an image if not in one neither is it in the other But what doth this answer signifie unless there be an equal presence and union of the Divine nature of Christ with the Image as there was with the humane nature Which union was the reason of the adoration given to the person of Christ and what ground can there be then of giving divine worship to the Image of Christ unless the same union be supposed If the humane nature without the union of the divine could yield us no sufficient reason of divine worship being given to it how much less can an Image deserve it which can only at the best represent but the external lineaments of that humane nature And if the divine nature be supposed united with the Image then the same divine honour is due to the Image of Christ which is to God himself which yet these Nicene Fathers deny and the Image then joyned with the divine nature is as proper an object of divine worship without respect to any Prototype as the person of Christ is consisting of the divine and humane nature Again they urge If the humane nature of Christ be represented in the Image of Christ to be worshipped as separate from the divine this would be plain Nestorianism To this the good Nicene Fathers not knowing what to answer plainly deny the conclusion and cry They Nestorians No they lye in their teeth they were no more Nestorians than themselves nor so much neither And now good men they say It is true they do represent Christ only by his humane nature in an Image and when they look on Images they understand nothing but what is signified by them as when the birth of the Virgin is represented they conceive in their minds that he who was born was truly God as well as man Alas for them that they should ever be charged with the worship of Images They plead for nothing now but a help to their profound Meditations by them But the Controversie was about worship what ever they think and their Adversaries argument did not lye in the Images being considered as an object of perception but of worship i. e. if the Image can only represent the humane nature of Christ as separate from the divine and in that respect be an object of worship to us then the charge of Nestorianism follows but this they very wisely pass by and their distinction of the Image from the principal cannot serve their turn since the Image receiving the worship due to the principal must have not only the name as they say but the reason of worship common with the principal which it represents After this the Fathers of Constantinople proceed to another Argument which is That all the representation of Christ allowed us by the Gospel is that which Christ himself instituted in the Elements of the Lords Supper whose use was to put us in remembrance of Christ. No other Figure or Type being chosen by Christ as able to represent his being in the flesh but this This was an honourable Image of his quickning body made by himself say they which he would not have of the shape of a man to prevent Idolatry but of a common nature as he took upon him the common nature of man and not any individuated person and as the body of Christ was really sanctified by the divine nature so by institution this holy Image is made divine through sanctification by Grace Here the Nicene Council quarrels with them for calling the Eucharist an Image contrary as they say to the Scriptures and Fathers but they are as much to be believed therein as in their admirable proofs that the worship of Images was the constant doctrine of the Church and having strenuously denyed this they suppose that to be enough to answer the argument Besides these particular arguments against the Images of Christ the Council of Constantinople useth many more against the Images of any other Because these being the chief there can be less reason for any other besides that there is no tradition of Christ or his Apostles or the primitive Fathers for them no way of consecration of them prescribed or practised no suitableness in the use of them to the design of Christian Religion which being in the middle between Iudaism and Paganism it casts off the Sacrifices of the one and not only the Sacrifices but all the Idolatries of the other and it is blasphemy to the Saints in Heaven to call in the Heathen superstitions into Christianity to honour them by that it is unbecoming their glory in Heaven to be set up on earth in dull and sensless Images that Christ himself would not receive testimony from Devils though they spake truth neither can such a Heathenish custome be acceptable to the Saints in Heaven though pretended to be for their honour That nothing can be plainer in the Gospel than that God is a Spirit and will be worshipped in Spirit and in truth to which nothing can be more contrary than the going about to honour God by worshipping any Image of himself or his Saints These and many other arguments from the Scriptures and Fathers that Council insists upon to shew the incongruity of the worship of Images to the nature of God and the design of the Christian Religion to which the Council of Nice returns very weak and trivial answers as shall more largely appear if any one thinks good to defend them And we have this apparent advantage on our side that although the Popes of Rome sided with these worshippers of Images yet the Council at Francford condemned it called together by Charles the Great Not out of misunderstanding their Doctrine as some vainly imagine because as Vasquez well proves the Copy of the Nicene Council was sent to them by Pope Adrian because the Acts of that Council were very well known to the Author of the Book written upon this subject under the name of Charles the Great and published by du Tillet at Paris about the middle of the last Century which is acknowledged by their learnedst men to have been written at the same time because the Popes Legats Theophylactus and Stephanus were present and might easily rectifie any mistake if they were guilty of it and none of the Historians of that time do take notice of any such error among them But Vasquez runs into another strange mistake himself that the Council of Francford did not condemn that of Nice which is evident they did expresly by the second Canon of of that Council published by Sirmondus And all the Objections of Vasquez are taken off by what Sirmondus speaks of the great authority and antiquity of that MS. from which he published them and from the consent of the Historians of that time that the Council of Francford did reject that of Nice and Sirmondus saith they had good reason to deny it to be an Oecumenical Council where only the Greeks met together and none of other Provinces were called
painted and he ought not to be worshipped in any Image but what he hath prescribed us to worship which is Christ that adoration is external or internal that both of them are called Religion by which we are bound eternally to God and only to him from whence it follows that neither Angels nor Saints are to be worshipped by any religious worship for this is the Law of Adoration that no creature no phantasm of God in our minds no work of mens hands ought to be worshipped for if Gods creatures are not to be worshipped much less ours such as Images of God Angels and Saints are Neither is it enough to say that they do not worship the Image but the thing represented for the object terminates the worship and it is a deceit of the Devil under the pretence of honouring the Saints to bring mens minds to Idols and from the true God to carnal things that Images are to be used only for shew and memory and not at all for Religion that God alone is to be worshipped with all Religious worship whether called Latria or Doulia or what name soever and for the casting away all superstition that no Images be painted in Churches no Statues erected nor accounted holy that the true God may be worshipped alone for ever This is the abstract of his Doctrine delivered by Massonus whose other Writings shew he was far from being partial towards the Reformation And the Book it self is lately published by Baluzius again where any one may easily satisfie himself concerning fidelity But Baluzius very honestly tells us some have suspected this Book not to be very Catholick and therefore it was censured by Baronius and the Spanish Index yet he ingenuously confesseth he saith no more than the whole Gallican Church believed in that Age. What that was I have already shewed This I have the larger insisted upon to shew that it is no new thing for us to plead for all Religious worship being appropriated to God and that the command against Image-worship was no Ceremonial Law respecting meerly the Iews but that the reason of it doth extend to all Ages and Nations and especially to us who live under the Gospel From all which it follows that it was not meerly the Heathen Idolatry which was forbidden by God nor barely to prevent their falling to that by degrees but the giving to himself such a worship which he judges so unworthy of him § 10. 