be the Glory of God to be what he is a pure infinite eternal invisible Mind it is a contradiction and dishonour to him to be represented by a material visible Image like to some of his own Creatures but inferior to the meanest living Creatures because without Life and Sense Thus St. Paul argues Acts 17. 29. Forasmuch then as we are the off-spring of God we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto Gold or Silver or Stone graven by art and mans device If we think God to be like to such Images we know nothing of him and if we make such Images as we know are not like to God nay a reproach to his Nature and Perfections we wilfully affront him And tho Christ conversed in this World in human Nature which is representable by an Image yet an Image is not a proper Representation of Christ as the object of Worship because it cannot represent the Divine Nature which is the Reason and Foundation of Worship And as for Saints they ought not to be worshipped at all and therefore not worshipped by Images And indeed that very Law which forbids the worship of Images without any Exception and yet upon such Reasons as are peculiar to the infinite Nature of God are a plain Argument to me that no Being which is representable by human Art is an Object of Worship 2. To set up an Image in the place of God has a great appearance and suspicion of worshipping a material and visible God of giving Divine Honours to Gold and Silver and the work of mens hands for the men pretend to Worship God in the Image yet how does the Image come to be worshipped for God What likeness What Relation is there between them How easily may men slip into the worship of Images themselves and forsake God or never mind him for the sake of a fine Picture or some beautiful or wonder-working Image for tho there is a great deal of difference between worshipping God by an Image and worshipping the Image it self yet to all appearance they are so like one another and there is so easie a passage from one to the other that Gods displeasure against this Sin is expressed in Scripture by Jealousie a Passion which expresses both Suspicion and Caution while they profess to Worship God by their Images they do not change their God but yet their worshipping a visible Image looks very like it and is an easie introduction to it Thus in the second Commandment the Reason with which God inforces his Prohibition against worshipping Images is For I the Lord thy God am a Jealous God Thus Psal. 78. 58. for they provoked him to anger with their high places and moved him to jealousie with their graven Images And therefore he expresses himself with some Passion and Concernment in this matter I am he Lord that is my Name and my Glory will I not give to another neither my Praise to Graven Images Isa. 42. 8. The Church is called Gods Spouse and the worship of false gods is called Woredom and Adultery going after other gods and the worship of the true God by Images tho it be not Whoredom yet it is such a kind of spiritual Wantonness and Incontinency as excites his Jealousie 3. Especially when we consider that the Worship of Images does naturally expose us to the Cheats and Impostures of wicked Spirits for this reason I observed before God fordids the Worship of any other Invisible Being but himself for it men were allowed to Worship inferior Spirits bad Spirits who inhabit these lower Regions would soon have the greatest share in their Worship and thus it is with Images which are such an offence and dishonour to God that we cannot expect that he will ever show himself present in them or guard them from the possession of evil Spirits It is evident that in the Heathen World evil Spirits possessed their Images and abused mankind with their lying Wonders and lying Oracles and I have some reason to believe that if any Miracles are wrought still at Images they are not by good Spirits because Images are an Abomination to God and therefore Rom. 1. St. Paul attributes the general corruption of mens lives and manners to the Worship of Images They changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man and to birds and fourfooted beasts and creeping things wherefore God gave them up to uncleanness for this cause God gave them up to vile affections and even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge God gave them over to a reprobate mind to do these things which are not convenient The meaning of which is That God gave them over to the delusions of wicked Spirits who lurked in their Images and first corrupted their Religion and then their Lives by impure and barbarous Rites of Worship 4. If there were no other hurt in Image-worship yet it debases human Nature to fall down before a sensless Image As it is a dishonour to God to be worshipped by an Image tho the Worship be intended for himself and not for the Image because it makes so mean and vile Representation of him so it is a reproach to a man who is a reasonable Creature and made after the Image of God to fall down before Stocks and Stones with all external Submissions and Adorations tho he intends not to worship the material Image but God by it because the visible Object before which we pay our Worship is so much below the honour and dignity of humane Nature is a reproach to the understanding of a man to think that a material Image is a decent Representation of God and a fit medium of Worship and he must have a mean and beggarly Spirit who can be contented to bow down before it Thus Arnobius aggravates the madness of this Supplicare tremebundum facttitatae abs te rei To fall down trembling and to supplicate that which thou thy self hast made And a greater than Arnobius tell us They that make them are like unto them so is every one who putteth their trust in them 5ly The Worship of God by Images is contrary not only to the Law of Moses but to the reason of Mankind it gratifies indeed a fleshly and sensual Mind to have a visible Object of Worship but God is the only natural Object of Worship and reason tells us that God is invisible and Reason will tell us that it is contrary to the nature of an invisible Being to be worshipped under a visible Representation it is not only a Reproach to the Divine Nature but an absurd and unreasonable Worship For what considering man can think it reasonable to worship a visible Image instead of an invisible God Reason can never justifie a worship so contradictory to the Divine Nature and therefore Reason can never teach men to Worship an Image For what is it they intend by worshipping Images Have they a mind to see the God
