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 fighting 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 we reprove him by sound Dectrine 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 even 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. Augustine ' s 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 Adjuvet nos itaque 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 Prayers 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 present 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 making the 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 judgment of the Objector destroys the necessity of good life 2. Catholicks he says 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 the charity of his Friends If he were sure there were no Prison for him that would be an encouragement indeed to play the Spend-thrift And this is the case of the Protestants in their denyal of Purgatory 3. The sincerity of Devotion he says 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 reducing of the publick Liturgie 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 judgment of the Church and so universal hath this practice been both in the Primitive Greek and Latine Churches and is still 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
Council teaches is that It is good and profitable for Christians humbly to invocate the Saints and to have recourse to their Prayers aid and assistance wher by to obtain benefits of God by his Son our Lord Jesus Christ who is our only Redeemer and Saviour These are the very words of the Council and any Man but of common Reason would think it were as easy to prove Snow to be black as so Innocent a practice to be Idolatry even Heathen Idolatry What we teach and do in this matter is to desire the Saints in Heaven to pray for us as we desire the prayers of one another upon Earth and must we for this be compared to Heathens Do we not acknowledg that Jesus Christ the Son of God is our only Redeemer and Saviour Do we not confess that what Benefits we obtain of God either by our own or others Prayers must come by the merits of Him our only Redeemer Do we not believe that God needs neither our own Prayers nor the Prayers of others to confer his Benefits upon us but that all the need is on our part and all that we can do either by our own Prayers or humbly begging the Prayers of others is little enough to make us capable of his Favours Do we not profess to all the World that we look upon the Saints not as Gods but as the Friends and Servants of God that is as just Men whose Prayers therefore are available with him And that we worship them only with that worship of Love and Communion with which even in this life also Holy men of God are worshipped whose hearts we judge prepared to lose their Lives for the truth of the Gospel Where then lies the Heathenism Where lies the Idolatry Had the Doctor held himself to the Doctrine of the Church of England which terms the Invocation of Saints a fond thing vainly invented and grounded upon no warrant of Scripture there had been some colour for a dispute against the lawfulness of it But to condemn us of Idolatry down-right Idolatry for desiring the Servants of God in Heaven to pray for us was to put the common size of Intelligent Readers quite out of hopes of ever seeing it proved He says indeed in his Preface that He thinks it no great skill to make things appear either ridiculous or dark and here He gives us a very pregnant Example of what himself can do in that kind § 2. The Argument he made choice of to do this Feat that is to prove the Church of Rome guilty of Idolatry in the Invocation of Saints was this If the supposition of a middle excellency between God and us be sufficient ground for formal Invocation then the Heathens worship of their inferiour Deities could be no Idolatry for they still pretended they did not give to them the worship proper to the supreme God which is as much as is pretended by the devoutest Papists in Justification of the Invocation of Saints To this I answer'd two ways in my Reply 1. By shewing the disparity of Catholicks worship from that of the Heathens in two things 1. In the Objects where I said that by Persons of a middle excellency we understand Persons endowed with supernatural gifts of grace in this life and glory in Heaven whose Prayers by consequence are acceptable and available with God But the supreme Deity of the Heathens is known to be Jupiter and their inferiour Deuits Venus Mars Bacchus Vulcan and the like rabble of Devils as the Scripture calls thâ—m and therefore there can be no consequence that because the Heathens were Idolaters in the worship of these though they pretended not to give them the worship proper to Jupiter the supreme God therefore Catholicks must be guilty of Idolatry in desiring the servants of the true God to pray for them to him 2. In the manner of worship because I said if any of the Heathens did attain as the Platonists to the knowledge of the true God yet as St. Paul saith they did not glorify him as God but changed his glory into