Imprimatur Martii 29. 1686. C. Alston R. P. D. Hen. Episc. Lond. Ã Sacris Domesticis AN ANSWER TO A DISCOURSE INTITULED Papists Protesting against Protestant-Popery Being a VINDICATION of Papists not Misrepresented by Protestants And Containing A Particular Examination of Monsieur de MEAVX late Bishop of Condom his Exposition of the Doctrine of the CHURCH of ROME in the Articles OF INVOCATION of SAINTS AND THE WORSHIP of IMAGES Occasioned by that Discourse LONDON Printed for John Amery at the Peacock and William Rogers at the Sun both against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet MDCLXXXVI AN ANSWER TO Papists Protesting AGAINST Protestant Popery SINCE the Protester thinks my Answer to his Reflections so great a Complement I am resolved to oblige him a little farther and to complement him very heartily and I see no reason but Complementing may be as good a word for Disputing as Representing is The Reply consisted of two parts 1. Concerning the Misrepresentation of a Papist 2. Concerning the Rule of true Representing and I shall consider what the Protesting Papist says to each of them As for the First a Misrepresenter is so foul a Character that no Man can wonder if we think our selves concern'd to wipe off such an imputation and therefore I expresly denied the charge and made it appear from comparing his own Characters of a Papist Misrepresented and Represented together that we had not charged them falsly in any matter of Fact and therefore are no Misrepresenters for if we charge them with believing and doing nothing but what they themselves confess to be their Faith and Practice wherein is the Misrepresentation Thus I particularly showed that all matters of Fact excepting some points wherein they disown the Doctrine of their own Church in the Character of the Papist Misrepresented are confessed and defended in the Character of the Papist Represented and the Protester himself acknowledges that I have learnedly as he is pleased to speak distinguished between matters of Dispute and of Representation and if so then he ought to own that we do not Misrepresent them and this is all I undertook to prove in the first part of my Reply and for that reason gave it the Title of A Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants wholly with relation to his Character of a Papist Misrepresented which I had proved to contain nothing in it which in a strict and proper sense can be called a Misrepresentation We truly relate what the Faith and Practice of the Church of Rome is and this is true Representing and though we say their Faith is erroneous and their Practices corrupt or superstitious contrary to the Laws of God and the usages of the Primitive Church yet whether this be true or false it is no matter of Representation but Dispute though we believe thus of their Faith and Practice we do not charge them with believing so and therefore do not Misrepresent a Papist Whether they or we be in the right is matter of Dispute and not to be determined by Character-making but by an appeal to the Laws of God and the dictates of right Reason and the Authentick Records of the ancient Church While we agree about matter of Fact there can be no Misrepresenting on either side for there is a great deal of difference between a Misrepresentation and a false Judgment of things and thus I hoped the talk of Misrepresenting would have been at an end But our Author though he confesses I am in the right will have us to be Misrepresenters still He says I declare plainly that Popery is really that Antichristian Religion which Protestants say it is that it teaches and practises all those fopperies superstitions and non-sense which have at any time been charged against it by Protestants But I never said any such thing yet but only said and proved that all matters of Fact complained of in the Character of a Papist Misrepresented are owned by himself in the Character of a Papist Represented and this I thought was proof enough that we were no Misrepresenters But the Title of my Reply offends him A Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants which he says is a condemnation of the Religion to all those horrid shapes and monstrous forms it has been at any time exposed in by Members of the Reformation by no means If there have been other Misrepresentations of them which our Author has not yet given us an account of I can say nothing to them till I see what they are but my Title related only to my Book and that related only to the Character of a Papist Misrepresented which our Author had given us and I undertook for that then and will defend it still that there is no Misrepresentation in it Of the same nature is what he adds That I tell my Reader in the name of all my Brethren we charge them the Papists with nothing but what they expresly profess to believe and what they practise and thus says the Protester in this one assertion vouches for the truth of all that infamy and prophaneness which is laid at their doors and thus for ought I see I am drawn in for a great deal more than I intended I spoke with reference to his Characters and now I must discharge the scores of all Protestants since the beginning of the Reformation but when a Man 's in he must get out as well as he can but would not one wonder that there should not be one word of his own Characters all this while that instead of defending his own Misrepresentations which he has so unjustly father'd upon us he should be hunting about to pick up some new Misrepresentations for me to answer There must be a reason for this and I believe I can guess what it is But however he takes this occasion to ransack the Writings of Protestants and to see what fine things they have said of Papists and to collect a new Character of a Papist Misrepresented out of them For since all that proceeds from a Popish hand of this nature is suspected and challenged and the double Character of a Papist Misrepresented and Represented about which as the Replier says there is so much pother and noise is questioned as to its method its sincerity and exactness we 'll now follow our Author's call and learn what Popery is from the Pens of Protestants and especially from some of those who are supposed to know what Popery is And thus our Author makes as many turnings and doublings as ever any poor Hare did which was almost run down Because I have proved that his Character of a Papist Misrepresented contains no Misrepresentation in it properly so called therefore forsooth we will not take Characters from a Papist because we confute them as soon as they make them which is not very civil and therefore hoping that we will be more civil to Protestant Characters he turns off the Dispute to them never did any Man take more pains to defend Popery than he does to
other Catholick Divines will take this I cannot tell This is enough in all Conscience concerning the Bishop of Condom's Authority which I must still say is nothing when we speak of an Authentick Rule of expounding the Catholick Faith in which sense our Author appeals to him though we will allow him the Authority of a wise and prudent man whose writings are published and approved by Publick Authority as the writings of other Catholick Doctors are which is all the Authority we Protestants give to our best Writers and therefore the Protester has no reason to complain as he does p. 27. of an uneven kind of Justice and Reasoning in this matter and whoever desires a more particular account of the Bishop of Condom's Authority and those Glorious Testimonies which are given to his Book if he be a reasonable man may find Satisfaction in the Preface to the late Answer to the Bishop of Condom But the truth is I know no reason there is for all this Dispute I told the Reflector before that I did not like his Faith though it were as he has represented it should we allow the Bishop of Condom's Exposition and his Character of a Papist represented to contain the true Catholick Faith and that this is the whole of what the Council of Trent has determined yet I can never be of this Religion and since he was not satisfied with my bare telling him so I will now give him some Reasons for it and particularly shew him what it is I dislike in Monsieur de Meaux the late Bishop of Condom his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church about the Object of Worship Invocation of Saints and worship of Images and take the flourishes of his Introduction into the bargain And I chuse these Heads because these are the matters wherein he principally appeals to the Bishop of Condom and about which only he has offered any thing like an Argument in his answer to my Reply And I am as glad to take any opportunity of useful Discourse as our Author seems cautious not to give any And that neither he nor the Bishop may have any occasion of Quarrel I shall observe the Directions the Bishop has given to those who think fit to answer to his Treatise He tells us To urge any thing solid against this Treatise the Exposition and which may come home to the point it must be proved that the Churches Faith is not here faithfully expounded and that by Acts which the same Church has obliged her self to receive or else it must be shewn that this Explication leaves all the Objections in their full force and all the disputes untouched or in fine it must be precisely shewn in what this Doctrine subverts the foundations of Faith As for the first of these it is done already to my hand in the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome truly represented in answer to the Papist misrepresented and represented And he must be as bold a man who will attempt to mend that Author as who attempts to confute him The other two I will have in my eye in examining as far as I am now concerned Monsieur de Meaux late Bishop of Condom his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church in matters of Controversie SECT I. The Design of this Treatise WEre it possible to reconcile the Differences between us and the Church of Rome only by a fair Representation of matters in Controversie between us I should think it an admirable Design and this being all the Author professes to intend I cannot but highly commend his good Meaning in it whether he has shewn so much Skill and Judgment in undertaking a Design in its own nature impracticable I shall leave to the Reader to judge when he has fairly heard both sides Had I known no more of the matter but that the Reformation was begun by men brought up in the Communion of the Church of Rome and intimately acquainted with the Doctrines and Practices of that Church that some of these Corruptions both before and since have been complained of by men of that Communion that the Council of Trent which was convened upon this occasion condemns many Doctrines of the Reformers as contrary to the Catholick Faith and guilty of Heresie that both before and after this Council there have been many Volumes written and many fine Disputes between Popish and Protestant Divines who have been men of as great Learning and true Understanding in these matters as any the Age has bred who did all this while believe that there was a real and substantial difference between them I say when I consider these things I should not venture for the reputation both of Papists and Protestants especially of the Council of Trent to say That the Dispute has been only about Words that Papists and Protestants even the most Learned men among them have mistaken each others Propositions and that the only way to reconcile this Difference is so to state the matter in dispute that Papists and Protestants may understand each other I doubt not but fierce men on both sides may have made this difference much wider than it is but yet such a difference there is as no Representing can cure as I believe will appear by considering Particulars SECT II. Those of the Reformed Religion acknowledge that the Catholick Church embraces all the Fundamental Articles of the Christian Religion THat the Church of Rome does profess to believe all the Principal and Fundamental Articles of Faith as the Bishop affirms I readily grant but yet she may hold Fundamental Errors and destroy that Faith she professes by other Doctrines destructive of the true Catholick Faith That this is possible he cannot deny for men may believe inconsistent Propositions and the Design of his Book is so to explicate the peculiar Doctrines of the Church of Rome as to reconcile them with the Fundamental Articles of Faith which the Protestant Explication of Popish Doctrines contradicts and overthrows which had been a very needless Undertaking were it impossible for men who believe all the Fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith to believe any thing contrary to it He might then have spared his pains in vindicating and explaining particular Doctrines for it had been evidence enough that such Doctrines and Practices do not overthrow any Fundamental Article of Faith because they are owned by that Church which professes to believe all Fundamental Articles And therefore I cannot well guess what advantage he promised himself from this We may safely grant that the Church of Rome believes all Fundamental Articles and yet charge her with such Doctrines and Practices as destroy and tear up Foundations He observes indeed from M. Daille that we ought not to charge men with believing such Consequences as they themselves do formally reject nor do we charge any such thing upon the Church of Rome but M. Daille never said that we may not charge mens Doctrines and Practices with such Consequences as they
had for the Pagan Deities in assuming their names and worship let others consider But to return to the Bishop He having assured us that the Church of Rome does not ascribe any divine perfections to the Saints of which the Reader may judge by what I have already discoursed he thus concludes It is therefore true that by examining what are our interiour Sentiments concerning the Saints it will be found we do not raise them above the condition of creatures and from thence we ought to judge of what nature that exteriour honour is which we render them exteriour Veneration being established to testifie the interior Sentiments of the mind That is we must conclude they do not give the worship of God to them because they do not believe them to be Gods Now this I confess would be true were the external Signs of honour wholly arbitrary and at our own choice for then they could signifie no more than what we intend to signifie by them and we ought not to be charged with intending to signifie more than what we profess to intend but when either the Act of worship naturally signifies divine perfections as prayer to an Invisible Being does or God has reserved any Acts of worship to himself as he has done all Religious Worship that is all Worship paid to Invisible Beings as I have already shewn in these cases we may be guilty of giving divine honours to creatures though in words and intention we ascribe no divine perfections to them So that I cannot see but that after all the fine colours and soft interpretations which the Bishop puts upon this practice of the Church of Rome in praying to Saints the charge against them of giving the peculiar worship of God to creatures is as strong and forcible as ever Secondly let us now consider whether our praying to the Saints to pray and intercede for us be not injurious to the Merits and Mediation of Christ. Now there are two things the Bishop urges to prove that the Mediation of Saints is not injurious to the Mediation of Christ. 