of the sincerity of devotion is, that we make it in the power of a person to dispense in Oathes and Marriages contrary to the Law of God. To this I answer, That some kind of Oaths, the condition of the person and other Circumstances considered, may be Iudged to be hurtful, and not fit to be kept, and the dispensation in them is, no more than to Iudge or determine them to be so: and consequently to do p. 34this cannot be a hinderance but a furtherance to devotion, nor is it contrary to the Law of God which commands nothing thats hurtful to be done. As for Marriages we acknowledge the Church may dispense in some degrees of Consanguinity and Affinity, but in nothing contrary to the Law of God.

His tenth pretended Obstruction of Devotion is, that we make disobedience to the Church in Disputable matters, more hainous than disobedience to Christ in unquestionable things, as Marriage, he saith, in a Priest to be a greater crime than Fornication. I Answer, That whether a Priest may Marry or no (supposing the Law of the Church forbidding it) is not a disputable matter; but 'tis out of Question, even by the Law of God that Obedience is to be given to the Commands or Prohibitions of the Church: The Antithesis therefore between disobedience to the Church, in disputable matters, and disobedience to the Laws of Christ in unquestionable things, is not only impertinent to the Marriage of Priests which is unquestionably forbidden; but supposing the matter to remain disputable after the Churches Prohibition, destroys all obedience to the Church. But if it suppose them only disputable before, then why may not the Church interpose her Iudgement, and put them out of dispute?

But still it seems strange to them, who either cannot or will not take the Word of p. 35Christ, that is, his Counsel of Chastitie, that Marriage in a Priest should be a greater sin than Fornication. But he considers not, that though Marriage in it self be honourable, yet, if it be prohibited to a certain order of persons, by the Church to whom Christ himself commands us to give obedience, and they oblige themselves by a voluntary vow to live in perpetual Chastity, the Law of God commanding us to pay our Vows, it loses its honour in such persons, and if contracted after such vow made, is in the language of the Fathers no better than Adultery. In the primitive Church it was the custome of some Younger Widdows to Dedicate themselves to the Service of the Church, and in order thereunto to take upon them a peculiar habit, and make a vow of continency for the future. Now in case they Married after this, St. Paul himself, 1 Tim. 1. 12. saith, That they incurred Damnation, because by so doing, they made void their first faith, that is, as the Fathers Expound it, the vow they had made. And the fourth Council of Carthage, in which were 214 Bishops, and among them St. Austin gives the Reason in these words; If Wives who commit Adultery are guilty to their Husbands, how much more shall such Widdows as change their Religious State, be noted with the crime of Adultery? And if this were so in Widdows, much more in Priests, if by Marrying they shall make void p. 36their first Faith given to God, when they were consecrated in a more peculiar manner to his Service.

Thus much may suffice for Answer to the Argument, which with its intricate terms may seem to puzzle an unlearned Reader, let us now speak a word to the true state of the Controversie, which is, whether Marriage or single life in a Priest be more apt to obstruct or further devotion. And St. Paul himself hath determined the Question, 1 Cor. 7. 32. where he saith, He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to our Lord, how he may please our Lord; But he that is Married careth for the things that are of the World, how be may please his Wife. This is the difference he putteth between the Married and Single life, that this is apt to make us care for the things which belong to God; and that to divert our thoughts from him to the things of the World. Iudge therefore which of these states is most convenient for Priests, whose proper office it is to attend wholly to the things of God?

Having thus cleared Catholick Doctrines from being any wayes obstructive to good life or devotion, I shall proceed to his third Argument, by which he will still prove that Catholicks run a great hazard of their souls, in adhering to the Communion of the Church of Rome, Because it exposeth the Faith of Christians to so great uncertainty. This is p. 37a strange charge from the pen of a Protestant, who hath no other certainty for his faith but every mans interpretation of the Letter of the Scriptures. But, First he saith it doth this, By making the Authority of the Scriptures to depend upon the infallibility of the Church, when the Churches infallibility must be proved by the Scriptures.

