be it is an intolerable injury and affront to God to be exterminated with all fire and sword c. And doth not the Scripture expressly call the Golden Calf an Idol saying And they made aCalf in those days and offered Sacrifice unto the Idol and rejoyced in the works of their own hands Truly therefore whether Grammatically enough I will not enquire saith Philastrius Ipsum nomen Idoli species doli est c. The very name of an Idol implies deceit and a prevaricating of the form of any thing according to the Etymology is so cal'd It is therefore first to be known what is an Idol that we may know better what is Idolatry For it is too common mistake to think that the Idol makes the Idolatry and not the Idolatry the Idol True it is indeed that according to the course of Nature a thing must be before it be worshipped but speaking in the Christian sense certain it is that nothing is an Idol before it be worshipped For until such an Act be directed to it it iâ— but an Image or some innocent laudable representation of a thing of Gods making then it becomes an Idol when it is worshipped It were vain to object that the Images of Saints or God himself Idols in themselves And it is as vain to answer that they are Representations of most holy persons and not such as were the Images of the Heathen representing Divels or Imaginary Gods for neither the one nor other are Idols in themselves and most certain it is that either of them may be made Idols at the pleasure of Superstitious man and the Epigrammatist spake more like a Divine than such Mort. Epig. Schoolmen who saith Non quisquis fingit sacros de marmore vultus Ille Deos fingit qui colat ille facit Not he that makes Images of Gods makes Gods but he that worships them he makes the Gods and the Udol too And therefore as no works of Nature neither Sun or Moon nor Angel nor Cherubin nor Saint are of themselves Idols so no work of Art made to the likeness of any thing is an Idol until it partaketh of the worship due to God and then the Image intended for Idoiam est false alacujus numihis 〈◊〉 sinulacoum quod numen inane â—anum reprae sentar Azorius ib. c. 11. Pagani ca colunt quae sunt sed pro diis colendi non sunt August Cont. Fanst Manch l. 2. c. 3. Dallus obs Cicero de Natura Deorum l. 2. Nihil est difficilius quam à câ—nsuemdine oceleru aciem mentis abducere Ea dif ficultas indaxit vulgos imperito simits Philosophes imporitorum ut nist figu is 〈◊〉 constituts nihil diis of 〈◊〉 sunt 〈…〉 the true God becomes an Idol And therefore we utterly deny the definition by Romanists given of an Idol that It is the Effigies of some false God which representeth an empty and vain Deity S. Augustine much better Pagans worship things which are but are not to be worshipped for Gods And true it is there is not only Metaphorical Idolatry of the brain or Imagination when the heart is devoted more to some created thing than to the Creatour but proper also when a man frames to himself an object within himself and directs his worship to it as to God for still the general definition given by the best advised among Papists viz. That it is Idolatry to give divine worship to any thing but God takes hold of this also And it was an old piece of Epicurism which I have heard alledged in behalf of outward representations of God viz. that we cannot conceive of God without some material Quidditie as they call it in our brain and it is much the same Case whether we frame a sensible or a Mental Image of God I confess this but Tully was the best Catholique in this point when he derided Epicurus his sensual divinity for being able to think nothing of God but under sensible forms It is very true we cannot conceive either what God is or any Spirit but we must cloath him with figure form answerable to material things and to conceive so of Spirits created is only an error in Philosophy or the nature of things inferring no superstition natural But there is no necessity a man should think with himself what God is for then he must needs circumscribe him but that he is Simply and Abstractly and so ought we to worship him yet if any man shall through the infirmity of oar understanding generally conceive of God under some shape he doth not thereupon necessarily fall into Idolatry no though he uses it as a means to worship by so he makes it not the tearm of his service to the setting aside of God himself when he so worships As the framing a sensible Image of God is no Idolatry nor Idolatry in the strictest sense to worship God by mediation or help of that but to make any Image of God was always interdicted as tending naturally to Idolatry and if it should never be used in any Religious way yet were it no better than a blasphemous attempt to compare God to any likeness of Colour Wood or Stone or the likeness of any of these 〈◊〉 â—ature and form of God as St. Paul tells the Athenians Acts 17. 29. plainly in the Acts We ought not to think that the Godhead is like to gold or silver or stone graven by art or mans device And yet it is well known with a Scholastick distinction newly invented and accommadated to the case Bellarm. how boldly and impiously this is practised by the Romanists and defended by the learnedest of them however there are sundry very grave men amongst them who declare against it but in vain The Greeks who are more then enough devoted tolmage-worship and the moderner the worse yet God be thanked have kept themselves pure from this abomination And Damascen pronounces it a folly and extream impiety Vide Lyram in Exod. 20. Dainascer Orthod Fid. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoret. Serm. 2. in Graecos to figure the Divinity Nicephonus Patriorch of Constantinople as Leo Allatius hath set him forth affirms it a crime to be punished with death to make the Image of God But none of all these nor the constant practise of all Christian Churches move the resolute admirers of the inventions of their own brains and works of their own hands but on they will go to prodigious practises in this kind sheltring themselves under the protection of a Church that cannot fail or deceive them and a wretched distinction or two coyned on purpose to help them out of the mire But it is time now to consider the second main shelter from the charge of Idolatry made against the Roman Church and that is from the distinction of Formal and Material Idolatry by which they would perswade us that first having a certain knowledge of the true God and next always intending
praecipit vel humana Constitutio Et ut facilius ita tutius quâ—que est omnes Imagines è templis submovere qudâ—n impâ—trare uc nec modus praetereâ—â—ur nec admiscedtur superscitio Eratm in Symb. Decalog Cateches 6. commended yet have not men dared as yet by any direct Precept to command the use of Images at all in Churches For that Images should be in Churches saith Erasmus no Constitution so much as humane requireth And as is is more easie so is it more safe to withdraw all Images out of Churches then to prevail that the Mean should not be exceeded nor Superstition mingled therewith Thirdly If that Rule of Explication holds good viz. that in the Decalogue where a sin is forbidden there the occasion leading thereunto is also forbidden I make no doubt but to worship the Creatour or any Creature by an Image is also here forbidden as Idolatrous though perhaps not Idolatry absolute And contrary to the current sense and distinction of modern Romanists concerning Material and Formal Idolatry of which we have before spoken denying an errour about the Object to be Formal Idolatry provided the intention be directed to the only true object of worship God we may more safely and properly call this outward visible adoration given to outward objects or at least seeming to be given to them Formal Idolatry than Material because there is nothing wanting to common sense which might make and denominate it Idolatry and this to have the Formalities of Idolatry but if they take Formal for the intrinsick specification of a thing then it is a Contradiction and Nonsense to say or suppose that there can be any Idolatry not Formal as to imagine any thing can be without its form or that which is absolutely necessary to make it what it is Furthermore this worshipping of God by any thing made is forbidden by this command if not as simply and immediately unlawful in it self yet under the head of Scandal unjustly and unnecessarily given For in this Case it will no more if so much as excuse a man from the just suspicion of Idolatry that he upon occasion declares he does not worship the thing before which he worships than it could do them of whom St. Paul to the 1 Cor. 8. 4. Corinthians speaks who sat in the Idols Temple being Christians and knowing an Idol was as much as nothing in the world and a man having so much Faith and Knowledge might do as he please in neglect and contempt of that but St. Paul could not be put off so but knowing and taking for v. 7. 