had for the Pagan Deities in assuming their names and worship let others consider But to return to the Bishop He having assured us that the Church of Rome does not ascribe any divine perfections to the Saints of which the Reader may judge by what I have already discoursed he thus concludes It is therefore true that by examining what are our interiour Sentiments concerning the Saints it will be found we do not raise them above the condition of creatures and from thence we ought to judge of what nature that exteriour honour is which we render them exteriour Veneration being established to testifie the interior Sentiments of the mind That is we must conclude they do not give the worship of God to them because they do not believe them to be Gods Now this I confess would be true were the external Signs of honour wholly arbitrary and at our own choice for then they could signifie no more than what we intend to signifie by them and we ought not to be charged with intending to signifie more than what we profess to intend but when either the Act of worship naturally signifies divine perfections as prayer to an Invisible Being does or God has reserved any Acts of worship to himself as he has done all Religious Worship that is all Worship paid to Invisible Beings as I have already shewn in these cases we may be guilty of giving divine honours to creatures though in words and intention we ascribe no divine perfections to them So that I cannot see but that after all the fine colours and soft interpretations which the Bishop puts upon this practice of the Church of Rome in praying to Saints the charge against them of giving the peculiar worship of God to creatures is as strong and forcible as ever Secondly let us now consider whether our praying to the Saints to pray and intercede for us be not injurious to the Merits and Mediation of Christ. Now there are two things the Bishop urges to prove that the Mediation of Saints is not injurious to the Mediation of Christ. 1. That if the quality of Mediator which the Scriptures gives to Jesus Christ received any prejudice from the Intercession made to the Saints who raign with God it would receive no less from the intercession made to the Faithful who live with us For this he alledges the Authority of the Catechism ad Parochos which tells us That if it were not lawful to desire help of the Saints because we have one Patron or Mediator Jesus Christ the Apostle would not so earnestly have desired the Prayers of the Brethren who were then living to God for him For the glory and dignity of Christ as Mediator is not less diminished by the Prayers of the Living than by the Intercession of Saints in Heaven This is the least that can be made of it that the Mediation and Intercession of the Saints for us in Heaven is no more than one Christians praying for another on Earth and I fear this is not reconcileable with the practice of the Church of Rome in this matter For can this if it be no more be thought a sufficient foundation for all that pompous worship of the Virgin Mary and other powerful Saints Is this a good reason to erect Temples and Altars consecrated not only to their Memory but to their Honour to set up their Images in Holy Places and pay our humble Adorations before them because they pray for us in Heaven just as Christian Brethren pray for one another on Earth And therefore I must needs say the Bishop has not truly expounded the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in this Point which makes the Saints to be our Mediators in Heaven not indeed Mediators of Redemption which she acknowledges none to be but Christ who has purchased us with his own Blood but Mediators of Intercession who have so much interest and favour in the Court of Heaven as powerfully to recommend those to God who put themselves under their Patronage This I confess makes a great difference between the Mediation of Christ and of the Saints and yet leaves a great distance between the Prayers of Saints in Heaven for us and the mutual Intercessions of Christians for each other on Earth and the Church of Rome never taught that they were of the same nature for though the Catechism endeavours to prove that the Mediation and Intercession of the Saints in Heaven for us is not injurious to the Mediation of Christ because the Prayers of Christians for each other on Earth are very reconcileable with the Honour of Christ's Intercession yet it never teaches that there is no difference between the Prayers of Saints in Heaven and Christians on Earth and I think we ought to distinguish between the Doctrine and the Arguments of the Church What she declares to be her Doctrine we must own to be so but I think we must not grant every thing to be her Domakes which ought to be supposed to make her Arguments good because there is no necessity of granting that all her Arguments must be good This Argument indeed that the intercession of the Saints in Heaven is no more injurious to the Mediation of Christ than the Prayers and Intercessions of the Saints on Earth for each other cannot be good without supposing that the Intercessions of the Saints in Heaven are of the very same nature with the Prayers of Christians for each other on Earth and the Bishop takes the advantage to represent this as the Doctrine of the Church that she teaches us to pray to Saints in the same spirit of Charity and according to the same order of fraternal society which moves us to demand assistance of our Brethren living upon Earth But this I think is not reconcileable with the express words of the Council of Trent which founds the invocation of Saints upon their reigning with Christ which makes a vast difference between their interest and authority in the Court of Heaven and the humble supplications of Christians on Earth And I think the spirit of Charity and the order of fraternal society does not require us supplicitèr invocare to pray to our fellow Christians on Earth as humble Supplicants to pray for us as the Council teaches us to address our selves to the Saints in Heaven Christians indeed on Earth and Saints in Heaven since the Bishop has limited all their aid and assistance to their prayers can do no more than pray for us and are thus both of them distinguished from Christ who is our Mediator of Redemption who has bought us with his blood But then we ought to consider that there is a vast difference in prayers and prayers may prevail upon such different Reasons as may quite alter the nature of the Intercessions For is there no difference between the power and interest of a favourite to obtain what he desires of his Prince and the Petition of an ordinary Subject A Prince may grant the Petition
is given to them because not God but they themselves are the Object and the ultimate Object of that Worship which is given to them Though we should grant that God is honoured by that Worship which is given to some excellent Creatures who are his Friends and Favourites yet the Honour we do to God in this is of a very different nature from that Worship which we pay to Creatures it does not consist in this that the worship we give to Creatures is terminated on God for it is terminated upon those Creatures whom we worship but the Honour must consist in the Reason of our worship that we worship them for God's sake It is an honour to God by Interpretation and Consequence as we intend it for God's Honour or as God is pleased to think himself honoured by it but it is no act of Worship to God and therefore not terminated on him The Worship can go no further than its proper Object though the Reason of the Worship may For there is a great deal of difference between an Object and a Medium of Worship a Medium of Worship which is only a representative Object receives our Worship but does not terminate it but convey it to that Being it represents because it is worshipped only in the place and stead of another as it is in that Worship which is given to the Images of Christ and the Saints which some Divines of the Church of Rome tell us is not terminated on the Images but on Christ or the Saints represented by those Images but a proper Object of Worship which receives worship in its own proper person for whatsoever reason it is worshipped it terminates the Worship the Worship which is given to it goes not beyond it self though the Reason of the Worship may reach farther and be thought to reflect some Honour upon God and to testifie our Love and Reverence for him by that Worship we pay to those who are dear to him So that if we do give Religious Worship to the Virgin Mary and Saints such Worship is terminated on them and then all Religious Worship is not terminated on God as he says the Church of Rome teaches it must be which yet teaches also the worship of Saints and the Blessed Virgin Methinks he should have taken care to have stated this matter a little plainer For if he cannot reconcile the Doctrine and Practice of the Church together I fear his Exposition will rather increase than end Controversies Thus how doubtfully does he speak If the Honour she renders to the Blessed Virgin and to the Saints may in some sense be called Religious it is for its necessary Relation to God Why does he not tell us plainly whether this Honour the Church of Rome gives to Saints and the Virgin be Religious or not and in what sense it may be called Religious Honour If he undertake to expound the Catholick Faith why does he not do it Why does he speak so cautiously As if he were afraid to own what the Faith of the Church is in this point Which yet is a very material one and very necessary to be truly stated Thus I can understand how the Honour which is given to Creatures may have Relation to God viz. because we honour them for God's Sake and upon account of their Relation to him but I do not understand how this relation to God makes the Honour of Creatures a Religious Honour For though we honour Creatures for God's Sake yet the Honour we give to Creatures must be sutable to their own Natures and therefore not that Religious Honour which is proper to God only As when we honour a man for the sake of our Father or our Prince we do not give him that Honour which is proper to our Father or our Prince though we honour him for their Sakes And therefore if the Church of Rome does give Religious Honour to any Creatures it will not justifie her in giving religious Honour to Creatures that she honours them for God's Sake for Creatures are Creatures still though never so nearly related to God and therefore not capable of Religious Honours So that I do not see how this Explication if it may be so called takes off any Objection that was ever made against the Church of Rome about the Object of Religious Worship For if by all Religious Worship being terminated on God he means that no other Being must be religiously worshipped but only God then this is an invincible Objection against that Religious Worship which the Church of Rome gives to the Blessed Virgin and to Saints and Angels If he means by it that Religious Worship may be given to other Beings besides God so it be all terminated in God then all the other Objections against worshipping any other Being besides God are in full force still notwithstanding his Explication their Relation to God will not justifie the Religious Worship of Creatures and it is contrary to all Sense and Reason to say That the Worship which is given to Creatures is terminated on God SECT IV. Invocation of Saints THere are two great Opinions against that Worship which the Church of Rome gives to Saints departed who now reign with Christ in Heaven as the Council of Trent teaches 1. That it is to give them that Religious Worship which is due only to God 2. That it makes them our Mediators and Intercessors in Heaven which is an Honour peculiar to Christ. Now M. de Meaux and after him the Author of the Character think to remove these Objections only by explaining the Doctrine of their Church about this matter and I shall distinctly consider what they say to each of these 1. As for the first That in praying to Saints they do not give them that Worship which is due only to God they think is evident from hence That the Council of Trent and the Catechism ad Parochos teaches them only to pray to Saints to pray for them The Bishop takes great pains to prove this to be the sense of the Council and therefore that in what terms soever those Prayers which we address to Saints are couched the Intention of the Church and of her Faithful reduces them always to this Form Now I will not dispute this matter at present but refer my Reader to the Answer to a Papist misrepresented But let us suppose that this is all the Church of Rome intends by it that we should only pray to the Saints to pray for us what advantage can they make of this Yes says the Advertisement before the Bishops Exposition p. 12. To pray to Saints only to pray for us is a kind of Prayer which by its own nature is so far from being reserved by an Independent Being to himself it can never be addressed to him That is we must never pray to God to pray for us and therefore such a Prayer is no part of that Worship which is due to God And he adds If this Form of Prayer
