putting up their prayers before them and lifting up their eyes and hands towards them with compellations common to the Image and Prototype this is also the sacrifice of prayer offered to them as much if not more direct and express than the sacrifices offered on the Altar before the Golden Calf were to it which yet because it was done on the Altar before that Image St. Steven full of the holy Ghost declares that they sacrificed unto the Idol Wherefore it being so evident that in these Cases they are to acknowledg that they give Latria to these Images it seemed the wittiest and safest invention to declare in general that the Images relating to God are to have Latria done to them but not absoluta but relativa which they conceive makes it an inferiour kind of Latria since this Relative Latria because of its Relativeness is incompetible to God But how well this will do their business I have already noted But that this is the sense of their Church even of the Council of Trent it self is noted and confessed by Azorius and natural if not necessary for every one to acknowledg that is serious in the worship of these Images For if it were not Latria relativa but such a worship as the Images were capable of and might be the ultimate Object of themselves and it terminate there how small and mean and how lovv a kind of Worship would this be So that it would prove to be a meer fooling or trifling with Images to no purpose the worship of the Image though relating to God not at all advancing our adoration of him but rather necessarily casting us by restraining the worship to what the Image it self is the ultimate object of into the faintest and meanest mode of worshipping that can be expressed if it be but what it should be commensurate to so mean an Object Wherefore it is altogether incredible that this should be the meaning of worshipping of Images relating to God or that any of the People that are taught to vvorship them should not vvorship them vvith that height of affection and veneration they use to God for as much as the Image relates to God and that they are taught according to the very Council of Trent that by the Image of Christ vvhich they vvorship they vvorship Christ himself So plain is it that the act of vvorship before an Image relating to God is an intended adoration of God himself according the Council of Trent But for the occasional shuffles of any private Doctours of that Church that would have the worship of incurvation and the signs of devotion accompanying it terminated on the Image it self to make sure it may be in no sense Latria at what a loss vvill they be to ansvver touching the burning of incense and praying to God before these Images that relate to him Besides that the second commandement does plainly meet vvith such shufflers vvhich universally forbids any bovving to or vvorshipping Images relating to God and vvill not be put off by any evasion For I am a jealous God c. Nor vvas it unfit to give so forcible a stop though less methodical to a subterfuge so unnatural and irrational I vvill add also so repugnant to the Council of Trent vvhich is the touchstone of their faith vvho in these express vvords declare Per Imaginem Christi Christum adoramus And that adoration vvhich is done to Christ is divine adoration and consequently Latria XXVII The reduction of the worship of Saints and Angels to the proposed definition of Idolatry and particularly their invocation and making of vowes to them We proceed now to the consideration of the Images or Symbolical presences of Saints and Angels and to all the modes of their religious worship of which Invocation is the most principal and as it were the scope and foundation of all the rest Which worship of theirs I shall also plainly discover to be Idolatrous by manifest reduction to my proposed definition of Idolatry Which I will do with all brevity there being no difficulty at all in the business And I will begin with Invocation which as I have proved in my Antidote can belong to no invisible Power or Spirit saving to God alone Forasmuch as no man can have any solid faith or assurance that they can hear our Invocation or that they have any Omnipresence or Omnipercipience no not so much as Terrestrial Whence it it plain that in invokeing them one of the Divine peculiarities is violated or prophaned by being communicated to a Creature when of right it is only to be attributed to God the Saints having no such Omnipercipiency or Omnipresency in them as Doctour Thorndike himself cannot but confess accordingly as I have noted at the end of my Reply But to invoke them or pray to them for such things as it is in Gods power only to give which all Papists do as Dr. Thorndike plainly asserts nor can it be put off upon pretence of a figurative speech as I have proved in my Reply this is double Idolatry as violating two Divine peculiarities at once both the Omnipresence or Omnipercipience of God and also his Omnipotence they giving that power to a Creature which is in God alone But making Vowes to any Saint or Angel in such dangers as a Creature may have