10 11. granted that some did eat before an Idol with a conscience and sense of an Idol as it were adjured such presumers under the terrour of being accessary to the ruin of their brothers Souls not to have to do with them So what if it be true as most true it is a man may worship God or Saints before an Image and have a right intention and pure conscience towards God is it not also as true that he may have an erroneous and idolatrous intention Nay are not the Evidences and Presumptions much more clear and strong that his intention is corrupt then that it is pure Can flesh and bloud put any difference between the visible act of him that doth worship an Image directly and properly and of him that doth not Is not this then scandalous to sin So that we may reasonably conclude this Command to stretch it self to forbid all worship by Images and especially in publick where there is more danger to others though not under the same guilt or penalty as flat idolizing of any thing besides God For in that it is said Thou shalt not bow down to them is plainly forbidden external reverence to or before them in any way of Religious worship In that it is said Nor worship them is expressed the internal act and forbidden And thus far of the more literal sense of this Precept the more remote and reductive sense as I may call it is to interdict all worshipping of Imaginations or vain opinions which are certain Idols of the mind as the other are of the outward senses And thus Hierom upon the Prophet Esay Hieron in Isaiam c. 40. tropically applies his words To whom will ye liken the Lord c. We may say that Arch-hereticks are here rebuked who make sundry Idols out of their own heart c. And again upon the same Prophet afterward Quicquid Id. in Isaiam c. 44. v. 15 16. de Idolis dictum est potest referri ad haereseon Principes c. Whatever the Prophet speaks of Idols may be referred to the Ringleaders of Hereticks who dexterously frame out of their own hearts certain images of their opinions and of a lye and worship them knowing that they made them themselves And think it not sufficient to keep them to themselves unless they seduce other simpler folk with the adoration of them Against this little noted but most frequently practised Idolatry we have an excellent Sermon of a Reverend Bishop Andrews Sermon of worshipping Imaginations Sin ulachris phantasmatum suprum sectatores suos omnis error illidit Aug. Expos Ep. ad Rom. Inchoata lib. Prelate long since made and never more need was there then is now to inculcate this when people blinded with the love of their own inventions and opinions of the sense of Scripture run carelesly and rashly into the Idolatry of their own wayes having first consecrated them with an obscure and mistaken Text of Scripture or two and so made them as they think Divine This is condemned in this Commandment as are also all corrupting depraving mis-sensing Gods Holy Word bringing in Sects and Heresies disesteem and abuse of his Sacraments And to name no more to be remiss prophane and negligent in the true Service and Worship of God either by inward aversion or outward absenting themselves without just cause from him in his house and denying him that outward adoration and humiliation which he here forbids us to give any but himself which he surely never would have done had he not set some value on it himself And on the contrary we are required positively here to give all outward as well as inward worship to him as he is in his illimited nature without circumscribing him in our minds or likening him to any corporeal being how excellent soever The second Part of this Commandment gives us the reason of it viz. For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God deterring all men from the violation of the same from the Power Majesty and Justice of him against such contemners of his worship and his word So that as too often it is seen that some fond worldly and covetous Parents will even venture their own necks and damn their souls out of an extream desire to advance their children and to settle them sure and flourishing as they think in the world after them God confounds this their plot
handling of the two former we took in their Contraries Heresie and Schism so now doth it appear in like manner expedient for the conclusion of the latter to treat briefly of Superstition the Enemy to the true Service of God There are two extreams saith Clemens Alexandrinus of Ignorance Atheism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. Strom. lib. 7. and Superstition The former is a total Renunciation of a Deity The latter a vehement and excessive addition to a Deity without judgment or sobriety Fearing Doemons or Spirits instead of God and deifying every thing or mistaking the worship of the true God And to make a fuller discovery we shall not much trouble our selves with the various acceptations or uses of the word Superstition Whether it is derived from Supra statutum or Supra stare it matters but little provided we can arrive to the due knowledge of the thing intended by that word which men have endeavoured of late to render very uncertain and mutable as their several opinions and fears and interests of Religion lead them But undoubtedly Superstition is a Religious Passion of the mind as Atheism is a Passion of the Inferiour Senses and a Stupidity of the Mind as Clemens Alexandrinus now cited truly tearms it Now what Passion can it be so properly called as Fear in excess and Fear not directed to Man but God not cowardise but confusion It may be answerable to the description given us by the Wiseman in these words Wickedness condemned Wisd 17. 11 12. by her own witness is very timorous and being pressed with Conscience alwayes forecasteth grievous things For fear is nothing else but the betraying of the succours which reason offereth And we know the most generally received word with the Greeks expressing Superstition is compounded of a word signifying Fear 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Latine word which we retain in our Language Superstition comes very much short in significancie to the Greek For that implyeth in it both the Act of him that is superstitious and the Object about which such Superstition is used And that is a Fear of somewhat of the nature or esteem of God Daemons Whis is not much amiss For though Evil Spirits or Good Spirits being the object of our Worship inevitably turn it into Superstition yet may there be Superstition in the manner of Worship as well as in the Object when a man worships the true Object God in an undue manner But the Latin word Superstition seems to import no more than an errour in the choice of our Object which it maketh to be somewhat superviving even beyond our Senses or common Reason Such as were the Spirits of men dead and yet believed to be alive in their souls and honoured either for their great vertues or the servent affection the superstitions person bare to him in his life time And thus Tully and Varro took the meaning of the word not amiss however Lactantius rejected this account I suppose because it was too narrow to contain the whole Evil of Superstition which truly relates to the irregular manner of serving God as well as to the thing we worship For certainly there is a Pharisaical Superstition and an Athenian and the one we find reprehended by our Saviour Christ in St. Mark where he accuses them for admiring and preferring their own Traditions before Gods express and more necessary Laws and Laying Mark 7. 9 10 11. aside the Commandment of God and holding the Tradition of men supposing surely that by such commutation they should satisfie to the full if not exceed the main intent of Gods Commandment which was a very vain and presumptuous supposition The like to which if any stomacher of Ecclesiastical Prescriptions and Constitutions could in the least degree of probability prove to be either done or intended by Ecclesiastical Ceremonies and Orders they had all the reason in the world to stand it out as they do to the utmost and contend resolutely for the Faith and pure Worship so endangered but this being impossible to be made good as will by and by appear it will there also appear that Superstition as properly pertaineth to them as any other The Athenian Superstition or Gentile ignorant of the true God is that which giveth Religious Worship to an Object uncapable thereof which was that St. Paul condemns them for in the Acts of the Apostles saying Ye men of Athens I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious viz. for their infinite and endless Acts 17. 22. sollicitude in multiplying objects of Divine Worship when in truth there was but one And this is the most ancient sense of Superstition amongst the Gentiles as Clemens Alexandrinus noteth speaking thus The Atheist is he who acknowledges no God But he is superstitious who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. 