For quatenus Latria it can pass no further in truth and reality but ends there and in relation to God the act ceases to be Latria the honouring or worshipping of him but changes its Species and becomes an act of contempt reproach and disobedience against him and a foul dishonouring of him Nor can the intention of the Religionist alter the specification of the Act but that it will be a dishonouring of God though the Act cannot be avoided but it will have God for its Object but he will be the Object of this Act under this specification namely of dishonour As in that Physician that intended by such a Medicine to cure such a Patient but does really poyson him thereby the Patient notwithstanding the Physicians intention is no Object of a real cure but of the quite contrary of his poysoning him Wherefore no real Latria passing to God in this relative Idolatry but only dishonour and reproach the Latria is in truth let the intention be what it will terminated in the Image or Idol and therefore is Idolatry in the most proper and Scholastick sense For one and the same Act as it may have two contrary Specifications in respect of two several Objects so it may have two several terminations in respect of the same As suppose one Person loves a Rose another has a great Antipathy against it a third brings a basket of Roses into the room this one act is both a gratification and a displeasure a gratification to him that loves Roses a displeasure to him that has an Antipathy against them the Act of gratification terminates in one of these Objects the Person that loves Roses the Act of displeasure terminates on the other Just so the Act of Latria or Divine honour terminates on the Image or Idol the Act of dishonour and reproach on God who is provoked and disobeyed What can be more plain Wherefore the Divine honour terminating on the Image of Christ and not passing to him in reality and truth but only in our fond intention it is manifest that the peculiarities of God are here violated and that it is proper Idolatry XXIV Whether the doing Divine worship towards the Image of Christ violates the irrepresentableness of the Godhead or no as also towards the holy Ghosts But there is a more curious question whether the worshipping of the Image of Christ with Divine worship does involve also the other violation of the peculiarities of the Godhead in making it thus representable by an Image For Christ being Man as well as God seems to make the case different from that of the Image of God the Father But I answer the case is still the same Christ being the eternal infinite glorious Majesty of God as well as he is Man and uncapable of Divine worship but so far forth as he is that infinite Majesty Wherefore he that sets up an Image and calls it the Image of Christ and does Divine worship towards it does as palpably make the eternal infinite Majesty of the Godhead representable by a carved stock or stone as he that does Divine worship toward such a carved Image of God the Father For the Father and the Son are equal and therefore the Son equally irrepresentable as to that of him which is capable of Divine worship which this Image pretends to represent in pretending to be the Image of Christ and therefore violates that peculiarity of the infinite glorious Majesty of God that makes it irrepresentable by any bodily Figure He that worships Christ worships the very Godhead and therefore must not blaspheme his Majesty by making him representable by any corporeal Image The Godhead indeed is hypostatically intempled in the humane nature of Christ but it is the the eternal and infinite divinity there that we adore So little scruple need either Jevv or Turk have to turn Christians upon any Idolatry vve are guilty of in vvorshiping Christ. And vvhat I have said of the Images or Statues of the Father and the Son the same is to be said of the Image of the Holy Ghost A Dove may be the Hieroglyphick of him as that description of the Ancient of dayes in Daniel is an Hieroglyphick of God the Father But to do Divine worship toward such an Image of a Dove it is absolutely the same Idolatry that was in so doing to the Image of God the Father and of Christ. XXV That no symbolical presence but only the holy humanity of Christ is capable of divine worship done towards it No symbolical presence therefore or consistent visible animal figure saving the holy humanity of the Lord Jesus Christ which is Hypostatically united with the eternal Divinity can have divine worship done towards it but it is Idolatry ipso facto It the peculiar priviledge of the holy humanity of Christ to be capable of having divine worship done towards it because of its Union with the Divinity as it is the priviledge of the Body of a wise and vertuous Person for the wisdom and vertues sake that resides only in his Soul to have that great reverence done towards it by reason of the Soul with which it is Hypostatically united But the Soul once separate by Death the Body according to the common sense and practice of all men ceases to have that reverence done towards it that it