power to rid us from is but the same kind of Idolatry that simple Invocation if they be both mental or both vocal XXVIII The Idolatry of erecting Temples Altars Images or Symbolical presences to Saints or Angels reduced to the proposed definition And novv for the erecting Temples Altars Images or Symbolical presences to Saints or Angels all which is manifestly done in reference to their invocation it is thence plain that all this is done to an Idolatrous end and therefore upon this very consideration has the smut of Idolatry upon it But besides more distinctly God having appropriated these modes of being vvorshipped to himself and his judgement being so infallible vvhat befits him and is most proper for him when he will be vvorshipped in a more external and ritual vvay it is evident presumption and prophanation of the peculiarities of his Godhead as to external vvorship to communicate them to the Creature as I have proved in my Antidote And lastly the very nature of the thing demonstrates the Idolatry they being standing significations of the natural peculiarities of God communicated to a Creature For a Temple and Symbolical presence is fitly and securely erected to God because we are sure of Gods residence and presence there as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intimates the inhabitation of the Divinity in it Let there be as many Symbolical Presences and Temples as you will and at what distance you will God is certainly at home in them all as being Omnipresent But for a finite invisible Power or Spirit though there were but one erected thereto there is no assurance of that Spirits residence there or if the effect of any Spirit be there
or that suppose whether the body of a man or a piece of bread And besides this not only the exteriour reason but that which the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which contains the first and self-evident common Notions or Axiomes that are without syllogism noematically true layes fast hold on the object in this controversy Transubstantiation being easily resolvible into a flat and manifest contradiction to these as I have abundantly shown in my Antidote and Reply But there is no contradiction at all to either sensation or common notion in the mystery of the Trinity only exteriour reason and imagination raise some mists and obscurities about it Which well exercised minds in contemplation can easily discern and dispute from this venerable mystery so far forth as it is exhibited to us in the ancient symbols of the Catholick Church Wherefore of two desperate cases it is the more hopeful that the bread being not tranâ—ubstantiated and yet they taking it to be so they may scape being Idolaters than that it is transubstantiated to save them from Idolatry XXXIV That the believing the bread not to be there does not all clear the Romanists from down-right Bread-worship which is Idolatry And I must confess I was once inclinable to this opinion my self that in this case they are not Idolaters see my Idea of Antichristianisme Book 1. Chap. 13. sect 6. before I had more closely and carefully considered the point And the Church of Rome does not want at this day witty Patrons and of admirable art and eloquence to perswade the heedless into this security That though the bread should not prove transubstantiated yet they cannot be bread-worshippers while they believe it is for if they believe it is transubstantiated they believe it not to be there namely within the Symbols or Species and thence they pretend it is demonstratively evident that they cannot worship it but only Christ into whose substance it is believed to be transubstantiated For whatever is taken say they for an object of worship the understanding must affirm either truly or falsly that it is there whither the worship is directed Which arguing bears a smart plausibility with it But I answer That what is made an object of worship through mistake there is no need the understanding affirm it is there but rather the contrary For it does not think the undue object is there but the due one Those that worshipped the Sun that is that which we call the Sun and understand thereby a flammeous body devoid of sense and understanding that appears alike to the sight of the Sun-worshippers and to ours as the species appear the same to those that believe the bread transubstantiated and to them that believe it not be it called what it will they did not believe that which we know to be the Sun to be there but an intellectual Deity which the Sun is not and yet we all acknowledg them for all that to have been Sun-worshippers and Idolaters Wherefore using just weights and measures we must conclude the Romanists Bread-worshippers and Idolaters the bread not being transubstantiated since their worship then lights upon bread instead of Christ as the Sun-worshippers upon the Sun instead of an intelligent Deity He that strikes his Friend in the dusk of the Evening thinking it is his Enemy thinks his friend is not there who notwithstanding finds himself the Object of his stroak and wishes he had not