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
govern'd 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 Of this I gave instances in the Prayers which Thieves and Murderers make to God for good success the Jew's offering to God the Blind and the Lame which he had forbidden Cain's bringing a Sacrifice to the Lord Gen. 4. 3. which he refused to accept All which I shewed were notwithstanding terminated on God and from thence inferr'd that though God as he falsely supposes should have forbidden men to worship him by Images yet it does not follow but the worship so given would be terminated on him § 7. To shew the insufficiency as he calls it of this Answer he asserts 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 to shew the Vanity and Impertinency of this Defence I answer That this very Assertion of his quite changes the state of the Question for his Charge being of real Idolatry and that antecedently to any Prohibition as appears by his contending that the Church of Rome doth require the giving the Creature the honour due onely to God p. 3. and by his asserting p. 62. that any Image being made so far the Object of Divine Worship that men do how down before it doth thereby become an Idol and on that account is forbidden in the second Commandment he now changes his Peremptory cannot be terminated on God into that Dwindling Expression of It cannot be said to be terminated on God giving his Reader to understand that his meaning now is not that Catholicks are really Idolaters that is by the very nature of Worship so given by an Image antecedently to any Law forbidding it but denominatively and in name onely and that upon account of a Law suppos'd by him most falsely as I shall make manifest in the following Discourse to prohibit the giving Worship to God by bowing or kneeling before an Image And lest we should any way doubt that this was his meaning himself in the contents of his First Chapter puts down the state of the Controversie between us in these words The main Question saith he is Whether God hath forbidden the worshipping of himself by an Image under the notion or as he explicates it pag. 57. under the name of Idolatry It were worth the while to see the Doctor reconcile the state of the Question put by himself with that Assertion of his above-cited pag. 62. 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 the second Commandment The former supposes it to have the notion or name of Idolatry upon the account of its being forbidden The later affirms it to be forbidden upon the account of its being Idolatry in the very nature of the thing antecedently to any Prohibition And in which sence soever of the two he take the Proposition in debate viz. The Worship which God denies to receive cannot be terminated on him but on the Image it is evident he contradicts himself For if he mean that it cannot be terminated on God antecedently to the Prohibition because 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 the second Commandment he must deny that it is the Prohibition which makes it to be terminated on the Image And if he mean that it cannot be terminated on God because it is prohibited by him to Worship Him by a◠Image he must deny what he asserted before 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 the second Commandment Let him extricate himself as well as he can out of this Labyrinth I return to what he addes in defence of his Assertion viz. The Worship which God himself denies to receive must be terminated on the Creature § 8. To vindicate this Assertion from the Note of Falshood I had fix'd upon it he lays down these three Propositions 1. That Worship is nothing else but an external signification of Honour and Respect 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 3. The Divine Law being the Rule of Worship all prohibited ways of Worship must receive that denomination which God himself gives them As says he it would be Treason after the Princes Declaration of it by his Laws for any man to bow down to a Sign-Post with the Princes Head upon it And therefore if God have declared the Worship of himself by an Image to be Idolatry it cannot be terminated on God but onely on the Image This is the substance of his Defence and what it amounts to is this That if God have forbidden under the name of Idolatry to bow down before any Image though with intention to Worship Him by it this Act of Worship must be called Idolatry because not mens Intentions but the Will of God is the Rule of Worship A rare Defence indeed But nothing at all to the purpose although we should yield the Supposition to be as true as it is false viz. that God had forbidden it under that name unless he can shew that words can never be taken Metaphorically but that the very definition of a thing must always necessarily go along with its name What he charges upon us is the very definition of Idolatry viz. That we give to the Creature the honour due onely to God What he brings to prove it is a supposed extrinsecal denomination that if God have called the Worshipping him by an Image Idolatry it must receive the name of Idolatry and therefore be terminated on the Image And if this kind of arguing be good he may prove by the same Logick that a man worshipping a false God violates his Neighbours Bed because God himself calls the Worshipping a false God by the name of Adultery And that he that wears a Sword with intention to defend his Prince hath a real intention against his Life in case the Prince upon some occasion have forbidden to wear a Sword under the name of Treason He that has but look'd over Aristotles Threshold knows that from the definition to the name the consequence is good because the Name is but a Note of the Nature or Essence of the Thing defined But nothing more inconsequent than to argue from the Name to the Definition because the Name may be given upon the score of some similitude either intrinsecal or extrinsecal and not upon the account of the