7. Strom. feareth Daemons Spirits or False Gods and Deifies as it were all things So sensible and fearful is he of a Divine Power that he thinks he cannot extend his Devotion wide enough unless he takes in all he can imagine to himself or others vainly suggest unto him And least after all he should incurr the displeasure of any one adds honour likewise To the unknown God Neither knowing that any such there is or what he is but to make all sure worships at a venture without rule of Reason or Revelation for fear of the worse From this consideration the Schoolmen do make all Idolatry a main part of Superstition and all combination and confederacie or consultation of Spirits whether Angelical or Humane both Idolatrous and Superstitious it being death by the Law of Moses to deal in such Merchandise and judged very irrational and irreligious by the Prophet so to apply ones self And when they shall say unto you Seck unto them that Isaiah 8. 20. have familiar Spirits and unto Wizards that peep and that mutter should not a people seek unto their God For the living to the dead To the Law and to the Testimony signifying that the revealed will of God called the Law and Testimony is altogether sufficient and necessarily requires our squaring our Worship thereby at least as to the Object of it And therefore St. Paul to the Colossians well adviseth Let no man beguile you of Coloss 2. 18. your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of Angels intruding into those things which he hath not seen vainly puft up by his fleshly mind c. declaring unto us the dangerous Superstition of engaging in such Worship for which there is no ground to be seen in his Word but only in the vain and fleshly mind of man which is curious in searching into that which is not made known to him of God and to please himself in such bold inventions This certainly is Superstition But this is not only Superstition but that also which invents an essential form of Worship to the prejudice of that truly divine and ordained and may truly be distinguished into two
only to signifie how Christ was lifted up on the Cross but as practised in the Roman Church to the intent direct and divine Worship be given it 7. Wicked men eat not the Body of Christ Sure enough in a proper sense not denominatively only as the consecrated Elements are called the Body of Christ very often and currently 8. That they who communicate not are to be put out of the Church This is such an Error as the Ancient Church was guilty of as well as we as your own Vicecomes sheweth at large Vicecomes Vol. 3. l. 1. c. 18. 9. The Keys of the Church consist only in opening the Word of God No such thing is held by us 10. Private Confession is to be taken away Not so much as Sectaries say this absolutely 11. The Ceremonies of the Church are to be abrogated Simply and falsly said and directly contrary to the Articles of our Artic. 20. Church 12. Prayers in the Latin Tongue are barbarous and against St. Pauls Precept Very true where they are at first so instituted and understood by very few or none and so are they in the English Tongue or any other 13. No man can fulfill the Law This is true or false as it may be taken 14. More Masses then one cannot be said in one day in one Church Here our Accuser saith he knows not what For neither doth our Church inhibit more then once to officiate Liturgically neither did the Ancient Church practise if permit it for above four hundred years after Christ as appears from Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria consulting with Leo the first Bishop of Rome what he should Leo 1 Epist 79 or as some So. See also Grecian consecr Dist c. 51. do when Christians were so numerous that they could not all be received into the Church at once who answered In such cases he might safely reiterate the office And the Council of Antisiodorum or Auxere held about the Year 578 decreed that but one Mass should be said upon one Altar in one day which is as much observed by the Church of Rome now-a-days as other Canons of Councils which lye in their way thrown out And where in the Ancient Church do you read of above one Altar in one Church 15. Unity is no Note of the Church Discords and Divisions are certain signs of Errors but Unity is no certain sign of Truth nor so much as of a Church how then can it be of a true Church 16. Universal Councils may be repeal'd by Particular This See Petrus Gregorius Syntagm l. 15. c 3. is nothing he might have said by particular persons as the Popes who may according to that Church null Acts of Councils Oecumenical But we only hold that in things mutable according to the condition Article 34. of Time Place and other Circumstances rendring some Decrees prejudicial to some Churches contrary to the intention of the first Ordainers of them a Provincial Church may make alterations 17. The Church may erre in Faith And what of that meaning any one Individual single Church as the Roman hath according to our Articles 18. The Precepts of the Church concerning set Fasts are A Doctrine of Devils It is rather a Doctrine of Devils to teach so 19. Peter was not the Prince of the Apostles Peter was A or if you will The Principal Apostle but he was not the Prince of any one of them much less of all 20. The Bishop of Rome is Antichrist We are not so much agreed about this point as to give in a full verdict but we agree he is Antichristian 21. The difference concerning Leaven and Easter is inconsiderable Where no danger of Schisms or confusions may alter the case it is true 22. It is Heathenish to invoke Saints that reign with Christ Whether heathenish or no may be doubted they never worshipping any relating to Christ But for all that it may be and is superstitious and idolatrous in the sense very current in the Roman Church 23. The Reliques of Saints are not to be worshipped We hold so indeed though we hold they are to be respected relatively 24. The Saints in Heaven have no merits It is true taken strictly and properly 25. Indulgences of the Church are vain They are not only vain but wicked and generally blasphemous and ridiculous as mangâ—ed by the Church of Rome contrary or at least without all Precedents of the Christian Church for many hundred years viz. in remitting Sins or Punishments after this life and that divers times before they are committed Is not this fine and wonderful ancient and Catholick 26. Nothing is to be read in the Church besides Canonical Scripture This is rank Puritanism contradicted by themselves in their practise who read their Sermons as well as others and pray which is aequivalent to reading in this case out of their own heads rather than Scripture 27. In Oecumenical Councils and Private for the explaining of the Doctrine of Faith the consent of Lay-Princes is necessary It is necessary for the orderly assembling of such Councils It is necessary for the giving any Secular enforcement unto them 28. That it is lawful for Lay-men alone the Clergy opposing to introduce the Ancient Religion This is true no farther then that of Gerson which is alledged to this purpose A Lay-man with Scripture on his side is to be preferred before a Council without it Supposing a monstrous Proposition no wonder if a monstrous conclusion follows 29. He is no Bishop that teacheth not This is also a Puritan strain It being only true that he is no faithful conscientious Pastor but either proud or treacherous or sloathful or basely prudent who doth not in person discharge his Office so far as he is able without turning the care of his flock over to others using that for an argument of keeping close in his Cabin which is rather an argument of appearing in his charge viz. storms on the Church Opposition the Faith and Orders of the Church meet withal and difficulties obstructing the truth It being both shameful and ridiculous both in Bishop and Priest to censure others for enemies to the Church and for them so to wast it in all mens esteem in deserting it and delivering it up to the care of others themselves seeking little else then their temporal Harvest and case These men are over the Church indeed but 't is as the Extinguisher is over the Candle to put it out They pretend for themselves they have been sufferers for the Church and so it should seem indeed by their carriage to it in that through their scandalous negligence as to their charge they take a course to revenge themselves of it by making it suffer as much or more for them 30. Faith alone justifies How this is held we have even now as also we shall hereafter more fully explain 31. There are no Merits in Good works There are none properly so called 32. Priests and Monks may marry 'T is true where the
