to take an Ant o◠an Ape by reason of their greater Excellency for God than the Sun the reason suppos'd by himself why we chuse rather to worship God by an Image than by the Sun on that account to let him feel the force of his own Argument if it have any that which deserves most honour should have least given it and that which deserves least should have most For the danger is there still greater where the Excellency is greater and by that means we ought rather to worship he says to us a Beast than a Saint I say to him the Earth than the Sun for there is less danger of believing one to be God than the other But to return to his former words § 4. Is there nothing then in a Picture worthy admiration besides the Skill of the Painter or Artificer I dare avouch for the greater part of Ladies who sit for their Pictures that they do it not purely to beget in the Beholders an admiration of the Painter and those who procure an Author's Picture to be set before his Book intend no doubt that those who fix their eyes upon it should admire something besides the Skill of the Engraver I have my self a Picture of a Friend which gives me occasion frequently to admire the great Endowments of his Mind but not at all the Hand that did it it is so rudely done Something then there is in Pictures besides the Skill of the Painter which may make them worthy if not of admiration for the excellency of the work at least of use for their quick suggesting to our Mind not onely the outward Features but also the inward Graces of the Persons they represent This virtue they have from their more express representation and likeness even above other things which have a greater resemblance in natural perfections and this is one Reason why we make use of them so frequently since God was made Man because they bring Him more immediately to our Mind than either the Sun or an Ant or a Fly And this may be the Reason if I may have leave to suggest one why Dr. St. Himself prefers the Sun for a Help to his Devotion before an Ant or a Fly though inferiour to them by two degrees in perfection because amongst corporeal things Light is the putest and conceived by us to be likest to a Spirit But to prefer them all and with them the Ape the Ass and the Tyger before an Image because they have greater natural perfections than an Image hath may if it prevail in the World quite undo the Company of Picture-drawers in a little time For if it shall be made appear much more reasonable to make use of what approaches nearer in perfection than likeness the Ladies may come instead of the Pictures of their Friends to wear Ants and Flies in Crystal Cases upon their Brests and instead of their own Pictures to send them the Apes and Asses he brought in so lamely in his former Comparison I and his Tygers too when they can catch them as greater resemblances of their Perfections Perhaps he 'll say he speaks not of the Perfections of these Creatures as barely such but as great evidences to him of the Power and Wisdom and Goodness of God But how many are there in the World not so Philosophical and Contemplative as he is who think more how to free themselves from the importunity of the Ants and Flies and from the heat of the Sun than to consider their perfections as great evidences of the Wisdom c. of God and yet if they come into a place where a Crucifix is are presently put in mind of God and testifie the venerable apprehension they have of him by bowing their Knee or putting off their Hats If he find his Devotion more inflam'd by the light and heat of the Sun and the motions of those little Beasts than by an Image much good may it do him But this ought not to prescribe to the Generality of Christians who I believe experience more frequent and more venerable thoughts of God suggested to their Minds by the sight of a Crucifix than by seeing the Sun with all the Ants and Flies in the World 'T is not the nearer approach in perfection even in the effect that brings us always soonest and surest to the knowledge of the cause We see many Fathers are not known by their Sons who yet are presently known by their Pictures And Atheists deny the perfections of the Creatures to be any evidences at all of that Being we call God but cannot deny a Crucifix to represent to their own thoughts that Person whom we believe to be God Pictures then we see have an advantage in representing above the Creatures though in natural perfections they be inferiour to them But yet for all this § 5. He says He cannot for his Heart understand why he may not as well nay better burn Incense and say his Prayers to the Sun having an intention onely to honour the true God by it as to do both these to an Image And the reason is still the same because he is sure the Sun hath far more advantages than any Artificial Image can have and the beauty and influence of it may inflame and warm ones Devotion much more I am sure too the Sun hath far more advantages than