a Sinon I pray you Si miserum fortuna Sinonem Finxit vanum etiam mendacemque improba finget If he undertook a miserable Cause destitute of all Truth and solidity as your Party does in such Points as we are upon then indeed there were some temptation for him to do as some at least of you do to use slights and shifts and tricks to foist in and to expunge by expurgatory Indexes to feign any thing plausible for your own advantages but our Cause being firm of it self we are put to no such devices but if we were destitute of Truth on our part would willingly imbrace it where we find it Or if you could phancy Chemnitius a Sinon could you phancy him such a fool to quote Consecrations out of a known Pontifical where every body might see there is no such thing I am glad I have the Ritual by me which I make use of in the next Paragraph that proves that there is such a thing as Consecration of Images in your Church to be prayed before and the Saint whose Image it is to be invoked before it But in that Consecration you will say there is no mention of Thundring and Lightning and Storms to be chased away by these Images consecrated But I beseech you what more of absurdity or incredibility that the Church of Rome in honour to their Saints should consecrate their Images to these purposes than that she should consecrate bells to the said uses as you may see abundantly in Durandus his Rationale lib. 1. cap. 4. Pulsatur benedicitur Campana ut fruges mentes corpora credentium serventur procul pellantur hostiles exercitus omnes insidiae â—nimici fragor grandinum procelia turbinum impetus tempestatum fulgurum tempeâ—entur infestaque tonâ—trua ventorum flamina suspendantur spiritus procellarum Aereae Potestates perterreantur c. When they consecrate bells to such mighty Powers and effects as these can any man that is but one remove from a fool doubt whether they would consecrate the Image of St. John and the blessed Virgin to such like purposes Their Agnus Dei is also consecrated to the like uses as you may see in the same Durandus lib. 6. cap. 79. And in the above said Ritual you may observe I know not how many things to the like purpose The Cross Oyle Salt Water and the like So that he must be very weak that can misbelieve this Quotation of Chemnitius out of the Pontifical he mentions or that it is any Calumny to produce his Testimony or improper for me to use it though he be a Protestant my scope being not onely to grapple with the adverse Party but also to confirm our own His Answer to the fifth Paragraph There is no such expression says he in the whole Prayer as Grant O Virgin or Grant O Saint but Grant O God How then do we here make the Virgin and other Saints fellow-distributers of Grace and Glory with Christ himself Much less do we make them fellow distributers of Grace and Glory with Christ upon their own Merits who have no Merits of their own but such as flow from and have their absolute dependence of the Merits of Christ. And least of all are they here made fellow-distributers of Grace for the service done to them in kneeling and praying before their Statues there being no such causal as that For specified at all in the Prayer The Reply To all which I Answer It is true it is not said Grant O Virgin nor Grant O Saint but Grant O God because this is a form of consecration of the Images of Christ the Virgin or any other Saint to wit Prayer to God not to the Virgin or any other Saint not made before any of their Images already consecrated as he would make his simple folk believe whom he indeavours to keep in ignorance but is I say a Prayer to God that whosoever shall invoke Christ the Virgin or such a Saint whose Image is a consecrating may be heard and obtain by the Merits and Intercession of the party they pray to grace here and glory hereafter This is the plain sense of the Consecration And it is plain it is through their own Merits though they may be supposed inabled so to merit be vertue of Christ. And if an Invocation of the Virgin or any other Saint before their Images by their Merits and Intercession which is the usual form of Invocation as you may see above procure Grace here and Glory hereafter are not they fellow-distributers of Grace and Glory with Christ And does not the very form of Consecration imply that they are Distributers that is to say that the Saints by their Merits and Intercession do procure Grace here and Glory hereafter for their Suppliants upon the very account of their earnest and humble supplication to them before their Images as being a means to this end and therefore Causal thereto But I do not exclude herein the vertue of the Intercession and Merit of our highest Mediator Jesus Christ no more than the form of Consecration Yet these notwithstanding are like the Dii Medioxumi or Daemons of the Heathens who were the lowest Negotiators of humane affairs with the Divine Powers So that the strenghth of this Paragraph rests firm for any thing my Antagonist has alledged against it as any one may perceive who lists to consider on it His Answer to the sixth Paragraph To that about Wax-candles burning before their Images and the Oblation of Incense smoking before them he says I pretend but do not prove to be Idolatrous and that therefore it is a Calumny To that of Temples and Altars he says again they erect them to God alone reserving onely a secundary honour for the Saints This is the sum against this Paragraph The Reply To the first I Reply That it is very plain that burning of Incense was a Sacrifice to God in the Mosaical Law which Incense was burnt before His symbolical Presence in the Sanctum Sanctorum And I add also that the lighting the Lamps before him in the same place was another part of this Mosaical service to him which is some-how imitated by the Pagans in lighting Candles before the Images of their Daemons In both which respects it is plain that to do thus to the Images of the Saints is Idolatrous And by thus doing the Saints are intended to be honoured according to the very Nicene Council that presently upon the mention thereof says The honour done to the Image passes to the Prototype wherefore that these actions are Idolatrous is plain already and is more clearly confirmed from the third Conclusion of the first Chapter and the ninth of the second To the Second I Reply That the very Rubrick of the Ritual I have so often named in the form of consecrating and laying the first stone of the Church says thus Nominando Sanctum vel Sanctam in cujus honorem ac nomen fundatur Ecclesia Is not
if he be more succesfull in his particular Applications which I confess to me are so wondrous subtil and his Collections from that Quotation of St. Austin so marvailous fine that the dulness of my sight cannot discern the coherence For first that he should collect that the Invocation of Saints was the constant and avowed Practise of those elder days from that Paragraph of St. Austin is without all ground and implies that St. Austin understood not his own meaning and writ things contrary to his own Judgement For himself was an Opposer and disallower of that fond and Idolatrous Superstition that began to creep up in his time and a rejecter of it as a practise Uncatholick and against Scripture So far was it from being a constant and avowed Practise in those days A position that is both false in it self nor any way deducible from any thing here in this Paragraph of St. Austin as it is in the Latine Text. Which is Et tamen generaliter orantibus pro indigentia supplicantium that is Praying in general for the relief or necessities of Suppliants Which is not Suppliants to them but to God though at their Memorials So that my Adversary in rendring supplicantium of those that call upon them has foisted in them contrary to the meaning of St. Austin For it is onely supplicantium in him not supplicantium ipsis Nor could St. Austin disallowing Invocation of Saints as an Impious Worship conceive God so ready to hear their Prayers if they prayed to the Saints For God heareth not sinners nor could be the Author of so foul a sin by fullfilling such petitions by the Ministry of his holy Angels as is here said Wherefore those that Invocated God onely and Jesus Christ at the Monuments of the Martyrs might be helped by the Prayers of the Martyrs though they themselves were not prayed to I say men making their addresses to God through Jesus Christ that they might be delivered from this or that evil at the Memorials of the Martyrs might be healed and relieved and this imputed some way to these Martyrs their Prayers in general for them God having a mind to improve their sufferings for a further propagation of his Church contributing to the effect But that Invocation of Saints was no allowed nor avowed practise of the Church in St. Austins time is most certain as any one may see at large in the Bishop of Armagh and Chemnitius and others who have bestowed their pains on this point And therefore his second Inference is a meer Vaunt That here is a sure and certain ground of Invocation to wit unquestionable ancient and immemorial possession and the often benefit of it by those who addressing themselves to the holy Martyrs mediation were certainly assisted by them and that in those times when they knew not whether they heard their Prayers or no whereby he would subvert the Truth of my fifteenth Conclusion But it is apparent if you Read those who are impartial searchers of Antiquity that this ground my Adversary alledges is a very rotten and Reprobate ground which as it is not asserted by St. Austin here so is it disapproved by him else where and condemned as a wicked superstitious Innovation begun amongst weak and ignorant Souls against the sense and tenour of Scripture and practise of the Catholick Church And that therefore those helps that were afforded at the Monuments of the Martyrs were to them that made their addresses to God through Jesus Christ. But if any happened to any that prayed to the Martyrs it might well be