they Worship But how unreasonable is this when they know he is invisible and would not be a God if he could be seen And how absurd is it to Represent him by an Image when they know they can make no Image like him No worship can be natural which contradicts the nature of that Being whom we Worship and if it be not natural it must be instituted Worship and then tho it were forbid by no Law it must be commanded by some Law to make it reasonable at least if it be possible that a Law could make that an act of Honour and Worship which is a Dishonour to the Divine Perfections 6ly It is more especially contrary to the nature of the Christian worship which teaches us to form a more spiritual Idea of God and to worship him in Spirit and in Truth in opposition not only to all sensible Representations but to all symbolical Presences There are two things principally for which Images are intended to be visible Representations and a visible Presence of the Deity The first of these is so great a Reproach to the Divine Nature that it was forbid by the Law of Moses which was at best a less perfect Dispensation as being accommodated to the carnal State of that people but as to the second God himself gratified them in it for he dwelt among them in the Tabernacle and afterwards in the Temple of Jerusalem where he placed the Symbols of his Presence But now when the Woman of Samaria asked our Saviour about the place of Worship whether it was the Temple at Jerusalem or Samaria He answers The hour cometh when ye shall neither in this mountain nor yet at Jerusalem worship the Father But the true worshippers shall worship the Father in Spirit and in Truth for the Father seeketh such to worship him God is a Spirit and they that worship him must worship him in Spirit and in Truth Where Christ opposes worshipping in Spirit and in Truth to worshipping in the Temple not as a Temple signifies a place separated for Religious Worship which is a necessary Circumstance of Worship in all Religions but as it signifies a Symbolical Presence a Figure of Gods Residence and Dwelling among them in which sense the Primitive Christians denied that they had any Temples For God dwelling in human Nature is the only Divine Presence under the Gospel of which the Temple was but a Type and Figure Now if the spiritual Worship of the Gospel does so withdraw us from sense as not to admit of a Symbolical Presence much less certainly does it admit of Images to represent God present to us which is so gross and carnal that God forbad it under the Legal Dispensation We must consider God as an infinite Mind present in all places to hear our Prayers and receive our Worship and must raise our hearts to Heaven whither Christ who is the only visible Presence of God is ascended and not seek for him in carved Wood or Stone or a curious piece of Painting 7ly But since M. de Maux and the Representer think it sufficient to justifie the worship of Images that they are of great use to represent the object of our worship to us and to affect us with suitable passions it will be needful briefly to consider this matter For I confess I cannot see how a material and visible Image should form a true Idea in us of an invisible Spirit it is apt to corrupt mens notions of God and Religion and to abate our just reverence by representing the object of our worship under so contemptible an appearance An Image cannot tell us what God is if we are otherwise instructed in the nature of God we know that an image is not like him but a reproach to the Divine perfections if we are not better instructed we shall think our God like his image which will make us very understanding Christians But the Representer has drawn this Argument out at large and therefore we must consider what he says of it That Pictures and Images serve to 1. Preserve in his mind the memory of the things represented by them as people are wont to preserve the memory of their deceased Friends by keeping their Pictures But I beseech you the memory of what does a Picture preserve Of nothing that I know of but the external lineaments and features of the face or body and therefore the Images and Pictures of God and the Holy Trinity which yet are allowed in the Church of Rome cannot serve this end unless they will say that God has an external shape as Man has And suppose we had the exact Pictures of Christ and the Virgin Mary the Apostles and other Saints and Martyrs this might gratifie our curiosity but of what use is it in the Christian Religion To remember Christ is not to remember his face which we never saw but to remember his Doctrine and his Life to call to mind his great Love in dying for us to remember him not as a Man but as a God incarnate as our Mediator and Advocate as our Lord and Judge and therefore the Gospel which contain the History of his Life are a much better Picture of Christ than any drawn by the most curious Pencil and I doubt the Christian