3. From those who were best able to understand the meaning of it We can imagine none so competent a Judge of the meaning of a Law as the giver of it and what he afterwards declares to be the sense of this Law The first occasion given for knowing the meaning of the Law concerning Images was not long after the making of it when upon Moses his absence they compelled Aaron to make them a Golden Calf Exod. 32. 4. Here was an Image made contrary to the Law as is on all sides acknowledged but the question is Whether by this the Israelites did fall into the Heathen Idolatry or only worship the true God under that Symbol of his presence That they did not herein fall back to the Heathen Idolatry I thus prove 1. From the occasion of it which was not upon the least pretence of Infidelity as to the true God or that they had now better reason given them for the worship of other Gods besides him but all they say was that Moses had been so long absent they knew not what was become of him and therefore they say to Aaron make us Gods or a God as in Nehem. 9. 18. to go before us We cannot imagine the people so sottish to desire Aaron to make them a God in the proper sense as though they could believe the Calf newly made to have been the God which before it was made brought them out of the Land of Aegypt as they say afterwards v. 4. but it must be understood as the symbol of that God which did bring them from thence the controversie then lyes here Whether they thought the Aegyptian Gods delivered them out of Aegypt while they forsook all their own worshippers to preserve those who were so great enemies to them that their very way of worship was an abomination to all the Aegyptians Exod 8. 26. and whether they could think the Gods of Aegypt had wrought all the Miracles for them in their deliverance and after it Whether they appeared not long before on Mount Sinai and delivered the Law to them Or whether it were not the true God they meant who had made that the Preface to his Laws I am the God that brought thee out of the Land of Aegypt to whom they intended still to give honour but the only question was concerning the symbol of his presence that was to go before them For which we are to consider that immediately before Moses his going up into the Mount the last promise God made to them was that he would send his Angel before them Exod. 23. 20 23. which is elsewhere called his presence Exod. 33. 14. Moreover they understood that there should be some extraordinary symbol of this presence but what it was they could not tell for Moses was then gone into the Mount to learn but he not being heard of in forty dayes they took it for granted he was not to be heard of more therefore they fall upon devising among themselves what was the fittest symbol for the presence of God going before them and herein the greatest number being possessed with the prejudices of their education in Aegypt where golden Bulls were the symbols of their chief God Osiris they pitch upon that and force Aaron to a complyance with them in it 2. There is no intimation given in the whole story that they fell into the Heathen Idolatry for when afterwards they fell into it the particular names of the Gods are mentioned as Baal-peor Moloch Remphan Numb 25. 3. Acts 7. 43. But here on the contrary Aaron expresly proclaims a Feast to the Lord Exod. 32. 5. and the people accordingly met and offered their accustomed offerings v. 6. whereas if it had been the Aegyptian Idolatry their common Sacrifices were abominations they must not have sacrificed Sheep and Oxen as they were wont to do And that it was not the Idolatry of other Nations who worshipped the Host of Heaven is plain from St. Stephens words Acts 7. 41 42. And they made a Calf in those dayes and offered Sacrifice unto Idols and rejoyced in the works of their own hands then God turned and gave them up to worship the Host of Heaven Whereby it is both observable that the Idolatry of the Calf was distinct from the other Heathen Idolatry this being a punishment of the other and withal though the Calf was intended by them to be only a symbol of Gods presence yet being directly against Gods Command and having divine worship given it it is by S. Stephen called an Idol
and to the same purpose the Psalmist speaks They made a Calf in Horeb and worshipped the Molten Image thus they changed their glory or rather his into the similitude of an Oxe that eateth grass Psal. 106. 19 20. Which certainly was Idolatry as well as that St. Paul charges the Romans with viz. that they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man and to birds and four footed beasts and creeping things Rom. 1. 23. And we see how highly God was displeased with the Israelites for this sin of the golden Calf Exod. 32. 7 8 9 10. The same may be said of the two Calves of Ieroboam at Dan and Bethel for it was neither agreeable to his end nor so likely to succeed to take the ten Tribes off from the Worship of the true God but only from the place of it at Hierusalem and the occasion of the Kingdomes coming to him was from Solomons falling to Heathen Idolatry 1 King 11. 33. Which would make him more Cautious of falling into it especially at his first entrance And when the Gods of other Nations are mentioned they are particularly described as Ashtoreth of the Zidonians Chemosh of the Moabites and Milcom of the Children of Ammon 1 Kings 11. 33. And in Ahabs Idolatry the occasion and description of it is given 1 Kings 16. 31. But of Ieroboam it is only said that he set up the Calves at Dan and Bethel and said unto the people It is too much for you to go up to Hierusalem behold thy Gods O Israel which brought thee up out of the Land of Aegypt 1 Kings 12. 28 29. How easie had it been to have said that Ieroboam Worshipped the Gods of Aegypt if that had been his intention but how much better had he then argued that they had been hitherto in a great mistake concerning the true God and not meerly as to the place of his Worship which is all he speaks against for he continued the same Feasts and way of Worship which were at Hierusalem 1 King 12. 32. Besides how comes the sin of Ahab to be so much greater than that of Ieroboam if they were both guilty of the same Apostasie to Heathen Idolatry 1 Kings 16. 31. how came the Worship of the true God in the Ten Tribes to be set in opposition to Heathen Idolatry 1 Kings 18. 21 how comes Iehu at the same time to boast his zeal for his Lord when it is said of him that he departed not from the sins of Jeroboam viz. the golden Calves of Dan and Bethel 2 Kings 10. 16 29 Lastly how comes the Worship of the true God to be preserved in the Ten Tribes after their captivity when they still continued their separation in Religion from the Kingdom of Iudah 2 Kings 17. 28 For certainly if the Samaritans had only desired information concerning the Worship of the God of Israel after the way of Hierusalem they would have sent only thither for it but because they sent into the Land of their Captivity for a Priest to be sent to them it is plain the former differences still continued and yet it is said he taught them to fear the Lord. And notwithstanding it be thus evident that Ieroboam did not fall then into Heathen Idolatry yet we see that he is charged with Idolatry in Scripture for it is said that he had done evil above all that were before him and had gone and made him other Gods and Molten Images to provoke God to anger and had cast him behind his back 1 Kings 14. 