pray for us diminished the trust we have in God it would be no less condemnable to use it to the Living than to the Dead and St. Paul would not have said so often Brethren pray for us the whole Scripture is full of Prayers of this nature Thus the Author of the Character tells us In this he does not at all neglect coming to God or rob him of his honour but directing all his Prayers up to him and making him the ultimat Object of all his Petitions He only desires sometimes the just on Earth sometimes those in Heaven to joyn their Prayers to his that so the number of Petitioners being increased the Petition may find better acceptance in the sight of God and this is not to make them Gods but only Petitioners to God He having no hopes of obtaining any thing but of God alone This is the least that can possibly be made of that Worship they give to Saints which is not reconcileable with their practice neither and if it should appear that this as little as it is thought to be is to give that Worship to Creatures which is due to God they must e'en reject praying to Saints to pray for them as they now do trusting in their aid and assistances and power to keep them Now I only ask whether Prayer be not an Act of Religion and a worship due to God if it be not why do they pray to God if it be then they give the worship of God to Saints when they pray to them For it is not so much the matter of our Prayer as the nature of Prayer which makes it an Act of Religion We may pray to God for those things which men can give viz. Food and Raiment and yet these are as religious prayers as when we ask such things of God as none can give but himself and by the same reason though we pray to Saints only to do that for us which a creature can do that is only to pray to God for us yet our very praying to them is an Act of religious worship which is due only to God The truth is I am so dull that I cannot see what makes these new Reformers of the Roman-Catholick Doctrine and Worship so shy of owning any other aid and assistance which they expect from the Saints but only their Prayers for them for this makes no alteration at all in the nature of that worship they pay to them For suppose the Saints in Heaven who now reign with Christ as the Council affirms were intrusted with the Guardianship of men and the care of Saints on Earth as Cardinal Bellarmine expresly says they are might we not as lawfully pray to them to imploy that power God has committed to them for our good and happiness as to use their interest with God for us by their prayers Does one exalt you more above the condition of creatures than the other May we not beg our Friends on Earth to relieve our wants and necessities as well as to pray for us And if begging the prayers of our Friends on Earth will justifie our praying to the Saints in Heaven to pray for us our asking an Alms on Earth will equally justifie our begging the aid and assistance as well as prayers of the Saints in Heavâ—n and then we are just where we were And if ever there were any good Arguments against praying to Saints they are all good still though they pray to Saints only to pray for them which is my only business at present to shew according to the Bishop's desire that his Explication leaves all the Objections in full force and all the Disputes untouched So that setting aside the matter of our prayers or what it is we ask which makes no alteration in this case the inquiry is Whether when we pray to Saints we do not give that worship to them which is peculiar and appropriate to God Now the Church of Rome is so far from thinking such prayers to be the peculiar worship due to God that she thinks it as innocent to pray to the Saints in Heaven to pray for us as it is to desire the prayers of our Christian Brethren on Earth The Bishop says The Church in teaching us that it is profitable to pray to Saints teaches us to pray to them in the same spirit of Charity and according to the same order of fraternal Society which moves us to demand assistance of our Brethren living on Earth The Character to the same purpose makes our desiring sometimes the Saints on Earth sometimes those in Heaven to joyn their prayers with ours to be Actions of the very same nature and equally lawful This is the true Pinch of the Controversie and here it is we part with the Church of Rome that we think there is some difference between speaking to our Christian Brethren on Earth whom we see and converse with and praying to the Saints in Heaven with all the external expressions of religious worship and adoration The first is to converse with them as men the second is such a manner of Address as is proper only for a God To pray to Saints is somewhat more than to desire our Christian Friends to pray for us it is supplicitèr eos invocare as the Council of Trent speaks to invoke them or call on them in the manner of Supplicants so that this must be acknowledged a worship of the Saints and then it must be either a civil or religious worship and which of these two it is must be known by the manner of paying it And therefore when all the circumstances of worship are religious we must acknowledge the worship to be religious too Such as praying to them in religious Places in Churches and Chappels and at consecrated Altars with bended knees and hands and eyes lifted up in a very devout manner when they see no body to speak to or to receive their Addresses unless it be the Image of the Saint they worship Thus some Nations worship their Gods but no People ever paid their civil respects to each other in this manner But as I observed in my Reply p. 66. There is one infallible distinction between civil and religious worship between the worship of God and men That the worship of the invisible Inhabitants of the other World has always been accounted religious worship Civil respects are confined to this World as all natural and civil Relations which are the foundation of civil respects are but we have no intercourse with the other World but what is religious And therefore as the different kinds and degrees of civil honour are distinguished by the Sight of the Object to which they are paid though the external acts and expressions are the same as when men bow the body and are uncovered you know what kind of honour it is by seeing who is present whether their Father their Friend or their Prince or some other Honourable Person So the most certain mark of distinction between
on Earth by their own Power then Prayer is a worship which is not due to their nature even in a glorified state For no Being can have a right to our Prayers who cannot hear them and though we should grant that God reveals our Prayers to them yet to know by Revelation is not to hear In this case all that can be reasonable for us to do is only secretly to desire that the Saints would Pray for us which God can reveal to them if he pleases as well as our Prayers but it can never be reasonable to Pray to those who cannot hear us And if Prayer cannot be due to a created nature in its most exalted state because no creature can be present in all places to hear our Prayers then if it be a proper worship for Creatures it must be so by a positive Institution of God but then they must shew an express command for it and when they can do that we will dispute the reason of the thing no longer And this is a manifest reason why we should worship no other invisible Being besides God because no other invisible Being is capable of our Worship God alone fills all places and therefore may be worshipped though we do not see him for he is present every where to hear our prayers but we cannot know that any Being of a limited presence is present with us unless we see it and it is unnatural to pray to any Being who is not present to hear us And though the Church of Rome does not directly and positively attribute any divine perfections to Saints yet mankind are so naturally prone to ascribe a kind of Divinity to immortal and invisible Spirits that this is a sufficient reason why God should not allow the worship of any invisible Spirits For after all that can be said to the contrary it is a mighty temptation to men at least to make inferior Deities of those to whom they constantly pay divine honours And though they do not attribute to Saints a natural power to know our Thoughts and to hear our Prayers and to answer them yet if this supernatural gift and power whereby they do it be as constant and act as certainly as nature does it is as great and adorable a perfection as if it were natural for since all created Excellencies are the gift of God what mighty difference is there between a natural and supernatural perfection or gift if that which is supernatural be as certain and lasting and that which they can as constantly use as that which is natural As to take their own instance Were the gift of Prophesie which God bestowed on some in former Ages as constant and certain as natural knowledge that they could use this gift whenever they pleased and as constantly foretel things to come as they could reason and discourse what difference would there be in this case between a natural and supernatural knowledge of future things truly no more but this That a natural knowledge is a perfection which God did originally bestow upon our nature supernatural knowledge is an additional Perfection but yet upon this supposition as inseparably annexed to our natures as natural knowledge and always as ready for use as that which I think would make such a Prophet as truly venerable as if Prophesie were natural to him Thus it is in this present case If the Saints know our prayers by what means soever they do it it must be as constant and lasting a gift as if it were natural that is they must as certainly know when and what we pray for every time we