been there This Idolatry I must confess is committed through mistake but so is all Idolatry that is committed in good earnest so that this cannot excuse the fact from so grievous a crime And that it is Idolatry is evident Divine worship being given to a piece of bread which is a peculiarity of the Godhead and must be given to none but him And the violation of any Divine peculiarity is Idolatry by the proposed definition thereof XXXV The application of the Heathen Idolatry to this definition besides his present scope By vertue of which we demonstratively have shown the sundry Idolatries of the Church of Rome in their worshipping the Image of Christ in their worshipping and invocating Saints and Angels and in their adoration of the Eucharist And in vertue of the same Definition the Idolatries of the Heathen might be as clearly demonstrated in their worshipping the supream God by Images and in their religious worship they did to Daemons which this definition would prove to be Divine But this would be quite besides my present purpose and neither useful nor sutable to the subject in hand XXXVI The great difference betwixt religious respect and preference and Divine worship It remains now only that we free several Ceremonies used in our own Church from the imputation of Idolatry by application to this definition as well as we have evinced several of theirs to be Idolatrous by the same Which will be a no less useful and it may be a more pleasant consideration to our own to see how little hold the adverse party can take of these small strings to pull us back again into Popery For if the definition of Idolatry be unapplicable to them it is manifest they cannot be Idolatrous And the inapplicability is so easily discoverable that there will be no need to insist long on this matter In the general then we are to note what a vast difference there is betwixt religious worship properly so called which is the same with Divine worship and pious or religious affection and respect or preference of one thing before another for its relation it has to the objects or exercise of our Religion or Divine worship It is but an homely Proverb Love me and love my dog but it may be of no impertinent significancy in this place For it is not understood of the love of friendship but of such a love as that inferiour Creature is capable of and is fit to give him in relation to his Master to whom we owe the love of friendship So they that have a real Divine reverence for God it is no wonder they find an inclination in themselves of bearing some reverence or having some respect to those things or persons that in a special manner relate to him Whether it be Priest or Temple or any holy utensil or the like Which reverence is quite different from that Divine worship or reverence that is due to God himself more different than the love to ones Friend and to his Spaniel and therefore can be no peculiarity of the Godhead and consequently no violation of his peculiarities to give it to another Which is the true Notion of Idolatry XXXVII The keeping our hats off in the Church freed from Idolatry by this Definition We will illustrate this with some few examples and so conclude They that keep off their hats in the Church and do it even then when Divine Service is not a doing there are not by any means conceived to do that Divine reverence or worship which is peculiarly due to God
that it is not some other Spirit than he to whom the Temple or Symbolical presence was erected that it is not one Angel or Saint for another nay a Divel instead of that Saint or Angel But those Temples and Symbolical presences being erected in several distant places it emplyes they are in several distant places at once which is the only peculiarity of the Godhead as I have noted in my Reply Which incongruities are also to be observed in either one single Altar or many in distant places of the World to the same Saint or Angel And besides it has that odious relation to a sacrifice and imports that the Saints and Angels are also sacrificed to which is plain and confessed Idolatry XXIX An Evasion obviated Nor is it any excuse that the Temple and Altar is pretended to be erected and dedicated to God only in a principal sense but to the Saint in a secundarie respect as less principal For besides that God is jealous and impatient of any Partner in the honours that are due to himself though they were only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their intention cannot change the natural signification of building Temples and Altars to a finite Creature Which as I have already noted implyes its Omnipresence which is proper and peculiar only to God And therefore this communicating a peculiarity of the Godhead to a Creature is Idolatry according to the plain definition thereof let us intend what we will XXX The Idolatry of bowing to the Images of Saints and Angels wherein it consists As for their superstitious worship done towards the bare Symbolical presences or open Images of Saint or Angel supposing it the very same they would do to the Saint or Angel themselves