or Heathenish fornication was here only reprehended as Jewish or Heathenish Idolatry But as the one is a foul sin whether it be committed by Jew Pagan or Christian so if such as profess the Name of Christ shall practise that which the Word of God condemneth in Jews or Pagans for Idolatry their profession is so far from diminishing that it augmenteth rather the hainousness of the crime About the same time came forth Bishop Downams Book of Antichrist wherein he doth at large prove That to give divine honour to a creature is Idolatry and that the Papists do give it in the Worship of Saints the Host and Images which is likewise done nearer our own times by Bishop Davenant and Dr. Jackson I shall conclude all although I might produce more with the testimony of Archbishop Laud who in his Conference saith the ancient Church knew not the adoration of Images and the modern Church of Rome is too like to Paganism in the practice of it and driven to scarce intelligible subtleties in her Servants writings that defend it this without any care had of millions of souls unable to understand her subtleties or shun her practice and in his Marginal Notes upon Bellarmin written with his own hand now in my possession where Bellarmin answers the testimony of the Council of Laodicea against the Worship of Angels by saying That it doth not condemn all Worship of Images but only that which is proper to God he replyes That Theodoret who produced that testimony of the Council expresly mentions the praying to Angels therefore saith he the praying to them was that Idolatry which the Council condemns By this we see that the most Eminent and Learned Defenders of our Church of greatest authority in it and zeal for the Cause of it against enemies of all sorts have agreed in the charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome And I cannot see why the authority of some very few persons though of great Learning should bear sway against the constant opinion of our Church ever since the Reformation Since our Church is not now to be formed according to the singular Fancies of some few though Learned men much less to be modelled by the Caprichio's of Superstitious Fanaticks who prefer some odd Opinions and wayes of their own before the received doctrine and practice of the Church they live in Such as these we rather pity their weakness than regard their censures and are only sorry when our Adversaries make such properties of them as by their means to beget in some a disaffection to our Church Which I am so far from whatever malice and peevishness may suggest to the contrary that upon the greatest enquiry I can make I esteem it the best Church of the Christian world and think my time very well imployed what ever thanks I meet with for it in defending its Cause and preserving persons in the communion of it THE Contents CHAP. I. Of the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome in the Worship of Images THE introduction concerning the occasion of the debate The Church of Rome makes its members guilty of Hypocrisie or Idolatry First Of the Worship of God by Images Some propositions for clearing the notion of Divine Worship It is in Gods power to determine the way of his Worship which being determined Gods Law and not our intention is to be the rule of Worship The main question is Whether God hath forbidden the worshipping of himself by an Image under the notion of Idolatry Of the meaning of the second Commandment from the terms therein used the large sense and importance of them which cannot be understood only of Heathen Idols Of the reason of that Law from Gods infinite and invisible nature How far that hath been acknowledged by Heathens The Law against Image Worship no ceremonial Law respecting meerly the Iews the reason against it made more clear by the Gospel The wiser Heathen did not worship their Images as Gods yet their worship condemned as Idolatry The Christian Church believed the reason of this Law to be immutable Of the Doctrine of the second Council of Nice the opposition to it in Greece Germany France and England Of the Scripture Instances of Idolatry contrary to the second Commandment in the Golden Calf and the Calves of Dan and Bethel Of the distinctions used to excuse image-worship from being Idolatry The vanity and folly of them The instances supposed to be parallell answered P. 49 CHAP. II. Of their Idolatry in Adoration of the Host and Invocation of Saints The Argument proposed concerning the Adoration of the Host the insufficiency of the Answer to it manifested supposing equal revelation for Transubstantiation as for Christs Divinity yet not the same reason for Worshipping the Host as the person of Christ the great disparity between these two at large discovered the Controversie truly stated concerning Adoration of the Host and it is proved that no man on the principles of the Roman Church can be secure he doth not commit Idolatry in it The confession of our Adversaries that the same Principles will justifie the Worship of any Creature No such motives to believe Transubstantiation as the Divinity of Christ. Bishop Taylor 's Testimony answered by himself To Worship Christ in the Sun as lawful as to Worship him in the Host. The grossest Idolatry excusable on the same grounds The argument proposed and vindicated concerning the Invocation of Saints practised in the Church of Rome The Fathers Arguments against the Heathens hold against Invocation of Saints the state of the Controversie about Idolatry as managed by them They make it wholly unlawful to give divine Worship to any Creature how excellent soever The Worship not only of Heathen Gods but of Angels condemned The common evasions answered Prayer more proper to God than Sacrifice No such disparity as is pretended between the manner of Invocating Saints and the Heathens Invocating their Deities In the Church of Rome they do more than pray to Saints to pray for them proved from the present most Authentick Breviaries Supposing that were all it would not excuse them St. Austin no friend to Invocation of Saints Practices condemned by the Church pleaded for it Of Negative points being Articles of faith p. 108. CHAP. III. Of the hindrance of a good Life and Devotion in the Roman Church The doctrines of the Roman Church prejudicial to Piety The Sacrament of Pennance as taught among them destroyes the necessity of a good life The doctrine of Purgatory takes away the care of it as appears by the true stating it and comparing that doctrine with Protestants How easie it is according to them for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven Purgatory dreadful to none but poor and friendless Sincerity of devotion hindred by prayers in an unknown Tongue The great absurdity of it manifested The effects of our Ancestors devotion had been as great if they had said their prayers in English
Proph. Sect. 20. Speaking of Catholicks The beauty and Splendour of their Church their pompous he should have said solemn Service the stateliness and solemnity of the Hierarchy their name of Catholick which they suppose he should have said their very Adversaries give them as their own due and to concern no other Sect of Christians the Antiquity of many of their Doctrines he should have said all the continual succession of their Bishops their immediate derivation from the Apostles their Title to succeed St. Peter the flattering he should have said due expression of Minor Bishops he means acknowledging the Pope head of the Church which by being old records have obtained credibility the multitude and variety of People which are of their perswasion apparent consent with Antiquity in many Ceremonials which other Churches have rejected and a pretended and sometimes he should have said alwayes apparent consent with some elder Ages in matters Doctrinal The great consent of one part with another in that which most of them affirm to be de fide of Faith The great differences which are commenced among their Adversaries abusing the liberty of Prophecying into a very great licentiousness Their happiness of being Instruments in converting divers he should rather have said of all Nations The piety and austerity of their Religious Orders of Men and Women The single life of their Priests and Bishops the severity of their Fasts and their exteriour observances the great reputation of their first Bishops for faith and sanctity the known holiness of some of those persons whose institutes the Religious persons pretend to imitate the oblique Arts and indirect proceedings of some of those who departed from them and amongst many other things the names of Heretick and Schismatick which they with infinite pertinacity he should have said upon the same grounds the Fathers did fasten upon all that disagree from them These things saith he and divers others may very easily perswade persons of much reason and more piety to retain that which they know to have been the Religion of their Fore-fathers