1. That if the quality of Mediator which the Scriptures gives to Jesus Christ received any prejudice from the Intercession made to the Saints who raign with God it would receive no less from the intercession made to the Faithful who live with us For this he alledges the Authority of the Catechism ad Parochos which tells us That if it were not lawful to desire help of the Saints because we have one Patron or Mediator Jesus Christ the Apostle would not so earnestly have desired the Prayers of the Brethren who were then living to God for him For the glory and dignity of Christ as Mediator is not less diminished by the Prayers of the Living than by the Intercession of Saints in Heaven This is the least that can be made of it that the Mediation and Intercession of the Saints for us in Heaven is no more than one Christians praying for another on Earth and I fear this is not reconcileable with the practice of the Church of Rome in this matter For can this if it be no more be thought a sufficient foundation for all that pompous worship of the Virgin Mary and other powerful Saints Is this a good reason to erect Temples and Altars consecrated not only to their Memory but to their Honour to set up their Images in Holy Places and pay our humble Adorations before them because they pray for us in Heaven just as Christian Brethren pray for one another on Earth And therefore I must needs say the Bishop has not truly expounded the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in this Point which makes the Saints to be our Mediators in Heaven not indeed Mediators of Redemption which she acknowledges none to be but Christ who has purchased us with his own Blood but Mediators of Intercession who have so much interest and favour in the Court of Heaven as powerfully to recommend those to God who put themselves under their Patronage This I confess makes a great difference between the Mediation of Christ and of the Saints and yet leaves a great distance between the Prayers of Saints in Heaven for us and the mutual Intercessions of Christians for each other on Earth and the Church of Rome never taught that they were of the same nature for though the Catechism endeavours to prove that the Mediation and Intercession of the Saints in Heaven for us is not injurious to the Mediation of Christ because the Prayers of Christians for each other on Earth are very reconcileable with the Honour of Christ's Intercession yet it never teaches that there is no difference between the Prayers of Saints in Heaven and Christians on Earth and I think we ought to distinguish between the Doctrine and the Arguments of the Church What she declares to be her Doctrine we must own to be so but I think we must not grant every thing to be her Domakes which ought to be supposed to make her Arguments good because there is no necessity of granting that all her Arguments must be good This Argument indeed that the intercession of the Saints in Heaven is no more injurious to the Mediation of Christ than the Prayers and Intercessions of the Saints on Earth for each other cannot be good without supposing that the Intercessions of the Saints in Heaven are of the very same nature with the Prayers of Christians for each other on Earth and the Bishop takes the advantage to represent this as the Doctrine of the Church that she teaches us to pray to Saints in the same spirit of Charity and according to the same order of fraternal society which moves us to demand assistance of our Brethren living upon Earth But this I think is not reconcileable with the express words of the Council of Trent which founds the invocation of Saints upon their reigning with Christ which makes a vast difference between their interest and authority in the Court of Heaven and the humble supplications of Christians on Earth And I think the spirit of Charity and the order of fraternal society does not require us supplicitèr invocare to pray to our fellow Christians on Earth as humble Supplicants to pray for us as the Council teaches us to address our selves to the Saints in Heaven Christians indeed on Earth and Saints in Heaven since the Bishop has limited all their aid and assistance to their prayers can do no more than pray for us and are thus both of them distinguished from Christ who is our Mediator of Redemption who has bought us with his blood But then we ought to consider that there is a vast difference in prayers and prayers may prevail upon such different Reasons as may quite alter the nature of the Intercessions For is there no difference between the power and interest of a favourite to obtain what he desires of his Prince and the Petition of an ordinary Subject A Prince may grant the Petition
representing nor misrepresenting Any Man would have thought so indeed who had read his Characters but I never expected that he should have said so But he did not intend to misrepresent any Body and therefore had nothing to do with those Rules but he intended it seems to give an account how Papists are misrepresented by Protestants and therefore ought to have understood what is Misrepresenting and not have called that Misrepresenting which is not But his Province he says was only to draw forth the Character of a Papist as it is commonly apprehended by the Vulgar or the Multitude with the common prejudices and mistakes that generally attend such a notion Now I would fain know whether this Character as it lies in the Peoples heads is distinguished into antecedents and consequents whether they when they hear one declaiming against Popery for committing Idolatory as bad or worss than that of the grossest Heathens worshipping Stocks and Stones for Gods distinguisheth between the Doctrine of the Papists and these interpretations and consequences charged against it Thus in short he tells us The Character of a Papist Misrepresented was intended only as the Author expresses himself in his introduction for a Copy of Popery as painted in the imagination of the Vulgar and if it be conform to that it is exact and perfect and if there be any faults in it the blame must fall on those who drew the Original This is the sum of his excuse for putting such things into the Character of a Papist Misrepresented as do not belong to Character-making nor are in a strict and proper sense Misrepresentations That the common People who do not distinguish between Antecedents and Consequents have such an idea and notion of a Papist as he has described in the Character of a Papist Misrerepresented Well suppose this how does this mend the matter If his Character of a Papist Misrepresented be no misrepresentation then our People who have this notion of a Papist are not Misrepresenters Now this is that which I undertook to prove in my Reply That there is nothing of misrepresentation properly so called in his Character of a Papist Misrepresented It is a false Character indeed because it contains such things as are not matters of Representation but of Dispute and therefore do not belong to a Character but separate matters of Fact from matters of Opinion and Dispute as I have particularly done in my Reply and the Character of a Papist Misrepresented contains no matter of Fact excepting some very few things but what the Character of the Papist Represented owns And therefore as far as it can be called a Character it is a true one And if this as he says be a Copy of Popery as painted in the imagination of the Vulgar the Original can have no more of misrepresentation in it than the Copy has But though the Protester does acknowledge that there is a real difference between Representing the Doctrines and Practices of Papists and declaring our own Judgment and Opinion concerning them he suspects the People do not distinguish between Antecedents and Consequents between the Doctrines of the Papists and these interpretations and consequences charged on it They swallow all down greedily in the lump Antecedents and Consequents go down with them all at once But what does he mean by this that any Protestant People are so silly as to think that Papists believe as bad of their own Religion as they believe of it That Papists believe Idolatry to be lawful as he tells us in the Character of a Papist Misrepresented or that they believe the Worship of an Image to be Idolatry no I assure him our People are taught what Popery is in its genuine purity as he speaks they know in the most material points what the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is and are taught what to think of it and when they hear or read our Disputes against the Church of Rome they are not so weak as to believe that we and Papists have the same Opinions about Worshipping Saints and Images and the Host c. and therefore are not in danger of affixing such Opinions on Papists as they hear us charge on Popery So that this is a very needless fear he is in and if nothing else hinders he may as he promises reform his Character of a Papist Misrepresented I must confess we are pretty positive in declaring to our People the evil and danger of Popery We tell them what we think of it not as thinking signifies doubtfulness and uncertainty but an assured perswasion founded on Reason Scripture and the best Authorities as he complains that we go beyond thinking and instead of saying we think so we positively say so it is But if we are in the right there is no hurt in this and we shall believe so till they can prove that we are in the wrong we do not indeed pretend to Infallibility but we think our selves as certain as those who do This is the sum of what he says in defence of his Character of a Papist Misrepresented that though he acknowledges my distinction to be good between Matters of Dispute and of Representation and consequently that his Character of a Papist Misrepresented has nothing of misrepresentation in it truly so called yet he says this is the Idea of a Papist as it is commonly apprehended by the Vulgar who do not distinguish between Antecedents and Consequents but whatever they hear said of Popery they take to be the Faith of a Papist without distinguishing what it is the Papists own and believe and practise and what guilt Protestants charge them with for thus believing and doing that when they hear the Papists charged with Idolatry for Worshipping Images they as verily think that Papists believe Idolatry to be lawful as they do that they believe it lawful to Worship Images If there be any among us so very silly I dare say they can neither Read nor Write and therefore he might have spared his pains in writing and printing Characters for them and if his Character of a Papist as he says be what he thought of a Papist while he himself was a Protestant it seems he was in a very low dispensation then and could not himself distinguish between Antecedents and Consequents but swallowed all down together though he is now improved into a Writer of Characters and may they never have any wiser Converts However this does plainly yield the cause that the Protestant Clergy and understanding Gentry and Laity who can distinguish between Antecedents and Consequents are no Misrepresenters and as for others we fear they have a great many more Misrepresenters on their side than we hope we have on ours Let us now consider his Character of a Papist Represented and what the faults of that are Now the general fault is that whereas one might reasonably expect that there should be some difference between the Character of a Papist Misrepresented and of a Papist Represented
is given to them because not God but they themselves are the Object and the ultimate Object of that Worship which is given to them Though we should grant that God is honoured by that Worship which is given to some excellent Creatures who are his Friends and Favourites yet the Honour we do to God in this is of a very different nature from that Worship which we pay to Creatures it does not consist in this that the worship we give to Creatures is terminated on God for it is terminated upon those Creatures whom we worship but the Honour must consist in the Reason of our worship that we worship them for God's sake It is an honour to God by Interpretation and Consequence as we intend it for God's Honour or as God is pleased to think himself honoured by it but it is no act of Worship to God and therefore not terminated on him The Worship can go no further than its proper Object though the Reason of the Worship may For there is a great deal of difference between an Object and a Medium of Worship a Medium of Worship which is only a representative Object receives our Worship but does not terminate it but convey it to that Being it represents because it is worshipped only in the place and stead of another as it is in that Worship which is given to the Images of Christ and the Saints which some Divines of the Church of Rome tell us is not terminated on the Images but on Christ or the Saints represented by those Images but a proper Object of Worship which receives worship in its own proper person for whatsoever reason it is worshipped it terminates the Worship the Worship which is given to it goes not beyond it self though the Reason of the Worship may reach farther and be thought to reflect some Honour upon God and to testifie our Love and Reverence for him by that Worship we pay to those who are dear to him So that if we do give Religious Worship to the Virgin Mary and Saints such Worship is terminated on them and then all Religious Worship is not terminated on God as he says the Church of Rome teaches it must be which yet teaches also the worship of Saints and the Blessed Virgin Methinks he should have taken care to have stated this matter a little plainer For if he cannot reconcile the Doctrine and Practice of the Church together I fear his Exposition will rather increase than end Controversies Thus how doubtfully does he speak If the Honour she renders to the Blessed Virgin and to the Saints may in some sense be called Religious it is for its necessary Relation to God Why does he not tell us plainly whether this Honour the Church of Rome gives to Saints and the Virgin be Religious or not and in what sense it may be called Religious Honour If he undertake to expound the Catholick Faith why does he not do it Why does he speak so cautiously As if he were afraid to own what the Faith of the Church is in this point Which yet is a very material one and very necessary to be truly stated Thus I can understand how the Honour which is given to Creatures may have Relation to God viz. because we honour them for God's Sake and upon account of their Relation to him but I do not understand how this relation to God makes the Honour of Creatures a Religious Honour For though we honour Creatures for God's Sake yet the Honour we give to Creatures must be sutable to their own Natures and therefore not that Religious Honour which is proper to God only As when we honour a man for the sake of our Father or our Prince we do not give him that Honour which is proper to our Father or our Prince though we honour him for their Sakes And therefore if the Church of Rome does give Religious Honour to any Creatures it will not justifie her in giving religious Honour to Creatures that she honours them for God's Sake for Creatures are Creatures still though never so nearly related to God and therefore not capable of Religious Honours So that I do not see how this Explication if it may be so called takes off any Objection that was ever made against the Church of Rome about the Object of Religious Worship For if by all Religious Worship being terminated on God he means that no other Being must be religiously worshipped but only God then this is an invincible Objection against that Religious Worship which the Church of Rome gives to the Blessed Virgin and to Saints and Angels If he means by it that Religious Worship may be given to other Beings besides God so it be all terminated in God then all the other Objections against worshipping any other Being besides God are in full force still notwithstanding his Explication their Relation to God will not justifie the Religious Worship of Creatures and it is contrary to all Sense and Reason to say That the Worship which is given to Creatures is terminated on God SECT IV. Invocation of Saints THere are two great Opinions against that Worship which the Church of Rome gives to Saints departed who now reign with Christ in Heaven as the Council of Trent teaches 1. That it is to give them that Religious Worship which is due only to God 2. That it makes them our Mediators and Intercessors in Heaven which is an Honour peculiar to Christ. Now M. de Meaux and after him the Author of the Character think to remove these Objections only by explaining the Doctrine of their Church about this matter and I shall distinctly consider what they say to each of these 1. As for the first That in praying to Saints they do not give them that Worship which is due only to God they think is evident from hence That the Council of Trent and the Catechism ad Parochos teaches them only to pray to Saints to pray for them The Bishop takes great pains to prove this to be the sense of the Council and therefore that in what terms soever those Prayers which we address to Saints are couched the Intention of the Church and of her Faithful reduces them always to this Form Now I will not dispute this matter at present but refer my Reader to the Answer to a Papist misrepresented But let us suppose that this is all the Church of Rome intends by it that we should only pray to the Saints to pray for us what advantage can they make of this Yes says the Advertisement before the Bishops Exposition p. 12. To pray to Saints only to pray for us is a kind of Prayer which by its own nature is so far from being reserved by an Independent Being to himself it can never be addressed to him That is we must never pray to God to pray for us and therefore such a Prayer is no part of that Worship which is due to God And he adds If this Form of Prayer
