from the ninth the fifteenth and the foregoing Conclusion The eighteenth Though it were admitted that there is communicated to Saints and Angels at least a terrestrial Omnipercipiency and that we had the knowledge of this Communication and so might speak to them in a civil way though unseen yet to invoke them in such Circumstances as at an Altar and in a Temple dedicated to them or at their symbolical presence this were palpable Idolatry The truth is manifest again from the ninth and sixteenth Conclusions 9. The nineteenth Incurvation in way of Religion towards any open or bare symbolical Presence be it what-ever Figure or Image as to an Object is flat Idolatry in the Worship of Saints Angels and Daemons double Idolatry in the Worship of the true God single The reason hereof is resolved partly into the ninth and sixteenth Conclusions and partly into the nature of Application of Worship For external Worship is not any otherwise to be conceived to be apply'd to asymbolical Presence but by being directed towards it as towards an Object Wherefore if Religious Incurvation be directed towards any Figure or Image as to an Object this Figure or Image necessarily Receives this Religious Incurvation and partakes with God if the Image be to him in it which is manifest Idolatry For the direction of our Intention here is but a Jesuitical Juggle And therefore I will set down for Conclusion The twentieh That Religious Incurvation toward a bare symbolical Presence wittingly and conscienciously directed thither though with a mental reserve that they intend to use it merely as a Circumstance of Worship is notwithstanding real Idolatry The Reason is because an external Action toward such a thing as is look'd upon as receptive of such an Action â— and has frequently received it if it be thus or thus directed will naturally conciliate the notions or respects of â—ction and Object betwixt these two whether we intend it or no. And it is as ridiculous to pretend that their motions or actions toward or about such a symbolical Presence are not directed to it or conversant about it as an Object as it were for an Archer to contend that the Butt he â—â—oots at is not the Scope or Object but a Circumstance of his Shooting and he that embraces his Friend that his Friend is not an Object but a Circumstance of his Embracing Which are Conceits quite out of the rode of all Logick See the last Conclusion of the foregoing Chapter 10. The twenty-first That the Adoration of any Object which we out of mistake conceive to be the true God made visible by Hypostatical union therewith is manifest Idolatry The Reason is because Mistake does not excuse from Idolatry by Conclusion the fourth and the fifth And in this Supposition we miss of one part of the Object and the onely part that single is capable of Divine Honour For God to be disunited from this adored Object is in this case all one as to be absent For God is not considered not intended in this act of Adoration but as united with this visible Object Which respect of Union if it fail that consideration or Intention also fails and the Worship falls upon a mere Creature In brief If out of mistake I salute some lively Statue or dead body for such or such a living man though this Man or his Soul were present and saw and heard the Salutation yet I play the fool and make my self ridiculous and an conceived not to have saluted him I would So if I do Adoration to any Object suppose the Sun or some Magical Statue for the true Deity visible when as neither of them are so I play the Idolater and make my self impious and have missed of the due Object of my Adoration 11. The twenty second That the Adoration of the Host upon the presumption that it is Transubstantiated into the living Body of Christ is rank Idolatry This appears from the precedent Conclusion To which you may add that the Romanists making Transubstantiation the true ground of their Adoration of the Host do themselves imply that without it were so their Adoration thereof would be Idolatry But that it is not so and that their Ground is false any body may be as well assured of as he can of any thing in the world and no less assured that they are Idolaters according to their own Supposition and Implication as Costerus indeed does most emphatically and expresly acknowledge it if they be mistaken in their Doctrine of Transubstantiation as we shall hear anon The twenty-third Conclusion That Adoration given to the Host by Protestants or any else that hold not Transubstantiation is manifest Idolatry The Reason is to be fetch'd from the nineteenth and twentieth Conclusions For it is Religious Veneration towards a bare corporeal Symbol of the Divine Presence and to make the Action more aggravable towards a Symbol that has Imagery upon it and that of the person that is pretended to be worshipped thereby What can be Idolatry if this be not The twenty-fourth That the Invocation of Saints and Angels though attended with these considerations that both that Excellency we suppose in them and which makes them capable of that Honour is deemed finite and also be it as great as it will wholly derived to them from God yet it cannot for all this be excused from gross Idolatry This is clear from the seventh eighth tenth and so on till the sixteenth Conclusion For though this Excellency be supposed finite yet if it be so great as that it is no-where to be found but in God it is his Right onely to have such Honours as suppose it And though it be deemed or conceived to be derived from God yet if it be not we give an uncommunicate Excellency to the Creature and rob God of his Right and Honour And lastly though this Excellency were communicated but yet the Communication of it unreveal'd to us it were a treasonable Presumption against the Majesty of God thus of our own head to divulge such things as may violate the peculiar Rights of his Godhead and for ought we know fill the world with infinite bold examples of the grossest Idolatry and therefore all our practices upon this Principle must be Idolatrous and Treasonable against the Divine Majesty Consider well the fifteenth Conclusion 12. The last Conclusion That this pretended Consideration that where Christ is corporeally present Divine Worship is not done to his Humanity but to his Divinity and that therefore though the Bread should not prove transubstantiated the Divine Worship will still be done to the same Object as before viz. to the Divinity which is every-where and therefore in the Bread this will not excuse the Adoration of the Host from palpable Idolatry For first That part of the Pretense that supposes Divine Worship in no sense due or to be done to Christ's Humanity is false For it is no greater presumption to say that in some sense Divine Worship is
with more pleasure Vpon the seventh Paragraph That the Definition of the Council of Trent in this point is Idolatrous is abundantly demonstrated in the second Paragraph of the fourth Chapter from such Conclusions as I have above plainly proved no assaults of my Adversary have at all weakened But the Accessions to make this Idolatry still more gross is that it is so evident from these usual forms of Invocation that the Compellations of some of the Saints at least are incompetible to any Creature and they are asked such things as no Creature is able to give and so as if they were to be given by themselves and not by begging them of God for us Vpon the eighth Paragraph What is said here may serve for a more full Reply to my Antagonists third general Answer in that particular that concerns the Mary-Psalter it bearing this Authority and Authentickness with it For it goes under St. Bonaventures name though I will not avow him to be the Authour of iâ— But the Countenance and Authority of two Popes is even more than enough to ratifie it for a genuine piece of devotion of the Church of Rome Vpon the ninth Paragraph To the former part of this ninth Paragraph I have no more to say than what I have said already on the fifth and sixth The second part it is not impertinent to take notice what it intimates against the second and last Answers of my Adversary viz. That I have not onely proved in these three Chapters that Invocation of Saints is Idolatry though it were onely for an Ora pro nobis but also that according as the Council of Trent it self doth insinuate there are special aids and helps besides praying for us asked of the Saints and so great ones as also so great Compellations as are incompetible to a mere Creature to give or receive Which makes tâ—e Invocation twice or thrice more gross than a mere Ora pro nobis To all which you may lastly add these aggravating Circumstances which are very frequent That these Invocations are made at their Festivals in Temples at Altars and Images consecrated to them that nothing may be wanting to the most formal Idolatry imaginable See Conclusion the eighteenth of the second Chapter We see therefore the gross Idolatry of the Romanists in the Invocation of Saints even according to the allowance of the Council of Trent and the authorized practise of their Church beyond all exception evidenced and demonstrated CHAP. VII That the Doctrine of the Council of Trent touching the Worshipping of Images is Idolatrous and the Reason of the Doctrine weak and unsound 1. AND thus much for their Idolatry in the Invocation of Saints Let us now consider what the sense of the Council of Trent is touching the worshipping of Images Imagines porrò Christi Deiparae Virginis aliorum Sanctorum in templis praesertim habendas retinendas esse eâ—sque debitum honorem reverentiam impertiendam Quoniam honos qui eis exhibetur refertur ad Prototypâ— quae illae repraesentant ità ut per Imagines quas osculâ—mur coram quibus caput apâ—rimus procumbimus Christum adoremus Sanctos quorum illae similitudinem gerunt veneremur Id quod Conciliorum praesertâ—m verè secundae Nicaenae Synodi Decretis contra Imaginum oppugnatores est sancitum The meaning of which in brief