which had actually possession and seizure of mens understandings before the opposite professions to wit of Protestant Presbyterian Anabaptist c. had a name Thus Dr. Taylor an eminent and leading man amongst the Protestants and if he confess that these Motives were sufficient for a Catholick to retain his Religion they must be of like force to perswade a dis-interessed Protestant to embrace it unless the Protestants can produce Motives for their Religion of greater or at least equal force with these which so great a man among them confesseth that Catholicks have for theirs Here therefore you must call upon the Author of the Paper you sent me to produce a Catalogue of grounds or at least some one ground for the Protestant Religion of greater or equal force with all these And as Dr. Taylor saith divers others which he omitted viz. The Scripture interpreted by the consent of Fathers the determination of General Councils the known Maxime of Catholicks that nothing is to be believed of Faith but what was received from their Fore-fathers as handed down from the Apostles The testimonie of the present Church of no less Authority now than in St. Austins time both for the Letter and the sence of the Scripture c. Do this and the Controversie will quickly be at an end Particular disputes are endless and above the understanding of such as are not learned but in grounds and principles 't is not so hard for Reason and common sence to Iudge That you may the better do it in your case I shall desire you to take these two Cautions along with you First That the Subject of the present Controversie are not those Articles in which the Protestants agree with us and for which they may pretend to produce the same Motives we do But in those in which they dissent from us such as are no Transubstantiation no Purgatory no honour due to Images no Invocation to Saints and the like in which the very Essence of Protestant as distinct from Catholick consists What Motives they can or will produce for these I do not foresee The pretence of Scriptures being sufficiently plain hath no place here because then the foresaid Negatives would be necessary to be believed as divine Truths And for their own Reason and Learning it will be found too light when put into the scale against that of the Catholick Church for so many Ages The second Caution is That you be careful to distinguish between Protestants producing grounds for their own Religion and finding fault with ours An Atheist can cavil and find fault with the grounds which learned men bring to prove a Deity such as are the Order of this visible World the general consent of Nations c. In this an Atheist thinks he doth somewhat But can he produce as good or better grounds for his own opinion No you see then 't is one thing to produce grounds for what we hold and another to find fault with those which are produced by the contrary part The latter hath made Controversie so long and the former will make it as short let the Answerer therefore instead of finding fault with our Motives produce his own for the Articles in Controversie and I am confident you will quickly discern which carry the most weight and consequently which are to be preferred A Defence of the foregoing Answer to the Questions CHAP. I. Of the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome in the Worship of Images The introduction concerning the occasion of the debate The Church of Rome makes its members guilty of Hypocrisie or Idolatry First Of the Worship of God by Images Some propositions for clearing the notion of Divine Worship It is in Gods power to determine the way of his Worship which being determined Gods Law and not our intention is to be the rule of Worship The main question is Whether God hath forbidden the worshipping of himself by an Image under the notion of Idolatry Of the meaning of the second Commandment from the terms therein used the large sense and importance of them which cannot be understood only of Heathen Idols Of the reason of that Law from Gods infinite and invisible nature How far that hath been acknowledged by Heathens The Law against Image Worship no ceremonial Law respecting meerly the Iews the reason against it made more clear by the Gospel The wiser Heathen did not worship their Images as Gods yet their worship condemned as Idolatry The Christian Church believed the reason of this Law to be immutable Of the Doctrine of the second Council of Nice the opposition to it in Greece Germany France and England Of the Scripture Instances of Idolatry contrary to the second Commandment in the Golden Calf and the Calves of Dan and Bethel Of the distinctions used to excuse image-worship from being Idolatry The vanity and folly of them The instances supposed to be parallel answered Madam § 1. THat
painted and he ought not to be worshipped in any Image but what he hath prescribed us to worship which is Christ that adoration is external or internal that both of them are called Religion by which we are bound eternally to God and only to him from whence it follows that neither Angels nor Saints are to be worshipped by any religious worship for this is the Law of Adoration that no creature no phantasm of God in our minds no work of mens hands ought to be worshipped for if Gods creatures are not to be worshipped much less ours such as Images of God Angels and Saints are Neither is it enough to say that they do not worship the Image but the thing represented for the object terminates the worship and it is a deceit of the Devil under the pretence of honouring the Saints to bring mens minds to Idols and from the true God to carnal things that Images are to be used only for shew and memory and not at all for Religion that God alone is to be worshipped with all Religious worship whether called Latria or Doulia or what name soever and for the casting away all superstition that no Images be painted in Churches no Statues erected nor accounted holy that the true God may be worshipped alone for ever This is the abstract of his Doctrine delivered by Massonus whose other Writings shew he was far from being partial towards the Reformation And the Book it self is lately published by Baluzius again where any one may easily satisfie himself concerning fidelity But Baluzius very honestly tells us some have suspected this Book not to be very Catholick and therefore it was censured by Baronius and the Spanish Index yet he ingenuously confesseth he saith no more than the whole Gallican Church believed in that Age. What that was I have already shewed This I have the larger insisted upon to shew that it is no new thing for us to plead for all Religious worship being appropriated to God and that the command against image-Image-worship was no Ceremonial Law respecting meerly the Iews but that the reason of it doth extend to all Ages and Nations and especially to us who live under the Gospel From all which it follows that it was not meerly the Heathen Idolatry which was forbidden by God nor barely to prevent their falling to that by degrees but the giving to himself such a worship which he judges so unworthy of him § 10. 3. From those who were best able to understand the meaning of it We can imagine none so competent a Judge of the meaning of a Law as the giver of it and what he afterwards declares to be the sense of this Law The first occasion given for knowing the meaning of the Law concerning Images was not long after the making of it when upon Moses his absence they compelled Aaron to make them a Golden Calf Exod. 32. 4. Here was an Image made contrary to the Law as is on all sides acknowledged but the question is Whether by this the Israelites did fall into the Heathen Idolatry or only worship the true God under that Symbol of his presence That they did not herein fall back to the Heathen Idolatry I thus prove 1. From the occasion of it which was not upon the least pretence of Infidelity as to the true God or that they had now better reason given them for the worship of other Gods besides him but all they say was that Moses had been so long absent they knew not what was become of him and therefore they say to Aaron make us Gods or a God as in Nehem. 9. 18. to go before us We cannot imagine the people so sottish to desire Aaron to make them a God in the proper sense as though they could believe the Calf newly made to have been the God which before it was made brought them out of the Land of Aegypt as they say afterwards v. 4. but it must be understood as the symbol of that God which did bring them from thence the controversie then lyes here Whether they thought the Aegyptian Gods delivered them out of Aegypt while they forsook all their own worshippers to preserve those who were so great enemies to them that their very way of worship was an abomination to all the Aegyptians Exod 8. 