any material word can have even the Name of JESUS either written or spoken and yet I do not find the beauty and influence of the Sun to inflame and warm ones Devotion so much as the hearing or reading of that Sacred Name But I perceive he hath a particular Devotion to the Sun though it have less advantages than an Ant or a Fly and therefore must warn him in Charity not to say his Prayers to it no more than we do to Images as he very well knows though he would make his Reader believe the contrary for that were to terminate his Intention upon the Sun to put his trust in it and make it his God but as for his bowing to it with intent to worship the true God or burning Incense using it as it is used by the Church for a Ceremony of like nature with bowing he may have a Resolution of the Case how far it may be allowed him from the Pen of that Great and Learned Doctor S. Leo and for his farther satisfaction I shall take the pains to transcribe his words From that Opinion saith S. Leo Serm. in Natal Dom. viz. That the life of Man is governed by the Stars that Impiety also takes its rise which is used by some who are less wise to adore the Sun at his Rising from some eminent place A thing which some Christians think they do so religiously in the observance of it that before they enter into the Church of S. Peter the Apostle which is dedicated to the One true and living God they go up to the top of the Church and turning themselves to the rising Sun with low obeysance bow
refell him by shorter Enthymems and longer Syllogisms search in what Mood and Figure he speaks and then tell him how his Consequence flaggs or Antecedent is Ambiguous till he have consumed a hundred Pages in refutation of a Trifle This I confess is a Character of my present Undertaking though not to the full because in the Prosecution of it I shall be forced over and above to lay open frequent Contradictions Calumnies and Mis-representations of the words and sense of Authors which can be no great pleasure nor content of heart to my Adversary to see discover'd I was in good hope to have been freed from this ungrateful task of laying open faults of this nature which cannot be treated of without being named nor named without offence by the fair promise he makes to represent the matters in difference between us truly report faithfully and argue closely And this Hope made me for a good while not exact that severity of quoting Authors which is required and expected in the managing of Controversy But since the necessity he hath drawn upon himself by defending so Extravagant a Charge as that of Idolatry upon the Roman Church hath made him too often forget so good a purpose I must begg his pardon if at length I take the freedome to make the Reader a little sensible of it with that Plainness which the Merits of the Cause will not only bear but require Of which the Reader must be Judge Whether the Laurels he fancies he hath acquired from his Adversaries by their declining as he saith Personal Conferences look as green and fresh to others as to himself I very much question For Meetings of this nature being hardly to be undertaken by Catholicks without exposing themselves to the Danger of being accounted Bold and Insolent and so of irritating His Majesty and the Government against them All sober and impartial Men will easily judge that they may be more prudently declined without prejudice to their cause than Arguments in writing which is a much more peaceable and satisfactory way of proceeding be by their Adversaries who run no such hazard slighted either as Inconsiderable or upon account of business or upon a reasonable Presumption that the Person concerned had already forsaken their Church These and such like may be Prudential Motives to them to slight answering a Paper and also for declining Personal Conferences as sometimes they have been Yet they must not be allowed at any time for such to Catholicks Nay even their modest compâ—rtment towards Authority must go for no other than a Pretence only of hazard though we see a Private Paper as this was from which the Doctor hath taken occasion to make all this noise published in Print with such Characteristical Notes of the Author as might easily discover his Person and in termes so Invidious as were apt to create the greatest Prejudice against him Why else was he stiled and that upon every post corner a Revolted Protestant when Roman-Catholick might have sufficed And why was He made the Proposer of the Questions when the Party concerned proposed them indifferently to both As for the Paper it self which is now become the Subject of Debate what others may have thought or said of its not being answered I know not but from my Adversary's own Relation nor doth the Person taxed in particular remember any such thing Besides I am certain I never communicated any Copy of it but to the Party for whose satisfaction it was written Yet since my Adversary hath