at that time immediately apply this Law against the worship of any other Beings but those which were at that time worshipped in the world If God gives a Law which forbids the worship of all Beings besides himself and particularly applies this Law to prohibite the worship of all those Gods which were then worshipped in the world will any one in their wits hence conclude that if the folly and superstition of men should set up a new race and generation of Gods in after ages that the worship of these new Gods is not as well forbidden by this general Law as the worship of those gods which were worshipt at that time when this Law was given if this were true possibly Pagan Rome it self was not guilty of Idolatry for most if not all of their Gods might be of a later date than the giving the Law 3. Now since no such distinctions as these appear in Scripture it is impossible they should justifie the worship of Saints and Angels which is so expresly forbidden by the Law if we will acknowledge them to be distinct Beings from the Supreme God for if they are not the Supreme God we must not worship them for we must worship none but God No distinctions can justifie us in this case but such as God himself makes for otherwise it were easie to distinguish away any Law of God Humane Laws will admit of no distinctions but such as they make themselves for a distinction does either confine and streighten or enlarge the Law and he who has power to distinguish upon a Law has so far power to make it If the Law says that we shall worship no other Being besides God and we have power if we have but wit enough to invent some new distinctions between the worship of good and bad spirits between Supreme and Subordinate absolute and relative worship this makes a new Law of it for it is one thing to say thou shalt worship God only and quite contrary to say thou shalt worship God only and good Spirits God with a Supreme and absolute good Spirits with a subordinate and relative worship This I think is sufficient to shew that we must admit of no distinctions upon a Divine Law but what the Scripture it self owns and therefore since those distinctions with which the Church of Rome justifies her worship of Saints and Angels are no where to be found in Scripture they have no authority against an express Law 3. The next course the Papists take to justifie their Creature-worship in contradiction to that Law which expresly commands us to worship none but God is an appeal to such authorities as they think sufficient to decide this matter Now I shall not say much to this for I believe all Mankind will acknowledge that no Authority less than Divine can repeal a Divine Law and therefore unless God himself or such persons as act by a Divine Authority have repealed this Law no other Authority can do it That Christ and his Apostles have not repealed this Law I have already proved that the whole Church in after Ages had any Authority to repeal this Law I desire them to prove For the authority of the Church as to the essentials of Faith and Worship is not the authority of Law-givers but of Witnesses The Church never pretended in former Ages to make or to repeal any Divine Laws but to declare and testifie what the belief and practice of the Primitive and Apostolick Churches was and it is unreasonable to think that they should have any such Authority for then Christ and his Apostles preached the Gospel to little purpose if it were in the power of the Church to make a new Gospel of it when they pleased But indeed could it appear that the Apostles did teach the Christians of that Age and the Church in those Ages which immediately succeeded the Apostles did practice the worship of Saints and Angels we should have reason to suspect that we and not they are mistaken in the sense of that Law which commands us to worship none but God But then none can be admitted as competent witnesses of this matter but those who did immediately succeed the Apostles or conversed with Apostolical men and Churches And thanks be to God there is no appearance of Creature worship in those Ages we dare appeal to the testimony of Fathers and Councils for above three hundred years and those who come after come a little too late to be witnesses of what was done in the Apostolick Churches especially when all the intermediate Ages knew nothing of it I shall not fill up this discourse with particular Citations which learned men know where to find since the Roman Doctors can find nothing in the Writings of the first Fathers to justifie the worship of Saints and Angels and the Protestant Writers find a great deal in those Ages against it Indeed at the latter end of the fourth Century some of the Fathers used some Rhetorical Apostrophes to the Saints and Martyrs in their Orations which the Church of Rome interprets to be Prayers to them but though other Learned men have vindicated those passages so far as to shew the vast difference between them and solemn and formal Invocations which is not my business at this time yet there are several things very well worth our observation towards the true stating of this matter As 1. That these Fathers came too late to be witnesses of the Apostolical practise which they could know no otherwise than we might know it if there had been any such thing viz. by the testimony and practise of the Church from the Apostles till that time This was no where pretended by them that the Invocation of Saints had been the practise of the Catholick Church in all ages and they could have no proof of this unless they had better Records of former times than we have at this day and such as contradicted