26. and whether they could think the Gods of Aegypt had wrought all the Miracles for them in their deliverance and after it Whether they appeared not long before on Mount Sinai and delivered the Law to them Or whether it were not the true God they meant who had made that the Preface to his Laws I am the God that brought thee out of the Land of Aegypt to whom they intended still to give honour but the only question was concerning the symbol of his presence that was to go before them For which we are to consider that immediately before Moses his going up into the Mount the last promise God made to them was that he would send his Angel before them Exod. 23. 20 23. which is elsewhere called his presence Exod. 33. 14. Moreover they understood that there should be some extraordinary symbol of this presence but what it was they could not tell for Moses was then gone into the Mount to learn but he not being heard of in forty dayes they took it for granted he was not to be heard of more therefore they fall upon devising among themselves what was the fittest symbol for the presence of God going before them and herein the greatest number being possessed with the prejudices of their education in Aegypt where golden Bulls were the symbols of their chief God Osiris they pitch upon that and force Aaron to a complyance with them in it 2. There is no intimation given in the whole story that they fell into the Heathen Idolatry for when afterwards they fell into it the particular names of the Gods are mentioned as Baal-peor Moloch Remphan Numb 25. 3. Acts 7. 43. But here on the contrary Aaron expresly proclaims a Feast to the Lord Exod. 32. 5. and the people accordingly met and offered their accustomed offerings v. 6. whereas if it had been the Aegyptian Idolatry their common Sacrifices were abominations they must not have sacrificed Sheep and Oxen as they were wont to do And that it was not the Idolatry of other Nations who worshipped the Host of Heaven is plain from St. Stephens words Acts 7. 41 42. And they made a Calf in those dayes and offered Sacrifice unto Idols and rejoyced in the works of their own hands then God turned and gave them up to worship the Host of Heaven Whereby it is both observable that the Idolatry of the Calf was distinct from the other Heathen Idolatry this being a punishment of the other and withal though the Calf was intended by them to be only a symbol of Gods presence yet being directly against Gods Command and having divine worship given it it is by S. Stephen called an Idol
and him only shalt thou serve and that we are to render to Caesar the things that are Caesars and to God the things that are Gods on which account saith he we worship God alone and give cheerful service in all other things to you Theophilus Bishop of Antioch who lived in the second Century after Christ as well as Iustin giving an account why the Christians refused giving adoration to the Emperours which was then used not that adoration which was proper to the Supream God for none can be so senseless to imagine they required that but such kind of religious worship as they gave to the Images of their Gods saith That as the King or Emperour suffers none under him to be called by his name and that it is not lawful to give it to any but himself so neither is it to worship any but God alone and elsewhere saith that the Divine Law doth not only forbid the worship of Idols but of the Elements the Sun and Moon and Stars or any thing else in Heaven in Earth in Sea or Fountains or Rivers but we ought only to worship the true God and Maker of all things in the holiness of our hearts and integrity of our minds To the same purpose speak Clemens Alexandrinus Tertullian Cyprian Origen Athenagoras Lactantius Arnobius who all agree that religious worship is proper to the true God and that no created thing is capable of it on that very account because it is created it were easie to produce their testimonies if it were requisite in so evident a matter as this is If it be said That all these testimonies are only against that Idolatry which was then practised by the Heathens I answer 1. Their reasons equally extend to the giving divine worship to any created being whatsoever so that either they argued weakly and unskilfully or else it is as unlawful to give divine worship now to Saints as it was then to any creature 2. I would willingly understand why it should be more unlawful to worship God for his admirable Wisdom and Power and Goodness in the works of Creation than in supposed Saints i. e. why I may not as well honour God by giving worship to the Sun as to Ignatius Loyola or St. Francis or any other late Canonized Saint I am sure the Sun is a certain monument of Gods Goodness Wisdom and Power and I cannot be mistaken therein but I can never be certain of the Holiness of those persons I am to give divine worship to For all that I can know Ignatius Loyola was a great hypocrite but I am sure that the Sun is none but that he shines and communicates perpetual influences to the huge advantage of the world However I know the best of men have their corruptions and to what degree it is impossible for others to understand but I am certain the spots in the Sun are no Moral impurities nor displeasing to God And Philip Nerius could not be mistaken in the shining of the Sun although he might be in the shining of Ignatius his face which yet is thought so considerable a thing that it is read in the Lessons appointed for Ignatius in the Roman Breviary 3. On what account should the Christians refuse giving all external signs of Religious worship to the Heathen Emperours if they thought it lawful to be given to any sort of men Why might not they worship the Statues of Kings and Princes as well as others do those of Rebels and Traytors I mean why might not the Image of King Henry the second have the same reverence shewn to it that the Shrine of Thomas Becket had unless it be more meritorious to disobey a Prince than to give him reverence Might not the Primitive Christians have much easier defended themselves in giving those outward signs of worship to the Images of Emperours than others can do in the worship they give to Saints For they might have pleaded that external signs are to be interpreted by the intention of the person who uses them that they intended no more by it but the highest degree of Civil honour on the account of the authority they possessed or if this would not serve might not they have said that Kings and Princes were Gods Vicegerents and represented him to the world and that in giving divine worship to them they gave it to God and that their absolute ultimate and terminative worship was upon God and only a relative inferior and transient worship was given to them and all this might be better justified by St. Basils rule That the honour of the Image passes to the Prototype for he there pleads for the worship of Christ because he is one with the Father being his Image as the Image of a King is called the King and hath the same honour given to it for the honour of the Image passeth to the thing represented And as Christ hath the advantage above all by being Gods natural Image so Princes above Saints in that they represent God to the world which the other do not But notwithstanding all these Pleas the Primitive Christians were so punctual in observing that Command of worshipping God alone that they rather chose to lose their lives and suffer Martyrdom than be in the least guilty of giving any divine worship to a creature 4. They absolutely deny any religious worship to be given to the most excellent created Beings and therefore did not only condemn the Idolatry then in use but that which hath obtained in the Roman Church supposing all the persons worshipped therein to have been real Saints For that we are to consider that all the Heathens were not such great Fools as some men make them to excuse themselves if the wiser men were contented to let the people worship the Poetical Gods having their minds possessed with those Idea's of them which they had taken up by their education yet they understood them only as Allegories as some make the Image of St. Christopher and St. George in the Church of Rome to be no other and they had Temples erected to the greatest Vertues to Piety Faith Concord Iustice Chastity Clemency c. and others to the greatest Benefactors to mankind which was the only ground they pleaded for giving worship to them but still they acknowledged one Supream God not Iupiter of Creet but the Father of Gods and men only they said this Supream God being of so high a nature and there being other intermediate beings between him and men whose Office they conceived it was to carry the prayers of men to God and to bring down help from him to them they thought it very fitting to address their solemn supplications to them Here now was the very same case in debate altering only the names of things which is between us and the Church of Rome and if ever they speak home to our case they must do upon this point And so they do but very little to their comfort § 10.