thought good to publish it together with his own Answer to the two Questions at the beginning of his Book I have judg'd â—it to do the same before mine not that I except against any thing as mis-represented in it besides some little Errors of the Press but that I conceive it may be some Satisfaction to the Reader in the perusing of this Rejoinder to recur sometimes to the first Papers at least that he may clearly see that the Charge of Idolatry was no way necessary to the Resolution of the Questions as I shall shew more at large in the First Chapter but meerly brought in by Him upon some other Account which I am now to consider The Account Himself gives of reviving a Charge which for many Years had lain buried under the ruins of its own Infamy was as he pretends to Justify more clearly the Separation of the Church of England from the Guilt of Schism For this he saith lies open to the Conscience of every Man if the Church of Rome 〈◊〉 guilty of Idolatry our separation can be no Schism either before God or Man because our Communion would be a Sin This is what he pretends And this Cause indeed as Mr. Thorndike well observes would be more than sufficient to Justify the separation did it appear to be true but then on the other side saith he it charges the mischiefs of the Schism upon those who proceed upon it before it be as Evident as the Mischiefs are which they run into upon it So that should the Church of England declare that the change which we call Reformation is grounded upon this supposition I must then acknowledg saith he that we are Schismaticks For the cause not appearing to me as hitherto it hath not and I think will never be made to appear to me the separation and the mischief of it must be imputed to them that make the change In plain terms We of the Church of England make our selves Schismaticks by grounding our Reformation upon this pretence Thus Mr. Thorndike whose Judgment abetted by divers of the most learned and most Judicious Persons of the Church of England and this is thought to be the reason why the Doctor 's Book came forth without the publick stamp of an Imprimatur from any of its Bishops will stand as a convincing Prejudice against him till he can make it as evident that the Church of Rome is guilty of Idolatry as the mischiefs are that have ensu'd upon it This He saw was not possible to be done and therefore laying those Divines aside for Men of more charity than Judgment least he should be thought in so severe a Censure to contradict the sense of his Church which he saith he hath so great a regard to he undertakes to show that this charge of Idolatry hath been managed against the Church of Rome by the greatest and most learned Defenders of it ever since the Reformation But if he have such a regard as he saith for the Church of England Why did he not appeal to her 39. Articles For as himself saith p. 209. of the sense of the Church of Rome that we are to appeal for it not to the Writings of particular Doctors but to the Decrees of her Councils so in like manner for the sense of the Church of England He ought to have appealed to Her Publickly-Authorized Articles But in them the Church of England declares no such thing For we see it hotly disputed between her
down themselves in honour of that Illustrious Planet Which we are exceedingly grieved to see done partly out of ignorance and partly out of a Heathenish spirit Because although some perchance do worship the Creator rather of that fair Light than the Light it self which is a Creature nevertheless they ought to abstain from the very show of such a kind of Service which when some new Convert who hath forsaken the Worship of false Gods shall find exhibited to the Sun by the more ancient Professors of Christianity will be induced to retain that part of his old Opinion as probable or allowable which he shall see to be common both to Christians and Heathens Let the Faithful therefore abstain from so perverse and worthy-to-be-condemned a Custom nor let the honour due to God alone be mixed with their Rites who serve the Creatures for the H. Scripture saith Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him onely shalt thou serve Matth. 4. This is the Resolution of that Ancient and Learned Father at a time whenas yet there were some Reliques of Paganism remaining in the World And from it the Doctor may infer That if he do not say his Prayers to the Sun but onely bow down or use some external signification of honour of the like nature not out of ignorance or a Paganish spirit but with intent to worship the True God in such sort as not to give scandal to the weaker Brethren it may pass for a piece of private Devotion in a Person so Philosophical and Contemplative as I judge him to be And this is all which Vasques so much accused by him p. 129. doth teach for as for publick and promiscuous adoring of Creatures he condemneth it as undecent and scandalous saying expresly that