all the Records which we now have of the Apostolick and Primitive Churches and I believe few men will be so hardy as to assert this and methinks there should be as few who are so credulous as to believe it and I am sure there is no man living who is able to prove it 2. Nay the particular sayings of these Fathers by which the Romanists prove the Invocation of Saints do not prove that it was the Judgment and practise of the Church of that age They no where say that it was and it does not appear to be so by any other Records Let them shew me any Council before or in those times when these Fathers lived that is in the fourth Century which decreed the worship of Saints and Angels Let them produce any publick offices of Religion in those days which allows this worship and if no such thing appears those men must be very well prepared to believe this who will without any other evidence judge of the practice of the Church only from some extravagant flights of Poets and
Orators and if even in those days the worship of Saints was not received into the publick offices of the Church methinks we may as well live without it still and they must either grant that these Fathers whose authority they alleadge meant no such thing by these Rhetorical flourishes as they extract out of them or else that they introduced a new and unknown worship into the Christian Church and then let them prove that some few Fathers of the fourth Century without the publick authority of the Church had authority enough of their own to change the object of worship contrary as the Church in former Ages believed to an express Divine Law which commands us to worship none but God 3. Nay I further observe that these Fathers whose authority is urged for the invocation of Saints by the Church of Rome do no-where dogmatically and positively assert the lawfulness of Praying to Saints and Angels and many Fathers of the same Age do positively deny the lawfulness of it which is a plain argument that it was not the judgement and practice of the Church of that Age and a good reasonable presumptition that these Fathers never intended any such thing in what they said how liable soever their words may be to be expounded to such a sense Gregory Nazianzen indeed in his Book against Julian the Apostate speaks to the Soul of Constantius in this manner Hear O thou Soul of great Constantius if thou hast any sense of these things c. But will you call this a Prayer to Constantius does this Father any where assert in plain terms that it is lawful to pray to Saints departed a hundred such sayings as these which are no Prayers to Saints cannot prove the lawfulness of praying to Saints against the constant Doctrine of the Fathers of that Age. Thus in his Funeral Oration for his Sister Gorgonia he bespeaks her to this purpose that if she knew what he was now a doing and if holy Souls did receive this favour from God to know such matters as these that then she would kindly accept that Oration which he made in her praise instead of other Funeral Obsequies Is this a Prayer to Gorgonia to intercede for him with God by no means He onely desires if she heard what he said of her which he was not sure she did that she would take it kindly Whereas in that very Age the Fathers asserted that we must pray onely to God and therefore they define Prayer by its relation to God That Prayer is a request of some good things made by devout Souls to God that it is a conference with God that it is a request offered with supplication to God Which is a very imperfect definition of Prayer were it lawful to pray to any other Being besides God St. Austin tells us that when the names of the Martyrs were rehearsed in their publick Liturgies it was not to invoke them or pray to them but onely for an honourable remembrance nay he expresly tells us that the worship of dead men must be no part of our Religion for if they were pious men they do not desire this kind of honour but would have us worship God honorandi ergo sunt propter imitationem non adorandi propter religionem they are to be honoured for our imitation not to be adored as an act of Religion The Council of Laodicea condemned the Worship of Angels and so does Theodoret Oecumenius and others of that Age. It is notoriously known that the Arrians were condemned as guilty of Idolatry for worshipping Christ whom they would not own to be the true God though they owned him to be far exalted above all Saints and Angels and to be as like to God as it is possible for any Creature to be and those who upon these Principles condemned the worship of the most perfect and excellent Creature could never allow the worship of Saints and Angels So that though the worship of Saints and Angels did begin about this time to creep into the Church yet it was opposed by these pious and learned Fathers and condemned in the first and smallest appearances of it which shows that this was no Catholick Doctrine and Practice in that Age much less that it had been so from the Apostles and I think after this time there was no authority in the Church to alter the object of worship nor to justifie such an Innovation as the worship of Saints and Angels in opposition to the express Law of God The sum of this Argument is this Since there is an express Law against the worship of any other Being besides the supreme God the Lord Jehovah which never was expresly repealed whatever plausible reasons may be urged for the worship of Saints and Angels they cannot justifie us in acting contrary to an express Law of God THE END ERRATA PAge 53. Line 23. for repepealed read repealed p. 54. margin for domini