of authority as well as excellency of grace and holiness and still there is such Authority in the Bishops and Pastors of the Church and that Authority not Civil properly but Ecclesiastical and upon that Authority a subjection due to them Heb. 13.17 in things pertaining to Religion and Conscience and the honour or worship thereupon due to them as it may in his large sense be called Religious which we every where grant without prejudice to our or advantage to his Cause so may it better be call'd the Civil Ecclesiastical worship because as in the world so in the Church there is a policy or government for the Church below as a City and society within it self and does also with that above make up the whole City of God Therefore are we call'd by the Apostle Concives fellow Citizens Eph. 2. But 2ly Albeit Saints and Angels belong to the higher part of this City the triumphant and as to the state they enjoy are of higher dignity and glory then any in the militant or part below yet being not capable of that conduct of souls as the Governours and Pastors in the lower city are they cannot challenge that subjection from us nor the worship that arises upon it Nor can they by reason of their distance receive from us those tenders of worship and honour which are applied to holy men living * Eo cultu dilectionis societatis qu in hâ—c vita Sancti homines contra Faust l. 20. l. 21. S. Aug. determins it thus We honor the Martyrs with that worship of love and fellowship wherewith Holy men in this life are worshiped Of fellowship with reference to the Apostles fellow-citizens and of holy men living with reference to supernatural gifts and graces and the honour thence arising such as we give to men upon the account of holiness and such graces though they have no authority over us and let the Saints departed have all such honour inward or outward that they are capable of Lastly If this Author will drive those places of Scripture he cited for authority of Saints and Angels so far as to prove the worship due which they give unto them as his Mr. the Cardinal endeavoured by the like places to defend the invoking of them He may take answer from S. Aug. determining what manner of worship is due unto them as above the worship of love and fellowship and * Charitatis non servitutis Aug. de vera Relig. c. 55. elswhere the worship of charity not subjection or service or from S. Paul Eph. 2. saying we are fellow-Citizens or from the Angel Rev. I am thy fellow-servant And if they will still make use of such places as this Author alleaged it will be easie to shew how inconsequent the argument is from such places of Scripture how insufficient to prove such a worship as is allowed by the Church of Rome To conclude This Author will not say we are mistaken Recapitul of the premises when we affirm that all worship properly religious and according to his first and stricter sense is due to God and not to be exhibited to any Creature Nor can he say we are mistaken in proving that truth by this Scripture Thou shalt worship the Lord c. unless he will deny this Scripture speaks of worship properly religious It remains then that our mistake if any must be in concluding by this Scripture their creature-worship to be unlawful That we are not herein mistaken appears by what has been said already First by that which is said above to shew the worship they exhibit by Oblations Incense Invocation Vows adoration of Images belongs and must be reduced to that sort of worship which is proper to Religion in the first and stricter sense Not only the effect of Religion but part of it I mean as performed and misapplyed by them and I would it were not the greater part of their Religion Secondly by the insufficiency of what this Author has said to the contrary in putting off the imputation from themselves and fastning the mistake on us As first his pretence from the immediate signification or bare importance of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the text which speaks a bowing or prostration of the body and is common to the religious and the civil worship to the worship of God and the Creature and accordingly all the instances and examples he brought speak no more then that outward reverence and worship shewen in bowing the body Whereas this comes not home to our charge laid upon their worship and cautioned against by this Scripture viz. their worship exhibited to creatures by the above said acts and exercises of religion and devotion Secondly his pretence of religious in his larger sense as sufficient which is as short of the purpose as the former for so all the duties of the second Table as we saw above may be called religious i. e. pertaining to and commanded by Religion but here we speak of the acts of worship proper to religion or exhibited in the way and exercises of Religion and Devotion which in their worship are such as are proper to the worship of God the same by which our religion and devotion to God is exercised as Vows Invocation c. or such as are proper to the Heathen worship in the exercise of their religion and devotion to their greater or lesser deities as adoration of their Images whom they pretend to worship All this will farther appear by the next part of this Scripture and him only shalt thou serve Him only shalt thou serve Mat. 4.10 Here he would fasten a mistake upon us Of Latria or service properly due to God by a misunderstanding of the word Serve pa. 28. why so because having examined all the places of Scripture where this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is here translated serve he findes it signifies that religious worship which is exhibited to God never used for a religious service done to a Creature as to a Creature pa. 31. Again that word is never used but for the serving either of the true or of a false God when it is referred to worship belonging to religion And he provokes any Protestant to prove the contrary pa. 32. But how did he conceive we understood the word when we affirm the same thing which to find out he bestowed as he saith some days study by examining all the places of scripture where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used we say it is very true that in all the scripture neither that word nor any other is ever used to express religious service done to a creature as to a creature that is as due to it Again we affirm that this word when it is referred to worship belonging to Religion is never used but for serving either the true or a false God and therefore it is easily seen whether the Romanists be mistaken in their Inference therefore there is another religious service which may be
whether the book be forged or no and the story of Justina true or false yet Nazienzen approves the fact or practise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We answer that he tels us she betook her self to God for help and to Christ that she strengthened her self with the Examples of Susanna Daniel c. then follows having considered these things she also supplicated the Virgin Mary that she would help a Virgin now in danger and so he leaves the story neither commendig this practise nor reproving it We have seen what Testi monies the Romanists alledge out of the Fathers and how faithfully it is done especially by the Cardinal One Argument remains which all of them make from the success they found who applyed themselves to the Martyrs whereby it is evident that God did approve the practise But this is a fallacious Argument à non Causa making their invocation of the Martyr to be the Cause or motive of Gods hearing and granting success It is certain in History that many were heard who resorted to the monuments of Martyrs and prayed to God there yea many that prayed there to God with reference to the Intercession which the Martyr and all other Saints made for the Church below but if some were heard that did directly invocate or pray to the Martyr of which Examples cannot certainly be given we may say God overlooked the Excess or the voluntaries of their mouth as St. August Aug. Confess l. 9. c. 13. Voluntaria oris mei call'd his Excesses or breakings out in his praying for his mother whom he believed to be in bliss hoping that God would pardon the extravagance And as the same Father insinuates God overlooked and pardoned the infirmities of the Midwives not speaking altogether according to truth Aug. Qu. 12 in Exod. non potuit ad laudem sed ad Veniam pertinere and rewarded their good will Exod. 1.20 Their untruth could not deserve praise might obtain pardon So when the Romanists urge the miracles which Augustine sent hither by Greg. the first is said to work as Gods witness to the Truth of all the Doctrines he brought from Rome we say those Miracles supposing them to be wrought were Gods witnesses to the Catholick Faith which Austin preached and planted here not to all that he taught God in mercy overlooking those lesser errors and vanities when he was pleased and saw it fit to give testimony by those Miracles to the Faith of Christ But this may suffice for the former Argument If therefore we be asked why we do not conform in this practise to the Ancient Church it may be answered Because we see what the more Ancient Church held and practised and we find by St. Aug. conFaust l. 20. c. 21. Alind est quod docemus aliud quod sustinemusEt donec emendemus to lerare compellimur Aug. that many things were done at the Martyrs Tombs but not by the better sort of Christians as we noted above Sect. 1. nu 6. and that in his answer to Faustus about the worship or honour given to Martyrs he concludes thus It is one thing that we teach another thing which we bear with and we are compelled to tolerate it till we can amend it Therefore because we saw much deflexion in the Romish practise from the Primitive Verity when we had opportunity and power to amend it the thing St. Aug. desired we did it and with good Reason allowing in this point what may consist with Catholick Doctrine such we count the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the wish of having benefit by those prayers which the Saints above make for the members of the Church militant and labouring below yea such we may account the indirect Invocation which begs of God that benefit or effect of those Prayers but we cannot account the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or direct Invocation to consist with Catholick Doctrine when it is made to Saints and that by way of Religious address as the Church of Rome practiseth it in her offices which practise none of the Ancients knew SECT III. Of Image-worship HOw the Romanists labour in this point to stand against Scripture which so forcibly encounters them Romanists altogether forsaken here of Scripture and Antiquity we saw above Chap. III. and there was answered what they bring from Ps 99.5 to worship his footstool and the Images of the Cherubins upon the Ark This is the best and only plea they can make from Scripture yet so weak and ungrounded that their own Authors give it over as impertinent and raised upon a false supposal that the Jewish Church had any Images for worship as abovesaid Ch. 3. nu 10. Now let us see how they strive to bear up against the universal consent of Antiquity which with a strong Current for 700 years runs contrary unto them Our first evidence against this Image-worship The first Evidence Had there been any such thing amongst Christians those Ancient Apologists and Defenders of Christian Religion against Heathens Justin Clemens Tertullian Minutius Lactantius Arnobius Eusebius would have mentioned it when they give account of the worship used in their assemblies Nay they could not have declined it when they set themselves to refute the Heathen Image-worship And therefore Tertul. Tert. Apol. c. 12. Igitur si statuas imagines frigidas mortuorum suorum simillimas non adoramus quas milvi araneae intelligunt nonne laudem in his Apologetick professes and defends their not worshiping of Images If therefore saith he we do not worship Statues and cold Images like indeed to the Dead whom they represent and which Birds and Spiders understand well enough it deserves praise rather then punishment See how he not only denies the worship but vilifies them as unfit for worship cold and like the Dead and that the Birds understand them and therefore fear not to dung upon them Minutius Faelix answering Cecilius a Heathen that objected against the Christians their having no Temples no Images gives reasons wherefore they had not or not used them in worship Clemens Alexandr as he denies the Jewish Church had any Images to worship saying * Clem. strom 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Moses set no statue or figure in the Temple to be worshiped so is he very severe against Images among Christians insomuch that he scarce allowes the Art of painting or of making Images as we may see in his Protreptic Origen had to do with Celsus about worship and Invocation and to answer why the Christians gave it not to Angels whom they acknowledged to be ministring Spirits sent of God as they the Heathen gave it to their Daemons of which in the two former Sections But he was also put to satisfie Celsus why the Christians did not use Images and for which he compares them to Scythians Barbarians that had no Temples and Images because they knew not what the Gods or Heroes were How does Origen answer by saying as a Romanist