To this I Answer that the Authority of the Scripture, not in it self, for so it hath its Authority from God; but in order to us and our belief of it, depends upon the infallibility of the Church. Li. contr. Epist. fund.And therefore St. Austin saith of himself, That he would not believe the Gospel, unless the Authority of the Catholick Church did move him. And if you ask him what moved him to submit to that Authority; he tells you, That besides the Wisdom he found in the Tenets of the Church, there were many other things which most justly held him in it: as the consent of people and Nations, an Authority begun by Miracles, nourished by hope, increased by Charity, and established by Antiquity, the succession of Priests, from the very seat of St. Peter, to whom our Lord commended the feeding of his Sheep, unto the present Bishoprick. Lastly, The very name of Catholick which this Church alone among so many Heresies hath not without cause obtained so particularly to her self; that whereas all Hereticks would p. 38be called Catholicks, yet if a stranger demand where the Catholicks go to Church, none of these Hereticks dares to shew either his own house or Church. These (saith St. Austin,) so many and great, most dear bonds of the name of Christian, do justly hold a believing man in the Catholick Church. These were the grounds which moved that great man to submit to her Authority: And when Catholick Authors prove the infallibility of the Church from Scriptures, 'tis an Argument ad hominem to convince Protestants who will admit nothing but Scripture, and yet when they are convinced, quarrel at them as illogical disputants, because they prove it from Scripture.

Next he saith we overthrow all foundation of Faith, because We will not believe our sences in the plainest objects of them. But what if God have interposed his Authority, as he hath done in the case of the Eucharist, where he tells us, that it is his Body, must we believe our sences rather than God? or must we not believe them in other things, because in the particular case of the Eucharist we must believe God, rather than our sences? Both these consequences you see are absurd: Now for the case it self, in which he instances, Dr. Taylor above cited confesses, that they (viz. Catholicks) have a divine Revelation (viz. Christs word, This is my Body) whose Litteral and Grammatical sence, if that p. 39sence were intended, would warrant them to do violence to all the Sciences, in the Circle; but, I add, it would be no precedent to them not to believe their sences in other the plainest objects of them, as in the matter of Tradition, or Christs body after the Resurrection.

3. He saith that We expose faith to great uncertainty, by denying to men the use of their Judgement and Reason as to matters of faith proposed by a Church, that is, we deny particular mens Iudgement, as to matters of faith, to be as good if not better than the Churches, and to inferre from hen…e, that we make Faith uncertain, is just as if on the contrary one should say, that Protestants make faith certain by exposing matter of faith determined by the Church, to be discussed and reversed by the Iudgement and reason (or rather fancy) of every private man. We have good store of this kind of certainty in England. But as for the use of our Iudgement and Reason, as to the matters themselves proposed by the Church, it is the daily business of Divines and Preachers, not only to shew them not to be repugnant to any natural truth, but also to illustrate them with Arguments drawn from reason. But the use, he would have of reason, is I suppose, to believe nothing, but what his reason can comprehend, and this is not only irrational in its self, but contrary to the Doctrine of St. Paul, where he p. 40commands us to captivate our understandings to the Obedience of Faith.

4. He adds, We expose faith to uncertainty by making the Church power extend to making new Articles of Faith. And this if it were true, were something indeed to his purpose. But the Church never yet owned any such power, in her General Councils, but only to manifest and establish the Doctrine received from her Fore-fathers; as is to be seen in the prooems of all the Sessions of the Council of Trent, where the Fathers before they declare what is to be believed, ever premise that what they declare, is the same they have received by Tradition from the Apostles. And because it may happen that some particular Doctrine was not so plainly delivered to each part of the Church, as it happened in St. Cyprians case, concerning the non-rebaptization of Hereticks, we acknowledge it is in her power, to make that necessary to be believed which was not so before, not by inventing new Articles, but by declaring more explicitely the Truths contained in Scripture and Tradition.