if they were visible that this implyes them representable is no Idolatry For the making them representable by an Image does not at all violate the peculiarities of the Godhead But the Idolatry is in that the Act naturally supposes them certainly present for it is not sense to bow to an absent Person and these Symbolical presences being many and at far distant places at once that the Saint or Angel is in more places than one at once and in such sort ommipresent as none can be acknowledged but God alone and so that Divine peculiarity is violated by this bowing to the Symbolical Presences or Images of Saint or Angel XXXI The hazard of the vulgars doing that Devotion which is due to God in their worshipping the Images of Saints and Angels And though there be no necessary connexion betwixt the things yet there is an exceeding great hazard in the vulgar sort especially when they bow to these Images of Saint or Angel or pray to them before the said Images there is an hazard of running into the highest Devotion and reverential affection and passion that humane nature is excitable into or can express by his look or mind and profoundly devout motion of the spirits of his eyes which passion and signification thereof is due to God alone and it is the most sordid Idolatry imaginable to apply it to either Saint or Angel much more to the very images of them made of wood or stone though never so well painted or gilt It is manifest I say that by such a worship a special peculiarity of the Godhead is violated who alone is to be worshipped with that kind of Devotion Which yet I have seen simple folk to express to the Image of a Saint as fully as I could ever discern to be done by the devoutest man in his prayers to God So that this note is not made at random without just occasion and ground And if this be done to the Image of a Saint you may be sure it will not fail to be done to Images that relate to God But that is besides our present Scope XXXII The reduction of burning of Incense and setting up lights before them As for tâ—e burning of Incense and setting up lights before the Symbolical presences of Saints and Angels it being so plainly an imitation of the burning incense and lighting up lamps before the Symbolical presence of Jehovah in the Holy it is plainly a violation of his peculiarities so judged by his own election and choice And as for the incense it is a sacrifice and the most noble and significant sacrifice as I have noted in my Reply And they may as well depress the sacrificing of sheep and oxen into a lower ceremonie as this of incense For by the use and consent of Nations the one is no more restrained to the supream God than the other And the lamps and shew bread seem to indicate Jehovah to be the Father of lights from whom proceeds every good and perfect gift and who feeds with bounty every living thing And the lights set up before the Images of Saints and Angels do at least intimate that light and comfort is to be expected from suppliants that make their addresses to them at these Symbolical presences as if they were there present to assist them that invoke them implore their help Which I have again and again inculcated to be an implying and attributing an Omnipresency or Omnipercipiency to these finite created spirits and consequently a violation of the Peculiariâ—ies of the Godhead Thus easily are the various acts of Idolatry observed in the Church of Rome in their worshipping Saints and Angels reducible to the plain definition and true general Notion of Idolatry which we have proposed As for those high compellations to the blessed Virgin especially such as plainly signify the peculiar excellencies of the Godhead they are so openly Idolatrous that they want no reduction XXXIII That the pretended intricacies in the mystery of the holy Trinity cannot with any reason at all be alledged against the clear demonstrations that the doctrine if Transubstantiation is false As neither their Artolatria does to them that are free and believe that which is most certainly true that the bread is not transubstatiated as I have again and again undeniably demonstrated it not to be in my Antidote against Idolatry and in my Reply The clearness of which demonstrations the pretended intricacies in the mystery of the holy Trinity cannot obscure there being so vast a difference both betwixt the Objects themselves and the faculties in this case and that For in Transubstantiation the Object is Matter or body a substance finite and comprehensible both by our senses and reason In the mystery of the Trinity the object is the infinite incomprehensible Deity a substance incorporeal or spirit which is quite out of the reach of our senses in the lowest notion thereof but the transcendency of the Triune Godhead above our reason also though not contrary unto it And then our faculties conversant about Transubstantiation are all the five senses rightly circumstantiated the organ distance and medium duly fitted and proportionated and therefore the senses necessarily capable of discerning what the object is whether this body