pray as if they were present to hear us For if they do not always know our prayers we can never know when to pray and can never have any security of their Intercession for us many thousand Ave Maries may be every day lost and turn to no account and if they do constantly know this by a supernatural gift it is as glorious a perfection as if this knowledge were natural Mankind do not so critically distinguish between natural and supernatural gifts in whomsoever these perfections are they are divine and such creatures have a supernatural kind of Divinity annexed to their natures they are made Gods though not Gods by nature which is as much as any people believe of their inferior Deities who believe but one Supreme and Sovereign God who is a God by nature And yet the Author of the Character of a Papist represented gives some instances which would perswade us that the Saints have a natural knowledge of our Prayers Thus he tells us That Abraham heard the petitions of Dives who was yet at a greater distance even in Hell and told him likewise his manner of living while as yet on Earth p. 4. Now not to ask how he comes so exactly to know where Hell is and that it is at a greater distance from Heaven than the Earth is If there be any force in this Argument it must prove that the Saints have a natural knowledge of our Prayers though at so great a distance from us as Heaven is That they see and hear us as Abraham did Dives though we cannot see and hear them as Dives did Abraham which might have satisfied him since he thinks fit to reason from Parables that whatsoever distance there is between Heaven and Hell there is a greater communication between them than between Heaven and Earth However our Saviour cannot here speak of any supernatural gift whereby Abraham saw and heard Dives in Hell unless we will say that Dives did by a supernatural gift also see and hear Abraham in Heaven and therefore if this prove any thing it proves that Saints know and hear our Prayers by their own natural powers Thus he adds That the very Devils hear those desperate wretches who call on them and why then should he doubt that Saints want this priviledge in some manner granted to sinful men and wicked spirits But though he call this a Priviledge I suppose he means a natural one unless he thinks that the Devils hear witches by a supernatural revelation as the Saints in Heaven hear the prayers of the Saints on Earth But I always thought that Devils had been a little nearer bad men than the Saints in Heaven are to us on Earth for they are confined to this Lower Region and therefore are often so near as to see and hear bad men though they are invisible themselves And this is one reason why God will not allow us to worship any invisible Spirits because though we should intend only to worship good Spirits and glorified Saints yet bad Spirits who are near and present as having their residence in the Air as the Devil is called the Prince of the Power of the Air do assume this worship to themselves and both corrupt the worship and abuse their Votaries with lying Wonders Thus they did in the times of Paganism and whether they have more reverence for the Christian Saints than they
of a Subject for himself or of one Subject for another where there is reason and equity in the case without any more powerful intercession but acts of grace and favour must be dispensed by the intercession of favourites and yet it is all by way of prayer and Petition to the Prince but though it is all but Petition and request yet those who have any request to make to their Prince place more confidence in the interest and power of one favourite than in the joynt Petitions of many ordinary Subjects Thus it is here Christians on Earth pray for each other as common Supplicants and the benefit they expect from such Prayers and Intercessions is only from the prevalency of Faith and Charity which inspire such prayers and make them efficacious God has commanded us to pray for one another and has promised to hear our united fervent and importunate Prayers for the merits of our common Saviour Jesus Christ But those who pray to Saints in Heaven pray to them as Favourites and Mediators who prevail not meerly by the force and efficacy of Prayer but by their personal Merits and Interests with God and this makes them just such Mediators as Christ is who by their Power and Interest can recommend us and our Prayers to God's acceptance No you 'll say Christ purchased us with his Blood and mediates in the vertue of his Sacrifice which makes his Mediation of a different nature from the Mediation of Saints who mediate only by their interest with God upon account of their personal Merits But this alters not the case for the general notion of a Mediator is one who has Power and Interest with God effectually to recommend us to his favour and whether he mediates with or without a Sacrifice if his Mediation be powerful and efficacious he is a true and proper Mediator and to set up such other Mediators besides Christ must be injurious to his Mediation for then Christ is not our only Mediator and after all the Apologies that can be made for it it argues some distrust either of Christ's Power or good Will to help us when we fly to other Patrons and Advocates 2. And therefore Monsieur de Meaux has another Reserve for in the second place he tells us from the Council of Trent That to invocate Saints according to the sense of this Council is to have recouâ—se to their Prayers for obtaining benefits from God through Jesus Christ so that in reality we do not obtain those benefits which we receive by the Intercession of the Saints otherwise than through Jesus Christ and in his Name seeing these Saints themselves pray in no other manner than through Jesus Christ and are not heard but in his Name After which we cannot imagine that any one should accuse us of forsaking Jesus Christ when we beseech his Members who are also ours his Children who are our Brethren and his Saints who are our first fruits to pray with us and for us to our common Master in the name of our common Mediator As for forsaking Jesus Christ this we do not charge them with tho whoever considers how much more frequent addresses are made in the Church of Rome to the Virgin Mary and some other powerful Saints than to Christ himself will be tempted to think that it looks very like forsaking him but we only say that they rob Christ of the glory of being our only Mediator and Advocate by having recourse to the Prayers and intercessions of so many Saints But how can the Intercession of Saints be injurious to the Mediation of Christ when they themselves intercede in the Name and Mediation of Christ which necessarily reserves to Christ the glory of his Mediation entire since the Saints themselves are not heard but in his Name Now rightly to understand this we must consider the Nature of Christs Mediation which is to offer up all those Prayers to God in Heaven which we make to God in his name on Earth He is our Mediator in Heaven our High-Priest who is passed into the Heavens who is made not after the law of a Carnal Commandment but after the power of an endless life who is made higher than the Heavens who is not entred into the Holy Place made with hands which are the figures of the true but into Heaven it self now to appear in the presence of God for us So that as the High-Priest under the Law entred once a year into the Holy Place which was a type and figure of Heaven to make expiation and intercessions for the People so the Office of Christ as our High-Priest and Mediator is to ascend into Heaven with his own Blood and there to appear in the presence of God for us His mediatory Office is confined to Heaven there he presents our Prayers to God in vertue of his own Blood and this is as peculiar and appropriated to him as it was to the High-Priest under the Law to offer the Blood of the Sacrifice and make Attonement and Intercession in the Holy of Holies So that to present our Prayers to God in Heaven is the peculiar office of Christ who is our great High-Priest and only Mediator in the immediate presence of God in Heaven and to apply our selves to any other Mediators in Heaven to present our Prayers to God in what manner or upon what pretence soever it be is injurious to the Mediation of Christ whose proper Office it is to present our Prayers to God in Heaven And that pretence that the Saints pray for us only in the Name and Mediation of Christ is no Apology in this case for in what name soever they pray they offer up our Prayers to God immediately in Heaven which is the Office of our great High-Priest for there is and must be but be but one Mediator in Heaven And if we consider what is meant by Praying to God in the Name and Mediation of Christ we shall see reason to think that this is very improperly attributed to the Saints in Heaven For when we pray to God in the Name of Christ though we address our Prayers immediately to God yet God does not receive them as coming immediately from us but as presented by the hands of our Mediator which is the true meaning of Praying to God in the Name of Christ that we offer our Prayers to God not directly from our selves for then we should have no need of a Mediator but by his Hands whose Office it is to present them to God to appear in the Presence of God for us which is therefore called coming to God by him Now this is very agreeable to the state and condition of Christians on Earth who are at a great distance from the immediate Throne and Presence of God to offer their Prayers by the hands of a Mediator who appears in the presence of God for them and the reason why we want a Mediator to appear for us is because we are not yet
admitted into God's immediate Presence our selves But could every ordinary Priest or Jew have been admitted into the Holy of Holies as the High-Priest was they might as well have offered their Prayers and Sacrifices there immediately to God without the Ministry and Mediation of the High-Priest and those who are in Heaven in the immediate presence of God if they offer up any Prayers to God for themselves or others they offer them immediately and directly to God because they offer them to God in his immediate Presence which is the true notion of Christ's Mediation that he appears in the presence of God for us And therefore whatever use there may be of the Name of Christ in Heaven Saints in Heaven who live in the immediate Presence of God have no need of a Mediator to offer their Prayers to God as Saints on Earth have because they are admitted to the immediate Vision of God themselves To offer up our Prayers to God in the Name and Mediation of Christ supposes that we are at a distance from God and not admitted into his Presence to speak for our selves but those Prayers which are offered to God in his immediate Presence need no Mediator to present them And yet to say that the Saints in Heaven offer their Prayers to God in the Name and Mediation of Christ is to say that when they are admitted to the immediate Presence of God themselves they still need a Mediator that the Prayers they offer to God in his immediate Presence they do not offer immediately to him but by the hands of a Mediator which if it be Sence I am sure is no good Divinity as neither agreeing with the Types of the Law nor with the Gospel-account of Christ's Mediation And therefore if glorified Saints appear for us in the presence of God in Heaven they are as much our Mediators as Christ is for this