Religion will not gain much by taking the Gospels out of peoples hands and giving them a Picture to gaze on Yes says our Author 2. He is taught to use them by casting his eye upon the Pictures or Images and thence to raise his heart to the Prototypes and there to imploy it in Meditation Love Thanksgiving Imitation c. as the object requires But he is a very sorry Christian who never thanks of Christ but when he sees his Picture And how can the sight of a Picture raise our hearts to the Love of Christ The sight indeed of a lovely Picture may exciâ—e a sensible passion but not a Divine Love The sight of his Picture can only put us in mind that there was such a person as Christ in the world but if we would affect our hearts with his love and praise we must not gaze on his Face which is all that a Picture can show us if it could do that 〈◊〉 meditate on what he has done and suffered for us which may be done better without a Picture than with it If they want something to put them in mind that there is such a person as Christ which is all that his Picture can do the name of Christ written upon the Church Walls would be more innocent and altogether as effectual to this end But Pictures are very instructive as that of a Deaths head and Old Time painted with his Fâ—relâ—ck Hour-glass and Sythe and do inform the mind at one glance of what in reading requires a Chapter and sometimes a Volume Which is so far from being true that a Picture informs a Man of nothing but what he was informed of before The Picture of a Crucifix may put a
who teach these Doctrines disown for M. Daille himself in the place quoted by the Bishop charges the Opinion of the Lutherans and of the Church of Rome about the manner of Christ's Presence in the Sacrament with inferring the destruction of the Humanity of Jesus Christ and therefore the Bishop concludes too much when he infers It is then a certain Maxime established amongst them that they must not in these cases look upon the Consequences which may be drawn from a Doctrine but purely upon what he proposes and acknowledges who teaches it But the use M. Daille makes of it is only this That when such ill Consequences as mens Doctrines are justly chargeable with have no ill influence upon Worship or as he speaks no poyson in them if they disown such Consequences this ought not to break Christian Communion And therefore though no man ought to be received into the Communion of the Church who denies the Humanity of Jesus Christ yet the National Synod at Charenton admits Lutherans to the Holy Table because whatever might be inferred from their Doctrine yet they expresly owned the Humanity of Christ and this Doctrinal Consequence was a meer Speculative Error which made no change at all in Acts of Worship but when the Consequences are not meerly speculative but practical and do not so much concern what other men believe and think as what we our selves are to do as it is in the Worship of Saints and Images and the Host c. to say that we must have no regard to Consequences if the Church disowns them is to say that we must not consider the nature and tendency of our Actions nor what they are in Gods account but only what the Church thinks of them and therefore though we will not charge the Church of Rome with believing any Consequences which she disowns yet if her Doctrines and Practices corrupt the Christian Faith and Worship it is fit to charge her with such Corruptions and if the Charge be just though she disown it it will justifie our Separation from her Communion SECT III. Religious Worship is terminated in God alone THE account the Bishop gives of that Interior Adoration which is due to God alone is very sound and Orthodox that it consists principally in believing he is the Creator and Lord of all things and in adhering to him with all the powers of our Soul by Faith Hope and Charity as to him alone who can render us happy by the Communication of an infinite Good which is himself But there are two things I except against in this Section as not fairly stated First concerning the exteriour marks of Adoration Secondly concerning the terminating of Religious Worship As for the first he tells us This interiour Adoration which we render unto God in Spirit and in Truth has its exterior marks of which the principal is Sacrifice which cannot be offered to any but to God And with respect to the second he tells us The same Church teaches us that all Religious Worship ought to terminate in God as its necessary End and that if the Honour which she renders to the Blessed Virgin and to the Saints may in some sence be called Religious it is for its necessary relation to God The Bishop very well knew that this is the main Seat of the Controversie between us and had he intended by his Exposition to have put an end to our disputes he should have taken a little more care about this Point for as he has now stated it he has left the matter just as he found it We say that all Religious Worship ought not only to terminate in God as its necessary End but that God is the sole and immediate Object of all Religious Worship and that we must worship none besides him as our Saviour expounds the Law Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve Matth. 