more pleased with and will more graciously accept our Worship before such an Image than any other or else me-thinks the Devotoes of the Virgin should not go so many Miles in Pilgrimage to the Lady of Loretto as they often do if they believed the Images of the Virgin which they had at home to be of equal Power which is as much trusting in Images and attributing a Divine Virtue to them as ever the Heathens were guilty of For me-thinks those who strictly adhere to the Letter of Scripture to prove that the Heathens believed their Images to be Gods and did put their Trust in them because the Scripture expresly says so should consider also that the Scripture expresly tells us that the Idols of the Heathens are Silver and Gold the Work of Mens hands they have Mouths but they speak not Eyes have they but they see not they have Ears but they hear not neither is there any Breath in their Mouths and therefore we have as much reason to conclude that the Heathens did not put their Trust in the material Images which they knew to be no better than stupid senseless matter which could not of themselves hear or help them as to confess that in some sense they made Gods of them For if the Heathens did not believe them to be dead senseless Images which could neither speak nor see nor hear but that they were really animated by invisible Spirits they were not such dull and sottish Idolaters as the Psalmist represents them and if they did as the Psalmist takes it for granted they themselves acknowledged than it is certain they could not believe the material Images to be Gods nor the Objects of their Hope and Trust and therefore might as some of their Philosophers in effect did as safely renounce believing any Divinity or Vertue in their Images for which they ought to be reverenced or demanding any Favâ—ur of them or putting any Trust in them as the Council of Trent does So that their not believing any Divinity in their Images does neither excuse them from the Breach of the second Commandment nor sufficiently distinguish the Church of Rome's worshipping Images from that Worship which the Heathens gave them at least the Bishop has said nothing to answer or prevent these Objections against Image-worship which he pretends to be the design of his Exposition 2. As a fuller Explication of the Doctrine of the Church about Image-worship Monsieur de Meaux adds that the Council of Trent ordains That all the Honour which is given to them Images should be referred to the Saints themselves which are represented by them Or as the Council expresses it The Honour we render to Images has such a reference to those they represent ad Prototypa quae illae representant to the Prototypes which they represent that by the means of those Images per Imagines by those Images we kiss and before which we kneel we adore Jesus Christ and honour the Saints whose Types they are Quorum illae similitudinem gerunt Whose likeness they are or whom they represent Hitherto we have no Exposition at all of the Doctrine of the Church about Image-Worship but only a bare relation what the Council says that Images must be worshipped only upon account of their Representation and that the Worship which is given to the Image is referred to the Prototype This all Roman-Catholicks agree in but yet there is an endless Dispute among them about the Nature and Degree of this Worship and it will be necessary to take a short view of it They are all agreed that at least the external Acts of Adoration are to be paid to Images such as Kissing Kneeling Bowing Prostration Incense this Durandus and Holcot and Picus Mirandula allowed they all agreed that the Worship which was given to Images is upon account of Representation or as Christ and his Saints are represented by them and worshipped in that Worship which is given to their Images but then there was a threefold difference between them 1. That some would not allow this Worship in a proper sense to be given to the Images but improperly and abusively because at the presence of the Image which excites in us the remembrance of the Object we worship the Object represented by it Christ or his Saints as if they were actually present this was the Opinion of Durandus Holcot and Picus Mirandula who could hardly escape the censure of Heresy for it and that which excused them as Vasquez says was That they agreed with the Catholick Church in performing all external Acts of Adoration to Images and that they differed only in manner of speaking from the rest 2. Thomas Aquinas and his Followers and several great Divines since the Council of Trent teach That the same Worship is to be given to the Image which is due to the Prototype and therefore as Christ must be worshipped with Latria or a supream Worship so must the Image of Christ because the Image is worshipped only on account of its Representation and therefore must be worshipped with the same Worship with the thing represented and the motion of the Mind to an Image as an Image is the same with the motion to the Thing represented Which seems the most reasonable Account for if I worship Christ by his Image I must give that Worship to the Image which I intend for Christ because in that case the Image is in Christ's place and stead to me 3. The third Opinion is That though we must worship Images yet we must not give the Worship of Latria to them no not to the Image of Christ himself but an inferior degree of Worship This some Divines asserted on the Authority of the Council of Nice which expresly determined that Latria is not to be given to Images But this is the most absurd Opinion of all for if we must worship Images only upon the account of their Representation we must give that Worship to them which is due to the thing represented by them and if we give any other Worship to them we must worship them for their own sakes And what is that Worship which is due to them as separated from the Prototype What Worship is due to carved and polished Brass and Stone Whoever desires to see these three different Opinions with the proper Reasons of them explained more at large may consult Dr. Stillingfleet's learned Defence of his Discourse of Idolatry Part 2. Chap. 1. pag. 575 c. Now the Council of Trent only determines that the Honour we give to Images must be referred to the Prototypes that we must adore Christ and his Saints in that Worship which we give to their Images which seems to countenance the second Opinion That the Worship of Latria is to be given to the Image of Christ because that is the Worship which we must give to Christ But then the Council refers to the second Council of Nice which determines the quite contrary and I dare not undertake
and hope Aqui. p. 3. q. 7. art 4. So that which they falsely objected to Calvin doth rightly fall upon the Papists that they blasphemously make Christ c. That Christ is not the Redeemer of all Mankind They affirm the Virgin Mary to be conceived without original Sin c. of which it follows that Christ is not the Redeemer of all Mankind for what needed they a Redeemer who were not born sinners p. 41. They make Christ inferiour to Saints and Angels They say Masses in honour of Angels and Saints but he in whose honour a Sacrifice is offered is greater than the Sacrifice doth it not then appear that while they offer Christs Body and Blood in honour of Saints and Angels they make Christ inferior to Saints and Angels p. 42. They prefer the Pope before Christ. They prefer the Pope before Christ for Christ's Body when the Pope goeth in progress is sent before with the Baggage and when the Pope is near goeth out to meet him while all the Gallants of Rome attend on the Pope p. 43. To the Images of the Cross and Crucifix they give as much honour as is due to God p. 14. To the Images c. teaching their followers that it is but one honour given to the Image and the thing Represented by the Image p. 74. They fall down like Beasts before the Pope and worship him as God ascribing to him most blasphemously the honour due to Christ. They fall down c. Paulus Aemilius l. 2. telleth how the Ambassadors of Sicily cried thus to the Pope Thou that takest away the sins of the World have mercy upon us Stapleton to Greg. 13. calls him supremum numen in terris They call him Vicar of Christ the Monarch of the Church the Head the Spouse the foundation of the Church ascribing to him most blasphemously the honour due to Christ. p. 72. They give divine honour to Images which they themselves cannot deny to be Idolatrous They confess is Idolatry to give divine honour to Creatures But they give divine honour to the Sacament to the Cross and to Images of the Trinity which I hope they will not deny to be Creatures The Romish Church consists of a Pack of Infidels p. 15. Faith is of things as the Papists say in their Catechism only proposed to us by the Church so that if the Church propose not to us the Articles of Faith we are not to believe them if these Men teach truth Further this sheweth the Romish Church consists of a pack of Infidels for if the same believed not without the authority of the Church then she did believe nothing of Christ seeing the Papists acknowledge no other Church but that of Rome and no Church can teach it self p. 178. Scripture and Fathers they read not Spoken of the Schoolmen not of all Papists upon the authority of Ferdinando Vellosillo p. 200. In a member of the Catholick Church they say neither inward Faith nor other virtue is required but only that he profess outwardly the Romish Religion and be subject to the Pope This Opinion he attributes to Cardinal Bellarmin and cites de Eccles milit cap. 2. They make more Conscience to abstain from flesh on Friday than to murder Christians They make more Conscience c. as their curiosity in keeping the Fast and their cruelty in massacring Christians declares p. 205. Divers points of Popish Doctrine are especially said to proceed from the Devil He instances in forbidding Marriage and commanding to abstain from meats which he says are called in Scripture Doctrines of Devils p. 213. That the Popish Church hath no true Bishops that Popery in many points is more absurd and abominable than the Doctrine of Mahomet That Papists that positively hold the heretical and false Doctrines of the modern Church of Rome cannot possibly be saved are the Titles of several Chapters in which he endeavours to make good these charges how well let our Author consider but all men will see that this is not Representing but Disputing This is abundantly enough to give the Reader a tast of the Protesters honestly in Representing and how little I am concerned in these Quotations If some Protestants have charged the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome with such consequences as they cannot justifie wiser Protestants disown it and Papists may confute it if they please which will be a little more to the purpose than to cry out so Tragically about Misrepresenting But to make good this charge of Misrepresenting against us he concludes with several passages out of the Homilies concerning the worship of Saints and Images Now if our Church be guilty of Misrepresenting in her very Homilies which we are all bound to subscribe we must acknowledge our selves to be Misrepresenters But wherein does the Misrepresentation consist Do they not set up Images in Churches And do they not worship them Have they not a great number of Saints whom they worship with Divine Honours The matter of fact is plain and confessed and therefore our Church does not misrepresent them So that the only Misrepresentation he can complain of is that he does not like the judgment of our Church about the worship of Saints and Images and we cannot help that This is the belief of our Church and this is our belief and let him prove us to be Misrepresenters in this if he can for that is not proved meerly by his calling it Misrepresenting Only I would gladly know of this Author what he takes the judgment of the Church of England to be about the worship of Images Whether it be Idolatry or not If he thinks our Church charges them with Idolatry in worshipping Images which I suppose he means when he complains of Misrepresentation and picks out some passages which look that way there is the authority of Doctor Godden against him unless he has changed his mind lately who accuses Dr. St. with contradicting the Church of England in his charge of Idolatry upon the Church of Rome and makes it a certain mark of Fanaticism to do so and then however we may be thought to misrepresent the Church of Rome in this charge of Idolatry we do not misrepresent the Church of England in it which is some satisfaction to us that we are not Misrepresenters on both sides But these Men take great liberties in Representing the Faith and Doctrines of Churches In one Kings Reign the Church of England does not charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry in the next it does though their Articles and Homilies be the same still but they deal with the Church of England no worse than they do with their own Church in one Age a Bellarmine truly Represents the Doctrine of their Church in another a Bishop of Condom and though the Council of Trent be but one and the same the Faith of it alters very often as it may best serve the interest of the Catholick Cause Our Author having exposed the Protestant Character as he calls