9. From whence it necessarily follows that if God may be allowed to interpret his own Law the Worshipping of Images though designed for his honour is Idolatry And since the Lawgiver hath thus interpreted his own Law we need not be solicitous about the sense of any others yet herein we have the concurrence of the Iewish and Christian Church the Iews have thought the prohibition to extend to all kinds of Images for Worship and almost all for ornament and the Image Worship of the Church of Rome is one of the great scandals to this day which hinder them from embracing Christianity The primitive Christians were declared enemies to all Worship of God by Images but I need the less to go about to prove it now since it is at last consessed by one of the most learned Iesuites they ever had that for the four first Centuries and further there was little or no use of Images in the Temples or Oratories of Christians but we need not their favour in so plain a cause as this as shall be evidently proved if occasion be farther given And against my Adversaries opinion that the second Command only forbids the Worship of Idols we have the consent of some of the most learned Writers of his own Church against him For Vasquez acknowledgeth that it is plain in Scripture that God did not only forbid that in the second command which was unlawful by the Law of Nature as the Worshipping an Image for God but the Worshipping of the true God by any similitude of him and he reckons up many others of the same opinion with him of great estimation in the Roman Church § 11. But we must now consider what he further produces for his opinion he therefore saith if St. Austins judgement be to be followed the second Commandment is but a part or explication of the first But why doth he not tell us whether St. Austins judgement be to be followed or no if it be of so much consequence to the resolving of this Controversie Nay how is he sure this was St. Austins constant judgement since in his latter Writings he reckons up the Commandments as others of the Fathers had done before him But if St. Austins Judgement were to be followed in this doth it thence follow that this Commandment must be only against Idols no but that all things concerning the Worship of God must be in one command and so they may be and yet be as full against Image Worship as in two so that no relief is to be had from hence And as little from his distinction of an inferiour and relative honour only which is given by them he saith to the Sacred Images of Christ and his B. Mother and Saints and that which they call Latria or Worship due to God the former he saith is only honorary adoration expressed by putting off our Hats kissing them or kneeling before them Which is just as if an unchaste Wife should plead in her excuse to her Husband that the person she was too kind with was extreamly like him and a near friend of his and that it was out of respect to him that she gave him the honour of his bed Can any one think that such an excuse as this would be taken by a jealous Husband How much less will such like pretences avail with that God who hath declared himself particularly jealous of
application of Worship due to a real object of adoration i. e. whether a man giving adoration to what he believes to be God which is not so in it self be not as excusable as believing a true object of adoration in general but giving divine worship to that which is not it as whether the Worshipping false Gods supposing them to be true be not as venial a fault as Worshipping that for the true God which is not so as for instance suppose the Aegyptians Worshipping the Sun for God and the Israelites the golden Calf believing it was the true God which brought them out of the Land of Aegypt or let us take one of the Inca's of Peru who believed by a Tradition supposed infallible among them that the Sun was their Father and the visible God by which the Invisible did govern the World and therefore they ought to give all external adoration to the Sun and internal only to the Invisible Deity upon what account shall these be charged with Idolatry if an involuntary mistake and firm belief that they worship the true God doth excuse from it Nay the most stupid and senseless of all Idolaters who worshipped the very Images for Gods which the wisest among them alwayes disclaimed and pretended only such a relative worship as he pleads for were in truth the most excusable upon this ground for supposing that it be true which they believed they did a very good thing and which every person else ought to do upon the same belief Which is the utmost can be said for the Papists adoration of the Host supposing the doctrine of transubstantiation were as true as it is false and absurd § 8. 3. As to invocation of Saints I found the chief answer given was this That they did not attribute the same kind of excellency to Saints which they give to God but suppose only a middle sort of excellency between God and us which they make the foundation of the worship which is given to them And as to this my argument was thus framed If the supposition of a middle excellency between God and us be sufficient ground for formal invocation then the Heathens worship of their inferiour Deities could be no Idolatry for they still pretended they did not give to them the worship proper to the supream God which is as much as is pretended by the devoutest Papists in justification of the Invocation of Saints To this he answers two wayes 1. By shewing the disparity of the Heathens worship from theirs in two things 1. In the object 2. In the manner of their worship 1. The persons whom they worship he saith are such as are endowed with supernatural gifts of grace in this life and glory in Heaven whose prayers by consequence are acceptable and available with God but the Supream Deity of the Heathens is known to be Jupiter and their inferiour Deities Venus Mars Bacchus Vulcan and the like rabble of Devils as the Scripture calls them and therefore there can be no consequence that because the Heathens were Idolaters in the worship of these though they pretended not to give them the worship proper to Jupiter the supream God therefore the Catholicks must be guilty of Idolatry in desiring the servants of the true God to pray for them to him 2. As to the manner of worship he saith If any of them did attain as the Platonists to the knowledge of the true God yet as St. Paul sayes they did not glorifie him as God but changed his glory into an Image made like to corruptible man adoring and offering sacrifice due to God alone to the Statues themselves or the inferiour Deities they supposed to dwell or assist in them which St. Austin upon the 90. Psalm proves to be Devils or evil Angels because they required sacrifice to be offered to them and would be worshipped as Gods But all he means by formal Invocation he saith is desiring or praying the Saints to pray for them And if this were Idolatry we must not desire the prayers of a just man even in this life because this formal invocation will be to make him an Inferiour Deity 2. He answers that the same calumny was cast upon the Catholicks in St. Austins time and is answered by him and his answer will serve as well now as then in his twentieth Book against Faustus Chap. 21. who himself held formal Invocation a part of the worship due to Saints as is evident from the prayer he made to St. Cyprian after his Martyrdom l. 7. de bapt c. Donat. c. 1. and Calvin confesseth he saith it was the custom at that time to say Holy Mary or Holy Peter pray for us This is his full answer in which are two things to be examined 1. Whether the disparity between the Heathen worship and theirs be so great as to excuse them from Idolatry 2. Whether the answer given by St. Austin doth vindicate them and whether Invocation of Saints as it is now practised in the Church of Rome were allowed or in use then § 9. 