the one it is a personal in the other it is a doctrinal sin and therefore is rather to be confessed by your Clergy then by your Laity rather by your Ministers then by your People â—…or whereas your People are but single your Priests are double Idolaters that is to say not only in their practice but also in their doctrine in that they have set up the Inventions of men instead of the Commandement of God and magnified the authority of men not only against but also above the authority of God in Gods own worship So that your Priests had need doubly ask God forgiveness concerning this second Commandement first for the Idoloatry of their Images and next for the Idolatry of their Imaginations CAP. V. Of Praying to Saints and Angels 1. CHrist our only Sanctuary in the day of Judgement should be so now 2. Praying to Saints is asking both in vain and in sin 3. Angels not trusted with themselves or with others but in part God found no stedfastness or Put no trust in the Angels are both one 4. That literal sense most proper in doubtful Texts which is most agreeable with the comparative and illative sense of the same is a rule which keeps the unlearned from being interpreters of the holy Scripture and the learned from quarrelling with sound or judicious interpretations 5. Gods putting no trust in his best servants whether Saints or Angels a sufficient reason that men should not pray to them 6. His finding no steadfastness in them proves the same concerning those confirmed in Grace and Glory 7. Papists swallow the mis-allegations of their own writers but quarrel at the true and proper allegations of the text by Protestants 8. Bellarmines allegation for the Invocation of Angels from sacobs practice Gen. 48. 16. refuted by the context because it is interpreted in such a Grammatical as is against the Theological and Logical sense of the words that is in such a sense as is against the analogy of Religion in the Decalogue which is as necessarily observed in the interpretation of doubtful propositions in the Old as the analogy of faith is in the New Testament and against the anaolgie of Reason both in the proposition and in the connexion and in the deduction And generally all the texts alledged for this false invocation are so mis-interpreted particularly this in the judgement both of Greek and Latine Church 9. The Latine translation of Job 5. 1. intemperately defended by Bellarmine against Chemnitius Spirituael drunkenness worse then Carnal and makes the more scandalous Minister in Gods account 10. The words of Job not to be interpreted of the Invocation of Saint by Bellarmines own professiâ—…n both as a Critick and as a Divine though not as a Disputant and much more by Text. 11. Invocation of Saints is against the analogie of saith in the Câ—…ed and of righteousness in the Decalogue and against all the devotions taught us in the holy Bible and consequently doth leave Christs Communion and must lose Christs interâ—…ssion as being a piece of Religion not of Gods but of mans making 12. The Invocation of the blessed Virgin used by the Romanists faulty in the object of worship and the manner of worshipping and consequently falsly imputed to the Catholick Church which is a Communion of Saints not of sinners 13. Protestantism in Popery against this false worship 14. The Catholick Church falsly alledged for this false worship which yet could not make it true worship since it is against Gods Commandements The Church not having an absolute power in the exercise of Religion to act against Gods Law but only an orderly power to act according to it The Churches threefold foundation 1º In her Religion 2º In her Communion 3º In her authority admits not her authority before much less against her Religion and her Communion 15. Prayers to Saints as to the authors of the blessings prayed for unlawful by Bellarmines own Confession who labours to excuse his Church for using such prayers but unsuccessfully The â—…esuites maintain such prayers both by their doctrine and by their Practice 16. Gods trusting the holy Angels with his Elect is no sufficient ground for their praying to Angels 17. Baronius unjustly quarreling with Theodoret about the worshipping of Angels and falsly interpreting the Canon of Laodicea 18. No ungratefulness in our not praying to Angels because ungâ—…dliness in praying to them 19. The Papâ—…sts invocation of their Guardian Angel not to be justified The fifth Exception IBidem sect 5. p. 219. Against Praying to Saints you alledge Behold he put no trust in his Servants and his Angels he charged with folly Job 4. 18. Our Latine Vulgar reads thus Ecce qui serviunt ei non sunt stabiles in Angelis suis reperit pravitatem Conformably whereto your old translation reads Behold be found not stedfastness in his Servants and laid folly upon his Angels And Job 15. 15. your old repeats He found no stedfastness in his Saints though your new He putteth no trust in his Saints Now according to our Latine and your old English translation this place must needs be understood of the bad Angels that fell as is evident by those words 2 Pet. 2. 4. If God spared not the Angels that sinned where both your old and Mr. Beza also quotes in the margent this very place Job 4. 18. Here is nothing then against praying to Angels and Saints confirmed in grace and glory If your new then be to be understood of them as you understand it and urge it too That 〈◊〉 paâ—…teth no trust in his servants nor Saints it is contrary to it self and to all Divine Scripture For to omit a thousand â—…stances thus saith Saint Paul though yet alive upon earth 1 Thes. 2. 4. we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the Gospel and 1 Tim. 1. 11. the glorious Gospel of the blessed God was committed to my Trust And doth God put no trust in him now being a glorified Saint in heaven think you you cannot deny but in blessed Angels at least Otherwise why do you so earnestly beg of God to put them in trust with your self both body and soul praying in your ejaculation 34 O God let them compass me about whâ—…st I am living and carry my soul into Abrahams bosom when I shall die Let them in in my sickness succour and defend me and in my death convey my soul to the everlaâ—…ing mansions Now since God puts this great trust in them with us oughâ—… 〈◊〉 we to put them in trust by reverently â—…mmending our selves â—…nto them and by humbly praying them to do those good offers for us which you very piously here mention least we should ungratefully slight them contrary to Gods command Ex. 23. 21. Observa eum audi vocem ejus nec contemnendum putes The Answer 1. I Will not spend words with you like a Sophister but sense like a Divine nor will I wonder with what face you made this Exception but see
keep your selves from idols or images in his external worship For to use idols or images 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek being translated by your own Vulgar Interpreter simulacra in Latine as a part of the worship of the true God is to communicate with those who did worship false Gods that is with the Heathen who worshipped their false Gods or rather Devils by Idols and Images The same is Saint Pauls doctrine 1 Cor. 10. That the Israelites who did eat of the sacrifices were partakers of the Altar v. 18. that is by eating of the sacrifices did shew their Communion in the Mosaical rites and ceremonies from whence he inferrs this conclusion That for any man to eat things offered unto Idols is to communicate with Idolators in their idolatry and that is no less then to forsake the Communion of God and to have Communion with Devils v. 20 21. And I hope you will say there is little reason and less Religion for any Divine to averr That Christians may not indeed communicate in things offered unto Idols but yet they may communicate in the Idols themselves without being Idolaters that is without breaking Communion with God or beginning Communion with Devils For if they be Idolaters they must do both and they may be Idolaters not only by committing Idolatry but also by communicating in it Therefore as God had before said to the Jews You shall make you no Idols nor image to bow down to it for I am the Lord Levit. 26. 1. So after that he said also to the Christians Wherefore my Beloved flee from Idolatry 1 Cor. 10. 14. and used the same reason as before but much more fully explained for as he said to the Jew I am the Lord so he said to the Christian Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of Devils ye cannot be partakers of the Lord Table and of the table of Devils as if he had said Unless you will forsake my Communion who am your Lord and unless you will needs communicate with Devils who are mine enemies you must abstain from this and all other idolatrous rites and ceremonies in my worship which have been used by the Heathen in their worship and particularly from Idols for I will not be worshipped by you as the Devil was worshipped by them with Idols or Images This is the general reason which God himself gives of the Prohibition For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God and this reason without doubt did not then more concern the Jew then it doth now concern the Christian for God is now as jealous of his Honour and Worship as he was then and hath as great cause for his jealousie 2. We ought to follow God and think it both possible and easie for Christians well instructed in the first to offend through ignorance against the second Commandement For the second Commandement hath its own peculiar and distinct moralitie from the first not only that it prohibiteth external when the first prohibiteth internal Idolatry as you acknowledge but also because the first treateth of the Object the second of the Manner of our religious worship and therefore is as liable to be transgressed through ignorance as the first according to Saint Johns rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sin is the transgression of the Law 1 John 3. 4. Therefore you must deny the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or not deny the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you must deny the second Commandement to be a Law or not deny but you may transgress it as far as you may transgress any other Law And consequently unless you will pass your index expurgatorius upon Gods hand-writing as you have upon mans and come with your deleatur upon his Commandements as you have upon their Books you may not think to perswade Christians That it is impossible for them to sin through ignorance against the second Commandement For the Text is plain which saith to Christians well instructed in the first Commandement Neither be ye Idolators as were some of them 1 Cor. 10. 7. speaking not at all of internal but only of external idolatry and speaking to no purpose if the Knowledge of the one were inconsâ—…stent with the Ignorance of the other But the contrary is here proved For the Jews believed in one God calling him Jehovah according to the first Commandement To morrow is a feast to Jehovah Exod. 30. 5. yet are called Idolators because they worshipped that God by a molten image against the second Commandement Now if those Jews were ignorant Idolators who said to an Image These be thy Gods O Israel which brought thee up out of the Land of Aegypt How are not those Christians ignorant Idolators who say to a piece of wood Thou hast redeemed us Thou hast reconciled us unto God Neither perchance to be called Idolators through ignorance against the first Commandement in the undue object of worship for that was God yet both alike gross Idolators against the second Commandement either through ignorance or through presumption and my charity bids me say through ignorance in the undue manner of worshipping for God will not be worshipped by any Image or Representation 11. But that brings me upon your second position which concerns the worshipping of our blessed Saviour by his picture and I think that also very false and dangerous Divinity both in the speculation and in the practice both to be taught and to be followed For surely we Christians may not worship our Saviour Christ by any Image because as Christians we believe him to be God of God light of light very God of very God begotten not made being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made and we cannot deny but as God he forbids himself to be worshipped by pictures or images So that here I may justly retort your own argument against you For you in effect say That because Jesus Christ is the true God therefore he may be worshipped by an image But it is quite contrary for therefore he may not be worshipped by an Image because he is the true God Or to set it down in your own words It must first be proved that Jesus Christ is a false God before the application of our divine worship through his pictures unto him can be convinced of Idolatry For because Jesus Christ is without controversie the true not a false God therefore the application of divine worship through a picture unto him is idolatry for it is the true God which forbids himself to be worshipped by an image for it is the true God which being an infinite eternal incorruptible Spirit òught not cannot either be represented or worshipped by a finite a momentary a corruptible Image and this himself hath taught us saying For I the Lord there is his Omnipotency Thy God there is his All-sufficiency do not you then think he may be described by a picture the workmanship of your hands for that is to think him neither omnipotent
nor all-sufficient Do not you think he may be worshipped through a picture which himself hath so expresly forbidden for that is in effect to deny him to be your Soveraign Lord. For if he be the Lord ascribe unto him that worship and honour which himself hath commanded not that which himself hath forbidden because you cannot ascribe unto the Lord the honour due unto his Name whiles you do not ascribe unto him the honour due unto his Nature that is the honour of being the Lord For this is to say unto him Lord Lord according to the letter of the first Commandement whiles by your breaches of the second you force him to say unto you I know you not depart from me ye workers of iniquity so far is it from Truth That Christians well instructed in the first cannot through ignotance offend against the second Commandement yet I will strive to make it true for truths sake by annexing to it this supposition if they exactly follow the instructions given them in the first Commandement for then clearly they will know God too well either to worship him by an image or to worship any image instead of him But now this your own assertion like a rebellious subject will take up arms against you for by the Rule of Logick which proceeds from the eversion of the Consequent to the eversion of the Antecedent it may be proved that notwithstanding all your great boasts of being so well instructed in the first Commandement you have not well received or not well followed those instructions because you have not rightly received and followed the prohibition of the second For if the first Commandement were in truth rightly understood and obeyed amongst you according to your own negative Thou shalt not have strange Gods before me and according to your own affirmative Thou shalt have me only for thy true God you would not be so zealous as you are to bestow religious worship upon your petty Deities for that is to have strange Gods not him only for your God nor would you be so ready to represent or worship the eternal Deitie through a picture for that is not to have him for the true God since undenyable is that of the Apostle God that made the world and all things therein seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth dwelleth not in Temples made with hands Acts 17. 24. And if not in Temples then sure not in Images made with hands yet take away this crude and carnal thought that the Creator is like the creature to be confined or comprehended in his dwelling which is against the very light of nature and much more against the light of grace and you will not easily be Idolators either in worshipping him by an Image or in worshipping an image instead of him So that from your not honoring God rightly according to the Prohibition of the second we have reason to fear you do not honour him rightly according to the instruction of the first Commandement For even Damascene himself though a great admirer of other Images yet allows not any to make the Image of God but saith lib. 4. de Orthod fide c. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who can make a representation of the invisible incorporeal God which can neither be described nor defined it is then the height of madness and of wickedness to make any form or picture of the Deity Therefore Christ as God is not to be represented much less worshipped by a picture and consequently your application of divine worship through his pictures unto him may easily be convinced of Idolatry 12. I next come to your third position which concerns the worshipping of Saints and Angels for they are to be Religiously worshipped before their pictures and if not they then not their pictures since therefore all moral duties that are performed without us are reduced by our blessed Saviour to these two Heads Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self Saint Mat. 22. I ask To which of these two you will reduce your Religious worshipping of Saints and Angels If to the first say there is more then one God and you can love more then one God with all your heart If to the second do not talk of a Religious worship for no man yet ever worshipped himself with a Religious worship and you are to love your neighbour but as your self not as your God For since God hath called All but himself your neighbour how can you call Any but himself your God whiles you worship him as your God by a Religious worship Can you think that Job did not intend that of every other creature whatsoever which he spake of the Sun Moon because the Heathen bestowed their Religious worship on them as not knowing any creature more glorious then them for they knew nothing of the Angels or glorified Saints If mine heart hath been secretly enticed or my mouth hath kissed my hand This also were an iniquity to be punished by the Judge Hebr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iniquitas judicans vel judicialis digna quae à Judice puniatur an iniquity to be punished by the Judge of quick and dead since it is a Judged Case in his own Court since he himself hath judged it to be an iniquity For I should have denyed the God that is above Here is the Religious worship which calleth the creature the Creator for so saith Jarchi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If I have worshipped the Sun or Moon saying they are Gods And here is the iniquity that cannot escape Judgement for this calling the creature the Creator is to deny the God that is above so saith 〈◊〉 I should have denyed the 〈◊〉 â—…at is above The meaning is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The God that is above these two great lights The Hebrew words will yet bear another interpretation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For I should have lyed against the God above Hence Idolatry is called mendacium perniciosum a pernicious lye by your own Reginaldus Scandalous to men injurious to God directly against the honour due unto him which is not communicable to any but to himself Regin lib. 16. cap. 14. sec. 3. Idolatry is therefore called a Lye in Job a pernicious lye in Reginaldus because it communicates that honour to the creature which is due only to the Creator And according to this Principle The Religious worship of Saints and Angels must be called Idolatry For to worship them Religiously is to Communicate to them the honour of God it is to say they are Gods And to say they are Gods is to lye both to God and man for it is to deny the God that is above them and to deceive the men that are amongst us For it is vam here to talk of inferiour degrees of worship since Magis minus non variat speciâ—… if it be Religious worship properly so called the least degree of it is Religious
add this limitation not from a Brother not from one of the family of Love and you will make it lawful to steal so it be from a stranger or from an enemy The reason is because an Universal is not capable of Addition for who can add to All and where nothing can be added nothing can be distinguished for who can distinguish upon nothing Therefore to distinguish upon an universal is to suppose it a particular to which something may be added and that is in truth to deny it to be an universal For every distinction is a kind of limitation and every limitation is a kind of negation Thus Drink ye All of this is an universal and therefore as we cannot add to All so we may not distinguish upon All and say Omnes conficientes All that consecrate for that is to suppose the Universal a particular nay to make it so by adding to it and consequently to include its contradictory in the same Precept making that to say not All instead of All and so Drink ye All of this and Drink not All of this will be the sense of one and the same Precept which being impossible we must look upon that Trent Declaration as more peremptory then true Ecclesia declarat nullo divino praecepto Laicos vel clericos non conficientes ad bibendum obligari Concil Trid. sess 21. The Church declareth that no divine Precept obligeth the Laity and not consecrating Clergy to drink of the cup For Drink ye all of this is a divine Precept and cannot but oblige all that receive the holy Sacrament because it is a Precept concerning the receiving it So in the particular case of image-Image-worship The Text saith Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven image or likeness to worship it if you will limit this universal negative by confining the graven image to this or that kind of image then the contradictory will be true Divinity as Thou shalt not make nor worship the graven image of Venus or Bacchus or Jupiter that is any image of the Heathen Gods which are meer fictions But thou maist make and worship the Image of Christ and of the Saints and Angels which have a real being So then Thou shalt not worship an Image and Thon shalt worship an Image being contradictories will be both true divinity and both commanded in the same Precept and God must be said to Command and men must be made to Obey contradictions And yet this is the slight by which your two great Champions Baronius and Bellarmine have endeavoured to elude this very Commandement Surely I think your Catechist Laurence Vaux much more ingenuous who goes to prove by this very Commandement that it is not only lawful but also necessary to worship the Images of the Saints For so in his Catechism Printed at Antwerp 1574. in the sixt Chapter of his first seven Queries upon the first Commandement he asketh this question Who breaketh the first Commandement of God by irreverence of God you may be sure he means the first with the second joyned to it because he speaketh of outward irreverence to which himself thus answers They that do not give due reverence to God and his Saints or to their reliques and images An excellent Catechist who makes the second Commandemement say Thou shalt make thou shalt worship graven Images yet this man said no more then your two great Cardinals have in effect though more covertly said after him only he tells us He writes for the use of children and ignorant men but your Cardinals write for the use of the greater and most learned Scholars But as unsuccessfully as they of Nice before them The Scripture doth not forbid us to worship Images but to worship them as God say the one The Scripture doth not forbid us to worship true but false Images say the other Both distinguish upon Gods universal Precept the one upon the act of worship the other upon the object or the image worshipped so both deny the precept to be universal and make it particular though God made it universal and by so doing give us the contradiction of the Precept for the exposition of it For Thou shalt not worship an Image is Thou shalt worship an Image according to both their expositions But which is very remarkable As they both contradict God so they also contradict one another That t is not easie for a sensible man to discern how far this Image-worship hath been dogmatized For Thou shalt not worship Images as God say they of Nice Thou shalt worship Images as God if they be his images say your men now whereby they have in truth forsaken the Council though they still cleave to the Images and we have done no more who have forsaken the Images And indeed we have been constrained thereto out of our bounden duty to God and his truth not only for the many falsities which shew it to have been a factious Council but also for the many falsifications therein which in effect shew it to have been no Council For they bring not Scripture but Revelation and Miracle the two principles of Enthusiasts not of Divines for the establishment of their new doctrine They talk of an Image of our blessed Saviour at Berytus which being pierced by the Jews there immediately gushed out of it Blood and Water which when the Synod heard They shewed their fond belief by their sad lamentations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They were much troubled and wept yet upon this and such like fabulous stories which supposed a stranger kind of Transubstantiation then you have since invented not changing the substance of bread into Christs Body but changing the substance of Christs body into Wood or Stone they were pleased to vote 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Relative worshipping of Images and so call those Jews and Atheists and enemies to the Truth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who were opposers of that worship But these and the like particular falsifications do chiefly cast a dis-repute upon their doctrine I now come to a general falsification which will cast a disrepute upon the Council it self For that frequently speaks of letters from the three Patriarcks of Antiech Alexandria and Hierusalem to Tharasius And of Thomas and John two Presbyters as the Legates of those Patriarcks to subscribe in their names when your own Baronius confesseth That they could not then have any entercourse either by message or letter with those three Patriarcks because they were wholly under the power of the Sarazens and that one of them namely the Patriarck of Hierusalem was at that time dead in exile So that if you cannot take off this forgerie and falsification from these grand voters of Images you may not allow them the repute of a Council and you cannot take it off from them but you must cast it upon your own Baronius For these are his words An. 785. nu 40. Non fuit facultas tribus Patriarchis Orientis ad Tharasium rescribendi neque etiam
and must be the cause of eternal Dissention and Division in Christs Church 14. Religion orders a man only to God and that superstition which takes in Saints and Angels is for Babel not for Hierusalem because it confounds both the work and the Rule of Religion and is accordingly threatned and punished with confusion 15. Religious worshipping the Pictures of Saints and Angels is so gross Idolatry that you dare not let the people know the Commandement which forbids it 16. Images long kept out of the Churches of Christians Epiphanius his pulling down a veil with an Image at Anablatha unjustly if not unadvisedly rejected by Bellarmine as a false story 17. Images kept out of the Religion of Christians after they were admitted into their Churches The second Council of Nice opposed and confuted by the Latines not acknowledged for a General Council by the Greeks but most of all opposed and confuted by its own egregious falsities and falsifications discovered from its own Acts and affirmed by the testimony of Baronius 18. Interrogatories concerning Image-worship to be put into the Confessionals of the Romish Priests rather then of the people for that of the two they are the greater idolators The fourth Exception PAr 2. chap. 3. sect 2. pag. 193. speaking of us Catholicks you say The second Commandement is not of so great repute with them as to have any Interrogatory concerning it By the second Commandement nothing possible can be forbidden but only external Idolatry as internal is forbidden in the first Which moved Saint Augustine quest 71. in Exodum and all Catholick Divines after to reckon these two but as one Now in those negative words of the first Thou shalt not have strange gods before me is necessarily and positively included this affirmative Thou shalt have me only for thy true God Hence it follows that it is impossible for Christians whatever the Jews did well instructed in the first to offend through ignorance against the second What Interrogatories then are needful concerning it But I know you hint at our Pictures and Images of our blessed Saviour and his holy Saints But it must first be proved that Jesus Christ is a false God before the application of our Divine Worship through his Pictures unto him can be convinced of Idolatry And the same I say proportionably though in an infinitely inferiour degree of our Religious worship through the Pictures of his glorious Servants Saints and Angels The Answer 1. I Spake not of you Catholicks but if I spake of you it was of you Papists who by your own Cassander are not to be called Catholicks but false Catholicks Sunt quidam qui Pontificem Romanum tantum non Deum faciunt ejusque autoritatem non modò supra totam Ecclesiam sed supra ipsam Scripturam divinam efferunt Hos non video quò minus Pseudocatholicos Papistas appellare possis Cassander de officio pii viri There are some who make the Pope almost a God and extoll his authority not only above the whole Church but also above the holy Scripture These are to be called Papists and Pseudocatholicks that is to say false Catholicks Wherefore in the judgement of your own Cassander if you will needs be Papists you cannot be Catholicks 2. But in truth my intent was not so much to speak in condemnation of you Papists as in justification of us Protestants not so much in condemnation of your Church as in justification of our own But since you have taken it for a condemnation of your Church pray consider whether you may not take these particulars for the parts of that condemnation First that in your General confession Confitior Deo omnipotenti B. Mariae semper Virgini c. You suppose the blessed Virgin and the holy Apostles Saint Peter and Saint Paul and all the Saints departed equally present at your Confession with God to hear you if not equally powerful or merciful with him to forgive you whereas we who are taught only to say Omnipotens clementissime Pater Almighty and most merciful Father in our general Confession cannot be under the suspition much less under the danger of communicating to the creature either the presence or power or mercy of the Creator Secondly That in your particular and private confession you clog mens consciences with an absolute necessity of confessing every mortal sin though it be but only in thought For so saith your Laterane Council under Innocent the third cap. 21. Omnia sua peccata fideliter confiteatur Let him faithfully confess all his sins And though that of Trent afterwards seem to mitigate the matter sess 14. c. 5. saying Nihil aliud exigit Ecclesia à Poenitentibus quà m ut confiteantur omnia peccata mortalia quae post diligentem sui excussionem memoriae occurrent Yet Cardinal Bellarmine whom his fellow Jesuites will certainly follow and they are now your chiefest confessors saith plainly after a full debate of the cause Colligimus hinc necessarium esse confiteri omnia peccata mortalia etiamsi solâ cogitatione commissa sint lib. 3. de Poenit. cap. 7. § ex his so that t is to little purpose for your Council to say that t is necessary for the Penitent to confess all the mortal sins he can remember whiles your Champion and after him your Confessors say t is necessary for him to confess all the mortal sins he hath committed and spare him not so much as a thought which may easily be a mortal sin and yet is as easily forgotten as committed whence it was that your own Cassander called your auricular confession Carnifieinam conscientiarum in consult Art 11. the wrack of consciences to torment not to ease them For who can tell how oft he offendeth O cleanse thou me from my secret faults said the maâ—… after Gods own heart Psalm 19. If none can tell how oft he offendeth in word or deed much less in thought who is able to confess all his offences yet you say He must confess all or he can receive pardon of none And therefore as you leave the horrour of that question upon the conscience Who can tell how oft he offendeth So you take away the comfort of that prayer from it O cleanse thou me from my secret faults Thirdly That in your absolutions you remit the punishments of Purgatory for all the sins committed against God and man Remitto tibi omnes poenas Purgatorii propter culpas offensiones quas contra Deum proximum tuum commisisti This was the form of that Absolution which Dr. Harding brought over from Rome to bestow amongst those of his party in this Nation who would joyn with him in his dis-allegiance against Queen Elizabeth I meddle not with its vanity in absolving from Punishments which are not in being or if they were cannot come under the Churches absolution I meddle only with its Impiety that it turneth the gift of God into the instrument of Ungodliness For no credulous Papist
needs follow an errour in Faith And so Bellarmine himself professeth lib. 4. de Pont. c. 5. Si Papa erraret praecipiendo vitia prohibendo virtutes teneretur Ecclesia credere vitia esse bona virtutes esse malas proinde teneretur errare If the Pope should err so grosly as to command us to do evil and to eschew that which is good the Church would be bound to believe that Vices were lawful and Vertues unlawful and so consequently would be bound to be in errour We may yet further improve this tenent and say That no man can maintain what is false in matter of fact but he must also maintain what is false in matter of faith according to the very same particular in the Creed which corresponds to that of the Decalogue wherein he is erroneous whether the falsity concern his God or his neighbour or himself For as all practicks so all speculatives are reducible to these three heads Our God our neighbour and our selves As for example He that explicitly in fact maintains that fornication is lawful or any sin that is against his own body doth implicitly in faith deny his own resurrection and as in fact so also in faith doth sin against himself He that maintains any point of faction and disobedience against the fifth Commandement or any thing of injustice against the rest doth not only in fact explicitly sin against the Decalogue but also in faith implicitly sin against the Creed in that part of it which concerns his neighbour that is The Catholick Church and the Communion of Saints Lastly He that maintains any false external worship being rather willing to expunge or confound the second Commandement then to obey it sins not only in fact but also in faith against his God and doth in effect expunge that Article out of his Creed which immediately concerneth the Deity I believe in God So you see there is no Catholick Divinity in this doctrine which either makes the second no Commandement or makes no sin against it as it is no Catholick Divinity which supposeth our belief in God to be no Article of Faith or that there may be in Christians no errour or heresie against that Article For your seeming qualification in these words through ignorance alters not the case because the second Commandement hath as great an obligation and as distinct a morality as the first and therefore may be transgressed as many waies as the first that is to say as well by ignorance as by negligence infirmity or presumption and I suppose you cannot think it for the credit of your Confessional Interrogatories so to keep men from ignorances as to let them continue in presumptions Therefore either say there may be no sin at all against the second Commandement or do not say What Interrâ—…gatories are needful concerning it For if your Interrogatories do not discover the greater sins they must discover their own weakness if not your deceitfulness that 's my answer in general 7. Secondly I answer in particular That Saint Augustine did in the division of the Commandements reckon the first and second but as One not that he thought the second comprized in the first as you seem to intimate but that from a Trinity of precepts concerning our duty towards God we might readily acknowledge a Trinity of persons in the Unity of the Godhead For he neither expunged the second Commandement out of the practical principles of his Religion nor confounded it with the first but allowed it to prohibit an external Idolatry in worshipping the Godhead by any Image or representation For so saith he lib. de fide Symb. cap. 7. Simulachrum Dei nefas est Christiano in templo collocare It is a great sin for a Christian to set up any Image of God in the Church which is the very second Commandement changed from a legal prohibition into a doctrinal conclusion Again Epist. 119. In primo praecepto prohibetur coli aliqua in figmentis hominum Dei similitudo non quia non habet imaginem Deus sed quia nulla imago ejus coli debet nisi illa quae hoâ—… est quod ipse nec ipsa pro illo sed cum illo In the first Commandement sc. the second being joyned with it according to his new method we are forbidden to worship any Image of God according to the false inventions of men not that God hath not an Image but because no Image of his ought to be worshipped but only that one substantial Image of him his begotten Son who is the same with himself and to be worshipped as himself And in his 222. Epistle Si Trinitas sic est invisibilis ut nec mente videatur multò minus de illa hujusmodi opinionem habere debemus ut eam rebus corporalibus vel corporalium rerum imaginibus similem esse credamus If the Trinity be so invisible as that it is also incomprehensible we ought not to have so slight an opinion concerning it as if it were like any corporeal thing or to think it may be represented by any corporeal images What could Saint Augustine say more for the second Commandement and against you who are now come to represent and worship God the Father under the image of an Old man God the Son under the image of a Lamb and God the holy Ghost under the image of a Dove If I wrong you in this you may thank your own Cajetane who saith expresly Ecclesiae Romanae usus admittit hasce Trinitatis imagines eaque pinguntur non solum ut ostendantur sed ut adorentur Cajet in 3. Aqu. qu. 25. art 3. The custom of the Roman Church admitteth these images of the Trinity and they are painted not only that they may be shewed but also that they may be worshipped See the vast difference between Saint Augustines and your doctrine concerning the second Commandement He alloweth it to prohibit both the making and the worshipping any Image of God either in Trinity or in Unity you notwithstanding that prohibition say it is lawful not only to make but also to worship the images of the Trinity Doubtless were Saint Augustine now alive he would again part the second Commandement and divide it from the first meerly out of hatred to this your most abominable idolatry For rather then suffer the holy and undivided Trinity to be thus sinfully either represented or worshipped expresly against this second Commandement He would certainly restore it to its own place that it might no longer lie hid under the first but recover its own power as being much more zealous of Gods glory then of his own and therefore such a Divine as had much rather lose his argument of proving the Trinity from the number of three Commandements in the first Table then let you lose your Religion by an idolatrous representation and worship of that Trinity expresly against the letter and the end of the second Commandement Or if you think Saint Augustine a
greater lover of his own imagination then of your reformation which were to make him a bad Divine yet you must believe him a greater lover of Gods glory then of his own imagination for else you cannot allow him to be a good Christian Therefore that you may not un-Saint him pray unsinner your selves and allow the second Commandement to have its own force and vertue wherever you find it or plead not Saint Augustine for your precedent because he did only make bold with the place and order but not with the prohibition or power or substance of that Commandement And consider seriously whether your being Antinomians in this one Commandement hath not taught others to be Antinomians in all the rest and whether your allowing such a gross representation and worship of the most holy most blessed and most glorious Trinity hath not much rebated the awfull reverence and serious belief of the holiness and blessedness and glory that is in those three persons of the God-head and consequently be not a ready way to make the scoffers that are come in these last daies to turn Antitrinitarians 8. But you say All Catholick Divines after Saint Augustine have reckoned these two Commandements but as one I take the boldness to say They have not done so Nay more I take the courage to say They may not do so First I say They have not done so For 1. Sedulius a Scotish Priest who lived in 430. ten years after Saint Augustine and writ a Comment upon all Saint Pauls Epistles out of Origene Saint Ambrose Saint Hierom and Saint Augustine as saith your Bellarmine in his explanation of these words Eph. 6. 2. Honour thy Father and Mother which is the first Commandement with promise saith positively out of Saint Hierom There was a promise before in the second Commandement In secundo mandato repromissionem esse sociatam Ait enim non facies tibi Idola He would not forsake the old division of the Decalogue received by the Fathers to follow Saint Augustines new division 2. Eucherius Bishop of Lions in France in the year 440. in his questions upon the Epistle to the Ephesians saith concerning the fifth Commandement Alii vero hoc mandatum non quarto sed quinto loco quod nos probamus esse confirmant Others reckon that not as the fourth but as the fifth Commandement of whom we approve Tacitely reproving Saint Augustines new division of the Decalogue but openly approving those who followed the other division before it 3. Primasius Bishop of Utica in Africa in the year 545. writ a Comment upon all Saint Pauls Epistles saith Bellarm. and upon these words Eph. 6. 2. which is the first Commandement with promise gives us this exposition sc. in secundâ tabulâ quae ad humanitatem pertinentia praecepta sex numero continebat Prima enim tabula propriè Divina officia exigebat The fifth Commandement was the first with promise sc. in the second tâ—…ble which contains the six precepts expressing mans duty towards his neighbour as for the first table that only declareth mans duty towards his God See here is an Africane Bishops testimony to prove that Saint Augustines new division of the Decalogue was not yet received in his own Church for the Africanes above an hundred years after he had made that division did still reckon but six Commandements in the second Table whereas if they had made but one of the two first they must have made two of the last or else have come short in the number of Ten Commandements 4. Procopius Gazaeus a Catholick Author of the Greek Church and commended by Photius who writ about the year 560. saith Bellarmine in his Comment upon Exodus saith thus Non erunt tibi Dii praeter me c. Hoc primum est praeceptum secundo sermocinante de idolis imaginibus ni enim in hunc modum quis leges distinguat non poterit in ordinem certum redigere Decalogum The second Commandement is that which forbids Idols and Images for unless we follow this division we cannot have a right order of the Commandements 5. Hesychius Bishop of Hierusalem who lived in the time of Saint Gregory saith Bellarmine and expounded Saint Hieroms Latine Text then generally received in the Church in his expositions upon Leviticus sets down a new division of the Commandements making Two of the first and putting the second in the place of the third which Saint Augustine had made a part of the first and the third in the place of the fourth that so he might leave out the fourth which he thought meerly ceremonial and yet retain the right number of four Commandements in the first Table Distinguit tamen quatuor praecepta pertinentia ad Deum 12 ae qu. 100. art 4. in c. Though he left out the fourth Commandement yet he would not have less then four in the first table and consequently could not allow seven in the second so it is clear that in neither Table he thought himself bound to follow Saint Augustines division of the Ten Commandements 6. Jonas Bishop of Orleans in France about eight hundred years after Christ and full four hundred years after Saint Augustine saith of Claudius Bishop of Turine That he took the second Commandement to forbid the making of all Images Quum de omni similitudine facienda secundum Decalogi praeceptum assumpseris Which he could not have said if the second Commandement had been then joyned with the first according to Saint Augustines example though since it hath had the ill fortune to be suppressed by it or to be forgotten in it This Centurie produced one more famous Writer or Commentator upon the whole Bible in the Latine Church namely Rabanus Maurus Bishop of Mentz an 835. and he in his Comment upon Exodus lib. 2. cap. 12. hath this Title Sermo Dei ad populum Decalogum Legis proferens The Sermon of God to the people concerning the Ten words of the Law and in the Chapter it self hath these words Primum ergo mandatum est Non erunt tibi Dii alii praeter me post haec sequitur Non facies tibi sculptile neque omnem similitudinem c. The first Commandement is this Thou shalt have no other Gods but me and after that follows Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven image nor the likeness of any thing c. which he could not have said did follow after the first if he had found it joyned with the first and reputed in the judgement of all Catholick Divines as a part of that Commandement But I will now pass to the twelfth Centurie where I meet with Rupertus Tuitiensis who lived about the year 1124. that is full seven hundred years after Saint Augustine yet sheweth plainly That Saint Augustines division of the Decalogue was not then received in the Latine Church For in his Comment upon Exodus lib. 3. cap. 31. he saith that the first Commandement was Thou shalt have no other
he that telleth the number of the stars will not learn of man how to number his own Commandements Wherefore if our number disagree from his we shall not only have a false piece of Arithmetick in the numerus numerans in the number numbering but we shall also have a false piece of Divinity in the numerus numeratus in the number numbered For we shall call that First which God calls Second there is the false Arithmitick and we shall make that nothing which God hath made a Commandement or make that two which God hath made but one there is the false Divinity Therefore as we may not leave Gods own hand-writing to consult with the Church about the number of the Commandements whether there be Ten or no so neither may we leave it to consult about the number of the Commandements in each Table whether three or four in the first for God hath said four whether six or seven in the second Table for God hath said six And what God hath made his Determination the Church of God may not make her Consultation It is the doctrine of your own Casuist Reginald in praxi fori Poenit. lib. 13. c. 15. Ut omnia rerum genera ad decem summa reducuntur sic omnia praecepta moralia ad decem praecipua quae Decalogum constituunt ex quorum etiam distinctione sicut res ex distinctione summorum generum inter se distinguuntur As all things which have a natural being are reduced to the Ten Predicaments So all things that have a moral being are reduced to the Ten Commandements And as natural entities are distinguished by the Ten Predicaments so moral entities are distinguished by the Ten Commandements So that the Ten Commandements are as it were the Ten Predicaments or general heads in Divinity to which all moral Duties are to be reduced by which they are to be examined from which they are to be Practised And therefore as he would shew himself no good Logician who should expunge or confound any one of the ten Predicaments because that were to disturb the order of nature so he would shew himself no good Divine who should either expunge or confound any one of the Ten Commandements because that were to disturb the order of Grace The one would bring Babel upon our natural the other upon our spiritual inheritance The one would confound us in regard of earth the other in regard of heaven The one would confound us as men the other would confound us as Christians which is infinitely the more dreadful and the more damnable confusion Therefore we must needs say and believe That there is a much greater necessity of distinct entities in morals then in naturals because there is a much greater necessity that we should exactly know our Duties then that we should exactly know our estates or habilements That we should know our God then that we should know the world And consequently any true Christian Church which teacheth us in morals must much more abhor to confound a â—…ommandement for fear she should perplex us in our Religion then the most careful Tutor that teacheth us in naturals canabhor to confound a Predicament for fear he should perplex us in our learning For there is no such desperate perplexity as that of Conscience and no such damnable confusion as that of Religion and God hath ordained and commanded his Church to prevent and to redress not to create or to continue either such perplexities or such confusions And a late faction in your Church by either expunging or abridging the second Commandement for in some Catechisms it is expunged in others it is abridged for fear if it were read out all at length it should either stagger the people by the plainness of its Prohibition or else awake and frighten them by the terribleness of its commination have brought two great absurdities upon the outward Profession of your Religion which I may not be ashamed to name whiles you are not afraid to practise First that in this point it is less certain then was the Religion of the Jews for they had no confusion in their principles concerning the outward worship of God as you have and where is confusion there must be uncertainty Secondly that in this respect it is more scandalous and offensive then was sometime the Religion of the Heathen For Numa would not allow any image to be made of God saith Plutarch in his life because he was a mind invisible and therefore neither to be represented nor worshipped by any image But you will needs both represent and worship him by images Why should any Christians do that against the Law of God which some Heathen would not do against the Law of nature For if the Gentiles which had not the Law doing by nature the things contained in the Law were a Law unto themselves and shewed the work of the Law written in their hearts by abstaining from so gross Idolatry what can be said in excuse of those Christians who have the same Law of nature as fully written in their hearts and more fully written in the Holy Scriptures yet will not do by Grace the things contained in the Law nor shew the work of the Law written in their hearts and in their Bibles but will needs be a Law unto themselves against the Law of God and nature that they may be and continue most gross Idolaters I could wish with all my soul that the question were impertinently asked because I fear it cannot be substantially answered and if it may stand good without an answer it will not only be a most harsh question but also a most heavy accusation Secondly this reckoning the First and Second but as one Commandement is also against accidental Catholicism that is to say against the Profession of a Divine Truth universally taught in the Church of God by the Jews and by the Christians both before and after Saint Augustines daies For the Jews Church we have the testimony of Josephus who lib. 3. Antiq. cap. 4. hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The first Commandement teacheth us There is but one God and that we must worship him alone The second commandeth us not to worship him by any image For the Christian Church we have generally the Testimony of all the Fathers before Saint Augustine and of all the writers after him till the Schoolmen and we have his too as to the force and vertue of the second Commandement though not as to the place and order of it I will cite but some few 1. Origene in his 8. homily upon Exodus speaking of the first and second Commandements saith That some would have them both go but for one but he altogether dislikes their opinion and thus confutes it Quod si ita putetur non complebitur decem numerus mandatorum ubi jam erit Decalogi veritas If we reckon so we shall not have the full number of Ten Commandements and where then will be the truth
worship and the gâ—…eatest degree of it is no more Therefore we say That Religious worship in what degree soever is to be given only to God because he alone is the object of Religion For Religion though it command and govern such acts as pass from man to man or from man to God yet it doth not of it self produce or excite any act but only such as hath God for its immediate object And therefore all the elicite and proper acts of Religion such as flow from its own nature are reducible to some of the four Commandements in the first Table which concern God only as appears in that his name alone is used in every one of them And therefore to bestow any act of Religion upon any other then upon God alone is to set up both a God and a Religion neither revealed nor commanded in the first Table and consequently not of Goa's but of our own making Nay it is to fetch a God out of the second Table to bestow upon him the Duties enjoined in the first It is to borrow an Object from the second Table to exercise the Acts of the first For the whole Decalogue knows no other object but only God or neighbour and these are so distinct That what is neighbour cannot be God what is God cannot be neighbour And the Acts concerning these are as distinct as the Objects for all the Acts commanded or forbidden in the first Table concern our God All the Acts commanded or forbidden in the second Table concern our neighbour and t is equally absurd to apply to neighbour the Duties belonging to God as Glory or Worship and to apply to God the Duties belonging to neighbour as relief or maintenance This is the Divinity God himself hath taught for it is the plain undoubted sense of his Commandements and this is the Divinity Gods Church hath learned and professed for thus she understood his sense as saith Lactantius lib. 6. cap. 10. Primum Justitiae officium est conjungi cum Deo secundum cum homine sed illud primum Religio dicitur Hoc secundum misericordia vel humanitas nominatur The first office of Justice is to unite man to God The second to unite man to man or to his neighbour The first office is called Religion the second is called Humanity And therefore it is against the very order of Justice to confound these offices For as Humanity cannot extend to God so Religion cannot extend to neighbour Wherefore since all Communion is founded in Justice those who most confound the offices of Justice are the greatest enemies and opposers of true Christian Communion and consequently They who worship Saints and Angels are the greatest Schismaticks because they most confound the Offices of Justice doing to neighbour those offices which belong to God and not doing to God those offices which belong to him For he that renders to Caesar Gods due doth for that cause not render to God his own due And accordingly these two are disjoyned and divided as two distinct offices of Justice by Gods own eternal Wisdom and Truth and therefore may not be confounded without mans unsufferable folly and mistake for so saith our blessed Saviour Mat. 22. 21. Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesars there 's the Debt of Justice belonging to Humanity And unto God the things that are Gods there 's the Debt of Justice belonging to Religion Cesar must have his own but he may not have Gods Tribute The noblest creature that is either in Heaven or in Earth may not have the Creators due Since therefore Religion is the Creators due as Humanity is the creatures according to Lactantius Gods most glorious Servants Saints and Angels may not be sharers with their Master in his due that is to say in the offices of Religion though in never so inferiour a degree because they cannot be Gods though in never so inferiour a degree But they may only be sharers with their fellow-servants or creatures in the offices of Humanity whether double or treble or if you will centuple sharers it matters not according to their several degrees of glory and of excellency And this was so clear a Truth in our Saviours daies that it is said concerning the disciples of the Pharisees and the Herodians when they heard these words they marvelled and left him and went their way v. 22. And it is still so clear notwithstanding the many sophistical distinctions whereby some of late have clouded it that if any man now will needs reply against it he must be more refractory then those Pharisees or Herodians and fall under Saint Pauls reproof Nay but O man who art thou that replyest against God Rom. 9. 20. For God the Father in his Law God the Son in his Gospel and God the Holy Ghost the Pen man both of Law and Gospel hath so determined That the offices of Justice may not be confounded but those which belong to Religion must be reserved by themselves for God alone none of them all bestowed upon our neighbour he is capable only of those offices which belong to Humanity but of none of those which belong to Religion Therefore your words And the same I say proportionably though in an infinitely inferiour degree of our Religious worship of his glorious Servants Saints and Angels are not to be justified though you should say them to the worlds end For there is no proportion betwixt the creature and the Creator and consequently you may not say the same thing or talk of the same worship proportionably concerning them 13. The Honour of Humanity or of the second Table due from the fifth Commandement though in the highest degree of proportion being infinitely below the Creator and the honour of Religion or of the first Table due from the four first Commandements though in the lowest degree being infinitely above the creature For that honour is internally in the understanding an apprehension or belief of an infinite excellency in the will a subjection or submission to it there 's the duty of the first Commandement The same honour is externally in the gesture an adoration in the speech a profession in the deed a publick and solemn Homage made to the same infinite excellency there 's the duty of the three other Commandements in the first Table Wherefore you must place your degrees of proportion not in religious worship to make an inferiour degree of that but in civil worship to make a superiour degree of that for Gods glorious servants unless you will serve them instead of God to the dishonour of their Lord and to the despight of his Commandements I would not speak so positively were this Divinity of yesterday but you see Lactantius shews it was of old in the Catholick Church And the Angelical Doctor shews the same for notwithstanding the Practice of the Church was corrupted in his daies yet this Doctrine this Divinity was not corrupted For this we find was his determination 12º qu. 100. art 5.
procidamus ploremus ante Dominum qui fecit nos O come let us worship and fall down and weep before the Lord our maker because we have worshipped and falen down and kneeled before those who have not made us do not convert or call us cannot save us 14. For it is the part of Religion to order a man rightly in regard of his God as of Temperance and of Justice to order him rightly in regard of himself and of his neighbour so saith Saint Augustine Tract 23. in Johan Haec est religio Christiana ut colatur unus Deus quia non facit animam beatam nisi unus Deus This is the true Christian Religion that we worship one God because none can make the soul blessed but one God None can make the soul saith holy David None can make the soul blessed saith holy Augustine but one God therefore we may worship none but him Idem principium creationis beatificationis The same God is the author of our Being and of our well-being and claims our worship as his homage for both The same is our maker and our Saviour The same Lord which giveth nature giveth also Grace and Glory and therefore to ascribe unto others the honour which is due only to him is to put others in his place as if they were Lords with him and were the givers of Nature of Grace of Glory Yet this is the Divinity you teach your people this is the Duty you bind them to do by the first Commandement Sacrosanctam Eucharistiam adoratione latriae venerari jubemur Virginem autem Mariam honore hyperduâ—…iae Cruâ—…em etiam adorare venerari Angelos vero maxime Angelum nostrae custodiae designatum sanctos sanctas eorum reliquias Templa honore duliae honorare jubemur methodus Confessionis in expositione primi praecepti We are here commanded to worship the holy Eucharist the blessed Virgin the holy Cross the Angelâ—… especially him that is our Guardian The Saints their reliques and Temples And it is to small purpose that you would be thought to give a lesser kind of worship to these then to God for all kinds of Religious worship are alike forbidden to any creature by this Commandement as all kinds of uncleanness by the seventh of slander by the ninth So that in truth you have taught your people to worship many Gods instead of worshipping one God for you cannot multiply acts specifically distinct without multiplying the objects therefore you must make many Gods by making many several distinct acts of Religious worship This is such a Babel as reacheth up to heaven a very great and horrid confusion which confounds the Creator with the creature and staies not there but cometh down again and also confoundeth the Communion of Saints and the Commandements of God and consequently not only the work but also the whole rule of Religion For seeing our blessed Saviour hath said On theâ—…e two hang all the Law and the Prophets Mat. 22. 40. by confounding the two Tables of the Commandements you must also confound the whole Book of God So then this false worship may only belong to Babel not to Jerusalem For in confounding the Creator with the creature it strikes at God the Father Almighty maker of heaven and earth In confounding the Communion of Saints it strikes at God the Son who is the Head of that Communion In confounding the Commandements and the whole Book of God it strikes at God the Holy Ghost the Pen-man of those Commandements and of that Book And we ought not to think that Jerusalem the City of God will either teach or practice a worship against God the Father Son and Holy Ghost For such a worship is not a Religion but a Confusion and is accordingly punished with confusion Psalm 97. 7. Confounded be all they that worship carved Images and that delight in vain Gods worship him all ye Gods A Text that exactly follows the method of the second Commandement proceeding by Command and by Commination only here the commination is put in the first place because the command had hitherto been so much transgressed and so little regarded God thereby intimating That if his Command doth not restrain us his commination shall ruine us which in this sin is more terrible then in any other for here he threatens to visit the sins of the Fathers upon their Children which in the language of this Text is To confound both them and theirs Confundantur omnes qui adorant sculptilia saith your own Latine for that 's to delight in vain gods who are all commanded to worship the true God as well as we for so it follows Worship him all ye Gods 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Seventy worship him all ye his Angels Here 's yet another confusion This Idolatry makes them Idols whom God made Angels it makes them vain Gods whom he made Gods It unmakes Angels and what is that but to make Devils I mean in regard of those that worship them For though the holy Angels in themselves are blessed Spirits yet by those that Religiously worship them they are after some sort made wicked Spirits because to them they are the occasion of sin and wickedness So far is man from righting Angels by wronging God from honouring the servants by dishonouring their Lord and yet the best pretence that is usually made in this kind is least the Angels for sooth should lose their right whereas by doing them this right we do them the greatest wrong See thou do it not for I am thy fellow-servant Thou wrongest no less then three by doing it Thy self and me and our common Master A prohibition twice urged Rev. 19. 10. 22. 9. and with the same reason shewing that God made Angels our fellow-servants and Brethren and that we may not by our Religious worship make them God Therefore Confounded be they that make them Idols saith David since God made them Angels and yet your Position makes them twice idols once in themselves whiles it bestows Religious worship on them a second time in their images whiles it bestows that worship on them through their Pictures And that 's your fourth and last Position which concerns the Religious worship of Gods glorious Servants Saints and Angels through their pictures 15. In which case if you are not to be convinced of idolatry sure t is for want of will not of means of conviction for the Commandement expresly forbiddeth to make the likeness of any thing in heaven or in earth with intent to worship it and I believe you will not deny the Saints and Angels to be in heaven or if so because for ought you know who believe the Purging of souls after death some Saints may be in Purgatory to be tormented some good Angels there to torment them yet you cannot deny God to be in heaven unless you will discard your Pater Noster which teacheth you to say Our Father which art in heaven But it is a sufficient proof
overthrows the analogie of Faith in the Apostles Creed concerning Christs natural body for that was conceived by the holy Ghost born of the Virgin Mary suffered under Pontius Pilate was crucified dead and buried ascended into heaven and now sitteth on the right hand of God which cannot be truly said of Christs Sacramental Body in the blessed Eucharist So this Proposition The Angel which redeemed me from all evil bless the lads must be taken Theologically that is in the sense of the speaker because taken Grammatically that is in the bare sense of the words it overthrows the analogy of righteousness in Mâ—…ses his Decalogue ascribing that to an Angel which is proper and peculiar to God alone by vertue of the first Commandement as to be the God before whom Abraham and Isaac did walk the God which had fed Jacob all his life and had redeemed him from all evil and could bless the lads by his own authority both with temporal and with spiritual blessings â—…or he that saith Thou shalt have no other Gods but me saith Thou shalt not have an Angel instead of me as if thy Fathers had walked before him thou wert to be fed from him to be redeemed by him to 〈◊〉 blessed through him The analogie o Righteousness or of Religion in the first Commandement admits not this interpretation therefore though it be Grammatically true in the sense of the words yet 't is Theologically false in the sense of the speaker for Gods Spirit speaketh not contradictorily to himself And being proved to be Theologically false because it is against the analogy of righteousness or of Religion it is easie to prove it Logically false because it is against the analogy of reason And truly so it is in three respects 1. In respect of the Proposition The Predicate not agreeing with the Subject and therefore though an Angel be named yet he is not intended because he is named with such a property or attribute as belongs only to God viz Redeeeming from all evil and Blessing with all good 2. This interpretation is Logically false in respect of the connexion the Proposition not agreeing with the Antecedents and Consequents For an Angel cannot be the God before whom Iacobs Fathers walked by whom Iacob himself was fed and redeemed from whom Iacobs children could be blessed 3. This interpretation is Logically false in respect of the deduction because if an Angel be here meant as he is named it will follow that an Angel hath the Kingdome and Power may have the Glory and worship of God And now pray Sir consider how distant are your proceedings from that love of truth that candor of Ingenuity that care of conscience which should be among Christian Divines both in rejecting those interpretations of the holy Scriptures against praying to Saints whether Angels or Men which are undoubtedly true not only Grammatically but also Theologically and Logically and in embracing those interpretations for praying to Saints which are undoubtily false if not Grammatically yet at least both Thelogically and Logically in all these respects And such will be found all the interpretations of the Text alledged by your late Divines in this argument if they be diligently examined either according to the analogy of Religion or according to the analogy of Reason But I return to this which cannot be made true in the judgement of the most eminent Divines both of Greek and Latine Church I will name you two St. Chrysostome for the Greek and St. Thomas of Aquine for the Latine Church 1. St. Chryst. for the Greek Church who upon these words The Angel which redeemed me from all evils bless the lads gives us this gloss 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 66. in Genesin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O thankful resolution O Soul loving of God how doth the remembrance of his benefit dwell and lodge in his heart That God saith he whom my Fathers pleased who sed me from my youth until now who from the beginning delivered me from all evil He who hath shewed such signal providence towards me He bless these Children See here in St. Chrysostomes gloss Jacob prayed to God not to the Angel to bless his grand Children And He was the mouth of the Greek Church 2. St. Thomas of Aquine saith the same but much more perspicuously as to the Confutation of Bellarmines errour though not as to the confirmation of Gods truth For whereas Bellarmine saith Jacob invocated an Angel The Angelical Dr. saith he did not but that he called the God of his Fathers His Angel for these are his words upon the place Videtur quod Deum Patrum suorum suum vocat Angelum sui protectorem salvatorem unde postea in singulari dicit Benedicat pueris istis It seems that he calleth the God of his Fathers his Angel and his Protector and saviour whence it is that afterward he saith in the singular number though he had named two sc. God and the Angel He bless the lads nisi forte Angelicam benedictionem divinae benedictioni tanquam comministram sive subministraÌ„ adjungat sed modus loquendi quem tenet si benè advertatur magis sapit primum modum Unless you will say that He annexeth the Angelical benediction as ministerial to the Divine But the manner of his speech if it be well observed rather calleth for the first interpretation This was Aquinas his judgement after his most serious deliberation upon the words and we may well look upon it as the judgement of the Latine Church the rather because He was the chief Captain of the Schoolemen and though he laboured to prove the same conclusion with Bellarmine yet not by the same praemisses but he leaves out this as not thinking it a fit proof and is contented only with that of Job 5. 1. Voca si est qui tibi respondeat ad aliquem sanctorum convertere which is another of your Cardinals allegations out of the Text to prove the Invocation of Saints 9. And He is so over zealous for this proof lib. 2. de Verbo Dei cap. 12. That when Chemnitius had said the Text was corruptly interpreted in the Vulgar translation His answer is Fortè fuisse ebrium quum hoc scripsit Chemnitium Perchance Chemnitius was drunk when he writ this Bad words are seldom signs of a good cause but often more then signs they are proofs of a bad temper And we know that there is a sort of men which are drunken but not with wine that stagger but not with strong drink Isa. 29. 9. Those upon whom the Lord hath poured out the spirit of deep sleep and hath closed their eyes v. 10. and that this judgement is chiefly denounced against them who teach the fear of God by the precept of men v. 13. or who teach for Doctrines the Commandements of men as our blessed Saviour hath explained those words Mat. 15. 9. for concerning those it is said The wisedome of their wise men shall perish and the understanding of
St. Peter For to Him they do really offer it who do say Sancte Petre miserere mei aperi mihi aditum caeli O St. Peter have mercy upon me open to me the Gate of Heaven and not in words to Him but in sense to God Nay Bellarmine himself would have them offer this spiritual Sacrifice of Prayer to St. Peter not only in words but also in sense or else why doth he say Potest erigi basilica Sancto Petro ut qui ingrediuntur ipso templi nomine recordentur Sancti Petri eumque in eo loco tanquam Patronum Colant deprecentur lib. 3. de Sanct. câ—…lt cap. 4. 9. Respondeo It is lawful to build a Church to St. Peter That they who enter therein from the very name of the Church was remember St. Peter and in that very place worship him as their Patron and deprecate his displeasure So it seems God hath said My House shall be called the House of Prayer in regard of St. Peter not in regard of himself that we should pray to the Saints not to him Baronius is as stiffe as Bellarmine for the worship and Invocation of St. Peter For he saith concerning the payment of the Peter-pence heretofore by Ina King of this Nation Quem sc. Petrum scientes omnes Dominum esse suum propensiore studio colerent in opportunitatibus invocarent Bar. An. 740. nu 14. Whom they all knowing to be their Lord should worship with the greater earnestness and invocate him in their necessities Who can but stand amazed at the conscience of such Divines that dare obtend to the People such Divinity teaching them plain Idolatry instead of Religion and consequently gross Infidelity instead of Faith For he that is an Idolater must also be an Infidel he that is faulty in the proper act of worship must also be faulty in the proper act of faith for worship proceeds from Faith according to that of St. Paul Rom. 10. 14. How shall they call on him in whom they have not believed And as the formal nature of Idolatry consisteth in disowing the true God either for God or for our God or for our only God so the formal nature of infidelity consisteth in disowning Christ either for Lord or for our Lord or for our only Lord and Saviour can any Saint be religiously worshipped or invocated without a suspition if not a spice of this Idolatry in disowning God for God for our God for our only God or be acknowledged as our Lord and Patron without a suspition if not a spice of this infidelity in disowning Christ as Lord as our Lord as our only Lord And in this case in which God hath declared himself to be a jealous God the very least suspition is to be carefully avoided because that alone may be a ground of jealousie Yet this hath been the Jesuites Doctrine and practice ever since I will alledge but one Sanchez for the proof of both He in his opus morale de Praecep decalogi lib. 2. c. 43. saith plainly that the first Commandement is concerning the worship of God and the Saints In hoc primo praecepto quod de Dei Sanctorum cultu est making the first Commandement require the worship of Saints no less then the worship of God as if Thou shall have no other Gods but me were all one with its contradictory Thou shall have other Gods but me This was his Doctrine And agreeable to this Doctrine was his practice for when by reason of his stammering he could not be admitted into the Jesuites Colledge at Granada He fell a praying to the blessed Virgin to take away from him that impediment professing that he would never return home again unless she granted him his request Neque irritae sûere preces Annuit adolescentuli votis misericordiae mater suumque alumnum balbutie liberavit saith his own Colledge in their praeface to his works Nor were his prayers in vain For the Mother of mercy hearkend to the desire of the young man and freed this her pupill or petitioner from his stammering These men have now left others nothing to do but to correct the Prayers of the Holy Ghost and of the Catholick Church and to perswade the World not to say hereafter Domine but Domina labia mea aperies os meum annunciabit laudem tuam Not O Lord but O Lady open thou my lips and my mouth shall shew forth thy Praise Nay this is not all But they farther tell us out of Binius That Damascens Hand which had writ for the worship of Images being cut off by a Saracene Prince was again restored through his Prayers to the Image of the blessed Virgin Sic dextra Damasceni quae pro religio so Imaginum cultu scripserat à Saraceno Principe praecisa quam Divinitus restituit clementissima Dei mater ad cujus ille Imaginem velut ad sacram anchoram piis fletibus supplice fide confugerat And shall we yet doubt whether they do make their Prayers to Saints as to the Authors of those blessings which they pray for when they plainly tell us that the blessed Virgin alone did as much for Sanchez as God the Father had done for Moses by curing his stammering Tongue and more for Damascence then God the Son had done for Malchus by curing not his maimed ear but his maimed hand And that she did both by her own power because they both had made their Prayers unto Her what remains then but that she be Invocated immediatly as God according to these mens Divinity for having Gods Power why should she not also have Gods glory Thus is Biels Spiritual Dalliance for I am willing to call it no more turned by you into a meer Carnal Dotage for he saith The Father of Heaven hath given half his Kingdome to the blessed Virgin which was prefigured before in Esther to whom King Ahasuerus promised the like for whereas there are two principal goods of the Kingdome of Heaven to wit Justice and Mercy God hath reserved the Justice to himself but the Mercy He hath passed by Grant or by Deed of Gift to the blessed Virgin Sibi reservavit Justitiam Virgini Mariae concessit misericordiam Bielin Can. Missae lect 8. What he fondly teacheth that you more fondly believe and most impiously practise putting more confidence in and making more addresses to the blessed Virgin for mercy then to the Eternal Son of God Hence our Lady with you is above our Lord in the number of her Devotes in the statiliness of her Churches in the multitude of her endowments nay in the very power of exorcisme Her day is above His Her Salutation above his Prayer you teach that nothing passeth in Heaven without her express consent That the stile of that Court is Placet Dominae It pleaseth our Lady That matters of Justice come more properly from Christ but expeditions of Grace from Her So that 't is no marvail saith an unquestionable Author if this Doctrinâ—… and
as by not running it And you most needs run out of the race if you cannot see the mark or scope to which you run This mark or scope in it self is more visible then the Sun in the Firmament for it is the Sun of righteousness why should you allow the interposition of any Body betwixt Him and you to remove him out of your sight who cannot be removed out of his own Sphaere your sins as a cloud will obscure him more then enough Oh let not even your Righteousness obscure him more If you will needs put in a solid body betwixt him and you when you pray how can the eye of your Faith look upon him in your Prayer You will here by Eclipse his light from your selves and bring darkeness upon your Souls For will you look with the Eye of your Faith upon Angels then say they were delivered for your offences and rose again for your justification and now sit at the right hand of God making intercession for you will you look with the eye of your Faith upon your blessed Saviour then let not the Angels in betwixt Him and you for they will but hinder your sight and keep you from seeing Him Or if you could with the eye of Faith look on Christ through the Angels yet were it a piece of Infidelity so to do because it is but intruding into those things which you have not seen sc. in the Law and the Gospel and so being matter of Religion cannot be Divine either in the evidence or in the assurance of Faith Your own Angelical Doctor speaks of this kind of Infidelity Infidelis non ut habens malam voluntatem circa finem sc. Christum sed ut habens malam electionem circa media quia non eligit quae sunt à Christo tradita And from thence say I such a Worshipper is an Infidel if not as having a bad will or affection towards the end of his worship which is Christ yet sure as having a bad choice or election of the means tending to that end because he choseth such means to worship Christ as Christ hath not appointed him Nay indeed St. Chrysostome in effect said so long agoe in his Comment upon this Text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There were some that saidâ—… we ought not to come to God immediately by Christ but mediately by the Angels for the other address was too high for us Here 's the choice of such means in Gods worship as God hath not appointed for Saint Peter saith expresly that we are to offer up spiritual Sacrifice acceptable to God by Jesus Christ 1 Pet. 2. 5. If the Sacrifice of Prayer may be Spiritual yet it cannot be acceptable but by Christ And it follows 〈◊〉 little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 why do you let go the Head to lay hold on the members that is let go Christ to lay hold on the Angels If you fall from the Head you are utterly lost Here 's the reproof of such a choice as befitting Infidels who know not Christ to be the Head nor the dangers and miseries of those men who fall from this Head rather then Christians who do know him to be the Head as well of Angels as of men and that both would alike perish were it not for the influence of life and motion derived to them by being immediatly joyned unto him The like is the Judgement of Photius as indeed he generally follows St. Chrysostome But Theodoret not only condemns the Heresy but also declares the Hereticks after this manner Those who stood for the Law stood for the worshipping of Angels saying The Law was given by them And this mistake remained a long time in Phrygia and Pisidia which made the Fathers in the Council of Laodicea the chief City of Phrygia forbid the worshipping of Angels And saith he to this day we may see amonst them and their Neighbours the Oratories of St. Michael And this they pretended to do out of Humility For that the great God of Heaven and Earth was invisible incomprehensible inaccessible by men and therefore they ought to go to Him by the mediation of Angels Thus far Theodoret and this held for unquestionable Truth above a thousand years amongst all Greek and Latine Divines till your great Annalist thought fiâ—… to question it and therefore I crave youâ—… pardon if I make bold to question him For I had much rather say with Theodoret. That they were hereticks then with Baronius That they were Catholicks who worshipped Angels since next the holiness of the Holy Ghost I believe the holiness of the Holy Catholick Church and sure I am such a grievous sin as this is inconsistent with true Holiness For it is 〈◊〉 rule of common reason approved both iâ—… the Ecclesiastical and in the Civil Law Paria esse aliquid omnino non facere non rectè facere They are both equal sinâ—… not to do a thing at all and not to do it righâ—…ly not to worship God at all and not to worship him rightly or as he hath commanded and consequently 't is in effeâ—… as great a Calumny to say the Catholicâ—… Church hath had no Religion as to say she hath had a false Religion Since therefore the worshipping of Angels is convinceâ—… to be false Religion we may safely infeâ—… it hath not been it cannot be the Religion of the Catholick Church And Sâ—… Paul here proves it to be false Religion Per omnia genera causarum in regard of all four causes that is to say 1. False originally or efficiently because it came not from God but from men presumptuously intruding into things not seen and vainly puffed up in their fleshly mind 2. False formally because it is not with God it holds not the Head and therefore withdraws us from God instead of uniting us to him whereas the very formal cause of devotion is the Union of the Soul with God 3. False materially for it is a Voluntary humility and worshipping of Angels instead of God 4. False finally because it ends not in God tends not to salvation but to damnation or to the beguiling us of our reward whereas what is formally Religion in the Union with God is of it self finally salvation in the fruition of God Yet saith Baronius Theodoretum haud foeliciter assequutum esse Pauli verborum sensum quùm in Commentariis dicit haec à Paulo esse scripta qùod tùm grassarentur Haeretici qui Angelos adorandos esse jactarent Theodoret was mistaken in St. Pauls meaning when he said that St. Paul writ this against those Hereticks who then worshipped Angels He might as well have said that St. Chrysostome and Photius were also mistaken for they agree with Theodoret in the same sense of St. Pauls words And he might moreover to these have added St. Aâ—…brose to shew that the mistake was no only in the Greek but also in the Latiâ—… Church For though his Gloss name star instead of Angels yet the reason of 〈◊〉 condemns
the worshipping of Angels Ut harum detentae culturis animae sub fiâ—… mamento obligatae teneantur ne sc tendant ad suporiores caelos ad Deum omnâ—…um adorandum That such kind of worship place it upon what creature yoâ—… will detains the Soul here below and keep it from ascending into the highest Heaven that it may there worship the ever liviâ—… God Quod operâ efficitur inimici 〈◊〉 semper animas super terram humiliaâ—… detineat Religionem simulans quùâ—… fit maximum sacrilegium which is tâ—… Divels chiefest Policy to keep mens Soâ—… still groveling on the Earth and therefoâ—… such a kind of worship though it may preteâ—… to Religion yet is it in truth no better thâ—… sacrilege Maximum sacrilegium it is sacriledge in the highest degree because 〈◊〉 robs God immediately in himself not mediately in his tithes and offerings it robs him in his Glory and not only in his Patrimony And that you may not think the Latine Church had forgotten this Truth in her doctrine when many of her members had forsaken it in their practice I will here give you the Gloss of a very late Interpreter and that is of Jacobus Faber Stapulensis who saith thus upon the same Text Vocant hujus modi superstitiosi ad Religionem Angelorum privatas preces ritus sacrificia ea adoriuntur quae ipsi non viderunt quae ipsi non cognoscunt At quae monet Paulus vidit cognoscit Haec figurae haec Prophetae haec omnes Sancti Spiritus Sanctus manifestat proinde dat Colossensibus generale documentum abstinendi ab omnibus elementis mundi sive Gentibus tradita fuerint ad cultum daemonum sive Judaeis ad antiquas ceremonias sive superstitiosis ad dementationes magicas animarum ludificamenta quae universa corruptionem operantur His general meaning is this They who call us to superstition or to any false worship of Angels or the like call us to they know not what themselves But St. Paul who calls us to the true Religion or to the worship of God in Christ calls us to what he hath seen and known For all the Types and Figures Prophets in the Old Testament and all the Saints and the Holy Spirit both in the Old New lead us to this worship Therefore St. Paul gives a general rule to the Colossians and in them to all Christians of abstaining from all the rudiments of the World in matters of Religion 〈◊〉 from so many cheats and delusions and corruptions of their Souls and since the worship of Angels is not according to the Commandement of God it must come under the rudiments of the World oâ—… as St. Paul speaketh of a fleshly mind This interpreter doth in effect agree with the rest they all agree in this interpretation That St. Pauls main drift and purpose is to dehort us from all manner oâ—… superstition and to exhort us to 〈◊〉 Religion in the worship of God Yeâ—… your great Champion enters the lists onlâ—… against Theodoret challenging him of 〈◊〉 multiplicity of errors and mistakes anâ—… that justly saith his great admirer and 〈◊〉 he were a Saint his great Idolater Biniâ—… in his notes in Conc. Rom. 2. sub Sylâ—… Justam illust Card Baronis censuram noâ—… evadit but thus Baronius proceeds Sâ—… ergo errore semel lapsus in alium graviorem impegit ut diceret Canonem 35 Concil Laod. de his haereticis esse intelligendum qui Angelos colendos esse docerent quique in eadem regione Asiae Oratoria erexissent St. Michaeli Archangelo incautè nimis quae à Catholicis essent antiquitus instituta Haereticis quorum nulla est memoria tribuens Baron An. 60. num 20. But so he passeth from one errour to another saying That the Canon of Laodicea was to be understood of those Hereticks who taught that Angels were to be worshipped and who had in that Countrey erected Oratories or Churches to St. Michael the Archangel very unadvisedly ascribing that to Hereticks whose memorial was perished with themselves which had been anciently instituted by Catholicks Alas poor Theodoret what ill luck had he to be a Protestant to protest against the worship of Angels as taught and practised by Haereticks which saith this new Doctor was anciently taught and practised by Catholicks But St. Paul had as ill luck as he who had protested against the same worship long before And as long as that Protestation stands good we may very well claim him and own our selves in this case for very good Protestants and for better Christians And because it is impossible for any to be good Catholicks who willfully contradict St. Paul for such men are rather enemies then Servanâ—…s of Christ who reject his Authority we must say not that Theodoret unadvisedly ascribed that to Hereticks which had been anciently instituted by Catholicks for what Catholick did ever take upon him to institute the Truth and much less the false Religion but that Baronius unadvisedly ascribed that to Catholicks which had been fondly instituted by Haereticks But let us see by what arguments he confutes Theodoret. Sanè quidem nullum à Cerinthianis Haereticis erectum fuisse in honorem St. Michaelis Archangeli Oratorium ex nuper dictis satis superque liquet We have already proved that the Cerinthian Haereticks did erect no Oratory to St. Michael the Archangel Had he quoted any Scripture Fathers or Council Theodorete might have stood confuted but sure his own Ipse dixit may not stand against Scripture Father and Council as a good Confutation For all his proof to which he annexeth his satis superque liquet is only his own conjectural argumentation in these words Cherinthum Haereticos qui mundi creationem Angelis tribuebant non tamen sensisse eos adorandos Nam super Angelos virtutem esse divinam omnium supremam quam Deum dicerent omnes affirmabant Chernthius and those Haereticks who did attribute the creation of the world to Augels did not think the Angels were to be worshipped for they did all affirm that there was a supreme Divine Virtue which they called God above the Angels The whole proof consisteth of these two Propositions 1º That the Cherinthian Hereticks did not erect Oratories to Saint Michael the Archangel because they did not worship him 2º That they did not worship him or any of his fellow Angels because they did acknowledge a God above him and them This Advocate pleads well for the Cherinthians most abominable Haereticks but ill for his own clients For he would perswade us that the Papists are more stupid and more impious then were the Cherinthians more impious in that they worship Angels which the others did not more stupid in that not thinking the Angels made the World as the others did they have less reason to worship them But if he â—…ath not betrayed his Clients yet sure he â—…ath betrayed his cause For what do Protestants say more but that Oratories may not