r. dominum p. 59. l. 30. for last r. least A Catalogue of Books sold by Abel Swalle at the Vnicorn at the West-end of St. Paul's Church-yard 1685. A Companion to the Temple or a Help to Devotion in the use of the Common Prayer Divided in the four Parts Part 1. Of Morning and Evening Prayer Part. 2. Of the Litany with the Occasional Prayers and Thanksgivings Part. 3. Of the Communion Office with the Offices of Baptism Cateohism and Comfirmation Part. 4. Of the Occasional Offices viz. Matrimony Visitation of the Sick c. The whole being carefully corrected and now put into one Volume By Tho. Comber D. D. Folio Forty Sermons whereof twenty one are now first published the greatest part of them Preached before the King and on Solemn Occasions By Rich. Allestry D. D. With an account of the Authors Life in Folio The Works of Mr. Abraham Cowley consisting of those which were formerly Printed and those designed for the Press and now Published out of the Authors Original Papers The eighth Edition in Folio The Second Part of the Works of Mr. Abraham Cowley being what was written in his younger years and now Reprinted together The fifth Edition The Case of Resistance of the Supreme Powers Stated and Resolved according to the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures By William Sherlock D. D. in Octavo A Vindication of the Rights of Ecclestastical Authority being an Answer to the First Part of the Protestant Reconciler By William Sherlock D. D. and Master of the Temple in Octavo Pet. Dan. Huetii de Interpretatione Libri 2. duo quarum Prior est de Optimo Genere Interpretandi Alter dâ— Claris Interpret c. in Octavo The Case of Compelling Men to the Holy Sacrament of the Lord's Supper considered And Authority vindicated in it by the Rules of the Gospel and from the Common and Popular Objections against it By the Author of the Charge of Scandal omitted in the late Collection L. Coely Lacâ—antâ—i Firmiani Opera que extant ad fidem MS S. recognita Commentariis illustrata a Tho. Spark A. M. Oxonii e Theatr. Sheldoniano A Sermon Preached before the King at White-hall Novemb. 23. 1684. By Gilb. Ironside D. D. Warden of Wadham Colledge in Oxon c. 4. Mat. 10. Sect. 1. 2 Col. 18. Sect. 2. 4 Matth. 10. 6 Deutr. 13. 10 Deutr. 20. 20 Exod. 3. 6 Deutr. 14. 70 Jere. 11. Stilling fleetâ—s Defence of the discourse of Idolatry 4 Luke 6. 12 Deut. 13 14. 22 Joshua v. 16. 19. 22 23. 22 Exod. 2â— 56 Isai. 7. 2â— Matth. 13. 1 King 8. 3 Acts 1. 6 Dan. 10. 55 Psalm 17. 9. Dan. 21. 1 Kings 8. 30. v. 35. v. 37. v. 39. v. 44. v. 48. 6. Dan. 10. Buâ—torsii Synag Jud. p. 222 65. Psalm 2. 23 Joshua 7â— 1 Kings 18. 26. 20 Ezek. 20. 10 Deut 21. 19 Isai. 18. 4â— Gen. 16. Sect. 3. 13 Deut. 1 2 3 4 5. 19. John 7. 4 Matth. 10. 1 Rom. 21. v. 23. v. 25. 1 Cor. 8. 5 6. 1 Tim. 4. 1. See Mr. Joseph Medes Apostasie of the latter times 5. Mat. 17. 21. Acts 21 22. 3. Rom. 31. 8. Isai. 20. 2 Pet. 1. 16 17 18 19. 17. Acts 10 11. 42. Isai. 8. 4 Gal. 5 6. 4 Hebr. 16. 1 Pet. 2 5 9. 14 Joh. 13 15. 16 Joh. 24. 26 27. 10 Hebr. 19 20 21 22. 2 Joh. 19. 21. 1 Joh. 14. 2 Coloss. 3. 1 Joh. 2. 1 2. 1. Heb. 12. 28. Mat. 20. * Bonum atque utile esse suppliciter Sanctos invocare ab beneficia impetranda â— Deo per silium ejus Jesum Christum Domini nostrum qui solus noster Redemptor Salvator est ad eorum orationes opem auxilium confugere Canâ— Trin. 16. 25. de Invocat 20 Exod. 10 Deut. 20. 4 Matth 10. 13 Deuter. 6 7. c. 6 Deut. 13 14. 13 Deut. 7. See Bishops Ushers Answer to the Jesuits Challenge Greg. Naz. Orat. 2. in Gorg. Basil Orat. in Julit Martyr Greg. Naz. Orat 1. de Oratione Chrys. in Genes Homil. 30. Aug. De Civit Dei l. 22. cap. 10. Id. de vera religione Cap. 55
for Idolatry consists in giving Religious Worship to such Beings as we ought not to worship and by the Law of Moses they were to worship none but God and therefore the worship of any other Being was Idolatry But if the object of our worship be enlarged and the Gospel has made it lawful to worship Saints and Angels then we must seek out some other notion of Idolatry that it consists in worshipping wicked Spirits or in giving Supreme and Soveraign worship to inferiour Deities which the Church of Rome thinks impossible in the nature of the thing for any man to do who knows them to be inferiour Spirits But if Idolatry be the same under the New Testament that it was under the Old the object of our worship must be the same too and we have reason to believe that it is the same when we are commanded to keep our selves from Idols and to flie from Idolatry but are no where in the New Testament expresly told what this Idolatry is which supposes that we must learn what it is from some antecedent Laws and there were no such Laws in being but the Laws of Moses The only thing that can be said in this case is that the Apostle refers them not to any written Law but to the natural notions of Idolatry but with what reason this is said will soon appear if we consider to whom the Apostle writes and they were both Jewish and Heathen Converts As for the Heathens they had corrupted all their natural notions of Idolatry and had no sense at all of this sin till they were converted to Christianity and therefore they were not likely to understand the true notion of Idolatry without being taught it and it is not probable the Apostles would leave them to guess what Idolatry is As for the Jews God would not from the beginning trust to their natural notions but gave them express Laws about Idolatry which though they are the same Laws which natural reason dictates to us as most agreeable to the nature and worship of God yet since the experience of the