Indiscriminatim creaturas adorandas proponere esset multis manifesta causa periculi If he ask me yet again Why he may not do this as well nay better to the Sun than to an Image since he is sure the Sun hath far more advantages than any Artificial Image I think I may ask him why he may not as well nay better put off his Hat to one of the Lyons in the Tower with intent to honour the King as do it to his Picture or the Chair of State since I am sure the Lyon in his Sense hath far more advantage than any Artificial Image or Figure can have the Majesty and Generosity of the King of Beasts may suggest more venerable apprehensions to him of the King he is to honour But to answer what for his heart he says he cannot understand and give him a clear Solution of his Scruple I must desire him to consider that although the Creatures do represent God after their manner yet it is so rudely remotely darkly and imperfectly that there is need of a great deal of discourse to discover the Analogy or Proportion they bear to their Creator They are called Gods Foot-steps and to gather the height and bigness of Hercucules from his Foot-step was not the work of every Vulgar Capacity Whereas an Image for example of Christ is so apparently representative of him that upon sight thereof our thoughts fly presently unto him and his Picture is no sooner in our Eyes than his Person by imagination in our Mind and consequently the likeness it bears to Him is much more apt to inflame and warm ones Devotion than the beauty and influence of the Sun Besides that the Creatures being subsistent in themselves and evidently the Causes of many great benefits to Mankind the danger is greater of terminating Worship upon them than upon an Image whose formal Being consisting in Representation onely connaturally carries our Thoughts and Affections to the Person represented by it By what hath been said he may see how far the Defence he makes for himself p. 70. by his abusive application of the distinction of Dulia and Hyperdulia and of Supream and Relative Worship in case he should bow down to the Sun with intent to worship the true God will bear him out If he go farther and as he states the case himself pay his Devotions to the Sun as a subservient and ministerial God though with subordination to the Supream Deity at his peril be it For that which possibly would justifie his worshipping of God by the Sun will most certainly not justifie his worshipping the Sun for a God CHAP. VI. Of the Notions and Practise of the Wiser Heathens in the matter of their Images The Texts of St. Paul Acts 17. 24. and Rom. 1. 21. Explained Some of the Doctors Testimonies Examined in particular the Relation he gives of what the Jesuites did in China § 1. THe next Onset the Doctor makes upon the Catholick use of Images is with a fresh Recruit of his Wiser Heathens the most Intelligent of whom he saith p. 74. did never look on their Images as any other than Symbols or Representations of that Being to which they gave Worship What he would infer from thence is so soul he could not find in his heart to speak it out Yet I cannot but acknowledge his kindness to us here in comparing us at least with the most Intelligent among the Heathens whereas p. 70. he had done his endeavour to insinuate into his Reader 's belief that the Aegyptians who worshipped Crocodiles and Serpents Leeks and Onyons â—or Gods were more excusable than the Papists To usher in the Wisdom of the Heathens he premises two Texts out of S. Paul Acts 17. 24. and Rom. 1. 19. as a mighty Argument he saith to prove the unsuitableness of the Worship of Images to the Nature of God to be of an unalterable and universal nature And I wonder whoever denyed it of such Images as are conceived to be proper Likenesses or Representations of the Divinity of which S. Paul speaks in the first place or of the Images of the false Gods of the Heathens of which he speaks in the latter Must the words of Scripture be always taken barely according to their sound without consideration had to the Times and Circumstances in which they were written That the Athenians whom S. Paul reproved Acts 17. 24. thought the Divinity to be like to the Images they made of Gold and Silver is evident by his words as set down by Dr. St. himself viz. Because God was He who made the World c. Therefore we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto Gold or Silver or Stone graven by Art or man's device And himself grants this to have been their supposition This then was a mighty Argument from the mouth of S. Paul to drive that Erroneous Conceit out of the Minds of the Athenians who believed the Divinity to be like the Images they made but none at all from the Pen of Dr. St. against Catholicks who detest the thoughts of having or making any such Image To what purpose then was it brought except he intended to make his Reader believe the Papists to be no wiser