increase of Controversies in my answer which the Proposer of the Questions calls a superfoetation was but the natural issue of his own Questions To which I could not give a just answer without mentioning the hazards a person runs of his salvation in the communion of the Roman Church and if he thinks these too many as in truth they are he ought to condemn that Church for it which hath been the cause of them And I know no other end I had herein but to let you see there can be no reason to forsake the communion of our Church wherein the way of salvation is the same with that of the Apostolical and Primitive Church for another which hath degenerated so much from it as I hope will appear in the following Discourse To wave therefore any farther debate concerning the terms or sense of the Questions As to the occasion of them I could not but suppose it to relate to your own condition and I dare appeal to himself Whether the Question of the possibility of the salvation of a Protestant turn'd to the Church of Rome were moved for any other end than thereby the easier to draw persons of our Church into their communion which being so common and yet so weak an Artifice I had reason to premise an answer to that purpose and I do still affirm that such a possibility being granted it is no sufficient Motive to any one to leave the communion of one Church for another And whether this be to his Question or no I am sure it is very much to the purpose for which this Controversie was first started I beseech you therefore Madam do not so much disparage your own Judgement and the Church you have been bred up in to forsake it till some better reason be offered than the Proposer pretends that his Questions imply Which if not for your own sake yet for mine I desire you to insist upon that I may know one reason at least from them which I cannot yet procure although I have often requested it why the believing all the ancient Creeds and leading a good life may not be sufficient to salvation unless one be of the communion of the Church of Rome But lest I should be thought to digress I return to his Papers and am willing to pass over his unhandsome reflection on our Church as in a sinking condition which God hath hitherto preserved and I hope will do to the confusion of its enemies But why he should call my comparison a supposition and his own a truth before he proved their Church to be the Catholick Church I am yet to seek And so I come to the main business § 2. My second answer was That all those who are in the communion of the Church of Rome do run so great a hazard of their salvation that none who have a care of their souls ought to embrace it or continue in it which I am amazed he should say was not pertinent to the Question if the Question were propounded for any ones satisfaction that doubted which Churches communion it were best to embrace This I proved 1. Because They must by the terms of that communion be guilty either of Hypocrisie or Idolatry either of which are sins inconsistent with salvation Here he charges me with a contradiction because I overprove what I intended but he may easily excuse me from it if he will allow the possibility of salvation to any one who commits any wilful sins for in the case of any such sins it is true that they are inconsistent with salvation and yet he that doth commit them doth but run the hazzard of salvation because he may repent of them But if it be a contradiction to say that some sins are inconsistent with salvation yet those who commit them may be saved though hardly he must make all who commit any wilful sin to be unavoidably damned and then it is to no purpose what Church we are of The meaning therefore was this That Hypocrisie and Idolatry are sins inconsistent with a state of salvation and there is no way to escape being damned but by the repentance of those who are guilty of them But of this more at large in the vindication of my third Answer and those who are in the communion of the Church of Rome must be guilty either of the one or the other of these I proved by this Argument That Church which requires giving to the creature the Worship due only to the Creator makes the members of it guilty of Hypocrisie or Idolatry but the Church of Rome in the Worship of God by Images the adoration of Bread in the Eucharist and the formal invocation of Saints doth require giving to the creature the worship due only to the Creator therefore it makes the members of it guilty of Hypocrisie or Idolatry Which I did prove by parts 1. § 3. Concerning the Worship of God by Images I proved that it could not be terminated on God because in the second Commandment he not only denys to receive it but threatens to punish those who give it To this he answers 1. That it is a contradiction to say that it is the worship of God by an Image and yet be terminated wholly on the creature 2. That this is built on a mistake of the nature of humane acts which though they ought to be governed by the Law of God yet when they swerve from it cease not to tend to their own proper objects and that Gods prohibition of such or such a kind of Worship may make it to be unlawful but hinders not the act from tending whither it is intended which he proves by the prayers of Thieves and Murderers to God for good success the Iews offering to God in Sacrifice the blind and the lame which he hath forbidden Cains offering a Sacrifice to God which he refused to accept of from whence he concludes That though God should have forbidden men to worship him by Images yet it doth not follow but the worship so given would be terminated on him 3. That the second Commandment only forbids the worship of Idols or the giving the Soveraign honour due to God to an Idol but this doth not forbid the worship of Images because they give to them only an inferiour and relative honour and not that worship which is due to God This is the substance of his answer but to let you see the insufficiency of it I shall prove these two things 1. That where God hath prohibited any particular way or means of giving worship to himself that worship so given cannot be said to be terminated on him 2. That God in the second Commandment hath expresly prohibited the giving any worship to himself by an Image and not barely the worship of Idols 1. That where God hath prohibited any particular way or means of giving worship to himself that worship so given cannot be said to be terminated on him And however new this way of
proposing this Argument seems to him I do not question to make it good notwithstanding his so peremptory denying it as absolutely false But in order to the clearing of it I shall lay down these Propositions 1. That worship is nothing else but an external signification of honour and respect For we do not here speak concerning the bare internal acts of the mind but of the way whereby the esteem we have in our minds is expressed in such a manner as to give honour to that which we so esteem 2. That the signification of honour which is due to God is not to be measured by the intentions of men against the declared will of God For it being in his power to determine in what way he will be worshipped we are not to enquire whether men do intend any act of theirs for his honour but whether God doth allow it or no And herein lyes his great mistake in thinking That mens intentions are to be the rule of Divine Worship so that what they design for the honour of God must needs end in it Whereas if God hath the power of making a rule for his own worship he cannot be honoured by mens doing any thing against his declared Will whatever their intention be For then God might be honoured by the most palpable acts of disobedience which is a plain contradiction for what can be greater dishonour to God than to break his Laws for his Honour 3. The Divine Law being the rule of Worship all prohibited wayes of worship must receive that denomination which God himself gives them As if a Prince should declare it by his Laws to be Treason for any man to bow down to a Sign-Post with his head upon it under pretence of giving the greater honour to his Prince I desire to know whether a mans intentions of honouring his Prince thereby excuse him from Treason or no So it is in our case if God absolutely prohibits the worship of himself by an Image whatever the intention of the person be and calls this by the name of Idolatry no mans directing the intention of his mind beyond the Image can excuse him from it From whence it necessarily follows that the worship of God by an Image when himself hath prohibited it and declared it Idolatry as I shall prove he hath done in the second Commandment cannot be terminated on God but only on the Image for no man will be so absurd as to say that an act of Idolatry is terminated upon God By which we see how far it is from the appearance of a contradiction to say that the worship of God by an Image being declared to be Idolatry by himself should be terminated wholly on the creature which are but other words explaining the nature of Idolatry and what an easie answer will take off all his other Instances For those do not suppose any prohibited object or means of worship which is the only thing we speak of but either praying to the true God for bad ends as in the case of Thieves and Murderers praying for good success or bringing something in Sacrifice to him which he had forbidden as the Iews offering the blind and the lame or some miscarriage in the minds of them that sacrifice or pray to him as in Cains oblation and wicked mens prayers but all these are very remote from the present debate concerning an object or means of worship prohibited by God himself under the notion of Idolatry This being cleared I come to prove § 4. 