an Image made like to corruptible Man adorâ—â—g and offering sacrifice due to God alone to the Statues themselves or the inferiour Deities they supposed to dwell or assist in them which St. Austin upon the 96. Psalm proves to be Devils or evil Angels because they required sacrifice to be offered to them and would be worshipped as Gods What he meant by formal Invocation I said I did not well understand but Catholicks I told him understand no more by it in this matter but desiring or praying the Saints to pray for them And if this were Idolatry we must not desire the Prayers of a just Man even in this life because this formal Invocation will be to make him an Inferiour Deity 2. I answer'd that the same Calumny was cast upon the Catholicks in St. Austin's time and is answered by him and his Answer will serve as well now as then in his Twentieth Book against Faustus Chap. 21. who himself held such formal Invocation a part of the Worship due to Saints as is evident from the Prayer he made to St. Cyprian after his Martyrdome l. 7. de Bapt. c. Donat. c. 1. And Calvin himself confesseth it was the custome at that time to say Holy Mary or Holy Peter pray for Us. This indeed was my Answer and to disprove it he undertakes to show two things 1. That the disparity between Catholicks worship of Saints and the Heathens worship of their inferiour Deities is not so great as to excuse them from Idolatry 2. That the Answer given by St. Austin doth not vindicate them now as well as then § 3. 1. Concerning the disparity 1. As to the Object of Worship he abhors from his heart to parallel the Hâ—ly Angels and Saints with the impure Deities of the Heathens as to their Excellencies No. He hath more honour for them than not to think them more excellent than Devils or wicked Wretches I suppose in case they have the testimony of Scripture for their sanctity otherwise it may go hard with the best of them should he proceed in the same form with all the rest as he doth a little below with St. Ignatius But supposing them at present to be more excellent than the impure Deities of the Heathens yet if the Idolatry of the Heathens saith he lay not only in this that they worshipped Jupiter and Venus and Vulcan who are supposed to have been wicked Wretches but in this that they gave Divine Worship to any besides God then this disparity cannot excuse Catholicks from being Idolaters Behold here the ground upon which he intends to build his Charge of Idolatry Viz. That Catholicks give divine honour to the Holy Angels and Saints This is what the Reader must suppose otherwise his Arguments are at an End and having laid this false and scandalous supposition instead of proving it he undertakes to show out of the Primitive Fathers that it was the
that none of the Idols of the Heathen were to be compared to Him in Wisdom Greatness Power c. as is manifest he does from v. 12. to the end of the Chapter it is no more to the purpose for which he alledges it viz. Therefore it is forbidden to worship God himself by bowing or kneeling before an Image than if one should say There is no comparison for Riches and Greatness between a King and a Peasant therefore it is not lawful to give honour to the King by putting off ones Hat before his Picture or the Chair of State § 7. To the other Text of Deut. 4. 15. where Moses saith Take good heed to your selves for ye saw no manner of Similitude in the day that the Lord spake to you I answer That de facto no manner of Similitude was seen at that time by the People that afterwards they might not take occasion as they were apt enough to conceive it to have been a proper Representation of the Divinity and so entertain an erroneous Conceit of God Notwithstanding if it had so pleas'd him when he gave the Law he might have appeared to the People in some visible likeness without disparagement to his Nature as it is likely he did in a glorious manner to Moses at the Second giving of the Law when he descended and stood with him on the Rock and he saw the back parts of God and bowed to the Earth and worshipped Exod. 33. 23. 34. 5 8. and as both before and after he appeared to the Patriarchs and Prophets and consequently his not appearing so de facto could not be the Reason of the Law For as Dr. St. himself confesses very ingenuously p. 63. Although God had appeared with a Similitude then yet there might have been great reason for making a Law against worshipping the Heathen Idols or fixing the intention of their Worship upon the bare Image I add Even against thinking of honouring God by an Image made by men if that were the meaning of the Law as it is not since such a Law if necessary might have been made and would have obliged although God had chosen some visible likeness to appear in at that time The words then For ye saw no manner of Similitude on the day that the Lord spake to you though cited by the Doctor without a Parenthesis to make them seem of more force were not set down by Moses as the Reason of the Law But the matter of fact was made use of by him as a Motive to induce the People to the Observance of it in