either an Accident in Nature or some officious delusion of the Devil to plunge the Church into further Apostasie So little force is there in this second Inference from the pretense of either avowed practise or effect in the Age of St. Austin before the beatifick vision of the Saints was ratified to enervate my fifteenth Conclusion But on the contrary if the Church had ratified the Invocation of Saints upon no assurance they had of their hearing our Prayers they had notoriously lapsed the Christian World into Idolatry And as many as took up that custom in those days were assuredly Idolaters as Epiphanius defines of his Collyridians So that the Sallies of my Adversary hitherto are in vain And now for the third Inference Does St. Austins doubting of the Martyrs after what manner they yield their help to those that are helped by them Vtrum ipsiper seipsos adsint uno tempore 〈◊〉 diversis locis tantâ inter se longinquitate discretis confirm the belief that they are aâ— so far distant places at once to help which my Adversary says is equivalent to the Terrestrial omnipercipient Omnipresence which I deny to be in them Certainly no But so venerable a Fathers doubting of it rather makes the thing doubtfull Nor do I think 〈◊〉 was of so slow a wit but that if he had thought a little closer on the matter he would have declared it out of all doubt and concluded it impossible that any finite Being should be in one moment of time at two distant places at once a whole diameter of the â—arth removed one from another and a semicircle or at least a quadrant distant in the surface of the Earth if we reckon more places then two For the motion must be either unconceivably swift or the Saint intirely divided into two whole Saints in two distinct places at once This I believe would have seemed little less then impossible to St. Austin and plainly to entrench upon the Omnipresence of God sure I am it seemed so to Athanasius or whoever was Author of those Questions ad Antiochum Quest. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is the priviledge of God alone to be found in more places then one at once And Anastatius Nicenus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For neither can an Angel be seen in several places at once but God onely can be so who is uncircumscribable by any place Quest. 89. But if St. Austin does but onely doubt it is sufficient for me For if we be not certain of the omnipercipient Omnipresence of the Saints we have no warrant nor right to invoke them as doing that honour to them which is the undoubted Privilege of God and thereby incurring the crime of Idolatry by Conclusion fifteenth For if there be no such omnipercipient Omnipresence communicated to the Saints it is plain from Conclusion 12. That it is Idolatry But if we know not whether this omnipercipient Omnipresence be communicated or no to them then when we adventure to invocate them we know not whether we commit Idolatry or no that is we do a doubtfull or uncertain action and act not out of faith But he that acts not out of faith does sin and sins specifically that sin which he doubts whether he so doing commits or no. As if he doubt whether such a thing be Extortion and yet do it he commits the sin of Extortion So he that does an act which he
knows not whether it is Idolatry or no he commits the sin of Idolatry in adventuring to do it as to the inward man but the Saints having no such Omnipercipiency as any one that is free from Superstition cannot but be easily assured of it is Idolatry both as to the inward and the outward And now for his fourth Inference That waveing this omnipercipient Omnipresence St. Austin renders it easily intelligible how the Saints might relieve them that call upon them viz. God omnipotent and ever present hearing the Prayers of the Martyrs and granting to men by the Ministry of Angels those helps c. I have above plainly shown that St. Austin asserts no such thing as the Invocation of Saints in this Paragraph or that the Saints are called upon But God being called upon at the Memorials of the Saints by suppliants and the Saints praying in general for us God is pleased to send relief to his suppliants by the Ministry of Angels This is all that is affirmed by St. Austin which makes nothing to the proving That according to St. Austin though the Saints do not hear our Prayers yet we may Pray unto them And therefore his general Conclusion of all which he so exults in and says is so home to the Point viz. That if St. Austin be to be credited before Dr. More It is good and profitable to invocate the Saints though we know not whether they hear us or no is a Castle in the Air and stands upon no Foundation since all the four Pillars that should sustain it are fallen into dust For neither does St. Austin say That it was the constant and avowed practise of those elder and purer days to invoke the Saints not that any received help from the Martyrs by invoking them nor does he assert but doubt of the omnipresence Terrestrial of the Saints nor is it credible but upon better consideration he as well as Athanasius and Anastatius would have concluded it impossible nor lastly does he affirm that God by the Ministry of Angels did relieve them that prayed to the Saints but onely such as at the Memorials of the Saints prayed to himself But I will not content my self with this but I will further add That if St. Austin and Dr. More be to be believed before this Doctor of the Church of Rome it is very ill and pernicious to invocate the Saints whether they hear us or no. And concerning my own Judgment I think this Doctor of Rome will confess there is no controversy Now for the Judgment of St. Austin I think he sufficiently declares himself in his De Civitate Dei Book 22. chap. 10. We build no Temples says he to our Martyrs as to Gods but Memorials as to dead Men whose Spirits are alive with God nor do we there erect Altars on which we Sacrifice to the Martyrs but to that one and Common God of the Martyrs and us At which Sacrifice the Martyrs as Men of God who by the confession of him have overcome the World are recited in their place and order but not invoked by the Priest that Sacrificeth And in his 42. Epistle You see saith he the most eminent head of the most Renouned Empire stooping with his Diadem and Praying at the Sepulâ—hre of Peter the Fisherman namely to God himself it is that he prayes though at the Monument of Peter And lib. 1. Confes. chap. 42. whom may I find that should reconcile me to thee was I to go to the Angels with what Supplication with what Sacraments many indeavouring to return unto thee and of themselves being not able have as I hear attempted such things and have been thought worthy to be ill-used c. And is there not the same Reason of the Mediation and nvocation of Saints And against Parmenian lib. 2. cap. 8. he says That if St. John should say You have me a Mediatour with the Father I pray for your sins as Parmenian would have the 〈◊〉 to be a Mediatour betwixt God and the people who would look upon him as an Apostle of Christ but as Antichrist And in the same place For if Paul were a Mediatour the rest of the Apostles would be so too and if there were many Mediatours how would that of Paul agree who says their is one Mediatour c. And we know that Invocation in the most modest sense is for the Mediation and Intercession of the Saints that they may intercede for us In a word if you consult St. Austin he is so far from approving Invocation of Saints that he is a diligent Opposer of it as you may see more at large in Chemnitius And still which will make my Adversaries Argument weaker and weaker if St. Austin had been an approver of it yet that would not have proved that it had been a constant and an avowed practise of those purer times from the Apostles to St. Austins Age there being for 360 Years after Christ no Testimony for any such thing none of the Fathers appearing for it but determining point blank against it But the Apostasie being to come in according to Prediction about 400 Years after Christ if any Father and St. Austin amongst the rest should write any thing in favour of 〈◊〉 foul a crime it would avail nothing with the prudent and unprejudiced So that here is a ratiocination 〈◊〉 than nothing and the smoke and phancy appears on my Adversaries side but on 〈◊〉 clear and solid Reason Nor need I use any â—urther Arguments to prove that it is not good nor profitable to invocate the Saints than what I have subnected to my fifteenth Conclusion which sufficiently proves it is a sin And I think sin will be held by no good Christian either good or profitable And thus you see my Antagonist fullâ— routed in his first method of attempting my four chief Conclusions viz. the eighth tenth twelfth and fifteenth he pretending that invocation of Saints may be without Idolatry though we know not whether they hear us or no which was a more oblique and incongruous Method and less likely to bring about what he would have His more direct Answer to the above said four Conclusions His secand Method is more natural direct and pertinent if he can make his attempt good viz. That â—e have a certain or sufficient knowledge that the Saints have at least a Terrestrial Omnipercipiency and hear all those that pray to them which they 〈◊〉 most certainly do 1. From their blissfull vision of God not gainsaid by Protestants and determined by the Council of Florence 2ly It is to be proved by the appearance of Devils upon the Invocation of Witches and Sorcerers 3ly From the Aequality of the Saints with the Angels Mat. 22. 30. 4ly And lastly From the weakness of the Objections taken from the â—ncredibility of the Modes of this Omnipercipiency of the Saints Because potest constare de re quando non constat de Modo rei which I allow to be a sound Maxime This is