is this That the Images of Christ of the blessed Virgin and other Saints are to be had and retain'd in Churches and that due honour and reverence is to be done to them For which are produced two Reasons The first In that the Honour that is done to the Images is referred to the Prototypes The second In that this Injunction is but what the second Nâ—cene Council had of old decreed 2. To which â— answer That thus much as the Council of Trent has declared touching Images is plain and open Idolatry by the seventh Conclusion of the first Chapter and expresly against the Commandment of God who forbids us to make any graven Image to bow down to or Worship But the Council of Tâ—enâ— says Yes ye may make graven Images of the Saints and set them up in their Temples and give them their due Honour and Worship nay ye ought to do so and instances in the very act of Bowing or Kneeling and prostrating our selves before them This Definition of the Council is so palpably against the Commandment of God that they are faâ—n to leave the second Commandment out of the Decalogue that the people may not discern how grosly they go against the express Precepts of God in their so frequent practices of Idolatry See the first ninth and tenth Conclusions of the first Chapter as also the third fourth fifth eighteenth nineteenth and twentieth of the second 3. Nor can all their Tricks and Tergiversations and subtil Elusions serve their turn For undoubtedly the Decalogue was writ to the easie capacity of the people and therefore their hearts and consciences are the best Interpreters Not the foolish Evasions and Subterfuges of perfidious Sophisters who to the betraying of weak Souls to Idolatry and Damnation and for the opening their Purses would make them believe that the Council of Trent's enjoyning of Images in Churches and the honouring them or worshipping them and bowing down before them can consist with God's forbidding to make any graven Image and to bow down to it and worship it So that I say the Council it self does appoint flat Idolatry to the Christian world to be practised And it being so monstrous a thing I pray you now let us consider the Reasons why they do so 4. The first is Because the Honour done to the Image is referr'd to the Prototype But I answer that this Reference is either in virtue of that Similitude the Images have with those persons they represent which the words of the Council seem to imply at least touching the Saints quorum illae similitudinem gerunt as when we praise a Picture of such or such a person that it is a very comely and lovely Picture this praise naturally has a reference to the Person whose Picture it is in virtue of the similitude betwixt the Picture and the Party Or else this Reference without any regard to personal Similitude is from the Direction of the Intention of the Devotionist that he intends upon the seeing and bowing suppose to the Image of Christ the blessed Virgin or any Saint to take this occasion to worship Christ the blessed Virgin or the Saint thereby the Image being but at large a symbolical Presence of them it being not regarded whether the Symbol or Image have any personal Similitude with the party it represents or no. 5. But now as for the former it is evident that it is infinitely uncertain whether any Image of Christ the blessed Virgin or of this or that Saint be like the carnal figure of these persons while they were alive upon earth or no. Nay it is in a manner certain
called one Commandment or Decree touching our duty towards God yet my charge against the Church of Rome for leaving out so great and so material a part of this Decree or of the first Commandment if you will would not be a jot mitigated thereby the understanding being the same as my Antagonist himself confesses whether it be held one Commandment or two For if it be held one Commandment yet it is plainly divisible into these two parts which we call the first and second Commandments And this that we call the second Commandment and you the second part of the first Commandment being really one and the same and you acknowledging you leave out that part of the Commandment where then is the Calumny any more then if one should accuse another that he took away two shillings six pence and he should Reply it is an unworthy slander it was onely half a crown that he took away would not this to any indifferent judge seem a very pleasant Apology to clear one of the Theft But now in the second place Though St. Austin and St. Hierome â—eter Lombard says it is Origen and Austin may differ in their Opinion about the first and second Commandment whether they be one or two Commandments yet I presume the more ancient and the more general sense of the Church is that they are two And it is well known that Origen flourished long before Austin But it is acknowledged of all hands out of the word of God that there are just ten Commandments neither more nor less Now the Church of Rome that would have the first Table consist but of three Commandments is constrained to divide the last Commandment into two which is against the Antiquity of the distinction of the Greek and Hebrew Text into verses For it is observable that both in the Greek and Hebrew Text though the length of some of the Commandments has occasioned them to be divided into more verses than one yet they no where have crouded two Commandments into one verse in so much that they make Thou shalt not kill Thou shalt not commit adultery Thou shalt not steal three distinct verses Whence it is plain that that which we call the tenth Commandment is really but one Commandment as being contained in one verse and that Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife is not a whole Commandment distinct from the rest contained in that verse Besides which is hugely remarkable if Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife be one intire Commandment viz. the ninth part of the tenth Commandment viz. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours house is set before it which is not a thing credible But there is no absurdity nor inconvenience supposing it but one Commandment that Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours house is set first in Exodus and Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife is placed first in Deuteronomy This methinks should be enough to the impartial to demonstrate that that which we usually call the tenth Commandment is not to be divided into two but is all one entire Commandment and that therefore the first and second Commandments ordinarily so called cannot be one Commandment but two that there may be ten To all which you may add that but even a moderate smattering in Logick may easily discover the tenth Commandment usually so called to be but one and the first and second Commandments so called to be really two namely from the consideration of their Objects Now the Object in the tenth Commandment is but one in General viz. the keeping our desires from other mens goods of what nature soever Thou shalt not covet any thing that is his That is the general of the whole Commandment plainly And House Wife Servant Oxe Asse are but particulars belonging to this general and by the same reason that you make an intire Commandment of any one of these Particulars you may of every one of them and so divide the last Commandment at least into five which is very absurd But as the Object of the tenth Commandment shows it can be but one so the Objects of the first and second plainly show they must be two Commandments because their Objects are distinctly two The first having for its Object the onely one true God whom alone to retain we are plainly taught or commanded by that Precept the second having for its Object Graven Images or whatsoever similitudes of things which we are strictly forbid any way to worâ—hip So plain every way is it That that which we call the second Commandment is the second Commandment and that there is not the least show of calumny in saying They have left out the second Commandment in their Catechisms But yet it is further observable that if the first and second Commandments were to be held but one Commandment there can be no so rational ground as this That the second has a close subserviency to the first and that it is added that we may keep the first more intirely and have no more Gods in any sense than one Which implies therefore that worshipping of Images Gods does interpret as the making more Gods to our selves then one or that it is a necessary Concomitant of making to our selves more Gods then one as is too too apparent in the Religion of the Gentiles nor can be enough lamented in degenerated Christendom Which eagerness after Idol-Gods the true God most severely prohibits and show's himself so much the more solicitous and zealous here against worshipping of Images by reason of the great Proclivity of mankind to that more than to Polytheisme or the not believing that there is onely one supreme God the Creatour and Governour of all things But the great danger is that acknowledging this yet they may either defile his Worship with Images and make those Images Gods by worshipping them or Worship Doemonâ— and Saints in Images and Pictures and so accordding to the custom of the Heathens make more Gods than one though but one supreme and others inferiour to him There is such a pruriency and precipitant inclination in humane nature to these superstitions that to put a stop to it God addes such a rousing Comminaâ—ion at the latter end of this second Commandment or the second part of the first as my Adversary would have it For I am a jealous God that visits the iniquities of the Fathers upon the Children to the third and fourth Generation of them that hate me As if he declared them more particularly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 haters of God as well as hatefull to him who will presume so hainously to affront him as to make Images to Worship them or any Object by them Which second Commandment therefore with this direfull Commination added to it being so effectual a bar and so point blank against the Idolatry practised in the Roman Church my Adversary must give me leave to suspect that it is not as he says left out to ease the memory of the Vulgar of so long a