Lastly he saith, We expose Faith to great uncertainty, because the Church pretending to infallibility, does not determine Controversies on foot among our selves. As if faith could not be certain, unless all Controversies among particular men be determined, what then becomes of the certainty of Protestants faith, p. 41who could yet never find out a sufficient means to determine any one Controversie among them? for if that means be plain Scripture, what one Iudgeth plain, another Iudgeth not so, and they acknowledge no Iudge between them to decide the Controversie. As for the Catholick Church if any Controversies arise concerning the Doctrine delivered (as in St. Cyprians case) she determines the Controversie by declaring what is of Faith. And for other Controversies which belong not to faith, she permits, as St. Paul saith, every one to abound in his own sence. And thus much in Answer to his third Argument, by which, and what hath been said to his former Objections, it appears that he hath not at all proved what he asserted in his second Answer to the first Question, viz. That all those who are in the Communion of the Church of Rome do run so great a hazard of their Salvation, that none who have a care of their souls ought to embrace or continue in it. But he hath a third Answer for us, in case the former faile; and it is,

§. 10. That a Protestant leaving the Communion of the Protestant Church doth incurr a greater guilt, than one who was bred up in the Church of Rome, and continues therein by invincible ignorance. This is the directest answer he gives to the Question, and what it imports is this, That invincible Ignorance (and he doth not know what p. 42allowance God will make for that neither) is the only Anchor which a Catholick hath to save himself by. If by discoursing with Protestants, and reading their Books, he be not sufficiently convinced, whereas he ought in the supposition of the Answerer, to be so, that the Letter of the Scripture as interpretable by every private mans reason is a most certain Rule of Faith and Life; but is still overruled by his own Motives, (the same which held St. Austin in the bosome of the Catholick Church) he is guilty of wilful Ignorance and consequently a lost man; there is no hope of Salvation for him. Much less for a Protestant who shall embrace the Catholick Communion, because he is supposed (doubtless from the same Rule) to have sufficient conviction of the Errors of the Roman Church, or is guilty of wilful Ignorance, If he have it not, which is a damnable sin, and unrepented of destroyes salvation. So that now the upshot of the Answer to the Question, Whether a Protestant embracing Catholick Religion upon the same motives, which one bred and well grounded in it, hath to remain in it, may be equally saved with him, comes to this, that they shall both be damned, though unequally, because the converted Catholick more deeply, than he that was bred so. And now who can but lament the sad condition of that great Doctor and Father of the Church, and hitherto reputed St. Austin, who rejecting p. 43the Manichees pretended rule of Scripture, upon the aforesaid grounds, left their Communion to embrace the Communion of the Church of Rome? And what is become now of their distinction of points fundamental from not fundamental, which heretofore they thought sufficient to secure both Catholicks and Protestants Salvation, and to charge us with unconscionable uncharitableness in not allowing them to be sharers with us. The absurdness of these consequences may serve for a sufficient conviction of the nullity of his third and last answer to the first Question.

As for what he saith to the second, I agree so far with him, that every Christian is bound to choose the Communion of the purest Church, but which that Church is, must be seen by the grounds it brings to prove the Doctrines it teaches, to have been delivered by Christ and his Apostles. That Church is to be judged purest which hath the best grounds: and consequently it is of necessity to Salvation to embrace the communion of it.