Idolatry or he must stand to it stifly without flinching that both Catholicks now and the Jews then were Heathen Idolaters For he does but contradict himself whilst he makes us guilty onely of Christian Idolatry and yet does us no kindness at all whilst he charges us to terminate the Worship due onely to God upon the Creature Oh but says he when afterwards the Israelites fell into Heathen Idolatry the particular names of the Gods are mentioned as Baal-Peor Moloch Remphan c. What then Is it the Idol's having a Name that makes the Worshippers Heathen Idolaters Aristotle tells us that words are but the signs of the conceptions of our mind and if they conceived or believed the Calf to be a God were they not as much Heathen Idolaters for worshipping it without a Name as the Egyptians for worshipping it under the Name of Apis The onely difference I find is that the Egyptians by long practice were become Masters of their Trade in making Gods whereas the Israelites by this one Act were Novices onely in that Art § 4. What hath been said of the Golden Calf in the Wilderness may in like manner be applied to the Calves which Jeroboam set up at Dan and Bethel viz. that the People did not look upon them as Symbols onely of the presence of the true God but that as St. Hierom saith they forgat the Law of God and wholly devoted themselves to Egyptian Idols And the same is affirmed by the Author of the Commentaries under the name of St. Ambrose viz. that the Egyptians worshipped a four-footed Beast whom they called Apis in the likeness of a Calf Which Evil of theirs saith he was imitated by Jeroboam in setting up the Calves in Samaria to which the Jews offered sacrifice But this saith the Doctor was not so agreeable to his End nor so likely to succeed And why not Was not his end to secure the Ten Tribes to himself so that they might not think of returning to unite themselves any more to the House of David And what more likely way to effect it than the making them such Idols as their Fathers had worshipped in Egypt and the Wilderness What he aimed at Achitophel-like was to make the breach irreconcilable and this of making them Calves he look'd upon as the properest means to that end considering the inclination of that People whose eyes as the Scripture saith were after their Fathers Idols I but the Occasion saith he of the Kingdoms coming to him was from Solomon's falling into Heathen Idolatry and this would make him more cautious of falling into it especially at his first entrance And I believe it would have done so had he been a Good Josias and not a wicked Jeroboam But why the Doctor should think him so tender conscienc'd whom God himself upbraids for having made to himself strange and molten Gods and cast him behind his back 3 Kings xiv 9. Or why he should think him so scrupulous when the Scripture saith that he sacrificed to the Gods which he had made 3 Kings xii 32. and that he ordained him Priests for the high places and for the Devils and for the Calves which he had made 2 Paralip xi 15. I cannot imagine The Ingenious Author of the Causes of the decay of Christian Piety chap. 15. made a different Judgment of the matter when to shew that Divinity has long since been made the Handmaid to Policy and Religion modell'd by Conveniencies of State he immediately adds for an example that The Golden Calves became venerable Deities when they were found apt to secure Jeroboam's jealousies But had this been Jeroboam's Intention how much better saith the Doctor 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 saith he the same Feasts and way of Worship which were at Jâ—rusalem 1 Kings xii 32. And what wonder if so great a Polititian as he was juâ—g'd it not fit to leave off on the sudden all that had been in use before Sudden Changes from one extream to another whether in the Natural or Politick Body are always look'd upon as dangerous And therefore the first Reformers nere in England when they design'd a Service onely of Bread and Wine thought it expedient to retain the Names of the Body and Blood of Christ and many of the ancient Prayers and Ceremonies which the nicer Brethren boggle at at this day as Pelicks of Popery and Politick Inventions to make the Bread and Wine go down the better But for Jeroboam he told the People plain enough what he meant when pointing to the Calves he bid them behold the Gods which had brought them up out of the Land of Egypt And the Text cited by the Doctor 1 Reg. xii 23. speaks but of one Feast he ordain'd like unto the Feast that was in Juda though the Doctor will have it that he continued the same Feasts and way of Worship which were at Jerusalem But Ahab's sin he saith was much greater than that of Jeroboam It was so but will absolve Jeroboam no more from