doth sanctifie a place to so high a degree that we may lawfully testifie our reverence towards it and yet that presence or union is not equal to that of the Divine Nature of Christ with his Humane It is not onely Union but Representation also that may occasion Worship and so we see the King is worshipped by his Picture as representing him though it have not so close an union with his Soul as his Body hath But what sticks in the Doctors mind if I mistake not is how Christ God and Man can be worshipped by an Image which represents him onely according to his Humane Nature To this I have spoken already in the fifth Chapter and himself may satisfie his Reader in the point by telling him how the King who consists of Soul and Body can be worshipped by a Picture which represents him onely according to the Lineaments of his Body § 7. In the fourth place his Constantinopolitan-Fathers urge that If the Humane Nature of Christ be represented in the Image of Christ to be worshipped as separate from the Divine this would be plain Nestorianism And what says Epiphanius to this That never any man well in his wits when he saw the Picture of a man thought that the Painter by drawing him had divided his Soul from his Body that is that he had not onely drawn the man but hang'd and quarter'd him too Was ever time so fondly mispent as in proposing and refuting such pitiful kind of Sophistry as this of the Doctors Constantinopolitan-Fathers And yet He says the Good Nicen Fathers where he means by Good what he meant before by Wise not knowing what to answer deny the Conclusion and cry They Nestorians No. They lie in their Teeth Thus He. But what the Nicen Fathers answered like Good men and True was this that though the Images of Christ like other Images represent onely the external Lineaments of his Humane Nature yet when they look upon them they understand nothing but what is signified by them For example When he is represented as born of the Virgin which is I suppose what the Doctor means by the Birth of the Virgin p. 81. what they conceive in their Minds is not his Humane Nature as separated from the Divine but one Emmanuel true God and Man and therefore were far enough from bâ—ing guilty of Nestorianism in the use of Images Here the Doctor cries out Alas for them that they should ever be charged with the Worship of Images who plead for nothing now but a Help to their profound Meditations by them And may not I much better say Alas for him who if they Worshipped the same which they conceived in their Minds could not see their Worship which is an Act of the Will must be as free from Nestorianism as their Understanding But he had had nothing to reply if he had not thrust in those Words of his own to be Worshipped as separate from the Divine Nature For they are not in the Objection as it stands Recorded in the Council However they signifie little to his purpose because the Will is carried to the Prototype as it is conceived in the Understanding nor doth it give to the Image tâ—e Worship due to the Principal because the Image is not Worshipped at all for its own sake but for the Principal 's § 8. The Fifth Argument which he makes his Constantinopolitan Fathers produce is from the Institution of the Eucharist which they call Christs Image because instituted in Commemoration of him And whereas he said Do this in remembrance of Me He did as it were tell them That no other Figure or Representation under Heaven was chosen by Him as able to represent His being in the Flesh This they say was an HONOURABLE Image of his Quickning BODY made by Himself which he would not have of the shape of a Man to prevent Idolatry And as the Body of Christ was really sanctified by the Divine Nature so this Holy Image is by Adoption Deified or made Divine through sanctification of Grace This is the sense of the Argument to which Epiphanius answers that from the Fury they were possess'd with against the making of Images they were driven into another madness of calling the Eucharist an Image contrary to the Scriptures and Fathers And the Doctor knows that it is a sufficient Answer to an absurd Objection to shew that the Objector was driven to run into an Absurdity to maintain his Cause What the Constantinopolitans would have inferr'd from thence was that because Christ as They asserted made the Eucharist an Image of his Body therefore no other Image might be made or Worshipped But this They did not but left it perhaps as too hard a Task for Themselves to be undertaken by so Great an Admirer of Them and their Doctrine as my Adversary and at his Door it lies Onely he is desired to bear in mind against a fit season that the Eucharist with Them is an HONOURABLE IMAGE made by Christ Himself and therefore if he will not desert his Leaders he must give honour to it nay Divine Honour because although his Beloved Constantinopolitans call the EUCHARISTICAL BREAD an IMAGE yet they confess it in the same place to be NO FALSE IMAGE of Christs