over-rule all is in so dangerous a condition This will appear if they consider First that through the pretended infallibility of their Head they can have no certain ground-work or Reason of their belief but are in a way to lose all true Faith For let the Cardinal make the Proposition If the Pope could Erre or turn Heretick then would the Church be bound to this Absurdity or inconveniency of taking Vice for Vertue Error for Truth This he plainly laies down in his 4. Book de Pontifice and its good Doctrine in Italy and Spain Then let the Gallican Church and more Moderate Papists make the Assumption But the Pope may turn Heretick what can the Conclusion speak but the hazard of that Church which will be under such a pretended infallible Head Secondly That by being of that Communion they are taught to appropriate to themselves the Name of Catholick and thereby bound to an uncharitable condemning of all other Christians and to a necessity of proving many Novel Errors to be ancient Catholick Doctrine We do not envie them the Title of Catholicks that they should enjoy it together withall other Chrictians who are baptized into the Catholick Faith and do profess it without any destructive Heresie but the appropriating of that Title to themselves and that in regard of those special superadded Articles of Faith proper to that Church implies all other Christians to be no better then Hereticks and excludes all conditions of Peace unless they will come in as the Israelites to Naash with their right eyes put out 1 Sam. 10. Whereas upon due trial we may confidently affirm it will appear that no Church of known and ancient denomination as Greek Asian African British doth less deserve to be called Catholick or has more forfeited that Name because none so much falsified her trust whether we consider the Errors entertained or the Imposing them as Catholick and Christian Faith The three great concernments of Religion and so of the Church are the Faith professed the Worship practised the Sacraments administred all which are dangerously violated in that Church For first How have they kept the Faith undefiled which the Athanasian Creed so severely enjoyns that have mixed it with such New superadded Articles and lay the foundation of their belief upon the uncertain perswasion of a pretended Infallibility Secondly The Worship of God is there violated by the performing it in an unknown tongue for without understanding the people cannot say Amen The prayer on their parts is but a sacrifice of fools not a reasonable service Again Violated in yielding to the Creature an undue religious service as may appear by what is said in the three first Chapters of this Book Lastly Sacraments violated by addition of New ones and those properly so called A great invasion it is upon Gods property if any man or Church hold out that for the Sacramental Sign and Instrument of Grace which God who is the only Author of Grace has not appointed to be so Again upon that which our Saviour did undoubtedly institute a great invasion is made by first taking away the substance from the outward Elements and then taking away from the people half of that which remains Our Saviour said Drink ye all of it Mat. 26.27 The Church of Rome saith Ye shall not all Drink of it Nay None of you shall but the Priest only Add to this the Impossibility they put themselves upon as I said to prove all their New Articles of belief for which they will be the only Caâ—holicks to be the Ancient Faith and Catholick Doctrine of the Church They will hardly be brought to say The Church may make New Articles of Faith but rather The Church may declare what was before but implicitly believed This is true if duly explained yet will it not excuse the boldness of that Church For when the Church declares any thing as of Faith which was not expresly taught before it is such a Truth as was necessarily conteined and couched in the confessed Articles of the Creed and by immediate consequence clearly thence deduceable as the Consubstantiality of the Son declared against the Arrians the two Wills in Christ against the Monothelites the continuance of the Humanity in its own nature and substance against the Eutychians This is that which Vincentius saith in his 32. chap. What else did the Church endeavour in the Decrees of Councils but that what before was simply believed might afterward be more diligently and explicitly believed And to shew that the Articles of faith do not increase in Number but in the dilatation of more ample knowledge He aptly uses the similitude of the several parts of the Natural body which are as many in a childe as in a grown man no addition made of new parts for that would render the body monstrous but each part is dilated and augmented by degrees To this purpose he in his 29. chap. When therefore the Romanists can shew their Novel Articles by immediate and necessary consequence deduceable from the confessed Truthes of that Creed into which we are baptized then and not till then can we excuse this boldness in adding to the Christian Faith this uncharitable Pride in boasting themselves the only Catholicks III. May they consider how their Masters being engaged in such necessity of making good the pretended Catholick Doctrine of that Church are often forced to wink at the light and go on blindfold Their Masters acknowledg and so does their Trent Council that the worship of Saints and Angels Invocation of them Adoration of Images is not commanded but commended as profitable Why then should Scripture be so oft alledged to deceive the unwary why are they retained as profitable when Experience shews what a scandal is thereby given to Jews and Turks what offence to so many Christians as protest against them what a stumbling block to their own people exposed thereby to the danger of Idolatry They acknowlege that our Saviour instituted the Sacrament and administred it in both kindes and that it was so from the beginning received and practised in the whole Church yet will not the Court of Rome suffer the people so to receive it And in their defence of this half Communion they acknowledge if the Church alter any thing in or about the Sacraments yet it must be Salvâ illorum substantia saving their substance Concil Trid. ses 21. c. 2. which notwithstanding they can take away the whole substance of the Elements and defraud the people of the half of what is left and notwithstanding our Saviours Institution and the Custom of the whole Church for so many ages This custom must be held for a Law which none may contrary as that Council decrees in the same chap. They acknowledge it is fit the people communicate with the Priest in every Mass i.e. they acknowledge it is fit there should be no private Masses and they wish it were so and yet decree the contrary cap. 6. de Missa So
they acknowledge the Mass conteins magnam populi eruditionem great edification and instruction for the people yet decree it not expedient to have it or the Liturgy in the popular or vulgar tongue cap. 8. But if the Court of Rome had seen it equally to their advantage they could have held the people to that which they ought viz. the Communion as well as keep all their Priests from that which they ought not viz. Marriage They acknowledge that Justification precedes good Works Sos 6. c. 8. yet deliver this doctrine Justified by Works grosly to the People They know how it is to their advantage And in the 16. chap. of that Session They acknowledge the grace of God for performance of the work and his gracious promise of the reward yet decree that good Works do truly Merit Add to this their mincing of points of doctrine when they are put to it As when the enquiry is driven home what worship is due to Saints and Angels What Invocation to be used VVhat worship or adoration to be given to Images We see how they lessen it and seem to be contented with very little as we observe in Mr. Spencers concessions upon those points yet do they keep up the practise in the height and full extent suffering if not encouraging the people to perform it grosly and superstitiously as they must needs do being uncapable of such nice distinctions as are used to excuse that worship So when they are put to it in the points of Satisfactions Purgatory Indulgences to shew what is satisfied for what is remitted and consequently what is granted in the Indulgence and to what sort of Persons they are forced to bring it to such an uncertainty and to so small a scantling that the people if they knew it would consider well what they laid out that way before they parted with it but these points are so in gross propounded to the people that they have cause to think as generally they do they are by these satisfactions and indulgences freed from any sin and do escape thereby Hell fire it self This which has been said speaks concessions and yieldings on their part and shewes a possibility of agreement and that some fair way might be found for some tolerable accord did not filthy lucre gotten by those points and the exorbitant greatness of Papal power obstruct it the Court of Rome as we see in all the offers made for reformation being alwaies more sollicitous of upholding it self then of reforming the Church of advancing its own greatness then of promoting the peace of Christendom To conclude The peace of Christians the agreement of the Roman and other Churches is possible if 〈◊〉 e possible for the Pope to do his duty or Christian Princes theirs that is if he would do the duty of a Bishop of Rome or prime Patriarch the duty he is bound to sworn to in taking oath to observe the Canons of the Ancient General Councils which prescribe the bounds of the Roman and other Patriarchal Jurisdictions But if he make light of this and all other bonds of duty why should it not be possible for Christian Princes to do their duty in reducing him within those known and confessed bounds fixed by the Ancient Church In the mean time let them cease to reproach us with Schism till he return to his station where he may receive the obedience due to him by those Ancient Canons let them rather consider whom they follow in all his transgressions and extravagances thereby engaging themselves in his Schism against the whole Catholick Church And let them not please themselves with the specious Name of Catholicks for holding such points of Difference from other Christians as will upon trial appear to be far from the Truth and soundness of Catholick Doctrine And to make this appear by the undeniable Rules of Christian verity Scripture and Catholick Tradition as they are solidly set down by Vincentius is the scope and purpose of this ensuing Treatise If any of their Masters shall think fit to make any Reply let him do it not as one carping at small things and catching at seeming advantages but as one really intending the Manifestations of Truth and the Expedients of Peace the restoring of which throughout the Catholick Church is the Prayer of H. Ferne. The Points of Doctrine here Examined I. OF the worship of Saints and Angels II. Of the Invocation of Saints and Angels III. Of the worship of Images IV. Of Justification by Works V. Of the Merit of Good Works VI. Of Purgatory VII Of Real Presence VIII Of Communion under one kinde An Answer to Mr. Spencers Book INTITULED SCRIPTURE MISTAKEN By the Protestants CHAP. I. The first Point Of the Worship of Saints and Angels THis Author first tells us Introduction what the Council of Trent delivers touching the Worship and invocation of Saints and Angels not as Gods or Saviours but as Creatures dependent on God and Christ and that it is not commanded as necessary but commended as profitable and this to disabuse vulgar Protestants who think the Roman Church teaches it is as necessary to salvation to invoke and worship the Saints as to invoke and worship Christ himself Pag. 3.4 The Council indeed touches this point warily and in general which circumspection and cunning we finde used in most of the decrees they best know wherefore But Vulgar Protestants are not abused when they are told that according to the practice of that Church if we look into the applications made to Saints and their shrines both for the forms and the frequency there appears not much of that dependency on Christ but very much of an opinion connived at if not rather cherished among the Vulgar Papists that it is as necessary and profitable if not more to invoke and worship them then Christ himself But if they will commend this as profitable why did not the Council for the disabusing their own people condemn those unprofitable poisonous forms of invocation yet extant in their books and used in their Churches why has it not yet anathematiz'd that blasphemous Lady Psalter and that horrid doctrine broached by Aquinas and still maintained by most of this Authors soâ—iety that the Image is to be worshipped * Greg. de Val. in Thâ—disput vi Qu. xi puncâ—o 6. Azor. Instit Mor. To. 1. li. 9. c. 6. qu. 5. with the same worship with which he is whose Image it is So that if it be the Image of Christ it is to be worshiped with divine worship The †Bel. de Imaginib l. 2. c. 22 Cardinal acknowledges they which speak so are forced to use distinctions which they themselves scarce understand much less the people So that Mr. Spencer had need look home to disabuse his own people The first place of Scripture Matth. 4.10 Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve Numb I Here he needlesly spends time in shewing that worship and service may be given