whole or as distributed into terrestrial celestial and supercelestial not onely all these Omnipercipiencies but any one of them is a certain Excellency in God and for ought we know incommunicated to any Creature The eleventh That this Omnipresence or Omnipercipience terrestrial is one main ground of that Religious Worship due to God which we call Invocation This is plain that upon this very ground that God hears and sees though himself be invisible what-ever is said or done upon earth he has the honour of being invoked any-where or every-where and of having Temples built to him because he that is Omnipresent cannot be absent from his Temple but is alway there to be invoked The twelfth That if Omnipresence or Omnipercipience at least terrestrial if not celestial be not communicated to Saints and Angels by God the Invocation of either is palpable Idolatry This is manifest from the eighth Conclusion For Invocation implies an incommunicated Excellency in the Saints or Angels and â—o communicates that Right to them that appertains onely to God and is that Injury against God that is called Idolatry So that it is a vain Evasion that pretends that we honour God the more in making him so good to the Saints and Angels as to bestow this Excellency on them whenas yet his Wisdom has not thought fit so to do For we are so far from honouring him hereby that we injure him in giving his Right to another and we dishonour him in presuming he had done wiselier or better in doing what he has not done Whenas indeed if he were so lavish in imparting his proper Excellencies to Creatures as â—ome would make us believe he is to palliate their own Idolatries it were the next way to make men forget all Applications to God and to cast him out of their memory and take up with the more particular Patronages of Saints and Angels 6. The thirteenth That our thinking such a Saint or Angel can hear us where-ever we invoke him is no excuse for our Invocation of him nor saves us from Idolatry since all Idolatry committed in good earnest implies some Mistake as has been noted in the fourth Conclusion The fourteenth That all the Modes or ways of the Communication of this Omnipercipiency to Saints or Angels are either very incredible if not impossible or extremely ridiculous as to any excuse for their Invocation For the usual Residence of Saints and Angels being in sede Beatorum as the Roman Church holds and that place on the Coelum Empyreum above all the Stars That the Angels and Saints should upon the account of the Exaltedness of their natures see and hear from thence what is done or said from one side of the Earth to the other is extremely incredible if not impossible yea sufficiently incredible or rather impossible though they had their abode on this side of the Moon And that they should see all things and transactions hear all Prayers and Orations in Speculo Divinitatis is alike incredible a thing which the Humanity of Christ himself though hypostatically united to the Divinity did not pretend to But that God should either in this Speculum or any otherwise advertise them that such a one prays to them that they would pray to him for that party is it not at first sight above all measure ridiculous And alike ridiculous it is to pray to Saint or Angel as if they were present and heard our Prayers when indeed they are absent and cannot tell that we did pray unless by some Intelligencers This Devotion is an improper and unnatural act and shews that we do that to an invisible Creature which is onely proper to be done to the invisible God and that therefore it is Idolatry as giving that right of Worship to others which is onely congruous to him 7. The fifteenth That though there were communicated by God to Saints and Angels at least a terrestrial Omnipercipiency yet if he have not communicated the knowledge thereof to us as most certainly he has not the Invocation of them is notwithstanding a very presumptuous invasion of the â—indubitable Rights of God and the intrenching upon his Prerogatives and therefore as to the internal Act no less than the Sin of Idolatry The Reasons of this Conclusion are First That God concealing from us the knowledge of the communication of this Excellency does naturally thereby intimate that he would not have them invoked but reserves the Honour of our Invocation of an invisible Power unto himself onely Secondly That whatsoever is not of faith is sin and therefore the ground of Invocation of Saints or Angels being at least dubitable their Invocation is sin and it being about the Rights of God in his Worship what can it be better esteemed than Idolatry Thirdly This Principle of feigning or groundlesly conceiting without any Revelation from God that any Creatures are capable of such Honours as are God's indubitable Right and Prerogative is the Forge and Shop the Palliation and Pretense for infinite sorts and odlyexcogitated varieties of Idolatrous Objects and therefore so presumptuous and so abominable a Principle which is the Mother and Nurse of such infinite ways of Idolatry and Injustice against God even according to humane Reason ought to be declared against as Idolatâ—ous and consequently all the practices thereupon are also to be declared Idolatry because they spring from a Principle taken up which is such a fundamental piece of Idolatry and Injustice against God and exposes him to all manner of Idolatrous Injuries Fourthly To date to do an act we know not whether it may be Idolatry or no and this needlesly our Conscience not all compelling us thereto this is to dare to commit Idolatry and the daring to commit Idolatry and so to do defiance to the Majesty of God what is it less than to be an Idolater For according to his inward man and the main Morality of the action he is so As he is morally a Murtherer that doubting or not knowing but that it is his own Friend by luck killed his intended Enemy For the sense is that rather than not be revenged of his Enemy he will not stick to kill his dearest Friend And finally This Idolatry is the more discernable and aggravable in the Invocation of Saints or Angels their Omnipercipiency being so extremely incredible if not impossible or ridiculous upon any ground as appears by the foregoing Conclusion 8. The sixteenth That the erecting of symbolical Presence with Incurvations thitherward the consecrating of Temples and Altars the making of Oblations the burning of Incense and the like were declared by the supreme God the God of Israel the manner of Worship due to him and therefore without his Concession this Mode of Worship is not to be given to any else as appears by Conclusion the ninth The seventeenth That the Pagans worshipping their Daemons though not as the supreme God by symbolical Presences Temples Altars Sacrifices and the like become ipso facto Idolaters This is manifest
in general to them Behold then says he the Doctors Argument Invocation implies an incommunicated excellency in the Saints viz. an omnipercipient Omnipresence atleast Terrestrial if none Celestial and so communicates that right to them that appertains onely to God Ergo Invocation of Saints is palpable Idolatry Now if we can but acquit our selves handsomely in a fair return to this Argument all the rest that is to be found in the above said eleven Conclusions will amount to no more then meer empty and insignificant Nothings The Reply Here I would understand of my Adversary what he means by quitting of himself handsomely and making a fair return to this Argument For â— suspect in such fair and smooth language there lyes some cunning slight or trick of Legerdemain to impose upon his Reader and keep the simple still in Ignorance And therefore it is seasonable here to advertize them That unless he bring evident proof out of the Holy Oracles of God out of some Universal Council that is really Universal and held before the lapsed Ages of the Church or from clear and convictive Reason that an omnipercipient Omnipresence at least Terrestrial is an excellency communicated to the Saints that all what he says will be nothing to the purpose the ground of my Argument in those Conclusions touching the Invocation of Saints being laid chiefly in this That there is no convincing proof of any such omnipercipiency in the Saints but that men doing no violence to their faculties naturally conclude the Contrary and condemn the other conceit as a mere extravagancy And then secondly I advertise this that though we should prove there is this omnipercipiency of the Saints which yet he has not proved and I am well assured cannot prove all the rest of my Conclusions will not Prove insignificant Nothings For the fifteenth and eighteenth will have their use still But I am well assured his handsom and fair return is so gentle and civil that it has not ruffled the least hair of any of these Conclusions in that he has done no execution upon the eighth tenth twelfth and fifteenth on which the rest depend which we shall understand after we have set down the manner of his particular assault on these His Answer more particularly to the eighth tenth and twelfth Conclusions In order to this he casts the Centuries of the Church into two sorts into those that were more ancient not yet resolved whether the Saints entred into Heaven before the Day of Iudgement or were confined to some other place of rest excluded from the beatifick vision and those that are more Modern and resolved of that point The former was the state of the Church till the Council of Florence who cleared the Point defining that the Souls of the â—ead as soon as cleansed from all sin are received into Heaven and see God clearly as he is in himself Now his Argument proceeds in reference to these elder times thus As for those elder Centuries says he before the Council of Florence they held Invocation of Saints for an undoubted truth though some of them doubted whether they heard our prayers or â—o because no Church-definition had as then ascertained them of their full beatitude let venerable Antiquity speak for it self by the mouth of a Saint Austin who in his book De Cura pro mortuis cap. 16. speaks thus This question exceeds