the guilt of Idolatry which the Scripture calls spiritual Adultery than one mans committing adultery with many will free another from the guilt of the same crime who commits it but with one Nor does Jehu's zeal for the Lord nay though it were for his Lord as the Doctor not the Scripture reads it exempt him from Idolatry in following the steps of Jeroboam any more than the lawful Act of Matrimony acquits a Husband from the Crime of Adultery who defiles his Neighbours Bed But How then saith he came the Worship of the true God in the ten Tribes to be set in opposition to the Heathen Idolatry in 1 Kings xviii 21 No otherwise surely than by the force of imagination For when Elias said unto the people How long will ye halt between two Opinions If the Lord be God follow him but if Baal then follow him The sence is plain that he meant to recal the people to the Worship of the onely True God whom he preached to them and in the manner he himself did worship him and not that he intended to set the Israelites sacrificing to the Calves at Dan and Bethel which is what the Doctor means by the Worship of the true God in the ten Tribes in opposition to the Worship of Baal For in the very next Chapter the Prophet himself supposes such a general Apostacy of the ten Tribes to the Worship of Baal that he complains as if he alone were left alive who had not consented to his Worship as appears by the Answer which God made him that he had yet seven thousand left in Israel which had not bowed their knees to Baal 3 Kings xix 17 18. How then could Elias set the Worship of the true God in the ten Tribes in opposition to the Worship of Baal when
he supposed all that were remaining of the Ten Tribes except himself to have forsaken the true God to follow Baal As for the Embassy of the Samaritans to the King of Assyria that a Priest might be sent unto them from the Captivity the reason is plain why they sent to him and not to the King of Juda because they fear'd his displeasure should they have kept Correspondence with his Enemy Moreover they thought the God of Israel to be only a Topical God and therfore they call him the God of the Land 4 Kings xvii 26. as distinct from the God of Juda. Now what the Text saith is that the Priest when he came taught them how they should fear the Lord but there is no mention at all made of his teaching them to worship him in the Calves as Symbols of his presence which was the onely thing for the Doctors purpose had it been there § 5. Having thus answer'd all the Doctors Conjectures or rather Monceius his as to the greater part of them for it is with his Heiâ—er he plows by which he endeavours to make the World believe that the Israelites intended the making of the Calves for no other end but onely to worship God in them as Symbols of his presence and shewn them to be perfectly groundless for a farther discovery of the weakness of his Dâ—scourse let us suppose it after all to be as he would have it It cannot be denied but the Calves were originally Symbols of Osiris the chief but false God of the Egyptians and himself confesses p. 94. that upon this account the Israelites made choice of them for the fittest Symbols of the presence of the true God Suppose I say they look'd upon them as such and that they were condemned of Idolatry for intending to worship the true God in them I affirm it follows no more from hence that God hath expresly prohibited in the second Commandment to give him any Worship by such Symbols or Images as are not the Symbols of false Gods than it would follow from a King 's condemning such Persons of Treason as should pretend to worship Him by honouring the Image of an Usurper that he had expresly prohibited the giving him any Worship by his own Image In fine if this discourse of the Doctors may be allowed for good I see no reason why he might not as well justifie the grossest of Idolaters the Aegyptians in their worship of Lâ—cks and Onyons from the guilt of Heathen Idolatry as the Israelites in worshipping the Calves for proceeding in his way it were but to imagin they could not be so sottish as to believe them to be Gods in the proper sense but that they look'd upon them onely as Symbols of Gods kindness to them in providing them Sauce as well as Meat though out of Reverence to those Deities they would eat neither of them § 6. To conclude this Point of the meaning of the Second Commandment he tells us that the Jews thought the Prohibition to extend to all kind of Images for Worship And I would gladly know whether we must stand or fall by the Interpretation of the Jews It was their Opinion that the Prohibition extended not only to the worshipping but also to the making all kind of Images And will the Doctor therefore condemn the Professions of Painting and Carving as unlawful and as his Constantinopolitan Fathers call them blasphemous Well but Vasquez saith he acknowledgeth with other Divines of the Roman Church that it is plain in Scripture that God did not only forbid that in the second Commandment which was unlawful by the Law of Nature as the worshipping an Image for God but the worshipping the true God by any similitude of him But to whom do they say he forbids it Does not Vasquez say expresly c. 2. that it was to the Jews which the Doctor conveniently leaves out And do not those Divines in the very words cited by himself plainly declare