a man never was inserted into that Stock is more properly called Atheism or Heathenism or Privative and then is called Apostasie which is a professed renunciation of the Faith once received Or this Division is Partial and so it takes the name of Heresie upon it Schism then must needs be an outward Separation from the Communion of the Church But when we say Schism is a Separation we do not mean so strictly as if it consisted in the Act of Separating so much as the State For we do not call any man a Schismatique who sometimes refuses to communicate with the Church in its outward worship though that done wilfully is a direct way to it as all frequented Actions do at length terminate in habits of the same Nature but it is rather a State of separation and of Dissolution of the continuitie of Church in a moral or divine sense not natural which we seek into at present This Separate State then being a Relation of Opposition as the other was of Conjunction the Term denominating and signallizing both is to be enquired unto And that is insinuated alreadie and must needs be the Church and that as that is united unto Christ or the true Church For there is no separation from that which really is not though it may seem to be It must therefore be a true Church from whence Schismatical separation is made So far do they confute and confound themselves who excuse their Schismaticalness from that which principally constitutes Schism and Schismaticks viz. an acknowledgement of that to be a true Church from which they divide themselves and separate Again We are to note that Separation is either of Persons and Churches in Co-ordination or subordination according to that excellent and ancient distinction of Optatus saying It is one thing for a Bishop to communicate Optatus Mileviâ—â—â— Cont. Parmen Lib. 3. Aldâ— with a Bishop and another for a Lay man or the Inferiour Clergy to communicate with the Bishop And this because what may perhaps justifie a Non-communion with Co-ordinate Persons or Churches which have no autority one over another wil not excuse Subordinate Persons or Churches owing obedience to their Superiours from Schism From whence it is manifest that though all Schism be a Separation yet all Separation is not a Schism And though there may be many and just causes for a Separation there can be no cause to justifie a Schism For Schism is in its nature A studious Separation or State Separate against Christian Charity upon no sufficient Cause or grounds It must be affected or Studious because if upon necessity or involuntary the Diâ—junction of Churches is rather a punishment than a sin and an Infelicity rather than Iniquity as in the dayes of Anastatius the Emperour as Evagrius relates it Who so violently persecuted the Catholick Church in behalfe of the Eutychian Evagrius Hist Eccl. L. C. 30. Heresie that it was crumbled as it were into several parcels And the Governours could not communicate one with another but the Eastern and Western and African Churches were broke asunder Which farther shews that all Criminal Separation which we make Synonimous with Schism must likewise be an Act proceeding from the persons to separated and not the Act of another For no man can make another a Schismatick any more than he can make him a Lyar or a drunkard without his consent For if the Governours of one Church expeâ— out of Communion another upon no just grounds the Church thus separated is not the Schismatick but the other as appears from the words of Firmilianus Bishop of Cappadocia in St Cyprian concerning Pope Stephen advising him he should noâ— be too busie or presumptious in separating others lest he thereby separated himself so that if the Schism had broke out upon no good grounds he who was the Architect of it Separated himself as all others do and it is impossible any man should make though he may declare another a Schismatique any more than he can make him erre without his consent or be uncharitable Yet do they err also that from hence conclude that the Formal reason of Schism consists in Separating a mans self for it is rather the material Cause than formal The formal Cause being as in all other things the very Constitution it self with unreasonableness and uncharitableness No man can make another involuntarily an Heretick And therefore no man can make another a Schismatick All the Guilt redounding to the Agent noâ— Patient in such cases So that it is scarce worth the Enquiring Who began the breach of unity as it outwardly appears but who is actually and Really First divided from Christs Church For they surely are the proper Schismaticks though the name may stick closer to others To understand this we may consider that there is a Vertual Schism and a Formal Schism A Vertual Schism I call real division from Christs Church though it comes not to an open opposition to it or Defiance of it so that where ever is any heresie or considerable Errour nourished or maintained in a Church there is to be found a Schismatick also in reality though not in formality the reason hereof is well expressed by and may best come from the hand of an Adversary to u thus judiciously enquiring It is demanded first saith he Whether Schismaticks be Hereticks Answer The Common opinion Azâ—rius Inst Moral Tom. 1. Lib. 3. C. 20. of the Interpreters of the Canon Law and of the Summists is that the Heretick differs from the Schismatick in that Every Heretick is a Schismatick but not on the contrary Which they prove because the term Shismatick signifies Division But every Heretick turns away separates divides himself from the Church This is very plain and reasonable and so is the consequence from hence That where the Body is so corrupt as to be really infected with notorious errors there it is really so far as it is erroneous separated from the true Church and where it is so far separated from the true Church so far it is Schismatical And when a Church is thus far really Schismatical little or no Scruple is to be made of an outward Separation neither can a guilt be affixed unto it And on the other side if no such real separation and antecedent Guilt can be found in a Church in vain do diverse betake themselves to that specious Shift and evasion that they were cast out and went not out willingly from a Church and that they are willing to return but are not suffered For undoubtedly the very supposition is insincere and faulty that they forsook not the Church before they were ejected And the expulsion followed separation and dissention from it and was not rather the Effect than Cause of them as are all excommunications rightly used For to those that pretend they were turned out do not the doors stand open to receive them and that with thanks if they please to re-enter and re-unite themselves What do they here
that little For they may say that in prayer we offer not so much to God as we receive from him For prayer is a begging of favour and benefits of God To which our Answer is that taking prayer strictly and precisely for that one part of prayer which consisteth in craving a supply of our wants or deprecation only then indeed this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Cremens Alexand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Asterius apud Phoetum not so properly a Sacrifice But we are to take prayer in its usual latitude for all the parts of it such as Confession Deprecation of Evil Petition of Good Agnition and Profession of Mercies received Thanksgiving Praise for all Gods hand of Grace towards us and thus prayer is the offering up of a spiritual Sacrifice to God An offering of our heart and an assent of the soul to God as some devout men and learned have defined it And not so only but in effect and intention it by acknowledging of the free mercie of God in outward or inward blessings received from him is the rendring of them all to him again and a Sacrifice of that back again which once he conferred on us Thirdly prayer and worship so properly called bear the name of Sacrifices from the ground of all prayers though some parts of prayer be not so expresly such For he that acknowledges the Omnipotence of God the Omniscience Omnipresence the Alsufficiencie doth thereby render unto God his due but he that prayeth unto God supposeth and confesseth and implicitly offers all these as his duty to God But whoever heard of Offering up the Sacrifice of a Sermon unto God For Lastly If there be any thing of worship or the nature of a Sacrifice in Sermons certainly great Idolatry is committed by them it being most manifest that preaching is offered to Man and not to God and if it be a Divine worship what can it be less For what is more true and common then this That in prayer men speak to God but in preaching they speak to man So that from hence we may safely conclude that that Religion which hath nothing to commend it but preaching or nothing so much as preaching is quite contrary to the Apostle Whose praise is not of God but of Men and in truth deserves not so much the Name of Religion as of Superstition unheard of unthought of until of late years and coming nearest to that grossest part of truly Popish Superstition or as some call it Sacriledge communicating in one kind But here it will be warmly interposed and replyed God forbid they should oppose praying it is a manifest slander For these good people have prayers in private and prayers in publick too It is no proper place now by and by it will be to examine what manner of prayers worship these they mean are insufficient God knows to the constituting of a Church in true Christian communion But here we tell them that we have not disputed against them as having no worship of God at all But first that at all they make preaching and hearing Sermons a proper part of Gods service Secondly that they make it the most eminent and chief against both which our reasons stand good still And that they so do is demonstrated from their practise no less than Doctrines in that they never amongst us pray in publick never enjoy Christian communion but by vertue of a Sermon And though being pressed hard they confess with much ado as