the reach of my judgement how the Martyrs relieve those who are certainly assisted by them Whether they are present by themselves at the same time in so many several places where the benefit of their succour is received Or being retired from the Conversations of Men in some place proportioned to their Merits and there interceding for the relief of those that call upon them as we pray for the dead who are not really present with them and know not how they are or what they do God Omnipotent and ever present hearing the prayers of the Martyrs grants to Men by the Ministry of Angels these helps where he will when he will and how he will Thus B. S. Austin Here we have it says he from an undoubted work of this great Saint and Doctor owned by himself in his Retractations First That Invocation of Saints was the constant avowed practise of those elder and purer days Secondly Contrary to the Doctors fifteenth Conclusion and all his Pharisaical scruples here is a sure and certain ground of this Invocation viz. Unquestionable ancient and immemorial possession and the often experienced benefit of it by those who addressing themselves to the holy Martyrs mediation were says St. Austin certainly assisted by them Thirdly That the Saints presence at the same time in so many several places which is equivalent to the Doctors Terrestrial omnipercipient Omnipresence does not at all in St. Austins opinion either imply an Impossibility or entrench upon any of the Divine excellencies for then he would certainly have rejected it which yet he does not Fourthly Waving this omnipercipient Omnipresence St. Austin renders it easily intelligible how the Saints might even without that and without the hearing our prayers relieve those that called upon them viz. God omnipotent and ever present hearing the Prayers of the Martyrs and granting to Men by the Ministry of Angels these helps when he will where he will and how he will Out of all which I deduce says he this Inference which is home to the point That if St. Austin be to be credited before Dr. More It is good and profitable to invocate the Saints though we know not whether they heard us or no. And till the Doctor can prove the contrary his main Hypothesis upon which he builds viz. That an omnipercipient Omnipresence is the onely ground of the invocation of Saints is fundamentally subverted and all his vapouring pretenses of Idolatry end in smoke and phancy The Reply It would make even a serious man smile to observe what a fair and handsom return he has made to the ground of my Argument comprised in those four Conclusions I thought there was some circumvention and winding about to ensnare in such smooth words And lo a marveilous fetch of wit To prove from those Ages and this he must prove or else he proves nothing to the purpose that is to excuse them from Idolatry wherein the Church knew not whether the Saints had any knowledge of our affairs or no as vet not assured whether they enjoyed the beatifick vision before the day of Judgement that an omnipercipient Omnipresence was an excellency then communicated to them which seems to be the prospect of his first way of Arguing in general or else that we may pray to them though they do not hear us at all Which yet is as delirant an Action as if one of us here in England should speak to an absent friend in the East Indies And yet to invoke the Saints uncapable of hearing us is not onely equally absurd but grosly Idolatrous by Conclusion eighth But let us see
most important Topick of all for the proof of the Saints knowing the Prayers of their Suppliants I mean the holy Scripture and if he produces any place there to prove they hear when we speak to them I will so far forth yield up the cudgels to him as to acknowledge a civil calling to them or desiring them to do this or that for us that is really in their power to effect may not be absurd The place he cites is Matth 22. 30. The Saints are as the Angles of God in Heaven says he and of the Angels it is written See ye despise not one of these little ones for I say unto you their Angels in Heaven 〈◊〉 see the face of my Father which is in Heaven Matth. 18. 10. And again There shall be joy in Heaven upon one sinner that repenteth Luke 15. 7. To the latter I Answer first if it were the priviledge of Angels through the excellency of their own nature to know at what distances soever they are at when men prayed to them why was the Invocation of Angels laid asleep all the time of the Mosaical Law and why spoken against by the very Gospel or what warrant has the Church of Rome to invoke Saints more then the Iews to invoke Angels But moreover I Answer to that of Matth. 18. 10. The sense of the Angels in Heaven always seeing the face of Christs Father which is in Heaven is not that by enjoying the sight of God they obtain thereby a terrestrial Omnipercipiency and see and hear all things transacted here on Earth but the phrase of seeing the face of Christs Father in Heaven signifies that they are those Angels that also Minister and wait before God and are Assistents at the Divine Schechina or that inimitable glory whereby God reveals himself to the Angels and blessed Spirits and gives Oracles for the ministration of his Kingdom The Angels I say that assist holy men on Earth are of so great excellency that they are in Heaven part of the Satellitium that always wait on God who is in Heaven which also implies that they are one while on Earth another while in Heaven aâ—cending and descending to negotiate the affairs of the Church receiving Oracles and commands from the Divine Schechina But instead of these Oracles of importance if the Divine Schechina should tell St. Peter or St. Paul or St. Apollonia and the rest of the Saints ever when any pray to them in such infinite distinct places and some great numbers put together praying to some or other of the Saints let any indifferent man judge how incongruous it is It is sufficient in the mean time that no such terrestrial Omnipercipiency is to be proved in the Angels from this Text. Nor do's Luk. 15. 7. imply any such thing For the Angels ascending and descending as Iacob saw them in his Divine Vision on the ladder that reached from Earth to Heaven those that ascend from Earth tell them in Heaven of the good news of converted sinners and so this Text implies no such terrestrial Omnipercipiency as my Adversary would insinuate But then in the last place suppose this terrestrial Omnipercipency were competible to the Angels it does not follow from Mat. 22. 30. that the Saints already enjoy it For the entire Text runs thus For in the Resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are as the Angels of God in Heaven But I hope my Adversary will not with Hymeneus and Philetus affirm the Resurrection is past and if not so he must acknowledge even from this Text himself produces that this Angelical priviledge of the Saints in seeing all things in the face of God is yet to come if there were at all any such Angelical priviledge The last thing he alledges for this Point is the weakness of our Objections from the Modes of this Omnipercipiency of the Saints because Potest constare de re quando non constat de modo rei But I answer à posse ad esse non valet consequentia If we had indeed the like assurance of the thing it self That one particular Saint invocated by never so many and at never so far distant places at once did hear the Prayers of all those Suppliants as we have of the Divinity of Christ and the Triunity of the God-head then though I could not reach the particular Mode how it was yet I would believe it But when all manner of Modes producible of a thing seem absurd and incredible and in the mean time there is no assurance of the Reality of the thing it self it argues great levity of mind to give belief to such a thing that it at all is And it is not meer levity in things of such great Importance as the Rights of God and the danger of Idolatry but an irreligious and giddy Temerity Which I pray God keep all men from In the mean time it is very apparent that his attempts against my eighth tenth twelfth and fifteenth Conclusions are frustraneous and that they stand as firm as ever he haying neither proved that we may invocate the Saints we being uncertain whether they hear us or no nor yet proved it certain that they do hear us which were the two Methods whereby he could have undermined these four Conclusions And therefore they standing firm still it is manifest from his own supposal that the other seven viz. the sixth seventh eleventh thirteenth fourteenth eighteenth and twenty fourth stand firm and unshaken also We proceed now to his Answers to the remaining Conclusions in the order I find them His Answer to the ninth Conclusion Against this Conclusion he argues thus Incurvation of the body according to my sixteenth Conclusion is one of the Actions or Gestures which God did chuse in the setting out the Mode of his own Worship Ergo Incurvation towards or in reference to any Creature is Idolatry But now says he if this be true Abraham who used this Incurvation to Men and Angls Gen. 18. and 23. and the beloved Disciple of Iesus who reiterated the like Incurvation towards the Angel Apoc. 22. 8. were Idolaters And therefore my Conclusion cannot be true that is laden with so great an absurdity This is the main of his Argument The Reply In Answer to which I desire the Reader to peruse my sixteenth Conclusion My words are these That the erecting of a Symbolical presence with incurvations thither ward c. I do not say that simple Incurvation is one of the Actions or Gestures which God did chuse to set out the Mode of his own Worship by for Incurvation of the body in general is neither Religious nor Civil but may be either as all men know but that it is Incurvation toward a sâ—mbolical Presence which God appropriated to himself as a Religious Mode of Worship due to himself onely Simple Incurvation is permitted and has been used without any scandal to God or Man both unto Men and Angels Now neither Abrahams nor St. Johns