1. Concerning the disparity 1. As to the object of worship Far be it from me to parallel the Holy Angels and Saints with the impure Deities of the Heathens as to their excellencies but the true state of the Question is whether the Heathens were only too blame in making an ill choice of those they worshipped as in worshipping Iupiter and Venus and Vulcan who are supposed to have been wicked wretches or else in giving divine worship to any besides the true God And if their Idolatry lay not only in the former but the latter then this disparity cannot excuse them There were two Questions in debate between the Primitive Fathers of the Christian Church and the Heathen Idolaters The first was more general and in thesi whether it were lawful to give divine worship to any besides the true and Supream God The second was more particular and in hypothesi whether on supposition that were lawful those whom the Heathens worshipped were fit objects for such adoration In this latter they triumph over them with a great deal of eloquence laying open the impiety of those whom they commonly worshipped but withal knowing that the wiser among them had another notion of these Deities under the common names than the Vulgar had they therefore charge them with Idolatry in giving the worship proper to God to any creature let it be never so excellent and serviceable to mankind and that it was the property of the Christian Religion to give divine worship to none but God himself and his Son Christ Iesus without ever making any distinctions of absolute and relative worship which they must have been driven to in case they had given Religious worship to any besides Thus Iustin Martyr tells the Heathen Emperours to whom he makes his Apology for the Christians that Christ did perswade men to worship God alone by saying this is the great Commandment thou shalt worship the Lord thy God
is a thing no man would believe who suffered in such a case He might indeed say that he did not exercise the utmost rigour of Iustice but would hardly be brought to magnifie the infinite clemency and kindness of his Creditor But we that desire to understand the way of salvation as it is delivered by our Lord Iesus Christ and to be saved in that way cannot for our hearts understand any more by his doctrine but that men shall be saved if they believe and obey his doctrine and shall be condemned if they do it not We find nothing of half saving and half damning men such as the state of Purgatory is believed to be in the Church of Rome For the pains of person therein are said to be as great as the damned in Hell and yet all this while God is their Friend and they are sure to be saved They had need in such a case call in the help of their Friends on earth if God be so ill a Friend in Heaven And can he not believe that it is a far greater encouragement to a Spend-thrift to be told indeed of a dreadful Prison but such as if he leaves but money behind him to imploy his friends in begging his pardon he shall be surely delivered than to be assured if he continues his folly there will be no redemption or hopes of deliverance when he is once cast into it I dare appeal to any one who can but understand what we speak of whether of these two is the more probable way of reclaiming a man from riotous courses but that which is beyond this is that the one is most certainly true the other but a meer figment of the brains of men who have contrived a way to bring wicked men to Heaven at last although somewhat the farther way about and it must cost them dear for their Friends to help them through § 3. 3. After I had shewed how much the necessity and care of a good life were obstructed by the principles of the Roman Church I proceeded to shew how the sincerity of devotion was hindered among them by several particulars 1. By prayers in a language which many understand not To this he answers If I speak of private prayers all Catholicks are taught to say them in their Mother Tongue If of the publick prayers of the Church he understands not why it may not be done with as much sincerity of devotion the people joyning their intention and particular prayers with the Priest as their Embassadour to God as if they understood him he is sure the effects of a sincere devotion for nine hundred years together which this manner of worship produced in this Nation were much different from those we have seen since the reducing the publick Liturgy into English for which he instances in building and endowing Churches Colledges Religious Houses and the conversion of several Nations by English Missionaries But this he saith is a matter of Discipline and not to be regulated by the fancies of private men but the judgement of the Church and withal is confessed by some Protestants that most Sects of Christians have the Scriptures Liturgies and Rituals in a Tongue unknown but to the Learned and therefore according to St. Austin it is insolent madness to dispute that which is frequented by the whole Church through the world For our more distinct proceeding in answer to this three things are to be considered 1. Whether praying in a known or unknown tongue do more conduce to devotion 2. Whether this whole matter be a thing left in the power of the Church to determine 3. Whether prayers in an unknown tongue be universally received in all other parts of the Christian world 1. Whether of these conduce more to devotion is our main enquiry And if praying in an unknown tongue doth so I wonder he tells us that all Catholicks are taught to say them in their Mother-tongue Why so I pray Is it that by understanding what they speak their minds might be more attentive and their affections more raised in the desires of the things they pray for And will not the same arguments more hold for publick prayer wherein all the Congregation are to joyn together So that their private prayers condemn their publick unless Latin in the Church be of greater force than uttered in a Closet But can it enter into the minds of any men who consider what the end of meeting together to pray is that such an end should as much or more be attained where people know not what they say as where they do If all the business of Christian worship were only to patter over a few words as if there were no difference between prayers and charms what he saith were to some purpose but that is so dishonourable a thing to Christian Religion that it is hard to say whether they have more corrupted the doctrine or the devotion of the Christian Church If I saw a company of Indians met together with their Priest among them using many antick gestures and Mimical postures and speaking many words which the people muttered after him but understood not what they said I might probably suspect they were conjuring but should hardly believe them if they called that praying I could not but enquire of them what they meant by praying If they told me saying so many hard words which they understood not I had done with them but should shrewdly suspect the knavery of their Priests If they told me by praying they meant expressing their desires of the things they stood in need of to the God they worshipped I could not but ask of them whether it were not necessary for them to know what it was they asked or how could they desire they knew not what Or whether the God they worshipped understood only that one tongue and so they were fain to speak to him in his own language This I confess were a sufficient reason and in that case the people were to be pittied if they could not learn that tongue themselves But supposing all languages equally known to him we make our addresses to why should not the people use that which they understand themselves Are their prayers like counterfeit Iewels that the less they understand them the better they like them It may justly give men some suspicion that there are not fair dealings where so little light is allowed to judge by and that devotion commended most which Ignorance is the Mother of We think it as unreasonable to desire the people to say Amen to prayers they know not the meaning of as for men to set their hands to Petitions without reading what is contained in them It is a great chance if they do not mistake to their own great prejudice and do what they repent of afterwards We declare that our meeting together to worship God is to joyn together our hearty prayers which the more the people understand the better their minds are satisfied in what they desire