Cartwright against Bishop Whitgift that it is possible and valid to celebrate the Sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist without a Sermon yet it seems so notoriously inconvenient and incongruous as it ought never to be done where the Sermon is possible to be had A foul and ungodly mistake So that we have done them no wrong as yet CHAP. VIII A second Corruption of the worship of God not espicially in Prayer by opposing Set-forms of Publick Worship Reasons against Extemporary Prayers in Publick The Places of Scripture and Reasons and Antiquity for Extemporary Prayers answered A Second thing whereby they have abused both the holy duty of prayer and well-meaning Christians is in their traducing and prophanation of all prescribed forms of prayer wherein they forget not to shew themselves in their arts and colours For when the power is in their hands and their Faction can domineer then do they condemn directly in word by preaching printing and covenanting solemnly against Set-forms in publick and there hath been nothing under heaven acted by them more industriously than the utter abolition of all such Divine Offices And when they can go no farther their Chariots wheels are taken off and they begin to find themselves to sink that they bethink themselves how possibly they may stand in need of that moderation that they contemned and that indulgence they condemned their study is not how to repent and retract absolutely their former ungodly counsels and practises as all good Christians that meant seriously to be saved ought to do but with what artifices they may at the same time hold to their old principles of mischief to others and save themselves from harm from others For we must not say now they did any thing so disorderly good people that they are and innocent against Set-forms Province of London but the Parliament as they are obstimately bent to grace their cause without any ground for such a title say they call'd them to it when of the two they if we may distinguish them from their pretended Parliament for which there is no ground rather called their Parliament to such counsels and pranks as they after play'd as appeareth by their early Smectymnuus and their incessant instances with them to pursue those Schismatical Dogms to the subverting of all received Discipline and forms of Worship And that they have disowned their principles upon which they then proceeded we find not though we have more than enough of tricks and turnings and windings and straining them to the fairest sense they can possibly bear and sometimes farther too For instance they say now their Covenant was not against Episcopal Government but an Hierarchy They say They are not against Set forms for they suffer them in private Nay they say they are no enemies to publick Forms nor many other Rites but they would not have them imposed upon any But we shall presume to tell them we neither believe the one nor other until they as publickly retract what they have done in deposing all Set forms and taught and writ and imposing Unset forms upon all that would live by them And in that they would not have them now imposed they imply more strongly they are against them wholly than they express they any wayes favour them when God be thanked as ill as at present it is it is not in their power to oppose and damn them as formerly Can there be any thing more ridiculous than for men to do as much mischief as
exposed to any other actions than for which they were consecrated nor should any go unpunished who in them shall not accommodate himself altogether to such sacred religiousnesses And must that odious name of Papist render such excellent acts and customs odious as all the Christian world for many hundred years before Popery prevailed frequented be blasted with the slaunder of Popery and no more objected against it but they defend and practise it Away with such fond to speak more moderately than the case requires inferences out of Christians sober mens mouths It is no better than prophaneness all this For proof hereof saith Perkins they alledge the practise of some particular persons in Scriptures which is much more then can be alledged against the practise Of Anna who prayed privately in the Temple Luke 2. 37. Of David who in his exile desired greatly to have recourse unto the Temple And of Daniel who is said to look out of the window towards the Temple and pray Dan. 6. 10. Of these likewise we have spoken above and shown in what sense they oblige to imitation For that the Temple of Jerusalem and the prayers and worshippers in it may be in some case Presidents to us Bertram himself a Genevan doth grant drawing a determinate place for Gods worship in peculiar manner from the dayes of Adam himself and not only from Solomons Temple writing thus It is manifest that a place is due in peculiar manner Bertram de Rep. Judaeor cap. 2. Constat locum debitum esse c. to Divine worship And some of the ancient Expositours of the Jews do not unfitly draw from Gen. 4. 3 4. that the Sacrifices of Cain and Abâ—â— were brought to Adam for there was a place to that purpose c. But let us hear how Perkins comes off from the allegations of Papists as he calls them to the advantage of his Cause These places saith he are abused by the Popish Church For there is a great difference between the Temple of Jerusalem in the Old Testament and our Churches in the New That was built by particular commandment from God so were not our Churches That was a type of the very body and Manhood of Christ Heb. 9. 11. and of his mystical body Again the Ark in the Temple was a pledge and signification of the Covenant a sign of Gods Presence a pledge of his mercy and that by his own appointment for it was his will there to answer his people but the like cannot be shewed of our Churches or Chappels And whither tends all this so much as to shew that the Jews Religion was a better Religion than the Christian For surely that Religion which hath God nearest and most of his holy presence is better than that which wants it And if it be said That this was the outward presence of God chiefly and not so spiritual and therefore inferiour to the Christian which is true Then will I say that notwithstanding the said instances of Gods presence be not to be found with us in our Churches yet the more spiritual and properly divine is in a greater degree in our Churches then that Temple And therefore those places of Scripture are not abused by Papists 2. It doth no where appear in Scripture that they were commanded to build a Temple to God as is there supposed but when David entertained the thoughts of it and Solomon prosecuted the same design they had special directions how they should build it 3. There needs no Evangelical precept to enjoyn that which both by the light of nature as we have seen and such a President of the Law was propounded sufficiently to Christians without a new Revelation 4. The Temple of the Jews was not a proper type of Christs body Christ indeed in the Gospel compares his body to a Temple but every similitude is not to be held a type for then should every common shepheard have been a type of Christ as well as David and the Vine should have been a type of Christ and what not that bears any similitude unto Christ But properly they only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys Serm. 3. in Judaeos can be called types of Christ which were ordained and instituted of God to prefigure and shadow out Christ to come And the Temple had not this for its end but only it was a thing meerly incidental to it 5. Our Temples or Churches are no less types of Christs mystical Body then was the Jewish And the presence of God is more eminently though not sensibly in ours than in them Nay that Temple as the worship in it seemed to be a type of our Temples and Religion as our Temples are a type of Heaven the Holy of Holiest As their Sabbath is granted by all to be but a type of our Evangelical and our Evangelical of the Celestial Of which Evangelical Sabbath we are in the next place to speak CHAP. XII Of the Second Circumstance of Gods Worship Appointed times Of the Sabbath or Seventh Day how it was appointed of God to the Jews but not by the same Law appointed to Christians Nor that one day in seven should be observed The Decalogue contains not all moral duties directly Gentiles observed not a Seventh Day The New Testament no where commands a Seventh Day to be kept holy THE Question and Scruple moved by ignorant unquiet and superstitious persons against observation of Days in order to Gods Service is propounded and well answered by the wise Man in Ecclesiasticus saying Why doth one day excel another whenas all the light of every day in the year is of Eccles 33. 7. the same By the knowledge of God they were distinguished and he altereth 8. Seasons and Feasts Some of them hath he made high days and hallowed them 9. and some of them hath he made ordinary days I make no doubt but here it will be answered presently That God did this and appointed solemn days and seasons to the Jews and to them only which things as St. Paul speaks Gal. 4. 10 11. are to be done away in Christ And this is very true in great part For those Judaical days were appointed by Gods immediate order and by his will again evacuated and revers't at the coming of Christ But then all days in use among the Jews were not so ordained by God as the Feast of Purim and the Feast of Dedication but by humane prudence which when they would disgrace sufficiently and acquit themselves from they are wont to call Humane Inventions as if because God hath in his Word signaliz'd for evil such humane inventions as were quite contrary to his institution none other agreeable to his word and subservient to it were to be patiently endured St. Paul then when he saith Which things are done away in Christ doth undoubtedly mean the Jewishness and figurativeness of them and not absolutely the days and times instituted to the service of God in Christ God suffered God approved