it of a Papist which he always looked upon no other than of a Papist Misrepresented he falls a commending the zeal of Protestants against such Popery with great earnestness and passion and therein we agree with him as believing it to be very commendable and do not doubt as he says but those Martyrs recorded by Fox who for not embracing this Popery passed the fiery Tryal had surely a glorious Cause and that the Triumphs and Crowns of Glory which waited for them in Heaven were not inferior to what those enjoyed who suffered under Decius or Dioclesian I agree with him also that there is no need of any longer disagreement that there is no necessity of keeping up names of division that Protestant and Papist may now shake hands and by one subscription close into a Body and joyn in a fair and amicable correspondence For if as he says there is no Papist but will give his hand for the utter suppressing this kind of Popery I see no reason why they may not joyn in Communion with the Church of England which has suppressed it But I am not of his mind that all the Strife has been about a word for the Dispute has been about the Worship of Saints and Images about Transubstantiation worshipping the Host Communion in one kind Service in an unknown Tongue the authority and the use of the Holy Scriptures the Sacrament of Penance Indulgences Purgatory the Popes Supremacy and several other material differences which are something more than a meer Word will they now part with all these Doctrines and Practices since they have been informed by great and good authorities what the nature and evil tendency of these things is No! by no means they will retain all these Doctrines and Practices still but will renounce and abhor all that evil which Protestants charge them with They will pray to Saints and worship Images still but they will abhor all Heathenish Idolatry in such Worship c. but what reason is this for Protestants to joyn with them in one Communion while they retain the same Faith and Worship which at first made a separation necessary and we retain the same opinion of their Faith and Worship which ever we had If Papists be the same Protestants the same that ever they were if Separation were once necessary surely it is so still What change is there now in Papists which was not before that should now invite us to embrace their Communion Yes they abhor all that which Protestants call Popery This is good news but let us a little better understand it Do they abhor the Worship of Saints and Images and the Host Do they abhor the Doctrines of Transubstantiation Penances Indulgences Purgatory Do they renounce the Popes Supremacy c. no such matter but they abhor those Opinions which Protestants have of these things did they then ever believe that these Doctrines and Practices were so bad as Protestants always did and to this day say they are if not what change is there in them that should invite us now to a reconciliation Did Protestants separate from Papists because they believed that Papists thought Idolatry lawful If not why is their abhorring Idolatry while they do the same things that ever they did a sufficient reason for a re-union Suppose some Common-wealths-men who take up Arms against the King should tell the Royalists who fight for him that they have all this while mistaken one another that for their parts they hate Rebellion as much as they can do and have been greatly misrepresented by those who have called them Rebels the strife has been only about a word and therefore it is time for them now to joyn all together not in their duty to their Prince but in opposing him though I dare not smile at our Author for fear of his displeasure again yet I fancy a good Subject would entertain such a proposal with a very disdainful smile And therefore as for misrepresenting our Author may complain on till he is a weary but he can never prove us to be Misrepresenters while they still own that Faith and Worship which we charge them with and if he thinks we censure their Doctrine and Worship too severely let him vindicate it when he can In my Reply I considered what were the faults of his twofold Character of a Papist misrepresented and represented and shall now briefly examine what he says to it As for the Character of a Papist misrepresented I observed 1. That he put such thing 's into the Character as no Man in his wits ever charged them with As that Papists are not permitted to hear Sermons which they are able to understand or that they held it lawful to commit Idolatry or that the Papist believes the Pope to be his great God and to be far above all Angels which the Answerer calls Childish and wilful mistakes And yet says the Protester p. 19. those very things almost in express terms and others far more absurd we see charged on them as is shewed above that is in the Quotations out of the Archbishop and others But I can see no such thing unless the Supremum numen in terris as Stapleton calls Greg. 13. signifie that the Pope is their great God and then I must beg his pardon that I did not think any Man in his wits so silly as it seems some of their own great Divines have been for this is not a Protestant but a Popish representation of them 2. I found fault That the Opinions of Protestants concerning Popish Doctrines and Practices and those ill consequents which are charged and justly charged upon them are put into the Character of a Papist misrepresented as if they were his avowed Doctrine and Belief For whosoever gives a Character of a Papist ought only to represent what his Faith and Practice is not what Opinion he who gives the Character has of his Faith and Practice for this does not belong to the Character of a Papist but only signifies his own private Judgment who gives the Character while we charge Papists only with matter of Fact what they believe and what they practise this is a true Character and no Misrepresenting but if we put our own Opinions of his Faith and Practice into his Character this is Misrepresenting because a Papist has not the same Opinion of these things which we have and this makes it a false Character To this the Protester answers p. 20. This is a pretty speculative quarrel I confess and might deservedly find room here were it our business to consider the due method of misrepresentation in the abstract But as our present concern stands here 's a quaint conceit lost for coming in a wrong place For what had the Author of the Misrepresentation to do with these Rules He did not intend to misrepresent any Body This is very pleasant a Man who undertakes to make Characters is not bound to consider what a Character is nor what belongs to
who teach these Doctrines disown for M. Daille himself in the place quoted by the Bishop charges the Opinion of the Lutherans and of the Church of Rome about the manner of Christ's Presence in the Sacrament with inferring the destruction of the Humanity of Jesus Christ and therefore the Bishop concludes too much when he infers It is then a certain Maxime established amongst them that they must not in these cases look upon the Consequences which may be drawn from a Doctrine but purely upon what he proposes and acknowledges who teaches it But the use M. Daille makes of it is only this That when such ill Consequences as mens Doctrines are justly chargeable with have no ill influence upon Worship or as he speaks no poyson in them if they disown such Consequences this ought not to break Christian Communion And therefore though no man ought to be received into the Communion of the Church who denies the Humanity of Jesus Christ yet the National Synod at Charenton admits Lutherans to the Holy Table because whatever might be inferred from their Doctrine yet they expresly owned the Humanity of Christ and this Doctrinal Consequence was a meer Speculative Error which made no change at all in Acts of Worship but when the Consequences are not meerly speculative but practical and do not so much concern what other men believe and think as what we our selves are to do as it is in the Worship of Saints and Images and the Host c. to say that we must have no regard to Consequences if the Church disowns them is to say that we must not consider the nature and tendency of our Actions nor what they are in Gods account but only what the Church thinks of them and therefore though we will not charge the Church of Rome with believing any Consequences which she disowns yet if her Doctrines and Practices corrupt the Christian Faith and Worship it is fit to charge her with such Corruptions and if the Charge be just though she disown it it will justifie our Separation from her Communion SECT III. Religious Worship is terminated in God alone THE account the Bishop gives of that Interior Adoration which is due to God alone is very sound and Orthodox that it consists principally in believing he is the Creator and Lord of all things and in adhering to him with all the powers of our Soul by Faith Hope and Charity as to him alone who can render us happy by the Communication of an infinite Good which is himself But there are two things I except against in this Section as not fairly stated First concerning the exteriour marks of Adoration Secondly concerning the terminating of Religious Worship As for the first he tells us This interiour Adoration which we render unto God in Spirit and in Truth has its exterior marks of which the principal is Sacrifice which cannot be offered to any but to God And with respect to the second he tells us The same Church teaches us that all Religious Worship ought to terminate in God as its necessary End and that if the Honour which she renders to the Blessed Virgin and to the Saints may in some sence be called Religious it is for its necessary relation to God The Bishop very well knew that this is the main Seat of the Controversie between us and had he intended by his Exposition to have put an end to our disputes he should have taken a little more care about this Point for as he has now stated it he has left the matter just as he found it We say that all Religious Worship ought not only to terminate in God as its necessary End but that God is the sole and immediate Object of all Religious Worship and that we must worship none besides him as our Saviour expounds the Law Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve Matth. 4. We have always denied any relative Worship to be due to Creatures for to worship Creatures is to make them Gods and it is no honour to the Supreme God to advance his own Creatures to divine Honours to make more though inferiour Gods for God's sake We say all external Acts of Religious Worship are peculiar and appropriate to God as well as Sacrifice for since we must worship none but God whatever can be called Religious Worship must be given to none besides him and the Bishop has not dealt plainly in this matter he says that Sacrifice can be offered to none but God but he has not told us what he thinks of other external Acts of Worship whether they may be paid to some excellent Creatures for since Sacrifice is not a natural but instituted Worship if nothing but Sacrifice is peculiar to God then all external natural Worship is common to God and Creatures and then in the state of nature there could be no external and visible Difference between the worship of God and Creatures nor had there been any under the Gospel neither had not Christ instituted his last Supper which the Church of Rome has transformed into a Sacrifice of his natural Flesh and Blood Thus when he says that all Religious Worship ought to terminate in God as its necessary end this seems to me an ambiguous Expression for Worship properly terminates in the Object to which it is given and in this sense If all Religious Worship must terminate in God then all Religious Worship must be given to God and to none else which is the true Catholick Faith that God is only to be worshipped But then what becomes of that Religious Worship which is given to the Virgin Mary and Saints in relation to God Does not this Worship which is given to them terminate in them and not in God Are not they the immediate and proper Objects of that Worship which is given to them And does not the Object terminate the Worship Is God the Object of that Worship which they give to the Saints and Blessed Virgin Then they either give that inferior Degree of Worship to God which is proper for Creatures which is an affront to his Majesty and Greatness or they give that Worship to Creatures which is proper to God which is Idolatry Which plainly shews that that Worship which is given to Creatures is terminated in those Creatures to which it is given and therefore if any degree of Religious Worship be given to Creatures all Religious Worship does not terminate in God as he said it must and if all Religious Worship must terminate in God then no Religious Worship must be given to Creatures as he grants it may to the Virgin Mary and Saints Yes you will say that Worship which is given to the Saints and Blessed Virgin terminates in God because it is given them upon account of their Relation to God but this is a great mistake their Relation to God can only serve for a Reason why they are worshipped but cannot terminate that worship on God which
pray for us diminished the trust we have in God it would be no less condemnable to use it to the Living than to the Dead and St. Paul would not have said so often Brethren pray for us the whole Scripture is full of Prayers of this nature Thus the Author of the Character tells us In this he does not at all neglect coming to God or rob him of his honour but directing all his Prayers up to him and making him the ultimat Object of all his Petitions He only desires sometimes the just on Earth sometimes those in Heaven to joyn their Prayers to his that so the number of Petitioners being increased the Petition may find better acceptance in the sight of God and this is not to make them Gods but only Petitioners to God He having no hopes of obtaining any thing but of God alone This is the least that can possibly be made of that Worship they give to Saints which is not reconcileable with their practice neither and if it should appear that this as little as it is thought to be is to give that Worship to Creatures which is due to God they must e'en reject praying to Saints to pray for them as they now do trusting in their aid and assistances and power to keep them Now I only ask whether Prayer be not an Act of Religion and a worship due to God if it be not why do they pray to God if it be then they give the worship of God to Saints when they pray to them For it is not so much the matter of our Prayer as the nature of Prayer which makes it an Act of Religion We may pray to God for those things which men can give viz. Food and Raiment and yet these are as religious prayers as when we ask such things of God as none can give but himself and by the same reason though we pray to Saints only to do that for us which a creature can do that is only to pray to God for us yet our very praying to them is an Act of religious worship which is due only to God The truth is I am so dull that I cannot see what makes these new Reformers of the Roman-Catholick Doctrine and Worship so shy of owning any other aid and assistance which they expect from the Saints but only their Prayers for them for this makes no alteration at all in the nature of that worship they pay to them For suppose the Saints in Heaven who now reign with Christ as the Council affirms were intrusted with the Guardianship of men and the care of Saints on Earth as Cardinal Bellarmine expresly says they are might we not as lawfully pray to them to imploy that power God has committed to them for our good and happiness as to use their interest with God for us by their prayers Does one exalt you more above the condition of creatures than the other May we not beg our Friends on Earth to relieve our wants and necessities as well as to pray for us And if begging the prayers of our Friends on Earth will justifie our praying to the Saints in Heaven to pray for us our asking an Alms on Earth will equally justifie our begging the aid and assistance as well as prayers of the Saints in Heavâ—n and then we are just where we were And if ever there were any good Arguments against praying to Saints they are all good still though they pray to Saints only to pray for them which is my only business at present to shew according to the Bishop's desire that his Explication leaves all the Objections in full force and all the Disputes untouched So that setting aside the matter of our prayers or what it is we ask which makes no alteration in this case the inquiry is Whether when we pray to Saints we do not give that worship to them which is peculiar and appropriate to God Now the Church of Rome is so far from thinking such prayers to be the peculiar worship due to God that she thinks it as innocent to pray to the Saints in Heaven to pray for us as it is to desire the prayers of our Christian Brethren on Earth The Bishop says The Church in teaching us that it is profitable to pray to Saints teaches us to pray to them in the same spirit of Charity and according to the same order of fraternal Society which moves us to demand assistance of our Brethren living on Earth The Character to the same purpose makes our desiring sometimes the Saints on Earth sometimes those in Heaven to joyn their prayers with ours to be Actions of the very same nature and equally lawful This is the true Pinch of the Controversie and here it is we part with the Church of Rome that we think there is some difference between speaking to our Christian Brethren on Earth whom we see and converse with and praying to the Saints in Heaven with all the external expressions of religious worship and adoration The first is to converse with them as men the second is such a manner of Address as is proper only for a God To pray to Saints is somewhat more than to desire our Christian Friends to pray for us it is supplicitèr eos invocare as the Council of Trent speaks to invoke them or call on them in the manner of Supplicants so that this must be acknowledged a worship of the Saints and then it must be either a civil or religious worship and which of these two it is must be known by the manner of paying it And therefore when all the circumstances of worship are religious we must acknowledge the worship to be religious too Such as praying to them in religious Places in Churches and Chappels and at consecrated Altars with bended knees and hands and eyes lifted up in a very devout manner when they see no body to speak to or to receive their Addresses unless it be the Image of the Saint they worship Thus some Nations worship their Gods but no People ever paid their civil respects to each other in this manner But as I observed in my Reply p. 66. There is one infallible distinction between civil and religious worship between the worship of God and men That the worship of the invisible Inhabitants of the other World has always been accounted religious worship Civil respects are confined to this World as all natural and civil Relations which are the foundation of civil respects are but we have no intercourse with the other World but what is religious And therefore as the different kinds and degrees of civil honour are distinguished by the Sight of the Object to which they are paid though the external acts and expressions are the same as when men bow the body and are uncovered you know what kind of honour it is by seeing who is present whether their Father their Friend or their Prince or some other Honourable Person So the most certain mark of distinction between