the Prohibition of worshipping God by any similitude of him to be but a Positive Precept when they so clearly distinguish it from the Prohibition of worshipping an Image for God which they say was unlawful by the Light of Nature And if they look'd upon that part of the Prohibition as a meer Positive Precept does he think they thought it obliged Christians Their Doctrine and Practice evince the contrary And if Divines agree not among themselves how far this Precept obliged the Jews what matter is it so they agree that what is forbidden in it to Christians is that which is unlawful by the Law of Nature The opposition then which the Doctor would make between my Assertion and that of other Catholick Divines is altogether impertinent for taking it as a Natural Precept and Immutable they say the same that I do that it onely forbids the worshipping of Idols To what he alledges of the Primitive Christians being declared Enemies to all Worship of God by Images which he saith is at last confessed by Petavius one of the most Learned Jesuites they ever had when he affirms that for the first four Centuries or farther there was little or no use of Images in the Temples or Oratories of Christians not to dispute the matter of fact of which he confesses there was some little use nor the truth of the Doctors relating the words of Petavius of which there is some little reason to doubt from what he did before with Trigautius I shall give him the Answer of Mr. Thorndike one of the most Learned Divines among the Protestants that at that time there might be jealousie of Offence in having Images in Churches before Idolatry was quite rooted out of which afterwards there might be no appearance And therefore they were afterwards admitted all over for it is manifest saith he the Church is tied no farther than there can appear danger of Idolatry And since he hath given in occasion to mention this Learned Person I shall conclude this Point with his Judgment concerning the meaning and extent of the Second Commandment that the Reader may see how diametrically opposite Dr. St.'s discourse is to the Sentiment of so Eminent a Divine in the Church of England Thus then Mr. Thorndike § 5. The second Commandment setting forth God for a God that is jealous of his People whether they worship him or not manifestly supposeth their Covenant to forsake all other Gods beside him a Contract of Marriage between Him and his People Which if it be so it is no less manifest that the Images which the Precept supposeth are the Representations of other Gods which his People were wont to commit Adultery with by Worshipping them for God For seeing it is manifest how much Idolatry was advanced by Imagery though it may be without it there can be no marvel that there should be a peculiar Precept against it Wherefore it is manifest that Jews by the Letter of this Precept are tied from all Images which their Elders
much or as great adoration is due to them as to Christ himself The first he knows is affirmed by us the second denyed because as was said before of Images p. 190. although Christ and the Accidents be worshipped by the same Act of Adoration yet as considered precisely relating to the Accidents it falls upon them after an Inferiour manner And it became a Generous Adversary as he shows himself to be in supposing the same divine Revelation for Christ's Presence in the Eucharist as for his Divinity which he needed not have done to have told us clearly his meaning in this Point But this he thought not fit to do but to blend both senses confusedly together that when he found himself press'd in one he might slie for refuge to the other The Catholick sense is this that the same or as great adoration is due to Christ in the Sacrament as out of it Against this he objects two things 1. That there is a plain Command in Scripture for the One and none for the other 2. That the One gives us a sufficient reason for our Worship the other doth not To the first I answer as he foresaw very well I would that a General Command such as those cited by himself Let all the Angels adore him that is Christ Hebr. 1. 6. and to his Name every Knee is to bow Phil. 2. 10. doth extend to him wherever he is present as a like command of honouring such a Person for King would do wherever he should be known to reside And this I take to be Intimation enough that we are to worship Christ under the Accidents supposing him present there And whereas he saith this Answer proves no more his worship in them than in a Turf or any other piece of bread because Christ saith he being God is every where present as if his being God made him every where present as he is supposed to be in the Sacrament This was but an Artifice to divert the Reader from the matter in hand which is not about the worship of God as every where present but as hypostatically present in the Flesh And so the Question between us is whether in case there be a general command to worship the Son of God made Man we may not as lawfully do it to him supposing a divine Revelation that he is so present in the Sacrament as the Apostles and others adored him when he was conversant among them To this Question I Answer affirmatively and he Negatively unless he can see a plain Command to do it to him as present in the Sacrament And who can but wonder to see him now so scrupulous in giveing adoration to God