Natural Flesh but by virtue of the Priestly Consecration it is made his Divine Body § 9. In the sixth and last place he jumbles together no less than Eight Arguments or rather Bare Assertions of his Constantinopolitan Fathers all which Epiphanius denies and refutes as frivolous and false as any one may see who either considers the Objections in themselves or will take the pains to read the Answers to them at large in the sixth Action of the Council of Nice Which though my Adversary call weak and trivial yet it is no sign he thought them so when he omitted to set them down CHAP. VIII The Doctors Objection from the Council of Frankford examined and shewn to be no Advantage to his Cause § 1. AFter the matter of the Veneration due to Holy Images had been discussed and defined as you have seen in the second General Council of Nice the Doctor fearing that his Irony of that Wise Synod would not stick fast enough unless backed with a greater Authority than his own tells his Reader that it was condemned by the Council at Francford called together by Charles the Great Anno 794. He should have added By the Command of the Apostolick See as it is in Hinâ—marus but that had been an apparent disadvantage to his Cause and therefore better left out Nevertheless the fact it self he looks upon as an apparent advantage to it And thereupon he endeavours to show by many Conjectures that the Fathers at Francford did expresly reject the Council of Nice and that not out of misunderstanding its Doctrine as some rashly he saith imagine but that really they intended to condemn the Doctrine it self there defined His proofs are p. 84. Because the Acts of that Council
he saith were very well known to the Author of the Caroline Book and because the Copy of the Nicen Council was sent them by Pope Adrian whose Legates also presided in the Council of Francford and might easily rectifie any Mistake if they were guilty of it Besides none of the Historians of that time do take notice of any such Error and the second Canon of Francford published by Sirmondus expresly condemns the Council of Nice To this he adds That the same Council was rejected here in England and the Synod of Paris called by Ludovicus Pius condemned expresly Pope Adrian for asserting a superstitious Adoration of Images Lastly he confirms it from the Doctrine of the Caroline Books whose design as Binius confesseth was against all Worship of Images and of Agobardus published by Baluzius who ingenuously saith he confesseth that Agobardus saith no more than the whole Gallican Church believed in that Age. This is the sum and force of his Argument and to manifest the insufficiency of it in order to his design supposing the matter of fact to be true viz. that the Council of Francford did reject that of Nice which divers learned men not improbably deny I shall shew first that de facto there was a mis-understanding of the Doctrine of the Council of Nice Secondly That supposing there had been no mistake but that the Synod at Francford had really condemn'd the Doctrine of Nice yet had it been no advantage to his Cause § 2. First there was a misunderstanding of the Doctrine of the Council of Nice And to make this evident I shall need no more than to compare what was taught in the Council of Nice with what was condemn'd in the Council of Francford What the Council of Nice taught I have set down in the precedent Chapter viz. That the Images of Christ and his Saints were to be placed and retained in Churches c. and that an honourary adoration or respect was to be given to the said Images like as is given to Chalices and to the Books of the H Gospels but not LATRIA which as true Faith teacheth is due onely to God This was the plain and open Definition of the Council of Nice Let us now see what it was that the Synod of Francford condemned Allata est in medium Quaestio c. A Question was proposed in the Council saith the Author of the Caroline Book concerning the late Synod of the Greeks held at Constantinople a mistake of the place for Nicaea about the adoring of Images In qua scriptum habebatur In which there was written that those should be anathematized who did not give service and adoration to Images of the Saints as to the Divine Trinity Now saith the said Author our most Holy Fathers denying by all means Service and Adoration did both contemn and unanimously condemn the said Synod This is what the Fathers of the Synod at Francford condemned as it stands represented by the Author himself of the Carolin Book to whom my Adversary saith that the Acts of the Council were very well known and by Goldastus in Sir Henry Spelman who cites them as the very words of the Council and I suppose by Sirmondus also for had he published any thing else the Doctor would not have failed to let us know it And now I appeal to any indifferent Reader whether there were not a great misunderstanding of the Doctrine of the Council of Nice For had the