our Saviour and the Divine graces of his Person shooting through that Image into the Souls and hearts of the beholders faith being wrought in them by the spirit of God according to his eternal purpose as it is written No man cometh to me unless my Father draw him they might behold him and give that Testimony that St. Iohn does of him Iohn 1. The word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us and we beheld the glory of him as the glory of the onely begotten Son of God full of grace and truth But for others that saw the humane Presence of him who is truly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though they could not discern him to be such or to be the Messias so far as they saw it chiefly to be imputed to his humanity being present and not to the Image in the eye which but for his Presence could not represent him to the Soul But I hope the wicked and unbeliever noâ— discovering his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not at all argue him not to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God-man And now if the Image impressed by the very presence of Christ had not not the natural Power of representing that Divine Complexum God-man according to both the natures how far short shall Images of wood or stone or what ever materials be from representing him being absent In the mean time it is apparent how rash and inhumane my Antagonist is to charge me with blasphemy upon such slight and toyish pretenses as he is pleased to take up and every way so weak and insignificant I have insisted on this longer than was needfull But I was invited so to do because my Adversary here seems to have intended to make a show of induing his confutations of this seventh Chapter with so great Triumph when indeed he has one nothing at all he having not taken notice of the close of this â—ixth Paragraph that declares and proves that though there were this natural reference of Images to their Prototypes by reason of personal similitude of Figure yet it would be Idolatry to Worship them Vpon the seventh Paragraph Which I do more-fâ—lly inculcate in the beginning of the last part of this seventh Paragraph And in the first and second part thereof copiously demonstrate that though these Images have the similitude of Signification onely as he loves to call it and not of Figure yet it is Idolatry over and over again to Worship them Which Hypothesis he chiefly or rather onely adheres to and has sported and playd away his time in superfluously and weakly trifling against the first part of my Dilemma is if he would make good the similitude of Figure betwixt the Images and Prototypes when he seems to believe neither any truth nor necessity of it but onely to make a show of confuting this seventh Chapter when he has left the latter end of the sixth Paragraph and this whole seventh untouched which is the main drift of all namely to shew that whether the Images have any similitude with their Prototypes or no yet it is Idolatry to Worship them and that therefore the Council of Trent has no subterfuge in this regard to excuse themselves from the charge of Idolatry in appointing the honour they appoint to them CHAP. VIII The Doctrine of the second Council of Nice touching the Worship of Images to which the Council of Trent refers that it is grosly Idolatrous also 1. BUT now as for the other Reason of these Tridentine Fathers whereby they would support their Determination in this point Viz. the Authority of the second Council of Nice held about the year 780 to omit that long before this time the Church had become asymmetral which yet is a very substantial Consideration I shall only return this brief answer The God of Israel which is the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ has given this express command to his Church for ever Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image thou shalt not bow down to it nor worship it But the second Council of Nice says Thou mayst and shalt bow down to to the Image of Christ of the blessed Virgin and of the rest of the Saints Now whether it be fit to believe and obey God or men judg ye I might add farther men so silly and frivolous in the defense of their Opinions so false and fabulous in the Allegations of their Authorities and the recitall of miraculous Stories as Chemnitius has proved at large in his Examen of the Council of Trent 2. I will give an Instance or two Mat. 5. 15. No man lighteth a candle and putteth it under a bushell therefore the Images of the Saints are to be placed on the Altars and Wax-candles lighted up before them in due honour to them Again Psalm 16. But to the Saints that are on the Earth But the Saints are in Heaven say they therefore their Images ought to be on the Earth c. As for the Miracles done by Images as their Speaking the Healing of the sick the Revenging of the wrong done to them the distilling of roâ—id drops of balsame to heal the wounded sick or lame their Recovering water into a dry Well and the like it were too tedious to recite these Figments But that of the Image of the Virgin to whom her Devotionist spake when he took leave of her and was to take a long Journey intreating her to look to her Candle which he had lighted up for her till his return I cannot conceal For the Story says the same Candle was burning six months after at the return of her Devoto An example of the most miraculous Prolonger that ever I met withall before in all my days Such an Image of the Virgin would save poor Students a great deal in the expense of Candles if the thing were but lawfull and feasible 3. From these small hints a man may easily discover of what Authority this second Council of Nice ought to be though they had not concluded so point-blank against the Word of God But because that Clause in this Paragraph of the Council I have recited Id quod Conciliorum praesertim verò secundae Nicaenae Synodi c. may as well aim at the determination of what these Fathers mean by that debitus honor reverentia which they declare to be due to the Images of Christ and the Saints as confirm their own Conclusion by the Authority of that Nicene Council we will take notice also what a kinde of Honour and Reverence to Images the Nicene Council did declare for and in short it is this That they are to be worshipped and adored and to be honoured with Wax-candles and by the smoaking of Incense or Perfumes and the like Which smells rankly enough in all conscience of Idolatry as Grotius himself upon the Decalogue cannot but acknowledge But this is not all The Invocation of Saints their Mediation and propitiating God for us for adoring their Images â—ealing of Diseases and other Aids and Helps besides
so well known that I need not quote any Authours And that this is the practice of the Roman Church jointly and coherently with their Worship of Images is manifest to all the world and that therefore it is as arrant Idolatry as Paganism it self and consequently real Idolatry by the third Conclusion of the first Chapter And lastly it is to be noted that the Council of Trent naming the debitus Honor of Images and not excepting these in known practice then among them must of all reason be conceived to mean these very Circumstances as Paganicall as they are of the Worshipping of them 7. And the rather because they do pretend to rectify some Miscarriages in the business of Images as any unlawfull or dishonest Gain by them all lascivious Dresses of the Images all Drunkenness and disorderly Riot at their Feasts and the like Which methinks is done with as grave caution against Idolatry as if they had decreed that all the Whores in Rome should forbear to go in so garish apparell that they should be sure to wear clean linen to be favourable to poor younger Brothers in the price of a night's Lodging that they keep themselves wholsome and clean from the Pox and the like which were not the putting down but the establishing of whores and Whoredome in the Papacy And so are these Cautions touching Images Exceptio firmat regulam in non exceptis Wherefore these Circumstances of Idolatry being not named by the Tridentine Fathers in their Exception they are thereby ratify'd Which yet are so like the old Pagan Idolatry that Ludovicus Vives one of their own Church could not abstain from professing non â—osse aliquid discrimen ostendi nisi quòd nomina tanium titulos mutaverint That onely the Names and Objects were changed not the Modes of the ancient Idolatry of the Heathen 8. If the Council of Trent would have really and in good earnest rectify'd their Church in the point of Images they should have followed the Example of that skilfull and famous Physician Dr. Butler they should have imiâ—ated his Prescript touching the safe eating of a Pear viz. That we should first pare it very carefully and then be sure to cut out or scoup out all the Coar of it and after that fill the hollow with Salt and when this is done cast it forthwith into the Kennell This is the safest way of dealing with those things that have any intrinsick Poison or Danger in them See those most wholesome and judicious Homilies of our Church of England against the Perill of Idolatry 9. And thus much shall serve for the setting out the Idolatry of the Church of Rome so far as it seems to be allow'd by the Church it self But for those more gross Extravagancies which though they have connived at yet they would be loath to own upon publick Authority I will neither weary my self nor my Reader by meddling with them Such as the making the Images to sweat their Eyes to move the making them to smile or lowre and look sad to feel heavy or light or the like Which does necessarily tend to the engaging of the people to believe and have