to others besides God The quest is about Religious worship and therefore notes it as a double mistake of the Protestants to infer from this place that worship and service are only due to God pa. 5. c. It seems he was bound to make up his tale or number of mistakes he does so causelesly fasten them upon the Protestants for he knows they do not argue from this place that all kinds of worship or service are to be given to God only but that kind of worship which according to his own expression pag. 8. is performed by an act of Religion i. e. religious worship or as S. Aug. gives us the limitation of that Word Worship and indeed the determination of the question that if we add Religion to that word Aug. de Civ l. 10. c. 1. then it speaks that worship which is due to God only This Author knew well enough that Protestants confine their dispute here to a Religious worship and he speaks it pa. 11. that this place Mat. 4.10 must according to Protestants be understood to forbid only religious worship to any save God and therefore applies himself under his second pretended mistake to the consideration of it endeavouring to finde out such a worship given to Creatures as may be call'd Religious All that he brings we shall see very far short of the purpose altogether insufficient to excuse their practice or answer what we charge them with for their encroachments upon the Worship and Service due to God in the way of Religion The first thing we need take notice of is his premising the distinction of Worship The Acts of Worship inward and outward into Interior Exterior as subservient to his purpose pa. 1.2 telling us pa. 13. The External deportment as prostration may be the very same when we worship God or Saint or Angel Bishop Apostle King Magistrate Father Mother yet they become different kinds of Worship according to the different humiliations intentions and acknowledgments which he who worships desires to express by those outward deportments of the body It is true that the inward intent makes a difference in the worship given when the outward act is the same though not alwaies so different a kinde of worship as he would have the worship of Saints and Angels to be in regard of the Civil worship and honour as we shall see below But here note for there will be use of it hereafter that in all this discourse of worship he only insists in such outward expressions Some Acts of worship proper to God as properly fall under the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as bowing kneeling prostration which are indeed common to the worship of God and Creatures but there are other which both in Scripture and in the nature of the thing appear proper to God and the worship due to him Altars burning incense oblations nuncupation of Vows upon which score we may finde the Church of Rome faulty as in doctrine so much more in practice The * Bel. de Beat. sanctorum l. 1. c 12. Cardinal having said the external acts are common to all worship makes his exception of sacrifices and those †Greg. de Val. in Tho. 2.2 Disp 6. qu. 5. de virt Riligionis puncto 2. things which have relation to them And Greg. de Val. acknowledges it of Prayer Oblations Sacrifices c. that they immediately belong to Religion and do peculiarly contain a certain subjection of the creature to God The second thing we are to take notice of Excellency Dignity how the Reason of Honour and Worship is that to lay some ground-work for raising such a worship on as they give to Saints and Angels he sets himself to shew that besides the Civil and Divine dignities or excellencies there is a third sort neither infinite as the Divine nor humane as the Civil but Spiritual and Supernatural and would make his Readers believe that all the difficulty in this matter consists in shewing there are three worths or excellencies to be acknowledged and honoured by an act of worship pag. 14. Whereas we grant such supernatural excellencies in Angels and Men and that there ought to be an acknowledgment and honour in the mind commensurate to such a worth or excellency and that to be expressed by such acts as are fitting and we believe that the Romanists have not such an acknowledgment in their minds when they worship Saint or Angel as they have when they worship God Almighty but whether that acknowledgment they have be commensurate to created Excellencies and no more they know best We cannot but say the expressions they make of it in the several particulars of their Religious Worship do too plainly shew they yield them more devotion of soul then is due to meer Creatures entrenching far upon the religious worship and service due to God The third thing we take notice of is that albeit he said Of the words Religion and Reliigous worship All the difficulty consisted in clearing the third sort of worth or excellency to be acknowledged and honoured yet he knew well enough the difficulty stood not in that but in the acknowledging and honouring them with acts of Religious worship And therefore pa. 20 21. he sets himself to distinguish of the words Religion and Religious that among all the acceptions of those words mentioned in Scripture he might finde some according to which the worship of Saints and Angels may be called Religious Religion saith he pa. 20. may be taken either in a strict sense for the vertue of Religion So when the School Doctors dispute about the nature of infused graces or largely for the whole belief or profession of those that esteem themselves to have the true way of serving God so when we say the Religion of the Christians or of the Jews having thus distinguished he determins pa. 22. It will be sufficient for the defense of the Cathol Roman faith in this point to affirm that when the Doctors say that any thing created may be or is worshipped with religious worship it is religious in the larger sense i. e. vertuous pious Christian as belonging and proper to our Religion and tending finally to the acknowledgment of God and our Saviours honour as Author of our faith and religion and pa. 23. instances in Levit. 7.6 where the giving of the brest and shoulder of the sacrifice to the Priest is call'd a perpetual religion in their generations and then in Ia. 1. ult where a work of mercy done to the poor to a Creature is called Religion i. e. proceeding from and belonging to Religion But this together with all the instances be can give of Religion or Religious in such a sense comes not home either to the thing in question Religious worship or to defence of his Catholick Roman Church attributing more to Saints and Angels then he can bring out of Scripture or Fathers either either to parallel or excuse it For upon
Saints with God in their vows as at entrance into some religious orders I vow to God and the blessed Virgin in their Praises that Psalm or Hymn venite adoremus Psal 99. is in some of their books thrice broken by Ave Maries inserted Bellar. and Valentia close some of their books thus Laus Deo Beatae Virgini praise to God and the blessed Virgin and as I remember in the Lyons Edition Bellarm. closes his book de cultu Sanctorum thus Laus Deo Virginique Mariae Jesu item Christo praise be to God and to the blessed Virgin Mary also to Jesus Christ the Eternal Son of God the like is done by Valentia at the end of some of his books Now what is this but to set her if not in equal rank with God yet surely as high as the Collyridians did And what can this import but religion in the first sense A presumptuous entrenching on what is due to God Fourthly when they divide worship into Latria and Dulia it is not a Division of the word worship at large as when it is divided into religious and civil but it is a division of religious worship given by them with this distinction to God and the creature in the way and exercise of their religion also the word service implied in Dulia being not a civil service with them necessarily implies a religious service such as God forbids to be given to creatures also when they affirm the same worship given to the Image of Christ as to Christ is it not religious in the high sense The defenders of this take ground from their known Church Hymn Hail O Cross our only hope c. as the * Bel. l. de Imag. c. 19. fundamenâ— Cardinal acknowledges and would shift it off by many figures in the speech Lastly when they pray to God which they grant is the exercise of religion in the strict sense they acknowledge they do it by the mediation of Saints and Angels prayed unto for that purpose and what is this else but a performing of the creature-worship out of the virtue of religion and in way of religious offices or devotions in and together with and in order to a worshipping of God at the same time begging of God the gift of mercy and begging the Saints mediation for presenting that prayer or joyning his intercession with it As for his large and lax sense of religious for that which proceeds from and belongs to religion Religious in their large sense not excuse their creature-worship it is so general that it brings in all the duties of the second table as that act of mercy he instanced in out of Ja. 1. ult And here by that and his other instance out of Lev. 7.6 we might expect if he will have this creature-worship any way belong to religion he should have showen it commanded by God as those two particulars were which he brought as instances but it is the profession of this Author in the name of his Church that it is not commanded but commended as good and profitable i. e. as invented and taken up of themselves and pertaining to and proceeding from religion i. e. the religion of the Romish Church far from being Catholick in this point indeed if we speak of a worship due to Saints and Angels that is an acknowledgement and honour we owe them answerable to the worth and excellency in them it is a duty or thing commanded and so religious in that large sense by the fifth commandment yea and tends finally to Gods honour as the Author of all gifts and excellencies in the creature And we are ready to express this inward acknowledgment or honour and do it sufficiently by celebrating their memories by thanksgiving to God for them by proposing their vertuous examples for imitation but as for the worship they perform and plead for whatever inward acknowledgment they pretend to have commensurate to the worth of those glorious creatures yet such are the acts they express it by as do plainly shew it a worship neither commanded nor commended nor consistent with that worship which we finde commanded those acts and acknowledgments of honour and subjection which God requires in his worship Lastly the examples he brings out of Scripture for countenancing his worship who sees not how far they fall short of what he should prove They are of Lots bowing to the Angels that came unto him and of the Shunamite worshipping Elisha and the Captain of fifty Elias p. 25. and this he will have religious worship because of their Authorities derived and acknowledged only from faith and religion Be it so and that they had a motive for that worship more then meerly â—ivil we need not fear if it be call'd religious in so large and remiss a sense viz. such a religious worship or reverence as is given to holy men living But I would ask this Author if it would not be held abominable in the Church of Rome to give unto any holy men living the worship and service they do to Saints departed as to erect Altars Temples to them fall down before their Images burn incense to them make vows and prayers to them at any distance and in the same forms and in the same place and time where and when they do to God Well leaving this for him to think of Mr. Spencers mincing of the matter hear how he concludes this discourse pag. 27. where to the praise of his ingenuity but prejudice of his undertaking he saith If any wilfully deny all kind of religious worship in how large a sense soever to be lawfully exhibited to any save God alone so long as he yields the thing it self that is to exhibit reverence and worship to persons and things in acknowledgment of the supernatural gifts and graces and blessings of God wherewith they are enriched let him call that worship Christian or pious or an extraordinary rank of civil worship I shall not contend about the name when the thing is done This is fair if he deal plainly and do not expect by seeming to be content with the thing we yield such a thing as they make of this worship for we are ready to yield the thing that is due that is a reverence and honour commensurate to their excellency as much or more then was given to holy men living and to do it by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a bowing or prostration where it can be done to an Angel if visibly appearing to us as to Lot And as for the Saints departed they are not by reason of their absence capable of that which was given to holy men living but we are willing to express the honour we owe them as we can by commemorating and praising their vertues propounding their examples for imitation And if we must properly speak what the worship is which they exhibit to the Saints departed Superstition it must be call'd superstition which as the notation of the word shews is a