there are not passing two or three that are an entreating of the Saint to pray for us but to aid and succour us in such a way as the Story of the Saint and the Allusion to her Name most naturally leads the phancy of the Devotionist to think sutable for her As if she were the giver of Courage of Patience and of Purity of mind and was to comfort and support us in the very Agony of death by her presence Which Petition is very frequent to other Saints also So plain a thing is it that this Invocation of the Saints is not a mere desiring of them to pray for us But here the Devotionist commits the whole Regimen of both his Soul and Body unto this Saint to rule all his Faculties and senses and begs so high Vertues and Graces as that none but God can supply us with them as I intimated at first Whence the Invocation upon that very account also must appear most grosly Idolatrous as Groâ—ius who yet is no such foe to the Papists does expresly acknowledge and declare CHAP. IV. His Answer to the first and second Paragraphs in this Chapter This the Doctor namely what the Council of Trent has defined in the first Paragraph termes the making the Saints more exactly like the Pagans Dii Medioxumi and the Daemons that negotiated the affairs of men with the highest Deity Now to prove that this kind of invocation of Saints is down right Idolatry and by consequence that we are worshippers of false Gods he conjures up a Spirit which â—or it s many names and bad qualities may well be termed Legion viz. the third fourth fifth sixth and eighth Conclusions of the first Chapter As also the fifth seventh eighth tenth eleventh twelfth thirteenth fourteenth fifteenth and twenty fourth Conclusions of the second Chapter But I â—ope my Answer to these Conclusions in the first and second Section of this Discourse will prove Exorcisme enough to lay this foul unclean Spirit of â—alumny and silence its Impertinencies The Reply THis Answer would recommend it self from a scheme of confidence and unexpected piece oâ— Drollery he phancying as it seems every nâ—mber writ in words at length of the fifteen Conclusions I refer to in my second Paragraph so many figures cast to conjure up a Legion of Devils But he must remember that there are Legions of good Angels also and that such were those that Michael was General over when he fought against the red Dragon And these Conclusions of mine do fight against the red Dragon revived that Idolatry too too Paganical though gilded over with the fair pretense of Christianity that is so visible in the Church of Rome So that if these Conclusions be a Legion they are a Legion under Michael and therefore good Angels and victorious as his were notwithstanding the boast of my Adversary For I have most clearly proved above that he has produced nothing to enervate them And therefore these Conclusions remaining firm even according to my Adversaries own Concession that which I declare in this second Paragraph is firm also viz. That what the Council of Trent doth openly own in my first Paragraph is down right Idolatry For my Adversary has no way to avoid it but by recourse to his Confuations of the above said Conclusions Which I have apparently demonstrated already to be no Confutations at all in my Replies to them which is needless here to repeat And therefore I go on to his further Answers to these three Chapters which are all of them in a manner in general As first His first general Answer touching the fourth fifth and sixth Chapters of my Antidote In the rest of his fourth and two ensuing Chapters saith he the Doctor acts a new Person For laying aside his former Conclusions and Demonstrations he trades now wholly in Quotations languishing or doting about Questions and strife of words The Reply I perceive nothing by my self but that I am the same person still but having out of the Conclusions named in the second Paragraph demonstrated such an Invocation of Saints as the Council of Trent approves of and requires to be down right Idolatry which common people pretend to be no more than an Ora pro nobis which yet is Idolatry too I go on not languishing but hail and hearty I thank God nor doting at all I hope but rationally deducing from the forms of Invocation used in the Roman Church that they naturally and plainly signifie more than an Ora pro nobis And it is the force and distorsion that my Adversary and his party ordinarily use to excuse these things that raises Questions and strife of words when if they did not use this art and force to distort the sense of them there could be no strife at all His second general Answer Amongst these Quotations we are to meet with a great dearth of Reason three entire Chapters having much ado to furnish out matter for one argument and that a poor one God knows The Reply Every form of Invocation is a Reason for the Conclusion I aim at which is to prove from either the manner of compellation or from the nature of the Objects of the Prayers made to the Saints that the Invocation is Idolatry and a crass kind of one too How then is the Argument but one and how a poor one This is plainly intimated in the third Paragraph of this fourth Chapter His third general Answer My business is saith he to lay down and amuse my Reader with a number of let Forms of Invocation of Saints scarce ever mentioning the Churches Publick Prayers and Liturgies Litany Canonical hours Pontifical or Ritual but the Rosary of our Lady and the Mary Psalter The Reply I thought it sufficient in my third Paragraph to signifie in general that the examples I give are taken out of such pieces of Devotion as are not muttered in the corners of their Closets but are publickly Read or Sung with Stentorian voices in their very Churches I suppose my Antagonist does not expect I should set down in what Churches they are Sung but to what Saints which may be done in several Churches His fourth general Answer As to the Fidelity of his Quotations saith he I can neither accuse nor acquit him But I shall allow him all the fair play in the world by supposing his Allegations to be true and freely take them upon trust Though his carriage hitherto gives no great Cause to suspect him guilty of too much candor in that kind The Reply To which I briefly Reply That I have set down all things in this book bonâ fide without any design of imposing any way upon any one writing nothing but what I am in my own Conscience perswaded to be true Nor can imagine what my Adversary should mean by saying That his carriage hitherto gives no great Cause to suspect him guilty of too much candor in that kind I would not do any thing of this kind knowingly and wittingly for
with more pleasure Vpon the seventh Paragraph That the Definition of the Council of Trent in this point is Idolatrous is abundantly demonstrated in the second Paragraph of the fourth Chapter from such Conclusions as I have above plainly proved no assaults of my Adversary have at all weakened But the Accessions to make this Idolatry still more gross is that it is so evident from these usual forms of Invocation that the Compellations of some of the Saints at least are incompetible to any Creature and they are asked such things as no Creature is able to give and so as if they were to be given by themselves and not by begging them of God for us Vpon the eighth Paragraph What is said here may serve for a more full Reply to my Antagonists third general Answer in that particular that concerns the Mary-Psalter it bearing this Authority and Authentickness with it For it goes under St. Bonaventures name though I will not avow him to be the Authour of iâ— But the Countenance and Authority of two Popes is even more than enough to ratifie it for a genuine piece of devotion of the Church of Rome Vpon the ninth Paragraph To the former part of this ninth Paragraph I have no more to say than what I have said already on the fifth and sixth The second part it is not impertinent to take notice what it intimates against the second and last Answers of my Adversary viz. That I have not onely proved in these three Chapters that Invocation of Saints is Idolatry though it were onely for an Ora pro nobis but also that according as the Council of Trent it self doth insinuate there are special aids and helps besides praying for us asked of the Saints and so great ones as also so great Compellations as are incompetible to a mere Creature to give or receive Which makes tâ—e Invocation twice or thrice more gross than a mere Ora pro nobis To all which you may lastly add these aggravating Circumstances which are very frequent That these Invocations are made at their Festivals in Temples at Altars and Images consecrated to them that nothing may be wanting to the most formal Idolatry imaginable See Conclusion the eighteenth of the second Chapter We see therefore the gross Idolatry of the Romanists in the Invocation of Saints even according to the allowance of the Council of Trent and the authorized practise of their Church beyond all exception evidenced and demonstrated CHAP. VII That the Doctrine of the Council of Trent touching the Worshipping of Images is Idolatrous and the Reason of the Doctrine weak and unsound 1. AND thus much for their Idolatry in the Invocation of Saints Let us now consider what the sense of the Council of Trent is touching the worshipping of Images Imagines porrò Christi Deiparae Virginis aliorum Sanctorum in templis praesertim habendas retinendas esse eâ—sque debitum honorem reverentiam impertiendam Quoniam honos qui eis exhibetur refertur ad Prototypâ— quae illae repraesentant ità ut per Imagines quas osculâ—mur coram quibus caput apâ—rimus procumbimus Christum adoremus Sanctos quorum illae similitudinem gerunt veneremur Id quod Conciliorum praesertâ—m verè secundae Nicaenae Synodi Decretis contra Imaginum oppugnatores est sancitum The meaning of which in brief is this That the Images of Christ of the blessed Virgin