assiance in the very Images themselves as those Consecrations also imply which I cited out of Châ—mnitâ—us and which that Rhyme seems to acknowledge which they say to that Face of Christ which they call the Veronica Which Rhyme runs thus Nos perduc ad patriam felix ô Figura Ad videndam Faciem quae est Christi pura Nos ab omni macula purga Vitiorum Et tandem consortio junge Beatorum And with such like blinde Devotion do they likewise speak to the Cross O Crux spes unica Hoc Passionis tempore Aâ—ge piis Iustitiam Reâ—sque dona Veniam This must sound very wildly and extravagantly to any sensible ear And yet the invoking any Saint before his Image for Aid and Succour the Image bearing the name and representation of the Saint with Eyes and Hands lift up to it is as arrant talking with a sensless Stock or a Stone as this and as gross a piece of Idolatry though approved of by the Authority of the Roman Church But I intended to break off before CHAP. IX His Answer to the first Paragraph That the image of Christ says he may be worshipped â—ith â—â—e â—orship of â—atria though expresâ—y contrary to the Doctrine of the second Council of Nice is the commonly supposed Opinion of St. Thomas and St. â—onaventure But there is a great difference betwixt is to be worsâ—ipped and may be worshipped And besides it is hard to say what the meaning of these two Doctors is they wind about so and enter into such nice distinctions c. The Reply AS to the being contrary to the Council of Nice I Reply That I have already shown that it is most consonant thereto both from Photius and the Council it self And therefore Thomas and Bonaventure being such very ancient Schoolmen about 400 years ago and therefore much nearer to the Nicene Council it is most likely they followed the air of that Council and of Pope Adrians letter to Irene and Constantine approved by that Council And it is incredible that Pope Adrians letter and the sense of the Council concerning so great a point and â—f so high importance should be unknown to the Church of Rome especially the more learned of them for above four hundered years together Touching May be worshipped and Is to be worshipped I demand whether any undue VVorship may be given to the Image of Christ. If therefore that VVorship which may be given is due and fit it is plain it is to be given or ought to be given which questionless was the Opinion of both Thomas and Bonaventure And lastly As to the winding into nice distinctions what distinctions are here but onely of Terminativè and Relativè or Transitive which are intelligible enough viz That Latria cannot be given to the Image of Christ Terminativè but onely Relativè or Transitivè It must 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pass to the Prototype as the Council of Nice speaks That is to say We must do Divine honour to the Image of Christ that Christ ultimately may be honoured thereby which is plainly to commit gross Idolatry to the glory and honour of Christ. And therefore my Adversary durst name none of these nice distinctions not because they are above the capacity of the Vulgar but because even a Vulgar capacity can easily observe the folly and futility of them His Answer to the second Paragraph First he says That my alledging of Azorius is a proofless Accusation or Calumny against them I suppose because â— cite not the very place and words Secondly Touching the Doctrine zâ—rius witnesses of he says it is so far from being the constant Opinion of their Theologers that it is now generally rejected by them unless limited by that qualifying distinction of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he says I have forgot or purposely
ask him Does he there establish the bounty of God on the bounty of evil men but argues à Minori if they that are less willing and able to do good notwithstanding do it much more will God who is goodness it self and infinitely able and willing to do good be sure to do good to those that call upon him And so say I If it be the right of finite Mortals that have the supreme Power to define and declare it is much more or most of all true in God Almighty who is also infinitely good and wise that he hath the right to define and declare c. So that my Antagonist without any Offence against Logick or impeachment to his Judgement might have saved himself the labour of this assault upon my first Conclusion and ingenuously confessed it as it is impregnable and inexpugnable His Answer to the second Conclusion His assault also on my second Conclusion is very oblique and elusory Now says he that the whole Decalogue is moral he makes some needless attempts to prove chiefly for the second Commandments sake All which proofs it is easy to take off by this single Answer I say then as to the second Commandment if he expound it so as onely to Prohibit the making or worshipping of Idols or Images of false Gods I shall readily grant it to be moral and strictly binding both the Jews and Christians But if he puts any other meaning on the Text he begs the Question and he must excuse me if I call for â—is further proof c. The sense of which Answer in brief is this That though he acknowledge the whole Decalogue moral Else why does he say I make needless attempts to prove it yet if I expound the Morality of the second Commandment so as that I would thereby show it unlawfull to worship any Images saving of false Gods which he calls Idols that it will not go down with him unless I more fully prove the Morality of this Commandment to extend also to the Prohibition of worshipping any Image suppose of the true God or of Saints and good Angels This is the full sense and scope of this first Answer But he comes in also with a secondly That some both Catholick and Protestant Divines own no more then a Ceremonial Precept in the second Commandment if extended to any Vniversal Prohibition of all Images and under that notion given onely to the Jews The Reply In Reply to the First I first take notice That he is fain to pass over my first ground of this second Conclusion as too hard for him to deal with namely the Spirituality of our Christian Religion Which ground being unshaken the second Conclusion remains firm from Instances of Jewish Idolatry in Scripture But now for the extent of the Moral sense of the second Commandment of the Decalogue that it should forbid the bowing to any Images whatsoever in the way of Religion or Devotion the words aptly spreading to that latitude In the first place I say My Adversary should bring reason to the contrary For we are with fear and reverence to receive the Laws of God in such an extent or latitude of sense as it being natural will be most effectual to keep us from sinning against them Otherwise if my Adversary would be still more humoursom and would say That stealing from a man of another Religion killing of him or covering his goods were Lawfull and I should produce those Commandments against him Thou shalt not steal Thou shalt not kill Thou shalt not covet c. He might roundly reply after his Fashion that if I understand them of stealing from killing or coveting any ones goods but theirs of our own Religion I beg the Question Which consideration alone methinks should make any one senside of the great absurdity of his Answer to the present case of worshipping of Images But yet again in the second place I say it is necessary and inevitable to understand the second Commandment in that extent of sense that I suppose it to have For it is manifest that the second Commandment as well as the first treats of Religion and our Worship of God The first is Thou shalt have no other Gods but me that is to say We shall exhibit Religious Worship to no other Beings besides himself and so make as if they were Gods For the all-wise God knows there is really no other Gods besides himself nor any can really make them so But men may make as if there were by giving Religious Worship to them though they be no Gods So that here all false Deities whether Angels Daemons or separate souls of men or what ever Powers of nature are plainly forbid to be worshipped or made Gods of or acknowledged to be Gods by any Religious Worship Which therefore à fortiori takes away all erecting Images to be bowed to or worshipped in reference to them In so much that the second Commandment seems Tautological or at least superfluous if it be meerly to forbid the making of Images of Worship for those Gods whose at all having or any way worshipping is already so plainly forbid Whence it necessarily follows that at least chiefly though not onely the making and worshipping of Images in reference to the true God is forbid by the second Commandment Whom the Commandment strictly forbids to be worshipped in any Image whatsoever that represents any thing in the whole Universe Heaven Earth or Sea c. This I say is plainly the principally intended sense according to free and unprejudiced Reason But yet the Precept is so penned that in a secondary scope it forbids the Religious bowing to or worshipping all Images whatsoever Thus plain is it that the worshipping any Images of the true God is here strictly forbidden contrary to what our Adversary pretends Which Interpretation the Law-giver himself who best knows the meaning of his own Laws do's plainly ratify Exod. 32. where Israel worshipping God himself in a visible Image the Golden Calf provoked Gods wrath so as tâ—ere fell thirty Thousand of them by the Sword for so hainous a crime of Idolatry So that the true Exposition of this Law as Draco's Law was said of old to have been was written in blood So solid and authentick is this sense thereof namely That as he will have nothing else besides himself worshipped with Religious Worship so himself will not be worshipped in an Image or Similitude of any thing in Heaven Earth or Sea that is in the whole Universe But then thirdly out of my Adversaries own Concession As it is already manifest that the erection of an Image to the true God is forbidden by this Commandment so is the worshipping of Images in reference to Saints and Angels here also forbidden For my Adversary do's readily grant that the Precept is Moral and strictly binding as to the Prohibition of the Worship of the Images of false Gods Now I say There is no more than one God and the rest no otherwise made
