Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

these, when requested, Anno 1671, 1672. to declare their Sense, did so, and unanimously professed Trana Jubftantiation, &c. Ibid.

C. E. The Question, as to the Greek, and oa ther Oriental Churches, is not, whether they own Transubftantiacion now, but how long they have done it. I grant, the Synod at Jerusalem, under Dofitheus Anno 1672. is for it. But then Mr. Claude tells us how the way was prepared for this Change of theirs, (a) That they were won by Money, several Pretences

avere made use of by the Emissaries, to introduce themselves into their Houses, they prevailed on their Bifhops, not making them publickly change their Religion, but leaving them in the same Communion wherein they found them, to the end that they might likewise endeavour the Establishment of the Roman Faith. The like Account we have allo from the late learned (b) Dr. Smith, à diligent and curious Enquirer into Matters of Fact. Who informs us, that the two Metropolitans of Sophia and Achrida, and Cyril of Birrhaa, were sent from Rome, on purpose to procure the Deposition of Cyrillus Lticaris, in order to the bringing their Designs about. But give me leave to tell you, this is a Method of propagating Religion, that was utterly unknown to our Saviour and his Apofles, and which will never be for the Credit of whatsoever Church that makes use of it.

R. C. The Vindicator bad been told [that is, the Restater had owned] that two Cities in France, Amiens and St. Jean de Angeli, both pretend to have St. John Baptift’s Head, but the Truth is, they have Heads of Saints called John. Admit this, says he, They are not both his Head, whose Name they bear, and so the Worshippers of one of them must needs

1 3

(A) Cath. Do&tr. of the Eucharift, 1. 2. c. 5.
(6) Collectanea de Cyrillo Lucario.

2

[ocr errors]

be guilty of Idolatry. Good Sir, why one of them? If they give any Creature Divine Worship, both are guilty of Idolatry. If they do not, how can eit ber of them be Idolaters? p. 9.

c. E. Will you ftand to what you say here, that Giving any Creature. Divine Worship is Idolatry. What then becomes of the Latria which the Pontifical declares to be due to the (a) Cross. What becomes of your (6) Crucem tuam adoramus Domine, We adore thy Cross, O Lord? What becomes of your frequent Prayers to the Blessed Virgin, and other Saints, not only to pray for you, which you can never justify, but moreover (c) to Defend you against your Enemies, (d) to Deliver you from Evils and Dangers, (e) to Loose the Guilt of your polluted Lips, and the Bonds of your Crimes, to make you Meek and Chaft, to Receive you in the Hour of Death, and to place you in the Heavenly Seats? If this bé not giving Divine Worship to a Creatore, it will be very hard to tell what is. And then, how will you distinguish it from Idolatry? Or if

you give any other solemn religious Worship to an Image, or a Relick, he must be more skilful than I pretend to be, that can excuse it from being a palpable Violation of the Second Commandment; and by what Naine you will call such a Violation I know not. At the best see what Answer you can return to those words of the Vindicator? (f) Tou bave no more proof of their being the Heads of two Johns, than of one and the same John. And yet supposing they were the Heads of two Johns, how should I know these were both

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

(a) Rubr. de Benedi&t. nov. Crucis. (b) Fer. vi. in Parafeucm.

(c) Brev. in Feft. B. Mar. (d) Brey. in Feft. omn Storum Offic. parv. B. Mar. & Pontif. in Imag. B. M.

(e) Brev. in Nativ. S. Jo. Bapt. In Feft. omn. Storum, & Offic. B. Mar. in Sabbat.

(f) Cafe truly fated, p. 91.

Saints,

[merged small][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Saints, and so in your opinion to be Worshipped? Here
may be a mischievous Miftake, fer ought appears to the
contrary, like that of the supposed (a) Saints in the
Catacumbs, who in reality were no Saints at all, Jomie
of them probably no Christians

.
R. C. It was no excess of Charity in him, to afcribe,
as he does fo often, .whatever our Divines fay in froour
of the Church's Authority (which the Scripture attefts)
to a Sacrilegious Desire of concealing the Corruptions of
it. And the Truth is the same as if a Deift should tell
him, that Christians only magnify the Autbority of
Scripture, to give some countenance to the absurd Fe
bles of Samplon and Goliah. This is the Deift's Lax-
guage, not mine, p. 12.