Supreme God and created Spirits and Glorifyed Souls of dead men and therefore if it be necessary to distinguish between the Worship of God and Creatures we must worship no Invisible Being but only the Supreme God The Protester proposes some ways whereby the different kinds and degrees of Religious Worship may be distinguished as by the intention of the Giver but this is not a Visible Distinction For mens intentions are private to themselves and there is no difference in the Visible Acts of Worship to make such a distinction or by some Visible Representation that is by Images This I grant would make as visible a Distinction between the Worship of God and Christ and the Virgin Mary as the presence of the person distinguishes the Kinds and Degrees of Civil Honour for when we see whose Image they worship we may certainly tell what Being they direct their Worship to but the fault of this is that it is forbid by the Law of God of which more in the next Section or by Determination of other Circumstances but what these are I cannot tell and therefore can say nothing to it The Church of Rome indeed does appropriate the Sacrifice of the Mass to God as his peculiar Worship which must not be given to any other Being and if this be so then indeed we can certainly tell when we see a Priest offering the Sacrifice of the Mass that he offers it to the Supreme God but there are a great many other Acts of Worship which we owe to God besides the Sacrifice of the Mass and in every Act of Worship God ought to be visibly distinguished from Creatures and yet if all the other External Acts of Worship be common to God and Creatures where is the distinction And yet the Sacrifice of the Mass can be offered only by the Priest so that the whole Layety cannot perform any one Act of Worship to God which is peculiar to him and therefore can make no Visible Distinction in their Worship between God and Creatures And yet the very Sacrifice of the Mass is not so appropriated to God in the Church of Rome but that it is offered to God in Honour of the Saints This the Bishop of Condom p. 7. endeavours to excuse by saying This Honour which we render them the Saints in Sacrificing consists in naming them in the Prayers we offer up to God as his Faithful Servants and in rendring him thanks for the Victories they have gained and in humbly beseeching him that he would vouchsafe to favour us by their Intercession Now it is very true according to the Council of Trent the Priest offers the Sacrifice only to God but they do somewhat more than name the Saints in their Prayers for they offer the Sacrifice in Honour to the Saints as well as to God which the Bishop calls to Honour the Memory of the Saints Now if Sacrifice be an Act of Honour and Worship to God it sounds very odly to worship or honour God for the Honour of his Saints which seems to make God only the Medium of Worship to the Saints who are the terminative object of it and that the Saints are concerned in this Sacrifice appears from this That by this Sacrifice they implore the Intercession of the Saints that those whose Memories we celebrate on Earth would vouchsafe to intercede for us in Heaven The Bishop translates implorat by Demand for what reason I cannot tell and makes this Imploring or Beseeching to refer to God not to the Saints whose Patronage Patrocinia and Intercession they pray they would vouchsafe them contrary to the plain Sense of the Council and I think to common Sense too For I do not well understand offering Sacrifice to God that he may procure for us the Intercession of the Saints for if he can be perswaded to favour us so far as to intercede with the Saints to be our Intercessors he may as well grant our Requests without their Intercession and yet the Bishop was very sensible that if we offer up our Prayers to the Saints in the Sacrifice of the Mass it does inevitably entitle them to the Worship of that Sacrifice which they say must be offered only to God He alleadges indeed St. Austin's Authority who understood nothing of this Mystery of the Sacrifice of the Mass and how far he was from thinking of any thing of this Nature is evident to any man who consults the place But the Church of Rome as the Bishop observes p. 8. has been charged by some of the Reformation not only with giving the Worship of God to Creatures when they pray to the Saints but with attributing the Divine Perfections to them such as a certain kind of Immensity and Knowledge of the Secrets of hearts for if they be not present in all places where they are worshipped how can they hear the Prayers which are made to them at such distant places at the same time If they do not know our thoughts how can they understand those mental prayers which are offered to them without words only in our secret Thoughts and Desires for even such Prayers are expresly allowed by the Council voce vel mente Now to this he answers very well that though they believe the Saints do by one means or other know the Prayers which are made to them either by the Ministry and Communication of Angels or by a particular Revelation from God or in his Divine Essence in which all truth is comprised yet never any Catholick yet thought the Saints knew our Necessities by their own power no nor the desires which move us to address our secret Prayers to them And to say a Creature may have a Knowledge of these things by a light communicated to them by God is not to elevate a Creature above his Condition This I grant and therefore do acknowledge that they do not attribute the Divine perfections of Omniscience and Omnipresence to the Saints either in thought or word but yet actions have as natural a signification as words and if we give them such a worship as naturally signifies Omniscience and Omnipresence our worship attributes the incommunicable Perfections of God to them For it is unnatural and absurd to worship a Being who is not present to receive our worship to speak to a Being who does not and cannot hear us and since God has made us reasonable Creatures to understand what we do and why he interprets our Actions as well as words and thoughts according to their natural signification And herein the natural evil of creature-worship consists That every act of religious worship does naturally involve in it a Confession of some excellency and perfection which is above a created nature and thereby whatever the worshipper thinks or intend does attribute the incommunicable Glory of God to creatures If the Saints are not present in all places to hear those Prayers which are made to them and if they cannot hear in Heaven what we say to them
on Earth by their own Power then Prayer is a worship which is not due to their nature even in a glorified state For no Being can have a right to our Prayers who cannot hear them and though we should grant that God reveals our Prayers to them yet to know by Revelation is not to hear In this case all that can be reasonable for us to do is only secretly to desire that the Saints would Pray for us which God can reveal to them if he pleases as well as our Prayers but it can never be reasonable to Pray to those who cannot hear us And if Prayer cannot be due to a created nature in its most exalted state because no creature can be present in all places to hear our Prayers then if it be a proper worship for Creatures it must be so by a positive Institution of God but then they must shew an express command for it and when they can do that we will dispute the reason of the thing no longer And this is a manifest reason why we should worship no other invisible Being besides God because no other invisible Being is capable of our Worship God alone fills all places and therefore may be worshipped though we do not see him for he is present every where to hear our prayers but we cannot know that any Being of a limited presence is present with us unless we see it and it is unnatural to pray to any Being who is not present to hear us And though the Church of Rome does not directly and positively attribute any divine perfections to Saints yet mankind are so naturally prone to ascribe a kind of Divinity to immortal and invisible Spirits that this is a sufficient reason why God should not allow the worship of any invisible Spirits For after all that can be said to the contrary it is a mighty temptation to men at least to make inferior Deities of those to whom they constantly pay divine honours And though they do not attribute to Saints a natural power to know our Thoughts and to hear our Prayers and to answer them yet if this supernatural gift and power whereby they do it be as constant and act as certainly as nature does it is as great and adorable a perfection as if it were natural for since all created Excellencies are the gift of God what mighty difference is there between a natural and supernatural perfection or gift if that which is supernatural be as certain and lasting and that which they can as constantly use as that which is natural As to take their own instance Were the gift of Prophesie which God bestowed on some in former Ages as constant and certain as natural knowledge that they could use this gift whenever they pleased and as constantly foretel things to come as they could reason and discourse what difference would there be in this case between a natural and supernatural knowledge of future things truly no more but this That a natural knowledge is a perfection which God did originally bestow upon our nature supernatural knowledge is an additional Perfection but yet upon this supposition as inseparably annexed to our natures as natural knowledge and always as ready for use as that which I think would make such a Prophet as truly venerable as if Prophesie were natural to him Thus it is in this present case If the Saints know our prayers by what means soever they do it it must be as constant and lasting a gift as if it were natural that is they must as certainly know when and what we pray for every time we pray as if they were present to hear us For if they do not always know our prayers we can never know when to pray and can never have any security of their Intercession for us many thousand Ave Maries may be every day lost and turn to no account and if they do constantly know this by a supernatural gift it is as glorious a perfection as if this knowledge were natural Mankind do not so critically distinguish between natural and supernatural gifts in whomsoever these perfections are they are divine and such creatures have a supernatural kind of Divinity annexed to their natures they are made Gods though not Gods by nature which is as much as any people believe of their inferior Deities who believe but one Supreme and Sovereign God who is a God by nature And yet the Author of the Character of a Papist represented gives some instances which would perswade us that the Saints have a natural knowledge of our Prayers Thus he tells us That Abraham heard the petitions of Dives who was yet at a greater distance even in Hell and told him likewise his manner of living while as yet on Earth p. 4. Now not to ask how he comes so exactly to know where Hell is and that it is at a greater distance from Heaven than the Earth is If there be any force in this Argument it must prove that the Saints have a natural knowledge of our Prayers though at so great a distance from us as Heaven is That they see and hear us as Abraham did Dives though we cannot see and hear them as Dives did Abraham which might have satisfied him since he thinks fit to reason from Parables that whatsoever distance there is between Heaven and Hell there is a greater communication between them than between Heaven and Earth However our Saviour cannot here speak of any supernatural gift whereby Abraham saw and heard Dives in Hell unless we will say that Dives did by a supernatural gift also see and hear Abraham in Heaven and therefore if this prove any thing it proves that Saints know and hear our Prayers by their own natural powers Thus he adds That the very Devils hear those desperate wretches who call on them and why then should he doubt that Saints want this priviledge in some manner granted to sinful men and wicked spirits But though he call this a Priviledge I suppose he means a natural one unless he thinks that the Devils hear witches by a supernatural revelation as the Saints in Heaven hear the prayers of the Saints on Earth But I always thought that Devils had been a little nearer bad men than the Saints in Heaven are to us on Earth for they are confined to this Lower Region and therefore are often so near as to see and hear bad men though they are invisible themselves And this is one reason why God will not allow us to worship any invisible Spirits because though we should intend only to worship good Spirits and glorified Saints yet bad Spirits who are near and present as having their residence in the Air as the Devil is called the Prince of the Power of the Air do assume this worship to themselves and both corrupt the worship and abuse their Votaries with lying Wonders Thus they did in the times of Paganism and whether they have more reverence for the Christian Saints than they