2. That God in the second Commandment hath expresly prohibited the giving any worship to himself by an Image and not meerly giving the worship of God to Idols as he asserts Our Controversie now being about the sense of a Law the best wayes we have to find out the meaning of it are either from the terms wherein it is expressed or from the reason annexed to it or from the judgement of those whom we believe best able to understand and interpret it I shall therefore prove that to be the meaning of this Law of God which I have set down from every one of these wayes 1. From the terms wherein the Law is expressed this I the rather insist upon because it is the way himself hath chosen for he saith The Hebrew word Pesel in Latin Sculptile is used in Scripture to signifie an Idol and so the LXX translate it in this place by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore saith it was an artifice of the Protestants to translate it Image instead of Idol and not any certain kind of Image neither but any whatsoever Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image instead of Thou shalt not make to thy self an Idol By his own acknowledgement then we are to judge the sense of the Law by the importance of the words therein used but I shall prove First That supposing Pesel did signifie only an Idol yet that were not enough Secondly That Pesel is very properly rendred by the Protestants and that it doth not signifie barely an Idol 1. Supposing that were the signification of Pesel which he contends for that were not enough unless there had been no other word but that used in the Law but another word is added to prevent a mistake of that nature of as large a signification as may be to this purpose which is Themuna which they render similitude as well as we and is never used in the whole Scripture to signifie such an Idol as he supposes this Law intends To what purpose then are words of the largest signification put into a Law if the sense be limited according to the most narrow acceptation of one word mentioned therein For there is no kind of Image whether graven or painted whether of a real or imaginary being but is comprehended under the signification of the words set down in the Law for not only the making a similitude in general is forbidden but any kind of similitude whether of things in Heaven or Earth or under the Earth to bow down to them or worship them I confess it cannot enter into my mind how God should have forbidden the worship of Images by more express and emphatical words than he hath done and if he had used any other words their sense might as well have been perverted as these are If a Prince should under a very severe penalty forbid all his subjects making any Image or resemblance with an intent to give honour to him by kneeling before them would not that man be thought very ridiculous who should go about to interpret the Law thus that the Prince did not forbid them making any picture of himself or his Son or any of his Favourites for the worship of these could not but redound to his own Honour but only that they should make the Image of an Ape or an Ass or a Tyger thinking to honour their Prince thereby Much such an exposition is that here given of the Law God forbids any Image or
similitude to be made with respect to his worship for it is ridiculous to imagine the Law means any thing else but he saith This Law must not be understood to exclude a Crucifix nor I suppose any Image of God himself at least as he appeared of old nor of his Saints or Angels with an intention to worship God by them but only they should not worship Apis or Dagon an Ichneumon or a Crocodile or any of the most ridiculous follies of the Heathen If this had been the meaning of the Law why was it not more plainly expressed Why were none of the words elsewhere used by way of contempt of the Heathen Idols here mentioned as being less lyable to ambiguity Why in so short a comprehension of Laws is this Law so much inlarged above what it might have been if all that he saith were only meant by it For then the meaning of the two first Precepts might have been summed up in very few words You shall have no other Gods but me and you shall worship the Images of no other Gods but me This is his meaning but far enough from being that of the second Commandment 2. The only word he insists upon which is Pesel is very properly rendred an Image and it doth not signifie barely an Idol the word properly signifies any thing that is carved or cut out of wood or stone and it is no less than forty several times rendred by the LXX by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sculptile and but thrice by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and which is very observable although Exod. 20. 4. they render it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet in the repetition of the Law Deut. 5. 8. the Alexandrian MS. hath it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Deut. 4. 16. in other Copies of the LXX the same word is translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from whence it is plain that when they translate it by an Idol they mean no more thereby than a graven image and Isa. 40. 18. they translate it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is properly an image so that no assistance can be given him by that translation and the Vulgar Latin it self useth Idolum Sculptile and Imago all to express the same thing Isa. 44. 9 10 13. By which it appears that any Image being made so far the object of Divine Worship that men do bow down before it doth thereby become an Idol and on that account is forbidden in this Commandment § 5. 3. We consider the reason given of this Law which will more fully explain the meaning of it which the Scripture tells us was derived from Gods infinite and incomprehensible nature which could not be represented to men but in a way that must be an infinite disparagement to it To whom will ye liken God or what likeness will ye compare unto him The workman melteth a graven Image and the Goldsmith spreadeth it over with Gold c. Have ye not known Have ye not heard Hath it not been told you from the beginning Have ye not understood from the foundation of the earth It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth c. I desire to know whether this reason be given against Heathen Idols or those Images which were worshipped for Gods or no or whether by this reason God doth not declare that all worship given to him by any visible representation of him is extreamly dishonourable to him And to this purpose when this Precept is enforced on the people of Israel by a very particular caution Deut. 4. 15 16 c. Take ye therefore good heed to your selves lest ye corrupt your selves and make you a graven Image the similitude of any figure c. the ground of that caution is expressed in these words For ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you If the whole intention of the Law were only to keep them from worshipping the Heathen Idols or Images for Gods to what purpose is it here mentioned that they saw no similitude of God when he spake to them For although God appeared with a similitude then yet there might have been great reason against Worshipping the Heathen Idols or fixing the intention of their Worship upon the bare Image But this was a very great reason why they ought not to think of honouring God by an Image for if he had judged that a suitable way of Worship to his nature and excellency he would not have left the choice of the similitude to themselves but would have appeared himself in such a similitude as had best pleased him § 6. From hence the wiser persons of the Heathens themselves condemned the Worship of God by Images as incongruous to a Divine Nature and a disparagement to the Deity So Theodoret tells us that Zeno in his Books of Government did absolutely forbid the making any Images for Worship because they were not things worthy of God And that Xenophanes Colophonius derided the folly of those who made their Images which they Worshipped to be like themselves and by the same reason saith he if Horses and Elephants could paint as men can no doubt the Gods would be made in their shape as the Aethiopians and Thracians and others made their Gods in their own Colour and Fashion but he addes That the true God ought not to be represented by the resemblance of men to whom he was unlike in body and mind And that the only reason which hindred Plato from prohibiting all manner of Images was only the fear of Socrates his Fate for saith he he did forbid all private Images all Images of Gold and Silver of Ivory of Iron and Brass and left only Wood and Stone which being so contemptible matter might more easily keep the people from Worshipping Images made of them As God himself saith he derideth the Idolater in the Prophet he burneth part thereof in the fire and the residue thereof maketh he a God even his graven Image Antisthenes in Clemens Alexandrinus condemns the use of Images for Instruction because there is so great a dissimilitude between God and any visible representation of him that no man can learn any thing of God from an Image and Xenophon to the same purpose that God is great and powerful but we know not how to represent him And Clemens gives that reason why Numa prohibited among the Romans all Images to represent the Deity because we could not attain to any due conception of the Deity but only by our minds which is the same reason that Plutarch gives And therefore Varro in the known Testimony to this purpose speaking of the old Romans who had no Images for 170 years in their Divine Worship saith that if the same Custome had continued their Worship would have been more pure and chaste and that those who first placed Images in places of Divine Worship increased their Errour and took away their Reverence Wisely