had before So that there is naturally a peculiar middle kind of honour greater than any Creature besides has a capacity of though less than Divine that accrews to Christs humanity in vertue of his being Hypostatically united with the Godhead which the Image of Christ is not And therefore besides that gross Idolatry above specified in doing Divine worship towards his Image there is also a violation of the priviledge of this holy humanity of Christ towards which living Symbolical presence of the Godhead only it had been proper to do Divine worship when he was visible here upon Earth upon a clear declaration of this Union Which was more apertly and more seasonably manifested afterwards by St. John But considering the unexpressable profound Humility of our Saviour who upon ones saying to him Good Master straight way rebuked him declaring there was none good but one which is God Mark 10.17 it seems hugely probable that if any would have done express Divine worship towards his visible Humanity as the Lycaonians would have sacrificed to Paul and Barnabas that he would have declined it But this only by the by XXVI The necessity of the Romanists acknowledging of Latria relativa done to Images relating to God Hitherto of Images relating to God to which the second Nicene Council that excellently learned and judicious Patriarch of Constantinople Photius being Interpreter assigned Latria relativa which Azorius the Jesuite also acknowledges to be the constant opinion of the Roman Theologers And indeed it seems necessary it should be so to make the best sense of that kind of Religion for they burn incense to these Images which is a sacrifice And they
that it is not some other Spirit than he to whom the Temple or Symbolical presence was erected that it is not one Angel or Saint for another nay a Divel instead of that Saint or Angel But those Temples and Symbolical presences being erected in several distant places it emplyes they are in several distant places at once which is the only peculiarity of the Godhead as I have noted in my Reply Which incongruities are also to be observed in either one single Altar or many in distant places of the World to the same Saint or Angel And besides it has that odious relation to a sacrifice and imports that the Saints and Angels are also sacrificed to which is plain and confessed Idolatry XXIX An Evasion obviated Nor is it any excuse that the Temple and Altar is pretended to be erected and dedicated to God only in a principal sense but to the Saint in a secundarie respect as less principal For besides that God is jealous and impatient of any Partner in the honours that are due to himself though they were only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their intention cannot change the natural signification of building Temples and Altars to a finite Creature Which as I have already noted implyes its Omnipresence which is proper and peculiar only to God And therefore this communicating a peculiarity of the Godhead to a Creature is Idolatry according to the plain definition thereof let us intend what we will XXX The Idolatry of bowing to the Images of Saints and Angels wherein it consists As for their superstitious worship done towards the bare Symbolical presences or open Images of Saint or Angel supposing it the very same they would do to the Saint or Angel themselves if they were visible that this implyes them representable is no Idolatry For the making them representable by an Image does not at all violate the peculiarities of the Godhead But the Idolatry is in that the Act naturally supposes them certainly present for it is not sense to bow to an absent Person and these Symbolical presences being many and at far distant places at once that the Saint or Angel is in more places than one at once and in such sort ommipresent as none can be acknowledged but God alone and so that Divine peculiarity is violated by this bowing to the Symbolical Presences or Images of Saint or Angel XXXI The hazard of the vulgars doing that Devotion which is due to God in their worshipping the Images of Saints and Angels And though there be no necessary connexion betwixt the things yet there is an exceeding great hazard in the vulgar sort especially when they bow to these Images of Saint or Angel or pray to them before the said Images there is an hazard of running into the highest Devotion and reverential affection and passion that humane nature is excitable into or can express by his look or mind and profoundly devout motion of the spirits of his eyes which passion and signification thereof is due to God alone and it is the most sordid Idolatry imaginable to apply it to either Saint or Angel much more to the very images of them made of wood or stone though never so well painted or gilt It is manifest I say that by such a worship a special peculiarity of the Godhead is violated who alone is to be worshipped with that kind of Devotion Which yet I have seen simple folk to express to the Image of a Saint as fully as I could ever discern to be done by the devoutest man in his