of a Subject for himself or of one Subject for another where there is reason and equity in the case without any more powerful intercession but acts of grace and favour must be dispensed by the intercession of favourites and yet it is all by way of prayer and Petition to the Prince but though it is all but Petition and request yet those who have any request to make to their Prince place more confidence in the interest and power of one favourite than in the joynt Petitions of many ordinary Subjects Thus it is here Christians on Earth pray for each other as common Supplicants and the benefit they expect from such Prayers and Intercessions is only from the prevalency of Faith and Charity which inspire such prayers and make them efficacious God has commanded us to pray for one another and has promised to hear our united fervent and importunate Prayers for the merits of our common Saviour Jesus Christ But those who pray to Saints in Heaven pray to them as Favourites and Mediators who prevail not meerly by the force and efficacy of Prayer but by their personal Merits and Interests with God and this makes them just such Mediators as Christ is who by their Power and Interest can recommend us and our Prayers to God's acceptance No you 'll say Christ purchased us with his Blood and mediates in the vertue of his Sacrifice which makes his Mediation of a different nature from the Mediation of Saints who mediate only by their interest with God upon account of their personal Merits But this alters not the case for the general notion of a Mediator is one who has Power and Interest with God effectually to recommend us to his favour and whether he mediates with or without a Sacrifice if his Mediation be powerful and efficacious he is a true and proper Mediator and to set up such other Mediators besides Christ must be injurious to his Mediation for then Christ is not our only Mediator and after all the Apologies that can be made for it it argues some distrust either of Christ's Power or good Will to help us when we fly to other Patrons and Advocates 2. And therefore Monsieur de Meaux has another Reserve for in the second place he tells us from the Council of Trent That to invocate Saints according to the sense of this Council is to have recouâ—se to their Prayers for obtaining benefits from God through Jesus Christ so that in reality we do not obtain those benefits which we receive by the Intercession of the Saints otherwise than through Jesus Christ and in his Name seeing these Saints themselves pray in no other manner than through Jesus Christ and are not heard but in his Name After which we cannot imagine that any one should accuse us of forsaking Jesus Christ when we beseech his Members who are also ours his Children who are our Brethren and his Saints who are our first fruits to pray with us and for us to our common Master in the name of our common Mediator As for forsaking Jesus Christ this we do not charge them with tho whoever considers how much more frequent addresses are made in the Church of Rome to the Virgin Mary and some other powerful Saints than to Christ himself will be tempted to think that it looks very like forsaking him but we only say that they rob Christ of the glory of being our only Mediator and Advocate by having recourse to the Prayers and intercessions of so many Saints But how can the Intercession of Saints be injurious to the Mediation of Christ when they themselves intercede in the Name and Mediation of Christ which necessarily reserves to Christ the glory of his Mediation entire since the Saints themselves are not heard but in his Name Now rightly to understand this we must consider the Nature of Christs Mediation which is to offer up all those Prayers to God in Heaven which we make to God in his name on Earth He is our Mediator in Heaven our High-Priest who is passed into the Heavens who is made not after the law of a Carnal Commandment but after the power of an endless life who is made higher than the Heavens who is not entred into the Holy Place made with hands which are the figures of the true but into Heaven it self now to appear in the presence of God for us So that as the High-Priest under the Law entred once a year into the Holy Place which was a type and figure of Heaven to make expiation and intercessions for the People so the Office of Christ as our High-Priest and Mediator is to ascend into Heaven with his own Blood and there to appear in the presence of God for us His mediatory Office is confined to Heaven there he presents our Prayers to God in vertue of his own Blood and this is as peculiar and appropriated to him as it was to the High-Priest under the Law to offer the Blood of the Sacrifice and make Attonement and Intercession in the Holy of Holies So that to present our Prayers to God in Heaven is the peculiar office of Christ who is our great High-Priest and only Mediator in the immediate presence of God in Heaven and to apply our selves to any other Mediators in Heaven to present our Prayers to God in what manner or upon what pretence soever it be is injurious to the Mediation of Christ whose proper Office it is to present our Prayers to God in Heaven And that pretence that the Saints pray for us only in the Name and Mediation of Christ is no Apology in this case for in what name soever they pray they offer up our Prayers to God immediately in Heaven which is the Office of our great High-Priest for there is and must be but be but one Mediator in Heaven And if we consider what is meant by Praying to God in the Name and Mediation of Christ we shall see reason to think that this is very improperly attributed to the Saints in Heaven For when we pray to God in the Name of Christ though we address our Prayers immediately to God yet God does not receive them as coming immediately from us but as presented by the hands of our Mediator which is the true meaning of Praying to God in the Name of Christ that we offer our Prayers to God not directly from our selves for then we should have no need of a Mediator but by his Hands whose Office it is to present them to God to appear in the Presence of God for us which is therefore called coming to God by him Now this is very agreeable to the state and condition of Christians on Earth who are at a great distance from the immediate Throne and Presence of God to offer their Prayers by the hands of a Mediator who appears in the presence of God for them and the reason why we want a Mediator to appear for us is because we are not yet
admitted into God's immediate Presence our selves But could every ordinary Priest or Jew have been admitted into the Holy of Holies as the High-Priest was they might as well have offered their Prayers and Sacrifices there immediately to God without the Ministry and Mediation of the High-Priest and those who are in Heaven in the immediate presence of God if they offer up any Prayers to God for themselves or others they offer them immediately and directly to God because they offer them to God in his immediate Presence which is the true notion of Christ's Mediation that he appears in the presence of God for us And therefore whatever use there may be of the Name of Christ in Heaven Saints in Heaven who live in the immediate Presence of God have no need of a Mediator to offer their Prayers to God as Saints on Earth have because they are admitted to the immediate Vision of God themselves To offer up our Prayers to God in the Name and Mediation of Christ supposes that we are at a distance from God and not admitted into his Presence to speak for our selves but those Prayers which are offered to God in his immediate Presence need no Mediator to present them And yet to say that the Saints in Heaven offer their Prayers to God in the Name and Mediation of Christ is to say that when they are admitted to the immediate Presence of God themselves they still need a Mediator that the Prayers they offer to God in his immediate Presence they do not offer immediately to him but by the hands of a Mediator which if it be Sence I am sure is no good Divinity as neither agreeing with the Types of the Law nor with the Gospel-account of Christ's Mediation And therefore if glorified Saints appear for us in the presence of God in Heaven they are as much our Mediators as Christ is for this is the most essential Character of this Mediation that he appears in the presence of God for us The only Objection I can fore-see against this is that some of the ancient Fathers though they did not pray to Saints to pray for them yet were inclined to believe that Saints departed did Pray for the Church on Earth especially for their particular Friends which they left behind them and therefore to be sure did not think this any injury to the Mediation of Christ. But then we must consider that as they spoke doubtfully of this matter so those very Fathers did not believe that Saints departed were received up into the highest Heaven into the immediate Presence and Throne of God though they thought them in a very happy state yet not perfect till the resurrection and therefore they prayed for Saints departed as well as believed that Saints departed prayed for them Now any Mediation and Intercession on this side Heaven is very consistent with the Mediation of Christ in Heaven but to intercede in Heaven is his peculiar Office which no other Creature can share in since his Resurrection and Ascension This I think is sufficient to prove that Monsieur de Meaux his Exposition cannot reconcile Praying to Saints to Pray for us either with the peculiar Worship of God or with the Glory and Dignity of our great and only Mediator and Advocate Jesus Christ. The Character of a Papist Represented 3. Of addressing more Supplications to the Virgin Mary than to Christ. Monsieur de Meaux takes no notice of that peculiar kind of Worship which is paid in the Church of Rome to the Virgin Mary as being sensible how hard it is to reconcile this with his bare Ora pro nobis but the Representer who pretends to follow the Bishops Pattern but wants his Judgment and Caution to manage it undertakes to Apologize for this too and it is worth the while to consider what he says The Papist Mis-represented is said to believe the Virgin Mary to be much more powerful in Heaven than Christ and that she can command him to do what she thinks good and for this reason he Honours her much more then he does her Son or God the Father for one Prayer he says to God saying ten to the Holy Virgin Let us then consider how much of Mis-representation there is in this and I shall begin with the last first because mens Actions are the best Interpreters of their Thoughts and Belief The Papist for one prayer he says to God says ten to the Virgin Mary Is this mis-represented Let him but tell over his Beads and see how many Ave Maries and Pater nosters he will find upon a string which are exactly ten for one This he confesses and thinks it as innocent to recite the Angelical Salutation now as it was for the Angel Gabriel and Elizabeth to do it But did the Angel use it as a Prayer to the Virgin Mary Is Hail thou that art Highly favoured the Lord is with Thee blessed art thou amongst Women when spoken to the Virgin who was then present to hear it a friendly Saluation or a Prayer Was it delivering a Message or an act of Devotion Or is this the Ave Maria now in use in the Church of Rome As I remember there are two or three little words Ora pro nobis added to it which make it a Prayer not the Angelical Salutation And we do not read that the Angel said Holy Mary Mother of God pray for us sinners now and in the hour of Death Indeed were it lawful to pray to the Virgin Mary I should have less to say against the frequent repetition of this prayer but yet a man might enquire why the prayer to the Virgin Mary is repeated so much oftner than the prayer to God is not this to honour her much more then he does her Son or God the Father For is not Prayer an act of Honour and Worship And do we not then honour that Being most to whom we pray oftenest No says the Representer for he does not at any time say even so much as one Prayer to her but what is directed more principally to God Surely there must be some Mystery in this For do they not say a great many Prayers immediately directed to the Virgin Mary and not at all directed to God Is not their Ave Maria such a Prayer and do they principally pray to God in those Prayers which are immediately directed to the Virgin Mary When they pray to the Virgin Mary to pray to them is this Prayer princâ—pally directed to God Almighty What when the Virgin is only named And the matter of the Prayer is such that it cannot be directed to God Almighty unless they think it proper to pray to God to pray for them Yes these Prayers to the Virgin are offered up as a thankful Memorial of Christ's Incarnation and an acknowledgement of the Blessedness of Jesus the fruit of her Womb. The meaning of which can be no more than this That when they Pray to Mary the Mother of Jesus it is a
shew 1. Then he tells us That the Council of Trent forbids us expresly to believe any Divinity or Virtue in Images for which they ought to be reverenced We grant the Council does forbid this and he knows that we never charge them with it though there are some practices of the Church of Rome which look very suspiciously that way but then we say the second Commandment forbids the worship of all Images without any such limitation for there is not any one word in the Commandment to limit the Prohibition of worshipping Images to such Images as are believ'd to have any Divinity in them The words of the Commandment are as general as can be Thou shalt not make to thy self any Graven Image nor the likeness of any thing that is in Heaven above or in the Earth beneath or in the Water under the Earth thou shalt not how down to them nor worship them The Commandment takes no notice of any Divinity which is supposed to be in these Images but only of the Representation made by them that they are the Likeness or Representation of things in Heaven or things on Earth or things under the Earth and therefore the whole Dispute between Papists and Protestants about the sense of the second Commandment and the strict notion of an Idol is left untouch'd by this Exposition The Roman Doctors indeed tell us that the Heathens worshipped their Images as Gods and did ascribe Divinity to them upon which account Monsieur de Meaux tells us All these words of the Council are like so many Characters to distinguish us from Idolaters seeing we are so far from believing with them any Divinity annexed to the Images that we do not attribute to them any Virtue but that of exciting in us the remembrance of those they represent But he knew very well that Protestants deny that the Heathens took their Images for Gods any more than Papists do their Philosophers despised the charge and made the same Apologies for themselves which the Divines of the Church of Rome now do and we may suppose that common Heathens had much such Apprehensions about them as common Papists have Those who had any sense could not believe them to be Gods and those who have none may believe any thing but there is no great regard to be had to such Mens Faith whatever their Religion be who are void of common Sense However this Dispute whether the Heathens did believe their Images to be Gods or to have any more Divinity in them than Papists attribute to their Images is a Dispute still and Monsieur de Meaux has not said one word to prevent it and therefore the Condemnation of the Heathens for worshipping Images is still a good Objection against the worship of Images in the Church of Rome till he prove as well as assert this difference between them But indeed tho I readily grant that the Church of Rome does not believe that there is any Divinity in their Images and that the Heathens did believe that Consecration brought down the Gods whom they worshipped by such Representations and tied them by some invisible Charms to their Image that they might be always present there to receive their Worship yet this makes no material difference in their Notion of Images The reason why the Heathens thought it necessary by some Magical Arts to fasten their Gods or some Divine Powers to their Images was not to incorporate them with their Images but to secure a Divine Presence there to hear their Prayers and receive their Sacrifices without which all their Devotions paid to an Image were lost which was very necessary especially in the Worship of their Inferior Daemons whom they did not believe to be present in all places As Elijah mocked the Priests of Baal and said Cry aloud for he is a God either he is talking or he is pursuing or he is in a Journy or peradventure he sleepeth and must be awaked But now those who believe that God is every where present to fee and hear what we do and that the Saints who are not present in their Images yet do certainly know by what means soever it be what Prayers and Homages are offered to them at their Images need not call down any Divine Powers constantly to attend their Images but only to procure their acceptance of those Devotions which are paid to them at their Images And this is the difference between the Consecration of Heathen and Popish Images The first is to procure the Presence of their Gods in their Images the other to obtain the Favour of Christ and the Saints to accept those Prayers and Oblations and other Acts of Devotion which are offered to them at their Images as to give but one Instance of it in a Prayer used at the Consecration of the Cross. Sanctificetur lignum istud in nomine Pa ✚ tris Fi ✚ lii Spiritus ✚ Sancti benedictio illius ligni in quo membra sancta salvatoris suspensa sunt sit in isto ligno ut orantes inclinantesque se propter Deum ante istam crucem inveniant Corporis Animae sanitatem Let this Wood be santified in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and let the Blessing of that Wood on which the holy Members of our Saviour hung be on this Wood that those who pray and bow themselves before this Cross may obtain Health both of Body and Soul This peculiar Virtue which Consecration bestows on Images to obtain the Favour of Christ and his Saints to those who pray and worship before them is all that the Heathens intended in calling down their Gods to attend their Images to hear and receive their Prayers and Sacrifices They did not believe their Images to be Gods but Silver or Gold Wood or Brass or Stone according to the Materials they were made of as the Church of Rome does but they thought their Gods were present to hear the Prayers they made before their Images as the Church of Rome also believes that Christ and his Saints have a peculiar regard to those Prayers which are made before their Images as is evident from their forms of consecrating Images to such an use The Heathens did not put their trust in an Image of Wood and Stone but in that God who was represented by that Image and was there present to help them And thus tho the Church of Rome does not demand any Favour of Images nor put any Trust in them yet she expects the Relief and Acceptance of Christ and the Saints for that Worship she pays to their Images and I would desire any Man to show me the difference between these two especially when we consider how much greater Vertue is attributed to some Images of the Blessed Virgin in the Church of Rome than there is to others as to the Image of the Lady of Loretto c. which can signify nothing less than that the Virgin is