and to the same purpose the Psalmist speaks They made a Calf in Horeb and worshipped the Molten Image thus they changed their glory or rather his into the similitude of an Oxe that eateth grass Psal. 106. 19 20. Which certainly was Idolatry as well as that St. Paul charges the Romans with viz. that they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man and to birds and four footed beasts and creeping things Rom. 1. 23. And we see how highly God was displeased with the Israelites for this sin of the golden Calf Exod. 32. 7 8 9 10. The same may be said of the two Calves of Ieroboam at Dan and Bethel for it was neither agreeable to his end nor so likely to succeed to take the ten Tribes off from the Worship of the true God but only from the place of it at Hierusalem and the occasion of the Kingdomes coming to him was from Solomons falling to Heathen Idolatry 1 King 11. 33. Which would make him more Cautious of falling into it especially at his first entrance And when the Gods of other Nations are mentioned they are particularly described as Ashtoreth of the Zidonians Chemosh of the Moabites and Milcom of the Children of Ammon 1 Kings 11. 33. And in Ahabs Idolatry the occasion and description of it is given 1 Kings 16. 31. But of Ieroboam it is only said that he set up the Calves at Dan and Bethel and said unto the people It is too much for you to go up to Hierusalem behold thy Gods O Israel which brought thee up out of the Land of Aegypt 1 Kings 12. 28 29. How easie had it been to have said that Ieroboam Worshipped the Gods of Aegypt if that had been his intention but how much better had he then argued that they had been hitherto in a great mistake concerning the true God and not meerly as to the place of his Worship which is all he speaks against for he continued the same Feasts and way of Worship which were at Hierusalem 1 King 12. 32. Besides how comes the sin of Ahab to be so much greater than that of Ieroboam if they were both guilty of the same Apostasie to Heathen Idolatry 1 Kings 16. 31. how came the Worship of the true God in the Ten Tribes to be set in opposition to Heathen Idolatry 1 Kings 18. 21 how comes Iehu at the same time to boast his zeal for his Lord when it is said of him that he departed not from the sins of Jeroboam viz. the golden Calves of Dan and Bethel 2 Kings 10. 16 29 Lastly how comes the Worship of the true God to be preserved in the Ten Tribes after their captivity when they still continued their separation in Religion from the Kingdom of Iudah 2 Kings 17. 28 For certainly if the Samaritans had only desired information concerning the Worship of the God of Israel after the way of Hierusalem they would have sent only thither for it but because they sent into the Land of their Captivity for a Priest to be sent to them it is plain the former differences still continued and yet it is said he taught them to fear the Lord. And notwithstanding it be thus evident that Ieroboam did not fall then into Heathen Idolatry yet we see that he is charged with Idolatry in Scripture for it is said that he had done evil above all that were before him and had gone and made him other Gods and Molten Images to provoke God to anger and had cast him behind his back 1 Kings 14. 9. From whence it necessarily follows that if God may be allowed to interpret his own Law the Worshipping of Images though designed for his honour is Idolatry And since the Lawgiver hath thus interpreted his own Law we need not be solicitous about the sense of any others yet herein we have the concurrence of the Iewish and Christian Church the Iews have thought the prohibition to extend to all kinds of Images for Worship and almost all for ornament and the Image Worship of the Church of Rome is one of the great scandals to this day which hinder them from embracing Christianity The primitive Christians were declared enemies to all Worship of God by Images but I need the less to go about to prove it now since it is at last consessed by one of the most learned Iesuites they ever had that for the four first Centuries and further there was little or no use of Images in the Temples or Oratories of Christians but we need not their favour in so plain a cause as this as shall be evidently proved if occasion be farther given And against my Adversaries opinion that the second Command only forbids the Worship of Idols we have the consent of some of the most learned Writers of his own Church against him For Vasquez acknowledgeth that it is plain in Scripture that God did not only forbid that in the second command which was unlawful by the Law of Nature as the Worshipping an Image for God but the Worshipping of the true God by any similitude of him and he reckons up many others of the same opinion with him of great estimation in the Roman Church § 11. But we must now consider what he further produces for his opinion he therefore saith if St. Austins judgement be to be followed the second Commandment is but a part or explication of the first But why doth he not tell us whether St. Austins judgement be to be followed or no if it be of so much consequence to the resolving of this Controversie Nay how is he sure this was St. Austins constant judgement since in his latter Writings he reckons up the Commandments as others of the Fathers had done before him But if St. Austins Judgement were to be followed in this doth it thence follow that this Commandment must be only against Idols no but that all things concerning the Worship of God must be in one command and so they may be and yet be as full against Image Worship as in two so that no relief is to be had from hence And as little from his distinction of an inferiour and relative honour only which is given by them he saith to the Sacred Images of Christ and his B. Mother and Saints and that which they call Latria or Worship due to God the former he saith is only honorary adoration expressed by putting off our Hats kissing them or kneeling before them Which 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 Can any one think that such an excuse as this would be taken by a jealous Husband How much less will such like pretences avail with that God who hath declared himself particularly jealous of
to be to please one God over all and to make him propitious to us by piety and all vertue but if we would have others under God to be pleased with us too we ought to consider that as the shadow follows the body so God being pleased all his friends whether Angels Souls or Spirits will be so too and not only so but are ready to help them and pray to God for them But not the least foundation in his discourse for our invocation of them The Author of the Commentaries under the name of St. Ambrose of the same age with him as appears by several passages in him saith That the Idolaters made use of this miserable excuse for themselves that by those inferiour Deities they worshipped they went to God himself as we go to the King by his Courtiers But saith he is any man so mad or regardless of himself to give the honour due to the King to any of his Courtiers which if a man does he is condemned for treason And yet they think themselves not guilty who give the honour due to Gods name to a creature and forsaking God adore his fellow servants as though any thing greater than that were reserved for God himself But therefore we go to a King by his Officers and Servants because the King is but a man who knows not of himself whom to imploy in his publick affairs without being recommended by others But with God it is otherwise for nothing is hid from him he knows the deserts of every one and therefore we need no one to recommend us to his Favour a devout mind is enough Was this now all the quarrel the Christians had with the Heathens that they worshipped Iupiter and Venus and Vulcan Do they not expresly deny the giving Gods Worship to any Creature and do they not as plainly affirm that men