made Man believing him to be really present in the Host unless he have an express command to do it who professes of himself p. 101. that were he of our mind in the matter of Images he should not stick to offer up the Host it self that is God-Man really present under the Sacramental signs in Sacrifice to a block or a hewn stone without any command at all either general or particular to do it But to remove this scruple as I have endeavoured to do some others it may suffice to tell him that although our worship be not to be guided by our fancies but the will of God Yet where there is a general command without any Exception to worship the Word made Flesh there he hath given a sufficient Indication of the lawfulness of doing it wherever we are certain by Faith that He is so present What particular command had the Wisemen to adore Him in the Manger or the Thief upon the Cross Was it not enough that they had a Divine Revelation that He was the Son of God to move them to adore Him with Divine Worship Or is he less adorable under the Sacramental signs than bound up in swadling-cloths or covered with blood and spittle Surely it was happy for the Wise-men and the Thief that they had not Dr. St. to direct them what to do For had they followed his Casuistry they must have suspended their Adoration for want of an Express Command in their particular cases § 5. But he had not advanced above a Leaf farther when it seems he perceiv'd the weakness of this Answer and therefore to piece it out he tells us p. 115. that in case of Christ's visible appearance to us in any place we need not a particular command in such a case to make it lawful to adore him But that which goes against the grain of his sense and reason is that he should do it to him under a Veil though he be more certain by Faith that it is He that is there present than if he saw him with his eyes This is such a self-denyal as is not to be expected from flesh and blood And if you ask him why there is not the same reason of believing Christ to be present as seeing him He answers with a distinction much more subtil than that he alledged out of Scotland for saying the Lord's Prayer to a Saint p. 101. that in matters of pure Revelation where the matter propos'd to our Faith can be no Object of sense as Christ's Infinite presence in all places as God there he may firmly believe and worship Him upon the credit of Divine Revelation but speaking of the visible presence of Christ where honour is given on the account of the divine nature but he can be known to be present only by his Humanity in this case I say saith he and his Ipse dixit must be of no less authority than that of Pythagoras I say the evidence of sense is necessary in ordâ—r to the true worshipping of the Person of Christ Here is indeed an appearance of a distinction but such an one as quite overthrows his whole discourse for if he suppose as he doth at present that the Humanity of Christ is really present in the Sacrament in such a way that it cannot be the Object of sense he must rank it among his matters of pure Revelation and so not only firmly believe it but also give him worship suitable to his presence When therefore he tells us the question is concerning the visible presence of Christ it is manifest he either changes the state of the Question or retracts what before he so generously granted of his Invisible presence in the Sacrament This then is plain was but to delude the Reader and not answer to the Question which was Why there is not the same reason for worshipping Christ in the Sacrament believing him to be there upon the credit of a Divine Revelation as if we saw Him with our eyes But to follow him a little in his wandrings and speak to the visible presence of Christ In case he can be known to be present only by his Humanity Why must the Evidence of sense be necessary in order to his worship Was he not so present in the Womb of the Virgin after the Angels message Was he not so
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
upon the erroneous account aforesaid viz. That Access could only be made to God by the Angels whether the Authors of that Doctrine were Jews or Hereticks or Philosophers but that Baronius judged Theodoret mistaken in asserting the Authors of that Doctrine not to have been the Heathen Philosophers but certain Hereticks and much more in supposing the Oratories of St. Michael in Phrygia and Pisidia to have been erected by those Hereticks Incaute nimis saith Baronius Too unwarily attributing to them the erecting of those Oratories which had been of old instituted by Catholicks This is what Baronius saith grounding himself upon some ancient Records And here lieth the depth of the Charge that because Theodoret condemns the worship and Invocation of Angels as he thought it was practis'd by those Hereticks in those Oratories of St. Michael and Baronius thinks him mistaken in the matter of Fact and that those Oratories were indeed erected by Catholicks therefore Baronius saith the Doctor very fairly tells us that what Theodoret condemns was the practice of the Roman Church Which is just as if the Doctor being to comment that passage of Scripture where the Children of Israel design'd War upon the Reubenites c. for erecting an Altar beside the Altar of the Lord should tell us that they too unwarily ascribed to a schismatical worship what was