In which there is not onely a similitude of Signification but of real and personal likeness But this was onely to bring in that sly saâ—ing He who honours man as he is the image of God honours God in his Image Whenas there is no man honours man in reference to God as you pretend to honour the Image of Christ terminating your Worship in him But we do civil honour onely to men and in bowing to them onely signifie our inclination and readiness to do them all good offices of love service and in the mean time acknowledge there is that in them that is worthy of civil honour and esteem And lastly I say as to the pretense of specifick similitude of Figure it signifies no more as to the intended honour of an Individual then if there were no similitude at all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For not to signiâ—ie one determinate thing is to signifie nothing as Aristotle says But by vertue of the direction of our intention we may make any thing signifie any thing To the second I Reply That if the Case the Doctor puts be more than poâ—â—â—ible then it is probable or possible so that he yields what I would have But I will not yield him that he has brought a fit instance or that he has spoke right in that Instance For neither were these Cherubims â—ntended for the symbolical presence of Angels but of God nor was any honour done to the Cherubims or their Prototypes although here again he slily would infuse this poyson of Idolatry into his ignorant Party though with a reproach to God and Moses His Answer to the sixth Paragraph To the first part of this Paragraph he Answers That the Images of the Saints represent them such as they were upon Earth onely with an additional mark of a Crown or Lawrel to signifie their triumphant state in Glory And then That an Image may be like to a separate Soul as well as to an Angel or Cherubim he would infer from that Opinion of the Platonists who make separate Souls invested with aereall or aethereal Vehicles as well as the Angels To the second he Answers that if a terrestrial Image cannot represent that Person who is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God-man then neither can a terrestrial eye represent him and so the Apostles whilest living did never see that Person who was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God-man which is no less then blasphemy as implying that that Person called Iesus Christ whom the Apostles dayly beheld with their eyes was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God-man The Reply To the first I Reply That unless my Adversary here suppose what he can never make good that they have the true effigies of the Saints such as they were upon Earth he is never the near as to this first curiosity whether he phancy them represented such as they were on Earth or such as they are now in Heaven But being Religious Worship is not due to them till they be canonized to represent them such as they were on Earth is to represent them in Order to Religious Worship such as they were before they were capable of Religious Worship And the Lawrel and Crown he talks of those are not on their Images or Statues but onely a Glory over their Heads in their Pictures so far as I remember of which the genuine signification is That that picture stands for them such as they are now in glory and there is the same sense of their Statues and of their Pictures Moreover his supposal is false and contrary to his own Assertion before when he asserts that the Images of Cherubims or Angels are like in Figure to the Angels themselves as if there were Ox-headed and Lyon-headed Angels And lastly suppose we should be so courteous as to grant him the doctrine of the Platonists that Souls separate have aereal or aethereal Vehicles what would this advantage him they allowing no settled Figure to them And if there were an humane Figure allowed when we have no knowledge what was their individual terrestrial Figure how shall we know what is their aereal or aethereal And though the Figure was known what terrestrial matter can express that lively enravishing spiritual beauty that is in those lucid Vehicles So that though the Figure were 〈◊〉 the form which is the life of the Figure would be quite lost and be nothing near so like the separate Soul as the dead carcass of the greatest beauty on Earth after four days lying in the grave would be to the said party when alive So that my Adversary in his Answer to this first part seems to indulge to humours and fetches of wit rather than to reason soberly and so as to prove a personal likeness betwixt the Saints and their Images And this in like sort may be said of his Answer to the second part which is indeed an odd unexpected fetch of wiâ— but hugely rude and harsh that would pretend to fix on my Argument the horrid crime of blasphemy when it is in truth the asserting the transcendent excellency of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Christ not the denying of it which were an hainous piece of blasphemy against the Son of God indeed I say therefore that when I ask what terrestrial Image can possibly represent him that is truely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God-man that no mans mind that is not very extravagant could ever phancy that I meant any other Image then what is external to our sight which that in our eye is not Again it is manifest that I mean it of some Image that represents the absent and invisible Humanity of Christ by reason of its absence and not such an Image as a Parelion or a Paraselene are that do not represent the Sun or Moon but by vertue of the presence of those Luminaries Nor did tâ—e Image of Christ in the eyes of the Apostles or other men represent Christ any otherwise then by 〈◊〉 of his Presence But it is plain to any that will not cavil that I understand my own words of such Images as represent the absent as the Statue of Caesar of Virgil and the like And then lastly I flatly deny that the Image of an external Object in the eye is terrestrial For the Image is not in the nervous bottom of the eye but butts onely upon it as the Images let in upon white paper through a Hole in a dark room That Image is not fixed nor subjected in the paper but in the ethereal matter that touches the paper And so the Image is in the ethereal matter that touches the bottom of the eye not in the bottom of the eye it self But ethereal matter is not terrestrial and therefore this no terrestrial Image Unto all which I add That it does not follow but that though the Image in the eye call it terrestrial or ethereal had not the adequate or principal power of representing Christ God-man to the Apostles when he was on Earth yet the presence of
Ora prâ— nobis are manifestly involved in the Worship of these Images according to that Nicene Council 4. And truly according to the Collections of Photius in Iustellus one would think that they meant the Cultus Latriae to the Image of Christ they using the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if that Worship which was done to the Image passed through to Christ himself which would not be sutable to him if itwere not Divine Worship And where that word is not used yet the sense makes hugely for it As in this Paragraph touching the second Council of Nice according to Photius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This seventh Synod saith he that is to say the second of Nice with joint suffrages hath established and ratifj'd the worshipping of the Image of Christ for the honour and reverence of him that is expressed by it this Worship and Honour being done in such manner as when we approach the holy Symbols or Types of our most holy and Divine Worship for the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For we do not stop at them nor restrain our Worship and Devotion to them nor are we divided toward heterogeneous and different Scopes or Objects but by that Service and worship of them that appears divided are we carried up devoutly and undividedly unto the one and indivisible Deity Whereby it is plainly declared that that very Worship which passes to the Deity is done towards the Image of Christ first or jointly as being one and the same undivided Worship in truth and reality as also that this Worship is that Worship which is called Latria and is due to the highest God onely 5. But that Religious Worship is done to the Images of all the Saints seems imply'd in what comes afterwards where it is said that this second Council of Nice which Photius calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That this Council has not onely established and appointed that the Image of Christ should be honoured and worshipped but the holy Images of the Virgin Mary and of all the Saints according to the excellency and venerability of their Prototypes For even by these are we carried up into a certain unitive and conjunctive vision and thereby are vouchsafed that divine and supernatural conâ—â—nction or contact with the highest of all desirables that is God himself 6. Can any thing more inflame the Souls of men with that mystical lust after Idols then the Doctrines of this Nicene Synod For as for the Image of Christ the same Devotion and Worship is done to that which is done to God himself And for the Images of the Virgin Mary and the rest of the Saints though that Worship is allotted them onely that is proportionable to their Prototypes yet they are worshipped such a way as that thereby while we adhere to their Images or Statues we are declared to be made fit for and to be vouchsafed a tactual Union with God himself What Philtrum more effectual to raise up that Idolomania that being mad and lovesick after