hinder all persons of any other Order whatsoever from coming among them and if they do come by one means or other they are sure to procure their banishment and persecution to this end they assist and counsel the Infidels themselves in it and make use of their hands to whip and imprison them and so to make them weary of being there When they are left alone they have the liberty of telling their own stories and no one can disprove them but they were not so watchful but some of the other Orders were sent as Spyes upon them and although they knew they hazarded their lives in it yet they made full discovery of the Iesuits way of converting Infidels And they discovered such horrible things in the Catechisms they gave to their new Converts that they complained to the Pope of them but as appears by the event to very little purposeâ— for although the Iesuits could not dâ—ny the things they were charged with and the Congregation de prâ—pagandâ fide at Rome Sâ—pt 12. A.D. 1645 in seventeen Decrees condemned them yet the Rector of the Iesuits Colledge in the Philippines in a Book of 300 pages opposed those Decrees which was in the hands of the Bishop of Angelopolis and he gave it to a Dominican to answer who had been in those parts himself who fully proved the matter of fact and answered the Iesuits arguments both which the Bishop saith were in his custody The short of their instructions to their Converts was this to speak little of Christ Crucified but to conceal that part of Christian Doctrine as much as may be to use all the same customes that the Idolaters did only directing all their worship to Christ and the Saints not to trouble themselves about Fasting Penance Confession and participation of the Eucharist or the severity of Repentance and Mortification They designed to recommend as easie a Religion to them as may be the better to invite them to embrace it and therefore as the Bishop observes we read of no Martyrs among them the poor Dominicans and Franciscans are whipt and imprisoned and banished but the Iesuits who Preach only a glorious Christ without his passion and crosse have far better and easier entertainment among them But these things the Bishop there gives a larger account of I return to the Controversie between the Bishop and them An Agent was sent to Rome by the Bishop with this letter to negotiate his business there against the Iesuits a man intelligent vigorous and undaunted saith Mr. S. Amour of him who followed his business so close that after long solicitation and address he obtains another Decree against the Iesuits which is extant at large in the Lyons Edition of the Bullarium but which ought to be observed is since prohibited by the Index Expurgatorius of Alexander 7. by whose means that was procured is easie to conjecture when we consider with what difficulty the Decree was obtained and for above a year after the passing it the coming of it forth was hindred by Cardinal Spada under-hand who was a great Friend to the Iesuits And when it did come forth the Iesuits bought up all the Copies of it they could on purpose to abolish the memory of it which made them obtain the prohibition of the Bullarium till that part were purged out of it But if the Popes had any real kindness for the Authority of Bishops they would never suffer such encroachments to be made upon them as they do nor shew so much favour to the contemners of it But this is one of the grand Intrigues of the Roman Court to keep the Bishops down by the priviledges of the Regulars who are immediate dependents on the Popes only at some times when they cannot help it they must seem to curb them but yet so as to keep them in heart enough to bait the Bishops when they begin to exercise their Authority as they ought to do in the reformation of abuses and disorders But by these heats and controversies among them about matters of Government and Order it appears that they have no cause to upbraid us with our dissensions about them And that they have no more effectual means to suppress them than We. § 11. 2. As to matters of doctrine The least thing any one could imagine by all the boasts of Vnity among them and upbraiding others with their dissensions is that they are all of one mind in matters of doctrine but he must believe against common sense and experience that can believe this For we know their divisions well enough and that it is as easie a matter to compose all the differences among us as among them We may assoon perswade the Quakers to Vniformity as reconcile the Dominicans and the Iesuits and all our Sects will agree assoon as the factions of the Thomists and Scotists the Presbyterians and Independents will yield to Episcopal jurisdiction assoon as the Monastick Orders will quit their priviledges the Arminians and Calvinists will be all of a mind when the Iansenists and Molinists are and we are apt to think that our Controversies about Ceremonies are not altogether of so great importance as theirs about infallibility But it is a very pleasant thing to see by what arts they go about to perswade credudulous people that what would be called divisions any where else is an admirable Vnion among them they might assoon perswade them that the seven Hills of Rome are the bottomless pit or that contradictions may be true For either the Pope is infallible or he is not either the supream Government of the Church is committed to him alone as S. Peters Successor or to the representative Church in a Council either he hath a temporal power to command Princes or he hath not either the V. Mary was conceived with Original sin or she was not either there is a Pre-determination or there is not either Souls may be delivered out of Purgatory or they may not Dare any of them say they are all of a mind in the Church of Rome about these points I am sure they dare not But what then do they not differ from one another do they not write and Preach and rail against each other as much as any Sectaries can do are there not factions of long continuance among them upon these differences where then lyes their Vnity they boast off Alas we speak like Ignorant persons and do not consider what artificial men we have to deal with who with some pretty tricks and slights of hand make all that which seems to us shattered and broken in pieces to appear sound and entire without the least crack or flaw in it It will be worth the while to find out these arts for I do not question but by a discreet managing them they may serve us as well as them and our Church will have though not so much splendour yet as much Vnity as theirs They tell us therefore that it is true they are not
friend or the Letters you receive or the Laws of the Land all which are lyable to be abused by evil persons but not by good people and modest understandings It is now become a part of your Religion to be Ignorant to walk in blindness to believe the man that hears your Confessions to hear none but him not to hear God speaking but by him and so you are lyable to be abused by him as he please without remedy You are gone from us where you are only taught to worship God through Jesus Christ and now you are taught to Worship Saints and Angels with a Worship at least dangerous and in some things proper to God for your Church Worships the V. Mary with burning Incense and Candles to her and you give her presents which by the consent of all Nations used to be esteemed a Worship peculiar to God and it is the same thing which was condemned in the Collyridians who offered a Cake to the V. Mary A Candle and a Cake make no difference in the Worship and your joyning God and the Saints is like the device of them that fought for King and Parliament the latter destroys the former To which he subjoynes that the points of difference between us and the Church of Rome are such as do evidently serve the ends of Covetousness and Ambition in them and that very many of her Doctrines are very ill Friends to a good life and that our Religion is incomparably beyond theirs in point of safety as in point of Praying to God alone and without Images relying on God as infallible which are surely