4. We have always denied any relative Worship to be due to Creatures for to worship Creatures is to make them Gods and it is no honour to the Supreme God to advance his own Creatures to divine Honours to make more though inferiour Gods for God's sake We say all external Acts of Religious Worship are peculiar and appropriate to God as well as Sacrifice for since we must worship none but God whatever can be called Religious Worship must be given to none besides him and the Bishop has not dealt plainly in this matter he says that Sacrifice can be offered to none but God but he has not told us what he thinks of other external Acts of Worship whether they may be paid to some excellent Creatures for since Sacrifice is not a natural but instituted Worship if nothing but Sacrifice is peculiar to God then all external natural Worship is common to God and Creatures and then in the state of nature there could be no external and visible Difference between the worship of God and Creatures nor had there been any under the Gospel neither had not Christ instituted his last Supper which the Church of Rome has transformed into a Sacrifice of his natural Flesh and Blood Thus when he says that all Religious Worship ought to terminate in God as its necessary end this seems to me an ambiguous Expression for Worship properly terminates in the Object to which it is given and in this sense If all Religious Worship must terminate in God then all Religious Worship must be given to God and to none else which is the true Catholick Faith that God is only to be worshipped But then what becomes of that Religious Worship which is given to the Virgin Mary and Saints in relation to God Does not this Worship which is given to them terminate in them and not in God Are not they the immediate and proper Objects of that Worship which is given to them And does not the Object terminate the Worship Is God the Object of that Worship which they give to the Saints and Blessed Virgin Then they either give that inferior Degree of Worship to God which is proper for Creatures which is an affront to his Majesty and Greatness or they give that Worship to Creatures which is proper to God which is Idolatry Which plainly shews that that Worship which is given to Creatures is terminated in those Creatures to which it is given and therefore if any degree of Religious Worship be given to Creatures all Religious Worship does not terminate in God as he said it must and if all Religious Worship must terminate in God then no Religious Worship must be given to Creatures as he grants it may to the Virgin Mary and Saints Yes you will say that Worship which is given to the Saints and Blessed Virgin terminates in God because it is given them upon account of their Relation to God but this is a great mistake their Relation to God can only serve for a Reason why they are worshipped but cannot terminate that worship on God which
civil and religious worship is this that the one relates to this World the other to the invisible Inhabitants of the next In this last Paragraph the Protester says p. 35. We have a Consequence and Comparison and both so excellent in their kinds that if any better connexion can be found in them then between the Monument and the May-pole it must be by one who has found one trick more in Logick than ever Aristotle knew Sometimes indeed Aristotle 's Logick does not do such feats as one would expect but a little natural Logick called common sense would have shewed him the connexion For I think there is some sence in saying that as the different degrees of civil honour though most of the external signs of honour be the same such as kneeling bowing the body uncovering the head may yet be distinguished by the presence of the Object to which it is paid whether it be our Father or our Prince So though the external signs of civil and religious honour are in many instances the same yet civil and religious worship may be visibly distinguished by the object to which it is given For civil worship can belong only to the Inhabitants of this World but whatever worship is given to the invisible Inhabitants of the other World is religious Now if this be so then to pray to Saints now they are removed out of this World into an invisible state is to give religious worship to them which makes a vast difference between praying to the Saints in Heaven to pray for us and speaking to our fellow-Christians on Earth to pray for us The Protester is willing to grant or at least suppose that the honour or worship which is given to the invisible Inhabitants of the other World is religious worship but still he says it remains to be proved that all religious respect and honour is so a divine honour as to make a God of the thing to which it is paid at least constructively This I think is no hard matter to do but I shall first consider his Arguments against it and all that he says is That if it be true it proves too much and will bring my self in for a share with them in giving religious worship to creatures and so making Gods of them at least constructively He instances in that Custom of bowing to the Altar or Communion Table as he calls it and bowing at the name of Jesus but this shall be considered when I come to the worship of Images His other instances concern that religious respect which we allow due to sacred places and things and a religious decency to the bodies of Saints and Martyrs but what is this to a religious worship The respect we shew to such things and places is no more than a civil respect which consists in a decent usage in seperating them from vile and common purposes and it is called a religious respect not from the nature of the respect but from the reason why we give it viz. out of reverence to God to whose worship they are seperated Thus that love and honour we pay to a living Saint though it rise no higher than the expressions of a civil respect may be said to be religious when we love and honour them for Gods sake but this is an external denomination from the Cause and motive not from the nature of the Act and therefore cannot make Gods of them because it is not religious worship but to give proper religious worship to any Being is to give it that worship which is proper only to God which is the only way to make any Being a God which is not a God Now if this be a true notion that all worship which is given to the invisible Inhabitants of the other World is religious worship I will easily prove that we must worship no other invisible Being but God alone and therefore cannot pray to Saints in Heaven without giving the worship of God to them And my reason is this Because God challenges all religious worship to himself as our Saviour tells us Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve Matth. 