contrary A Third abuse noted by Mr. Perkins is That a man may say the Canonical hours of one day for another which may be an abuse or no abuse as the matter is ordered To neglect wilfully ones usual prayers is certainly ill but having so done to double his prayers the next day is no such error as may be supposed Much besides this may be said out of the Authority of the Church and more out of Scripture than may be found for some things by Puritans religiously observed Much likewise is here wont to be said about the Hours themselves the reason and number of them but I cut off all them at present and resolve all into the general reasonableness and piety of such a practice and the manifold benefit which may accrue unto the serious and devout user of them though he ties not himself to any one form strictly and so shall rest till I can hear what can be objected worthy of a Christian against them more than I have found already which may be as well objected against Morning and Evening prayer as them CHAP. XIV The Third thing to be considered in the Worship of God viz. The true Object which is God only That it is Idolatry to misapply this Divine Worship What is Divine Worship properly called Of the multitude and mischiefs of New distinctions of Worship Dulia and Latria though distinct of no use in this Controversie What is an Idol Origen's criticisme of an Idol vainly rested on What an Image What Idolatry The distinction of Formal and Material Idolatry upon divers reasons rejected The Papists really Idolatrous notwithstanding their good Intentions pretended Intention and Resolution to worship the true God excuse not from Idolatry Spalato Forbes and others excusing the Romanists from thence disproved That Idolatry is not always joyned with Polytheism or worshipping more Gods than one How the Roman Church may be a true Church and yet Idolatrous FRom the nature kinds acts circumstances of Place and Times of Prayer we pass to the object of this worship of Invocation and Adoration which is the most important of all and which as duly observed is the end complement and perfection of all Religion so mistaken is the foulest of all errors and the highest of all provocations and affronts of almighty God who Isa 42. 8. protesteth by his Prophet upon this occasion I am the Lord that is my name and my glory will I not give unto another neither my praise unto graven Images This therefore it were superfluous to prove which all Christians yea almost all the world as well Unchristian as Christian doth readily and unanimously assent to That God only is the proper object of Divine or Religious worship And they that glory that they stick firmly to this what do they more than do Infidels and Heathens who all hold that God is to be worshipped with supreamest worship and that Idolatry is a notorious errour and offence against him This I say all rational men assent to in the notion that the worship of the true God or which seems to be the very same the true worship of God is to be given only to God and yet fall flat into the Practice of that great sin For though Idolatry be so odious in its name yet in its nature it is very pleasing and ravishing of our senses and hath of late days been so fairly and neatly trimmed up by the fine wits and curious hands of men and they especially Christians and they more especially Catholiques God bless us that now there is either no such thing to be found in the world or that the least sin one of them in the world And this is brought about by the ministry and help of innumerable distinctions which I think may be reduced to these two heads viz. to those concerning the Act of worshipping and those concerning the Object of worship Concerning the Act we find such as these very common and current first Natural and Civil and Divine and Religious And these again Properly Divine or Improperly supream and Inferior Direct and Indirect Absolute and Relative Ultimate and subalternate or subordinate Mediate and Immediate For it s own sake or for anothers sake Again for its own sake which we worship as a thing in it self or as a Representation of another All these but these are not all to be found in Learned Authors books to rectifie the worlds errours in its Religion And besides these more may be found concerning the Object but this one shall I only name which is their strongest Hold and Refuge That to secure them from all assauls of Adversaries this to receive them when they shall by strong hand at any time be beaten out of their fastnesses And that is that modern but very famous distinction of Material and Formal So that some of no mean knowledge have thus defended themselves What if for instance in the Mass we should by errour worship that as God which is not God yet this would be but Material Idolatry at the most and not Formal seeing we believe that to be very God which we so adore and Material Idolatry with such circumstances we must suppose is one of the least sins that we can be subject to Thus have some discoursed to me though 't is well known some others of them as Costerus do acknowledge that if Costerus Enchirid Catholicks miss their mark and that be not really God which they with divine worship adore in the Sacrament they are gross Idolaters Of this we shall speak more by and by Now are we to consider first of the first sort of distinctions to pass over all which by a particular examination would be too tedious a task for my self and Reader too I shall therefore only examine the most reasonable and comprehensive of them and them I take to be that of Worship Civil and Divine and of Absolute and Relative not omitting altogether others And to understand clearly what is meant by Divine Worship we are to enquire whether the Act makes the Worship or the Object For all worship as other Acts moral takes it specification from the Object as Philosophers say then unless the Object be Divine or God himself cannot the Worship be Divine and so by consequence a man cannot give Divine Worship though he would never so fain unto an object not Divine and so cannot though he would commit Idolatry because the worship it self is not Divine but much inferior because the object is such which constitutes not Divine Worship being some Creature But if the Act in its own nature be intrinsecally Divine it would be known what is that which makes it so For they say all acts external are equivocal and dubious in themselves and indifferent to Civil Religious Inseriour or Supream worship and that nothing can be concluded from thence Idolatrous For we bow the head we bend the knee we fall down at the feet of men many times whom we give no Idolatrous worship unto
nor are charged by any understanding reasonable person so to do And what they affirm of all outward Reverence or Worship I see no reason but may be said of all inward Adoration too viz. that it is Equivocal and indifferent to Divine and Human Reverence unless it be determined and specificated by somewhat besides it self For Fear and Love and Reverence may be and that inwardly exhibited to the Creature and the degrees of all these may be greater and more intense towards our Prince whom we so reverence humble our selves before and Petition than when in this manner we address our selves to God and yet this not reputed Idolatrous worship Yea we openly profess we humbly earnestly and with all our hearts desire such a thing from man and so I doubt not but many do with greater affection and inward sense than they generally seek to God and yet no man charges them with Idolatry So that the inward acts of worship are equivocal no less than the outward and consequently no act in its self Idolatrous or of it self And thus have we brought the matter to that pass to relieve distressed Catholiques that ordinary Heathens may evade the charge of Idolatry though they never knew the true God And See Joannes de Palafox Epist de Jesuitar Societate Extinguenda c. ad Innocent 10. p. 23 24. apud S. Amour if they know and profess upon occasion to worship the true God yet may they perform all outward acts of Worship generally reputed Divine provided their Intention be sincere and their hearts upright before God which elusions and evasions the Jesuites have made great use of in their complyance with the grossest Idolatry Heathens are subject to in the