worship of the dead exhibited to them by those that overlive them or remain after them or as Lactantius tells us they are call'd * Superstiriosi sunt qui superstitem memoriam defunctorum colunt eorumque Imagines celebrant Instit l. 4. c. 28. superstitious who worship or religiously honour the remaining memory of the dead and celebrate or honour with religious service their Images And now let this Author if he can defend his Catholick Roman Church in her pretended religious worship from this charge of superstition and then consider if she be not also so far chargeable with Idolatrous practice as those applications to Saints and Angels those expressions of worship which they make by vows oblations prayers and adorations shall be found to yield to the creature any thing proper to God To conclude we have seen how the worship which they religiously The honour due to Saints and Angels of what sort iâ— it but unduly give to Saints and Angels stands charged now if for the perfecting of this discourse it be enquired to what sort of worship that honour which we acknowledge due to Saints and Angels the thing which he said we yield may indeed be reduced we have two sorts of worship apparent and unquestionable Divine and Civil the divine is due to God by reason of his supereminent majesty and by reason of his dominion over the whole man and contains all the religious worship and service all the obedience man can give him according to any of his commands all the honour he can return him upon any due occasion The civil is due to man upon that dominion he has over others according to the outward man and affairs of this life and contains the honour subjection and obedience due to Magistrate Masters Parents Between these two the Cardinal whom this Author follows every where fixes the worship or honour due to a finite supernatural excellency such as is in Saints and Angels And it is true that if we give the creature no more then is commensurate or due unto it the honour given will not be a Divine or Religious nor yet a Civil worship properly because given without respect to dominion or subjection But there is a worship or honour due to persons to whom we owe not subjection as they are endowed with qualities and excellencies though not supernatural as Wisdome Learning Justice and other Vertues which worship is not Divine or Civil properly but as some call it the worship or honour of Moral reverence due to all moral vertuous endowments or as others Cultus officiosus officious or out of courtesy So likewise the honour due to gracious and supernatural gifts and qualities may though in a higher degree be call'd the honour of moral reverence making but one kinde of both because the motive or ground of both is a thing of moral perswasion arising from the worth and excellency of gifts and endowments without the reason of dominion Greg. de Val. Val. in Thom. 2.2 disput 6. qu. 11. punct 5. has a phrase for it not much differing telling us the worship due to Saints is not an act of religion immediately but singularis observantiae of a singular observance or respect to saints that it is not religion immediately which procures them that esteem commensurate to excellent Creatures but peculiaris observantia i.e. that special observance reverence w ch such excellencies deserve Now this is to speak what is due to saints not what the Romanists allow them or suffer their people to give them w ch often falls into the way and acts of Religion by their vows prayers raise oblations to Saints That this worship or honour which may be call'd an act of moral reverence or of officiousness or of special observance if they please is of a differing kind from the religious or divine and may be differenced from the civil or humane cannot be denied but if asked to which of the two it is reducible or analogical we say to the civil For gifts and virtues which for their principle and Original are supernatural are for their use civil i. e. for the good of the concives fellow Citizens members of the same society of the Church yea Saints and Angels are concives fellow Citizens with us Eph. 2.19 So that civil worship might be divided into that humane civil according to the Polity of the world and this of moral reverence which is analogically civil according to the Polity of the Church society But they must reduce it to Religious worship which they divided into Latria and Dulia as above ehre its made medius cultus a middle worship between Divine and Civil as the Card inal and they all do Bel. de Beat. Sanctor l 1. c. 12. to bring it nearer to the Divine and then to make it intrench upon the divine or religious worship by such applications and expressions as we heard above As for their usual starting hole to which they commonly retire in this point of worshipping of Saints Angels Images to say they have no such acknowledgment of them as of Gods or infinit excellencies it will not secure them so long as they yeild them some acknowledgment not commensurate to them and express it by such acts and exercises of religious worship as above said We shall find the Heathens made the like excuses for the worship they gave to the inferior Deities and to their Images Nor could the people have such a conceit of Moses's dead body or carcass as of an Infinite and divine excellency which yet God hid from them least they should make an Idol of it as the Cardinal saith * Bel. Apol. pro respons sua ad Reg. Jacob. cap 8. Sect. jam vero that is least they should do to it and give it such acts of worship as the Church of Rome doth to Angels to Saints and to their Reliques Now least there should be made some pretenceâ— of plea from what the Author said of supernatural worship and excellency Of the Authority and Rule that Saints and Angels are said to have over us which he seemed to raise not only upon supernatural gifts and graces but also upon that dignity and authority which is more then humane or Civil and truly by him call'd Ecclesiastical such as was in Prophets and Apostles and withall mentioned several places of Scripture to imply the dignity and authority in the Saints and Angels as 1 Cor. 6.2 that they shall judge the world Rev. 5.19 that they shall reign upon the earth And that the Angels were Promulgators of the Law Act. 7.53 Captains of the Armies of God Jos. 5.14 Controlers of Kingdomes Dan. 10.12 So he pa. 17.18 I say least by this Authority which he seems to ascribe to them he should imply for he does not plainly infer a subjection to them and upon that account a duty of worship therefore to exclude all pretences It may be said 1. That in Prophets and Apostles there was a dignity
Angels worship him might receive this answer it is a religious worship of the inferiour rank such as may be given to the most excellent creatures and doubtless the Arrians would have made use of this distinction had the Church of Rome then taught this doctrine so then either the Apostle was mistaken in his argument or the Church of Rome is in her distinction And if we be mistaken in our argument from this Scripture then was their Gregory the great mistaken who against Image-worship urges the same text Gregâ— ep l. 9. ep 9. quia scriptum est dominum Deum odorabis soli servies because saith he it is written thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve To conclude Peresius a Romish writer moved with what the Scripture and St. Aug. saith against this cultus servitutis this worship of service given to the creature acknowledges as * Bel. de Beat. Sanctorum l. 1. c. 12. the Cardinal relates it and checks him for it that he did not approve the name of Dulia to signifie the worship of Saints for we are not servants of the Saints but fellow-servants Rev. 22.8 9. See thou do it not for I am thy fellow-servant worship God Here as elsewhere he needlesly multiplies mistakes Of worship refused by the Angel and by St. Peter repeating what he had above of Angels receiving worship from Lot and of men receiving worship as Elias and Elisha though Peter refused it from Cornelius Act. 10. and affirms the worship of Elias and Elizaeus to be the very same with the worship which by Roman Catholicks is given to Saints and Angels pa. 35 36. How all this comes short of the purpose both as to the worship which the Church of Rome gives by many moe expressions then prostration or bowing of the body which is all the worship that his places of Scripture and instances concern and also as to the term religious which in his large sense comes not home to the question I say how far all this falls short was abundantly shewen above Now for the Text Revel 22. That which we gather from it against their Angel-worship does not arise from the bare prohibition of worship but rather from the reason of it for I am thy fellow servant and so from St. Peters reason for I am a man which shews some undue worship was given yet not as to a God but too much entrenching upon that which was due to God The Romanists feign two reasons of this prohibiting or refusal of worship first * Bel. Post Christi adventum prohibuisse ob reverentiam humanitatis Christi de Beatit Sanctor cap. 14. that the Angels refused after Christs coming in the flesh to be worshipped of men for the reverence of the humanity of Christ But if they did right in refusing it then must the Romanists think they do ill in giving it to them for we men are bound to have as great a reverence and respect to Christ as the Angels are and note the Cardinal saith not only that they refused the worship but forbad it prohibuisse saith he Secondly because John took the Angel for Christ but we may ask how did the Angel know what St. John thought Besides it was improbable that he took the Angel for our Saviour Christ for this is the second time that he thus worshipped neither do we find that our Saviour in all the visions appeared to him after such a manner But this falling down at the Angels feet shews it was in St. John a transport of joy for the revelation of such things as the Angel brought and thereupon an expression of that more then beseeming reverence to the messenger and it is evident the Angel conceived he gave some undue reverence for which he admonishes him to give none but what befits a fellow servant which ought not to be a religious worship or service entrenching upon any thing due to God the very reason that * Aug. de vera religioone cap. 55. Honoramus Angelos charitate non servitute St. August gives to exclude all such worship by the word service or servitude We honour Angels saith he in charity not service and immediately before insinuated God is communis Dominus our common Lord Lord of Angels and men that is as the Angel said we are fellow-servants So we need not contend so much what the Angel thought as look to what he said whether he thought St. John took him for our Saviour which this Author strives to make probable is uncertain but the reason the Angel gave is clear and enough to exclude their Angel-worship So that which St. Peter refused Acts 10. was not a Divine worship and therefore refused for this Author grants pa. 38. that Cornelius could not suppose him to be a God nor was it a due bounded worship and refused only out of humility as he supposes here for then he would not have given this reason I am a man The Protestants are not bound to say as he thinks they must pa. 37. one of the two either that Cornelius gave him divine worship as to a God or that St. Peter refused it out of humility For though the Protestants acknowledge there was humility in this refusal for humility is seen in refusing not only due but undue honour too yet have they cause to say it is evident that Cornelius gave him some undue worship exceeding his condition and entrenching upon something due to God and therefore St. Peter gives him the reason of his refusing it for I am a man as the Angel for I am thy fellow-servant Col. 2.18 Worshipping of Angels He will have us here mistaken because this text speaks of a worshipping of Angels How far the Romanists agree with those worshippers of Angels whereby they are made equal to Christ or that Christ is depending on them which Roman Catholicks saith he condemn as injurious to Christ pa. 43. His reason is because the Apostle adds not holding the head by which it appears such a worshipping of Angels is forbidden as destroyes the belief of Christs being soveraign head of the Church pa. 44. to which he subjoyns as a proof the Testimonies of several Fathers witnessing that Simon Magus and other ancient Hereticks broached such phansies of the Angels pa. 48. That there were ancient Hereticks that held strange phansies about Angels is very true but that these worshippers of Angels were such as held such a phansie of making them equal or superiour to Christ cannot be proved that they were not such appears rather for the Apostle first tells us this was done in a pretence of voluntary humility now what humility is there in going to God by any equal or superiour to his Son therefore they went to God by Angels as inferiour mediatours and they of the Church of Rome have a pretence not unlike in their applying to God by the mediation of Saints and Angels Secondly the Apostle in this chapter speaks
against those that joyned the observation of legal ordinances with the profession of Christ and therefore it is very probable he condemns such worshipers of Angels as did it upon that account because the law was given by the disposition of Angels * In Colos c. 2. Theodoret who is shuffed in among the rest of the Fathers cited by this Author speaks directly to this purpose that these worshippers of Angels were such Christians as joyned the observation of the law with the Gospel and therefore used them as mediatours because the law was given by their ministry The other Fathers cited by him speak of strange phansies of some Hereticks about Angels but without such reference to this place of the Apostle as Theodoret doth who comments upon the Text and cites the canon of the Synod of Laodicea a place not far from Coloss forbidding any to pray to Angels Oecumenius also upon the text agrees with Theodoret touching these Angel-worshippers and out of Chrysostome for he borrows it from him shews the pretence they made of humility in this their going to God by Angels saying * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chryst Oecum in locum It was more then belonged to us to go to God by Christ which excludes Mr. Spencers pretence above that these were such as made Angels equal or superiour to Christ when its plain they in humility applyed to them as of inferiour rank As for his reason from the Apostles adding not holding the head that proves not that they placed the Angels in Christs stead or destroyed his soveraign headship directly as the phansie of those Hereticks he would have here to be meant did for he may be said not to hold the head that holds it not in that manner he ought or because this worshipping of Angels was the way to let go the head as in the Church of Rome their worshipping of Angels and Saints and their Images draws off the people much from Christ And albeit the Church of Rome does not retain the observation of the law as these did and so has not the same cause of their worshipping Angels as they had yet let the cause or motive be what it will for the same deslexion from truth and duty has not alwayes the same motive they of the Church of Rome have the same pretence of humility in their coming to God by the mediation of Angels and do place the Angels where they should not intruding into things they have not seen and not holding the head the one mediatour between God and man as they ought Again he will have us mistaken * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Religion of Angels in rendring the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a worshipping when it should be translated a religion of Angels and thereupon declaims against Protestants as having a design in it pa. 45.46 But this is needless for the word religion had been more advantageous to us in as much as we yield a worship to creatures but when religion is