do it when they invocate their fellow servants to be intercessors with God for them and that it is no less a guilt of Idolatry in this case than it is in giving the Honour due to a Prince to any of his Servants St. Austin gives this account of the principles of the Heathen Worship that there were three sorts of beings to be considered purely divine and mortal and a middle sort between them which participated of both and that the entercourse between Gods and men was by the means of those intermediate Beings who carried the prayers of men up to God and brought down the blessings they prayed for to men Against these indeed St. Austin disputes first by shewing that those spirits which they worshipped were evil spirits and that there was no reason to imagine that God had a greater entercourse with them than with penitent sinners but withall he addes that this kind of worship doth proceed upon the supposition that the Gods cannot know the necessities and prayers of men but by the intervention of those Spirits but if our minds can be known without their help there is no need of their mediation And afterwards saith that those who are Christians do believe that we need not many but one Mediatour and that such a one by whose participation we are made happy i. e. the word of God not made but by whom all things were made and he hath shewed that to the attaining blessedness we ought not to seek many Mediators by whom we are to make our degrees of approach to God because God himself by partaking our Nature hath shewn us the shortest way of our partaking his divinity Neither doth he delivering us from mortality and misery carry us so to immortal and blessed Angels that by participating with them we should become blessed and immortal but to that Trinity by whose participation the Angels themselves are blessed And concludes that Book with this saying that immortal and blessed Spirits however they are called which are made and created are no Mediatours to bring miserable mortals to blessedness and immortality And it would be ridiculous here to distinguish mediators of redemption and intercession for all that they attributed to their goods spirits was only Intercession and Christ being made a Mediatour effectual for the end he designed there could be no necessity of any Intercessours besides him And St. Austin there addes that the design of his following book is to prove that those good Spirits which are immortal and blessed which they thought ought to be Worshipped with Sacred Rites and Sacrifices whatsoever they are and howsoever called would not have any one worshipped by such religious worship i.e. by sacred rites as well as Sacrifices but only one God by whom they were created and by whose participation they are made happy § 11. By which the second thing I proposed will appear to be true viz. that they did not only condemn giving this Worship to the Spirits which the Heathen Worshipped but to good Angels too For St. Paul in the general doth condemn the Worship of Angels if he had meant only evil Angels he would have expressed it so especially if St. Austins observation be true that the evil Spirits are by their names in Scripture distinguished from the good if he had meant any particular superstition used in the Worship of Angels he would not have used such terms which condemn all worship of them as superstitious if he had meant only the Worship of Angels so as to exclude Christ he would have intimated that the fault lay in excluding Christ and not in the bare worship of Angels but by the series of his discourse it appears that those who set up other Mediators besides Christ do not hold the head i. e. do not adhere to Christ alone as him whom God hath appointed as our Mediatour only Whether this were practised by Iewes Philosophers or Hereticks is all one to us since the practice is condemned wherever it is found Theodoret saith they were the Iewes who perswaded men to worship Angels because the Law was delivered by Angels which practice he saith continued a long time in Phrygia and Pisidia and therefore the Synod of Laodicea doth forbid praying to Angels and to this day the Oratories of St. Michael are among them they therefore thought it a piece of humility since God could not be seen nor touched nor comprehended by us to obtain the favour of God by the intercession of Angels No wonder Baronius is so much displeased with Theodoret for this interpretation for he very fairly tells us what he condemns and St. Paul too was the practice of their Church and those Oratories were set up by Catholicks and not by hereticks But whether as to the lawfulness of this Worship Baronius or St. Paul whether as to the ancient practice of the Church Baronius or Theodoret deserves more to be believed I leave any one to judge And yet Theodoret is not alone in this for Irenaeus denies any invocations of Angels to be in use among Christians if he had meant only evil
were far better hold their peace It is very impertinent to say that the Apostle speaks only of extraordinary gifts and not of the settled and ordinary devotions of the Church For the case is the same where the language is not understood whether it be spoken by a Miracle or not And the Apostle layes down a general rule from this particular case that all things must be done to edifying which it appears he judges the use of an unknown language not to be And if after all this it be in the Churches power to reverse the Apostles decree as to praying in an unknown language they may use the very same power as to all other Offices of Religion and may command preaching to be in a tongue as unknown as praying that so the people may meet together and pray and hear Sermons and understand never a word for their great edification Unless among us God should put it into their hearts to speak English whether they would or no as was once said by an ignorant person on the like occasion If all that is intended in the prayers of the people be only an intention to pray whatever the words be Abracadabra might serve to pray with as well as Ave Maria and the old Womans saying of it Avi Mari gratia plinam dams ticum beneditta tu in mulabs yeth Benedictus frictus frentris tui sweet Iesus Amen was as effectual a prayer if she meant it so as could be uttered by the most skilful Priest § 5. 3. But the universal consent of the Christian Church is pleaded for this practice only Protestants excepted and therefore it is insolent madness in them to oppose it as St. Austin saith but we had however rather follow St. Paul who saith it were madness to practise it But I assure you Madam we are not to take all things for granted which are told us by them concerning the opinions and practices of the Eastern Churches as I may in time discover but in this he saith our own Protestant Authors of the Bible of many languages Lond. A. D. 1655. do confess that in most of the Sects of the Christians they have not only the Scriptures but also the Liturgies and Rituals in a tongue unknown but to the learned from which he concludes this to be an universal practice both in the Primitive Greek and Latin Churches and in these latter Sects of Eastern Christians It were a very pleasant enquiry how in the Primitive Greek and Latin Churches the service could be in an unknown language when Greek and Latin were the Mother Tongues of those Churches Doth he think they did not understand their own Mother Tongues How many of their own Writers have confessed that in the Primitive Churches all publick Offices of Religion were performed in the proper language of every Countrey which in express words is affirmed by Origen against Celsus and some of the Church of Rome have been so ingenuous to confess it were much better that custome were restored again So Cassander affirms of Cajetan and that being reproved for it he said he learned this doctrine from St. Paul 1 Cor. 14. and the Title of the twenty eighth Chapter of Cassander his Liturgicks is That the Antients read the Canonical Prayer and the consecration of the Eucharist so as the people did understand it and say Amen Lyra saith That all publick Offices of Religion were in the Primitive Church performed in the Vulgar Tongue So that it was not upon the account of any sanctity in the Greek or Latin that they were more used but because they were more generally understood On which account Pope Innocent the third gave strict command that where people of different languages did inhabit care should be taken to provide men able to administer Sacraments and instruct them in their several tongues which decree of his is inserted in the Canon Law and was not intended out of honour to the Greek and Latin Tongues only but the advantage of the people So likewise Iohn the eighth yielded to the Prince of Moravia to have their Liturgy in the Sclavonian Tongue because St. Paul saith Let every Tongue praise the Lord which is the reason given by the Pope in his Letter extant in Baronius and not meerly on the account of a present necessity for want of Priests who could read Latin as Bellarmin conjectures for he appoints it should be first read in the Sclavonian tongue If this were then a Catholick practice