a Sermon he makes Deut. 4. to press them to that duty And this Explication also the Doctor might have found in his own Bible if he had but vouchsafed to cast his Eye upon the Contents of the Chapter where the whole Discourse is entituled An Exhortation to Obedience or on the Breviate on the top of the Page where the Arguments us'd in it are call'd Perswasions to Obedience But there was the word likeness in the first Text and Similitude in the second denied of God and these were enough without considering the Context or the intent of the Writer or the Contents of the Chapters to ask Whether God by that Reason doth not declare that all Worship given to him by any visible Representation of him is extreamly dishonourable to him Now though Protestants may hold with Dr. St. that the Scripture is the most certain Rule of their Faith yet unless they wilfully shut their Eyes they cannot think the Method he takes to be the most certain way to find out its Sense But to draw to a Conclusion in this matter § 8. Let us suppose the Argument notwithstanding all that hath been said to shew its deficiency in all its parts to be good and sound and that in its largest extent viz. The Nature of God being infinite and incomprehensible cannot be represented to men but in a way that must be an infinite disparagement to it Let us grant I say this Antecedent and the Places of Scripture in the sense they are cited by him Let us grant the Consequence too he infers from them Therefore all Worship given to Him by any visible Representation of him whether Proper or Analogical is extreamly dishonourable to him Suppose I say all this to be so Will it follow from hence that Christ according to his Humanity cannot be represented but with great disparagement to Him Or that to put off our Hats when we behold the Figure of his Sacred Body as Nailed upon the Cross with intent to Worship Him must be extremly dishonourable to Him What if the Soul of Man be Invisible and cannot be represented by any Corporeal Figure or Colours Will it follow from thence that any Picture made to represent a Prince according to his External Features would be a disparagement to him and any Honour given him by means of such a Representation a Dishonour The Consequence he brings is no better in order to Christ and his Image If then his Argument do not at all concern the practise of Catholicks in making the Images of Christ and his Saints with respect to their Honour to what purpose was it to lay down for the Reason of the Law in which he will have it to be forbidden That God's Nature being Infinite and Incomprehensible could not be represented without infinite disparagement to it To what purpose was it to spend no less than three Pages as he does § 6. in citing Authours to prove that the Wiser Persons of the Heathens themselves condemned the Worship of God by Images as incongruous to a Divine Nature Was it to make his Reader believe that Catholicks allow of any Pictures as proper Representations of the Invisible Deity Let him lay his Hand upon his Heart I have told him the Churches Sense in that Point What those Wiser Persons of the Heathens meant is evident from their Words and from the Time in which they lived to be this That the Nature of God being Spiritual and Invisible it could not be represented by any thing like unto it and therefore the Worship which the People gave to their Images as Gods or like unto the Gods they worshipped was incongruous to the Divine Nature and a disparagement to the Deity And if the Germans as Tacitus reporteth de morib German c. 9. rejected Images made in the likeness of men which the Doctor conveniently leaves out because they thought them unsuitable to the Greatness of Celestial Deities for Other Figures and Symbols they had in their consecrated Groves as the same Tacitus there witnesseth and Dr. St. suppresseth it was but what the Light of Nature taught them concerning the notion of a Deity which had the mystery of God made Man been revealed to them would have taught them also that it was no disparagement to Him to be represented in the likeness of Man and to be worshipped by such an Image His other Citations I took upon his word without
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
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
who had the power of limiting what is lawful and what is not by the Law should declare to be unlawful But to think that their declarations ought to bind Christians were to imagine that Christians ought to be Jews And then a little after he goes on For Christianity saith he having put Idolatry to flight which the Law never pretended to do it is not to be imagined that the having of Images can make a man take those for God which they represent so long as the belief of Christianity is alive at the heart For neither was it Idolatry though it were a breach of this Commandment for a Jew to have such Images as were forbidden by their Elders not taking that for God which they represented But what honour of Saints departed or what signs of that honour Christianity may require what Furniture