intended for a testimony of the true and lawful worship of God And another Author passing his judgment upon this Comment of the Doctor 's should affirm that Dr. St. very fairly tells Us that what the Israelites condemned in the Reubenites was the worship of the true God Would not this be a fair tale if well told by a credible Person of Dr. St. If he would not own it for such himself Why does he impose so foul a one upon Baronius For as the Israelites were mistaken in the End for which that Altar was Erected so was Theodoret saith Baronius in the use of those Oratories of St. Michael and therefore it follows no more in his Judgment that what Theodoret condemn'd was the true and lawful Invocation of Angels as practis'd in the Church of Rome than that what the Israelites condemn'd was the worship of the true God as exercis'd among them § 3. But the Doctor saith yet further that Baronius very fairly tells Us that not only what Thâ—odoret condemn'd but what St. Paul too condemn'd was the practise of the Church of Rome But this is yet fouler than the former for himself p. 156. tells us that what Baronius contended was condemned by St. Paul was the Idolatry of the Heathens And although Dr. St. will needs make the Catholick Invocation of Angels and the Heathens worship of their Daemons to be the same yet a greater Authority than His is requisite to make us believe that Baronius thought so too These are pitiful sleights of sophistry to delude an unwary Reader And so are his citing of Irenaeus as denying any Invocation of Angels to be in use among Christians and of the Council of Laodicea as charging all who worship Angels with Idolatry in so doing For Irenaeus speaks only of such superstitious Invocating of Angels as was used by the Marcites and Carpocratians in their Magical Operations and working of false Miracles And whatever Practice that were of nominating Angels which the Council of Laodicea is so severe against whether of the aforesaid Hereticks or Heathens it is manifest that it cannot with any show of Probability be understood of that worship which the Catholick Church gives to Holy Angels 1. Because the Council speaks of such as nominated Angels and made private Assemblies to them forsaking or excluding our Lord Jesus Christ which words were conveniently omitted by the Doctor And 2dly Because the Council both in the Canon immediately foregoing 34. As also Can. 51. alloweth the honouring and celebrating the Feast-days of the Martyrs which is a plain Indication that it intended not to condemn in this Canon the worship due to Angels of whom Theodoret saith That they are more to be honoured than Men yet not as secondary Gods but as our Fellow-Servants and Ministers of God By this the Reader may see whether we had more reason to fear the force of this Canon or he the discovery of what he so artificially concealed § 4. To his Testimony out of Origen p. 156. I have answered already that he speaks of such Prayers as are offred only to God for he both acknowledges a distinction between the worship due to God and the Angels and himself also directs his Prayer to an Angel as I have showed above p. 359. What he cites out of St. Austin de Civit. Dei li. 10. c. 1. is not in the least against the Honour or Invocation of Angels as taught and practis'd in the Catholick Church For the Question there in debate between Him and the Platonists as it stands propos'd in the very Argument of the Chapter is Whether the Angels will that sacrifice be offered to God alone or also to them That they may be honour'd with that kind of worship with which Holy Men or Blessed Souls are honoured by us he sufficiently intimates in his 20th Book against Faustus c. 21. Where he equally denies the worship due to God ought to be given to any of them And elsewhere as if he intended to prevent the Dr.'s Objection as to the worship of Angels he saith Neither let it move you that the Angel Apoc. 19. 10. forbiddeth St. John to worship Him and admonisheth Him rather to worship God For the Angel saith he appeared such that is in so glorious a manner that he might by mistake be worshipped for God and therefore the Worshipper was to be corrected And this he saith in reference to what he had said before Viz. That it is observable in the Precept Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and Him only shalt thou serve that it is not said Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God only as it is said Thou shalt serve Him only which in Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which it is plain that in St. Austin's Judgment although Latria be due to God alone yet worship may be given to others When therefore he saith in the place now under debate that the Blessed spirits are not willing we should sacra facere that is dedicate the Doctor translates it equivocally to perform any sacred Offices and sacrifice to them or consecrate our selves or any thing of ours to them by the Rites of Religion it is evident he speaks of the worship which is due to God alone that is of such Dedications and Consecrations as were performed by the Heathens to their Daemons as Gods And although in his 61. Q. upon Exodus he makes this difference as the Doctor objecteth against us between Latria and Dulia that Dulia is due to God as he is Lord but Latria is not due but to God as he is God Yet in the very place cited