added to it we mean it a worship due to God as St. Aug. also said above Indeed if we look into the Church of Rome and well consider their exercises of devotion how they are directed how frequented there will appear a very religion of Saints and Angels And as in this point the Romanists are too like these half Christians whom the Apostle blames for their worship or religion of Angels so will they appear not much unlike to the Heathen Platonicks in their worship or religion of their Daemons and Hero's whom they placed and worshipped as celestial messengers and mediatours between men and the supream God Of which below * in the consent of Antiquity But to make up his number of mistakes he must needs repeat here also pa. 49. how worship was given to Angels by Lot and Joshua and that it may be call'd religious by Ja. 1.26 27. not remembring how much he is mistaken in giving us still for the worship we blame in them examples only of the worship we allow the bowing of the body to Angels when they appeared whereas we charge them with the worship which the Laodic Synod forbad which the Apostle here blames the praying to them and making them mediators nor will he remember how he is mistaken in telling us still St. James calls a work of mercy religion as if this were any thing to the religious worship they give to Saints and Angels which is the exercise or performance of their religion and devotion as religion belongs to the first table in a stricter sense whereas that work of mercy as all duties of the second table because commanded and proceeding from religion may in that general sense be call'd religious works not religious worship But indeed this Romish worship cannot truly be call'd religion in the larger sense or in any sense for it is not commanded it proceeds not from religion not dictated by that devotion and religion we owe to God it pertains not therefore to religion unless it be to the Romish Of all this more largely above CHAP. II. Of Prayer and Invocation NOw we are come to a special act of worship given to Saints and Angels the places of Scripture here examined are Come unto me Mat. 11.28 Ask the Father in my name Jo. 16.21 When ye pray say Our Father One mediatour 1 Tim. 2.5 We have an advocate 1 Jo. 2.1 The Protestants inference therefore we must come to God by no other Name Mediatour Advocate he will have inconsequent Indeed such arguments from the affirming of one to the denying all others are not for the most part concluding and valid yet in the point of Gods worship they are of good force if we allow the truth of the rule which S. Aug. de consensu Evang. l. 1. c. 18. Aug. saith that Socrates allowed God is so to be worshiped as he has commanded himself to be worshiped A general Rule for worship So that it must be a bold presumption in man when the Lord has in so many places prescribed the way to add thereunto by admitting and using other Mediators though inferiour to Christ What he saith to the Lords Prayer comes to this The form of the Lords prayer that Protestants by like argument might prove We are only to pray to God the Father and that one Christian living may not pray for another pa. 57. But this is not alike for we have command and direction to come and pray unto the other persons of the Trinity and also for one another living And we may call any of the Persons Father for all the works of the Trinity ad extra towards the Creature as giving life and being nourishing and preserving Fatherly acts toward us are as the School saith undivided common to all the persons but because we can also call God the Father our Father upon special relation by and through his only Son therefore this forme implies we ought to come in prayer to God the Father only
probable then comparing it with the latter he saith it is more probable then it yet the latter is more fit for convincing the Hereticks Where note that their best way is but probable and the Hereticks must be convinced in this point by that way which is less then probable So uncertain is this Article of their faith so unlikely to convince Hereticks however they perswade their people to it This Author saith nothing to their knowing of prayers he had indeed no reason to give himself the trouble of disputing that which their Church cannot agree on Beside all that has been said to it methinks reason should tell them how improbable it is that a finite Creature should admit and take care of ten thousand suits put up to it at once or that it should be consistent with the state of bliss for those glorified souls to be taken up or avocated by the care of earthly affairs yea such as for the most part are of a dolorous nature If God reveal unto them the conversion of a sinner as Luk. 15.7 which sometimes is made an argument by them its a matter of joy and answerable to their general votes and intercession for the accomplishing of the Church and consistent with their state of bliss Now come we to the prayers of men living one for another Prayers of men living for others no argument for praying to Saints departed often urged by this and other their Authors who having no permission or appointment from Gods word for making the Saints departed their Mediators and Advocates in the Court of Heaven seek pretence from this duty of the living Therefore to a Protestant asking how dare they admit of any other Mediator or Advocate then Christ this Author rejoynds How dare Protestants permit their children to pray them to pray to God for them for what is this but to be Mediators and Advocates pa. 61. And of Protestants usually commending themselves to the prayers of others This saith he is the very same intercession we put among the Saints and Angels pa. 62. Thus they are fain some times to mince it But a great disparity there is between the desiring of the prayers of the living and their invocating of Saints or Angels also between the prayers or interceding of men living for others and that Mediation or Advocateship they put upon Saints departed First We have warrant for the one and not for the other we therefore dare desire the prayers of the living because we are commanded to pray one for another and diverse reasons there are for it which hold not in the other case The mutual exercise of charity among those that converse together on earth and much need that bond as the Apostle calls it to hold them together Eph. 4.3 Col. 3.14 also the benefit we receive by being made sensible of others wants and sufferings Heb. c. 13 3. we our selves being also in the body as the Apostle tells us Lastly in this there is no peril of superstition as there must needs be in their religious addresses to the dead Secondly our praying others to pray for us is not Invocation or a Religious worship as theirs is to the Saints departed they placing a great part of their offices of Religion both publick and private in such Invocations Thirdly As the living when they are desired to pray for us are capable of this charitable duty knowing our necessities which Saints departed do not so their praying for us doth not make them Mediators and Advocates for us that is of a middle order between us and God Almighty as they make their Mediatours of intercession but as Comprecatores fellow-suiters of the same rank condition and distance with us from God in the mutual exercise of this charitable duty they praying for us at our intreaty and we for them at theirs St. Aug. speaks home to this purpose in two instances from Scripture Aug. contra Epist Parmen l 2. c. 8. Non se facit mediatorem inter Deum populum sed rogat pro se orent invicem si Paulus mediator esset non ei constaret ratio qua dixerat unus mediator St. Paul makes not himself a Mediator between God and the people but intreats they should pray one for the other so the living praying for one another are not therefore Mediatours nay doing it upon mutual entreaty and intimation are therefore not mediatours If St. Paul should be their Mediatour it would not consist with what he had said there is one Mediatour which proves the former consequence that the mediation they give to Saints will not stand with that one Mediatour His other instance is from St. Johns we have an advocate 1 Ep. c. 2. from which he infers the Apostle could not make himself a Mediatour and so makes it conclude against Parmenian who placed the Bishop a Mediator between God and the people we shall examine the Cardinals answer by which he would shift this off when we come to tryal of Antiquity But This Author misreports St. Aug. when he saith pa 63. The Texts admit only one Mediatour and advocate of redemption and salvation but more then one of praying to Almighty God with us and for us by way of charity and society as St. Aug. saith citing contra Faust l. 22.21 I suppose it should be l. 20. for in the place cited he speaks of no such matter but in the l. 20.21 where St. Aug. speaks of our honouring them by way of charity and society as we honour holy men living which this Author misreports as if said they pray for us which is truth but his adding with us supposes they pray for us when we pray upon knowledge of our particular necessities and requests which is false He closes up this point with the proof of pretended Scripture Their Invocation destitute of Scripture-proof If any desire to have the Invocation of Saints and Angels proved by Scripture he may please to examine Job 5.1 Gen. 48.16 1 Sam. c. 28. Pitiful proofs in the first Eliphaz tells Job if he take it thus impatiently he cannot expect relief or comfort from God or Angels whose ministry in those dayes was frequent in the second place Jacob prayes to God for his blessing upon the lads and wishes the ministry of Angels for them as it had pleased God to use it in blessing and delivering him in all his troubles or we may say as Athanasius and other Fathers do that the Angel there was Christ In the third he produces Saul worshipping and invoking Samuel which many wayes fails of proving Invocation of Saints both in the truth of the thing and the consequence Proofs these fitting for such Articles of Faith CHAP. III. Of Images THe Council of Trent as we see by the Decree touching Images Pretended care for the people would seem very careful that the people be taught how they may safely conceive of and worship Images and that all superstition and filthy lucre be
also drinks his blood shed so it did till the Sacrament was instituted and so it still doth extra Sacramentum out of the Sacrament but if we apply this to the receiving of Christ in the Sacrament then drinking is as necessary both to answer the whole act of Faith and the whole purpose of the Sacrament in participating his blood shed and receiving a full Refection And therefore though eating only be expressed in that v. 57. yet he could not but see that our Saviour when he spoke in the singular number mentions and enjoyns them both v. 34 36. His instancing in the command about the Passover enjoyning to kill rost sprinkle and eat but not binding every one to perform all but some one thing some another p. 361. proves as all his former impertinent for the concernment here is in the reception or partaking of the Sacrament of the Passover by eating of the Eucharist by eating and drinking and I hope he will not deny but all and every one of the Israelites were bound to eat the Passover and to eat it as the Lord enjoyned it under pain of being cut off Exod. 12. Indeed if we take in all the actions to be done in and about the Sacrament of the Eucharist those that concern the consecration and administration as well as the reception of it every one is not bound to perform all but that which concerns the Reception belongs to all not to do all that our Saviour did but all that the Disciples then did belongs to all to do because they then represented the whole company of the faithful He closes up this point and his whole discourse with some passion against Protestants charging them with an unworthy and base esteem of the most sacred body and blood of our Saviour not thinking that either of them as they are in this Sacrament is fit to confer saving grace to such as devoutly receive them p. 363. Thus where Argument and Reason is wanting there Passion must make it out But as to the worth and power of our Saviours body and blood we acknowledge it * See N◠3. 