is the most essential Character of this Mediation that he appears in the presence of God for us The only Objection I can fore-see against this is that some of the ancient Fathers though they did not pray to Saints to pray for them yet were inclined to believe that Saints departed did Pray for the Church on Earth especially for their particular Friends which they left behind them and therefore to be sure did not think this any injury to the Mediation of Christ. But then we must consider that as they spoke doubtfully of this matter so those very Fathers did not believe that Saints departed were received up into the highest Heaven into the immediate Presence and Throne of God though they thought them in a very happy state yet not perfect till the resurrection and therefore they prayed for Saints departed as well as believed that Saints departed prayed for them Now any Mediation and Intercession on this side Heaven is very consistent with the Mediation of Christ in Heaven but to intercede in Heaven is his peculiar Office which no other Creature can share in since his Resurrection and Ascension This I think is sufficient to prove that Monsieur de Meaux his Exposition cannot reconcile Praying to Saints to Pray for us either with the peculiar Worship of God or with the Glory and Dignity of our great and only Mediator and Advocate Jesus Christ. The Character of a Papist Represented 3. Of addressing more Supplications to the Virgin Mary than to Christ. Monsieur de Meaux takes no notice of that peculiar kind of Worship which is paid in the Church of Rome to the Virgin Mary as being sensible how hard it is to reconcile this with his bare Ora pro nobis but the Representer who pretends to follow the Bishops Pattern but wants his Judgment and Caution to manage it undertakes to Apologize for this too and it is worth the while to consider what he says The Papist Mis-represented is said to believe the Virgin Mary to be much more powerful in Heaven than Christ and that she can command him to do what she thinks good and for this reason he Honours her much more then he does her Son or God the Father for one Prayer he says to God saying ten to the Holy Virgin Let us then consider how much of Mis-representation there is in this and I shall begin with the last first because mens Actions are the best Interpreters of their Thoughts and Belief The Papist for one prayer he says to God says ten to the Virgin Mary Is this mis-represented Let him but tell over his Beads and see how many Ave Maries and Pater nosters he will find upon a string which are exactly ten for one This he confesses and thinks it as innocent to recite the Angelical Salutation now as it was for the Angel Gabriel and Elizabeth to do it But did the Angel use it as a Prayer to the Virgin Mary Is Hail thou that art Highly favoured the Lord is with Thee blessed art thou amongst Women when spoken to the Virgin who was then present to hear it a friendly Saluation or a Prayer Was it delivering a Message or an act of Devotion Or is this the Ave Maria now in use in the Church of Rome As I remember there are two or three little words Ora pro nobis added to it which make it a Prayer not the Angelical Salutation And we do not read that the Angel said Holy Mary Mother of God pray for us sinners now and in the hour of Death Indeed were it lawful to pray to the Virgin Mary I should have less to say against the frequent repetition of this prayer but yet a man might enquire why the prayer to the Virgin Mary is repeated so much oftner than the prayer to God is not this to honour her much more then he does her Son or God the Father For is not Prayer an act of Honour and Worship And do we not then honour that Being most to whom we pray oftenest No says the Representer for he does not at any time say even so much as one Prayer to her but what is directed more principally to God Surely there must be some Mystery in this For do they not say a great many Prayers immediately directed to the Virgin Mary and not at all directed to God Is not their Ave Maria such a Prayer and do they principally pray to God in those Prayers which are immediately directed to the Virgin Mary When they pray to the Virgin Mary to pray to them is this Prayer princâ—pally directed to God Almighty What when the Virgin is only named And the matter of the Prayer is such that it cannot be directed to God Almighty unless they think it proper to pray to God to pray for them Yes these Prayers to the Virgin are offered up as a thankful Memorial of Christ's Incarnation and an acknowledgement of the Blessedness of Jesus the fruit of her Womb. The meaning of which can be no more than this That when they Pray to Mary the Mother of Jesus it is a
shew 1. Then he tells us That the Council of Trent forbids us expresly to believe any Divinity or Virtue in Images for which they ought to be reverenced We grant the Council does forbid this and he knows that we never charge them with it though there are some practices of the Church of Rome which look very suspiciously that way but then we say the second Commandment forbids the worship of all Images without any such limitation for there is not any one word in the Commandment to limit the Prohibition of worshipping Images to such Images as are believ'd to have any Divinity in them The words of the Commandment are as general as can be Thou shalt not make to thy self any Graven Image nor the likeness of any thing that is in Heaven above or in the Earth beneath or in the Water under the Earth thou shalt not how down to them nor worship them The Commandment takes no notice of any Divinity which is supposed to be in these Images but only of the Representation made by them that they are the Likeness or Representation of things in Heaven or things on Earth or things under the Earth and therefore the whole Dispute between Papists and Protestants about the sense of the second Commandment and the strict notion of an Idol is left untouch'd by this Exposition The Roman Doctors indeed tell us that the Heathens worshipped their Images as Gods and did ascribe Divinity to them upon which account Monsieur de Meaux tells us All these words of the Council are like so many Characters to distinguish us from Idolaters seeing we are so far from believing with them any Divinity annexed to the Images that we do not attribute to them any Virtue but that of exciting in us the remembrance of those they represent But he knew very well that Protestants deny that the Heathens took their Images for Gods any more than Papists do their Philosophers despised the charge and made the same Apologies for themselves which the Divines of the Church of Rome now do and we may suppose that common Heathens had much such Apprehensions about them as common Papists have Those who had any sense could not believe them to be Gods and those who have none may believe any thing but there is no great regard to be had to such Mens Faith whatever their Religion be who are void of common Sense However this Dispute whether the Heathens did believe their Images to be Gods or to have any more Divinity in them than Papists attribute to their Images is a Dispute still and Monsieur de Meaux has not said one word to prevent it and therefore the Condemnation of the Heathens for worshipping Images is still a good Objection against the worship of Images in the Church of Rome till he prove as well as assert this difference between them But indeed tho I readily grant that the Church of Rome does not believe that there is any Divinity in their Images and that the Heathens did believe that Consecration brought down the Gods whom they worshipped by such Representations and tied them by some invisible Charms to their Image that they might be always present there to receive their Worship yet this makes no material difference in their Notion of Images The reason why the Heathens thought it necessary by some Magical Arts to fasten their Gods or some Divine Powers to their Images was not to incorporate them with their Images but to secure a Divine Presence there to hear their Prayers and receive their Sacrifices without which all their Devotions paid to an Image were lost which was very necessary especially in the Worship of their Inferior Daemons whom they did not believe to be present in all places As Elijah mocked the Priests of Baal and said Cry aloud for he is a God either he is talking or he is pursuing or he is in a Journy or peradventure he sleepeth and must be awaked But now those who believe that God is every where present to fee and hear what we do and that the Saints who are not present in their Images yet do certainly know by what means soever it be what Prayers and Homages are offered to them at their Images need not call down any Divine Powers constantly to attend their Images but only to procure their acceptance of those Devotions which are paid to them at their Images And this is the difference between the Consecration of Heathen and Popish Images The first is to procure the Presence of their Gods in their Images the other to obtain the Favour of Christ and the Saints to accept those Prayers and Oblations and other Acts of Devotion which are offered to them at their Images as to give but one Instance of it in a Prayer used at the Consecration of the Cross. Sanctificetur lignum istud in nomine Pa ✚ tris Fi ✚ lii Spiritus ✚ Sancti benedictio illius ligni in quo membra sancta salvatoris suspensa sunt sit in isto ligno ut orantes inclinantesque se propter Deum ante istam crucem inveniant Corporis Animae sanitatem Let this Wood be santified in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and let the Blessing of that Wood on which the holy Members of our Saviour hung be on this Wood that those who pray and bow themselves before this Cross may obtain Health both of Body and Soul This peculiar Virtue which Consecration bestows on Images to obtain the Favour of Christ and his Saints to those who pray and worship before them is all that the Heathens intended in calling down their Gods to attend their Images to hear and receive their Prayers and Sacrifices They did not believe their Images to be Gods but Silver or Gold Wood or Brass or Stone according to the Materials they were made of as the Church of Rome does but they thought their Gods were present to hear the Prayers they made before their Images as the Church of Rome also believes that Christ and his Saints have a peculiar regard to those Prayers which are made before their Images as is evident from their forms of consecrating Images to such an use The Heathens did not put their trust in an Image of Wood and Stone but in that God who was represented by that Image and was there present to help them And thus tho the Church of Rome does not demand any Favour of Images nor put any Trust in them yet she expects the Relief and Acceptance of Christ and the Saints for that Worship she pays to their Images and I would desire any Man to show me the difference between these two especially when we consider how much greater Vertue is attributed to some Images of the Blessed Virgin in the Church of Rome than there is to others as to the Image of the Lady of Loretto c. which can signify nothing less than that the Virgin is