his House So that there is no need to find any Hole as the Protestor speaks to get out at with the Altar for that was never in yet as far as this Controversy is concerned and therefore I am like to make no breach for him to follow at with his Image Nor does any Man kneel to the Sacrament but only receive the Sacrament kneeling and if he cannot distinguish between an Act of Worship to the Sacrament and a devout Posture of receiving it yet the meanest Son of the Church of England can Why does he not as well say that when we kneel at Prayers we worship the Common-Prayer Book which lies before us and out of which we read as that we worship the Bread when we receive and eat it with devout Passions upon our Knees But to return to the Exposition 2. I observe that there is a great difference between a memorative Sign and the Representation of an Image both of them indeed excite in us the remembrance of something but in such different manners as quite alter the nature of them It is necessary to take notice of this because I find Monsieur de Meaux and after him the Representer very much to equivocate in this Matter it is a very innocent thing to worship God or Christ when any natural or instituted Sign brings them to our minds even in the presence of such a Sign As if a Man upon viewing the Heavens and the Earth and the Creatures that are in it should raise his Soul to God and adore the great Creator of the World or upon the accidental sight of a natural Cross should call to mind the Love of his Lord who died for him and bow his Soul to him in the most submissive Adorations because I say this is very innocent the Bishop would perswade his Readers that this is the only use they make of Images to excite in us the remembrance of those they represent and mightily wonders at the little justice of those who treat with the term of Idolatry that religious Sentiment which moves them to uncover their Heads or bow them before the Image of the Cross in remembrance of him who was crucified for the Love of us And that it is sufficient to distinguish them from the Heathen Idolaters That they declare that they will not make use of Images but to raise the mind towards Heaven to the end that they may there honour Jesus Christ or his Saints and in the Saints God himself who is the Author of all Sanctity and Grace Now it is certain an Image will call to our remembrance the Person it represents as the presence of the Person himself will make us remember him but this vastly differs from a meer memorative Sign For the use of Images in the Church of Rome is not primarily for Remembrance but for Worship as the Council of Trent expresly teaches That the Images of Christ and the Virgin the Mother of God and other Saints are especially to be had and kept in Churches and due Honour and Veneration to be given to them because the Honour given to them is referred to the Prototypes which they represent so that by the Images which we kiss and before which we uncover our Heads and prostrate our selves we adore Christ and venerate the Saints whose likeness they bear These are the words of the Council and it would be a very odd Comment upon such a Text to say that Images serve only for Remembrance A meer Sign which only calls Christ to our Minds can deserve no Honour or Worship but a representing Sign which puts us in mind of Christ by representing his Person to us as if he were present whether it raises our hearts to him in Heaven or not yet according to the Council of Trent it must direct our Worship to him as represented in his Image When Men go to Church to worship Christ or the Virgin Mary before their Images it may be presumed they think of them before they see their Images and therefore do not go to be put in remembrance of them by their Images but to worship them before the Images in that Worship which they give to the Images And therefore when the Bishop speaks so often of the Virtue of Images to excite in us the remembrance of the Persons they represent to reconcile him with himself and with the Council of Trent which he pretends to own we must not understand him as if Images were of no use but to be helps to memory and are honoured for no other reason which is no reason at all as the unwary Reader will be apt to mistake him but that these visible Images represent to us the invisible Objects of our Worship and give us such a sense of their Power and Presence as makes us fall down and worship them before those Representations which we honour for their sakes that is tho they serve for remembrance yet not as meer memorative Signs but as memorative or representative Objects of Worship 3. I observe that it is the very same thing whether we say that we worship Christ as represented by the Image or worship the Image as representing Christ for they both signify that Christ is worshipped in and by his Image that the Honour and Worship is given to the Image and referr'd to the Prototype If Christ be worshipped as represented by the Image then the Worship which is intended for Christ is given to the Image in his Name and as his Representative if the Image be worshipped as representing Christ then the Worship which is given to the Image is not for it self but for Christ whom it represents which differ just as much as a Viceroy's being honoured for the King or the King 's being honoured in his Viceroy And therefore I wonder that any Man of Understanding and Judgment as Monsieur de Meaux certainly is should think there is any great matter in saying When we honour the Image of an Apostle or Martyr our Intention is not so much to honour the Image as to honour the Apostle or Martyr in the presence of the Image that is in and by the Image as I have showed that Phâ—â—se signifies when it is referred to a Representatiâ—◠〈◊〉 for it is the very same thing to say we honour the 〈◊〉 as representing the Martyr or we honour the Martyr as represented by the Image Having premised these things let us now compare the Opinion of Monsieur de Meaux with the Opinion of St. Thomas Aquinas about the Worship of Images and tho the first is thought by some Men to say a great deal too little and the other a great deal too much yet it will appear that their Opinions in this matter are the very same They both agree That Christ and his Saints are represented by their Images they both agree that Christ and his Saints are worshipped in their Images as represented by them they both agree that no other Worship is to be paid to or before or
Image is terminated on the Image as its own proper and peculiar Worship as Catharinus and Bellarmine and all of this way acknowledg who reject Thomas his Doctrine of worshipping the Image with the worship of the Prototype represented by it because this is not properly the Worship of the Image but of the Prototype and therefore that the Image may be sure to be worshipped they give it an inferior degree of Worship which terminates on it self Now how Christ should be worshipped in that Worship which terminates on his Image that is how that Worship which ends in the Image and goes no farther should pass through the Image and end in Christ as it must do if Christ be worshipped in the Image is past my understanding as all Contradictions are But they refer the Worship of the Image to the Prototype But it is worth enquiring how they do it Do they intend the Worship they give to the Image for Christ that is Do they intend to worship Christ in that Worship they give to his Image No they can't do that because they give only an inferior degree of Worship to the Image which is not worthy of Christ not a Worship proper for him but only for his Image but they worship the Image for the sake of Christ and this they take to be an Honour to Christ to worship his Image but this is not to worship Christ in or by his Image for in this way Christ is not worshipped in that Worship we give to his Image but it is to worship the Image for Christ's sake which is by interpretation an Honour to Christ as any respect we show to the Image of the King argues our Esteem and Honour for our King whose Image it is but these two differ as much as to honour Christ in our Actions and to worship him as to do something which is by interpretation an Honour to Christ and to make our immediate Addresses to offer up our Prayers and Thanksgivings to him Every thing we do for the Honour of Christ is not presently an Act of Worship and therefore though we should grant that we honour Christ in the Worship of his Image it does not follow that therefore we worship him in worshipping his Image when we give no Worship at all to him but only to his Image which plainly shows that in this way they do not worship Christ by his Image but only worship the Image for Christ's sake Which is a plain Argument to me that though this Way has very great and learned Advocates yet it cannot be the meaning of the Council of Trent because it is not reconcileable with the Practice of the Church of Rome which prays every day to Christ and the blessed Virgin to Saints and Martyrs before their Images in such terms as are proper only to be used to themselves which besides the other Faults of it is horrid Non-sense if they do not intend to worship Christ and the Saints in their Images Much less do those worship the Prototypes in their Images who only use Images as helps to Memory and to excite devout Affections in them that at the sight of the Image they may offer up more fervent Prayers to God or Christ for though this practice may and has a great many other Faults in it yet this is neither in the intention of the Worshipper to worship the Image nor the Exemplar by the Image Monsieur de Meaux by some Expressions he uses would perswade his Readers that this is all the Church of Rome intends in the use of Images and yet he owns the Doctrine of the Council of Trent That the Honour of the Image is referred to the Prototype because by the Images which we kiss and before which we uncover our Heads and prostrate our selves we adore Christ and worship the Saints whose Likeness they bear Which plainly signifies that we worship Christ and the Saints in the worship of their Images and therefore though Images may be helps to Memory also yet they must be honoured and worshipped that Christ and his Saints may be worshipped in them and by them which is a very different thing from being bare Signs to help our Memories and quicken-our Devotions There is no need of Consecration for this End and the Church takes no notice of this use of them in her Forms of Consecration These are all the Pretences I have met with for the use of Images in Religious Worship and it is evident from what I have said that there is no other sense wherein God or Christ can be said to be worshipped by an Image but only as the Image receives the Worship due to Christ in his Name and Stead as if it were his legal Proxy and Representative which as I have shewed is the true Interpretation both of the Doctrine of Durandus and Monsieur de Meaux and Thomas in this Matter 2dly I am now to show that it is in this Notion the Scripture forbids the worship of Images as the Representatives of God or any Divine Being to receive our Worship in God's Name and Stead It is true indeed the 2d Commandment which forbids the worship of Images takes no notice of the Distinctions of the Schools in what Notion an Image is worshipped or what kind and degree of Worship is given to it but the words are so large and general as to exclude all use of Images in Religious Worship The Worship which is expresly forbidden in the Commandment to be given to Images is only the External Acts of Worship such as to bow down to them which is the very least that can be done if Men make any use of Images in Religious Worship The Images which are forbidden to be worshipped are all sorts of Images whatever The likeness of any Thing which is in Heaven above or in the Earth beneath or in the Water under the Earth And how extravagant soever Mens Fancies are they cannot well form any Image but must be like to some of these things either in whole or in part But the Commandment takes no notice of Mens different Opinions about Images whether they look upon them as Gods or Representatives of God or helps to Memory and Devotion for since the design of the Commandment is to forbid the use of Images in Religious Worship it was dangerous to leave any room for Distinctions which is to make every Man judg what is an Innocent and what is a sinful use of Images which would utterly evacuate the Law for Men of Wit can find out some Apology or other for the grossest Superstitions As for instance I find a notable Criticism in the Advertisement to Monsieur de Meaux his Exposition p. 14. That the Images forbidden in the second Commandment are those which are forbidden to be made as well as to be worshipped The Consequence of which is That the Worship of such Images as may be lawfully made is not forbidden in this Law and then indeed there is room enough for