and other Saints are to be had and retain'd in Churches and that due honour and reverence is to be done to them For which are produced two Reasons The first In that the Honour that is done to the Images is referred to the Prototypes The second In that this Injunction is but what the second Nâ—cene Council had of old decreed 2. To which â— answer That thus much as the Council of Trent has declared touching Images is plain and open Idolatry by the seventh Conclusion of the first Chapter and expresly against the Commandment of God who forbids us to make any graven Image to bow down to or Worship But the Council of Tâ—enâ— says Yes ye may make graven Images of the Saints and set them up in their Temples and give them their due Honour and Worship nay ye ought to do so and instances in the very act of Bowing or Kneeling and prostrating our selves before them This Definition of the Council is so palpably against the Commandment of God that they are faâ—n to leave the second Commandment out of the Decalogue that the people may not discern how grosly they go against the express Precepts of God in their so frequent practices of Idolatry See the first ninth and tenth Conclusions of the first Chapter as also the third fourth fifth eighteenth nineteenth and twentieth of the second 3. Nor can all their Tricks and Tergiversations and subtil Elusions serve their turn For undoubtedly the Decalogue was writ to the easie capacity of the people and therefore their hearts and consciences are the best Interpreters Not the foolish Evasions and Subterfuges of perfidious Sophisters who to the betraying of weak Souls to Idolatry and Damnation and for the opening their Purses would make them believe that the Council of Trent's enjoyning of Images in Churches and the honouring them or worshipping them and bowing down before them can consist with God's forbidding to make any graven Image and to bow down to it and worship it So that I say the Council it self does appoint flat Idolatry to the Christian world to be practised And it being so monstrous a thing I pray you now let us consider the Reasons why they do so 4. The first is Because the Honour done to the Image is referr'd to the Prototype But I answer that this Reference is either in virtue of that Similitude the Images have with those persons they represent which the words of the Council seem to imply at least touching the Saints quorum illae similitudinem gerunt as when we praise a Picture of such or such a person that it is a very comely and lovely Picture this praise naturally has a reference to the Person whose Picture it is in virtue of the similitude betwixt the Picture and the Party Or else this Reference without any regard to personal Similitude is from the Direction of the Intention of the Devotionist that he intends upon the seeing and bowing suppose to the Image of Christ the blessed Virgin or any Saint to take this occasion to worship Christ the blessed Virgin or the Saint thereby the Image being but at large a symbolical Presence of them it being not regarded whether the Symbol or Image have any personal Similitude with the party it represents or no. 5. But now as for the former it is evident that it is infinitely uncertain whether any Image of Christ the blessed Virgin or of this or that Saint be like the carnal figure of these persons while they were alive upon earth or no. Nay it is in a manner certain
Bishop Constanâ—ines Caution look very odly and unlikely to be his own but of some heedless and unskilfull foister in of stuff to serve a sense against the general current of the Council or to obscure the genuine tenour of it Which yet if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be understood of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I have noted and explained it above though this caution were in it would not be repugnant to any part of the Council And besides what is the Authority of one single Bishop in so great a number of Bishops to weaken the general Current of the sense of the Council So sure and certain every way is the meaning that Photius has represented of the Council CHAP. IX The meaning of the Doctrine of the Council of Trent touching the Worship of Images more determinately illustrated from the general Practice of the Roman Church and Suffrage of their Popes whereby it is deprehended to be still more coursly and Paganically Idolatrous 1. BUT it may be it may give more satisfaction to some to know what is the Church of Rome's own sense of this Honor debitus she declares ought to be done to the Images of Christ and the Saints Putting off a man's Hat and lying prostrate before them the Council does not stick to instance in by the bye But because the Council calls this neither Dulia nor Hyperdulia not Latria some will it may be be ready to shuffle it off with the interpretation of but a civil Complement to these Images or their Prototypes But since the Council of Trent has declared nothing farther what can be a more certain Interpreter of their meaning then the continued Custome of their Church and the sense of such Doctours as have been even sainted for their Eminency as â—homas Aquinas and Bonaventure who both of them have declared that the Image of Christ is to be worshipped with the Worship of Latria the same that Christ is worshipped with 2. And Azorius the Iesuite affirms that it is the constant Opinion of the Theologers their own he means you may be sure that the â—mage is to be honoured and worshipped with the same Honour and Worship that he is whose Image it is Which is not unlike that in the Council of Nice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the foregoing Citation But that they are all capable of religious Worship the Council of Trent it self as well as Bellarmine and others if not all the Theologers of that Church does plainly acknowledge in that it determines for their Invocation which is competible to no invisible Power but the Godhead it self Wherefore it is manifest that their Images are worshipped with religious Worship also 3. But we shall make still the clearer judgement thereof if we consider the Consecration of these Images which the Council of Trent declares are to be worshipped For the Conâ—ecration and Worshipping of them makes them perfectly as the Idol-Gods of the Heathen as Octavius jearingly speaks of the Heathen Gods that is their Idols in Minucius Felix Ecce funditur fabricatur scalpitur nondum Deus est Ecce plumbatur constrâ—itur erigitur nec adhuc Deus est Ecce ornatur consecratur oratur tunc postremó Deus est Behold it is clothed or adorned it is consecrated and prayed unto then at length it becomes a God And if this will doe it the Church of Rome's Images will prove as good Idol-Gods as any of them all 4. Chemnitius recites some forms of Consecration I will cull out onely those of the Images of the blessed Virgin and of S. Iohn That of the Virgin is this anctify O God this Image of the blessed Virgin that it may aid and keep safe thy faithfull people that Thundrings and Lightnings if they grow too terrible and dangerous may be quickly expelled thereby and that the Inundations of Rain the Commotions of civil War and Devastations by Pagans may be suppressed by the presence thereof Which is most effectual to make all men come and hurcle under the protection of the Virgin 's Image in such dangers as under the Wings of the great Iehovah This is hugely like the consecrated Telesms of the Pagans But let us hear the form of the Consecration of the Image of S. Iohn also Grant O God that all those that behold this Image with Reverence and pray before it may be he ard in whatsoever Streights they are Let this Image be the holy Expulsion of Devils the conciliating the presence and assistence of Angels the protection of the faithfull and that the Intercession of this Saint may be very powerfull and effectuall in this place What a mighty Charm is this to make the Souls of the feeble to hang about these Images as if their Presence were the Divine Protection it self 5. These Chemnitius recites out of the Pontificall he perused But the Rituale Romanum published first by the command of Paulus Quintus and again authorized by Pope vrban the eighth will do our business sufficiently they being both since the Council of â—rent and therefore by the Exposition of these Popes we may know what that debitus Honor is which the Tridentine Fathers mention as that which ought to be done to the Images of Christ the blessed Virgin or any other Saint For the Consecration of their Images runs thus Grant O God that whosoever before this Image shall diligently and humbly upon his knees worship and honour thy only begotten Son or the blessed Virgin according as the Image is that is a-consecrating or this glorious Apostle or Martyr or Confessor or Virgin that he may obtain by his or her Merits and Intercession Grace in this present life and eternall Glory hereafter So that the Virgin and other Saints are fellow-distributers of Grace and Glory with Christ himseâ—f to their Supplicants before their Images and that upon their own Merits and for this Service done to them in kneeling and pouring out their Prayers before their Statues or symbolicall Presences What greater Blasphemy and Idolatry can be imagined Ornatur consecratur oratur tunc postremò fit Dâ—us that is to say The Image is pray'd before but the Daemon pray'd unto There is no more in Paganism it self And yet by the Pope's own Exposition this is the debitus Honor that is owing to the Images of the Saints Consider the latter end of the last Conclusion of the first Chapter and the forms of Invocation in the fourth and fifth as also the eighteenth Conclusion of the second Chapter 6. This is all plain and express according to the â—uthority of their Church And that besides their Adoration and Praying before these Images which considering the postures of the Supplicant and the Image is as much praying to them as the Heathens will acknowledge done to theirs there are also Wax-candles burning before them and the Oblation of Incense or perfuming them Feasts likewise Temples and Altars to the same Saints and the carrying them in Procession which was the guize of ancient Paganism is