Images and Idols then this What can inrage their Affections more towards Idolatry then to phansie that while they worship Idols and cling about dead Statues that very individual act and therefore it cannot be too intense is that wherewith they are united to and lie in the very Embraces of the everliving and true God 7. The sense of the Synod is according to the representation of Photius that we worship and unite our selves with God as well in the worshipping the Images of the Virgin and of other Saints as in the worshipping of the Image of Christ. So that all is Religious Worship and consequently gross Idolatry it being done to Stocks and Stones and such like sensless Objects For the drift of all Idolatry is when it is questioned and craftily defended that through the Worship of Daemons and Images they reach at the Worship of and the joyning their Devotion to the first and highest God-head Wherefore the Council of Trent declaring with the second Council of Nice that is to say the blind leading the blind they have both fallen into this dreadfull Pit of Idolatry CHAP. VIII Vpon the first Paragraph TO this first Paragraph he has given his Answer already in what he has said to the first Paragraph of the former Chapter viz. Here the Doctor gives us a learned Antithesis between the Commandment of God and Decree of this Council The like Rhetorical flourish he uses against the second Council of Nice c. See my Reply to his Answer on that Paragraph There is no need of any thing new to be said His Answer to the second Paragraph To that about the weak reasonings of the Council which he says I would gladly father upon them he pretends to think it a child of my own brain till I take the pains to prove it is none of mine Touching the Miracles there mentioned But whereas saith he the Council recites some Miracles in favour of the due honour given to the Images of Christ and his Saints these he most profoundly confutes by an unanswerable laughter This is the main if not all to this second Paragraph The Reply To the first I Reply It is Chemnitius not I that fathers those subtil reasonings upon the Fathers of the Nicene Council And though I have not had the time nor curiosity to examin the History of the Council my self so throughly and exactly as to affirm of my own notice that this is the very reasoning of the Nicene Fathers yet this I will say for Chemnitius that I find him so far as I can see carefull in the main of his account of things not omitting that of the seventh Action which my Adversary alledges so triumphantly against Photius Which we shall consider anon As for that of â—salm 16. I am sure they bring it in impertinently enough But can any thing be more impertinent than that of Pope Adrian who influenced the Council in his letter to Irene and her son Constantine where pleading zealously for Image-Worship he urges these places of Scripture Vultum tuum Domine requiram Psalm 26. Ad vultum tuum depreâ—abuntur omnes divites plebis Psalm 44. And again Psalm 4. Signatum est super nos lumen vultus tui c. Thy face Lord will I seek Lord lift thou up the light of thy Countenance upon us Therefore Images are to be erected and lights set up before them as if the light of Gods Countenance were to be reflected from these painted Statues or his face to be sought in looking up to graven Images which his Soul abhors But such seems to be the arguing of Pope Adrian to these two Princes And as for the middle Quotation it is very modestly or very cunningly done of the Pope that he did not take a greater share of that verse and say In muneribus vultum tuum deprecabuntur omnes divites plebis But then the plot had been more easily smelt out that the Zeal for Images was in reference to the
this plainly a consecration to the honour and name of the Saint And again in the Form of consecrating the Church and the Altar Te rogamus ut hanc Ecclesiam Altare ad honorem tuum women Sancti tui N. pargare benedicere digneris where questionless ad nomen Sancti includes honorem in it which was expresly signified before in the consecrating the Foundation-stone and is also included in the signification of nomen We do not pretend that you equalize the Saints in these doings with God himself but that you make them partake of true Religious Worship though in a less share or in a more secundary way with God in these dedications of Temples and Altars to them as well as to God though not principally or equallâ— Suppose a Pantheon dedicated to Jupiter and the rest of the Gods no man would say it was dedicated with equal honour to the rest as to him and yet the dedicating of it to the rest would be Idolatry as being Religious Worship as well as his though not at the same pitch wherefore these excuses are very weak and insignificant His Answer to the seventh Paragraph I shall not foul my paper with taking notice of such unsâ—emly brothel-language as fills up his next page It is enough to say it is more than becomes a modest Doctor This is all to this Paragraph The Reply Certainly if this Paragraph were not before the Readers eyes to peruse he would think the Doctor a man of very soul and obscene language If it be the language of the holy men of God in the Scripture If it be not more than becomes a modest Prophet a modest St. John Apoc. 17. 2 4. a modest Jeremy or Ezekiâ—l to compare Idolatry to whoredom in broader terms than I have done certainly what I have said here is not more than becomes a modest Doctor But it is the Policy of my Adversary to fling away with a seeming disdain from what he knows not how to Answer For this plain Similitude pinches hard and carries along with it a demonstration that the Council of Trent have not taken away Idolatry from their way of honouring of Images but confirmed it He slips by my eighth Paragraph also as conscious it is too true what I utter in that similtude likewise And I hope he now sees more clear than ever that the prâ—â—ence of honouring Images is quite to be cast out of the Church there being no good sense to be made of it any way His Answer to the ninth Paragraph To that of the smiling and lowring Images he says That I charge their Church with connivence at such Vnchristian Impostures as have ever been the Object of her sâ—arpest Censures not backing my Accusation with any single Instance To the Veronica and to O Crux spes Unica he Answers To the first that it is no part of any Ecclesiastick Office To the second that I might as well compare the Invoking God Almighty before the Ark of the Coveâ—ant to this devotion of speaking to the Cross as the praying before Images and make them both alike talking with a stock or stone This is the main of his Answer in brief If there be any further pretense of Reason I shall mention it and meet with it in my Reply The Reply To the first I Reply That it is a witty fetch to require of me an Instance of connivence at a fault which as soon as it is known is no interest of them that are to punish it to connive any longer at it For those smiling lowring and eye-rowling Images so soon as they are deprehended to be such by Art and not by Miracle they loose the effect they are intended for which is to bring more plenteous Oblations to the Church But for as much as these tricks of the Images cannot but be known to the wise of the Clergy the Bishop and others under him to be tricks and not Miracles and they suffering them till open discovery or complaint why may they not be said to connive at them or why was I bound to bring an Instance of their connivence in so short a Treatise more than my Advâ—rsary of any sharp Censure of their Church against these Impostures which he being deficient inâ— I will help him with one Instance here in our own Nation in the time of Popery In the Abbey Church at Boxley there were two famous Images one of St. Rumwald a stone statue of the bigness of a little boy the other was called the Roâ—d of Grace There was no admission here but upon a treble Oblation one to the Confessor the other to St. Rumwald the touch-stone of clean life and the last to the Rood of Grace Now to those that offered frankly to St. Rumwald it was most easie to lifâ— him but on the contrary by reason of a pin which the keepers could put in and take out at their pleasure to those that offered faintly it was immovable So that it was a pleasant spectacle to the by-standers to see a great lubber not able to lift that which a boy or a girle had taken up before But he was made heavy to those whose Offerings were light and light to those whose Offerings were more weighty But they having passed this tryal of clean life they then were admitted to the Rood of Grace In which Image stood a man inclosed and with many wyres made the Image goggle with the eyes and nod the head move and shake the jaws according to the value of the giâ—t that was offered If it was a small piece of silver he would hang the lip If it were a piece of gold then would his jaws go right merrily Thus were the people abused and beguiled for a certain time I but you will say certainly some of the Prelates so soon as it was discovered severely punished the Imposture Nay I will tell you more One of the Prelates discovered it namely Archbishop Cranmer and the Image with all its engins was openly shewed at Pauls Cross and torn in pieces by the people Did not I tell you so will my Adversary reply But in the mean time let me tell him again that it is well known how inclinable then Archbishop Cranmer was to Protestantism if not a Protestant in his judgement But we speak of the Connivence of the Popish Clergy in this point and desire one Instance of any such discovery of Imposture by them that could any longer have been concealed And if not where is the Calumny of Connivence And for the Prayer to the Veronica be it no part of any Ecclesiastick Office yet it is in your approved Devotion-books such as Hortulus Animae and this Veronica is showd solemnly once a year to the people to spend their devotion on and lastly Pope Iohn the 22d is said to have granted a thousand years indulgence to them that repeat the whole Prayer of which I have set down but a third part And in the last place For that he says