it of a Papist which he always looked upon no other than of a Papist Misrepresented he falls a commending the zeal of Protestants against such Popery with great earnestness and passion and therein we agree with him as believing it to be very commendable and do not doubt as he says but those Martyrs recorded by Fox who for not embracing this Popery passed the fiery Tryal had surely a glorious Cause and that the Triumphs and Crowns of Glory which waited for them in Heaven were not inferior to what those enjoyed who suffered under Decius or Dioclesian I agree with him also that there is no need of any longer disagreement that there is no necessity of keeping up names of division that Protestant and Papist may now shake hands and by one subscription close into a Body and joyn in a fair and amicable correspondence For if as he says there is no Papist but will give his hand for the utter suppressing this kind of Popery I see no reason why they may not joyn in Communion with the Church of England which has suppressed it But I am not of his mind that all the Strife has been about a word for the Dispute has been about the Worship of Saints and Images about Transubstantiation worshipping the Host Communion in one kind Service in an unknown Tongue the authority and the use of the Holy Scriptures the Sacrament of Penance Indulgences Purgatory the Popes Supremacy and several other material differences which are something more than a meer Word will they now part with all these Doctrines and Practices since they have been informed by great and good authorities what the nature and evil tendency of these things is No! by no means they will retain all these Doctrines and Practices still but will renounce and abhor all that evil which Protestants charge them with They will pray to Saints and worship Images still but they will abhor all Heathenish Idolatry in such Worship c. but what reason is this for Protestants to joyn with them in one Communion while they retain the same Faith and Worship which at first made a separation necessary and we retain the same opinion of their Faith and Worship which ever we had If Papists be the same Protestants the same that ever they were if Separation were once necessary surely it is so still What change is there now in Papists which was not before that should now invite us to embrace their Communion Yes they abhor all that which Protestants call Popery This is good news but let us a little better understand it Do they abhor the Worship of Saints and Images and the Host Do they abhor the Doctrines of Transubstantiation Penances Indulgences Purgatory Do they renounce the Popes Supremacy c. no such matter but they abhor those Opinions which Protestants have of these things did they then ever believe that these Doctrines and Practices were so bad as Protestants always did and to this day say they are if not what change is there in them that should invite us now to a reconciliation Did Protestants separate from Papists because they believed that Papists thought Idolatry lawful If not why is their abhorring Idolatry while they do the same things that ever they did a sufficient reason for a re-union Suppose some Common-wealths-men who take up Arms against the King should tell the Royalists who fight for him that they have all this while mistaken one another that for their parts they hate Rebellion as much as they can do and have been greatly misrepresented by those who have called them Rebels the strife has been only about a word and therefore it is time for them now to joyn all together not in their duty to their Prince but in opposing him though I dare not smile at our Author for fear of his displeasure again yet I fancy a good Subject would entertain such a proposal with a very disdainful smile And therefore as for misrepresenting our Author may complain on till he is a weary but he can never prove us to be Misrepresenters while they still own that Faith and Worship which we charge them with and if he thinks we censure their Doctrine and Worship too severely let him vindicate it when he can In my Reply I considered what were the faults of his twofold Character of a Papist misrepresented and represented and shall now briefly examine what he says to it As for the Character of a Papist misrepresented I observed 1. That he put such thing 's into the Character as no Man in his wits ever charged them with As that Papists are not permitted to hear Sermons which they are able to understand or that they held it lawful to commit Idolatry or that the Papist believes the Pope to be his great God and to be far above all Angels which the Answerer calls Childish and wilful mistakes And yet says the Protester p. 19. those very things almost in express terms and others far more absurd we see charged on them as is shewed above that is in the Quotations out of the Archbishop and others But I can see no such thing unless the Supremum numen in terris as Stapleton calls Greg. 13. signifie that the Pope is their great God and then I must beg his pardon that I did not think any Man in his wits so silly as it seems some of their own great Divines have been for this is not a Protestant but a Popish representation of them 2. I found fault That the Opinions of Protestants concerning Popish Doctrines and Practices and those ill consequents which are charged and justly charged upon them are put into the Character of a Papist misrepresented as if they were his avowed Doctrine and Belief For whosoever gives a Character of a Papist ought only to represent what his Faith and Practice is not what Opinion he who gives the Character has of his Faith and Practice for this does not belong to the Character of a Papist but only signifies his own private Judgment who gives the Character while we charge Papists only with matter of Fact what they believe and what they practise this is a true Character and no Misrepresenting but if we put our own Opinions of his Faith and Practice into his Character this is Misrepresenting because a Papist has not the same Opinion of these things which we have and this makes it a false Character To this the Protester answers p. 20. This is a pretty speculative quarrel I confess and might deservedly find room here were it our business to consider the due method of misrepresentation in the abstract But as our present concern stands here 's a quaint conceit lost for coming in a wrong place For what had the Author of the Misrepresentation to do with these Rules He did not intend to misrepresent any Body This is very pleasant a Man who undertakes to make Characters is not bound to consider what a Character is nor what belongs to
was needless to my purpose and yet the Consequence holds good without it if it be not a judgment ex Cathedra it is not the judgment of the Apostolick See which was all I intended to prove and our Author in his long harangue has said nothing to prove that it was nay is so far from that that he avoided the very mentioning of that because he knew not what to say to it Malitiously and inconsiderately were pretty words to descant upon but the Cathedra choaked him The truth is the principal Commendation which is given to the Bishop of Condom's Book is that it is a new way of dealing with Hereticks and that which they hope may be more effectual than Disputing has been but there is none of them that make it the Rule much less the only Rule of the Catholick Faith Cardinal de Buillon acquaints Cardinal Bona that there are some and he speaks of Catholicks who find some fault in it and Cardinal Sigismond Chigi in his Letter to the Abbot of Dangeau though he highly commends him yet is far from allowing his Book to be the Standard of the Catholick Faith or the Authentick interpretation of the Council of Trent when he tells the Abbot certainly it was never his Condom ' s intention to give the interpretation of the Tenets of the Council but only to deliver them in his Book rightly explicated in such sort that Hereticks may be convinced that is he did not allow him to interpret the Council but commends him for dealing with Hereticks in a new and as he thought more advantageous method than had been formerly used and to this purpose the Pope commends him that his Exposition of the Catholick Faith contains such Doctrine and is composed in such a method and with so much prudence that it is thereby rendred proper to instruct the Readers clearly in few words and to extort even from the unwilling a confession of thâ— Catholick Faith Now to me this seems to fall very short of making the Bishops Exposition the Authentick interpretation of the Council of Trent that what ever the Bishop of Condom says is the sense of the Council must be acknowledged to be so though other as good Catholick Divines as famous in their Generation and whose Books have been received with as universal approbation are of another mind and which signifies a little with us Protestants where the plain words and reason of the Council is against him I would desire our Author to tell me whether the Pope when he approved the Bishop of Condom's Book did at the same time condemn Cardinal Bellarmin's or those other Divines and Schoolmen who give such a different explication of the Council of Trent from what this Bishop does if he did not what authority has he given to this Exposition more than any other Catholick Doctor may challenge Why may we not if we please follow Bellarmin or Suarez or Vasquez or Cajetan as well as Condom Our Author thinks it the shortest and easiest way to decide this Controversie whether he have truly Represented the Faith of a Papist by making an experiment Thus he concluded his Reflections p. 19. Do but you or any Friend for you though I did not know before that the Church of Rome would admit Proxies in the profession of our Faith give your assent to those Articles of Faith as I have Represented it in the very form and manner a I have stated them in that Character of a Papist Represented and if upon your request you are not admitted into the Communion of the Roman Catholicks and owned to believe aright in all those points I 'le then confess that I have abused the World that my Representing is Mispresenting the Faith of the Papist To this I answered in my Reply p. 40. that I did believe that his Representation was the Faith of a Papist excepting what concerned the deposing Doctrine and some few other points which I had before particularly remarked not that this is the whole of what Papists believe but that it is right as far as it goes but we did not like his Faith so well as he had Represented it as to make the experiment This I thought had been answer enough for any reasonable Man but in his Answer to the Reply he is still for new experiments as being much easier than Disputing which he does not like and now the trial is That if notwithstanding my refusal to admit the deposing Doctrine and the Popes Infallibility but as stated by the Representer that is not as Articles of Faith I be not judged sufficiently qualified as to these points to be received into the Communion of the Roman Catholicks then he will grant that I have reason to charge the Representer not to have done his part in those particulars that is not to have truly Represented the Faith of a Papist Now in answer to this I beg his leave that I may take my turn too in making Proposals and I will do it very gravely without the least Smile since I see he is offended at it and that is this Suppose I should resolve to be a thorough-paced Papist and instead of assenting to his Representation should rather chuse that Representation which Cardinal Bellarmine has made of the Faith of a Papist who does not mince the matter as to worshipping Images and praying to Saints and trusting in their aid and assistance c. who makes the Popes Infallibility and his Deposing Power an Article of Faith should I be thought sufficiently qualified as to these Points wherein the Cardinal expresly contradicts and condemns our Authors and the Bishop of Condom's Representation to be received into the Communion of Roman Catholicks If I should and I will venture the Protestor to say that I should not then if his Argument from Experience be good it is plain That Cardinal Bellarmine has made a true Representation of the Roman Catholick Faith and thus we have Experience for both sides for Cardinal Bellarmine and for the Bishop of Condom and our Representer and yet it is somewhat strange they should be all true Representers especially in those points wherein they contradict each other This the Bishop of Condom was aware of and therefore concludes his Book with a Caution against it to those who should think fit to answer it That it would be a quitting the design of this Treatise to examine the different Methods which Catholick Divines make use of to establish or explicate the Doctrine of the Council of Trent and the different Consequences which particular Doctors have drawn from it Which is a plain Confession that other Catholick Divines do not agree with him in this Method nor allow of those narrow Bounds which he has set to the Catholick Faith and therefore it was wisely done of him to persuade his Answerers to take no notice of any such Disagreement and it will be a great piece of Civility and good Breeding in them not to do it but how