4. It seems to me a very needless dispute what is the peculiar and incommunicable Worship which must be given to none but the Supreme God when God has appropriated all Religious Worship to himself whatever act of religious Worship God requires us to pay to himself must be given to none else and therefore if all worship paid to invisible Beings be in its own Nature religious Worship we must worship no Invisible Being but only God For if all Worship of Invisible Beings be religious and God challenges all religious Worship to himself then we must worship no Invisible Being but only God for to worship any other Invisible Being is to give religious Worship to that which is not God But the Protester thinks I ought to have allowed for the different Kinds and Degrees of Religious as well as Civil Honour Such I suppose as they call their Latria or Dulia Supreme or Subordinate Absolute or Relative Terminative or Transient Worship but there is no place for these different Degrees and Distinctions of religious Worship if we must worship no other Invisible Being but only God for if there be but one Object of religious Worship there is no need to distinguish this Worship into different Kinds and Degrees as Civil Worship is which has very numerous and very different Objects If we must give no Worship to any invisible Being besides God it is ridiculous to dispute what Degree of Worship we may lawfully give them when we must give them none And it is a good Argument that there are no different Kinds of Religious Worship one which is Supreme and Soveraign and due to the one Supreme God other Inferiour and Subordinate Degrees of Worship which may be paid to those Excellent Spirits which are very dear to God and the Ministers of his Providence because there are no external and visible Signs to distinguish between such different Degrees of religious Worship As Civil Worship is confined to the Inhabitants of this World and is thereby distinguished from religious Worship so the Different Degrees of Civil Honour though the External Signs and Expressions of it are the same are distinguished by the visible Presence of the Object to which it is paid for when a man bows or uncovers his head we know what kind of Honour it is by considering the Relation or the Quality of the Person to whom it is paid whether he be a Father a Prince or a wise and good man But if there were more Invisible Beings than one to worship though there might be different Degrees of Internal Honour and Worship paid to them according to the different Apprehensions men had of their several Degrees of Perfection yet the External Signs of Worship must be the same in all And thus there would be no visible distinction between the Worship of the
on Earth by their own Power then Prayer is a worship which is not due to their nature even in a glorified state For no Being can have a right to our Prayers who cannot hear them and though we should grant that God reveals our Prayers to them yet to know by Revelation is not to hear In this case all that can be reasonable for us to do is only secretly to desire that the Saints would Pray for us which God can reveal to them if he pleases as well as our Prayers but it can never be reasonable to Pray to those who cannot hear us And if Prayer cannot be due to a created nature in its most exalted state because no creature can be present in all places to hear our Prayers then if it be a proper worship for Creatures it must be so by a positive Institution of God but then they must shew an express command for it and when they can do that we will dispute the reason of the thing no longer And this is a manifest reason why we should worship no other invisible Being besides God because no other invisible Being is capable of our Worship God alone fills all places and therefore may be worshipped though we do not see him for he is present every where to hear our prayers but we cannot know that any Being of a limited presence is present with us unless we see it and it is unnatural to pray to any Being who is not present to hear us And though the Church of Rome does not directly and positively attribute any divine perfections to Saints yet mankind are so naturally prone to ascribe a kind of Divinity to immortal and invisible Spirits that this is a sufficient reason why God should not allow the worship of any invisible Spirits For after all that can be said to the contrary it is a mighty temptation to men at least to make inferior Deities of those to whom they constantly pay divine honours And though they do not attribute to Saints a natural power to know our Thoughts and to hear our Prayers and to answer them yet if this supernatural gift and power whereby they do it be as constant and act as certainly as nature does it is as great and adorable a perfection as if it were natural for since all created Excellencies are the gift of God what mighty difference is there between a natural and supernatural perfection or gift if that which is supernatural be as certain and lasting and that which they can as constantly use as that which is natural As to take their own instance Were the gift of Prophesie which God bestowed on some in former Ages as constant and certain as natural knowledge