Fathers of Francford rightly understood that the Council of Nice declar'd onely an honourary Worship to be given to Images like as to the H. Cross and to the Books of H. Scriptures c. and not Latria or the Worship due only to God they could never have condemn'd it for defining that the same Service and Worship was to be given to Images as to the Divine Trinity And therefore Mr. Thorndike ingenuously professeth that It is to be granted that whosoever it was that writ the Book against Images under the Name of Charles the Great did understand the Council to enjoyn the Worship of God to be given to the Image of our Lord. But it is not to be denied that it was a meer mistake and that the Council acknowledging that submission of the heart which the Excellence of God onely challenges proper to the H. Trinity maintains a signification of that esteem to be paid to the Image of our Lord. It is evident then there was a grand mistake And to omit what Bellarmin and others say of the ocsion of it Petrus de Marca the late learned Archbishop of Paris very probably judges it to have risen from the words of Constantinus Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus unskilfully rendred by the Latine Translator For as he well observeth the Council of Francford did not condemn the plain and open Definition of the Council of Nice but as the Canon it self of Francford speaks Quod scriptum habebatur for that there was found written in the Acts of that Council that the Worship due unto God was to be given to Images And the Author of the Caroline Book tells us that this was found written in the Sentence of the aforesaid Constantinus whom therefore he condemns of precipitancy and folly in these words Infauste praecipitanter sive insipienter Constantinus Constantiae Cypri Episcopus dixit suscipio amplector honorabiliter sanctas venerandas Imagines quae secundum servitium adorationis quae substantiali vivificatrici Trinitati emitto But instead of precipitancy and folly in Constantinus he should have laid the fault upon the ignorance of the Translator or his own if not his malice For the sense in Greek is plain and facil to be this Suscipio honorarie amplector sanctas venerabiles Imagines Et adorationem secundum Latriam soli supersubstantiali vivificae Trinitati impendo I receive and with honour embrace the holy and venerable Images of Christ and his Saints but for adoration of Latria I give it onely to the supersubstantial and Life-giving Trinity From whence it is is plain how ignorantly or maliciously rather it was said by Calvin that the same Constantinus professed he did reverently embrace the said holy Images cultumque honoris qui vivificae Trinitati debetur se illis exhibiturum and that he would give that Worship to them which is due to the Holy Trinity when what he professed was the quite contrary Such Arts as these were enough to make a man suspect a good Cause much more to desert a bad one But whether this were the occasion or no 't is evident as I shewed before that there was a great mistake and while the matter of fact is evident my Adversary labours in vain to argue from Conjectures that it was not possible especially since the Copy of the Acts of the Nicene Council was so unskilfully if not maliciously translated as to minister matter of mistake and though the Popes Legates could not perswade the Francford Fathers from
of Addresses Holy Peter pray for us For why I pray was such a Decree made and why did the Fathers of that Council fear lest the publick prayers should be corrupted with such kind of addresses if there were no such custome at that time Either the Dr. corrupts the words of his dear Master Calvin or it is manifest they imply it was the custome at that time to say Holy Peter pray for Us. And to make this clearer I shall set down 1. What Calvin really saith 2. What Bellarmin answers to him And from both it will appear that Calvin supposes there was such a custome and withall that Calvin hath corrupted the words and meaning of the Council and D. St. misrepresented those of Calvin 1. What Calvin really saith is this viz. That it was anciently forbidden in the Council of Carthage that direct prayer or Invocation be made to the Saints at the Altar And it is probable the reason was for that those Holy Men when they could not totally Repress the force of an evil Custome they thought good at least to put this restraint upon it lest the publick prayers might be corrupted with this Forme Holy Peter pray for Us. This is what Calvin saith And who sees not that the custome no wonder if He call it an ill one whose force he supposeth the Council would but could not totally Repress was this form of address Holy Peter pray for Us And He that sees this must shut his Eyes if he sees not that in Calvin's Opinion it was the Custome of that time however reprovable he would make it to say Holy Peter pray for Us. For how could he make the restraining that Custome