civil and religious worship is this that the one relates to this World the other to the invisible Inhabitants of the next In this last Paragraph the Protester says p. 35. We have a Consequence and Comparison and both so excellent in their kinds that if any better connexion can be found in them then between the Monument and the May-pole it must be by one who has found one trick more in Logick than ever Aristotle knew Sometimes indeed Aristotle 's Logick does not do such feats as one would expect but a little natural Logick called common sense would have shewed him the connexion For I think there is some sence in saying that as the different degrees of civil honour though most of the external signs of honour be the same such as kneeling bowing the body uncovering the head may yet be distinguished by the presence of the Object to which it is paid whether it be our Father or our Prince So though the external signs of civil and religious honour are in many instances the same yet civil and religious worship may be visibly distinguished by the object to which it is given For civil worship can belong only to the Inhabitants of this World but whatever worship is given to the invisible Inhabitants of the other World is religious Now if this be so then to pray to Saints now they are removed out of this World into an invisible state is to give religious worship to them which makes a vast difference between praying to the Saints in Heaven to pray for us and speaking to our fellow-Christians on Earth to pray for us The Protester is willing to grant or at least suppose that the honour or worship which is given to the invisible Inhabitants of the other World is religious worship but still he says it remains to be proved that all religious respect and honour is so a divine honour as to make a God of the thing to which it is paid at least constructively This I think is no hard matter to do but I shall first consider his Arguments against it and all that he says is That if it be true it proves too much and will bring my self in for a share with them in giving religious worship to creatures and so making Gods of them at least constructively He instances in that Custom of bowing to the Altar or Communion Table as he calls it and bowing at the name of Jesus but this shall be considered when I come to the worship of Images His other instances concern that religious respect which we allow due to sacred places and things and a religious decency to the bodies of Saints and Martyrs but what is this to a religious worship The respect we shew to such things and places is no more than a civil respect which consists in a decent usage in seperating them from vile and common purposes and it is called a religious respect not from the nature of the respect but from the reason why we give it viz. out of reverence to God to whose worship they are seperated Thus that love and honour we pay to a living Saint though it rise no higher than the expressions of a civil respect may be said to be religious when we love and honour them for Gods sake but this is an external denomination from the Cause and motive not from the nature of the Act and therefore cannot make Gods of them because it is not religious worship but to give proper religious worship to any Being is to give it that worship which is proper only to God which is the only way to make any Being a God which is not a God Now if this be a true notion that all worship which is given to the invisible Inhabitants of the other World is religious worship I will easily prove that we must worship no other invisible Being but God alone and therefore cannot pray to Saints in Heaven without giving the worship of God to them And my reason is this Because God challenges all religious worship to himself as our Saviour tells us Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve Matth. 4. It seems to me a very needless dispute what is the peculiar and incommunicable Worship which must be given to none but the Supreme God when God has appropriated all Religious Worship to himself whatever act of religious Worship God requires us to pay to himself must be given to none else and therefore if all worship paid to invisible Beings be in its own Nature religious Worship we must worship no Invisible Being but only God For if all Worship of Invisible Beings be religious and God challenges all religious Worship to himself then we must worship no Invisible Being but only God for to worship any other Invisible Being is to give religious Worship to that which is not God But the Protester thinks I ought to have allowed for the different Kinds and Degrees of Religious as well as Civil Honour Such I suppose as they call their Latria or Dulia Supreme or Subordinate Absolute or Relative Terminative or Transient Worship but there is no place for these different Degrees and Distinctions of religious Worship if we must worship no other Invisible Being but only God for if there be but one Object of religious Worship there is no need to distinguish this Worship into different Kinds and Degrees as Civil Worship is which has very numerous and very different Objects If we must give no Worship to any invisible Being besides God it is ridiculous to dispute what Degree of Worship we may lawfully give them when we must give them none And it is a good Argument that there are no different Kinds of Religious Worship one which is Supreme and Soveraign and due to the one Supreme God other Inferiour and Subordinate Degrees of Worship which may be paid to those Excellent Spirits which are very dear to God and the Ministers of his Providence because there are no external and visible Signs to distinguish between such different Degrees of religious Worship As Civil Worship is confined to the Inhabitants of this World and is thereby distinguished from religious Worship so the Different Degrees of Civil Honour though the External Signs and Expressions of it are the same are distinguished by the visible Presence of the Object to which it is paid for when a man bows or uncovers his head we know what kind of Honour it is by considering the Relation or the Quality of the Person to whom it is paid whether he be a Father a Prince or a wise and good man But if there were more Invisible Beings than one to worship though there might be different Degrees of Internal Honour and Worship paid to them according to the different Apprehensions men had of their several Degrees of Perfection yet the External Signs of Worship must be the same in all And thus there would be no visible distinction between the Worship of the
Supreme God and created Spirits and Glorifyed Souls of dead men and therefore if it be necessary to distinguish between the Worship of God and Creatures we must worship no Invisible Being but only the Supreme God The Protester proposes some ways whereby the different kinds and degrees of Religious Worship may be distinguished as by the intention of the Giver but this is not a Visible Distinction For mens intentions are private to themselves and there is no difference in the Visible Acts of Worship to make such a distinction or by some Visible Representation that is by Images This I grant would make as visible a Distinction between the Worship of God and Christ and the Virgin Mary as the presence of the person distinguishes the Kinds and Degrees of Civil Honour for when we see whose Image they worship we may certainly tell what Being they direct their Worship to but the fault of this is that it is forbid by the Law of God of which more in the next Section or by Determination of other Circumstances but what these are I cannot tell and therefore can say nothing to it The Church of Rome indeed does appropriate the Sacrifice of the Mass to God as his peculiar Worship which must not be given to any other Being and if this be so then indeed we can certainly tell when we see a Priest offering the Sacrifice of the Mass that he offers it to the Supreme God but there are a great many other Acts of Worship which we owe to God besides the Sacrifice of the Mass and in every Act of Worship God ought to be visibly distinguished from Creatures and yet if all the other External Acts of Worship be common to God and Creatures where is the distinction And yet the Sacrifice of the Mass can be offered only by the Priest so that the whole Layety cannot perform any one Act of Worship to God which is peculiar to him and therefore can make no Visible Distinction in their Worship between God and Creatures And yet the very Sacrifice of the Mass is not so appropriated to God in the Church of Rome but that it is offered to God in Honour of the Saints This the Bishop of Condom p. 7. endeavours to excuse by saying This Honour which we render them the Saints in Sacrificing consists in naming them in the Prayers we offer up to God as his Faithful Servants and in rendring him thanks for the Victories they have gained and in humbly beseeching him that he would vouchsafe to favour us by their Intercession Now it is very true according to the Council of Trent the Priest offers the Sacrifice only to God but they do somewhat more than name the Saints in their Prayers for they offer the Sacrifice in Honour to the Saints as well as to God which the Bishop calls to Honour the Memory of the Saints Now if Sacrifice be an Act of Honour and Worship to God it sounds very odly to worship or honour God for the Honour of his Saints which seems to make God only the Medium of Worship to the Saints who are the terminative object of it and that the Saints are concerned in this Sacrifice appears from this That by this Sacrifice they implore the Intercession of the Saints that those whose Memories we celebrate on Earth would vouchsafe to intercede for us in Heaven The Bishop translates implorat by Demand for what reason I cannot tell and makes this Imploring or Beseeching to refer to God not to the Saints whose Patronage Patrocinia and Intercession they pray