What then you are bound to do in reason and conscience is, to see which Religion of the two, hath the strongest Motives for it, and to embrace that as you will answer the contrary to God and your own soul. To help you to do this, and that the Answerer may have the less exception against them, I will give you a Catalogue of Catholick Motives (though not all neither) in the words of the forecited p. 44Dr. Taylor, advertising only for brevity sake, I leave out some mentioned by him, and that in these I set down, you also give allowance for some expressions of his, with which he hath mis-represented them: Thus then he, Liberty of Proph. Sect. 20. Speaking of Catholicks, The beauty and Splendour of their Church, their pompous (he should have said) solemn Service; the stateliness and solemnity of the Hierarchy, their name of Catholick, which they suppose (he should have said, their very Adversaries give them) as their own due, and to concern no other Sect of Christians; the Antiquity of many of their Doctrines, (he should have said all) the continual succession of their Bishops, their immediate derivation from the Apostles; their Title to succeed St. Peter, the flattering (he should have said due) expression of Minor Bishops (he means, acknowledging the Pope head of the Church) which by being old records, have obtained credibility; the multitude and variety of People which are of their perswasion; apparent consent with Antiquity in many Ceremonials, which other Churches have rejected; and a pretended and sometimes (he should have said alwayes) apparent consent with some elder Ages in matters Doctrinal; The great consent of one part with another in that which most of them affirm to be de fide (of Faith) The great p. 45differences which are commenced among their Adversaries, abusing the liberty of Prophecying into a very great licentiousness; Their happiness of being Instruments in converting divers (he should rather have said of all) Nations. The piety and austerity of their Religious Orders of Men and Women; The single life of their Priests and Bishops, the severity of their Fasts, and their exteriour observances, the great reputation of their first Bishops for faith and sanctity; the known holiness of some of those persons, whose institutes the Religious persons pretend to imitate; the oblique Arts and indirect proceedings of some of those who departed from them, and amongst many other things the names of Heretick and Schismatick which they with infinite pertinacity (he should have said, upon the same grounds the Fathers did) fasten upon all that disagree from them. These things, saith he, and divers others may very easily perswade persons of much reason, and more piety to retain that which they know to have been the Religion of their Fore-fathers, which had actually possession and seizure of mens understandings, before the opposite professions (to wit of Protestant, Presbyterian, Anabaptist, &c.) had a name.

Thus Dr. Taylor, an eminent and leading man amongst the Protestants; and if he p. 46confess that these Motives were sufficient for a Catholick to retain his Religion, they must be of like force to perswade a dis-interessed Protestant to embrace it, unless the Protestants can produce Motives for their Religion of greater, or at least equal force, with these, which so great a man among them confesseth, that Catholicks have for theirs. Here therefore you must call upon the Author of the Paper you sent me to produce a Catalogue of grounds, or at least some one ground for the Protestant Religion of greater or equal force with all these: And as Dr. Taylor saith, divers others which he omitted, viz. The Scripture interpreted by the consent of Fathers, the determination of General Councils, the known Maxime of Catholicks, that nothing is to be believed of Faith, but what was received from their Fore-fathers as handed down from the Apostles. The testimonie of the present Church, of no less Authority now, than in St. Austins time, both for the Letter and the sence of the Scripture, &c. Do this, and the Controversie will quickly be at an end. Particular disputes are endless, and above the understanding of such, as are not learned; but in grounds and principles, 'tis not so hard for Reason and common sence to Iudge. That you may the better do it in your case, I shall desire you to take these two Cautions along with you:

First, That the Subject of the present p. 47Controversie, are not those Articles in which the Protestants agree with us, and for which they may pretend to produce the same Motives, we do: But in those in which they dissent from us such as are no Transubstantiation, no Purgatory, no honour due to Images, no Invocation to Saints, and the like, in which the very Essence of Protestant, as distinct from Catholick consists. What Motives they can or will produce for these. I do not foresee: The pretence of Scriptures being sufficiently plain hath no place here, because then the foresaid Negatives would be necessary to be believed as divine Truths. And for their own Reason and Learning, it will be found too light when put into the scale against that of the Catholick Church for so many Ages.

The second Caution is, That you be careful to distinguish between Protestants producing grounds for their own Religion, and finding fault with ours. An Atheist can cavil and find fault with the grounds which learned men bring to prove a Deity, such as are the Order of this visible World, the general consent of Nations, &c. In this an Atheist thinks he doth somewhat. But can he produce as good or better grounds for his own opinion? No, you see then 'tis one thing to produce grounds for what we hold, and another to find fault with those which are produced by the contrary part. The latter p. 48hath made Controversie so long, and the former will make it as short; let the Answerer therefore instead of finding fault with our Motives produce his own for the Articles in Controversie, and I am confident you will quickly discern which carry the most weight, and consequently which are to be preferred.