world which was over-run by Idolatrous worship did sufficiently prove that all men do not use their reason aright in these matters God would not trust to the use of their reason in the weighty concernments of his own worship and glory but gives them an express positive Law about it and Christ and his Apostles having done nothing to repeal this Law they leave them under the authority of it and when they warn them against Idols and Idolatry without giving them any new Laws about it must in all reason be presumed to refer them to those Laws which they already had SECT V. 4. AS a farther proof of this I observe that Christ and his Apostles did not abrogate but only complete and perfect the Mosaical Laws Our Saviour with great zeal and earnestness disowns any such intention or design Think not that I am come to destroy the Law and the Prophets I am not come to destroy but to fulfil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to fill it up by fulfilling the types and prophesies of it by exchanging a ceremonial for a real righteousness or by perfecting its moral precepts with new instances and degrees of vertue And therefore he adds For verily I say unto you Till heaven and earth pass one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law till all be fulfilled And St. Paul who was lookt on by the believing Jews as a great enemy to the Law of Moses does renounce all such pretences Do we then make void the Law through Faith God forbid yea we establish the Law Indeed had Christ or his Apostles attempted to have given any new Laws contrary to the Laws of Moses it had justified the Jews in their unbelief for God by his Prophet Isaiah had given them this express rule to examine all new Doctrines by To the law and the testimony if they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them and that Christ himself is not excepted from this rule appears in this that this is joyned with the prophesie of the Messias both before and after as you may see in 8 Isai. 13 14. and 9 Chap. 6 7. and therefore Christ and his Apostles always make their appeals to the writings of the Old Testament and St. Paul in all his disputes with the Jews urges them with no other authority but the Scriptures and thô the Miracles which were wrought by the Apostles did move the Jews to hearken to them and greatly dispose them to believe their Doctrine yet it was the authority of the Scriptures whereon their Faith was founded As St. Peter tells those to whom he wrote that though they preacht nothing to them concerning the coming of Christ but what they were eye-witnesses of and though God had given testimony to him by a voice from Heaven which they heard when they were with him in the holy Mount yet he adds We have also a more sure word of prophesie whereunto ye do well that ye take heed as to a light that shineth in a dark place until the day dawn and the day-star arise in your hearts That is the Scriptures of the Old Testament and therefore the Jews of Berea are greatly commended for their diligence in searching the Scriptures and examining St. Pauls Doctrine by them and this is assigned as the reason why many of them believed To apply this then to our present purpose I observe 1. That if Christ did not make any new Laws in contradiction to the Law of Moses then he could make no alteration in the object of Religious Worship He could not introduce the worship of Saints and Angels without contradicting that Law which commands us to worship no other Being but the one Supreme God For the worship of Saints and Angels together with the Supreme God is a direct contradiction to that Law which commands us to worship God alone though we should suppose that in the nature of the thing the worship of Saints and Angels were consistent with the worship of the Supreme God yet it is not consistent with that Law which commands us to worship none but God So that let this be a natural or positive Law or whatever men please to call it it is a very plain and express Law and Christ never did contradict any express Law of God It is true that Typical and Ceremonial Worship which God commanded the Jews to observe is now out of date under the Gospel and does no longer oblige Christians but the reason of that is because it has received its accomplishment and perfection in Christ. Christ has perfected the Jewish Sacrifices and put an end to them by offering a more perfect and meritorious sacrifice even the sacrifice of himself The Circumcision Washings Purifications of the Law are perfected by the Laws of internal purity The external Ceremonies of the Law cease but they
more that Christ and his Apostles have made no alteration in the object of worship appears from hence that de facto there is no such Law in the Gospel for the worship of any other Being besides the One Supreme God There is a great deal against it as I have already shewn but if there had been nothing against it it had been argument enough against any such alteration that there is no express positive Law for it The force of which argument does not consist meerly in the silence of the Gospel that there is nothing said for it which the most Learned Advocates of the Church of Rome readily grant and give their reasons such as they are why this was not done why we are not directed to pray to Saints and Angels and Images c. but the argument lies in this that there can be no alteration made in the object of worship without an express Law and therefore there is no alteration made because there is no such Law in the Gospel The Jews were expresly commanded to worship no other Being but the Lord Jehovah as I have already proved