East Indies as John de Palafox hath plainly and roundly charged them to Innocent the Tenth showing at large how under the favour of such new invented and minted distinctions never thought of without detestation by the Ancient Church they have presumed to converse with and in all outward appearance communicate with Idolatrous Heathens in their Temples and Idols And why not if all outward worship falls short of Divine and their intention inward be not to give Divine Worship to them For to define Idolatry as doth Azorius to be That whereby the worship Azorius Institut Moral To. 1. l. 9. c. 10. which is due to God is given to another and again Then is Idolatry committed when we ascribe Divine honor to created things for their own sakes what does all this signifie when it is not agreed upon What is properly Divine Worship but sometimes Divine Worship is defined to be that which is proper to God and what is proper to God is not plainly determined and sometimes that which is proper to God is called Divine Worship For to help us out with the distinction of Dulia and Latria is to give us hard words for easie and that is all and especially to add hereunto that unknown to ancient and uncircumscribed to modern Ages Hyperdoulia For though it doth not hold constantly true that those two words are so distinguished in Scripture or Ancient Greek Writers either Ecclesiastical or Prophane as not sometimes to be used promiscuously and interchangeably as might by instances be made undeniable yet cannot we not deny but generally they have their distinct significations and the things by them signified are very distinct and it is one of the easiest things in the world to put a difference between the Notions of servile Worship which is Dulia and Divine which is Latria yet in the exercise of these acts it is one of the difficultest things of all to distinguish which is which seeing it is hard to say whether the intention of the worshipper only or the Act it self precisely taken or the Object makes the worship Divine The Object cannot be it because there could be no Idolatry committed in such cases For as is said If the worship be not Divine the Act cannot be Idolatrous for all other worship say they may be exhibited to a Creature And it should not be Divine according to this opinion that maketh the Object to give the Divineness to the Act. Again there can instance be given in to one act that in it self is incommunicable to the Creature according to these mens Theology Therefore lastly all the specification of Idolatrous acts must consist in the Intention of the mind and that intention is seen in a profession of Religiously worshipping a thing for its own sake For so Azorius holdeth that even Latria which it any act with them be Properly Divine must needs be so it self may be given to Saints and to Images provided it be not given for their own sakes but for Gods sake Now it being impossible that any rational man should thus strictly give or intend to give Divine Worship to any thing for its own sake which he denies to be 〈◊〉 Imagi is 〈◊〉 culaus sâ—t Latria non continuâ— sequitur 〈◊〉 creâ—a trituatur quonian 〈…〉 Cor. Veum Id. 1. Quinto 1 Cor. 3. 4. God it follows that no man can commit Idolatry because every man gives that worship he gives in a divine manner either not for its sake to which it is immediately directed but for Gods sake whom he sufficiently understands or with an opinion that really such a thing as he so worships is God But to make the matter fairer and safer on their side they flee to Origens opinion or Criticism of an Idol as different from an Image An Idol saith he following St. Paul to the Corinthians is nothing in the world An Idol is a fiction made like to nothing in nature but an Image is the likeness of something and fain would they if they dare be so bold for as yet they touch the matter somewhat timorously and tenderly cut off all colour for accusation of them of Idolatry by defining Idolatry to be the worship of an Idol and an Idol to be that only which is not in nature nor like to any thing in the world But they worship only such things as either have natural being or represent somewhat natural therefore they are no Idolaters But I shall here demand bluntly of them Is it not then Idolatry to worship the Creature natural and visible for its own sake with Latria I will suppose their answer for shame It is Why then read we in their books Origens wit rather then judgment so vainly and idly abused Surely Origen there spake like a School-boy wittily rather than like a School man Theologically And they are worse then Children that draw his words to a solid definition of Idolatry For what says Gulielmus Parisiensis When such kind of worship Latria or obsequiousness is given Guliel Paris de Legib. c. 23. Cum 〈◊〉 cultus auâ— obsequium ad â—â—iuderans feratur sive illud sit 〈◊〉 non 〈◊〉 c. Acts 7. 4. 〈…〉 ref 60. pâ—lt Christ to another whether the thing be or whether it be not and what ever it
oppressed truth they could in no tolerable sense be called a Church at all But by reason of that small struggling for Life in that Church they may be termed a Church out of Charity at least if not verity For Charity believeth all things CHAP. XV. Of Idolatry in the Romish Church in particular viz. In worshipping Saints Angels Reliques and especially the supposed blood of Christ No good foundation in Antiquity or the Scriptures for the said Worship FROM what hath passed may we with greater expedition conclude what remains of the Object of Worship and the superstition even to Idolatry committed in worshipping of Saints and Angels not only in themselves but Reliques For certainly Prayer to them or invocation of them is a proper Act of adoration no man doubts it And therefore see in what degree men pray to them they worship them as likewise what outward honor they give them or their Remains or Images And for the Spirits of just men made perfect as also their Reliques really such we allow due respect proper for such Objects But for the Images of Saints we know none proper to them as not at all belonging to them no part of them bearing no relation to them but as it shall please vain men to appoint it Yet though we hold no reverence at all is due to the Image of Saints or Angels for their own sakes or for the sakes of them they represent yet also hold we it unlawful to offer any indignity to them unless constrained from the abuses and superstitions used toward them which when they arrive at that height as to be made objects mediate or immediate of religious worship may lawfully suffer the same fate with the brazen Serpent in Hezechiah's dayes But first of Invocation of Saints in any sense How can we sufficiently wonder at the uncertainty yea contradiction of the greatest Patrons of it Whereof not only some affirm and some deny but the same Persons sometimes affirm and sometimes deny any such thing to be required or mentioned in Scripture Pighius and Cope give their reason why Saints were not worshipped under the Old Testament to be because they were not then partakers of the beautiful Vision as afterward Bellar. de Batitud Sanct. l. 1. c. 19. And this reason gives Bellarmin likewise yet for all that presums to alledg the words of Jacob Gen. 48. very ridiculously First because he confessed the Old Testament afforded no Presidents or Precepts for it Secondly because those words have quite another Sense than that he would draw them to I shall therefore cut off all that may be answered to the frivolous allegation of Scripture in that behalf as duly examined making more suspected of error than point than confirming it so very violent is the use of them And enquire rather first about the manner and then the reason and lastly the Authority or Tradition for this very briefly Of the three several distinct wayes wherein we are said to pray unto Saints one is not to pray to Saints at all but unto God For the first named by learned men which is to pray to God that upon intuition or consideration of Saints worth or prayers or intercession he would hear us doth not make Saints at all the Object of our prayers but the subject or matter of them which whether convenient to be used or not is besides our present question and belonging to another place and therefore may well be passed over and rather granted to be lawful and useful than disputed For certainly he that petitions a King to grant him any thing for such a Favorites sake who is about him and is his friend doth not thereby petition such a Courtier himself And this may be proved out of the ancient offices of the Church A second way is when we directly pray to them but not Particularly supposing they should either particularly understand all that we do or beg but by a general Petition desiring that they would pray for us A Third way is when we desire of Saints and Angels such things as are proper only to God to give us As if we should pray unto them to forgive us our sins to give us grace of mind and health of Body But these two do not seem to be distinct kinds but only differing in extent and matter For in the first a man doth make the matter of his request that they would promote