prayers to God So that this note is not made at random without just occasion and ground And if this be done to the Image of a Saint you may be sure it will not fail to be done to Images that relate to God But that is besides our present Scope XXXII The reduction of burning of Incense and setting up lights before them As for tâ—e burning of Incense and setting up lights before the Symbolical presences of Saints and Angels it being so plainly an imitation of the burning incense and lighting up lamps before the Symbolical presence of Jehovah in the Holy it is plainly a violation of his peculiarities so judged by his own election and choice And as for the incense it is a sacrifice and the most noble and significant sacrifice as I have noted in my Reply And they may as well depress the sacrificing of sheep and oxen into a lower ceremonie as this of incense For by the use and consent of Nations the one is no more restrained to the supream God than the other And the lamps and shew bread seem to indicate Jehovah to be the Father of lights from whom proceeds every good and perfect gift and who feeds with bounty every living thing And the lights set up before the Images of Saints and Angels do at least intimate that light and comfort is to be expected from suppliants that make their addresses to them at these Symbolical presences as if they were there present to assist them that invoke them implore their help Which I have again and again inculcated to be an implying and attributing an Omnipresency or Omnipercipiency to these finite created spirits and consequently a violation of the Peculiariâ—ies of the Godhead Thus easily are the various acts of Idolatry observed in the Church of Rome in their worshipping Saints and Angels reducible to the plain definition and true general Notion of Idolatry which we have proposed As for those high compellations to the blessed Virgin especially such as plainly signify the peculiar excellencies of the Godhead they are so openly Idolatrous that they want no reduction XXXIII That the pretended intricacies in the mystery of the holy Trinity cannot with any reason at all be alledged against the clear demonstrations that the doctrine if Transubstantiation is false As neither their Artolatria does to them that are free and believe that which is most certainly true that the bread is not transubstatiated as I have again and again undeniably demonstrated it not to be in my Antidote against Idolatry and in my Reply The clearness of which demonstrations the pretended intricacies in the mystery of the holy Trinity cannot obscure there being so vast a difference both betwixt the Objects themselves and the faculties in this case and that For in Transubstantiation the Object is Matter or body a substance finite and comprehensible both by our senses and reason In the mystery of the Trinity the object is the infinite incomprehensible Deity a substance incorporeal or spirit which is quite out of the reach of our senses in the lowest notion thereof but the transcendency of the Triune Godhead above our reason also though not contrary unto it And then our faculties conversant about Transubstantiation are all the five senses rightly circumstantiated the organ distance and medium duly fitted and proportionated and therefore the senses necessarily capable of discerning what the object is whether this body
or that suppose whether the body of a man or a piece of bread And besides this not only the exteriour reason but that which the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which contains the first and self-evident common Notions or Axiomes that are without syllogism noematically true layes fast hold on the object in this controversy Transubstantiation being easily resolvible into a flat and manifest contradiction to these as I have abundantly shown in my Antidote and Reply But there is no contradiction at all to either sensation or common notion in the mystery of the Trinity only exteriour reason and imagination raise some mists and obscurities about it Which well exercised minds in contemplation can easily discern and dispute from this venerable mystery so far forth as it is exhibited to us in the ancient symbols of the Catholick Church Wherefore of two desperate cases it is the more hopeful that the bread being not tranâ—ubstantiated and yet they taking it to be so they may scape being Idolaters than that it is transubstantiated to save them from Idolatry XXXIV That the believing the bread not to be there does not all clear the Romanists from down-right Bread-worship which is Idolatry And I must confess I was once inclinable to this opinion my self that in this case they are not Idolaters see my Idea of Antichristianisme Book 1. Chap. 13. sect 6. before I had more closely and carefully considered the point And the Church of Rome does not want at this day witty Patrons and of admirable art and eloquence to perswade the heedless into this security That though the bread should not prove transubstantiated yet they cannot be bread-worshippers while they believe it is for if they