to be the reason of the Law if he did not suppose there was such a custome and that a forcible one too But then again who sees not that for fear the Reader should see this the Dr. most conveniently left out of his citation those words of Calvin which were most material to the present purpose viz. that the Decree was made to forbid direct praying to Saints at the Altar and the Reason in his Opinion why those Fathers made that Decree was to restrain the force of an evil custome which they could not totally Repress For had these words been put down the thing had been too clear to be denied viz. that Calvin acknowledged there was such a custome at that time As in a like case if the Elders should make a Sanction that hereafter it shall not be lawful for Dr. St. to misâ—report the words and sense of their Patriarch Calvin and I should say that in my Opinion the Reason would be to restrain the force of an evil custom which they could not totally repress in him of doing it in most of the Authors he cites I dare confidently aver he would not stick to charge me that I said he had such a custom which if he think good to do the many instances I have brought of his insincere dealing in this kind wil more than sufficiently acquit me 2. What Bellarmin de sanct beat li. 1. c. 16. answers to this Objection of Calvin is that Calvin corrupted the words and sense of the Council when he said that what it forbad was to make direct Prayer or Invocation to Saints at the Altar because the Council speaks not at all of praying to Saints but only ordains that the prayer of him that sacrifices be directed to the Father and not to the Son He says indeed that Calvin by his Logick deduces that because prayer is to be directed to the Father therfore the Saints may not be Invocated and then farther that the Council decreed that that form of Invocation Holy Peter pray for us should not be used And this I can easily believe was Calvins ultimate design in corrupting the Canon of the Council But where doth Bellarmin say that there was no such custome in St. Austin's time or that Calvin said there was no such custome at that time Why then is it made a wonder that if I saw the words in Calvin or Bellarmin I would produce them The Reason was to make the Reader believe that himself could not possibly be guilty at that very time of a crime which he imputed to his Adversary But whoever considers the nature of the cause he hath undertaken will see no cause to wonder at this procedure because it is the natural effect of such a cause to put the maintainer upon the desperate shift of mis-representing the words and sense of Authors and no Man wonders at a natural effect especially if it be frequent as this of the Doctor 's is § 7. But now the blaze is spent and there only remains a little smoke viz. that I may as well the next time bring St. Austin's Testimony for worshipping of Martyrs Images and Angels because he saith he knew many who adored Sepulchers and Pictures and had tryed to go to God by praying to Angels What this as well relates to I cannot tell but I am sure he uses the same Art here in bringing these Testimonies against us which he did before in alledging the custom of those who made themselves drunk at the Sepulchers of the Martyrs For either S. Austin speaks here of the Errours of such as were professed Hereticks or if any who professed themselves Catholicks fell into them they were the Errors of particular Persons though many and justly reproved by him Whereas the Custom of Invocating the Saints to pray for us was the Universal practice of Christians at that time not reproved but owned practised and abetted by the most Religious Bishops and Fathers of the Primitive Church and by St. Austin himself as hath been shown and by more or all after their time as Mr. Thorndike confesses Wherefore if the Doctor be still resolved to keep his standing against so great a strength of Authority and give no more satisfactory account hereafter than he hath already done of charging the Roman Church with Idolatry It is manifest that his Foot sticks fast as the Psalmist saith in the deep Mire where no ground is or to speak in Mr. Thorndike's language in the depth of Schism From whence that he may be drawn out before the Flood run over him is the hearty wish of Him who honours his Person and Parts whilst he detects his Sophistry and refutes his Calumnies FINIS * S. Catharine ‖ Calvin Anagr. Lucian Pag. 14. Just Weights c. 1. Art 35. Epil 3. part p. 363. Appeal c. 23. Confer at Hampton-Court pag. 20. 40. Cyprian Angl. p. 242. Ep. 17. ad Marcellam Li. 7. de Bapt. cont Donat. c. 1. Tract 18. in To. Sozomen li. 8. Hist c. 5. Niceph. li. 13. c. 11. S. Leo Ser. 4. de Quad. Li. contr Epist. fund * Liberty of Propâ—â—cy Sect. 20. P. 550. * I suppose he means â—o less Lib. 3. de adorat c. 1. S. Chrysost Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Rom. Arnob. Contra. Gent. li. 6. S. Aug. in Psal