or Ceremonies the Churches of Christians and the Publick Worship of God in them may require now all the world professes Christianity and must honour the Religion which they profess this the Church is at freedom to determine by the Word of God expounded according to the best agreement of Christians This is Mr. Thorndike's Discourse in which the Reader may observe 1. That to think the Declarations of the Jews ought to bind Christians were to imagine that Christians ought to be Jews 2. That all things forbidden to the Jews by this Commandment were Not Idolatry 3. That the Images which the Precept supposeth were the Representations of other that is false Gods which his People were wont to worship for God 4. That what Furniture viz. of Images the matter he there treats of or Ceremonies the Publick Worship of God may require is left to the Judgment of the Church to determine 5. and lastly That the Opposition in this Point between Dr. St. and Mr. Thorndike is not onely concerning the obligation of the Jews as between Catholick Divines but of Christians also in order to this Commandment So that some are of opinion however Dr. St. â—eem to direct his arrows against the Church of Rome yet he meant at least by rebound to shoot them at Mr. Thorndike And had he made it any part of his business to answer his Arguments I might easily have been induc'd to have embrac'd their Opinion But those remaining untouch'd I cannot but look upon this Discourse of that Learned Person as a kind of Prophetical Confutation in the year 1662. when he printed that Book of all which Dr. Stillingfleet brings in 1671. for the proof of his Charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome in the matter of Images As for his new way of answering the Testimony I alledged of St. Austin's Judgment of the sense of this Commandment by asking me how I am sure that it was his constant Judgment I have at large refuted it in the Third Chapter to which I remit the Reader CHAP. X. What kind of Honour the Church gives to Holy Images explained and the Doctors mixing School Disputes with matters of Faith shewn to be sophistical § 1. TO clear the Doctrine and Practise of the Catholick Church from his most Unjust Charge of Idolatry I told the Reader That the Honour we give to the Sacred Images of Christ and his Saints was an inferiour or Relative Honour onely not Latria the Worship due to God but a certain Honourary Worship expressed by kissing them or putting off our Hats or kneeling before them much like the Worship which is given to the Chair of State or the Reverence which Moses and Joshua gave to the Ground by putting off their Shoes c. That this was the meaning of the Council of Nice is confessed by Dr. Field and Mr. Thorndike as I have shewed p. 124. And that the Council of Trent means no more is manifest from the words of the Council related above Chap. 2. as also for that Sess 25. it refers us expresly to the Council of Nice Yet because the Doctor is resolved to quarrel the distinction of Absolute and Relative Worship that the Reader may see what is meant by it I shall desire him to take notice first That Adoration or Worship being an Act of the Will as the Will can love one thing for it self because of the Perfection it is endow'd with and another thing not for it self but purely for that others sake to whom 〈◊〉 belongs So likewise it may adore or worship a thing either for it self that is for some intrinsecal Excellency in the thing for which it deserves Worship and then it is said to worship the thing absolutely because for it self Or it may worship it for another's sake that is for some Excellency in the Person to whom the said thing hath a Relation or Union and then it is said to worship such a thing with a Relative or Inferiour Worship because purely for that Persons sake And because Intellectual Beings are capable of having some Excellency in themselves for which they deserve to be worshipped as Virtue Sanctity Wisdom Power c. and Inanimate Beings are capable of bearing a Relation to a Person endowed with such Excellencies it follows that as Intellectual Beings may have Absolute Worship given to them so Inanimate Things relating to them may for their sakes have a Relative Respect or Honourary Adoration given to them and that so far from being injurious to the Person to whom they belong that it would be look'd upon as a disrespect and affront if in due circumstances it were not done Such a kind of Relative Worship it is we affirm to be due and to be given to the Images of Christ and his Saints when we kiss them or put off our Hats before them Secondly I must desire him to observe as Mr. Thorndike doth very well that the words Adoration Worship Respect Reverence or howsoever you translate the Latine word Cultus are or may be in despite of our hearts equivocal that is sometimes they may signifie one kind of honour and sometimes another Sometimes that which belongs to God and sometimes that which belongs to the Creature And the cause of this equivocation he saith is the want of words vulgar use not having provided words properly to signifie conceptions which came not from common sense And from this equivocation in the Words Adoration Worship c. the greatest part of the Difficulties which occur in this take their rise Now when the Doctor should set himself seriously to confute the aforesaid Explication he puts his Reader into a fit of laughing with a Drollish Parallel p. 100. that to give this Inferiour and Relative kind of Worship to the Image of Christ that is to honour and reverence it for his sake is just as if an unchaste Wife should plead in her excuse to her Husband that the person she was too kind with was extreamly like him and a near friend of his and that it was out of respect to him that she gave him the honour of his Bed But to lay open the