The praying before the Ark to God Almighty which Ark and the things in it and about it are wood may as well be said to be talking with stocks and stones as the praying before the Image of a Saint and the Cross in such formes as are used to them is a most sensless and absurd speech to say no worse For the disparity is manifest For did the Jews ever say O Ark hear me or O Cherubims hear me But here is plainly speaking to the Cross which is but a piece of wood in this form Hail O Cross our onely Hope increase righteousness to the righteous and pardon our sins Besides neither Ark nor Cherubim was in their sight to speak to But the Image of St. Peter or the Blessed Virgin is before their eyes and they bear the names of these Saints as the Image of Christ does his of which one Johannes in the Nicene Council declares if any one call it or inscribe upon it This is Christ he does nothing amiss therein and are as it were these very Saints represented to us in Figure and Person and therefore when we speak to these wooden Personages saying O blessed Virgin O holy St. Peter c. is not this infinitely more like talking to stocks and stones then when the Jews having their faces toward the Ark which yet was vailed from them mentioned God alone nor was there any wood-work nor stone-work there that was called God or Jehovah But what will not they say that are in a bad Cause to make a show to desend themselves But for O Crux ave spes Vnica he would excuse the gross absurdity of it For none can excuse the Idolatry when they yield Latria to the true Cross and contend what kind of Religious Worship is due to the Type of it by saying that by Crux here is not meant the Cross but Christ crucified on the Cross. So that it is but a figurative speech The Cross for Christ upon the Cross Metonymis subjectâ— as it is used 1 Cor. 1. 18. For the preaching of the Cross is to them that perish foolishness that is says he Christ crucified on the Cross. But it is immediately in the former verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 left the Cross of Christ be made of none effect Then immediately follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is plainly an Ellipsis and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so the whole is For the preaching of the Cross of Christ c. As it is taken Gal. 6. 24. God forbid that I should glory in any thing saving in the Cross of our Lord Iesus Christ whereby the world is crucified to me and I unto the world This is that which is foolishness to them that perish but the Power of God to them that are saved So that there is no ground for a Metonyâ—nia Subjecti when an Ellipsis is so naturally understood which will not at all serve his purpose And the Metonymy indeed very poorly For it does not follow because by a figurative speech the Subject may be put for the Adjunct or the Symbol for the Person it is compared to in speech that therefore we may and yet seem to be in our wits make Prayers or speeches to these Subjects or Symbols The Cherubims are the seat of the Divine Presence should the Jews therefore have said by a Metonymy O golden Cherubims come and help us And because men talk of the infallible chair at Rome meaning the Popes would any but a mad man propound questions to the chair and not to the Pope himself to be resolved And our Saviour Christ says Apoc. 22. I am the bright morning Star which is a figurative speech Can therefore any one with eyes and hands lift up to the morning Star say unto it O bright morning Star illuminate my understanding increase righteousness to the righteous and pardon our sins but he will be lookt upon as an Idolater and Star-worshipper and to say he means Christ the morning Star will not excuse him from mere madness and delirancy if it could from Idolatry And how much better I pray is it to speak to a piece of wood nay to the figure of another piece of wood For Christ was not crucified on the wood they speak to But by speaking to this piece of wood they would be understood to speak to another piece of wood on which Christ was crucified at Ierusalem nor yet to that piece of wood neither but to Christ hanging on the wood and that now at such a time as he is off of the wood and is in Heaven to be spoke to himself as a gracious Intercessor that we may not call on this stock or that stone but make our immediate addresses to him in word and heart that he would be graciously pleased to intercede with his Father for us To all which you may add That comparing this passage of the Prayer with that which goes before Arbor decora fulgida Electa digno stipite Tam sancta membra tangere Beata cujus brachiis secli pependit pretium and how within a line or two after follows O Crux ave spes Vnica c. it is demonstratively plain that it is the Cross it it self not Christ meant in this passage unless you will make Christ his own Cross to hang upon and make him distinct from his own Body and members Whence the Absurdity and Idolatry of this devotion is most clearly manifest and that it is no Calumny to charge them with it The rest of this Section is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if you will and I will leave my Antagonist to injoy himself in the reek and perfume thereof CHAP. X. Severall important Consectaries from this clear Diseovery of the gross Idolatry of the Church of Rome with an hearty and vehement Exhortation to all men that have any serious regard to their Salvation to beware how they be drawn into the Communion of that Church 1. THus have we abundantly demonstrated that the Church of Rome stands guilty of gross Idolatry according to the concâ—ssions and Definitions of their own Council of Trent that is to say though we charge them with no more then with what the Council it self doth own touching the Adoration of the Host the Invocation of Saints and the Worshipping of Images But we must not forget in the mean time that the Crime grows still more course and palpable looking upon the particular forms of their Invocation of the Saints and the Circumstances of their worshipping their Images and yet ratify'd by the Popes and corroborated by the uncontrolled practice of their whole Church Which therefore must in all reason be the Interpreter of the minde of the Council So that there is no evasion left for them but that they are guilty of as gross and palpable Idolatry as ever was committed by the sons of men no less gross then Roman Paganism it self 2. From whence in
and is a kind of tacit insinuation that they are indeed Idolaters but not express ones as if their Hypocrisie could avail any thing with God or free them from that condemnation that attends all that are Idolaters Is the business then come onely to this that the Romanists are not professed Idolaters I wonder who ever professed themselves Idolaters that were serious in their Idolatry For serious Idolatry always implies Ignorance and mistake in the Idolater though the Crime of Idolatry be so exceeding hainous by Conclusion 4th Chapterâ—d But it being probable that Dr. Thorndike had a greater kindness for the Church of Rome then thus and that by this last Argument also he would prove them to be really no Idolaters let us suppose it and see how well his Argument will conclude it They expresly profess their detestation of Idolatry nor make any express renunciation of that profession therefore they are no Idolaters To which 〈◊〉 Answer An unjust man or Extortioner one that blinded with Covetousness does unjust actions does expresly profess his detestation of injustice nor renounces that profession does it follow therefore that he is not an unjust man Or to make an Hypothesis something more operose though sufficiently pertinent to the Occasion we will suppose a considerable number of Jews in some Kingdom having misbehaved themselves out of fear of punishment to posses themselves of some strong Castle of the Prince of the Countrey and there continuing a considerable time to exercise their Religion and for better show to write at the upper end of the Hall where they meet Moses Decalogue in golden Capital letters making great profession of the righteousness of the Laws of that Decalogue but in the mean time for the indulging to themselves the pleasures of the flesh as well as for the supplying their necessities and securing themselves should make particular Laws and Decrees amongst themselves for the plundring and spoyling the Country people as they went to Market and killing such as resisted and should declare it Lawfull to Ravish the Women they met with interpreting the Law against Adultery touching Jewish Women onely that are of their own Religion and Theft and Murder of Plundring or killing those of the common wealth of Israel not Aliens and Strangers which their Law makes no provision for as they will pretend that take upon them to be the Interpreters thereof Now if any one should accuse them of Adultery Theâ—t and Murder committed against their Princes Subjects and they should plead or any for them that they cannot possibly be Robbers Murderers or Adulterers because they expresly profess their open detestation thereof nor have any where renounced that Profession the Decalogue of Moses also witnessing for them writ in great Capital letters in their very Hall where they dayly meet in which it is expresly said Thou shalt not commit Adultery Thou shalt do no Murder Thou shalt not Steal they notwithstanding making those particular Decrees amongst themselves and acting accordingly would not the Apology seem vain or impious How then can the express Profession of the Church of Rome against Idolatry excuse her from Idolatry when they make particular Decrees of worshipping the Host with Latria of Invocating the Saints and bowing to their Images and