lawful but it is at least hugely disputable and not at all certain that any man or society of men can be infallible that we may put our trust in Saints or Worship Images c. From whence he concludes So that unless you mean to preferr a danger before safety temptation to unholiness before a severe and holy Religion unless you mean to lose the benefit of yours prayers by praying what you perceive not and the benefit of the Sacrament in great degrees by falling from Christs Institution and taking half instead of all unless you desire to provoke God to jealousie by Images and man to jealousie in professing a Religion in which you may in many cases have leave to forfeit your faith and lawful trust unless you will choose a Catechism without the second Commandment and a faith that grows bigger or lesser as men please and a hope that in many degrees relyes on men and vain confidences and a Charity that damns all the world but your selves unless you will do all this that is suffer an abuse in your Prayers in the Sacrament in the commandments in faith in hope in Charity in the Communion of Saints and your duty to your Supream you must return to the bosome of your Mother the Church of England and I doubt not but you will find the comfort of it in all your life and in the day of your death and in the day of Judgement Thus far that excellent person and I leave you now to judge between the Motives on both sides as they are laid down by him whom my Adversary appeals to and I must thank him for the kindness of mentioning him against me without which I had wanted so good a representation of the Motives of either side and so full an Answer to the pretences brought for the Church of Rome The other Motives which he adds of Fathers Councils and Tradition he knows are utterly denyed by us and I wonder he should insist upon them since in the matters of our debate Antiquity is so evidently of our side as against Worship of Images and Saints against Purgatory Transubstantiation Prayers in an unknown tongue and he thinks it no great matter to allow us a thousand years against communion in one kind and yet all this while Scripture Fathers Councils and Tradition are all on their side For the testimony of the present Church we deny that S. Austin speaks of it as of it self sufficient and though he did that concerns not the Roman Church any more than other parts of the Catholick Church and he may assoon prove Tyber to be the Ocean or S. Peters at Rome to have been before the Temple at Hierusalem as prove the Roman Church to be the Catholick Church or the Mother of all others § 17. But I must conclude with the method he prescribes to you for satisfaction from me which is not to meddle with particular disputes which we know very well the reason of but to call upon me for a Catalogue of our grounds and to bring things to Grounds and Principles as they have learnt to Cant of late and then he saith Controversie will soon be at an end I should be glad to see it so notwithstanding his Friend I. S. accounts it so noble a Science unless he hath changed his mind since for so many years now he hath failed in the Defence of his Demonstrations But to satisfie the men of Principles and to let them see we can do more than find fault with their Religion I shall give an account of the faith of Protestants in the way of Principles and of the reason of our rejecting their impositions which is all we can understand by Negative Points and if we can give an account of the Christian faith independently on their Churches Authority and Infallibility it evidently follows that cannot be the foundation of faith and so we may be very good Christians without having any thing to do with the Church of Rome And I know no other Answer necessary not only to this present demand but to a Book called Protestants without Principles the falsity of which will appear by what follows Principles Agreed on both sides 1. THat there is a God from whom man and all other Creatures had their Being 2. That the notion of God doth imply that he is a Being absolutely perfect and therefore Justice Goodness Wisdom and Truth must be in him to the highest degree of perfection 3. That man receiving his Being from God is thereby bound to obey his will and consequently is lyable to punishment in case of disobedience 4. That in order to mans obeying the will of God it is necessary that he know what it is for which some manifestation of the will of God is necessary both that man may know what he hath to do and that God may justly punish him if he do it not 5. Whatever God reveals to man is infallibly true and being intended for the rule of mans obedience may be certainly known to be his Will 6. God cannot act contrary to those essential Attributes of Justice Wisdom Goodness and Truth in any way which he makes choice of to make known his will unto man by These thing being agreed on both sides we are now to inquire into the particular wayes which God hath made choice of for revealing his will to mankind 1. AN entire
or asked their opinion and Pope Adrian himself he saith in his defence of it against the Caroline Books never gives it the name or authority of an Oecumenical Council The same Council was rejected here in England as our Historians tell us because it asserted the adoration of Images which the Church of God abhors which are the words of Hoveden and others And we find afterwards in France by the Synod of Paris called by Ludovicus Pius upon the Letters of Michael Balbus Emperour of Constantinople in order to the Vnion of Christendome in this point that these Western Churches persisted still in the condemnation of the Nicene Council which they would not have done after so long a time to inform themselves if a meer mistake of their Doctrine at first had been the cause of their opposition But whosoever will read the Caroline Books or the Synod of Paris or Agobardus and others about that time will find that they condemn all religious worship of Images as adoration and contrary to that honour which is due to God alone and to the commands which he hath given in Scripture And I extreamly wonder how any men of common sense and much more any of learning and judgement that had read the Book of Charles the Great against the Nicene Synod could imagine it altogether proceeded upon a mistake of the meaning of it when it so distinctly relates and punctually answers the several places of Scriptures and Fathers produced by it for the worship of Images In the first Book an answer is given to many impertinent places of the Old Testament alledged in that Council which the second proceeds with and examines several testimonies of the Fathers and in the two remaining Books pursues all their pretences with that diligence that no one can imagine all this while that the Author did not know their meaning And that by adoration he means no more than giving Religious Worship to Images appears from hence because he calls the Civil worship which men give to one another by the name of adoration when he shewes that it is another thing to give adoration to a man upon a civil respect and to give adoration to Images upon a religious account when God challenges all religious worship or adoration to himself and whatever reason will hold for such a worship of Images will much more hold for the worship of men who have greater excellency in them and more honour put upon them by God than any Images can ever pretend to That God allows no other kind of adoration to be given to any but himself but that which we give to one another Can any be so senseless to think that by this civil adoration he meant we honoured every man we met as our Soveraign Prince And as little reason is there to say that by adoration given to Images he meant only the incommunicable worship due only to God in the sense of those Fathers Can we imagine saith he that S. Peter would allow the worship of Images who forbad Cornelius to worship him Or St. John whom the Angel checked for offering to worship him and bid him give that honour to God Or Paul and Barnabas who with such horror ran among the men of Lycaonia when they were about to worship them and yet surely Angels and such persons as these deserved