which if we do not exercise in judging the truth of divine Revelation we must be imposed upon by every thing which pretends to be so The perfect discussion of this Principle I shall not engage my 〈◊〉 in at present The Men of Principles as the Doctor calls them not without just cause are likely enough to take it into Consideration a second and perhaps a third time too At present it may suffice to shew briefly now absurd in it self and how destructive to Christian Religion this Principle of the Doctor 's is Viz. That we are to judge of the truth of divine Revelation i.e. whether God have revealed such a thing or no by exercising our Faculty of discerning truth and falshood in matters proposed to our belief that is by making our Reason the Judge whether the matter proposed to our belief be true or false This is what I can understand by the Doctor 's words to be his meaning If He can give them a better I shall be glad to find my self mistaken But if this be as to me it seems to be the sense of his words I am sorry that any thing so irrational in its self and so fatal to Religion should proceed from the Pen of a Christian. For first as I said it is absurd in it self because it can by no means subsist unless we will equal Man's knowledge with that of God For if Man cannot comprehend the depth of the knowledge and power of God that is if God both know and can do more than Man can understand it is evident that the judgment of sense and reason about the Truth of the matter proposed can never be a â—it means to assure him whether God have revealed it or no and it is as evident on the contrary that if it be sufficiently proposed and asserted as revealed by God though it seem never so absurd and contradictory to humane sense and reason we must submit our judgment to the belief of it as True ' Tâ—s not all our reasonings and syllogisms against the matter proposed that can excuse us from the Obligation of câ—ptivating our Undeâ—standing to the Obedience of Christ 2 Cor. 10. 5. That which seems a Camel to us is not so much as a Gnat to the knowledge and power of God and therefore rather than give Him the lye we must strain our selves to swallow what seems to be the greatest Contradiction to Sense and Reason Imaginable Our first Mother Eve by taking part with her sense against Faith destroyed her Self and Posterity by believing the Devil rather than God and what more suitable Penance for this Fault or Cure for this Pride than for God to exact of us that we should believe Him rather than our sense and this particularly in the point of Transubstantiation of the Bread into the Body of our Redeemer that as by following sense and eating the fruit of the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil Death came upon all both of Soul and Body so all may receive Life by denying the suggestions of Sense and eating the true food of the Body of Christ under the forme of Bread 2dly It is destructive to Christianity since if we must believe nothing but what our Sense and Reason can comprehend we must lay aside our Creed and neither believe the Creation of the World nor the Trinity of Persons nor the Incarnation of the Son of God nor the Resurrection of the Dead all which seem to imply as many and great Absurdities and Contradictions as the Doctor for his heart can Object against Transubstantiation It would be too tedious to insist upon them all Those who are curious may meet with them every where in the Writings both of those who impugn and of those who defend the Catholick belief in those Points Yet to give the Reader a clearer Insight into the absurdness and malignity of this Principle of the Doctors and how agreeable this proceeding of his is in this Point to that of other Desertors of the Church's Faith I shall instance in some of the Contradictions objected against the Mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation and that in the words of Dr. Beaumont now Master of Peter-House in Cambridge in his most excellent Poem call'd Psyche or Love's Mystery Verses I know in a Book of Controversy will seem as improper and come as unexpected as a Garden of Flowers in a rough and craggy Desâ—rt but a Traveller will not find fault with his Guide for leading him thorough it if he lead him not out of his way My Adversary without any occasion given him to please the Atheistical humour of