practise it in such Circumstances as I have again and again declared Nay when these Decrees are made by general Councils as they pretend how can they be but express Idolaters and renounce their prosession against Idolatry as much they can do For no serious Idolater takes himself to be so Wherefore we see how hugely unconcluding every Argument of Dr. Thorndikes is whereby he would prove the Church of Rome no Idolaters But I have over and over agaiâ— demonstrated them to be Idolaters in this my Antidote nor has my Adversary produced any thing that in the least manner enervates any of my Arguments nor can he prop himself by the Authority of Dr. Thorndike it being so without all ground and Reason From all which that Imputation I hope by this time is washed off That my Arguments are mere blustering words and I unconcerned how true or false they are whenas if my Adversary be a man of sense as truly I presume him to be he cannot but feel by this that my words are not a storm and thunderclap without a bolt but that they carry along with them what is solid and strong And verily for Dr. Thorndike himself being so venerable and Learned a Person and of that judgement and sincerity after a Cause is so throughly canvassed on all sides as it has been betwixt you and me and him and my self about the Idolatry of the Church of Rome if he were now alive as it has pleased God to take him out of this life and translate him as I hope to a better since the finishing of this my Reply and before the transcribing of it I believe he would not stick to conclude her guilty of Idolatry and that he and I should be fully agreed in these Points Which I am the more easily induced to believe from what he wrote in a letter about a year before he died which Clause does plainly seem to null this fourth and greatest Antithesis betwixt him and me viz. That the separating from the Church 〈◊〉 Rome upon the account of Idolatry is Schism before God His words as I had them faithfully conveyed to me by a worthy friend are these To pray to the Saints for those things which onely God can give as all Papists do is in the proper sense of the words down right Idolatry I but here my Adversary will be forward to Reply But so long as the words may be figuratively understood we are excused of Idolatry But let him hear how Dr. Thorndike himself obviates this subterfuge If they say their meaning is by a figure onely to desire them to procure their requests of God how dare any Christian trust his Soul with that Church which teacheth that which must needs be Idolatry in all that understand not that figure Which is spoken with incomparable judgement and modesty and tender Civility to that Church but I promise you in effect charges them as home as to this point as if he had said in a word They are all down right Idolaters From whence it will necessarily follow That he changed his opinion before he dyed and held that to separate from the Church of Rome upon the account of Idolatry is not Schism before God Now that he says they are all down right Idolaters is manifest Because he says all that understand not that figure which may excuse them of Idolatry are so Now I am well assured and he could not chuse but be so too that the most Learned of them understand not that figure there being no such figure in all Rhetorick yet unless they have made of late a new Figure calling it Quidlibet pro quolibet that is the putting any thing for any thing which will be a colour
for all the Nonsense in the world that ever was is or can be writ or spoken But men can no more make what figures they please in Rhetorick then they can make what Moods they please in the three figures in Logick But all must be measured by the end of each Art Bene disserere in the one and Bene dicere in the other what is not consentaneous to the former can be no Precept in Logick and what not to the latter none in Rhetorick And if there be the pretence of the use of any figure acknowledged in Rhetorick which is not consentaneous to that end the figure thus pretended to be used cannot be used but the words will at the peril of the speaker remain in their proper sense As if some wretched extravagant fellow should venture to begin his Prayer thus O infinitely weak unwise and unholy Lord God and pretend it is an Irony and that he speaks by contraries would this excuse him from horrid blasphemy Surely no. For the use of the Figure in this place is not consentaneous to the general End of Rhetorick which is Ars bene dicendi which no loathsom disharmonious and absurd speech can agree with Wherefore if a figure cannot be admitted here where there is one to which it is so obvious to refer the speech how can the pretence of a figure excuse that speech which it will puzzle any man to find a figure to refer it to As for Example if one should pray thus to St. Francis O holy St. Francis give me the spirit of Grace in this life and eternal Glory in the life to come Upon which one crying out Down right Idolatry if he that addressed this absurd and Idolatrous Prayer should say he meant figuratively intending no more then thus O holy St. Francis pray to God to give me the spirit of Grace c. this speech also being so loathsom harsh and scandalous can be no figurative speech but is necessarily shut up in the proper sense of the words and as the other was horrid blasphemy so this is down right Idolatry as Dr. Thorndike speaks This is clear demonstration to any one that considers the case impartially whence it is plain that this sourth Antithesis betwixt Dr. Thorndike and my self is quite broke a pieces and that we are agreed in this That to separate from the Church of Rome upon the account of Idolatry is not Schism before God For as much as to pray to the Saints for those things which God alone can give as all Papists do is in the proper sense of the words doâ—n right Idolatry And I have plainly demonstrated there is no changing the sense of the words by a figure for as much as there is no figure to refer the speech to or if there were there is no legitimate use of any such figure because it would be no ornament or perfection of speech but a loathsom blemish thereof and therefore no more a figure than a piece of dung hung at the Ear in a string is an Ear-Jewel Wherefore as I said Dr. Thorndike coming so readily off of himself in this fourth and last Antithesis which indeed is founded in a breach also upon the third Antithesis he so plainly declaring such an Invocation of Saints to be down right Idolatry which yet all Papists use for all they cannot but remember the Saints to be Gods Creatures and therefore commit Idolatry with them though they remember them to be Gods Creatures Which enervates also the second Antithesis he indeavouring to prove that the honouring the Images of the Saints would be no Idolatry so long as we remember them to be Gods Creatures I cannot but hope if he had lived and perused this carefull and distinct Disceptation he would have come off in all For how could he stick in the first Anâ—ithesis at the acknowledging their Idolatry in the worshipping the Host Whenas though they think the Bread is not there yet they conceiving the individual matter of the Bread transubstantiated into the Body of Christ and so Hypostatically united with the Divinity and upon that account pursue it with their devotion and Divine Adoration hit upon the said Individual matter untransubstantiated and remaining Bread still and so do plainly give Divine Adoration to Bread as much as the Persians to the Sun who take it for the Supreme Intellectual Deity But take him agreed no further then he actually was before he dyed which is so far as to declare all the Church of Rome down right Idolaters he does thereby freely acknowledge the Church of England and other Protestant Churches to be no Schismaticks either before God or before men Nay says he Weights and Measures Chap. 1. if the Papists be Idolaters we are tâ— own the separation for our own Act and to glory in it For it is done by Gods express Command Come out of her my people c. Apoc. 18. 4. But for the Papists being Idolaters whatever the declarations of Dr. Thorndike are my demonstrations in my Antidote and what occurs in my Reply do evidently and irrefragably evince it in all Points they are charged with And thereupon you see what an agreeable Conclusion comes from us both It is Gods express Command to come out of her And if this be not Agreement enough conconsidering Dr. Thorndike has now laid down that load of â—arth that depresses the mind and is as we in Charity hope among the blessed I question not but he clearly discerns his mistakes in all four Antitheses betwixt us So that it is very credible that the two Doctors are agreed fully in these Points though I pronounce it with some peril of bringing my Antagonist upon me again who craves respite for his pen onely so long as till the two Doctors be fully agreed but then Dr. More says he shall hear more from me if he desire it But we being thus fully agreed yet I confess I shall desire to hear no more from you unless you will imitate your fellow-Combatant and wear no Mask but do as I do speak verily as you think and bring no Arguments but such as you in your own Conscience think true and concluding and then I dare say the Game will soon be at an end But there may be made a show of Confutation in infinitum to amuse or quiet those of your own Party that have not the leasure or capacity of reading and understanding what is Written But if you think to make any Rejoinder if I find you bring any thing material more than what you have suggested already I will God willing take the pains to Answer but if not I shall neither give you nor my self any further trouble but leave the world to judge And so Fellow-Combatant I bid you heartily farewell And that you may be the better assured I part with you in Charity and that I may appear to you clear of that Imputation of Uncharitableness which you labour so in this last Section to cast