that they could use this gift whenever they pleased and as constantly foretel things to come as they could reason and discourse what difference would there be in this case between a natural and supernatural knowledge of future things truly no more but this That a natural knowledge is a perfection which God did originally bestow upon our nature supernatural knowledge is an additional Perfection but yet upon this supposition as inseparably annexed to our natures as natural knowledge and always as ready for use as that which I think would make such a Prophet as truly venerable as if Prophesie were natural to him Thus it is in this present case If the Saints know our prayers by what means soever they do it it must be as constant and lasting a gift as if it were natural that is they must as certainly know when and what we pray for every time we pray as if they were present to hear us For if they do not always know our prayers we can never know when to pray and can never have any security of their Intercession for us many thousand Ave Maries may be every day lost and turn to no account and if they do constantly know this by a supernatural gift it is as glorious a perfection as if this knowledge were natural Mankind do not so critically distinguish between natural and supernatural gifts in whomsoever these perfections are they are divine and such creatures have a supernatural kind of Divinity annexed to their natures they are made Gods though not Gods by nature which is as much as any people believe of their inferior Deities who believe but one Supreme and Sovereign God who is a God by nature And yet the Author of the Character of a Papist represented gives some instances which would perswade us that the Saints have a natural knowledge of our Prayers Thus he tells us That Abraham heard the petitions of Dives who was yet at a greater distance even in Hell and told him likewise his manner of living while as yet on Earth p. 4. Now not to ask how he comes so exactly to know where Hell is and that it is at a greater distance from Heaven than the Earth is If there be any force in this Argument it must prove that the Saints have a natural knowledge of our Prayers though at so great a distance from us as Heaven is That they see and hear us as Abraham did Dives though we cannot see and hear them as Dives did Abraham which might have satisfied him since he thinks fit to reason from Parables that whatsoever distance there is between Heaven and Hell there is a greater communication between them than between Heaven and Earth However our Saviour cannot here speak of any supernatural gift whereby Abraham saw and heard Dives in Hell unless we will say that Dives did by a supernatural gift also see and hear Abraham in Heaven and therefore if this prove any thing it proves that Saints know and hear our Prayers by their own natural powers Thus he adds That the very Devils hear those desperate wretches who call on them and why then should he doubt that Saints want this priviledge in some manner granted to sinful men and wicked spirits But though he call this a Priviledge I suppose he means a natural one unless he thinks that the Devils hear witches by a supernatural revelation as the Saints in Heaven hear the prayers of the Saints on Earth But I always thought that Devils had been a little nearer bad men than the Saints in Heaven are to us on Earth for they are confined to this Lower Region and therefore are often so near as to see and hear bad men though they are invisible themselves And this is one reason why God will not allow us to worship any invisible Spirits because though we should intend only to worship good Spirits and glorified Saints yet bad Spirits who are near and present as having their residence in the Air as the Devil is called the Prince of the Power of the Air do assume this worship to themselves and both corrupt the worship and abuse their Votaries with lying Wonders Thus they did in the times of Paganism and whether they have more reverence for the Christian Saints than they
the Worship of Images unless he will say That it is unlawful to make the Images of any thing in Heaven or Earth or under the Earth but then they can have no Images to worship Tertullian indeed and some others condemned the very Arts of Painting and Carving Images as forbid in the second Commandment and it is certainly unlawful to make any Image in order to worship it But I desire to know of this Author whether it be lawful to make an Image or Picture of the Sun and Moon and Planets of Birds and Beasts of Men and Women which are the Likeness of Things in Heaven and Things on Earth If it be then the making of those Images is not forbid in the second Commandment and then the worship of them is not forbid neither But he says He means such Images as are made to represent God and those which are made to show him present and which are worshipped with the same intention as full of his Divinity But is this the Work of the Carver or the Painter to make a God Can the Pencil or the Knife put Divinity into a Picture or Image This is the work of him that Consecrates and him that Worships Qui fingit Sacros auro vel marmore vultus Non facit ille Deos qui colit ille facit He had forgot the Brazen Serpent which Hezekiah broke the making of which I suppose was not forbid in the second Command but it seems the worship of it was But to return Though the second Commandment forbids the worship of all sorts of Images and every act and degree of Worship without leaving room for any Exceptions or Distinctions yet we may learn from Scripture what was the currant Notion of Image-Worship at that time viz. That they worshipped their Images not for Gods but for Symbols and Representations of their