the Wits of the Time could think fit to turn Spiritual Archy and make sport with the Saints in so prophane a manner as is no where to be parallel'd in the worst of Play-Books And I hope after so many hard and spiny Questions of the Schools wherewith he hath perplex'd the minds of his sober Readers I may have leave to divert them with citing a little Poetry which doth but express in Verse what the matter it self leads me to have said in Prose See then how the aforesaid Dr. Beaumont introduces a Cerinthian Heretick endeavouring to seduce Psyche that is the Soul from the belief of the Mysteries of the Incarnation and Trinity upon Dr. St.'s Principles of Sense and Reason 213 Blind Ignorance was grown so bold that she Sought to perswade the World it had no eyes Making the lazy Name of Mystery Instead of Demonstration suffice From this black Pit those monstrous Prodigies Of Hood-wink'd and abused Faith did rise 214 Who can imagin Heaven would e're ob'rude Upon the Faith of Reasonable Men That which against all Reason doth conclude And founded is on Contradiction Sure God so strange a Law did never give That Men must not be Men if they believe 219 For though the Marvel-Mongers †grant that He Was moulded up but of a Mortal Mettal And that his substance was the same which we Find in our selves to be so weak and brittle Yet an Eternal God they make Him too And angry are that we will not do so 220 Thus the quaint madness of a dreaming Brain Holds the same thing a Mountain and a Mite Fancies the Sun Light 's Royal Soveraign To look like swarthy and ignoble Night Imagins wretched Worms although it see They crawl in Dâ—rt Illustâ—ious Kings to be 221 But Heaven forbid that we should so blaspheme And think our God as poor a thing as we How can Eternity be born in Time How can Infinity a Baby be Or how can Heaven and Earth's Almighty Lord To Aegypt fly for fear of Herod's Sword 226 I know they strive to mince the matter by Distinguishing his Natures For their Art Being asham'd of no Absurdity Hâ—mself from his own self presumes to part Yet we durst not admit a Deity Which must on a distinction builded be 227 But how much more than Mad their doctrine is And how transcending Pagan Blasphemy Who
Property of the Christian Religion to give divine worship to none but God himself and his Son Christ Jesus To this purpose he cites Justin Martyr and Theophilus Bishop of Antioch to whom he says he might add if it were requisite in so Evident a matter the testimonies of Clemens Alexandrinus Tertullian Cyprian Origen Athenagoras Lactantius Arnobius and who not that ever pretended to the Name of Christian who all agree that Religious by which he means divine worship is proper to the true God and that no created Being is capable of it and in this strain he runs on for no less than Ten Leaves together and at length without ever proving that Catholicks do give divine worship to the Holy Angels and Saints he most triumphantly concluded them to be Idolaters This is the summe of his performance and by it I understand that it had been no great skill in the Pharisees to have made any of those Persons who honoured St. Peter or St. Paul when they were upon Earth or desired their Prayers to be Idolaters They needed not any other proof but only to suppose confidently that they gave to them the worship proper to God alone and the work was done especially if they had but cited that Text of Scripture Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and Him only shalt thou serve I confess when I said that I thought it would be as easy to prove Snow to be black as the Doctrine of the Catholick Church in this matter to be Idolatry I did not reflect that Dr. St. might suppose Catholicks to give divine worship to the Saints and so conclude them to be Idolaters But this as I now remember is a Peculiar Topick of which all those who oppose the Faith of the Church are forced to make use Viz. to suppose her Doctrine not to be what she affirms but what they would have her to affirm and from thence to make her guilty of what Crimes and Enormities they pâ—ease themselves § 4. Now although the Testimonies of the Fathers he alledges are so impertinent to the present Question as I have shewed yet because some of them as they are imperfectly reported or advantageously translated by him may give occasion to an unwary Reader to suspect that they meant to deny that any worship at all was to be given to any besides God I shal take the pains to unfold their meaning and free him from any such Jealousy by showing that when they deny in general terms worship to be given to a Creature they mean divine worship which is due to God alone and not that worship which is given to Men upon account either of their Natural or Supernatural Endowments or for the Place or Office they hold in the Church or Common-Wealth For as there is a worship due to Men for the former so also doubtless for the latter And we have an Example of it in Dr. St. himself in his Irenicum p. 413. Printed at London An. 1662. Where speaking of Mr. Baxter he calls him Our Reverend and Learned Mr. Baxter Learned I suppose for his knowledge but Reverend for his Piety and Place in the Presbytery and so worthy of double if not of treble honour Thus much premised of the different degrees there are of worship as also that it is a thing notoriously known that many of the Heathen Emperors exacted to be worshipped as Gods that is with divine worship The Testimony out of Justin Martyr p. 141. answers it self because where he tells the Emperours that Christ did perswade Men to worship God alone c. He presently adds that the same Christ commanded Christians to give unto Caesar the things which are Caesars of which Honour is One in the Judgment of St. Peter And the like had been manifest of Theophilus Antiochenus if the Doctor had fairly set down his words for he expresly affirmeth that although the King was not ordained to be adored yet He was to be honour'd with that lawful worship which belongs to Him And this is insinuated in the very words cited by the Doctor himself viz. as the King suffers none under him to be called by his Name nor is it lawful to give it to any but himself so neither is it to worship any but God alone for although the King will suffer none under him to be called by his Name yet he requires that respect be given to those whom he constitutes Judges and Magistrates under Him according to their degree and quality And God himself although he forbid to give his own Name or Honour to any but Himself yet he commands us to give honour to whom honour is due Rom. 13. 7. And that this was the meaning both of Theophilus and Justin we need no better Expositor than Tertullian who was neer upon contemporary with them and tells us that the King is then to be honoured when he keeps â—imself within his own Sphere and abstains from divine honours Quum a divinis honoribus longe est So that I cannot but wonder what the Doctor meant by alledging these Testimonies of those two ancient Fathers unless he intend to deny any worship at all to be due to any besides God or that he think it not possible to worship a good Man for his vertue and sanctity but we must give him divine honour If he produc'd them for no other End but to show that we ought not to give divine worship to any created Being whatsoever it is evident they are not at all to the purpose it being far from the minds and hearts of Catholicks to give that honour to the Saints § 5. But then the old scruple returns again Why he may not as well honour God by giving worship to the Sun as to Ignatius Loyola or St. Francis or any other late Canoniz'd Saint He might have added if he had pleas'd or to one not yet Canonized his Reverend Mr. Baxter For he is sure the Sun and why not the most Reverend Sun is a certain Monument of God's Goodness Wisdome and Power and he cannot be mistaken therein but he can never be certain of the Holiness of those Persons he is to give divine Worship to Thus Dr. St. And certainly he must believe his Readers to be all stark blind who cannot distinguish the Reverence due to a Person for his Holiness from Divine Worship or that a Saint is not a greater Monument of GOD's Goodness Wisdome and Power than the Sun But by his particularizing the late Canonized Saints it seems he is satisfied that St. Peter and St. Paul were greater Monuments of the Divine Goodness Wisdome and Power than the Sun that more were raised to love God by seeing the light of their example than by gazing upon that bright Planet and consequently that we may much better honour God by giving worship to them at least than to the Sun and perhaps to St. Francis too because he is so kind as to honour him here with the title of Saint
Humane but such as a Creature is capable of for Religion's sake and that Relation which it settleth By this it appears that if the Doctor mean by Religious Worship that Honor which is due to God alone it is true what the Fathers say that It is not to be given to the most excellent created Beings but nothing at all to the Point in debate between us If he mean that Honour of which a Creature is capable of for Religion's sake and that Relation which it settleth I shall show it to be false that the Fathers deny any such honour to be given to the Holy Angels and Saints And if he contend that this kind of worship ought not to be called Religious St. Austin will tell him that it is but a meer wrangling about words because the word Religion as he shows may be used in other senses besides that of the worship due to God and Himself speaking of the honour given by Christians to the Martyrs saith We celebrate their Memories with Religious Solemnity And who so saith Mr. Thorndike in the place above cited could wish that the Memories of the Martyrs and other Saints who lived so as to assure the Church they would have been Martyrs had they been called to it Alas He never thought that for ought Dr. St. can know they were great Hypocrites had not been honoured as is plain they were honoured by Christians must find in his heart by consequence to wish that Christianity had not prevailed Whether this Censure of Mr. Thorndike's be applicable to my Adversary