5. above and the fitness of either to confer sufficient grace and how it does when in case of necessity the one is devoutly received but we question how they that wilfully refuse one of them the blood shed can be said devoutly to receive or can expect that sufficient grace which is given in the Sacrament to them that receive it according to our Saviours Institution It is not any derogating from the worth of our Saviours body and blood but a due regard to his Will and Command that causes us to stand upon receiving both What he adds runs still upon that Assertion that there is not any express command given in Scripture to all particular Christians to receive both pag. 365. which we shewed above to be false by our Saviours commands in his Institution of this Sacrament Drink ye all and Do this by what he severely denounced Joh. 6.53 by what S. Paul delivers as received from our Saviour 1 Cor. 11. That which this Author immediately subjoyns and the custome of the Primitive Ancient and Modern Church is evidently to the contrary will appear to be far from Truth as to the Primitive and Ancient Church when we come to the survey of Antiquity in this point To conclude I could wish that Mr. Spencer who pretends he undertook this work for no other end then to inform the misled spirits of this age as he tels us in the close of his book would have a conscionable regard to an open and apparent Truth which he contends against as in this so other points of Romish doctrine and that he would think of reducing those misled spirits which he has drawn out of the way by such deceiving assertions as he has delivered in this Treatise and bent all his wits to render them plausible to the Vulgar A Brief Survey of Antiquity for the trial of the former points Whether they can as held by the Church of Rome pass for Catholick Doctrine SECT I. Introduction VIncentius Lirinensis gives us a safe Rule for trial of Points of faith and Catholick doctrine Duplici modo munire fidem suam debet Primo divina legis authoritate deinde Ecclesiae Cath. Traditione cap. 1. If any saith he would continue safe and sound in a sound faith he ought two wayes to fortify his belief First by the Authority of Gods word or Scripture then by the Tradition of the Catholick Church bringing down from age to age the known sense of that word Then for the Tradition of the Church it must be universal to prove it Catholick Doctrine That is properly Catholick which was received or believed Quod semper ubique creditum c. 3. every where through all the Churches and alwayes through every Age. According to this Rule we ought to direct the Tryal and may justly expect that the Church of Rome imposing these and many other points upon the World for Catholick faith should give us them clearly proved by this Rule whereas we finde them in these points pittifully destitute of Scripture which is the first and main ground-work of faith Yet because Scripture is Scripture and by all Christians received for the word of God and challenges the first place in the Rule of Faith therefore they think themselves concerned to bring Scripture for every point such as their best wits have found out any way capable of being wrested to their purpose far from that clearness and force of proof which those places of Scripture have that hold out unto us matters of Faith SECT I. Of worshiping Angels and Saints HOw forsaken the Romanists are of Scripture here may appear Romanists here destitute of Scripture proof by what could be alledged by Mr. Spencer in defence of it as we saw above Cap. 1. from the reverence given to the Angels by Lot and others or to men living as to Elias and Elisha which proved impertinent and fell short of that worship which the Church of Rome allows and practises It is also confessed by some of them * Salmeron in 1 Tim. 2. disp 8. Sect. postremò that this business of worshiping and Invocating Saints or Angels is not expressed in the New Testament and reason given for it because it would seem hard to the Jews and give occasion to the Gentiles to think new Gods put upon them As little help have they from the Tradition of the Catholick Church or witness of Antiquity which here runs with a full stream against them And now for the Trial we will first speak to the General Religious worship as incompetent to a Creature though most excellent such as are Saints and Angels the particulars of this worship by Invocation and Image-worship we shall examine below Our first evidence of Antiquity shall be from the force of the word Religion The force of the word Religion whereby the Fathers did prove and
what may be brought for or against this Invocation of Saints and Angels allowed in the Roman Church Being forsaken of Scripture they fly to some sayings of the Fathers that seem to allow and commend the practise then set on foot by some in the fourth Century higher they cannot go for the rise of it and so fall short of the second ground of Catholick doctrine requiring it be delivered down from the Apostles time held and believed in all Ages as Vincentius his Rule also tels us For clearing of this We will lay down some Generals which will evince this doctrine and practise though Ancient yet indeed New and not Catholick and so may render what they bring weak and impertinent to prove the contrary First It was the opinion of very many of the Ancients The opinion of some of the Ancients touching the state of the Dead inconsistent with Invocation that the Souls of the faithful are not admitted into Heaven or to the sight of God till the Resurrection being still in the like condition as the Romanists suppose the Fathers of the Old Testament to be in and therefore not in a condition to be invocated or prayed to but were prayed for that God would give them †Lucem refrigerium light and refreshment as we finde in ancient forms of prayer for the Dead Senensis and other Romish Writers acknowledge this to be the opinion of many Ancient Fathers and therefore Invocation of Saints could not then be Catholick belief or Doctrine The †Bell. de Beat. Sanctor c. 1 2 3. Cardinal well saw how this was inconsistent with the ground of Invocation and therefore seeks to make the Contrary appear viz. that the Souls of the faithful do see God But though many Fathers may be brought to the contrary especially after the many Miracles done at the Tombs of Martyrs in the fourth Age yet the general opinion of the more Ancient Fathers being as I said it plainly shews that Invocation of Saints could not be their belief or practice Bellarmine seems to be troubled in shifting off two testimonies especially The one of John the 22. who though of later times yet a Pope and so more cross to their pretended ancient belief of Invocation which sentence of the Pope * Bell. de Beat. Sanct. c. 2. he seeks to elevate it as if the Pope held it doubtfully and recal'd it but elsewhere the †Bel. de Pontifice Romano l. 4. c. 14. cum Liberum esset Cardinal answers roundly to it that Pope John thought so when it was free to think so the Church having determined nothing therein But if Invocation of Saints departed had been a defined and determined doctrine of the Catholick Church then would it not have been free for any to hold them in a place where they could not be Invocated The other Testimony is of Irenaeus Iren. l. 5. c. 31. Legem mortuorum servevit one of the most ancient Fathers most plainly asserting the former opinion and giving Reason for it from our Saviours example who did saith he observe the Law of the dead that he might be the first born from the dead and what Law was that Manifestum est quia discipulorum animae Bell. l. de beatit Sanctorum c. 4. sect tertio Erat animâ beatus animâ sunt in paradiso beati that his soul should stay in the lower parts unto his resurrection or in an invisible place as he cals it in that chapter It is manifest therefore that the Souls of his disciples must stay in the invisible place till the resurrection and then adds for no disciple is above his Master Of all that the Cardinal saith this only carries a shew of Answer That Christ before his resurrection was beatified in Soul so was he before his death by reason of the hypostatical Union In like manner the Saints while they rest as to their bodies in the Sepulchre are blessed in soul and in Paradise That they were in a blessed condition though out of heaven or the beatifical vision of God was not doubted but that Paradise which Bell. in reference to Luc. 23.43 places them in does not reach the highest heaven or sight of God and so he saith nothing as to their capacity of being invocated So also what he saith †Bell. l. 1. de Beat. Sanctor c. 6. fuisse tamen in Fara diso Coelesti formaliter i. e. fuisse Beatam gloriosam afterward That Christs Soul though it did not ascend into that corporeal Heaven before his resurrection yet was it in the coelestial Paradise formally i. e. it was blessed and glorious Which if our Adversaries would yeeld unto the Souls of the Saints we would not be much solicitous for that corporeal Heaven We cannot yeeld nor you neither that the Souls of Saints if not in the highest heaven and that sight of God could be glorified and beatified as the Soul of our Saviour was only that they were blessed in Soul though out of that heaven we yeeld but that will do the Romanists no good as to Invocation And if our Saviours Soul was formally in Paradise before his refurrection because it was gloriosa beata glorious and beatified then was it so in Paradise before his death whilest he conversed on earth or was on the Cross for his Soul by reason of the Hypostatical Union was alwaies in the Vision of God and beatified and so the Cardinal still said nothing to the purpose But this is enough to our purpose that many of the Ancients deny the Saints departed to have sight of God till the resurrection or speak doubtfully of their place and condition which plainly evinces that Invocation could not be a point then of belief or Catholick Doctrine Our second General is This practise of Invocation took beginning but in the 4. Century That this Doctrine or practise cannot be made to appear before the fourth Century and therefore also not Catholick This is proved first because the defenders of it can bring no Testimony for it beyond that Age. That which Coccius cites out of Origen upon Job and the Lamentations is indeed not out of Origen for neither of those Comments are his and what the †Bell. de beat Sanctor l. 1. c. 16. Cardinal makes his first Testimony out of Dionysius his Hierarchy fails two waies for that writing is of a much later date and the place cited concerns the prayers of the Living for the Dead not to the Dead as appears by the purpose of the whole Chapter from whence the words are taken The Cardinals second Testimony is from Irenaeus an ancient Father indeed but what saith he for Invocation He cals the Blessed Virgin Evae Advocatum the Advocate of Eve and Bell. cries Quid clarius what more clear If this imply any Intercession yet can it not prove Invocation for how could Eve invocate the Blessed Virgin But this is a strong and high
expression importing not the Advocation of Words or pleading but of Deeds and acting The Father sets the one Woman against the other the great Good that came by one against the great Evil that was caused by the other Gen. 3. as the Scripture sets the Womans Seed against the Effect of the Womans transgression the meaning of Irenaeus in calling the Blessed Virgin Eves Advocat is that she was an Instrument or Means in bringing forth the Saviour of Mankinde the Only Mediator between God Man St. * Ambr. de Obitu Theodosii Foeminam visitavit Christus in Maria. Visitata est Maria ut Evam liberaret Ambrose may explain that speech of Irenaeus by what he saith to like purpose but more clearly Christ saith he visited the Woman in Mary Mary was visited that she might free Eve What they have out of the True Origen speaks only that the Saints do or may pray for us which cannot be denied But as for Invocation we shall presenly see he declared against it The Intercession of Saints departed for the living how far extendible Such Testimonies as imply the Saints interceeding or entreating for us are frequent among the Ancient Fathers and not only in General but in Particular for those they knew here both for their particular Persons for their particular Necessities or Infirmities known to them before they went from hence for as they lose not their memory so they encrease their charity by going to God Thus †Ignat. Ep. ad Trallens Salutat vos spiritus mons non modo nunc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignatius My spirit salutes you not only now but will also when I obtain or enjoy God So between Cornelius and Cyprian it was agreed that which of them went first to God should remember the other †Cypr. epist 57. Perseveret apud Dominum nostra dilectio pro fratribus sororibus nostris apud misericordiam patris non cesset Oratio Let our love continue when either of us shall be with the Lord and let not our prayer cease to sollicit the mercy of the Father for our brothers and sisters left behinde So Chrysost in his Oration ad Illuminandos to those that were to be baptized Remember me saith he when that Kingdom receives you Such sayings as these that avouch the Saints praying for them they knew and in general for all the Church are often shuffled in by the Romanists as good proofs of Invocation and sufficient to take the unwary that discern not the Paralogism or inconsequent Reasoning From such intercession of the Saints departed to infer they were or ought to be invocated by the Living That which they bring out of Athanasius as a Testimony of primer Antiquity for invocating of the blessed Virgin is taken out of the book De Sanctiss Deipara Of the most holy Mother of God Not written by that holy Father but by a much later and unlearned Author and so rejected of Baronius with scorn But see the other †Bell. de Script Eccles tit Athanasius Cardinals honesty or diligence who having censured this very Book as Suppositious and written after the sixt General Council 300 years after Athanasius his Time yet can cite it as his Hitherto the first proof of our second General Testimonies of Antiq against Invocation because the Defenders of Invocation can bring no witness for it beyond the middle of the fourth Age Our second proof is from Testimonies excluding or denying such Invocation Irenaeus in his first Book speaks of Hereticks that had strange Phansies concerning Angels attributing much unto them in relation to which he denies †Iren. l. 2. c. 25. Nec invocationibus Angelicis faciat aliquid nec incantationibus sed purè manifeste orationes dirigens ad Dominum qui fecit omnia nomen Domini Jesu Christi invocans that the Church did do any thing he speaks of miraculous Cures done then by Invocation of Angels nor by incantations but purely and manifestly directing prayers to the Lord that made all and invocating the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ Fevardentius his Gloss here will not help saying the Father means Invocation of such evil spirits as the former Hereticks used for if the Church had used to the working of those cures the Invocation of good Angels the same Father could not have condemned their invocations and so absolutely denied without any mention or limitation of such use in the Church all Angelical Invocations could not have bound up the prayers of the Church as we see here to God the father through the Name of his Son So afterward when Cures were so frequently don at the Monuments of Martyrs the first and regular way was as here to direct their prayers to God through Christ not using Invocations of the Martyr which was the abuse creeping in by degrees as we shall see below Our next Testimony is from Origen out of whom we cited some passages * Sect. 1. Num. 4. Orig. contra Celsum l. 5. Omnia Vota deprecationes gratiarum actiones destinandae ad Deum per summum Pontificem above against Angel-worship so is he very express against their Invocation †Angelos invocare absque ipsorum cognitione Notwithstanding that the Angels are Ministring Spirits as he acknowledges yet all our vowes prayers thanksgivings are to be directed unto God the Lord of all by our High Priest greater then all Angels And he gives severall reasons against Invocation of Angels Because saith he to invoke Angels without knowing them better then we do as to their nature condition offices is little agreeable to reason But saith he if we had sufficient knowledge of them and their condition yet * Hoc cohibebit ne quis preces â—udeat offerre nisi soli Domino Deo qui omnibus abunde suffiâ—it per servatorem nostrum Dei fil um Angelos habet satis Propiâ—ios this will withhold any from daring to offer up prayers to any save God alone who abundantly is sufficient for all through our Lord Jesus Christ and because this will render the Angels sufficiently propitious to us and willing to do all things for us if we so far as humane nature permits be well affected as they are to Gods service Something like it is that S. Aug. saith of every good Angel †Aug de vera Religcap 55. In illo me exaudit in illo me adjuvat He hears me in him i.e. in God when I pray to God in him he helps me To the like purpose doth Origen reply again to Celsus Origen l 8. contrae Celsum propè initium that prayers are to be offered up to God alone by his only begotten Son and this exclusive to Angels because opposed to Celsus pleading for their going to God by their Daemons For our Saviour Christ saith Origen * Qui ut pontifex eaâ— deferat ad Deum as high Priest presents our prayers to God the Father Again