they would vouchsafe them contrary to the plain Sense of the Council and I think to common Sense too For I do not well understand offering Sacrifice to God that he may procure for us the Intercession of the Saints for if he can be perswaded to favour us so far as to intercede with the Saints to be our Intercessors he may as well grant our Requests without their Intercession and yet the Bishop was very sensible that if we offer up our Prayers to the Saints in the Sacrifice of the Mass it does inevitably entitle them to the Worship of that Sacrifice which they say must be offered only to God He alleadges indeed St. Austin's Authority who understood nothing of this Mystery of the Sacrifice of the Mass and how far he was from thinking of any thing of this Nature is evident to any man who consults the place But the Church of Rome as the Bishop observes p. 8. has been charged by some of the Reformation not only with giving the Worship of God to Creatures when they pray to the Saints but with attributing the Divine Perfections to them such as a certain kind of Immensity and Knowledge of the Secrets of hearts for if they be not present in all places where they are worshipped how can they hear the Prayers which are made to them at such distant places at the same time If they do not know our thoughts how can they understand those mental prayers which are offered to them without words only in our secret Thoughts and Desires for even such Prayers are expresly allowed by the Council voce vel mente Now to this he answers very well that though they believe the Saints do by one means or other know the Prayers which are made to them either by the Ministry and Communication of Angels or by a particular Revelation from God or in his Divine Essence in which all truth is comprised yet never any Catholick yet thought the Saints knew our Necessities by their own power no nor the desires which move us to address our secret Prayers to them And to say a Creature may have a Knowledge of these things by a light communicated to them by God is not to elevate a Creature above his Condition This I grant and therefore do acknowledge that they do not attribute the Divine perfections of Omniscience and Omnipresence to the Saints either in thought or word but yet actions have as natural a signification as words and if we give them such a worship as naturally signifies Omniscience and Omnipresence our worship attributes the incommunicable Perfections of God to them For it is unnatural and absurd to worship a Being who is not present to receive our worship to speak to a Being who does not and cannot hear us and since God has made us reasonable Creatures to understand what we do and why he interprets our Actions as well as words and thoughts according to their natural signification And herein the natural evil of creature-worship consists That every act of religious worship does naturally involve in it a Confession of some excellency and perfection which is above a created nature and thereby whatever the worshipper thinks or intend does attribute the incommunicable Glory of God to creatures If the Saints are not present in all places to hear those Prayers which are made to them and if they cannot hear in Heaven what we say to them
and they have then good reason as they do to put up more frequent Prayers to her than to God or Christ himself And whether they do not believe this and that at this very day let any one judge from these passages in the Contemplations of the Life and Glory of the Holy Mary which is lately published in English Permissu Superiorum There p. 7. he tell us that God hath by a Solemn Covenant pronounced Mary to be the Treasury of Wisdom Grace and Sanctity under Jesus So that whatever Gifts are bestowed upon us by Jesus we receive them by the Mediation of Mary No one being gracious to Jesus who is not devoted to Mary nor hath any one been specially confident of the Patronage of Mary who hath not through her received a special Blessing from Jesus Whence it is one great mark of the Predestination of the Elect to be singularly Devoted to Mary since she hath a full Power as a Mother to obtain of Jesus whatever he can ask of God the Father and is comprehended within the Sphere of man's Predestination to Glory Redemption from Sin and Regeneration by Grace Neither hath any one petitioned Mary who was refused by Jesus nor trusted in Mary and was abandoned by Jesus A little after he directs the Devotes of the Virgin to have a firm and unshaken confidence in her Patronage amidst the greatest of our inward Conflicts with Sensuality and outward Tribulations from the adverse Casualties of this Life through a strong Judgment of her eminent Power within the Empire of Jesus grounded upon the singular Prerogative of her Divine Maternity for by vertue thereof no State of man can be so unhappy through the malice of Satan the heats of our Passions or the Enormity of Sin which exceeds her Love towards the Disciples of Jesus or the efficacy of her Mediation for us unto Jesus So that though the condition of some great Sinners may be so deplorable that all the limited Excellency Merits and Power of all the Saints and Angels cannot effectually bend the Mercies of Jesus to receive them yet such is the acceptableness of the Mother of Jesus to Jesus that whoever is under the Verge of her Protection may confide in her Intercessions to Jesus He denying no Favour to her whereby the Wonders of man's Predestination and Redemption through Jesus may be magnified and promoted So that the Blessed Virgin is more Powerful than all the Saints and Angels in Heaven she has all the Power of Christ all his Grace and Mercy in her hands and can dispense it to such Sinners whom Christ would not pity and relieve without her and therefore is a more powerful Patroness of Sinners than Christ himself is And therefore he might well add in the next place that all these Blessings flow from Jesus to all through Mary and may therefore justly refer them all to her as to the most effectual Instrument Channel and Conveyance of all Now if this be true Representing it is no Mis-representation to say that a Papist believes the Virgin Mary to be much more Powerful in Heaven than Christ not that she has any Power of her own but that she can more powerfully and effectually bend the Mercies of Jesus to relieve Sinners than the mercies of Jesus can bend themselves without her SECT V. IMAGES THAT the Worship of Images as it was practised by the Heathens is Idolatry Monsieur de Meaux and the Representer suppose and therefore their Business is to give such an account of the Worship of Images as practised in the Church of Rome as to distinguish themselves from Heathen Idolaters To this purpose the Bishop tells us The Council of Trent forbids us expresly to believe any Divinity or Virtue in them for which they ought to be reverenced to demand any favour of them or to put any trust in them and ordains That all the Honour which is given to them should be referred to the Saints themselves which are represented by them That the Honour we render Images is grounded upon their exciting in us the remembrance of those they represent That by humbling our selves before the Image of Christ crucified we show what is our submission to our Saviour So that to speak precisely and according to the Ecclesiastical Stile when we honour the Image of an Apostle or Martyr our intention is not so much to honour the Image as to honour the Apostle or Martyr in the presence of the Image Thus the Pontifical tells us and the Council of Trent expresses the same thing when it says The Honour we render to Images has such a reference to those they represent that by the means of those Images which we kiss and before which we kneel we adore Jesus Christ and honour the Saints whose Types they are To the same purpose the Representer speaks and almost in the same words So that the Sum of their Apology is this That they do not believe Images to have any Divinity in them or to be Gods and therefore do not pray to nor put their trust in the Image nor so much honour the Image in those external Expressions of Reverence they pay to it by kissing it and kneeling before it as Christ or the Saint whom the Image represents and the usefulness of Images to excite in us the remembrance of those whom we love and honour is a justifiable Reason of that Honour we pay to them This is a Matter of very great consequence and deserves to be carefully stated and therefore I shall strictly examine Whether this Exposition will justify the worship of Images and sufficiently distinguish the Worship of the Ch. of Rome from that Worship which the Heathens gave to their Images Monsieur de Meaux pretends by his Exposition of the Doctrines of the Church of Rome to cut off Objections and Disputes that is so to state the Matter that there may be no place for those Objections which Protestants commonly urge against worshipping Images But I do not see that he has made any Essay of this Nature in the Point of Image-Worship but has left both all the Disputes among themselves and with Protestants untouched The Objections which Protestants urge against the Worship of Images as taught and practised in the Church of Rome are principally these four 1. That it is expresly forbid by the second Commandment without any limitation or exception 2. That the Heathens are in Scripture charged with Idolatry in the Worship of Images 3. That it is a violation of the Divine Majesty crimen lesse Majestatis to represent God by a material and sensless Image or Picture 4. That a visible Object of Worship though considered only as a Representation is expresly contrary to the Law of Moses and especially to the spiritual Nature of the Christian Worship Now I do not see how the Bishop's Exposition takes off any of these Objections which after all that he hath said are in full force still as I shall particularly