or no depends upon his allowing or not allowing such honour to the Saints as is plain was given them by Christians but for the distinction he makes between the Religious worship due to God and that of which a Creature is capable of for Religion's sake it will clearly dispell the Mâ—st he hath raised from the Testimonies of the Fathers and let the Reader see how he hath perverted their meaning and yet said nothing to the purpose § 2. The first he cites is Origen affirming that the Scripture doth indeed stile God the God of Gods and Lord of Lords but withall saith that to us there is but one God the Father of whom are all things and One Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by Him And his mind ascends up to the supreme God who worships him inseparably and indivisibly by his Son who alone conducts us to the Father Therefore seeing there are many Gods and many Lords we endeavour by all means not only to carry our minds above those things on Earth which are worshipped by the Heathen for Gods but above those whom the Scripture calls Gods by which Origen means the Angels To this I answer that it is plain from the very words themselves that the worship which Origen here contends ought not to be given to Angels is divine worship proper to God alone for he speaks only of that worship which is given to the Father inseparably and indivisibly by his Son And when-ever such worship is to be given we must not only carry our minds above those things which were worshipped by the Heathens for Gods but above the good Angels also because they are not inseparably and indivisibly One with the Father as the Son is who alone can conduct us by his Grace and Merits to the Father And this is yet more plain from the Reply which Origen gave to that Evasion of Celsus viz. that None were to be honoured for Gods but those to whom the supreme God doth communicate it for denying any such honour to have been granted by God to the Heroes or Daemons of the Heathens he proves from Miracles and Prophecies and Precepts that this honour was given to Christ Ut omnes honorent Filium sicut Patrem honorant that all should honour the Son as they honour the Father that is that they should honour him as God which the Doctor translates that they who honour the Father should honour the Son also tacitly insinuating that no honour at all mâ—ght be lawfully given but to the Son And again when Celsus objects that by the same Rule that Christians gave honor to Christ he thought they might give it to Inferiour Deities The account which Origen gives of the worship which Christians attribute to the Son viz. because it is said I and my Father are One makes it yet more evident that he speaks of divine worship which cannot be given to any created Beings and not of such an Inferiour Worship of which Creatures are capable upon account of their Holiness and Relation to God For of these he saith and who will not wonder to see it cited though but imperfectly by the Doctor himself that if Celsus had spoken of the true Ministers of God after his only begotten Son such as Gabriel Michael and all the Angels and Archangels and had contended that they were to be worshipped which last words though very material are left out by Dr. St. he acknowledges that by explaining the notion of worship or respect and the Actions of those that give it perhaps he should have said something of that Subject as far as the dignity of so great a thing and the reach of his understanding would have permitted But this not being objected by Celsus but only that they were by the same Rule by which they worshipped Christ for God to worship in like manner the Inferiour Deities of the Heathens he thought it not necessary to enlarge upon that Subject at present but only to show the different account upon which they worshipped Christ as one with his Father By which it is manifest he held a certain worship or respect due to the Angels inferiour to that which is due to God alone And all that the Doctor hath to say for himself is that Origen saith elsewhere Although the Angels be called Gods in Scripture yet we are not to worship them with divine worship which is a plain concession that when Origen denies worship to any created Beings he speaks of divine worship and so nothing against that Inferiour worship or respect which is given by Catholicks to the Holy Angels and Saints § 3. But now the Doctor would seem to say something to the purpose when he tells us that Origen utterly denies that our Prayers are to be offered to any but Christ alone and that any word which is proper to Religious worship is to be attributed to the Angels themselves But he does but seem to come home to the Point for as Mr. Thorndike well observes The terms of Prayer Invocation calling upon and whatever else we can use are or may be in despite of our hearts equivocal that is we may be constrained unless we use that diligence which common discretion counts superfluous to use the same words in signifying requests made to God and to Men. And a little aâ—ter Prayer Invocation calling upon is not so proper to God but