The praying before the Ark to God Almighty which Ark and the things in it and about it are wood may as well be said to be talking with stocks and stones as the praying before the Image of a Saint and the Cross in such formes as are used to them is a most sensless and absurd speech to say no worse For the disparity is manifest For did the Jews ever say O Ark hear me or O Cherubims hear me But here is plainly speaking to the Cross which is but a piece of wood in this form Hail O Cross our onely Hope increase righteousness to the righteous and pardon our sins Besides neither Ark nor Cherubim was in their sight to speak to But the Image of St. Peter or the Blessed Virgin is before their eyes and they bear the names of these Saints as the Image of Christ does his of which one Johannes in the Nicene Council declares if any one call it or inscribe upon it This is Christ he does nothing amiss therein and are as it were these very Saints represented to us in Figure and Person and therefore when we speak to these wooden Personages saying O blessed Virgin O holy St. Peter c. is not this infinitely more like talking to stocks and stones then when the Jews having their faces toward the Ark which yet was vailed from them mentioned God alone nor was there any wood-work nor stone-work there that was called God or Jehovah But what will not they say that are in a bad Cause to make a show to desend themselves But for O Crux ave spes Vnica he would excuse the gross absurdity of it For none can excuse the Idolatry when they yield Latria to the true Cross and contend what kind of Religious Worship is due to the Type of it by saying that by Crux here is not meant the Cross but Christ crucified on the Cross. So that it is but a figurative speech The Cross for Christ upon the Cross Metonymis subjectâ— as it is used 1 Cor. 1. 18. For the preaching of the Cross is to them that perish foolishness that is says he Christ crucified on the Cross. But it is immediately in the former verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 left the Cross of Christ be made of none effect Then immediately follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is plainly an Ellipsis and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so the whole is For the preaching of the Cross of Christ c. As it is taken Gal. 6. 24. God forbid that I should glory in any thing saving in the Cross of our Lord Iesus Christ whereby the world is crucified to me and I unto the world This is that which is foolishness to them that perish but the Power of God to them that are saved So that there is no ground for a Metonyâ—nia Subjecti when an Ellipsis is so naturally understood which will not at all serve his purpose And the Metonymy indeed very poorly For it does not follow because by a figurative speech the Subject may be put for the Adjunct or the Symbol for the Person it is compared to in speech that therefore we may and yet seem to be in our wits make Prayers or speeches to these Subjects or Symbols The Cherubims are the seat of the Divine Presence should the Jews therefore have said by a Metonymy O golden Cherubims come and help us And because men talk of the infallible chair at Rome meaning the Popes would any but a mad man propound questions to the chair and not to the Pope himself to be resolved And our Saviour Christ says Apoc. 22. I am the bright morning Star which is a figurative speech Can therefore any one with eyes and hands lift up to the morning Star say unto it O bright morning Star illuminate my understanding increase righteousness to the righteous and pardon our sins but he will be lookt upon as an Idolater and Star-worshipper and to say he means Christ the morning Star will not excuse him from mere madness and delirancy if it could from Idolatry And how much better I pray is it to speak to a piece of wood nay to the figure of another piece of wood For Christ was not crucified on the wood they speak to But by speaking to this piece of wood they would be understood to speak to another piece of wood on which Christ was crucified at Ierusalem nor yet to that piece of wood neither but to Christ hanging on the wood and that now at such a time as he is off of the wood and is in Heaven to be spoke to himself as a gracious Intercessor that we may not call on this stock or that stone but make our immediate addresses to him in word and heart that he would be graciously pleased to intercede with his Father for us To all which you may add That comparing this passage of the Prayer with that which goes before Arbor decora fulgida Electa digno stipite Tam sancta membra tangere Beata cujus brachiis secli pependit pretium and how within a line or two after follows O Crux ave spes Vnica c. it is demonstratively plain that it is the Cross it it self not Christ meant in this passage unless you will make Christ his own Cross to hang upon and make him distinct from his own Body and members Whence the Absurdity and Idolatry of this devotion is most clearly manifest and that it is no Calumny to charge them with it The rest of this Section is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if you will and I will leave my Antagonist to injoy himself in the reek and perfume thereof CHAP. X. Severall important Consectaries from this clear Diseovery of the gross Idolatry of the Church of Rome with an hearty and vehement Exhortation to all men that have any serious regard to their Salvation to beware how they be drawn into the Communion of that Church 1. THus have we abundantly demonstrated that the Church of Rome stands guilty of gross Idolatry according to the concâ—ssions and Definitions of their own Council of Trent that is to say though we charge them with no more then with what the Council it self doth own touching the Adoration of the Host the Invocation of Saints and the Worshipping of Images But we must not forget in the mean time that the Crime grows still more course and palpable looking upon the particular forms of their Invocation of the Saints and the Circumstances of their worshipping their Images and yet ratify'd by the Popes and corroborated by the uncontrolled practice of their whole Church Which therefore must in all reason be the Interpreter of the minde of the Council So that there is no evasion left for them but that they are guilty of as gross and palpable Idolatry as ever was committed by the sons of men no less gross then Roman Paganism it self 2. From whence in
lyes the charity and moderation they boast of Why I 'll tell you In this â— hat whereas Protestancy that is Christian Religion quatenus reformed from the errors of Rome wants no repentance and the Errors and mispractises of the Church of Rome are so hainous and enormous that most Protestants comparing the Crimes of that Church with the menaces of Scripture do conclude the Adherers thereto in the state of Damnation without any more to do so soon as they adhere unto it Dr. Hammond and Dr. Potter are so charitable that though men dye in that Church yet by a general sincere repentance such as implies that if their Errors and mispractises were discovered to them to be such they would forthwith leave the Communion of that Church declare they may be saved which is the same I profess too But we declare in the mean time that it is perfect madness in any one to go over to such a Church in which there is no Salvation but upon supposition that if we knew the gross Errors and mispractises of it we would presently renounce Communion with it which if we did not we should certainly be damned But behold a third fetch also Nothing is more current saith he amongst them when they are pressed with the Crime of Schism then to return the Charge upon us from other grounds saying that as the Donatiâ—ts and Luciferians were so we are Schismaticks in cutting off from the Body of Christ and hope of Salvation other Churches from which we are divided in Communion From which he would infer that we should make our selves Donatists and Luciferians if we should cut them off from hope of Salvation To which I Reply That this must be current onely amongst them that phancy themselves pressed with the Crime of Schism But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How soft and yielding must they be how weak and feeble that can phancy themselves pressed with such an Objection Certainly those must be but very few And therefore this Answer must be current but with a very few Our constant Answer is that they are Shismaticks that depart from the Communion of the truly ancient and Apostolick Church Of whose lineage we do avow ouâ— selves to be and do plainly and irrefragably prove it And therefore you are Apostates from us and Schismaticks that you do not cast off your enormous errors and hainous practises and Communicate with us But with the Lucifâ—rians and Donatists you make your selves more holy and call us Hereticks when your selves are really the Hereticks and Schismaticks In this are you like the Donatists and Luciferians and unjustly take upon you to cut us short of Salvation But does it thence follow we justly declaring you debar'd of Salvation by reason of your open Idolatries and Murders of the innocent people of God that we become thereby also Donatists and Luciferians let any indifferent man judge But the last and strongest prop of so bad a Cause is the great and venerable Authority of Dr. Thorndike an ingenuous Son of the Church of England Of whom he says In regard I have mentioned so eminent a person and member of the Church of England as Dr. Thorndike I shall make bold to turn him into the lists against Dr. More The Antithesis of their doctrines is very remarkable for they run diametrically opposite one to another 1. Dr. More affirms the VVorship of the Host in the Papacy to be Idolatry Dr. Thorndike ch 19. denies the