believe it is transubstantiated they believe it not to be there namely within the Symbols or Species and thence they pretend it is demonstratively evident that they cannot worship it but only Christ into whose substance it is believed to be transubstantiated For whatever is taken say they for an object of worship the understanding must affirm either truly or falsly that it is there whither the worship is directed Which arguing bears a smart plausibility with it But I answer That what is made an object of worship through mistake there is no need the understanding affirm it is there but rather the contrary For it does not think the undue object is there but the due one Those that worshipped the Sun that is that which we call the Sun and understand thereby a flammeous body devoid of sense and understanding that appears alike to the sight of the Sun-worshippers and to ours as the species appear the same to those that believe the bread transubstantiated and to them that believe it not be it called what it will they did not believe that which we know to be the Sun to be there but an intellectual Deity which the Sun is not and yet we all acknowledg them for all that to have been Sun-worshippers and Idolaters Wherefore using just weights and measures we must conclude the Romanists Bread-worshippers and Idolaters the bread not being transubstantiated since their worship then lights upon bread instead of Christ as the Sun-worshippers upon the Sun instead of an intelligent Deity He that strikes his Friend in the dusk of the Evening thinking it is his Enemy thinks his friend is not there who notwithstanding finds himself the Object of his stroak and wishes he had not been there This Idolatry I must confess is committed through mistake but so is all Idolatry that is committed in good earnest so that this cannot excuse the fact from so grievous a crime And that it is Idolatry is evident Divine worship being given to a piece of bread which is a peculiarity of the Godhead and must be given to none but him And the violation of any Divine peculiarity is Idolatry by the proposed definition thereof XXXV The application of the Heathen Idolatry to this definition besides his present scope By vertue of which we demonstratively have shown the sundry Idolatries of the Church of Rome in their worshipping the Image of Christ in their worshipping and invocating Saints and Angels and in their adoration of the Eucharist And in vertue of the same Definition the Idolatries of the Heathen might be as clearly demonstrated in their worshipping the supream God by Images and in their religious worship they did to Daemons which this definition would prove to be Divine But this would be quite besides my present purpose and neither useful nor sutable to the subject in hand XXXVI The great difference betwixt religious respect and preference and Divine worship It remains now only that we free several Ceremonies used in our own Church from the imputation of Idolatry by application to this definition as well as we have evinced several of theirs to be Idolatrous by the same Which will be a no less useful and it may be a more pleasant consideration to our own to see how little hold the adverse party can take of these small strings to pull us back again into Popery For if the definition of Idolatry be unapplicable to them it is manifest they cannot be Idolatrous And the inapplicability is so easily discoverable that there will be no need to insist long on this matter In the general then we are to note what a vast difference there is betwixt religious worship properly so called which is the same with Divine worship and pious or religious affection and respect or preference of one thing before another for its relation it has to the objects or exercise of our Religion or Divine worship It is but an homely Proverb Love me and love my dog but it may be of no impertinent significancy in this place For it is not understood of the love of friendship but of such a love as that inferiour Creature is capable of and is fit to give him in relation to his Master to whom we owe the love of friendship So they that have a real Divine reverence for God it is no wonder they find an inclination in themselves of bearing some reverence or having some respect to those things or persons that in a special manner relate to him Whether it be Priest or Temple or any holy utensil or the like Which reverence is quite different from that Divine worship or reverence that is due to God himself more different than the love to ones Friend and to his Spaniel and therefore can be no peculiarity of the Godhead and consequently no violation of his peculiarities to give it to another Which is the true Notion of Idolatry XXXVII The keeping our hats off in the Church freed from Idolatry by this Definition We will illustrate this with some few examples and so conclude They that keep off their hats in the Church and do it even then when Divine Service is not a doing there are not by any means conceived to do that Divine reverence or worship which is peculiarly due to God