†Quisquis habet Deum propitium propter magni consilii Angelum quae multitudo Angelorum cum videt homines suam erga Deum pietatem imitantes adjutat eâ—s contendentes ad sâ—lutem Deum invocantes Whosoever saith he hath God propitious by the Angel of the great Counsel Jesus Christ he may be content with that and shall not want protection for the multitude of Angels seeing men imitating their piety towards God helps them whilest they contend to salvation calling upon God This was the wholesome doctrine of those times And to the same tenor sounds that which above was cited out of Tertul. saying we must offer up all by our Catholick or universal High Priest Jesus Christ call'd so to the exclusion of all others Our third General is After the Practise began in some manner towards the end of the fourth Age Invocation of God alone asserted in that Age. yet do we finde the former doctrine of God alone to be Invocated by Jesus Christ asserted often in the Fathers * A mbr de obitu Theod Tu tamen Domine solus es invocandus St. Ambrose speaking with relation to the two young Sons of Theodosius yet thou O Lord art only to be invocated that is for a blessing and protection upon them And in Rom. 1.21 if those commentaries be his or if of a later writer it is so much more to the prejudice of Invocation He answers the Heathens excuse for their coming to the Creator by the Creature Ambr. in Rom. 1.21 Per Commites pervenâ—tâ—ur ad Regem quia â—oâ—no est nescit that they did it as to Kings we come per Comites Tribunos by their great officers at Court the Romanists use the like reason or excuse We come saith the Father by such officers to the King because he is a man and knowes not all But God knows all mens conditions and merits and we need not use such an Intercessor to Him but only a devout mind * Chrys 4. hom de Paenit In Deo nihil â—ale Chrysost often to the like purpose denying the way of our coming to God to be like the manner of Kings Courts In God saith he there is no such thing Elsewhere he forbids us to bring in Angels when we would have any thing prosper but with reference to the Apostles precept Col. 3.17 Chrys Hom. 9. in 3. Colos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do all in the name of the Lord Jesus he bids set that name before and all things will be happy and prosperous and do not bring in Angels and the marginal note in the Paris Edition is Angeli non adjungendi ad invocationem Trinitatis Angels are not to be joyned when we invocate God Indeed it is Athanasius his argument for the Deity of our Saviour because the Apostle joyns him in prayer with the Father 1 Thes 3.11 as above cited Chap. 1. nu 5. and this makes Athansius interpret the Angel which Jacob seemed to joyn with God in Invocation Gen. 48.16 Athan. in 4. contra Arrianos to be Christ and by many examples he shews none to be Invocated but God and speaking of David He never invocated any save God himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. Now to answer here as Romanists would do that the Saints were then out of sight of God or that none was to be invocated as God but God himself would be first impertinent because the Angels whom Athanasius expresly excludes from being Invoked did see the face of God then as well as now also because such answer if it were proper by that limitation as God would render the Fathers Argument invalid and impertinent when he so often proves the Deity of our Saviour by Invocation and so doth other Fathers after him St. Hier. l. adversus Vigilant Hierom lived in the fourth age after that practise began but if it had been the practise or doctrine of the Church he would not have spared Vigilantius in that point as he doth not in any wherein he could have advantage against him Seeing therefore he only defends the Saints praying for us which was the Doctrine of the Church hath nothing in defence of our Invocating them it is evident this was no doctrine nor to be accounted of as the practise of the Church yet is St. Hier. often cited as a witness for Invocation because upon other points he wrote against Vigilantius who found fault with that beginning practise of Invocation St. Aug. de Civit Dei l. 22. c. 10. Nominari à Sacerdote non invocari Aug. saith expresly of the Mantyrs they are named in the daily Sacrifice they are not invocated Indeed it was later by much ere Invocation of Saints came into the publick office But St. August being by the objections of Enemies often put to it punctually to set down what was done at the Monuments of Martyrs as we saw * Sect. 1. nu 4. above no where mentions Invocating of Them but of God But the †Bell. I de Beat. Sanct. c. 17. sect Quariò Sanctum Augustinum doeere Sanctos Invocandos non ut Deos sed ut qui à Deo impetrent quod volunt Cardinal boldly though untruly tels his Reader that St. Aug. teacheth the Saints are not to be Invocated as Gods but as those that can obtain of God what they will and the places he notes are De Civit. Dei l. 8. c. ult l. 22. c. 10. whereas St. Aug. in the first place speaks of no Invocation but of God and for the Martyrs he speaks only of our Imitating them In the second place he expresly denies they are Invocated as we cited it hard above Again the * Bell. l. de Beat. Sanct. c. 19 sect ult docere quò◠in Sacrificio ipso memoria srat Martyrum invocentur ut pro nobis orent Cardinal saith St. August teacheth that in the Sacrifice it self there is a remembrance made of the Martyrs and that they are invocated that they would pray for us The places he cites are Tract 84. in Jo. and Serm. 17. de verbis Apostoli Now its strange that St. Aug. should so forget himself as in one place to say they are named or remembred in the sacrifice not invocated and in another to say as the Cardinal imposes upon Him and the Reader they are invocated In the first place St. Aug. saith We do not remember Martyrs there as we do others that rest in peace * Non ut pro iis oremus sed magis ut ipsi pro nobis orent ut eorum vestigiis adhaereamus to pray for them but rather that they pray for us that we may follow their steps In the second place thus The Martyrs are recited at the Altar not that we should pray for them For its an Injury to pray for a Martyr * Cujus nos orationibus debemus commendare to whose prayers we ought
to commend our selves This is the most that fell from St. Aug. yet this comes short of what Bell. will have him say that they are then Invocated at the Altar for he had said expresly they are not invocated and that we invocate God there to inable us to imitate them as above in the two places out of his book de Civit. Dei What then is this commending our selves to their prayers it cannot be direct Invocation for that he denies but an invocating of God or begging of him the benefit of their prayers as we shall see more below We have found the Cardinal very unfaithful hitherto in his Testimonies of Antiquity we will add two more He cites Chrys 5. Hom. in Matt. which is plainly of the prayers of the living Saints It speaks of the woman of Canaan coming of her self to Christ without suing to any of the Disciples to entreat for her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys And this saith he I speak not that we ought not to entreat or sue to the Saints The other place is that which we noted above how corruptly it was cited by the Cardinal for the Worship of Saints afterward it is again alledged by him for Vowes made to Saints it is out of Euseb de praepar Evang. l. 13. c. 11. where as we noted above in stead of making vowes and prayers at the Monuments of Martyrs the Interpreter has rendred it making Vowes to them that is to the Martyrs and this in three times alledging this Testimony the Cardinal would not see Our fourth General That practise of Invocation which began in the fourth Century was not such as the Romish is The Invocation begun in the fourth Age was not such as the Romish is either for the manner or the use that is it was not formal and direct Invocation nor used in sacred offices till long after 1. They were Wishes not formal Invocation as Nyssen upon our Saviours Nyssen de Oratione Dominica orat 2. when ye pray Luc. 11.2 distinguisheth between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vowing and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 praying by direct address and petition to God so we in this discourse of Invocation must distinguish between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a vow or wish and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a praying to or religious address to any by petition So when they cryed out in the Council of Chalcedon Oret pro nobis Flavianus Let Flavianus pray for us it was a speaking of their judgment of Flavianus his being in bliss and a wishing of the benefit of his intercession Thus we finde in Theodorets History of the Lives of many Fathers such closures of most of them I wish and desire that by their intercession I may obtain the divine help Some think there are additions and insertions made in this work Theod. in Sanct. Patrum hist Rogo quaeso ut ipsorum intercessione divinum consequer Auxilium but whether these be Theodorets words or any others they do speak the wish of having the benefit and effect of the Saints prayers put up for the Church below But this is not Invocation 2. In that practise we meet with for the most part only Indirect Invocation that is a praying to God himself directly that he would vouchsafe the effect of the Saints Intercession or prayers they made in behalf of the Members of the Church below and give the benefit thereof unto them as he saw fit This still is not the Invocating of Saints which we contend about no more then Moses can be said to have Invocated Abraham Aug. l. 20. â— 21 contra Faustum Isaac and Jacob when he prayed to the Lord to remember them in behalf of that people Exod. 32.13 To this sense speaks that passage of St. Aug. cited somtimes by Romanists for Invocation and explained above Sect. 1. nu 4. Speaking of Christian people frequenting the Tombs of Martyrs with a Religious solennity that they may be stirred up to imitation of the Martyrs come to a fellowship of their merits and be helped by their prayers and this not by invocating or praying to them but by imitating of them and praying to God there quo adjuvante possumuâ— imitari ibid. for his aid to inable us to imitate them and for his favour in affording us the benfit of their prayers this is not Invocation of the Saints but of God and if St. Aug. had asserted a direct Invocation of the Martyrs themselves he had yielded up the Cause to Faustus To the like sense is that which we noted * Hac Sect. nu 5. above of St. Aug. his saying Commendare nos orationi we ought to commend our selves to the prayers of the Martyrs not by direct Invocating of them but of God as before And to this purpose also that of Aug. elsewhere Aug. de cura pro mort c. 4. which at first hearing sounds harsh Where enquiring what benefit accrews to a mans friends to have their bodies laid near the Monuments of Martyrs iâ—sdem Sanctis illos tarquam Patronis susceptâ—s apud Dâ—minum adjuâ—andos â—randâ— commendent He saith he sees none unless this that when they look upon the place where their dear friends lye buried they may be moved to commend them to those Saints as Patrons to finde help with God yea but he saith commend them by praying true but to God not to the Saints or Martyrs themselves To this purpose of indirect invocation speaks that of Cyril in his Catech. cited also by the Cardinal When we offer the sacrifice we make mention of the Saints does not say we Invocate them that God by their Intercession may receive our prayers Thus far it prevailed so as to have approbation and the practise of this Indirect Invocation or praying to God at Martyrs Tombs and begging for their sakes got strength by a common opinion of many that when God was so invocated or prayed to then the Martyr was present as some thought or did joyn his prayers with them as most thought This St. Aug. leaves as uncertain in his Book de Cura pro mortuis c. 16. and something of doubt in his Book de vera Relig. c. 55. But there he concludes for certain of the good Angel in illo me exaudit adjuvat he hears me in God and helps me in God that is when I pray or by my praying to God I have the Angels help we may indeed say it with comfort as Origen did above in answering to Celsus He that piously and faithfully invocates God is sure to have the Angels propitious and the benefit of their ministry So is he sure to have the benefit of the Prayers which the Saints put up in behalf of the Church Militant I may add here that place of Basil often alledged by the Romanists Basil in Orat de 40. Martyr prope finem but see how abused by the Cardinal who thus alledges it Qui aliqua premitur angustia ad hos confugiat