VVorship of the Host in the Papacy to be Idolatry 2. Dr. More holds that the placing and reverencing Images in Churches is Idolatry Dr. Thorndike ch 19. holds that the placing and reverencing Images in Churches is not Idolatry 3. Dr. More will have Invocation of Saints to be inexcusable Idolatry Dr. Thorndike ch 16. excuses Invocation of Saints from Idolatry 4. Lastly Dr. More exhorts all men to separate from the Church of Rome as Idolaters But â—r Thorndike ch 1. avows to all the world that those who separate from the Church of Rome as Idolaters are thereby Schismaticks before God VVhen the two Doctors are fully agreed upon these Points Dr. More shall hear more from me if he desires it In the mean time I shall intreat him to respite my pen for some other Employment Repl. Dr. Thorndike I confess is a Person whom his years and repute of Learning have made venerable But what is this to the point in hand to the proveing the Charge of my being less regardfull then I should be in this Exhortation whether I speak true or false This is a mere popular Topick and this your whole last Section wherein you would fain offer something against this last Chapter of my Antidote but a loose and weak stroke of Rhetorick to drive the simple into your Church as I have seen men drive Geese or Turkies on the high way to London with a stick and long string with a red cloth tyed at the end of it as you annex the splendid name of Dr. Thorndike at the end of this Section to either scare or incourage poor Souls to your Communion But does Dr. Thorndikes being of another mind from me prove that I am in the wrong If this be to conâ—uâ—e a man I can easily conâ—ute Dr. Thorndike himself by shewing that Persons not onely of very eminent Learning but of clear and terse judgments differ from Dr. Thorndike in all these four Antitheses Mr. Ioseph Mede of our Colledge who was so modest a Soul that though he had worth to furnish out I know not how many Doctorships never commenced Doctor let us for the time to make the Comparison more plausible call him Doctor as well as my Adversary does Doctor Thorndike and then say Dr. Thorndike denies the worshipping the Host to be Idolatry Dr Mede affirms it to be Idolatry Dr. Thorndike holds the honouring of Images in Churches to be no Idolatry Dr. Mede affirms it to be Idolatry c. Where is Dr. Thorndike now Nay suppose I should put that eminently Learned Prelate of the Church of England and of singular clearness of Reason and Judgement Bishop Downham once of Christs Colledge in the balance with Dr. Thorndike who in these things is exquisitely of the same mind with Dr. Mede in what elevation would Dr. Thorndike appear then The same I may say of the Archbishop of Armagh Bishop Jewel Arch-bishop Abbot and several other Bishops and Doctors of our Church who at least joyntly if not in several will surely counterpoize the weight of Dr. Thorndikes name Indeed I might say the whole Body of our Church as subscribers to the Homilies of our Church affirm in all these points against Dr. Thorndike Nay I dare with all confidence assert that no man can make any good sense of the 13th and 17th Chapters of the Apocalypse but he will plainly discern that the very Spirit of God himself has declared against him What poor and simple Souls then must they be that can be scared out of the Truth or
Oblations and gifts brought to them This tast may suffice to let the Reader understand what shreâ—d Reasoners they were in that Council when the Pope himself who inspired all by his influence reasons at such a rate as he does Now to the second part I have nothing to Reply but that I think it not so commendable carriage for a mans self to laugh when he tells a story that is ridiculous and therefore it is a breach of Charity at least of Civility to affirm that I laughed where it was not good manners so to do he not possibly hearing me laugh at such a distance as he was removed from me when I writ this Paragraph which makes me believe that he himself could not but laugh at the recital of such incredible stuff and so measured my Corn by his own Bushel His Answer to the third Paragraph From laughing saith he he immediately falls alowring and the Reason is because this Council declares that it is lawfull to burn Candels Incense and Perfumes in honour of the Saints before their Images which he in an angry mood concludes to smell rankly of Idolatry even by the Authority of Grotius himself upon the Decalogue This is all in Answer to this third Paragraph saving his falling foul upon Grotius The Reply It is not unworthy Observation of what a Scenical or Histrionical Genius this Roman Doctor my Adversary is that can raise Comedies and Tragedies thus upon such slight occasions I must confess I am sorry for the Idolatries of their Church but that I did either laugh before or lowre now is onely the Poetical phancy of my Antagonist so to imagine But that the Council of Nice does appoint tâ—e burning of Incense and the lighting of Candles before the Images I shall prove in its proper place In the mean time I would have my Reader take notice that even by the Authority of Grotius himself upon the Decalogue are the words of my Adversary not mine which are these As Grotius himself upon the Decalogue cannot but acknowledge I give little to the Authority of Grotius in himself but to the clearness of the Case that such an one that did so glaver and fawn upon the Church of Rome and endeavour to gratifie her every where to the utmost he could yet was ashamed to venture to gratifie her in a point so clearly against her as this and therefore could not but acknowledge though against his will that the burning of Incense before Images is Idolatry His Answer to the fourth Paragraph Instead of Answering to that Quotation of Photius which plainly implies that the Council of Nice has allotted the Worship of Latria to the Image of Christ he according to his usual Art would make the World believe that I clash again here with our Church of England out of my own positions or Conclusions But the thing he here repeats is Crambe bis cocta heartless and sapless stuff as indeed I proved it to be at first The sum of his Answer is this That when the Sons of the Church of England bow their knees at the Eucharist which to them is a Symbolical presence whether they terminate this act of Worship on the Eucharist or Symbolical presence or profess it does 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pass on to Christ in the first they will be absolute Idolaters by the twentieth Conclusion of my second Chapter in the second they will be obnoxious to what I urge here against the Nicene Council One would think they meant the Cultus Latriae c. This I say is all be seems to be concerned in upon this Paragraph For his exception against Photius his Authority followes in the next The Reply But to this such as it is I Answer or rather say that I have Answered it already upon his first proposing of it where I deny that we of the Church of England take the Bread or Wine to be any symbolical Presence to be bowed to but mere symbolical Instruments of commemorating the Passion and Crucifixion of our Saviour mere holy Elements consecrated to that use And that we do not kneel to them or at their approach but are at our Devotions afore in a posture of Prayer to God and Christ which these Symbols when they are given to us find us aforehand in So that this is a mere Cavil against the Sons of the Church of England and against my self devised and repeated by my Adversary to fill up the defect of better Answerings His Answer jointly to the fourth fifth and sixth Paragraphs His next pretense is to prove positively by the Testimony of Photius that this Council gives the worship of Latria to the Image of Christ. But the Doctor says he had plaid his Master-prize if he had given all this rabble he means both the Quotations in the Councils own words but instead of that he feeds upon Reversions at the second hand takes his Quotations from Photius a Person of as much credit as himself and makes Photius the Paraphrast and Interpreter of the Councils meaning But what if the Council say no such thing Nay what if the Council deliver the quite contrary doctrine How blank then will the Doctors charge look upon the discovery of such Disingenuity And truly had the Doctor but taken so much as a cursory survey of Catholick Authors on this Subject he might have found them frequently and truly quoting this very Council Act. 7. to prove that the Image of Christ is not to be honoured with the Worship of Latria but that such honour and reverence is due to Images in general as to the Books of the Gospel and the holy utensils of the Altar This is all touching this Chapter the rest is raillery and humour which I leave this Roman Doctor to enjoy himself in But by the by in the next â—e pretends that I have omitted the Translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in my second Quotation of Photius in this which therefore I shall touch upon The Reply That these Quotations out of Photius prove that which I produce them for my Adversary cannot deny supposing the Authority of Photius were Authentick Which he vilifies upon no grounds nor has any that I know so to do He was the Patriarch of Constantinople the Chief or Head of the Greek Church where this Council was held And was Patriarch not long after this Council And his place and dignity in the Church and very Genius you may be sure would make him very carefull to understand a Council of so great importance as this And for his Parts and Learning he was extraordinarily famous Concerning which I cannot here abstain from interserting that high Elogium which that Learned Prelate of our Church Dr. Creighton gives him in his Preface to the History of the Florentine Council Illustri Photio Doctiorem in omni genere literarum prudentiorem in rebus gerendis omnis Iuris Divini humanique peritiorem nunquam quovis solio vel Romae Papam vel Constantinopoli Patriarcham