Gods that is they set them up as visible Objects of Worship to receive their Worship in the name and stead of their Gods They did not worship the Images themselves but their Gods in and by their Images Indeed this is the only Notion of Image-Worship that any Men ever had till Christians began to worship Images and then were forced to defend it and to distinguish away the Idolatry of it This is the Account the Heathens gave of their Worship of Images That they did not believe them to be Gods but only worshipped their Gods in their Images Thus Cicero ascribes the making Images of their Gods in humane Shape to their Superstition Vt essent simulacra quae vener antes deos ipsos se adire crederent that they might have Images to make their Addresses to as if the Gods themselves were present And Maximus Tyrius gives a large Account of their Images to the same purpose That they are all but so many Pictures and Representations of the Deity to bring us to the conception of him and it matters not what the Image be so it bring God to our Thoughts and direct our Worship to him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Celsus and Julian deny that they thought their Images to be Gods and so did the Heathens in Arnobius Athanasius and St. Austin as those Fathers acknowledg And Julian tells us That a lover of God loves the Representations of the Gods and beholding their Images doth secretly fear and reverence them which although invisible themselves do behold him And Dio Chrysostom in his Olympick Oration gives this Account why Men are so fond of Images which they know cannot express the invisible and inexpressible Nature of God Because Mankind doth not love to worship God at a distance but to come near and feel him and with assurance Sacrifice to him and Crown him Nay those very Heathens who believed that some invisible Spirits after Consecration were not incorporated with their Images which it does not appear to me that any of them thought but present in them did not therefore worship the material Figure but through the visible Image worshipped those invisible Spirits which were hid in it Non hoc visibile colo sed numen quod illic invisibiliter habitat And therefore Arnobius says That they formed the Images of their Gods Vicariâ substitutione that is to set them in the place of God to be a vicarious Object of Worship to receive their Worship in the name of their Gods and that God receives their Worship by Images per quaedam fidei commissa by way of Trust as if they were intrusted to receive their Worship for God in his stead Hence St. Austin tells us that no Image of God ought to be worshipped but only Christ who is what he is and he not to be worshipped instead of God but together with him which shows plainly what Notion the Father had of proper Image-worship that it is to worship the Image instead of God and therefore tho Christ be such an Image of God as must be worshipped yet he must not be worshipped as an Image that is not in the stead but together with God And St. Hierom on Rom. 1. gives the same notion of Image-worship Quomodo invisibilis Deus per simulacrum visibile coleretur that it is to worship the invisible God by a visible Image and therefore falling down before their Images is called by Arnobius Deorum ante ora prostrati prostrating themselves before the Face of their Gods which is aptly expressed by Caesar ante simulacra projecti victoriam a Diis exposcerent falling down before their Images they begged Victory of their Gods And in those days before they were acquainted with School-Distinctions to pray to their Gods before their Images and fixing their Eyes on them was thought to be Image-worship thus St. Austin expresses it by adorat Vel orat intuens simulacrum adoring or praying looking upon an Image and so does Ovid Summissoque genu vultus in imagine Divae fixit with bended Knees he fixes his Eye upon the Image of the Goddess and indeed all the Arguments of the ancient Fathers against the Worship of Images are levelled against this Notion of it that they worshipped their Gods by Images not that they thought their Images to be Gods This then being the received Notion of Image-worship among the Heathens in which they all agreed as far as we have any account of their Opinions and being the only intelligible account that can be given of the Worship of Images we have reason to believe that the second Commandment which forbids the Worship of Images had a principal regard to it but I have other Arguments from the Scripture it self to confirm this Opinion 1. The first is from the first Example of Image-worship among the Israelites after the giving this Law that is the Worship of the Golden Calf which Aaron made while Moses was in the Mount That this Calf was intended only as a Symbolical Representation of the God of Israel and that they worshipped the Lord Jehovah in the Worship of this
Supreme God and created Spirits and Glorifyed Souls of dead men and therefore if it be necessary to distinguish between the Worship of God and Creatures we must worship no Invisible Being but only the Supreme God The Protester proposes some ways whereby the different kinds and degrees of Religious Worship may be distinguished as by the intention of the Giver but this is not a Visible Distinction For mens intentions are private to themselves and there is no difference in the Visible Acts of Worship to make such a distinction or by some Visible Representation that is by Images This I grant would make as visible a Distinction between the Worship of God and Christ and the Virgin Mary as the presence of the person distinguishes the Kinds and Degrees of Civil Honour for when we see whose Image they worship we may certainly tell what Being they direct their