more to be worshipped than any Images can do But we see by these examples that even these are not to be adored with any other kind of adoration than what the offices of civility require from us Besides in his language those who followed the Council of Constantinople are said not to adore Images by which nothing else can be meant than their giving no Religious worship to them and when he shews the great inconsequence of the argument from the adoration of the Statues of the Emperours to the adoration of Images because in matters of Religious Worship we are not to follow the customes of men against the will of God he thereby shews what kind of adoration he intended not the worship of Latria but supposed to be of an inferiour sort In so much that Binius confesseth that the design of these books was against all worship of Images It is true Pope Hadrian in the answer he sent to these Books which is still extant in the Tomes of the Councils doth deny that the Synod intended to give proper divine worship to Images but that is no more than the Synod it self had in words said before but that was not the Question what they said but what the nature of the thing did imply Whether that religious worship they gave to Images was not part of that adoration which was only due to God And he that expects an answer to this from him will find himself deceived who is so pitifully put to it for an answer to the demand of any example of words of the Apostles to justifie Image-worship that he is forced to make use of some Mystical passages of Dionysius the supposed Areopagite wherein the word Image hapning to be is very sufficient to his purpose And this answer of Hadrians gave so little satisfaction to the Western Bishops that A.D. 824. the Synod at Paris being called by Ludovicus Pius to advise about this point did condemn expressely Pope Hadrian for asserting a superstitious adoration of Images which they look on as a great impiety and say that he produces very impertinent places of the Fathers and remote from his purpose and that setting aside his Pontifical authority in his answer to the Caroline Books there were some things apparently false and they have nothing to excuse him by but his Ignorance And therefore they at large shew that the Religious worship of Images came first from Hereticks and that it was alwayes condemned by the Fathers of the Christian Church and answer the arguments produced on the other side out of the Writings of the Fathers And supposing that superstitious custome of worshipping Images had for some time obtained yet they shew by several testimonies that it ought to be abrogated No wonder then that Bellarmine is so much displeased with this Synod for offering so boldly to censure the Popes Writings and a Synod approved by him wherein the saith they exceed the fault of the Author of the Caroline Books because as he confesseth they offered to teach the Pope and resisted him to the face And yet no doubt they had read and considered Hadrians words wherein he disowns the giveing true divine honour to Images Not long after this Synod came forth the Book of Agobardus Archbishop of Lyons against Images occasioned saith Papirius Massonus by the stupendous superstition in that Age in the worship of them And this saith he is the substance of his Doctrine out of St. Augustine and other Fathers that there is no other Image of God but what is himself and therefore cannot be
easily answered that this argument doth prove no more his Worship in the Elements than in a turfe or any other piece of bread for Christ being God is every where present and if his presence only may be ground of giving adoration to that wherein he is present we may as lawfully Worship the Sun or the Earth or any other thing as they do the Sacrament For he is present in all of them But our Worship is not to be guided by our own Fancies but the will of God and we have a command for Worshipping of the person of Christ and till we see one as to his presence in the Sacrament we ought not to think the one parallel with the other And by this the weakness of his retorting the argument in the Arrians behalf so he calls those who believe Christ to be a pure man against those who Worship the Son of God will appear for our Worship doth not meerly depend upon our belief but upon the divine command and therefore those who have denyed the one have yet contended for the other 2. The one gives us a sufficient reason for our Worship but the other doth not There can be no greater reason for giving his person adoration than that he is the eternal Son of God but what equivalent reason to this is there supposing the bread to be really converted into the body of Christ All that I can believe then present is the body of Christ and what then is that the object of our adoration do we terminate our Worship upon his humane nature and was it ever more properly so than in dying is it not the death of Christ that is set forth in the Eucharist And is his body present any other way than as it is agreeable to the end of the institution But it may be they will say the body of Christ being hypostatically united with the divine nature one cannot be present without the other That indeed is a good argument to prove the body of Christ cannot be there by transubstantiation for if the bread be converted into that body of Christ which is hypostatically united with the divine nature then the conversion is not meerly into the body but into the Person of Christ and then Christ hath as many bodies hypostatically united to him as there are Elements Consecrated and so all the accidents of the bread belong to that body of Christ which is hypostatically united with the divine nature Nay to make the Elements the object of divine worship as they do they must suppose an hypostatical union between them and the divine nature of Christ for if the only reason of joyning the humane nature with the divine in the person of Christ as the object of our Worship be the hypostatical union of those Natures then we can upon no other account make those Elements the object of Worship but by supposing such an union between Christ and them But I suppose they will not venture to say that Christ is hypostatically united with the shape figure and colour of the bread for they will have nothing else to remain after Consecration in spight of all the reason and sense of the world but meerly those accidents and the Council of Trent determines That the same Divine Worship which we give to God himself is in express terms to be given to the most holy Sacrament and pronounces an Anathema against all who deny it And what is the holy Sacrament but the body of Christ according to them under the accidents of the bread and although the body of Christ being believed to be there is the reason of their Worship yet the Worship is given to the Elements upon that account § 3. But this being a matter of so great importance to make it as clear as the nature of the thing will allow I shall yet further prove that upon the principles of the Roman Church no man can be assured that he doth not commit Idolatry every time he gives adoration to the Host and I hope this will abundantly add to the discovering the disparity between the Worship given to the person of Christ and that which is given to the Eucharist upon supposition of Transubstantiation But before I come to this I shall endeavour to give a true account of the State of the Controversie between us which I shall do in these particulars 1. The Question between us is not whether the person of Christ is to be Worshipped with divine worship for that we freely acknowledge And although the humane nature of Christ of it self can yield us no sufficient reason for adoration yet being considered as united to the divine nature that cannot hinder the same divine Worship being given to his person which belongs to his divine nature any more than the Robes of a Prince can take off from the honour due unto him 2. It is not whether the person of Christ visibly appearing to us in any place ought to have divine honour given to him For supposing sufficient evidence of such an appearance we make no more question of this than we do of the