Image is terminated on the Image as its own proper and peculiar Worship as Catharinus and Bellarmine and all of this way acknowledg who reject Thomas his Doctrine of worshipping the Image with the worship of the Prototype represented by it because this is not properly the Worship of the Image but of the Prototype and therefore that the Image may be sure to be worshipped they give it an inferior degree of Worship which terminates on it self Now how Christ should be worshipped in that Worship which terminates on his Image that is how that Worship which ends in the Image and goes no farther should pass through the Image and end in Christ as it must do if Christ be worshipped in the Image is past my understanding as all Contradictions are But they refer the Worship of the Image to the Prototype But it is worth enquiring how they do it Do they intend the Worship they give to the Image for Christ that is Do they intend to worship Christ in that Worship they give to his Image No they can't do that because they give only an inferior degree of Worship to the Image which is not worthy of Christ not a Worship proper for him but only for his Image but they worship the Image for the sake of Christ and this they take to be an Honour to Christ to worship his Image but this is not to worship Christ in or by his Image for in this way Christ is not worshipped in that Worship we give to his Image but it is to worship the Image for Christ's sake which is by interpretation an Honour to Christ as any respect we show to the Image of the King argues our Esteem and Honour for our King whose Image it is but these two differ as much as to honour Christ in our Actions and to worship him as to do something which is by interpretation an Honour to Christ and to make our immediate Addresses to offer up our Prayers and Thanksgivings to him Every thing we do for the Honour of Christ is not presently an Act of Worship and therefore though we should grant that we honour Christ in the Worship of his Image it does not follow that therefore we worship him in worshipping his Image when we give no Worship at all to him but only to his Image which plainly shows that in this way they do not worship Christ by his Image but only worship the Image for Christ's sake Which is a plain Argument to me that though this Way has very great and learned Advocates yet it cannot be the meaning of the Council of Trent because it is not reconcileable with the Practice of the Church of Rome which prays every day to Christ and the blessed Virgin to Saints and Martyrs before their Images in such terms as are proper only to be used to themselves which besides the other Faults of it is horrid Non-sense if they do not intend to worship Christ and the Saints in their Images Much less do those worship the Prototypes in their Images who only use Images as helps to Memory and to excite devout Affections in them that at the sight of the Image they may offer up more fervent Prayers to God or Christ for though this practice may and has a great many other Faults in it yet this is neither in the intention of the Worshipper to worship the Image nor the Exemplar by the Image Monsieur de Meaux by some Expressions he uses would perswade his Readers that this is all the Church of Rome intends in the use of Images and yet he owns the Doctrine of the Council of Trent That the Honour of the Image is referred to the Prototype because by the Images which we kiss and before which we uncover our Heads and prostrate our selves we adore Christ and worship the Saints whose Likeness they bear Which plainly signifies that we worship Christ and the Saints in the worship of their Images and therefore though Images may be helps to Memory also yet they must be honoured and worshipped that Christ and his Saints may be worshipped in them and by them which is a very different thing from being bare Signs to help our Memories and quicken-our Devotions There is no need of Consecration for this End and the Church takes no notice of this use of them in her Forms of Consecration These are all the Pretences I have met with for the use of Images in Religious Worship and it is evident from what I have said that there is no other sense wherein God or Christ can be said to be worshipped by an Image but only as the Image receives the Worship due to Christ in his Name and Stead as if it were his legal Proxy and Representative which as I have shewed is the true Interpretation both of the Doctrine of Durandus and Monsieur de Meaux and Thomas in this Matter 2dly I am now to show that it is in this Notion the Scripture forbids the worship of Images as the Representatives of God or any Divine Being to receive our Worship in God's Name and Stead It is true indeed the 2d Commandment which forbids the worship of Images takes no notice of the Distinctions of the Schools in what Notion an Image is worshipped or what kind and degree of Worship is given to it but the words are so large and general as to exclude all use of Images in Religious Worship The Worship which is expresly forbidden in the Commandment to be given to Images is only the External Acts of Worship such as to bow down to them which is the very least that can be done if Men make any use of Images in Religious Worship The Images which are forbidden to be worshipped are all sorts of Images whatever The likeness of any Thing which is in Heaven above or in the Earth beneath or in the Water under the Earth And how extravagant soever Mens Fancies are they cannot well form any Image but must be like to some of these things either in whole or in part But the Commandment takes no notice of Mens different Opinions about Images whether they look upon them as Gods or Representatives of God or helps to Memory and Devotion for since the design of the Commandment is to forbid the use of Images in Religious Worship it was dangerous to leave any room for Distinctions which is to make every Man judg what is an Innocent and what is a sinful use of Images which would utterly evacuate the Law for Men of Wit can find out some Apology or other for the grossest Superstitions As for instance I find a notable Criticism in the Advertisement to Monsieur de Meaux his Exposition p. 14. That the Images forbidden in the second Commandment are those which are forbidden to be made as well as to be worshipped The Consequence of which is That the Worship of such Images as may be lawfully made is not forbidden in this Law and then indeed there is room enough for
man in Mind of what he has heard or read of Christs dying upon the Cross but if he know nothing of the History of Christs Sufferings the bare seeing a Crucifix can teach him nothing Children may be taught by Pictures which make a more strong impression on their fancies than Words but a Picture cannot teach and at best this is but a very childish way of learning 3. But devout Pictures are of great use in Prayer the sight of which cures distractions and recals his wandering thoughts to the right object and as certainly brings some good things into his mind as an immodest Picture disturbs his heart with naughtiness But can men read their Prayers as well as learn the Articles of their Creed in a Picture too For even good thought are a distraction in Prayers when they call us from attending to what we ask of God and it is to be feared then that Pictures themselves may distract us unless we are sure they will suggest no thoughts to us at such a time but what are in our Prayers the Church of Rome indeed teaching her Children such Prayers as they do not understand and therefore cannot imploy their thoughts may make Pictures very necessary to entertain them but if our thoughts and our words ought to go together as it must be if the Devotion of Prayers consists in praying devoutly an Image which cannot speak and a Prayer which is not understood are like to make Men equally devout should Men when they look upon a Cruci fix run over in their Minds all the History of our Saviours Sufferings should the sight of our Saviour hanging on the Cross affect us with some soft and tender Passions at the remembrance of him which it is certain the daily and familiar use of such Pictures cannot do yet what is this to Prayer Such sensible Passions as the sight of a Picture can raise in us are of little or no account in Religion true devout Affections must spring from an inward Vital Sense which the Picture cannot give to those who want it and is of no use to those who have it Thus I have as briefly as the Subject would permit examined the Doctrine of Praying to Saints and Worshipping Images according to the Exposition of the Bishop of Condâ—m to whom our Author appeals in these Points and this I hope will satisfie him what we think both of the Bishops Authority and his Exposition and how little we like Popery in its best dress And now it is time to return to our Protester And I hope by this time he sees that there is something more needful to clear the Matters in Controversie between us than barely M. de Meax his Authority and therefore he resolving not to look beyond the Exposition delivered by this Prelate I might here very fairly take my leave of him but I cannot do this tho' he be a perfect Stranger to me without dismissing him civilly with a Complement or two more 1. Then as to the Invocation of Saints he observes that I deny the Bishop has limited it only to their Prayers which I own is a mistake and this is such a Complement as must never be expected from a Doctor of the infallible Church for he had occasion enough for it had he had a Heart to do it but I hope I have abundantly made amends for this now by a fair and particular Examination of the Bishops Exposition as to that Point and indeed M. de Meaux himself gave the occasion for this by not owning it in its due place when he expounded the Decree of the Council which teaches them to fly to the aid and assistance of the Saints as well as to their Prayers but shuffling it into the middle of a sentence at some distance where no Man would expect it When Expositors dodge at this rate they may thank themselves if they are mistaken 2ly and 3dly He takes Sanctuary again in the Bishops Authority to justifie his renouncing the Popes personal Infallibility and the deposing Doctrine as no Articles of Faith But tho' the Bishop indeed do wave some things as he says which are disputed of in the Schools as no Articles of Faith yet he does not say what they are much less name the Popes personal Infallibility and the deposing power and one would think he could not mean the deposing power which is determined by General Councils and therefore must be an Article of Faith The Truth is the Bishop has here plaid a very cunning Game and men may make what they please of his words as their interest or inclination leads them if Protestants object the Doctrine of the Popes infallibility and Deposing power he can easily tell them that these are School disputes and not Articles of Faith if the Pope or Roman Doctors quarrel at it he has then said nothing in disparagement of the Popes infallibility and Deposing power but has taught that Fundamental Principle on which these Doctrines depend as in Truth he has when he makes the Primacy of Peter the Cement of Unity and gives this Primacy to the Bishops of Rome as Successors of the Prince of the Apostles to whom for this cause we owe that Obedience and Submission which the holy Councils and Fathers have always taught the Faithful though they have not said one word till of late of any such obedience and submission due to them especially when we consider what he means by the Primacy of the Pope that he is a Head established by God to conduct his whole Flock in his paths which gives him a Supremacy over bishops and Secular Princes and how naturally this infers infallibilty and a power of deposing Heretical Princes every one sees and we have reason to believe the Bishop expounded his Doctrine to this Orthodox Sence in his Letters to the Pope from the Popes Testimonial that his Letters shewed his submission and respect to the Apostolick See As for the Popes personal infallibility our Author in his Reflections p 8. denies it to be an Article of Faith because it is not positively determined by any General Council in my reply p. 47. I told him this is no proof that it is not an Article of Faith because the infallibility of the Church it self which they all grant to be an Article of Faith was never positively determined by any General Council and therefore some Doctrines may be Articles of Faith which never were determined by any General Council and I added that if the Church be infallible the Pope must if he be the Head of the Church for infallibility ought in reason to accompany the greatest and most absolute Power but our Author thought fit to let fall this dispute and to resolve all into the Bishop of Condoms Authority His Proposal which follows I have already answered without a smile but I cannot forbear smiling once more to hear him complain of disputing which he says belongs not to the Representer who being to represent and