Worship to but the fault of this is that it is forbid by the Law of God of which more in the next Section or by Determination of other Circumstances but what these are I cannot tell and therefore can say nothing to it The Church of Rome indeed does appropriate the Sacrifice of the Mass to God as his peculiar Worship which must not be given to any other Being and if this be so then indeed we can certainly tell when we see a Priest offering the Sacrifice of the Mass that he offers it to the Supreme God but there are a great many other Acts of Worship which we owe to God besides the Sacrifice of the Mass and in every Act of Worship God ought to be visibly distinguished from Creatures and yet if all the other External Acts of Worship be common to God and Creatures where is the distinction And yet the Sacrifice of the Mass can be offered only by the Priest so that the whole Layety cannot perform any one Act of Worship to God which is peculiar to him and therefore can make no Visible Distinction in their Worship between God and Creatures And yet the very Sacrifice of the Mass is not so appropriated to God in the Church of Rome but that it is offered to God in Honour of the Saints This the Bishop of Condom p. 7. endeavours to excuse by saying This Honour which we render them the Saints in Sacrificing consists in naming them in the Prayers we offer up to God as his Faithful Servants and in rendring him thanks for the Victories they have gained and in humbly beseeching him that he would vouchsafe to favour us by their Intercession Now it is very true according to the Council of Trent the Priest offers the Sacrifice only to God but they do somewhat more than name the Saints in their Prayers for they offer the Sacrifice in Honour to the Saints as well as to God which the Bishop calls to Honour the Memory of the Saints Now if Sacrifice be an Act of Honour and Worship to God it sounds very odly to worship or honour God for the Honour of his Saints which seems to make God only the Medium of Worship to the Saints who are the terminative object of it and that the Saints are concerned in this Sacrifice appears from this That by this Sacrifice they implore the Intercession of the Saints that those whose Memories we celebrate on Earth would vouchsafe to intercede for us in Heaven The Bishop translates implorat by Demand for what reason I cannot tell and makes this Imploring or Beseeching to refer to God not to the Saints whose Patronage Patrocinia and Intercession they pray they would vouchsafe them contrary to the plain Sense of the Council and I think to common Sense too For I do not well understand offering Sacrifice to God that he may procure for us the Intercession of the Saints for if he can be perswaded to favour us so far as to intercede with the Saints to be our Intercessors he may as well grant our Requests without their Intercession and yet the Bishop was very sensible that if we offer up our Prayers to the Saints in the Sacrifice of the Mass it does inevitably entitle them to the Worship of that Sacrifice which they say must be offered only to God He alleadges indeed St. Austin's Authority who understood nothing of this Mystery of the Sacrifice of the Mass and how far he was from thinking of any thing of this Nature is evident to any man who consults the place But the Church of Rome as the Bishop observes p. 8. has been charged by some of the Reformation not only with giving the Worship of God to Creatures when they pray to the Saints but with attributing the Divine Perfections to them such as a certain kind of Immensity and Knowledge of the Secrets of hearts for if they be not present in all places where they are worshipped how can they hear the Prayers which are made to them at such distant places at the same time If they do not know our thoughts how can they understand those mental prayers which are offered to them without words only in our secret Thoughts and Desires for even such Prayers are expresly allowed by the Council voce vel mente Now to this he answers very well that though they believe the Saints do by one means or other know the Prayers which are made to them either by the Ministry and Communication of Angels or by a particular Revelation from God or in his Divine Essence in which all truth is comprised yet never any Catholick yet thought the Saints knew our Necessities by their own power no nor the desires which move us to address our secret Prayers to them And to say a Creature may have a Knowledge of these things by a light communicated to them by God is not to elevate a Creature above his Condition This I grant and therefore do acknowledge that they do not attribute the Divine perfections of Omniscience and Omnipresence to the Saints either in thought or word but yet actions have as natural a signification as words and if we give them such a worship as naturally signifies Omniscience and Omnipresence our worship attributes the incommunicable Perfections of God to them For it is unnatural and absurd to worship a Being who is not present to receive our worship to speak to a Being who does not and cannot hear us and since God has made us reasonable Creatures to understand what we do and why he interprets our Actions as well as words and thoughts according to their natural signification And herein the natural evil of creature-worship consists That every act of religious worship does naturally involve in it a Confession of some excellency and perfection which is above a created nature and thereby whatever the worshipper thinks or intend does attribute the incommunicable Glory of God to creatures If the Saints are not present in all places to hear those Prayers which are made to them and if they cannot hear in Heaven what we say to them