these Popes were hugely to blame to give way to the breach of it And Walafridus Strabo saith in his time among the Scythians the divine Offices were performed in the German Tongue which was common to them and the Germans But our own Protestant Writers he saith own this to be in use in the most Sects of Christians I have endeavoured to find this confession in the Preface cited by him but I cannot meet with it and the learned Bishop who writ it understood these things better than to write so It is true he saith not in the Preface but Proleg 13. n. 19. that the Syriack Tongue is the Tongue of the learned among the Christians throughout the East as appears by the Liturgies and divine Offices which are almost every where performed in this language although it be the Mother-tongue now only to a few about Mount Libanus but any one who enquires into a Catholick practice must not meerly give an account of the most Eastern Christians of whom he here speaks For there are many considerable Churches besides these which do to this day use their own language in their Liturgies as their own Writers attest but I need not go about to prove this since Bellarmin confesseth That the Armenians Aethiopians Aegyptians Russians and others do it but he saith he is no more moved by these than by the practice of Protestants but we cannot but be moved so far by it as thereby to see that the practice of the Church of Rome is no more a Catholick practice than it is founded either on Scripture or Reason § 6. 2. I said the sincerity of devotion was obstructed by making the efficacy of Sacraments to depend on the bare administration whether our minds be prepared for them or not This he saith he had rather look upon as a mistake than a calumny having never read any Council wherein this doctrine is defined and as to the Sacrament of Pennance which he supposeth I chiefly mean the Council of Trent hath determined it to be a calumny for any to say that according to their doctrine it doth confer grace without the good motion of the receiver Madam I either expected he should have understood the doctrine of his own party better or been more ingenuous in confessing it For my quarrel had no particular respect to the Sacrament of Pennance more than to any other Sacrament of theirs and if I can make it appear that it is their doctrine that the efficacy
injury the Bishop had done the Iesuits in forbidding them to Preach without licenses from him or till such time as they produced those which they had from his predecessours then they declare the Bishops See to be vacant and caused it to be published in the Churches that the Iesuits did not need any license from the Bishop they null all censures against them recall all Orders published by the Bishop for the good Government of his Diocese The Bishop in the mean time privately sends monitory letters to the people to bear the present persecution with patience but by no means to associate with or to hear those excommunicated persons who had offered such affronts to his authority and jurisdiction by which means the people not being prevailed upon they with a great summ of money procure some secular Iudges to forme a judicial process against the Bishop for Sedition to which end they suborn witnesses against him but could make evidence of nothing tending to sedition but forbidding the Iesuits to Preach This not taking they attempt another way to expose him to contempt upon the Sacred day of their holy Father Ignatius they put their Scholars in Mascarade and so personating the Bishop and his Clergy they make a procession through the Town in the middle of the day and sung the Pater noster and Ave Maria as they went with horrible blasphemies perverting both of them to the abuse of the Bishop and his party instead of saying libera nos à malo they said libera nos à Palafox which was the name of the Bishop and others had the Episcopal staffe hanging at a Horses taile and the Miter on their stirrups to let them see how much they had it under their feet others sung Lampoons against the Bishop others did such things which are not fit to be repeated Which were parts of this glorious triumph of the Iesuits over the Bishop and his Authority But in the midst of this excessive jollity the King of Spains Navy arrived wherein the Kings commands were brought for removing the Vice-Roy who was the great Friend of the Iesuits the news of this abated their heat and the Bishop secretly conveys himself into his Palace which the people hearing of ran with incredible numbers to embrace him for several dayes together upon which the Iesuits complain to the old Vice-Roy of a sedition and obtained from him a command to the Chapter not to yield to the Bishops jurisdiction which caused a great division among them one part adhering to the Bishop and another to the Iesuits The Bishop therefore seeing the differences to rise higher and the Schism to be greater and the miserable condition the Church was in among them was fain to submit and promise to innovate nothing but to wait the Popes decision Not long after another Ship arrived from Spain with an Express from the King wherein the Vice-Roy was commanded immediately to surrender his Government and was severely rebuked for assisting the Iesuits against the Bishop and all the acts in that matter were nulled by the Kings authority but the Iesuits according to their usual integrity gave out just the contrary to the Orders received and framed letters on purpose which they dispersed among the people But these arts never holding long when the Vice-Roy's Successour was established the truth brake forth and the Bishop returned to the exercise of his former Authority But notwithstanding the Kings declaration and the Popes Breve was now published among them the Iesuits persisted still in their obstinate disobedience and although excommunicated by the Bishop yet continued to Preach and act as before And hereby we have a plain discovery what a mighty regard the Iesuits have to the Papal See if it once oppose their designes and what an effectual instrument of Peace and Vnity the Popes Authority is for they presently found wayes enough to decline the force of the Popes Bull. For 1. They said it could have no force there because it was not received by the Council of the Indies it seems pasce oves and dabo tibi claves c. signifie nothing in the Indies unless the Kings Council pleases or rather unless the Iesuits please to let it do so 2. They pleaded bravely for themselves that the priviledges granted them by the Popes were in consideration of their merits and so were of the nature of contracts and Covenants and therefore could not be revoked by the Pope 3. That the Popes constitutions in this matter were not received by the Church and Laws which are not received are no Laws But as the Bishop well urges against them if these wayes of interpreting the Popes Bulls be allowed his Authority will signifie nothing and all his Constitutions shall have no more force than those against whom they are directed be pleased to yield to them and it will be impossible to preserve peace in the Church if it shall be in the power of offenders to declare whether the Laws against them are to be received for Laws or no. But this saith he is the inspiration and illumination of the Iesuits and their method of interpreting the Papal constitutions which he heard very often from their own mouths in the frequent conferences he had with them about these matters But they had another way to decline the Kings Authority for the King and his Council being all Lay-men they had nothing to do in Ecclesiastical matters By which means as the Bishop saith they make themselves superiour both to King and Pope and free from all jurisdiction either spiritual or temporal And I dare appeal to the most indifferent person whether any Doctrine broached by the greatest Fanaticks among us ever tended more to the dissolution of Government the countenancing sedition the perpetuating Schisms in the Church than these of the Iesuits do And therefore the Bishop saith that he had rather lay down his life than by yielding up his jurisdiction expose his Authority to Contempt and the Church to the continual danger of Schisms and by many weighty arguments perswades the Pope if he truly designed the peace and flourishing of the Church speedily and effectually to reform the whole Order of the Iesuits without which he saith it is impossible especially in those remoter parts for the Bishops to preserve any Authority And besides other corruptions among them he tells strange stories of their wayes of propagating Christian Religion in China and other neighbour Nations which they boast so much of at this distance but he saith they who are so much nearer and understand those things better have cause to lament the infinite scandals which they give to the Christian Religion in doing it The account which he gives of these things this Bishop protests he sends to the Pope only to clear his own Conscience that he might not be condemned at the day of judgement for concealing that which he so certainly knew to be true by those who were eye-witnesses of it Their first work is to