Calf is so evident from the whole Story that I confess I do not think that Man fit to be disputed with who denies it for he must either want Understanding or Honesty to be convinced of the plainest matter which he has no mind to believe The occasion of their making this Calf was the absence of Moses who was a kind of a living Oracle and Divine Presence with them They said to Aaron Vp make us Gods which shall go before us for as for this Moses the Man who brought us up out of the Land of Egypt we wot not what is become of him So that they wanted not a new God but only a Divine Presence with them since Moses who used to acquaint them with the Will of God and govern them by a Divine Spirit was so long absent that they thought him lost when the Calf was made they said These be thy Gods O Israel which brought Thee out of the Land of Egypt Which they could not possibly understand of the Calf which was but then made For tho we should think them so silly as to believe it to be a God it was impossible they should think that the Calf brought them out of Egypt before it self was made Nor could they think any Egyptian Gods delivered them out of Egypt to the ruine and desolation of their own Country especially since they certainly knew that it was only the Lord Jehovah who brought them out of Egypt by the hand of Moses and therefore Aaron built an Altar before it and proclaimed a Feast to the Lord or to Jehovah as the word is which makes it very plain to any unprejudiced Man that they intended to worship the Lord Jehovah in the Worship of the Golden Calf which they made for a symbolical Representation and Presence of God which no doubt was very agreeable to the notion the Egyptians had of their Images from whom they learn'd this way of Worship and I need not tell any Man how displeasing this was to God 2. Another Argument of this is That Images are called Gods in Scripture Isa. 44. 10. Who hath fashioned a God or molten a Graven Image which is profitable for nothing He maketh a God and worshippeth it he maketh it a Graven Image and falleth down thereto The residue thereof he maketh a God even his Graven Image and worshippeth it and prayeth unto it and saith Deliver me for thou art my God I need not multiply places for the proof of this for this is own'd by all the Advocates of the Church of Rome and relied on as the great support of their Cause From hence they say it is plain in what sense God forbids the Worship of Images viz. when Men worship their Images for Gods as the Text asserts the Heathens did But tho the Church of Rome worships Images yet she does not worship them for Gods but only worship God or Christ or the Saints in and by their Images This is the reason of their great Zeal to make the first and second Commandment but one because the first Commandment forbidding the Worship of all false Gods If that which we call the second Commandment which forbids the Worship of Images be reckoned only as part of the first then they think it plain in what sense the Worship of Images is forbid viz. only as the Worship of false Gods and therefore those cannot be charged with the breach of this Commandment who do not believe their Images to be Gods Now besides what I have already said to prove that the Heathens did not believe the Images themselves to be Gods which is so sottish a Conceit as no Man of common Sense can be guilty of I have several Arguments to prove that the Scripture does not understand it in this sense 1. The first is That the Golden Calf is called Gods of Gold Exod. 32. 31. and yet it is evident they did not believe the Calf to be a God but only a Symbol and Representation of the Lord Jehovah whom they worshipped in the Calf 2. The very name of an Image which signifies a Likeness and Representation of some other Being is irreconcileable with such a Belief that the Image it self is a God that the Image is that very God whom it is made to represent which signifies that the likeness of God is that very God whose likeness it is Especially when the Scripture which calls such Images Gods calls them also the Images of their Gods Which is proof enough that tho the Scripture calls Images Gods it does not understand it in that sense that they believe their material Images to be Gods for it is a contradiction to say that the Image of Baal is both their God Baal and his Image at the same time for the Image is not the thing it represents 3. The Arguments urged in Scripture against Images plainly prove that they were not made to be Gods but only Representations of God One Argument is because they saw no similitude of God when he spoke to them in Horeb out of the midst of the Fire another that they can make no likeness of Him To whom then will ye liken God or what likeness will ye compare to Him To whom then will ye liken Me or shall I be equal saith the Holy One Thus St. Paul argues with the Philosophers at Athens For as much then as we are the Off-spring of God we ought not to think the Godhead to be like to Gold and Silver and Stone graven by Art and Man's Device Now what do all these Arguments signify against making a God for if they can make a God what matter is it who their God be like so he be a God It is a good Argument against making any Image and Representation of God that it is impossible to make any thing like him but it is enough for a God to be like it self In what sense then you 'l say does the Scripture call Images Gods there is but one possible sense that I know of and that is that they are vicarious and substituted Gods that they are set up in God's place to represent his Person and to receive our Worship in his name and stead and so are Gods by Office tho not by Nature They are visible Representations of the Invisible God they bear his Name and receive his Worship as the Golden Calf was called Jehovah and the Worship of the Calf was called a Feast unto the Lord And this is some reason for their being called Gods as the Proxy and Substitute acts in the name of the Person he represents Which proves that this is the Scripture notion of Image-worship that the Image is worshipped in God's name and stead And to this purpose I observe That tho' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or an Idol signifies a false god yet it signifies such a false god as is only the image and figure of another god for so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fignifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and
they Worship But how unreasonable is this when they know he is invisible and would not be a God if he could be seen And how absurd is it to Represent him by an Image when they know they can make no Image like him No worship can be natural which contradicts the nature of that Being whom we Worship and if it be not natural it must be instituted Worship and then tho it were forbid by no Law it must be commanded by some Law to make it reasonable at least if it be possible that a Law could make that an act of Honour and Worship which is a Dishonour to the Divine Perfections 6ly It is more especially contrary to the nature of the Christian worship which teaches us to form a more spiritual Idea of God and to worship him in Spirit and in Truth in opposition not only to all sensible Representations but to all symbolical Presences There are two things principally for which Images are intended to be visible Representations and a visible Presence of the Deity The first of these is so great a Reproach to the Divine Nature that it was forbid by the Law of Moses which was at best a less perfect Dispensation as being accommodated to the carnal State of that people but as to the second God himself gratified them in it for he dwelt among them in the Tabernacle and afterwards in the Temple of Jerusalem where he placed the Symbols of his Presence But now when the Woman of Samaria asked our Saviour about the place of Worship whether it was the Temple at Jerusalem or Samaria He answers The hour cometh when ye shall neither in this mountain nor yet at Jerusalem worship the Father But the true worshippers shall worship the Father in Spirit and in Truth for the Father seeketh such to worship him God is a Spirit and they that worship him must worship him in Spirit and in Truth Where Christ opposes worshipping in Spirit and in Truth to worshipping in the Temple not as a Temple signifies a place separated for Religious Worship which is a necessary Circumstance of Worship in all Religions but as it signifies a Symbolical Presence a Figure of Gods Residence and Dwelling among them in which sense the Primitive Christians denied that they had any Temples For God dwelling in human Nature is the only Divine Presence under the Gospel of which the Temple was but a Type and Figure Now if the spiritual Worship of the Gospel does so withdraw us from sense as not to admit of a Symbolical Presence much less certainly does it admit of Images to represent God present to us which is so gross and carnal that God forbad it under the Legal Dispensation We must consider God as an infinite Mind present in all places to hear our Prayers and receive our Worship and must raise our hearts to Heaven whither Christ who is the only visible Presence of God is ascended and not seek for him in carved Wood or Stone or a curious piece of Painting 7ly But since M. de Maux and the Representer think it sufficient to justifie the worship of Images that they are of great use to represent the object of our worship to us and to affect us with suitable passions it will be needful briefly to consider this matter For I confess I cannot see how a material and visible Image should form a true Idea in us of an invisible Spirit it is apt to corrupt mens notions of God and Religion and to abate our just reverence by representing the object of our worship under so contemptible an appearance An Image cannot tell us what God is if we are otherwise instructed in the nature of God we know that an image is not like him but a reproach to the Divine perfections if we are not better instructed we shall think our God like his image which will make us very understanding Christians But the Representer has drawn this Argument out at large and therefore we must consider what he says of it That Pictures and Images serve to 1. Preserve in his mind the memory of the things represented by them as people are wont to preserve the memory of their deceased Friends by keeping their Pictures But I beseech you the memory of what does a Picture preserve Of nothing that I know of but the external lineaments and features of the face or body and therefore the Images and Pictures of God and the Holy Trinity which yet are allowed in the Church of Rome cannot serve this end unless they will say that God has an external shape as Man has And suppose we had the exact Pictures of Christ and the Virgin Mary the Apostles and other Saints and Martyrs this might gratifie our curiosity but of what use is it in the Christian Religion To remember Christ is not to remember his face which we never saw but to remember his Doctrine and his Life to call to mind his great Love in dying for us to remember him not as a Man but as a God incarnate as our Mediator and Advocate as our Lord and Judge and therefore the Gospel which contain the History of his Life are a much better Picture of Christ than any drawn by the most curious Pencil and I doubt the Christian Religion will not gain much by taking the Gospels out of peoples hands and giving them a Picture to gaze on Yes says our Author 2. He is taught to use them by casting his eye upon the Pictures or Images and thence to raise his heart to the Prototypes and there to imploy it in Meditation Love Thanksgiving Imitation c. as the object requires But he is a very sorry Christian who never thanks of Christ but when he sees his Picture And how can the sight of a Picture raise our hearts to the Love of Christ The sight indeed of a lovely Picture may exciâ—e a sensible passion but not a Divine Love The sight of his Picture can only put us in mind that there was such a person as Christ in the world but if we would affect our hearts with his love and praise we must not gaze on his Face which is all that a Picture can show us if it could do that 〈◊〉 meditate on what he has done and suffered for us which may be done better without a Picture than with it If they want something to put them in mind that there is such a person as Christ which is all that his Picture can do the name of Christ written upon the Church Walls would be more innocent and altogether as effectual to this end But Pictures are very instructive as that of a Deaths head and Old Time painted with his Fâ—relâ—ck Hour-glass and Sythe and do inform the mind at one glance of what in reading requires a Chapter and sometimes a Volume Which is so far from being true that a Picture informs a Man of nothing but what he was informed of before The Picture of a Crucifix may put a
Answerers way of proceeding which I reduced to Four Heads 1. That the Answerer in some Points owns the Doctrine which he has Represented to be the Faith of a Roman-Catholick to be the established Belief of the Church of England This I proved not to be true by a particular Examination of those instances he gave 2. He charges the Answerer with appealing from the definitions of their Councils and sense of their Church to some expressions found in old Mass-Books Rituals c. This I showed also that the Answerer has not done 3. That he appeals from the Declarations of their Councils and sense of their Church to some external action as in case of respect shewn to Images and Saints upon which from our external adoration you are willing to conclude us guilty of Idolatry Whereas he thinks we must not judg of these actions without respect to the intention of the Church who commands them and of the person who does them 4. That he appeals from their Councils and sense of their Church to the sentiments of their private Authors These Objections I answered at large in my Reply but he has returned not one word to any of them excepting the third and how he has answered that you have already heard This is the new way of answering Books a la-mode of Rome but the greatest Wits can do no more than the Cause will bear tho a little prudence would teach men to say nothing in such a Cause as will admit of no better a defence FINIS ERRATA PAge 2. l. 32 for seem r. been p. 5. l. 24. for Bulgradus r. Busgradus p. 26. l. 32. dele to p. 27. l. 27. for fine r. fierce p. 35. l. 14. for keep r. help l. 34. for you r. them p. 100. l. 17. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 110. l. 13. for 2ly r 3ly The Pages mistaken from 58. to 73. Pap. P. 12. Papists Protesting c. p. 17. P. 1â— Reply p. 4. P. 23. P. 20. P. 21. Pag. 5. Card. Bona's Letter Papists Protest p. 29. Condom ' s Expos p. 51. Condom ' s Expos p. 51. Pag. 4. Pag. 4. See a late Tract of the Object of Religious Worship Pag. 6. Papist misrepresented p. 3. Ed. 2. Bellarm. de sanct beatit l. 1. c. 20. c. 18. Pag. 6. Papists Protest p. 33. Pag. 35. p. 35â— See D. Stillingfleet's defence of the discourse concerning Idolatry p. 216. c. St. Aug. de civit Dei p. 8. c. 27. Pag. 9. Pag. 6. Nam si propterea Subsidiis sanctorum uti non liceat quod unum patronum habemus Jesum Christum nunquam id commisisset Apostolus ut se Deo tanto studio fratrum viventium precibus adjuvari vellet neque enim minus vivorum preces quam eorum qui in Coelis sunt sanctorum deprecatio Christi Mediatoris gloriam dignitatem immiâ—uerent Catech. Rom. part 3. Tit. de cultu vener sanct Heb. 4. 14. Heb. 7. 16. 26. Heb. 9. 24. Heb. 7. 25. Pag. 4. Contemplations on the life and Glory of holy Mary p. 24. Ibid p. 5. Luke 11. 27. Matth. 12. 46. c. Luke 2. 48. 49. John 2. 3 4. Pag. 7. Pag. 9. Pag. 9. Pag. 9. See Dr. Stillingfleet's Defence of the Discourse of Idolatry p. 466 c. 1 King 18. 27. Pontif. in Bened nov erucis Psalm 135. 15 16 17. Vasquez Dâ—sp 106. c. 1. Pag. 9. See Dr. Stillingst Defence of the Disc. of Idol p. 703 c. And several Conferences between a Romish Priest c. p. 211 c. Durand in Sent. 3. Dist. 9. q. 2. Vasquez Disp. 106. c. 1. Idem Disp. 108. c. 3. C. 9. Disp. 109. c. 1. Bellarm. de Cultu Imag. l. 2. Pag. 5. Greg. de Valent de Idolol l. 2. c. 7. Cajent in Aq. 3 p. q. 25. art 3. Suarez Disp. 54 Sect. 4. De Natura deorum l. 1. c. 27. Max. Tyrius dissert 38. See Dr. Stillingfleet's Defence of the Discourse of Idolatry p. 466 c. Dio Chrys. Orat. 12. St. Aug. in Psal. 113. Arnob l. 6. Aug. Ep. 119. c. 11. Arn. l. 1. Caesar de Bellâ— Civ l. 2. Ovid. Fast. 4. Exod. 32. 1. See Dr. Stillingfl Defence of Disc. of Idolatry p. 747 c Isa. 44. 10 15 17. Deut. 4. 15. Isa. 40. 18 27. Acts. 17. 29. Tertul de Idolo c. 4. Wisdom c 14. v. 15. c. 13. v. 6. Levit. 19. 4. Psalm 13515. Rom 1. 23. 1 King 12. 28. 1 King 16. 31 32. 1 King 18 21. 2 King 10. 16. Isa. 40. 18 19 c. Arnob. l. 6. Psal. 135. 18. Joh 4. 21 23 24. Papists protesting c. p. 27. P. â—8 Exposition P. 3â— P. 37. Doctrines and Practises of the Church of Rome truly represented p. 6. Ed. 2. Bulla Pii quarti super confirm Concil Trid. Reflect p. 7. Reply p. 44. Papists Prot. p. 25 Reflect p 8. Reply p. 47. Refl p. 8 9. Rep. p. 49 c Refl p 15 16 Reply p. 55. Ibid. p. 58. P. 61. P. 63. P. 67.