C. E. Here, after the Example of the Reftum
ter, you are for putting Obje&ions into the
Deift's Mouth, as if you were convinced you
have no way of defending your own Corrupti-
ons, but by trying to expose the Scripture. You
say indeed, it is the Deift's Language, not yours.
But if it were not to your liking, how came
you to bring it in here so unnecessarily, and to so
little purpose ? you are for maintaining Miracles
to be ftill wrought in your own Church, even
though you want good Evidence for them; and
yet can suffer those of Sampson and David co pass
for fabulous, though as fully attested as the word
of God can do it. This, I presume, is not done
out of an earnest desire to magnify the Scriptures.
Nor is it either for the Service of God, or your
own Reputation to have done it. But the Truth
is, the Scriptures too plainly discover the grofs
Corruptions of your Church, both as to it's Faith
and Worship, and this makes it thought neceffa-
ry to lefsen their Authority upon all occafions.
Yer let me tell you, these Holy Writings will

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

(a) P. Mabillon sur le culte de Saints inconnus,

be

be able to stand their ground against all the Attacks of Deists, Freethinkers, Roman-Catholicks, or whatsoever fort of Adversaries. And as to your self, since you profess to put a stop to your Career out of compassion to foine Christians of weaker Capacity, I hope the same Compassion will withhold you from ever beginning the like again.

R. C. He grants the Parts of the New Testament were not all immediately received after the first Centue ry; there having been some Dispute about the Epiftles, &c. p. 15.

č. É. Here the Vindicator told the Reftater, that this had been 7. Toland's Objection before him, and what Answer it had received. Where. upon you very gravely Remark, That this being f. Toland's Obje&ion, can no more turn Truth into Falshood, than it can be a disparagement to the Ele venth and Twelfth Verses of the Ninety first Psalm, That it was the objection of one much worse than Toland. As if the Vindicator had said, or at leaft infinuated, that it could; for which yet you have not the least pretence. But you want to be informed, that Eusebius Speaks there of all the Deuterocanonical Parts of the New Testament. And does he not fpeak of the Epistles of S. James and S. 7ude, the Second of S. Peter, the Second and Third of S. John, besides the Revelation which he promises co speak of afterwards. Now, if the Epistle to the Hebrews was included amongst S. Paul's Epistles, as I take it to have been, and you cannot prove it was not, you will easily fee whether here be all the other Books that can be called Deuterocanonical. And farther, according to your wonted nicety in Criticism, you want likewise to be informed, that this monois muft necessarily signify the Generality, as it is there trans hated; wherefore, if you please, you may read

ic

it by a great many; which I hope will pass without Offence.

R. C. S. Jerome testifies the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Revelation were doubted of in his time, p. 15.

C. E. But he lets you know he could not see any reason why, inasmuch as he himself readily owned them both.

R. C. Besides that Tertullian Speaks not of the Books in Question, Originals that were extant in the Second Century, might be lost in the Fourth, p. xvi.

C. E. If out of your great kindness to the Scripture, this be spoken to shew it defective, it lies upon you to prove that any fuch Books were loft. Till this is done, which can never be done, your Supposition signifies nothing.

R. C. Some even to S. Ferom's time and Ampbilochius's rejected it.

C. E. I know not how to come by Amphilochius, but I must beg your pardon, if I observe, that your Critical Skill has failed you in translating S. Ferom ; for he does not say there were great Numbers, that rejected the Revelation ; but only speaking of the Greeks he says, Non eadem libertate Suscipiunt, they do not receive it with the same freedom as the other parts of Scripture. Which Teems to imply, that they received this, together with the other Canonical Books, though not with the same Freedom.

- R. C. It is not to be found in the Catalogue of the Council of Laodicea, nor in that of S. Cyril, p. 17.

C. E. Mr. Richardson, in his forenamed Answer to Amyntor, speaks of this Council in the following manner. (a) The Council of Laodicea

i (a) Canon of the New Testament vindicated, p. 15.

(Can.

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »