they acknowledge the Mass conteins magnam populi eruditionem great edification and instruction for the people yet decree it not expedient to have it or the Liturgy in the popular or vulgar tongue cap. 8. But if the Court of Rome had seen it equally to their advantage they could have held the people to that which they ought viz. the Communion as well as keep all their Priests from that which they ought not viz. Marriage They acknowledge that Justification precedes good Works Sos 6. c. 8. yet deliver this doctrine Justified by Works grosly to the People They know how it is to their advantage And in the 16. chap. of that Session They acknowledge the grace of God for performance of the work and his gracious promise of the reward yet decree that good Works do truly Merit Add to this their mincing of points of doctrine when they are put to it As when the enquiry is driven home what worship is due to Saints and Angels What Invocation to be used VVhat worship or adoration to be given to Images We see how they lessen it and seem to be contented with very little as we observe in Mr. Spencers concessions upon those points yet do they keep up the practise in the height and full extent suffering if not encouraging the people to perform it grosly and superstitiously as they must needs do being uncapable of such nice distinctions as are used to excuse that worship So when they are put to it in the points of Satisfactions Purgatory Indulgences to shew what is satisfied for what is remitted and consequently what is granted in the Indulgence and to what sort of Persons they are forced to bring it to such an uncertainty and to so small a scantling that the people if they knew it would consider well what they laid out that way before they parted with it but these points are so in gross propounded to the people that they have cause to think as generally they do they are by these satisfactions and indulgences freed from any sin and do escape thereby Hell fire it self This which has been said speaks concessions and yieldings on their part and shewes a possibility of agreement and that some fair way might be found for some tolerable accord did not filthy lucre gotten by those points and the exorbitant greatness of Papal power obstruct it the Court of Rome as we see in all the offers made for reformation being alwaies more sollicitous of upholding it self then of reforming the Church of advancing its own greatness then of promoting the peace of Christendom To conclude The peace of Christians the agreement of the Roman and other Churches is possible if 〈◊〉 e possible for the Pope to do his duty or Christian Princes theirs that is if he would do the duty of a Bishop of Rome or prime Patriarch the duty he is bound to sworn to in taking oath to observe the Canons of the Ancient General Councils which prescribe the bounds of the Roman and other Patriarchal Jurisdictions But if he make light of this and all other bonds of duty why should it not be possible for Christian Princes to do their duty in reducing him within those known and confessed bounds fixed by the Ancient Church In the mean time let them cease to reproach us with Schism till he return to his station where he may receive the obedience due to him by those Ancient Canons let them rather consider whom they follow in all his transgressions and extravagances thereby engaging themselves in his Schism against the whole Catholick Church And let them not please themselves with the specious Name of Catholicks for holding such points of Difference from other Christians as will upon trial appear to be far from the Truth and soundness of Catholick Doctrine And to make this appear by the undeniable Rules of Christian verity Scripture and Catholick Tradition as they are solidly set down by Vincentius is the scope and purpose of this ensuing Treatise If any of their Masters shall think fit to make any Reply let him do it not as one carping at small things and catching at seeming advantages but as one really intending the Manifestations of Truth and the Expedients of Peace the restoring of which throughout the Catholick Church is the Prayer of H. Ferne. The Points of Doctrine here Examined I. OF the worship of Saints and Angels II. Of the Invocation of Saints and Angels III. Of the worship of Images IV. Of Justification by Works V. Of the Merit of Good Works VI. Of Purgatory VII Of Real Presence VIII Of Communion under one kinde An Answer to Mr. Spencers Book INTITULED SCRIPTURE MISTAKEN By the Protestants CHAP. I. The first Point Of the Worship of Saints and Angels THis Author first tells us Introduction what the Council of Trent delivers touching the Worship and invocation of Saints and Angels not as Gods or Saviours but as Creatures dependent on God and Christ and that it is not commanded as necessary but commended as profitable and this to disabuse vulgar Protestants who think the Roman Church teaches it is as necessary to salvation to invoke and worship the Saints as to invoke and worship Christ himself Pag. 3.4 The Council indeed touches this point warily and in general which circumspection and cunning we finde used in most of the decrees they best know wherefore But Vulgar Protestants are not abused when they are told that according to the practice of that Church if we look into the applications made to Saints and their shrines both for the forms and the frequency there appears not much of that dependency on Christ but very much of an opinion connived at if not rather cherished among the Vulgar Papists that it is as necessary and profitable if not more to invoke and worship them then Christ himself But if they will commend this as profitable why did not the Council for the disabusing their own people condemn those unprofitable poisonous forms of invocation yet extant in their books and used in their Churches why has it not yet anathematiz'd that blasphemous Lady Psalter and that horrid doctrine broached by Aquinas and still maintained by most of this Authors soâ—iety that the Image is to be worshipped * Greg. de Val. in Thâ—disput vi Qu. xi puncâ—o 6. Azor. Instit Mor. To. 1. li. 9. c. 6. qu. 5. with the same worship with which he is whose Image it is So that if it be the Image of Christ it is to be worshiped with divine worship The †Bel. de Imaginib l. 2. c. 22 Cardinal acknowledges they which speak so are forced to use distinctions which they themselves scarce understand much less the people So that Mr. Spencer had need look home to disabuse his own people The first place of Scripture Matth. 4.10 Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve Numb I Here he needlesly spends time in shewing that worship and service may be given
of authority as well as excellency of grace and holiness and still there is such Authority in the Bishops and Pastors of the Church and that Authority not Civil properly but Ecclesiastical and upon that Authority a subjection due to them Heb. 13.17 in things pertaining to Religion and Conscience and the honour or worship thereupon due to them as it may in his large sense be called Religious which we every where grant without prejudice to our or advantage to his Cause so may it better be call'd the Civil Ecclesiastical worship because as in the world so in the Church there is a policy or government for the Church below as a City and society within it self and does also with that above make up the whole City of God Therefore are we call'd by the Apostle Concives fellow Citizens Eph. 2. But 2ly Albeit Saints and Angels belong to the higher part of this City the triumphant and as to the state they enjoy are of higher dignity and glory then any in the militant or part below yet being not capable of that conduct of souls as the Governours and Pastors in the lower city are they cannot challenge that subjection from us nor the worship that arises upon it Nor can they by reason of their distance receive from us those tenders of worship and honour which are applied to holy men living * Eo cultu dilectionis societatis qu in hâ—c vita Sancti homines contra Faust l. 20. l. 21. S. Aug. determins it thus We honor the Martyrs with that worship of love and fellowship wherewith Holy men in this life are worshiped Of fellowship with reference to the Apostles fellow-citizens and of holy men living with reference to supernatural gifts and graces and the honour thence arising such as we give to men upon the account of holiness and such graces though they have no authority over us and let the Saints departed have all such honour inward or outward that they are capable of Lastly If this Author will drive those places of Scripture he cited for authority of Saints and Angels so far as to prove the worship due which they give unto them as his Mr. the Cardinal endeavoured by the like places to defend the invoking of them He may take answer from S. Aug. determining what manner of worship is due unto them as above the worship of love and fellowship and * Charitatis non servitutis Aug. de vera Relig. c. 55. elswhere the worship of charity not subjection or service or from S. Paul Eph. 2. saying we are fellow-Citizens or from the Angel Rev. I am thy fellow-servant And if they will still make use of such places as this Author alleaged it will be easie to shew how inconsequent the argument is from such places of Scripture how insufficient to prove such a worship as is allowed by the Church of Rome To conclude This Author will not say we are mistaken Recapitul of the premises when we affirm that all worship properly religious and according to his first and stricter sense is due to God and not to be exhibited to any Creature Nor can he say we are mistaken in proving that truth by this Scripture Thou shalt worship the Lord c. unless he will deny this Scripture speaks of worship properly religious It remains then that our mistake if any must be in concluding by this Scripture their creature-worship to be unlawful That we are not herein mistaken appears by what has been said already First by that which is said above to shew the worship they exhibit by Oblations Incense Invocation Vows adoration of Images belongs and must be reduced to that sort of worship which is proper to Religion in the first and stricter sense Not only the effect of Religion but part of it I mean as performed and misapplyed by them and I would it were not the greater part of their Religion Secondly by the insufficiency of what this Author has said to the contrary in putting off the imputation from themselves and fastning the mistake on us As first his pretence from the immediate signification or bare importance of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the text which speaks a bowing or prostration of the body and is common to the religious and the civil worship to the worship of God and the Creature and accordingly all the instances and examples he brought speak no more then that outward reverence and worship shewen in bowing the body Whereas this comes not home to our charge laid upon their worship and cautioned against by this Scripture viz. their worship exhibited to creatures by the above said acts and exercises of religion and devotion Secondly his pretence of religious in his larger sense as sufficient which is as short of the purpose as the former for so all the duties of the second Table as we saw above may be called religious i. e. pertaining to and commanded by Religion but here we speak of the acts of worship proper to religion or exhibited in the way and exercises of Religion and Devotion which in their worship are such as are proper to the worship of God the same by which our religion and devotion to God is exercised as Vows Invocation c. or such as are proper to the Heathen worship in the exercise of their religion and devotion to their greater or lesser deities as adoration of their Images whom they pretend to worship All this will farther appear by the next part of this Scripture and him only shalt thou serve Him only shalt thou serve Mat. 4.10 Here he would fasten a mistake upon us Of Latria or service properly due to God by a misunderstanding of the word Serve pa. 28. why so because having examined all the places of Scripture where this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is here translated serve he findes it signifies that religious worship which is exhibited to God never used for a religious service done to a Creature as to a Creature pa. 31. Again that word is never used but for the serving either of the true or of a false God when it is referred to worship belonging to religion And he provokes any Protestant to prove the contrary pa. 32. But how did he conceive we understood the word when we affirm the same thing which to find out he bestowed as he saith some days study by examining all the places of scripture where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used we say it is very true that in all the scripture neither that word nor any other is ever used to express religious service done to a creature as to a creature that is as due to it Again we affirm that this word when it is referred to worship belonging to Religion is never used but for serving either the true or a false God and therefore it is easily seen whether the Romanists be mistaken in their Inference therefore there is another religious service which may be
given to some Creature which is altogether inconsequent unless they can shew some other word in Scripture that imports such a Religious service or whether the Protestants be mistaken in their inference therefore there is no religious service or as he expresses it no worship belonging to Religion save what is due to God So that whereas he provokes any Protestant to shew that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imports any religious service save Divine the Protestant provokes him to shew any word in Scripture that signifies a religious worship or service save that which is divine or due to God and therefore duly infers from scripture that a religious worship or service is due only to God No Roman Catholick teaches saith he that divine service due to God only is to be given to any Creature pa. 33. But seeing the scripture teaches no other religious worship but what is given to God you teaching there is another teach besides the book broach your own invention and consequently give to the Creature something of that which is due to God Whatever you reserve for God this is plain your devoting your selves to such or such Saints doth very much express the notion of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a slave or mancipated servant and the frequency of your performing outward acts of religion and devotion to them in Pilgrimages Vows Oblations c. speaks a plain serving of them and takes up I fear the greater part of your religious service Nor can this Author excuse his Roman Catholicks Insufficient excuse of their worship by saying this word alwayes implyes the serving of the true or a false god but their serving of Saint or Angel is not such a service as is given to God or a false god for they do not think them to be Gods or serve them as Gods and this I suppose was the Authors meaning and designe in adding a false god that he might ly safe as he thought under that covert But this will not serve his turn for if by a false god he means that they which worship must think it to be God or apply the worship and service to it as to a God then it is not true that this word always signifies the serving of a true or false God but this is true that the word when it is as he said referred to worship belonging to religion alwayes signifies a service due to God whether given to him or misapplied to any other thing although that thing be not held a God by him that worships or the worship not given to it as to a God For this obliquity of worship or religious service it is not necessary that the thing worshiped be * Greg. de Val. in Tho. Disp vi qu. punct 3. de Idolatria thought to be a God is acknowledged by their own Authors It is plain in scripture the worship given the Golden Calfe Exod. 32. was Latria misapplied yet that not thought a God nor given to it as to a God but only as to a visible representation to be used in the worship of the true God that brought them out of Egypt Of which more below in the question of Image-worship So the worship given to the brazen Serpent was a misapplied Latria yet given to it not as to a God but as to a holy thing that had been instrument of such saving operations So the Apostle Rom. 1.25 speaks of them that served the Creature the word is Latria there more then or besides the Creator but together with him yet not serving the Creature as God but reserving something more for God as S. Ambr. in locum Quasi aliquid plus sit quod Deo reservetur Ambrose notes their vain excuse And therefore the limitation which the Trent Council gives here that they invocate and worship the Saints not as Gods which this Author made use of pa. 3. and for that as it seems added here a false God is a poor and emptie excuse for the Heathen were not so gross in their worship or the defence of it but that they could plead this and other excuses which the Romanists make for their creature-worship as we shall see * In Survey of antiquity cap. 1. below But he goes on in his bold assertions From this ground saith he proceeds the ordinary distinction of religious worship into Latria and Dulia A distinction this that as the Romanists use it has neither ground in Scripture nor yet in St. August who first used it but to another purpose as we shall see First for Scripture Impertinent distinction of Latria and Dulia in the Romish use as he said of Latria that when it is referred to worship belonging to religion it signifies the serving of God or some false God which he makes the ground of this distinction so we say of Dulia when this word is referred to worship belonging to religion or to religious worship it always imports the service of God that is due to God and given to him or misapplied to other things and so this distinction has not ground in Scripture the places are infinite wherein this word as well as Latria is used in expressing the service and worship of God and of other false Gods take one just parallel to this text of Mat. 4. and that is 1 Sam. 7.3 serve him only where it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So is this distinction against St. Augustinu's mind as appears by the * Contra Faust l. 20. 21. de Civi Dei l. 10. c. 1. Qu. in Genesin l. 1. de Trinit c. 6. several places where he uses it For he finding the word serve applied in Scripture to God and man thought the first service might be called Latria and the other Dulia not making it a distinction of religious worship or service into several sorts but a severing of the divine from the civil by these words putting nothing of religious service in the Dulia but placing it in the Latria as wholly due to God and this he confirms often as in opposition to their design in their Dulia so to their whole endeavour of having religious service or worship given to the creature as we shall see by several places of that Father cited below in the tryal of Antiquity Lastly as we see this distinction has no ground in Scripture as to the use of the words Latria and Dulia both being used there indifferently to express the religious service given to God so likewise as to the thing it self intended by the Romanists viz. a sort of religious worship due to the creature besides that which is given to God it is so far from having ground in Scripture that it is against the strain and severity of Scripture which is very strict in securing Gods worship and it serves finely to evacuate the force of the Apostles argument Heb. 1.6 who proving the Deity of our Saviour by that of Psal 97.7 Let all the
which they would confound 2. Note that he fixes the whole notion of his Idol in the false representation as we saw above whereas the notion and reason of an Idol if we will speak of it as Scripture intends and forbids it stands chiefly in the worship unduly given to it for that makes the representation forbidden else if we set aside the consideration of undue worship all Chimaera's and monstrous phansies of mans brain expressed by the painter would be Idols forbidden in the Commandment 3. Whereas according to that restrained notion of an Idol as he usually expresses it to be a representation made to represent any thing as God which is not so he would vindicate the Images of the blessed Saints from being made Idols because they represent them as they are pa. 83. This is a lame defence For first any representation made to worship the true God by may be nay is an Idol such were Labans Images Gen. 31. and Micha's Teraphin Jud. 17. and such was the golden calfe Exod. 32. and it is apparent that the likeness or representation forbidden Isa 40.18 19. refers to the true God and so by Deut. 4.15 that to make them an image or representation of the true God was a corrupting of themselves so by Exod. 20.22.23 Ye shall not make with me Gods of silver the worshipping of the graven image * Bell. de Imaginib c. 24. Idololatria est non solum cum adoratur idolum relicto Deo sed etiam cum adoratur simul cum Deo ut Exod. 20.22 23. True difference of Image and Idol with God is forbidden Secondly the images of the Saints although representing them as they are yet become idols by undue worship given them this Author is forced to acknowledge pa. 81. and that the same material representation may in divers respects be an image and an idol the image being made an idol by attributing to it any thing proper to God pa. 82 83. so then the distinction of idol and image comes to this first it is an image or representation whether painted or graven then made an idol in the use of it Qui colit ille facit he that worships makes the idol so little does their distinction of idol and image serve the turn As for the word Temounah in Exod. 20. albeit in Scripture-use it signifies any kind of likeness The likeness of any sorbidden in the Commandment natural artificial or spiritual yet here he will have it of no larger extent then the other word Pesel as he restrained it to signifie an idol or representation of any thing as God pa. 84. and concludes pa. 86. line 3. No other representation picture or likeness of any creature is here forbidden but such as are intended to represent them by way of idolatry as Gods and Deities which they neither are nor can be so he But this is not demonstrated as he boasts from the places of Scripture which he brought for these words For though it be true that idols and the gross idols of the Heathen are forbidden Exod. 20. and that in those places he brings the words do import such idols yet can it not be concluded from those instances either that such idols only i.e. the representations of false Gods or of any taken for a God which is not as he usually and cunningly renders the notion of an idol are here forbidden or that the col Temounah any likeness of things in heaven or earth should be restrained to such idolatry for who shall restrain a Cōmandment of God so generally expressed without warrant from the same God to tell us some likeness or images of things in Heaven or earth may be worshipped so they be not counted for Gods or worshipped as Gods Tertul. Tertul de Idol l. 5. Situ eundem Deum observas c. gives a good caution to this purpose If thou observest the same God thou hast his law that thou adore nothing besides God and if thou lookest at the precept that came after touching the Ark imitate thou the prophet and do not adore any images unless God command thee Not that he commanded any where to adore images but did command to make them viz. the Cherubin This slender evasion that only such idols as he has described are here forbidden The worship forbidden will the better be seen through when we have looked upon the words following not bow down nor worship for whether the representation be pesel a graven image or Temounah the likeness of anything it is no idol till the using of it by bowing down and worshipping of it or the like do come Here therefore he makes the like restraint of worship forbidden by the Commandment it must be saith he proportionate to the thing those idols represented a God and so a Divine worship pa. 86. and then he heaps up places of Scripture noting the grossest of Heathen idolatry esteeming the material picture as a God to hear prayers to be able to help and therefore they bowed down to it prayed to it and put hope in it that it may appear how far the Church of Rome in her fubtil and refined worships of creatures is from the idolatry of the Heathen here forbidden But I fear the gross fort of Papists fall down to their stocks and images much like as those gross idolaters did to theirs some honest Romish writers have complaints to that purpose and as for the understanding and learned Heathens they were almost as subtilin their conceits and distinctions of their worship as the more knowing Papists are as will appear below in the Trial of Antiquity But a great complaint he makes of our translation rendering in the Commandment nor worship them Of our translating worship for serve which should be nor serve them by which word he will have a Divine worship only forbidden for the word serve shews an homage done to those Idols as to things capable of such offices and endued with knowledge power and divinity so he pa. 88.89 We answer Though service be more and may perform more then worship to persons endowed with understanding and power to give commands yet in regard of inanimate statues Images and likenesses serving them stands only in acts of worship and therefore the one may in that case be indifferently put for the other and both of them are put as indifferent expressions of the same thing Deut. 4.19 to worship them and serve them so Jos 23.16 serve and bow down as equal expressions Only serving may imply a frequenting of those acts of worship in an order and way of Religion towards those objects of worship and so the Romish worshiping of Images and Saints may be call'd a serving of them And unless he will exempt those Heathens before spoken of from the serving of graven Images which they worshiped it may appear that the importance of that word serve them does not infer such a divine worship or homage given to such as they esteem endued with
as used in the Romish Church may by undue worship become prohibited But see his argument If all kind of worship of Images were forbidden by the Commandment Exod. 20. image- Worship towards the Ark no proof for image-Image-worship then David contradicted Gods command in bidding them worship his footstool Ps 99.5 so he pa. 108. By better warrant may we say the Church of Rome contradicts the Commandment of God He saith Thou shalt not bow down and worship she saith bow down and worship and commends the practice as religious and profitable But seeing he alledges Scripture to prove his Position let it be our turn now to shew his many mistakes in urging that of Psal 99.5 for worshiping of Images He begins with a complaint of our Translation for rendring it worship at his footstool when it should be worship his footstool the Ark and Cherubins upon it First we might quit him with a more just complaint of their rendring Heb. 11.21 Jacob worshiped the top of his staff which the original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will not bear But the Original in Ps 99. will admit ours at or towards his footstoole the same word and phrase being used in the last verse worship his holy Mount or at or in his holy Mount Pagnin and Montanus rendring both places alike to shew the indifferency of the phrase Incurvate Scabello and incurvate Monti so that by Mr. Spencers argument they were commanded to worship the Mount as well as the Ark or Cherubins and if the latter be capable of this sense worship at or in his holy Mount as the Septuagint turns it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then may the former place be also rendred worship at or toward his foot stool so the Chalde Paraphrase renders both alike Adorate in Domo Sanctuarij worship in or at the house of his Sanctuary that 's his footstool or place of presence on earth and so the last verse Adorate in Monte Sanctuarii worship in the Mount of his Sanctuary the place where his Temple stood Now as the same phrase in the last verse directs the rendring of the fifth verse worship at his footstool so does reason also perswade it for the people could not see the Cherubins which were in the holiest place how then commanded to worship them and that as Images and representations But the intent of the Psalm is to bid them frequent that place of worship where his foot-stool was and in worshipping to look that way not for the Cherubins sake but for Gods presence sake of which the Ark was a signe and witness so the Ark or place where it stood did but circumstantially determine the worship i.e. that way it did not objectively receive the worship Secondly he will have which also he repeats pa. 127. and 133. The Cherubin there no proof for Image-worship images commanded to be made and set in holy places for worship because these Cherubins were so but how many mistakes and inconsequencies are here First in drawing warrant from Gods action to their inventions Secondly in supposing them the images or representations of Angels which being set out for worship must according to his own definition of an image represent the thing or person as they are but let him say what individual Angels these did represent Or what Angel is like or did ever appear like to those Cherubins Therefore images according cording to his own notion of image are not here commanded Thirdly the truth is those Cherubs were symbolical or emblematical representations of the ministry of Angels which God as it pleaseth him useth in and about his Church and therefore is said to sit on the Cherubins and to ride upon them and this pair of Cherubs over the Ark is call'd the charet of the Cherubins 1 Chro. 28.18 Lastly his mistake in supposing them set there for worship which is a great falshood and injurious to Almighty God that set them there and I fear a wilful mistake for he cannot be ignorant how it is acknowledged that the Jews did not worship Angels themselves much less their images that the Jews had not those images of the Cherubins and Brazen Serpent Azor. par 1. Instit mor. l. 9. c. 6 qu. 7. Vasq de Adorat l. 2. disp 4. nor any images for worship this is asserted by several â—athers acknowledged by some of this Authors Society He excuses pa. 112. their leaving out these words Their maiming of the Commandment in their Catechismes thou shalt not make to thy self any graven image nor the likeness c. in their shorter Catechisms Did we saith he deliver the Commandments as Protestants do with the Preface The same which God spake we were obliged to put them word for word or else the Commandments would not be answerable to the Title pa. 114. But though you set not that preface before them yet prefixing the Title of Gods Commandments and pretending to deliver in your Catechisms the ten Commandments you are obliged to deliver all the fubstantial parts or things commanded or forbidden otherwise you make them unanswerable to the title and to your pretence Upon this occasion he makes his defence of their division of the Commandments The division of the Decalogue which reckons but three in the first Table by crowding the second commandment into the first and making seven Commandments in the second table by breaking the last into two The division of the Decalogue if it were a point of great moment might be cleared on the Protestants side as more agreeable to the greater part of Antiquity and more rational in it self For though * Aug. de decem chordis qu. â—1 in Exod St. August with some few others liked the former division into three and seven conceiting three in the first table which prescribes the worship of God suitable to the three persons in Trinity yet Romanists have another and more dangerous reason because they see it more suitable to their image-worship to make the first and second Commandment but one and forbidding only an Idol or false God and to be rendred in brief Thou shalt make to thy self no idol Therefore this Author pa. 119. and 121. where he gives the summe of the Commandment would have the strange God in our first Commandment and the graven image in our second to be all one But if we consider the Heathen Deities or strange Gods were idols and their praying or sacrificing to them * Vt supra Nu. 3. without an image was idolatry according to the first Commandment so also the worshipping of their images yea the worshipping of the true God by an image is another sort of idolatry by our second Commandment forbidding the graven image The worship also which the Turks give their Mahomet I hope our Romanists will say is forbidden by Gods Law here yet do they not worship him as a God but at his Tomb and therefore the thing forbidden must not be restrained to a false God as he would
also drinks his blood shed so it did till the Sacrament was instituted and so it still doth extra Sacramentum out of the Sacrament but if we apply this to the receiving of Christ in the Sacrament then drinking is as necessary both to answer the whole act of Faith and the whole purpose of the Sacrament in participating his blood shed and receiving a full Refection And therefore though eating only be expressed in that v. 57. yet he could not but see that our Saviour when he spoke in the singular number mentions and enjoyns them both v. 34 36. His instancing in the command about the Passover enjoyning to kill rost sprinkle and eat but not binding every one to perform all but some one thing some another p. 361. proves as all his former impertinent for the concernment here is in the reception or partaking of the Sacrament of the Passover by eating of the Eucharist by eating and drinking and I hope he will not deny but all and every one of the Israelites were bound to eat the Passover and to eat it as the Lord enjoyned it under pain of being cut off Exod. 12. Indeed if we take in all the actions to be done in and about the Sacrament of the Eucharist those that concern the consecration and administration as well as the reception of it every one is not bound to perform all but that which concerns the Reception belongs to all not to do all that our Saviour did but all that the Disciples then did belongs to all to do because they then represented the whole company of the faithful He closes up this point and his whole discourse with some passion against Protestants charging them with an unworthy and base esteem of the most sacred body and blood of our Saviour not thinking that either of them as they are in this Sacrament is fit to confer saving grace to such as devoutly receive them p. 363. Thus where Argument and Reason is wanting there Passion must make it out But as to the worth and power of our Saviours body and blood we acknowledge it * See N◠3. 5. above and the fitness of either to confer sufficient grace and how it does when in case of necessity the one is devoutly received but we question how they that wilfully refuse one of them the blood shed can be said devoutly to receive or can expect that sufficient grace which is given in the Sacrament to them that receive it according to our Saviours Institution It is not any derogating from the worth of our Saviours body and blood but a due regard to his Will and Command that causes us to stand upon receiving both What he adds runs still upon that Assertion that there is not any express command given in Scripture to all particular Christians to receive both pag. 365. which we shewed above to be false by our Saviours commands in his Institution of this Sacrament Drink ye all and Do this by what he severely denounced Joh. 6.53 by what S. Paul delivers as received from our Saviour 1 Cor. 11. That which this Author immediately subjoyns and the custome of the Primitive Ancient and Modern Church is evidently to the contrary will appear to be far from Truth as to the Primitive and Ancient Church when we come to the survey of Antiquity in this point To conclude I could wish that Mr. Spencer who pretends he undertook this work for no other end then to inform the misled spirits of this age as he tels us in the close of his book would have a conscionable regard to an open and apparent Truth which he contends against as in this so other points of Romish doctrine and that he would think of reducing those misled spirits which he has drawn out of the way by such deceiving assertions as he has delivered in this Treatise and bent all his wits to render them plausible to the Vulgar A Brief Survey of Antiquity for the trial of the former points Whether they can as held by the Church of Rome pass for Catholick Doctrine SECT I. Introduction VIncentius Lirinensis gives us a safe Rule for trial of Points of faith and Catholick doctrine Duplici modo munire fidem suam debet Primo divina legis authoritate deinde Ecclesiae Cath. Traditione cap. 1. If any saith he would continue safe and sound in a sound faith he ought two wayes to fortify his belief First by the Authority of Gods word or Scripture then by the Tradition of the Catholick Church bringing down from age to age the known sense of that word Then for the Tradition of the Church it must be universal to prove it Catholick Doctrine That is properly Catholick which was received or believed Quod semper ubique creditum c. 3. every where through all the Churches and alwayes through every Age. According to this Rule we ought to direct the Tryal and may justly expect that the Church of Rome imposing these and many other points upon the World for Catholick faith should give us them clearly proved by this Rule whereas we finde them in these points pittifully destitute of Scripture which is the first and main ground-work of faith Yet because Scripture is Scripture and by all Christians received for the word of God and challenges the first place in the Rule of Faith therefore they think themselves concerned to bring Scripture for every point such as their best wits have found out any way capable of being wrested to their purpose far from that clearness and force of proof which those places of Scripture have that hold out unto us matters of Faith SECT I. Of worshiping Angels and Saints HOw forsaken the Romanists are of Scripture here may appear Romanists here destitute of Scripture proof by what could be alledged by Mr. Spencer in defence of it as we saw above Cap. 1. from the reverence given to the Angels by Lot and others or to men living as to Elias and Elisha which proved impertinent and fell short of that worship which the Church of Rome allows and practises It is also confessed by some of them * Salmeron in 1 Tim. 2. disp 8. Sect. postremò that this business of worshiping and Invocating Saints or Angels is not expressed in the New Testament and reason given for it because it would seem hard to the Jews and give occasion to the Gentiles to think new Gods put upon them As little help have they from the Tradition of the Catholick Church or witness of Antiquity which here runs with a full stream against them And now for the Trial we will first speak to the General Religious worship as incompetent to a Creature though most excellent such as are Saints and Angels the particulars of this worship by Invocation and Image-worship we shall examine below Our first evidence of Antiquity shall be from the force of the word Religion The force of the word Religion whereby the Fathers did prove and
notes are ch 5. 8. ch 6. 10. ch 8. 3. which we shall touch below but hear what he saith in his next disputation * Non fuisse morem in V. Tâ—â—adeundi Sanctos Intercessores Erat etiam olim periculum Idololatriae Salm. disp 8. sect postremo It was not their manner in the Old Testament to use the Saints as intercessors the Reason because they were not then glorified and because of old there was danger of Idolatry Mark the danger of the Romish practises in Religion and Worship But was there not danger under the New Testament he acknowledges it saying it is not express but was left to Tradition secretly to be delivered which he cals * Tacitam Spiritus suggestionem ibid. the silent suggestion of the Spirit but why because †Quia durum erat id Judaeis praecipere Gentib daretur occasio putandi multos sibi deos exhibitos pro it was hard to command such a thing to the Jewes and it was likely to give occasion to the Gentiles of thinking that many Gods were put upon them in stead of the many Gods they had forsaken And might not the same Reasons still be good against Romish Invocation and Image-worship either to keep them out or cast them out of the Church seeing they give such occasion of scandal to Jewes and Infidels throughout the Romish Communion The Cardinal is not so liberal with us Bel. l. 1. de Beat Sanct. c. 19. Non consuetum Nec ordinariè cognoscere preces c. 20 sect sed dices for he would confine it to the Old Testament acknowledging It was not the custom then to say Holy Abraham pray for us and his reasons are because they did not see God and could not ordinarily i. e. without special Revelation know the prayers of the living Neither is the Cardinal so ingenuous with us as was his fellow Salmeron for albeit he gives reasons why prayers were not made to them in the Old Testament which reasons were good against their Invocation till our Saviours ascension yet he brings places out of the Old Testament for a seeming proof of it Some of them indeed concern Invocation of Angels as that Gen. 48.16 Job 5.1 to which we briefly answered †Chap. II. nu 9. above And though the Cardinals reasons which exclude the Saints of the Old Testament do not conclude against the Angels which did see Gods face and as well hear and know what was said and done below on Earth in the time of the Old Testament as after yet Salmerons Reasons might prevail against invocation of them because of danger of Idolatry then and it would have seemed strange and hard to the Jewes And albeit they had Cherubins in the picture yet not Angels in their worship Which is acknowledged by Azor and Vasquez and that out of several Fathers clearing the Jewish Church from Worshipping of Angels or Images and somthing to this purpose was said †Chap. III. nu 10. above Now for the places out of the Revelation Places of Scripture alledged for Invocation which are the only Texts that have any semblance or pretence for Invocating Saints or Angels they are mistaken as applied to that purpose That Text Rev. 5.8 where the four living Creatures and the 24 Elders are set out as falling down before the Lamb having harps and viols full of odours or incense which are the prayers of the Saints Here the Romanists that would have these prayers of the Saints to be meant of the prayers of men living offered up by the Saints in heaven are mistaken for the whole place is a representation of the Church below offering up prayers to God by Christ the Lamb and those Eucharistical or prayers of thanksgiving and praise chiefly for the Victories of the Lamb and Redemption by Christ as the next verse specifies them Thus Viega understands them of the Church below and he follows good Authors in it The next is Rev. 6.10 how long O Lord Here also is a great mistake of Romanists making this a formal prayer of the Martyrs for revenge which stands not with that charity they have in so great a degree and therefore this is but a figurative or emblematical representation of their Souls lying under the Altar and calling for revenge only to shew the certainty of that judgement and vengeance which God would in time bring upon the Heathen Persecutors for their bloud as when Abels bloud is said to cry for vengeance And for the Argument they make If the Souls of Martyrs cry for Vengeance upon their Enemies therefore their charity much more prompts them to pray for Gods servants It fails first in the Antecedent for they do not as we see make any formal prayer for vengeance and then it fails in the Inference for it would only conclude that they do pray for the Church Militant which we grant not that they offer up prayers made to them which is the point in question The third Text Rev. 8.3 where Another Angel is said to stand by the Altar having a golden Censer and much incense was given to him that he might offer it with the prayers of all Saints A great mistake this and impious to make this the office of any created Angel for the very Text seems to imply that this was a special Angel differing from the seven Angels set out in the second verse as ministring Spirits and what one created Angel is sufficient for this to receive and offer up their prayers that are made by all the Saints or just men on Earth Therefore generally it is interpreted of Christ the great Angel of the Counsel of God as Viega and other modern Writers and herein they have Ambrose Haimo Rupertus and the Interlinâ—ary Gloss consenting To whom I may add what Irenaeus saith reflecting upon this place and the other cap. 5.8 where speaking of the Church offering up all by Christ applies to it that of Malachi cap. 1.11 in every place Incense shall be offered then adds Now †Iren. l. 4. c. 33. Incensa autem Joan. in Apocal. Orationes ait esse Sanctorum Tert. advers Marcion l. 4. c. 9. Per Jesum Christum Catholicum Patris sacerdotem St. John in the Revel saith that Incense or the sweet odours are the prayers of the Saints And Tertul. upon that of our Saviour to the Leper cleansed shew thy self to the Priest and offer Mat. 8.4 Inferreth we must offer up all our prayers and thanksgivings by Jesus Christ the Catholick or universal Priest of the Father No Created Angel can be such a Catholick Priest to offer up the Prayers of all Saints Thus much for Scripture to shew how destitute they are of any real proof and therefore want the first and main ground of Catholick faith and doctrine Sect. 1. in Introduct according to Vincentius his certain and safe Rule at first mentioned Now let us make a brief Survey of Antiquity and see
over-rule all is in so dangerous a condition This will appear if they consider First that through the pretended infallibility of their Head they can have no certain ground-work or Reason of their belief but are in a way to lose all true Faith For let the Cardinal make the Proposition If the Pope could Erre or turn Heretick then would the Church be bound to this Absurdity or inconveniency of taking Vice for Vertue Error for Truth This he plainly laies down in his 4. Book de Pontifice and its good Doctrine in Italy and Spain Then let the Gallican Church and more Moderate Papists make the Assumption But the Pope may turn Heretick what can the Conclusion speak but the hazard of that Church which will be under such a pretended infallible Head Secondly That by being of that Communion they are taught to appropriate to themselves the Name of Catholick and thereby bound to an uncharitable condemning of all other Christians and to a necessity of proving many Novel Errors to be ancient Catholick Doctrine We do not envie them the Title of Catholicks that they should enjoy it together withall other Chrictians who are baptized into the Catholick Faith and do profess it without any destructive Heresie but the appropriating of that Title to themselves and that in regard of those special superadded Articles of Faith proper to that Church implies all other Christians to be no better then Hereticks and excludes all conditions of Peace unless they will come in as the Israelites to Naash with their right eyes put out 1 Sam. 10. Whereas upon due trial we may confidently affirm it will appear that no Church of known and ancient denomination as Greek Asian African British doth less deserve to be called Catholick or has more forfeited that Name because none so much falsified her trust whether we consider the Errors entertained or the Imposing them as Catholick and Christian Faith The three great concernments of Religion and so of the Church are the Faith professed the Worship practised the Sacraments administred all which are dangerously violated in that Church For first How have they kept the Faith undefiled which the Athanasian Creed so severely enjoyns that have mixed it with such New superadded Articles and lay the foundation of their belief upon the uncertain perswasion of a pretended Infallibility Secondly The Worship of God is there violated by the performing it in an unknown tongue for without understanding the people cannot say Amen The prayer on their parts is but a sacrifice of fools not a reasonable service Again Violated in yielding to the Creature an undue religious service as may appear by what is said in the three first Chapters of this Book Lastly Sacraments violated by addition of New ones and those properly so called A great invasion it is upon Gods property if any man or Church hold out that for the Sacramental Sign and Instrument of Grace which God who is the only Author of Grace has not appointed to be so Again upon that which our Saviour did undoubtedly institute a great invasion is made by first taking away the substance from the outward Elements and then taking away from the people half of that which remains Our Saviour said Drink ye all of it Mat. 26.27 The Church of Rome saith Ye shall not all Drink of it Nay None of you shall but the Priest only Add to this the Impossibility they put themselves upon as I said to prove all their New Articles of belief for which they will be the only Caâ—holicks to be the Ancient Faith and Catholick Doctrine of the Church They will hardly be brought to say The Church may make New Articles of Faith but rather The Church may declare what was before but implicitly believed This is true if duly explained yet will it not excuse the boldness of that Church For when the Church declares any thing as of Faith which was not expresly taught before it is such a Truth as was necessarily conteined and couched in the confessed Articles of the Creed and by immediate consequence clearly thence deduceable as the Consubstantiality of the Son declared against the Arrians the two Wills in Christ against the Monothelites the continuance of the Humanity in its own nature and substance against the Eutychians This is that which Vincentius saith in his 32. chap. What else did the Church endeavour in the Decrees of Councils but that what before was simply believed might afterward be more diligently and explicitly believed And to shew that the Articles of faith do not increase in Number but in the dilatation of more ample knowledge He aptly uses the similitude of the several parts of the Natural body which are as many in a childe as in a grown man no addition made of new parts for that would render the body monstrous but each part is dilated and augmented by degrees To this purpose he in his 29. chap. When therefore the Romanists can shew their Novel Articles by immediate and necessary consequence deduceable from the confessed Truthes of that Creed into which we are baptized then and not till then can we excuse this boldness in adding to the Christian Faith this uncharitable Pride in boasting themselves the only Catholicks III. May they consider how their Masters being engaged in such necessity of making good the pretended Catholick Doctrine of that Church are often forced to wink at the light and go on blindfold Their Masters acknowledg and so does their Trent Council that the worship of Saints and Angels Invocation of them Adoration of Images is not commanded but commended as profitable Why then should Scripture be so oft alledged to deceive the unwary why are they retained as profitable when Experience shews what a scandal is thereby given to Jews and Turks what offence to so many Christians as protest against them what a stumbling block to their own people exposed thereby to the danger of Idolatry They acknowlege that our Saviour instituted the Sacrament and administred it in both kindes and that it was so from the beginning received and practised in the whole Church yet will not the Court of Rome suffer the people so to receive it And in their defence of this half Communion they acknowledge if the Church alter any thing in or about the Sacraments yet it must be Salvâ illorum substantia saving their substance Concil Trid. ses 21. c. 2. which notwithstanding they can take away the whole substance of the Elements and defraud the people of the half of what is left and notwithstanding our Saviours Institution and the Custom of the whole Church for so many ages This custom must be held for a Law which none may contrary as that Council decrees in the same chap. They acknowledge it is fit the people communicate with the Priest in every Mass i.e. they acknowledge it is fit there should be no private Masses and they wish it were so and yet decree the contrary cap. 6. de Missa So
to others besides God The quest is about Religious worship and therefore notes it as a double mistake of the Protestants to infer from this place that worship and service are only due to God pa. 5. c. It seems he was bound to make up his tale or number of mistakes he does so causelesly fasten them upon the Protestants for he knows they do not argue from this place that all kinds of worship or service are to be given to God only but that kind of worship which according to his own expression pag. 8. is performed by an act of Religion i. e. religious worship or as S. Aug. gives us the limitation of that Word Worship and indeed the determination of the question that if we add Religion to that word Aug. de Civ l. 10. c. 1. then it speaks that worship which is due to God only This Author knew well enough that Protestants confine their dispute here to a Religious worship and he speaks it pa. 11. that this place Mat. 4.10 must according to Protestants be understood to forbid only religious worship to any save God and therefore applies himself under his second pretended mistake to the consideration of it endeavouring to finde out such a worship given to Creatures as may be call'd Religious All that he brings we shall see very far short of the purpose altogether insufficient to excuse their practice or answer what we charge them with for their encroachments upon the Worship and Service due to God in the way of Religion The first thing we need take notice of is his premising the distinction of Worship The Acts of Worship inward and outward into Interior Exterior as subservient to his purpose pa. 1.2 telling us pa. 13. The External deportment as prostration may be the very same when we worship God or Saint or Angel Bishop Apostle King Magistrate Father Mother yet they become different kinds of Worship according to the different humiliations intentions and acknowledgments which he who worships desires to express by those outward deportments of the body It is true that the inward intent makes a difference in the worship given when the outward act is the same though not alwaies so different a kinde of worship as he would have the worship of Saints and Angels to be in regard of the Civil worship and honour as we shall see below But here note for there will be use of it hereafter that in all this discourse of worship he only insists in such outward expressions Some Acts of worship proper to God as properly fall under the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as bowing kneeling prostration which are indeed common to the worship of God and Creatures but there are other which both in Scripture and in the nature of the thing appear proper to God and the worship due to him Altars burning incense oblations nuncupation of Vows upon which score we may finde the Church of Rome faulty as in doctrine so much more in practice The * Bel. de Beat. sanctorum l. 1. c 12. Cardinal having said the external acts are common to all worship makes his exception of sacrifices and those †Greg. de Val. in Tho. 2.2 Disp 6. qu. 5. de virt Riligionis puncto 2. things which have relation to them And Greg. de Val. acknowledges it of Prayer Oblations Sacrifices c. that they immediately belong to Religion and do peculiarly contain a certain subjection of the creature to God The second thing we are to take notice of Excellency Dignity how the Reason of Honour and Worship is that to lay some ground-work for raising such a worship on as they give to Saints and Angels he sets himself to shew that besides the Civil and Divine dignities or excellencies there is a third sort neither infinite as the Divine nor humane as the Civil but Spiritual and Supernatural and would make his Readers believe that all the difficulty in this matter consists in shewing there are three worths or excellencies to be acknowledged and honoured by an act of worship pag. 14. Whereas we grant such supernatural excellencies in Angels and Men and that there ought to be an acknowledgment and honour in the mind commensurate to such a worth or excellency and that to be expressed by such acts as are fitting and we believe that the Romanists have not such an acknowledgment in their minds when they worship Saint or Angel as they have when they worship God Almighty but whether that acknowledgment they have be commensurate to created Excellencies and no more they know best We cannot but say the expressions they make of it in the several particulars of their Religious Worship do too plainly shew they yield them more devotion of soul then is due to meer Creatures entrenching far upon the religious worship and service due to God The third thing we take notice of is that albeit he said Of the words Religion and Reliigous worship All the difficulty consisted in clearing the third sort of worth or excellency to be acknowledged and honoured yet he knew well enough the difficulty stood not in that but in the acknowledging and honouring them with acts of Religious worship And therefore pa. 20 21. he sets himself to distinguish of the words Religion and Religious that among all the acceptions of those words mentioned in Scripture he might finde some according to which the worship of Saints and Angels may be called Religious Religion saith he pa. 20. may be taken either in a strict sense for the vertue of Religion So when the School Doctors dispute about the nature of infused graces or largely for the whole belief or profession of those that esteem themselves to have the true way of serving God so when we say the Religion of the Christians or of the Jews having thus distinguished he determins pa. 22. It will be sufficient for the defense of the Cathol Roman faith in this point to affirm that when the Doctors say that any thing created may be or is worshipped with religious worship it is religious in the larger sense i. e. vertuous pious Christian as belonging and proper to our Religion and tending finally to the acknowledgment of God and our Saviours honour as Author of our faith and religion and pa. 23. instances in Levit. 7.6 where the giving of the brest and shoulder of the sacrifice to the Priest is call'd a perpetual religion in their generations and then in Ia. 1. ult where a work of mercy done to the poor to a Creature is called Religion i. e. proceeding from and belonging to Religion But this together with all the instances be can give of Religion or Religious in such a sense comes not home either to the thing in question Religious worship or to defence of his Catholick Roman Church attributing more to Saints and Angels then he can bring out of Scripture or Fathers either either to parallel or excuse it For upon
Saints with God in their vows as at entrance into some religious orders I vow to God and the blessed Virgin in their Praises that Psalm or Hymn venite adoremus Psal 99. is in some of their books thrice broken by Ave Maries inserted Bellar. and Valentia close some of their books thus Laus Deo Beatae Virgini praise to God and the blessed Virgin and as I remember in the Lyons Edition Bellarm. closes his book de cultu Sanctorum thus Laus Deo Virginique Mariae Jesu item Christo praise be to God and to the blessed Virgin Mary also to Jesus Christ the Eternal Son of God the like is done by Valentia at the end of some of his books Now what is this but to set her if not in equal rank with God yet surely as high as the Collyridians did And what can this import but religion in the first sense A presumptuous entrenching on what is due to God Fourthly when they divide worship into Latria and Dulia it is not a Division of the word worship at large as when it is divided into religious and civil but it is a division of religious worship given by them with this distinction to God and the creature in the way and exercise of their religion also the word service implied in Dulia being not a civil service with them necessarily implies a religious service such as God forbids to be given to creatures also when they affirm the same worship given to the Image of Christ as to Christ is it not religious in the high sense The defenders of this take ground from their known Church Hymn Hail O Cross our only hope c. as the * Bel. l. de Imag. c. 19. fundamenâ— Cardinal acknowledges and would shift it off by many figures in the speech Lastly when they pray to God which they grant is the exercise of religion in the strict sense they acknowledge they do it by the mediation of Saints and Angels prayed unto for that purpose and what is this else but a performing of the creature-worship out of the virtue of religion and in way of religious offices or devotions in and together with and in order to a worshipping of God at the same time begging of God the gift of mercy and begging the Saints mediation for presenting that prayer or joyning his intercession with it As for his large and lax sense of religious for that which proceeds from and belongs to religion Religious in their large sense not excuse their creature-worship it is so general that it brings in all the duties of the second table as that act of mercy he instanced in out of Ja. 1. ult And here by that and his other instance out of Lev. 7.6 we might expect if he will have this creature-worship any way belong to religion he should have showen it commanded by God as those two particulars were which he brought as instances but it is the profession of this Author in the name of his Church that it is not commanded but commended as good and profitable i. e. as invented and taken up of themselves and pertaining to and proceeding from religion i. e. the religion of the Romish Church far from being Catholick in this point indeed if we speak of a worship due to Saints and Angels that is an acknowledgement and honour we owe them answerable to the worth and excellency in them it is a duty or thing commanded and so religious in that large sense by the fifth commandment yea and tends finally to Gods honour as the Author of all gifts and excellencies in the creature And we are ready to express this inward acknowledgment or honour and do it sufficiently by celebrating their memories by thanksgiving to God for them by proposing their vertuous examples for imitation but as for the worship they perform and plead for whatever inward acknowledgment they pretend to have commensurate to the worth of those glorious creatures yet such are the acts they express it by as do plainly shew it a worship neither commanded nor commended nor consistent with that worship which we finde commanded those acts and acknowledgments of honour and subjection which God requires in his worship Lastly the examples he brings out of Scripture for countenancing his worship who sees not how far they fall short of what he should prove They are of Lots bowing to the Angels that came unto him and of the Shunamite worshipping Elisha and the Captain of fifty Elias p. 25. and this he will have religious worship because of their Authorities derived and acknowledged only from faith and religion Be it so and that they had a motive for that worship more then meerly â—ivil we need not fear if it be call'd religious in so large and remiss a sense viz. such a religious worship or reverence as is given to holy men living But I would ask this Author if it would not be held abominable in the Church of Rome to give unto any holy men living the worship and service they do to Saints departed as to erect Altars Temples to them fall down before their Images burn incense to them make vows and prayers to them at any distance and in the same forms and in the same place and time where and when they do to God Well leaving this for him to think of Mr. Spencers mincing of the matter hear how he concludes this discourse pag. 27. where to the praise of his ingenuity but prejudice of his undertaking he saith If any wilfully deny all kind of religious worship in how large a sense soever to be lawfully exhibited to any save God alone so long as he yields the thing it self that is to exhibit reverence and worship to persons and things in acknowledgment of the supernatural gifts and graces and blessings of God wherewith they are enriched let him call that worship Christian or pious or an extraordinary rank of civil worship I shall not contend about the name when the thing is done This is fair if he deal plainly and do not expect by seeming to be content with the thing we yield such a thing as they make of this worship for we are ready to yield the thing that is due that is a reverence and honour commensurate to their excellency as much or more then was given to holy men living and to do it by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a bowing or prostration where it can be done to an Angel if visibly appearing to us as to Lot And as for the Saints departed they are not by reason of their absence capable of that which was given to holy men living but we are willing to express the honour we owe them as we can by commemorating and praising their vertues propounding their examples for imitation And if we must properly speak what the worship is which they exhibit to the Saints departed Superstition it must be call'd superstition which as the notation of the word shews is a
Angels worship him might receive this answer it is a religious worship of the inferiour rank such as may be given to the most excellent creatures and doubtless the Arrians would have made use of this distinction had the Church of Rome then taught this doctrine so then either the Apostle was mistaken in his argument or the Church of Rome is in her distinction And if we be mistaken in our argument from this Scripture then was their Gregory the great mistaken who against Image-worship urges the same text Gregâ— ep l. 9. ep 9. quia scriptum est dominum Deum odorabis soli servies because saith he it is written thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve To conclude Peresius a Romish writer moved with what the Scripture and St. Aug. saith against this cultus servitutis this worship of service given to the creature acknowledges as * Bel. de Beat. Sanctorum l. 1. c. 12. the Cardinal relates it and checks him for it that he did not approve the name of Dulia to signifie the worship of Saints for we are not servants of the Saints but fellow-servants Rev. 22.8 9. See thou do it not for I am thy fellow-servant worship God Here as elsewhere he needlesly multiplies mistakes Of worship refused by the Angel and by St. Peter repeating what he had above of Angels receiving worship from Lot and of men receiving worship as Elias and Elisha though Peter refused it from Cornelius Act. 10. and affirms the worship of Elias and Elizaeus to be the very same with the worship which by Roman Catholicks is given to Saints and Angels pa. 35 36. How all this comes short of the purpose both as to the worship which the Church of Rome gives by many moe expressions then prostration or bowing of the body which is all the worship that his places of Scripture and instances concern and also as to the term religious which in his large sense comes not home to the question I say how far all this falls short was abundantly shewen above Now for the Text Revel 22. That which we gather from it against their Angel-worship does not arise from the bare prohibition of worship but rather from the reason of it for I am thy fellow servant and so from St. Peters reason for I am a man which shews some undue worship was given yet not as to a God but too much entrenching upon that which was due to God The Romanists feign two reasons of this prohibiting or refusal of worship first * Bel. Post Christi adventum prohibuisse ob reverentiam humanitatis Christi de Beatit Sanctor cap. 14. that the Angels refused after Christs coming in the flesh to be worshipped of men for the reverence of the humanity of Christ But if they did right in refusing it then must the Romanists think they do ill in giving it to them for we men are bound to have as great a reverence and respect to Christ as the Angels are and note the Cardinal saith not only that they refused the worship but forbad it prohibuisse saith he Secondly because John took the Angel for Christ but we may ask how did the Angel know what St. John thought Besides it was improbable that he took the Angel for our Saviour Christ for this is the second time that he thus worshipped neither do we find that our Saviour in all the visions appeared to him after such a manner But this falling down at the Angels feet shews it was in St. John a transport of joy for the revelation of such things as the Angel brought and thereupon an expression of that more then beseeming reverence to the messenger and it is evident the Angel conceived he gave some undue reverence for which he admonishes him to give none but what befits a fellow servant which ought not to be a religious worship or service entrenching upon any thing due to God the very reason that * Aug. de vera religioone cap. 55. Honoramus Angelos charitate non servitute St. August gives to exclude all such worship by the word service or servitude We honour Angels saith he in charity not service and immediately before insinuated God is communis Dominus our common Lord Lord of Angels and men that is as the Angel said we are fellow-servants So we need not contend so much what the Angel thought as look to what he said whether he thought St. John took him for our Saviour which this Author strives to make probable is uncertain but the reason the Angel gave is clear and enough to exclude their Angel-worship So that which St. Peter refused Acts 10. was not a Divine worship and therefore refused for this Author grants pa. 38. that Cornelius could not suppose him to be a God nor was it a due bounded worship and refused only out of humility as he supposes here for then he would not have given this reason I am a man The Protestants are not bound to say as he thinks they must pa. 37. one of the two either that Cornelius gave him divine worship as to a God or that St. Peter refused it out of humility For though the Protestants acknowledge there was humility in this refusal for humility is seen in refusing not only due but undue honour too yet have they cause to say it is evident that Cornelius gave him some undue worship exceeding his condition and entrenching upon something due to God and therefore St. Peter gives him the reason of his refusing it for I am a man as the Angel for I am thy fellow-servant Col. 2.18 Worshipping of Angels He will have us here mistaken because this text speaks of a worshipping of Angels How far the Romanists agree with those worshippers of Angels whereby they are made equal to Christ or that Christ is depending on them which Roman Catholicks saith he condemn as injurious to Christ pa. 43. His reason is because the Apostle adds not holding the head by which it appears such a worshipping of Angels is forbidden as destroyes the belief of Christs being soveraign head of the Church pa. 44. to which he subjoyns as a proof the Testimonies of several Fathers witnessing that Simon Magus and other ancient Hereticks broached such phansies of the Angels pa. 48. That there were ancient Hereticks that held strange phansies about Angels is very true but that these worshippers of Angels were such as held such a phansie of making them equal or superiour to Christ cannot be proved that they were not such appears rather for the Apostle first tells us this was done in a pretence of voluntary humility now what humility is there in going to God by any equal or superiour to his Son therefore they went to God by Angels as inferiour mediatours and they of the Church of Rome have a pretence not unlike in their applying to God by the mediation of Saints and Angels Secondly the Apostle in this chapter speaks
against those that joyned the observation of legal ordinances with the profession of Christ and therefore it is very probable he condemns such worshipers of Angels as did it upon that account because the law was given by the disposition of Angels * In Colos c. 2. Theodoret who is shuffed in among the rest of the Fathers cited by this Author speaks directly to this purpose that these worshippers of Angels were such Christians as joyned the observation of the law with the Gospel and therefore used them as mediatours because the law was given by their ministry The other Fathers cited by him speak of strange phansies of some Hereticks about Angels but without such reference to this place of the Apostle as Theodoret doth who comments upon the Text and cites the canon of the Synod of Laodicea a place not far from Coloss forbidding any to pray to Angels Oecumenius also upon the text agrees with Theodoret touching these Angel-worshippers and out of Chrysostome for he borrows it from him shews the pretence they made of humility in this their going to God by Angels saying * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chryst Oecum in locum It was more then belonged to us to go to God by Christ which excludes Mr. Spencers pretence above that these were such as made Angels equal or superiour to Christ when its plain they in humility applyed to them as of inferiour rank As for his reason from the Apostles adding not holding the head that proves not that they placed the Angels in Christs stead or destroyed his soveraign headship directly as the phansie of those Hereticks he would have here to be meant did for he may be said not to hold the head that holds it not in that manner he ought or because this worshipping of Angels was the way to let go the head as in the Church of Rome their worshipping of Angels and Saints and their Images draws off the people much from Christ And albeit the Church of Rome does not retain the observation of the law as these did and so has not the same cause of their worshipping Angels as they had yet let the cause or motive be what it will for the same deslexion from truth and duty has not alwayes the same motive they of the Church of Rome have the same pretence of humility in their coming to God by the mediation of Angels and do place the Angels where they should not intruding into things they have not seen and not holding the head the one mediatour between God and man as they ought Again he will have us mistaken * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Religion of Angels in rendring the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a worshipping when it should be translated a religion of Angels and thereupon declaims against Protestants as having a design in it pa. 45.46 But this is needless for the word religion had been more advantageous to us in as much as we yield a worship to creatures but when religion is added to it we mean it a worship due to God as St. Aug. also said above Indeed if we look into the Church of Rome and well consider their exercises of devotion how they are directed how frequented there will appear a very religion of Saints and Angels And as in this point the Romanists are too like these half Christians whom the Apostle blames for their worship or religion of Angels so will they appear not much unlike to the Heathen Platonicks in their worship or religion of their Daemons and Hero's whom they placed and worshipped as celestial messengers and mediatours between men and the supream God Of which below * in the consent of Antiquity But to make up his number of mistakes he must needs repeat here also pa. 49. how worship was given to Angels by Lot and Joshua and that it may be call'd religious by Ja. 1.26 27. not remembring how much he is mistaken in giving us still for the worship we blame in them examples only of the worship we allow the bowing of the body to Angels when they appeared whereas we charge them with the worship which the Laodic Synod forbad which the Apostle here blames the praying to them and making them mediators nor will he remember how he is mistaken in telling us still St. James calls a work of mercy religion as if this were any thing to the religious worship they give to Saints and Angels which is the exercise or performance of their religion and devotion as religion belongs to the first table in a stricter sense whereas that work of mercy as all duties of the second table because commanded and proceeding from religion may in that general sense be call'd religious works not religious worship But indeed this Romish worship cannot truly be call'd religion in the larger sense or in any sense for it is not commanded it proceeds not from religion not dictated by that devotion and religion we owe to God it pertains not therefore to religion unless it be to the Romish Of all this more largely above CHAP. II. Of Prayer and Invocation NOw we are come to a special act of worship given to Saints and Angels the places of Scripture here examined are Come unto me Mat. 11.28 Ask the Father in my name Jo. 16.21 When ye pray say Our Father One mediatour 1 Tim. 2.5 We have an advocate 1 Jo. 2.1 The Protestants inference therefore we must come to God by no other Name Mediatour Advocate he will have inconsequent Indeed such arguments from the affirming of one to the denying all others are not for the most part concluding and valid yet in the point of Gods worship they are of good force if we allow the truth of the rule which S. Aug. de consensu Evang. l. 1. c. 18. Aug. saith that Socrates allowed God is so to be worshiped as he has commanded himself to be worshiped A general Rule for worship So that it must be a bold presumption in man when the Lord has in so many places prescribed the way to add thereunto by admitting and using other Mediators though inferiour to Christ What he saith to the Lords Prayer comes to this The form of the Lords prayer that Protestants by like argument might prove We are only to pray to God the Father and that one Christian living may not pray for another pa. 57. But this is not alike for we have command and direction to come and pray unto the other persons of the Trinity and also for one another living And we may call any of the Persons Father for all the works of the Trinity ad extra towards the Creature as giving life and being nourishing and preserving Fatherly acts toward us are as the School saith undivided common to all the persons but because we can also call God the Father our Father upon special relation by and through his only Son therefore this forme implies we ought to come in prayer to God the Father only
taken away in the use of them This is easily said and pretended but what boots it when people are taught contrary to the commandment to bow down and worship and to direct and secure them in it do hear a company of distinctions * Vid. supra in introduct ex Bel. they understand not Whatever therefore becomes of the truth of that doctrine now to be examined we may without rash judgement which this Author layes to our charge pa. 72. challenge the Church of Rome for so needlesly exposing her people to the peril of Idolatrie or superstition in this and other points of worship The first Protestant position saith he is That it is unlawful to represent God the Father in any likeness and the Scripture is Deut. 4.15 16. This Scripture he will have mistaken and misapplied to the Church of Rome Of picturing God the Father pa. 75. Before we ask his reason note here how they of the Church of Rome are divided in this point * Bel. de Imagin l. 2. c. 8. Docent imaginem Dei non recte fieri the Cardinal acknowledges some of his Catholicks Abulensis Durand Peresius and others to be of Calvins opinion herein that an Image of God is not rightly and lawfully made And though these be the smaller number in the Church of Rome specially since the Jesuites arose and multiplied yet are they in this more suitable to the ancient Christians who had no Images of God as Minutius Foelix and other ancient writers affirm Now see this Authors reason why that Scripture is mistaken and misapplied by us First because they of the Church of Rome do not represent God by any Image directly that is to signifie he is of a figure or shape like that Image pa. 27. Nor did the understanding Heathens say they did so represent their Gods by their Images Again we represent God saith he only historically as he appeared to the prophets as Dan. 7. the ancient of dayes neither is it forbidden to represent him as he pleased to represent himself pa. 75. But we must put a difference between the representing of a Vision and of an History Difference in picturing of a Vision and History to represent a vision in which God Almighty pleased to shew himself to the eye is tolerable but the Church of Rome takes greater liberty as appears by the decree set down by this Author pa. 72. of figuring * Historias narrationes Sacrae Script Conc. Trid. Sess 24. histories and passages of Scripture in which God did not shew himself to the eye under any kinde of figure thus also in the story of our Saviours baptisme they figure him like an old man looking out of the clouds when as they only heard a voice saw no shape so in the story of Creation they figure him like an old man with a globe in his hand and without reference to history they figure the Trinity God the Father as an old man with the Son on one hand Holy Ghost in shape of a Dove on the other hand His Hieroglyphical figuring of Gods attributes as of providence by an eye and the figurative speeches of Scripture attributing hand wings feet to God Almighty I let pass as altogether unfit to make any argument for representing God by an Image neither is he so confident of them as to make any concluding argument but only some semblance for representations of God for if he will make Images of these Hieroglyphical or Emblematical expressions they will not prove innocent Images which according to his own definition of an Image do represent the things as they are in themselves The second protestant position saith he is That no Image ought to be worshipped The Scriptures are Levit. 26.1 Exod. 20.4 5. Here he makes as they do all in this point a great noise about the words and translations The pretended distinction of Idol and Image to amuse the Reader in examining the thing it self spending thirty pages upon the words Idol graven-image likeness and quarrelling at our Translation as false and partial for saith he no word in the first Text signifies Image and that which we render graven-image out of the Hebrew Pesel every where signifies an Idol and so it is rendred by the Septuagint in the second Text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idolum now there is a great difference between Idol and Image for an Image is the representation of a true thing but Idol a representation of what neither is nor can be as he who makes or uses it intends thus he in pa. 78 79 80 81. But he should remember that in the first text the Septuagint hath it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Latine sculptile and our Translation then does duly render it graven-image also that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which the Septuagint in the second Text renders the same word Pesel does generally imply Image likeness representation although when taken with connotation of Idolatrous worship given it it signifies an Idol in his sense and seeing the Heathen false Gods were worshipped by Images and representing statues he should not be so offended that we in rendring those texts put in the word Image well let the texts run as rendred in their latine Bible our reasoning and argument against image-Image-worship will stand firm it being but the simple truth which all antiquity for 600. years according to Scripture asserted and after the Cardinal whom this Author follows had laboured so much in his conceited difference between Idol and Image he is forced to admit that which defaces it as this Author we shall see is content to do in acknowledging any Image may be made an Idol by the worship given it That the prohibition of the commandment concerned only Heathen Idols The prohibition of the Commandment was the device of the goodly second Council of Nice after the year 700. which Council to introduce or defend the image-Image-worship then begun so grosly abused both the words of Scripture and the Testimonies of the ancient Fathers They of the Church of Rome see themselves concerned for the maintaining of their Image-worship to defend that hold and in order to that conceive it necessary to make such a distinction between Idol and Image as may seem to clear their Images and statues from the prohibition of the Commandment and leave only that which they call an Idol under it Upon his long descant upon the words we may note 1. this their acception of the word Idol restrains it to the visible thing representing and such was Pesel the graven images statues pillars forbidden in those texts whereas the things represented or the reputed Deities Baal Jupiter Diana were Idols too and the main ones and they that prayed or offered sacrifice to them without sight or presence of their representations or graven Images were Idolaters by the first commandment And this note is necessary for distinction of the first * Vt infra 〈◊〉 12. and second Commandment
have it nor do they worship him by any graven image for they have no representations or likenesses of things therefore it is fit that our second commandment which forbids such should stand divided from the first And for the last commandment which they break into two and pretend a reason from the several objects Goods and wife yet the unity of it rests upon the desire forbidden in the word covet let the object or thing coveted be what it will therefore the Apostle renders the commandment by that one word non concupisces thou shalt not covet Rom. 7.7 And God himself has so disposed the words of this commandment Exod. 20. that he has put the not coveting of a neighbours wife which they make the ninth commandment into the midst of their tenth commandment putting before and after it the not coveting of his goods which shews them but one commandment But enough of this It is not the division of the Commandments that is so much to be stood upon as the observing and keeping of them did the Romanists hold this way of dividing the Decalogue with the same simplicitie and uprightness that St. Aug. and some others with him did we should not quarrel at it but this we have cause to charge upon them that in dividing they maim the Commandments either by leaving out some material parts as what concerns the graven image likeness bowing down to it and Gods jealousie against it or by restraining the sense of them as we have heard Now he proceeds to give us the double respect The pretended respects upon which worship is given to Imates under which they give reverence and worship to images pa. 124. But it is in vain to shew in what respect they give if the Scripture exclude it First he pretends it is but such a reverence as is given to holy things dedicated or tending to the worship of God and in this respect saith he we give them no more honour or worship then Protestants do to Churches pa. 129. This is too remiss and comes short of their worshipping and serving of images For we worship not holy things used in Gods service but use them reverently with difference from common things also sometimes they determine our worship we give to God circumstantially ad hic nunc for the performing it then and that way not objectively receive it but who can without shame make images holy things dedicated or tending to Gods service when there is such caution in Scripture against that danger Or affix a special presence of God to them For this would be what the grosser sort of Heathens conceited of their images yet does this Author alledge for the worship of their images that reverence which the ground had as made holy by the presence of God Exod. 3.9 where in token and acknowledgement of that presence shoes were to be put off The presence of Patriarch Prophet or Saint made not the ground or place holy where they stood themselves much less can the representation of them in or by an image render that image holy and to require our reverence and worship His second respect is because of their representing the thing to which the worship is conveyed pa. 125. and is not ashamed to argue but he learnt it from his Master the Cardinal from the necessity of the inward image or representation we have in our mind of the thing to be worshipped to prove the conveniency of an outward image to help our imagination and to help us to think of God pa. 126. That outward images and representations may help our imagination in conceiving of the object yea and raise our affections Philosophy tells us but in the act of worshipping God the danger of using images is great least they possess our mindes and carry away what belongs to the thing represented as St. Aug. on Psalm 113. shews how hard it is for him that prayes beholding an image such is the manner in the Church of Rome to keep his mind from thinking the image heareth and helpeth him where also he tells us that the Heathens who would seem to be of a more refined religion Use of in ages * Qui videntur sibi purgationis esse Religionis diâ—unt simulachrum non colo utc Damonium sed per offiâ—iem coâ—poralem ejus rei signum intueor quod colore debeo August in Psalm 113. alledged in excuse of their worship such respects as these of helping and fixing the imagination and conveying the worship to the thing represented We allow not only the historical use of images but in some sort the affective also yet that only as to meditation and preparation not for or in the exercise of prayer or worship much less to be the medium or instrument of coveying the worship hereby images in the Church of Rome become great stumbling blocks to the people that are not capable of the nice distinctions and limitations which their learned ones are fain to use in defence of this image-worship Again he seeks warrant for his holy images as things that put us in mind of God Bowing at name of Jesus no prerence for Image-worship from our bowing at the name of Jesus and is so courteous as to say what reverence a Protestant would judge to be given to that name printed or ingraven let him say the like may be given to any image of our Saviour and no more will be required so he pa. 128. But a Protestant may say first if he bow at the name of Jesus he has a Text will bear him out Phil. 2.10 which cannot be said of doing so to an image Secondly he may say that the adoration done at the name of Jesus in our holy offices is given to Christ only as the object but is circumstantially determined ad nunc by or at the naming of him that is such worship is given to Christ at the hearing of that name or when he is named and if upon sight of that name printed or engraven any man worship Christ then is that name the occasional motive of his worship now as for an image as it may not be the object of worship in which point the Romanists do require more then a Protestant can yield so it may be the occasional motive of worship as should a man upon sight of a Crucifix worship the Lord Christ lifting up his heart putting off hat and bowing and in that we may say the image determines the worship circumstantially as to the nunc the time worship being given upon the sight of it but should not determine it ad hic to do it towards the image for fear of making it any object of the worship or medium in conveying the worship to the thing it representeth and minded us of and in all this there is no more of worship done to the image then there would be to an iron chain which he that was bound with it in his captivity looking upon takes occasion to remember Gods mercy
holy Men living and the rest may be answered by that honour which was done to the Martyrs in frequenting their Memories keeping their Festivals celebrating their Victories Vertues and Praises or by that reverend respect had to their bones or Reliques But secondly we may question the Cardinals honesty in his very first Testimony where he brings in Justin Martyr with this pomp of words Justin speaking in the Name of all Christians Bel. ibid. Loquens nomine omnium Christianorum fidem totius Ecclesiae explicans Illum Filium qui ab ilto venit docuit nos haec bonorum Angelorum exercitum Spiritum prophetiâ—um colimus adoramus and delivering the faith of the whole Church saith VVe worship and adore Him the Father and the Son that came from Him and taught us these things and the host of good Angels also the Spirit of prophesie so that Author usually stiles the Holy Ghost Now what a strange sense little less then blasphemy doth the Cardinal put upon that ancient Father for the Advancing of Angel-worship as if the Host of good Angels were set here as one of the parties to be worshipped and that before the Holy Ghost whereas the * Bel. l. 10. de Christo Cardinal in his first Book de Christo did argue well that the Holy Ghost was not a Creature because coupled with the Father and the Son This indeed was answerable to the usual argument made by the * Sic Basil l. de Spir. Sancto c. 18 19. Fathers for the Deity of the Holy Ghost but here the Cardinal can couple the Host of Angels with the Father and the Son as to be adored with them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justin in Apolog. 2. and that before the Holy Ghost He that looks into Justin will easily discern that the Host of Angels there is coupled with these things and both relating to the word taught not to worship or adore For he spake immediately before of the wicked Angels or Devils not to be worshipped and as the Son taught us these things so likewise concerning the Host of good Angels Another place he hath out of St. Aug. saying to Heathens that professed to worship Angels Aug. in Ps 96. Vtinam velletis colere Angelos ab ipsis disceretis non illos colere id est adds the Cardinal non ut Deos sed ut Sanctos i.e. their Daemons I wish you would Worship Angels for you would then learn of them not to worship them Here the Cardinal adds his own words in the same character that is not as Gods but as holy But St. Aug. did not intend really to commend Angel-worship to them but wisheth they would instead of their Daemons honour the good Angels and of them they might learn true worship for he had said a little before The good Angels would have God alone to be worshipped Another Testimony he pretends from Eusebius Euseb de praepar Euang. l. 13. c. 11. hath it thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. at their monuments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whom he makes to say We approach their Monuments and make Vows unto them by whose intercession we profess our selves to be much helped Thus the Cardinal wilfully following the corrupt Translation of Trapezuntius whereas Eusebius saith we make vowes and prayers not to Them but there i. e. at their monuments but to God as the custom then was And that which followes by whose intercession we profess is added in stead of we honour their blessed souls for so it follows in Eusebius Lastly out of St. Chrysost he cites Adoremus tumulos Let us adore the Martyrs monuments whereas that Father saith not so but thus * Chrys homil de Juvent Maxime 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us visit or often go thither let us touch their Coffin or Chest Embrace their Reliques This is all the Adoration he speaks of Then a little after he shews the profit of it That from the sight of the Saints Monuments and consideration of their rewards we may gather much treasure Thus hath the Cardinal acquitted himself in the Testimonies from Antiquity To conclude Bel. de beat Sanct. c. 13. In his arrgument which he makes from the objections of Jewes and Heathens we may challenge his want of Candor in concluding that it was the practice of the Ancient Church because their Enemies charged the Christians with such a Worship That which the Heathens observed in the practise or doctrine of Christians was as we have seen above their allowing of and depending on the Ministery of Angels their resort to Martyrs Tombs their offering up prayers there their keeping the daies of the Martyrs sufferings their celebrating of the Martyrs praise Now it was a gross mistake in the Heathens thence to infer the Christian Church did worship them or did set Angels and Martyrs in like place and office as they did their Daemons and Heroes So is it a false inference in the Romanists from the practise of Christians then to conclude a Romish Worship and to make the mistaken allegation of the Heathen a pretence for it when the Fathers in answering their objection so plainly discover the mistake and deny the Worship There were some excesses it is like committed at the Tombs of Martyrs by some inconsiderat Christians but not to be charged upon the Church as appears by St. Aug. his answer above to Maximus the Grammarian A Catholicis Christianis None of the Dead are worshipped by Catholick Christians what ever excesses were used by some Aug. de Civ Dei l. 8. c. 27. Sed non fieri à melioribus Christianis yet none of the Catholick Christians so worshipped also by what he saith of feasting and banqueting used by some at the Tombs of Martyrs These things are not done by the better sort of Christians I will only add what I meet with in the History of the Councel of Trent anno 1549. How the Archbishop of Mentz during the Interim held a Synod by which in the 45 Head of Doctrine it was determined according to St. Augustin That the Saints were to be honoured but with Civil worship or honour of dilection and love no otherwise then Holy Men in this Life SECT II. Of Invocation of Saints or Angels AS for Scripture proof by the Confession of Romanists little is to be expected in this point Pretence of Scripture yet because Scripture is Scripture the written Word of God as I said at * Sect. 1. in Introduct the beginning it must and is pretended to and many places alledged by them There is nothing express saith †Salm. in 1 Tim. c. 2. disp 7. Nihil hac de re expressum habetur Salmeron in the Old Testament or Gospels or Epistles of the Apostles touching this matter but in the Apocalyps where there was occasion of writing the future success of the Church it is expressed The places he
whether the book be forged or no and the story of Justina true or false yet Nazienzen approves the fact or practise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We answer that he tels us she betook her self to God for help and to Christ that she strengthened her self with the Examples of Susanna Daniel c. then follows having considered these things she also supplicated the Virgin Mary that she would help a Virgin now in danger and so he leaves the story neither commendig this practise nor reproving it We have seen what Testi monies the Romanists alledge out of the Fathers and how faithfully it is done especially by the Cardinal One Argument remains which all of them make from the success they found who applyed themselves to the Martyrs whereby it is evident that God did approve the practise But this is a fallacious Argument à non Causa making their invocation of the Martyr to be the Cause or motive of Gods hearing and granting success It is certain in History that many were heard who resorted to the monuments of Martyrs and prayed to God there yea many that prayed there to God with reference to the Intercession which the Martyr and all other Saints made for the Church below but if some were heard that did directly invocate or pray to the Martyr of which Examples cannot certainly be given we may say God overlooked the Excess or the voluntaries of their mouth as St. August Aug. Confess l. 9. c. 13. Voluntaria oris mei call'd his Excesses or breakings out in his praying for his mother whom he believed to be in bliss hoping that God would pardon the extravagance And as the same Father insinuates God overlooked and pardoned the infirmities of the Midwives not speaking altogether according to truth Aug. Qu. 12 in Exod. non potuit ad laudem sed ad Veniam pertinere and rewarded their good will Exod. 1.20 Their untruth could not deserve praise might obtain pardon So when the Romanists urge the miracles which Augustine sent hither by Greg. the first is said to work as Gods witness to the Truth of all the Doctrines he brought from Rome we say those Miracles supposing them to be wrought were Gods witnesses to the Catholick Faith which Austin preached and planted here not to all that he taught God in mercy overlooking those lesser errors and vanities when he was pleased and saw it fit to give testimony by those Miracles to the Faith of Christ But this may suffice for the former Argument If therefore we be asked why we do not conform in this practise to the Ancient Church it may be answered Because we see what the more Ancient Church held and practised and we find by St. Aug. conFaust l. 20. c. 21. Alind est quod docemus aliud quod sustinemusEt donec emendemus to lerare compellimur Aug. that many things were done at the Martyrs Tombs but not by the better sort of Christians as we noted above Sect. 1. nu 6. and that in his answer to Faustus about the worship or honour given to Martyrs he concludes thus It is one thing that we teach another thing which we bear with and we are compelled to tolerate it till we can amend it Therefore because we saw much deflexion in the Romish practise from the Primitive Verity when we had opportunity and power to amend it the thing St. Aug. desired we did it and with good Reason allowing in this point what may consist with Catholick Doctrine such we count the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the wish of having benefit by those prayers which the Saints above make for the members of the Church militant and labouring below yea such we may account the indirect Invocation which begs of God that benefit or effect of those Prayers but we cannot account the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or direct Invocation to consist with Catholick Doctrine when it is made to Saints and that by way of Religious address as the Church of Rome practiseth it in her offices which practise none of the Ancients knew SECT III. Of image-Image-worship HOw the Romanists labour in this point to stand against Scripture which so forcibly encounters them Romanists altogether forsaken here of Scripture and Antiquity we saw above Chap. III. and there was answered what they bring from Ps 99.5 to worship his footstool and the Images of the Cherubins upon the Ark This is the best and only plea they can make from Scripture yet so weak and ungrounded that their own Authors give it over as impertinent and raised upon a false supposal that the Jewish Church had any Images for worship as abovesaid Ch. 3. nu 10. Now let us see how they strive to bear up against the universal consent of Antiquity which with a strong Current for 700 years runs contrary unto them Our first evidence against this Image-worship The first Evidence Had there been any such thing amongst Christians those Ancient Apologists and Defenders of Christian Religion against Heathens Justin Clemens Tertullian Minutius Lactantius Arnobius Eusebius would have mentioned it when they give account of the worship used in their assemblies Nay they could not have declined it when they set themselves to refute the Heathen Image-worship And therefore Tertul. Tert. Apol. c. 12. Igitur si statuas imagines frigidas mortuorum suorum simillimas non adoramus quas milvi araneae intelligunt nonne laudem in his Apologetick professes and defends their not worshiping of Images If therefore saith he we do not worship Statues and cold Images like indeed to the Dead whom they represent and which Birds and Spiders understand well enough it deserves praise rather then punishment See how he not only denies the worship but vilifies them as unfit for worship cold and like the Dead and that the Birds understand them and therefore fear not to dung upon them Minutius Faelix answering Cecilius a Heathen that objected against the Christians their having no Temples no Images gives reasons wherefore they had not or not used them in worship Clemens Alexandr as he denies the Jewish Church had any Images to worship saying * Clem. strom 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Moses set no statue or figure in the Temple to be worshiped so is he very severe against Images among Christians insomuch that he scarce allowes the Art of painting or of making Images as we may see in his Protreptic Origen had to do with Celsus about worship and Invocation and to answer why the Christians gave it not to Angels whom they acknowledged to be ministring Spirits sent of God as they the Heathen gave it to their Daemons of which in the two former Sections But he was also put to satisfie Celsus why the Christians did not use Images and for which he compares them to Scythians Barbarians that had no Temples and Images because they knew not what the Gods or Heroes were How does Origen answer by saying as a Romanist
honours him whose Image it is he that contemns the Emperours Statue seems to do him injury c. Thus the Cardinal and no more thinking every one would imagine the application of this concerned the Images of Christ and the Saints that the honour or contempt done to the Image would redound to the Prototype but the words before and after plainly shew that the Fathers intent there is to apply it not to material but living Images poor men especially to whom if any do wrong God takes it as done to himself as if do good to them Christ takes it as done to himself as Mat. 25.40 and to stir them up to charity Quot inter Imagines Christi ambulamus Ambr. ibid. how many Images of Christ saith he do we daily walk among and so have opportunity of doing good But it is usual with the Romanists where ever they meet with this Instance of honour redounding to Emperors or Kings when done to their Statues or with that General saying the honour done to the Image redounds to the Prototype they lay hold on it as an argument for image-Image-worship This they learn from their Nicone Council which after the Seventh Age laid the foundation of this image-Image-worship There besides many misapplications of Scripture and Fathers this is one And Athanasius Basil and Chrysost ancient and learned Fathers pretended who did indeed in proving the Son to be worshiped with the Father because he was his express Image use that Instance of honour done to the Emperors Image and that General saying of honour done to the Image redounding to the Prototype as most plainly appears in St. Basil Bas de Spiritu Sanct. cap. 18. Now what boldness is this to transfer to the worship of material Images that which the Fathers spake of Christ the Image of the Father because to the illustrating of it they took instance from the Civil worship One place more I must take notice of which the Cardinal alledges and truly out of St. Bel. l. 2. de Imag. c. 12. Prostrata ante Crucem quasi pendentem Dominum cerneret adorabat Hierom concerning Paula That lying prostrate before the Cross as if she had seen the Lord hanging there she adored We must consider Paula is here visiting those very places at Jerusalem where our Saviour suffered and was buried and if she was more then ordinarily affected and made such outward expressions of it as St. Hierom relates of her it is not much to be marvelled at Ingressa sepulchrum osculabatur ore Lambebat Hieronym in vita Paulae Going into the Sepulchre she kissed the stone which the Angel had removed and licked the place where our Saviours body laid So before the Cross she lay prostrate adoring the Lord that hung upon it This may be done without giving the Cross it self any Worship as above noted in the like place out of St. Gregory If Paula transported in affection did exceed she is not therein an example to us St. Hierom doth not say she gave worship to the Cross or that it was her practise thus in her devotions to lie prostrate before the sign but only tels us how she was affected in those very places I will conclude with the dangerous inconveniences of this Image-worship Complaints of the inconveniences of this Romish practise which even their own Authors complain of Images at first brought in for better remembrance of the History and to teach ignorant people what they could not read after once they began to be worshiped became ill Teachers of those rude Scholars who could not well distinguish what and how they worshiped Polydore speaking of it complains thus To such a madness is it come Many of the Ruder and ignorant sort Polyd de Invent. Rerum l. 6. c. 13. Eò insaniae de ventum est Permulti rudiores stultitiâ stultitiam cumulantes Illi qui talem proventum metunt so worship that they trust in them more then in Christ or the Saints represented by them And adding folly to folly they offer gold and silver unto the Images And that they may be the better enticed to do it They that reap the profit by it the cunning Priests hang up some of those Gifts and offerings to be seen * Cassand in Artic. 21. Cassander gives us many other complaints made by Gerson and Gabriel Biel of the poor simple people led on hereby to superstitious if not Idololatrical misconceits and practises But enough of this SECT IV. Of Justification BY that which was said above Chap. IV. Romanists make a confused work of this doctrine It may in some measure appear what a confused work the Romanists make of this doctrine of Justification and with what difference from St. Pauls meaning and from his way of handling it For first to settle the Justification of a Sinner upon inhaerent righteousness they confound Justification and Sanctification Decret c. 7. Non est sola remissio peccaâ—orum sed etiam Sanctificatio The Trent Decree saith It is not only Remission of Sins but also Sanctification Justification indeed and Sanctification go together yet are they to be distinguished as very different Acts and communications of divine grace the Apostle distinguished them expresly saying * 1 Cor. 6.11 1 Cor. 1.30 but ye are sanctified but ye are justified and who is made unto us Righteousness and Sanctification Secondly Remission delotion of sin They deny not that Remission of Sin is Justification but confound that Remission which according to Scripture and Fathers stands in the forgiveness of the offence and punishment with the actual deletion or expunging of the stain and corruption of sin that is in us which is another thing from Remission and forgiveness And when Scripture expresseth Remission by blotting out or deletion as Isa 43.25 Psal 51.9 it is the blotting our sins out of Gods Book of remembrance not out of the tables of our heart It is as much as God will remember them no more no more impute or lay them to our charge As for the blotting or purging the stain and corruption of Sin out of the Soul though it be not done by Remission but by another act of grace yet we grant it is done with Remission in the justifying of a sinner and inhaerent Righteousness by which that stain of sin is done out and the dominion of sin broken is wrought in the Soul together with the righteousness of Justification Thirdly The first and second Justification Having made a distinction of their Justification into First and Second That by inhaerent habitual Righteousness This by actual or continuance in well-doing they usually confound their first second Justification in the proving or commending their doctrine of Justification by Works And when they are put to it in plain terms to speak what they mean by Justification by works they restrain it to that which they call the second Justification in the explaining whereof the Council of