which Law appropriates all the acts of Religious Worship to one God and therefore all those who were under the obligation of this Law as to be sure all natural Jews were could not without the guilt of Idolatry give any Religious Worship to any other Being till this Law were expresly repealed and express leave given to worship some other Divine Beings besides the Supreme God so that at least our Saviour himself while he was on Earth and subject to the Law and his Apostles and all believing Jews were obliged by this Law to worship none but God unless we can shew where Christ by his Legislative Authority or his Apostles by Commission from him have expresly repealed this Law nay indeed unless we can shew that Christ himself repealed this Law and taught the worship of Saints and Angels the Apostles themselves could have no authority to do it for their Commission was onely to teach what Christ had commanded them which though it does not extend to matters of order and discipline and the external circumstances of worship yet it does to all the essentials of Faith and Worship and I think the right object of Worship is the most essential thing in Religious Worship From hence it appears that at least all the Jewish Christians in the Apostles days and all succeeding Ages to this day cannot Worship Saints and Angels without Idolatry because the Law which was given to them and never yet repealed commands them to worship none but God and if Gentile Converts were received into the Jewish Christian Church and Christ has but one Church of Jews and Gentiles they must also be obliged by all those Laws which were then and are still obligatory to all believing Jews and therefore Gentile as well as Jewish Christians are still bound to worship none but God Now I think I need not prove that an express Law can be repealed onely by an express Law That Law which commands us to worship God and him onely must continue in full force till God do as expresly declare that he allows us to pay some degree of Religious Worship to other Beings besides himself When a Law-giver has declared his will and pleasure by a Law it is not fit that Subjects should be allowed to guess at his mind and dispute away an express Law by some surmizes and consequences how probable soever they may appear for at this rate a Law signifies nothing if we may guess at the will of our Law-giver without and against an express Law And yet none of the Advocates of the Church of Rome though they are not usually guilty of too much modesty ever had the confidence to pretend an express Law for the worship of Saints and Angels and Images c. and though they sometimes alledge Scripture to prove this by yet they do not pretend that they are direct proofs but onely attempt to prove some other Doctrines from Scripture from which they think they may prove by some probable consequences that which the Scripture no-where plainly teaches nay the contrary to which is expresly taught in Scripture And if this may be allow'd I know no Law of God so plain and express but a witty man may find ways to escape the obligation of it This is a consideration of great moment and therefore I shall discourse more particularly of it The Law of Moses expresly commands us to worship God and him onely Our Saviour Christ owns and confirms the authority of this Law in the Gospel the Church of Rome notwithstanding this Law gives Religious Worship to Creatures the question then is how she avoids the force of this Law since it is no where expresly repealed and she does not pretend that it is Now the Patrons of Creature-worship think to justifie themselves from the breach of this Law these three ways 1. By consequences drawn as they pretend from other Scripture-Doctrines 2. By distinctions And 3. By authority Let us then examine whether all this have any force against an express Law which was never expresly repepealed 1. By consequences drawn as they pretend from other Scripture-Doctrines and I shall discourse this with a particular reference to the Invocation of Saints For when they would prove the lawfulness of praying to Saints they alledge no direct proof of this from Scripture But because they must make a shew of saying something from Scripture when they are to deal with such Hereticks as will be satisfied with no less authority they endeavour to prove something else from Scripture from whence they think by an easie consequence they can prove the lawfulness of praying to Saints Thus they very easily prove that we may and ought to pray for one another and to desire each others prayers while we are on Earth and from hence they presently conclude that we may as lawfully pray to Saints in Heaven to pray for us as beg and desire their prayers while they are on Earth And to confirm this they endeavour to prove that some extraordinary Saints whose merits are very great do directly ascend up into Heaven into the immediate presence of God and a participation of his Glory and hence they conclude that they have authority and power to help us and to intercede for us and that they are so far advanced above us in this mortal state that they deserve some kind of Religious Honour and Worship from us as being Dii per participationem Gods by participation that is by partaking in the Divine Nature and Glory by their advancement to Heaven And if after all this they can prove that the Saints in Heaven do pray and intercede for us on Earth they think the demonstration is complete and perfect that therefore It is good and profitable as the Council of Trent words it humbly to invoke the Saints after the manner of Supplicants and to fly to their