that request which tendeth principally to God and ultimately In the second that they would procure to them the things prayed for which two differ in degrees not kind of Invocation Again they are wont here also to distinguish of Civil worship and religious And of Religious worship again into Divine proper and improper As for the former I see no reason how common soever it is to grant any such thing to Saints or Angels seeing all the ground of civil reverence given from one to another as in profession of our service honor and obedience to our Parent Masters or Governors wholly dependeth upon our civil and visible communion with them and civil Acts passing from one to another which communion or relation is extinguished quite by their natural death and departure out of this world as appeareth in the most intimate of all relations between men in this world which is that of Man and Wife which Nature Reason and the Scripture teach us to be as free as if they had never met together or known one another after the decease of either And surely all civil relations being founded on flesh and blood or Nature the foundation taken away must also cease and come to nothing Should a subject ask a Petition of his Soveraign that were alive but some hundred miles distant or out of hearing or of whose capacity to hear his prayers he had no competent assurance I cannot tell what more to call it but I am sure it were very absurd and ridiculous Now whether the communion of Saints and Angels which generally is no more than mystical and not at all civil or natural with us be such as doth not wholly render them unsensible of our Acts though directed to them here I at present determine not but this I may say that the bond of civil communion is quite broke between us and them and therefore are all Acts of that nature vain and groundless So that I may pray any Christian brother to pray for me here while we hold both civil and religious communion together but thiâ— being built upon that ceaseth together with that and becoms no longer of a mixt nature partly religious and partly natural or civil but purely Mystical and not to be exercised by such mixt acts as Invocation or outward veneration there being no known intercourse or reciprocation civil between us Therefore of necessity whoever maintains worship to be given to Saints must ascribe and defend divine worship to them and so in express terms we find them to do however they please to mollifie and extenuate
of St. Paul that 1 Cor. 14. 35. women should ask their husbands and learn at home And St. Chrysostom often exhorts his hearers to consider of what they hear in publique at home and meditate of the Scriptures at home which was either privately with every mans self or to such as could not have access to the Publique And this publique way of Preaching had for a long time no prescribed subject but what the Bishop thought proper or seasonable for instruction or Exhortation was uttered by him But in Saint Bafils Nazianzens Chrysostoms and Augustines Sermons we find mention made of the Scriptures read before and Sermons made by way of Exposition of them after the manner that Epistles and Gospels are in use with us and commended as proper subjects to instruct Christian People the one giving us matter of Instruction from the history of the Life Doctrine Miracles and Death of our only Saviour Christ and the other principally moving us to the exercise of all Christians Graces and Vertues conformable to our calling and knowledg of God and Christ Far were our Christian Ancestors and well they might from the modern perswasion of Erratick Christians that the Sermon was more necessary than the Scriptures or that reading of the Scriptures was not Preaching or that Catechizing and instructing Novices in Christian Religion was not Preaching I confess I am of opinion that there is a distinction to be made between a Preaching and a Sermon taking here a Sermon for an Oration made by un-Christian as well as Christian Orators to inform and perswade to what they aimed at in such speeches And no instance can be given of any Orator Gentile or Christian for many hundred years that presumed to speak to the People out of his own writings rehearsed to them Poets were wont in Publique to recite their verses in Publique out of their book by reading and therefore could never in my judgment comply with the very modern practise of it there being no reason why it should be more tolerated in Divine than Humane Orations or why setting the custome of the place aside which must needs be corrupt and absurd as it is singular and new it is less ridiculous to rehearse a Divine Oration which we call a Sermon by reading than Humane I am sure the ancient Fathers whom we pretend to imitate and all modern Churches without exception of any but our own abhor it And are not at all sensible of the vulgar arguments weight to justifie it viz. because the matter is the same And what difference is there between a Sermon deliver'd without reading and with it if the hearer sees him not or looks not on him that Preaches But it is very expedient the Hearers eye should be attent as well as his ear and yet that is not all might be said neither but all I will here say But undoubtedly they erregregiously on the other hand who imagine such sermoning as we now speak of is only Preaching according to the mind of the Apostle and that which is the only proper means of Salvation We are not saved but by Faith we cannot believe but by hearing we cannot hear without a Preacher as the Apostle most undeniably concluding from thence the absolute necessity of Preaching But what Preaching When I said Recitation of a Speech concerning divine matters and our Salvation was not properly a Sermon or Oration unless pronounced after the universal Law of all Orators which is to denominate things aright I said not that it was not Preaching taking preaching from the end of it and not so much from the form The end is undoubtedly knowledg first of the Christian Faith The next end is Assent to that Doctrine of Faith The third end is Obedience to the Faith The last end is the Salvation of such a true believer Now all these may without doubt be obtained without the Forms of Oratory and by so many wayes as we are made capable of these great ends so many wayes are we preacht to And therefore reading to and writing to another as the Apostles did their their Epistles to several Churches or any communication may be called the word of God and Preaching as really as the most Oratorical Sermon Though still considering the nature of man and the ordinary course of perswading settled all the world over I cannot grant that such wayes are so effectual or operative upon the partakers of the same instructions By what is said may be gathered what I propounded at first viz. in what sense Preaching and Hearing may be reduced to the Worshipping of God and become part of his Service For taking the service of God strictly and properly neither of both of them are such but they are a necessary foundation to build our worship of God on They have of late dayes amongst Sectaries been called The Means in so high and signal sense as if they need say no more and they comprehended all Religious acts eminently which is nothing so They are indeed The Means and that of Faith worship and Salvation But worshipping of God in prayer and praises c. and obeying his will and living godly and soberly in this present world are much more effectual and excellent Means of our Salvation than they They are but Means to the more excellent means of Salvation as Faith Hope and Charity and therefore must know their place and keep their distance and Mr. Thorndyck Epilog l. 3. c. 25. their limits too For as an excellent person hath at large showed the vain abuse of this preaching by Presbyterians which shall cause me to contract here Preaching is not so much as the Means of Salvation unless it contains it self within the limits of the doctrine of the Church To the confirmation of whose opinion I shall here give St. Austins Judgment Nobis autem ad certam regulam loqui fas est ne verbâ—rum licentia etiam rebus quae his significantur impiam gignat opinicnem Aug. Civit. Dei l. 10. c. 23. who would have not only limits set to the matter but manner of preaching too by obliging to the phrase of the Church saying We Christians must speak by certain Rule lest by a License taken of wording it a wicked opinion be begot of the things themselves signified thereby And concerning this we know St. Paul hath thus provided in his directions to Timothy Hold fast the Form of sound words which thou hast heard of me in Faith and Love which is in Christ Jesus It was very well known to the ancient Church that if Preachers kept not themselves in the compass of sober words and phrases to which faithful ears had been accustomed though their new Forms and phantastique phrases might possibly admit of a fair construction yet naturally they tended to the dissetling of mens minds from the truth and drawing them to novelty of doctrine and worship By which means as also by affected postures gestures pronunciation and such like carrying with them an