former Neither do we say that we need a particular command in such a case to make it lawful any more than the Patriarchs did at every appearance of God among them or those who conversed with our Lord on earth every time they fell down and Worshipped him Where our sense and reason is satisfied as well as St. Thomas his was in a visible appearance of Christ we can give divine Worship as he did when he said My Lord and my God for in this Worship given to the Person of Christ I am sure I give it to nothing but what is either God or hypostatically united to the divine nature But is there not the same reason of believing Christ to be present as seeing him I answer in matters of pure revelation there is where the matter proposed to our faith can be no object of sense as Christs infinite presence in all places as God I firmly believe upon the credit of divine revelation and I give divine Worship to him as God suitable to that infinite presence but our question is concerning the visible presence of Christ where honour is given on the account of the divine nature but he can be known to be present only by his humanity in this case I say the evidence of sense is necessary in order to the true Worshipping the person of Christ. If any should be so impertinent to urge that saying to this purpose blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed I shall only say that doth not at all relate to this matter but to the truth of Christs resurrection 3. It is not concerning the spiritual Worship of Christ in the Celebration of the Eucharist For we declare that in all solemn acts of Religious Worship and particularly in the Eucharist we give divine honour to the Son of God as well as to the Father We affirm that we
ought not only perform the offices of Religion out of obedience to his divine commands but with a due Veneration of his Majesty and power with thankfulness for his infinite goodness and with trust in his promises and subjection of our souls to his supream Authority About these things which are the main parts of divine and spiritual Worship we have no quarrel nor do we find fault with any for giving too much to Christ in this manner but rather for placing too much in the bare external acts of adoration which may be performed with all external pomp and shew where there is no inward reverence nor sincere devotion And yet 4. It is not concerning external Reverence to be shewn in the time of receiving the Eucharist For that our Church not only allowes but enjoynes and that not barely for the avoiding such profanation and disorder in the holy Communion as might otherwise ensue but for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgement of the benefit of Christ therein given to all worthy receivers But it is withall declared that thereby no Adoration is intended or ought to be done either unto the Sacramental Bread and Wine there bodily received or unto any corporal presence of Christs natural flesh and blood as I have already recited it But the Controversie concerning the adoration of the Host lyes in these two things 1. Whether proper divine Worship in the time of receiving the Eucharist may be given to the Elements on the account of a corporal presence of Christ under them 2. Whether out of the time of receiving the same adoration ought to be given to it when it is elevated or carried in procession which we would give to the very person of Christ And that this is the true state of the Controversie I appeal to the doctrine and practice of the Roman Church in this point For it is expresly determined by the Council of Trent That there is no manner of doubt left but that all Christians ought to give the same Worship to this holy Sacrament which they give to God himself For it is not therefore less to be Worshipped because it was instituted by Christ our Lord that it might be taken By which words the true state of the Controversie is made evident which is not about the reverence due only to Christ supposed to be corporally present there but the adoration due to the Sacrament upon that account And by the Sacrament the Council must understand the elements or accidents or whatever name they call them by as the immediate term of that divine Worship or else the latter words signifie nothing at all For what was that which was instituted by our Lord as a Sacrament was it not the external and visible signes or elements why do they urge that the Sacrament ought not the less to be adored because it was to be taken but to take off the common objection that we ought not to give divine Worship to that which we eat And what can this have respect to but the Elements But this is not denyed that I know of by any who understand either the doctrine or practice of that Church although to answer our Arguments they would seem to direct their Worship only to Christ as present under the elements yet yielding that on the account of this corporal presence that which appears ought to have the same Worship given to it with that which is supposed or believed And so they make the accidents of the Sacrament to have the very same honour which the humane nature of Christ hath which they say hath no divine honour for it self but on the account of the conjunction of the divinity with it § 4. The Controversie being thus stated I come to shew that upon the Principles of the Roman Church no man can be assured that he doth not commit Idolatry every time he gives Adoration to the Host. For it is a principle indisputable among them that to give proper divine honour called by them Adoration to a creature is Idolatry but no man upon the principles of their Church can be assured every time he Worships the Host that he doth not give proper divine honour to a creature For there are two things absolutely necessary to secure a mans mind in the performance of an act of divine Worship 1. That either the object be such in it self which deserves and requires such Worship from us as in the divine nature of Christ Or 2. That if of it self it doth not deserve it there be a reason sufficient to give it as is the humane nature of Christ upon its union with the Divine but in this matter of the adoration of the Host no man can be secure of either of these upon their own Principles 1. He cannot be secure that the object is such as doth deserve divine worship If a man should chance to believe his senses or hearken to his reason or at least think the matter disputable whether that which he sees to be bread be not really bread what case is this man in He becomes an Idolater by not being a fool or a mad man But because we are not now to proceed upon the principles of sense or reason but those of the Church of Rome I will suppose the case of one that goes firmly upon the received principles of it and try whether such a one can be satisfied in his mind that when he gives divine worship to the Host he doth not give it to a creature And because we are now supposing unreasonable things I will suppose my self to be that person The Mass-bell now rings and I must give the same divine honour to the Host which I do to Christ himself but hold if it should be but a meer creature all the world cannot excuse me from Idolatry and my own Church condemns me all agreeing that this is gross Idolatry how come I then to be assured that what but a little before was a meer creature is upon the pronouncing a few words turned into my Creator A strange and sudden change And I can hardly say that God becoming man was so great a wonder as a little piece of bread becoming God When God became man he shewed himself to be God by Wonders and Miracles which he wrought for the conviction of the world I will see if I can find any such evidence of so wonderful a transformation from a Wafer to a Deity I see it to be the very same it was I handle it as I did if I taste it it hath the very same agreeableness to the Palat it had Where then lyes this mighty change But O carnal reason what have I to do with thee in these mysteries of faith I remember what Church I am of and how much I am bid to beware of thee but how then shall I be satisfied Must I relye on the bare words of Christ This is my body But I have been told the Scripture is very obscure and