inhaerent Righteousness but as for the imputed a Non absurdum will serve that It is no absurdity to grant it There is one place more where the Cardinal admits the Imputation of Christs Righteousness and that the similitude of a garment used by the Protestants may agree to it in as much as Christs satisfaction for our sins is applied to us Bel. de Justif lib. 2. c. 11. Nobis donatùr applicatur nostra reputatur and reputed ours This is fair but then he adds in behalf of the formality of his inhaerent Righteousness That one man should satisfie for another is reasonable not that one should be formally just because another is so True a man cannot be therefore formally just that is inhaerently just or as by an inhaerent qualification but why may he not be therefore that is for Christs satisfaction and righteousness imputed accepted of God as just and righteous in the notion of Justification that is one to whose charge nothing can be laid one reconciled restored to favour accepted to life eternal And as Bel. said Christs satisfaction is reputed ours he means really so why may not we thereupon be also reputed really just and righteous as to the notion or importance of Justification and if by that satisfaction and righteousness of our Saviour imputed we are acquitted in our Justification from our sins and eternal death as the Cardinal granted and so doth their Trent Council why should not a sinner so acquitted be also accepted to eternal life purchased for us by that satisfaction and righteousness imputed accepted I say to eternal life as to the first Right This may be inferred also from the words of that Council when it tels us as we had it * Num. 2. above what Justification is A translation from the state of the Sons of Adam into the Adoption of the Sons of God through Jesus Christ Which though no good definition yet implies there is in Justification a remission of sins and the condemnation due to them under which all men lye while they are in the state of the Sons of Adam Again it implies such persons acquitted of their sins are received into favour as sons by Adoption and that gives Right in the same moment to the heavenly inheritance Lastly that all this through Jesus Christ which implies the satisfaction and merits of Christ applyed imputed Now albeit Inherent Righteousness be given Other purposes of inhaerent Righteousness then that we should be justified by it in Justifying of a sinner as often said before yet it is not given for the formalizing of Justification it self properly taken but as consequential to it for qualifying the subject answerably to that which is received in Justification For there is Remission of sin as to the offence and condemnation therefore grace also put into the Soul for doing away by degrees the stain and corruption and for breaking the dominion of Sin There is also Adoption and receiving the person as a son of God therefore Grace infused for the New-birth and as a Principle of New life and obedience There is acceptation and Right to eternal life or heavenly inheritance therefore grace and inherent Righteousness given for the fitting and preparing of the Person to the pursuit obtaining and enjoying of it We see other purposes of Inhaerent Righteousness given us then that we should be Justified by it Furthermore that the accepting of us as righteous in our Justification follows immediately and is intrinsecally joyned with Remission of sins is plain by the Apostle Ro. 4.6 7 8. telling us who are those blessed ones to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness even Those to whom he will not impute sin And the similitude of a Garment or of Jacobs wearing his elder brothers cloathes to get the blessing and the birth-right which the Cardinal granted appliable to the imputation of Christs righteousness to us does imply more then remission of sins Even the accepting of their Persons and receiving of them as Sons unto the blessing Also that the Imputation of Christs righteousness should not be confined as the Romanists would have it or delight to express it to the bare importance of satisfaction they might think it reasonable by that which they yield to the satisfactions of Saints appliable and imputable to others For when we urge against that Treasure of their Church and the applying of it that common judgment of the School Meritum non excedit Personam Merit exceeds not the Person Christ only excepted They distinguish and consider the good works and sufferings of the Saints as Satisfactory and as Meritorious and say as they are Meritorious they exceed not the Person but as Satisfactory they are imputable appliable to others Which albeit said without ground or warrant might keep them from restraining thus the imputation of Christs righteousness to the point of satisfaction and allow it to be not only as satisfactory in the Justification of a Sinner but as Meritorious also to all effects and purposes for compleating the act of Justification in the accepting of the Person as Righteous to whom it is imputed or applied We have seen what concessions are made of the Imputation of Christs Righteousness by those that are most for the inhaerent I mean the Jesuites and how they lay too much upon the inhaerent righteousness in the point of Justification when the Imputed would bear it better Now see what Vasquez who has handled this doctrine of Inhaerent Righteousness most copiously and diligently acknowledgeth touching their dissenting Authors Romish writers dissenting in the point of Justification by Inhaerent Righteousness to the great prejudice of this their supposed Catholick Doctrine First * Vasq in Thom. 1.2 disput 205. c. 1. he acknowledges of Durand and other Schoolmen that they held We are pleasing and accepted of God before he infuseth Grace or inhaerent Righteousness And that this gift of inhaerent Grace or habitual righteousness does not necessarily arise from that acceptation of God but from the will of God appointing that every one who is to be brought to eternal life should have it This is that which we say that albeit inherent grace or habitual righteousness doth accompany and follow immediately upon Divine Acceptation yet it does not necessarily accompany or arise from it as to justification but for other purposes as noted above one whereof and the main one is here mentioned viz. the bringing preparing fitting us to eternal life and is there approved by Vasquez himself But for the former part of their Sentence that pronounces us pleasing unto God and accepted of him unto Justification by the imputation of Christs righteousness antecedently to infusion of habitual righteousness * Non parum favere Haereticis nostri tempori Vasquez disp 205. c. 2. He saith it doth not a little favour the Hereticks of our daies And in another place speaking of the Imputation of Christs righteousness and merits which the Protestants assert in Justification he
examination and for reasons following it will appear plainly that the worship as by them allowed and performed to Saints and Angels must be call'd Religious according to his first and stricter sense of Religion and so by his own confession undue to Creatures But before we come to our reasons let us hear how Greg. Val. in Tho. 2. 2ae disp 6. qu. 1. punct 2. de Val. expresses this matter a little more clearly He speaking of the Acts of the vertue of Religion as the School calls it tells us some of them pertain to it remotè imperativè remotely and only as commanded by it this with Mr. Spencer is religious in the larger sense some pertain to it proximè elicitive immediately and more inwardly proceeding from it and declaring a subjection due to God such acts are prayers oblations sacrifices vows c. This is religious in Mr. Spencers first and stricter sense accordingly the Schoolmen treat of those particulars as Acts or immediate exercises of the vertue of religion Now albeit Valentia and Mr. Spencer and all of them affirm that religious worship according to this sense is due only to God which is a great truth and do deny that the worship they give to any creature is to be called religious so or that it pertains to religion in that stricter sense which is also true as to many things they do to Saints and Angels being not so much as remotè and imperativè by way of command from true religion yet as used and exercised by them those acts of their worship are interpretativè acts of religion according to the first sense so to be interpreted and accounted of as to them and their performance as all undue and misapplied worship given to the Creature in way and exercise of religion yea given to a false God is to be accounted of This will appear in the reasons following The first reason shall be that which Azorius one of the same Society gives How the Romish creature-worship must be accounted religious Azor. Instit Mor. part 1. l. 9. c. 10. qu. 2. because the virtue of religion is not of two kindes one which gives God his worship and another which gives worship to Saints their Images and Reliques And they saith he that think religion is not of one kind are moved by the reason of the several kindes of dignities and excellencies in things this was Mr. Spencers reason of his several sorts of worship as above nu 3. and so it is Bellarmines reason but religion saith Azor is not a virtue which generally gives to any one worship for the excellency but which gives Divine worship and honour to God and * Non igitur religio quicquid excellit honorat colit sed â—â—icquid divinum est et quâ ratione divinum est quemadmodum ergò unus Deus est fic una quoque specie religâ—o est Azonâ— ibid. therefore the virtue of religion does not honour and worship whatsoever excels but whatsoever is Divine and as it is Divine wherefore as God is but one so religion is but one in kinde Now this is very true and rational and concludes all religious worship to be Divine and only due to God and that albeit there be an honour due to such excellencies an honour commensurate to them yet not a religious worship But what will Azorius then say to the religious worship given to Saints and their Images in the Church of Rome It is the objection immediately following and he answers not by mincing the matter as most of his fellowes do by saying it is religious in a remote or a large sense such a sense as considering what they do and allow in that Church speaks nothing to the purpose or by saying it is an act of special observance as Greg. de Val. would lessen it to no purpose as see below num 8. or by other frivolous distinctions used by them in this point of worship No. He seemed to consider what is done and allowed in their Church and that all such excuses help not therefore * Sanctos honoramus non solum co cultu quo homines virtute dignitate praestantes sed etiam divino cultu qui est actus religionis Sed divinos cultus honores non damâ—s sanctis propter seâ—psos sed propter deum qui eos sanctos effecit Azor. ibid. qu. 5. he saith down right and saith it often in this chapt that it is Divine which in Mr. Spencers strict sense is religious honour and worship which is given to Saints in erecting Altars Offering making vowes to them invoking of them c. and excuses it from Idolatry by saying it is given them not for themselves but for Gods sake that made them such But there is enough in Greg. de Val. and Bell. and other Romish writers to shew that divine honour given to the creature though with such reference to God cannot be defended which is a great truth so then between these truths the Church of Rome must be in a great strait it gives and allowes according to what Azorius proved a divine and religious worship to creatures and according to the truth that the other deliver it cannot be defended in it Second reason What does religion in Mr. Spencers strict sense sound but that virtue and devotion of the heart which sends out such expressions of subjection and worship in the exercises of religion and what is the Romish worship but the exercise of that devotion or religion which is in the heart of any Romanist so desiring to express it self and how is it expressed and performed but by their addresses to God Saints Angels by the former acts of Religion Prayers Praises Vows Offerings Look into their offices private publick observe what is done at their Altars Shrines Images what prayers offerings vows made there see their incense burned before an Image which is a consumptive oblation and as much as was done to the brazen Serpent and as for Prayer one of the Acts of religion under it * Val. disp 6. qu. 2. de oratione â—unct 10. Valentia puts their dayly recital of the office which contains prayers to Saints and Angels and therefore this worship by prayers vows to Saints in their way of religion must belong to religion in the first sense as immediate exercises thereof Thirdly they do not only use those immediate acts of religion prayers praises vows giving them to Saints in their exercise of religion but in these religious acts joyn the Saints with God Athan Orat 4. contra Arianos which Athanasius makes an Argument of the unity of the Son with the Father else he could not be joyned with him in prayers in praying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to joyn the Son to the Father which he denies to all creatures so when St. Paul prayes 1 Thess 3.11 Now God himself and our Lord Jesus direct c. Now see how in the Church of Rome they joyn the