A Century of Sermons, Sermon 20
THE TWENTIETH SERMON UPON Our Saviours Tentation.
MAT. iv. 10.
Thou ſhalt worſhip the Lord thy God, and Him only ſhalt thou ſerve.
I Am come to this Text again in the zeal of Elias, to let no kind of Idolater be unrebuked, that doth not worſhip the Lord, and ſerve him only, according to theſe words, which were Law at firſt, and our Saviour by reciting them hath made them Goſpel: Take the Prieſts of Baal, ſays that holy man, and let not one of them eſcape, 1 King. xviii. 40. I will trace his ſteps in this cauſe, and will rather be a man of contention, as Jeremy became, by taking the Lords part, then ſuffer Rags and Reliques, Stocks and Stones to have an attractive virtue more than magnetical, to draw religious honour and adoration unto them. If men would hold their peace, theſe things which I now proceed to arraign and condemn for having holy worſhip done unto them, have no tongues to defend themſelves. They are not Angels or Saints departed, they have neither life nor motion in them, neither the Cedar that grows in Libanus, nor the Hiſop that grows on the top of the wall; but the Trunck of the Cedar, and ſuch other things as Art hath made unfit for any further benefit of nature. 'Tis ſtrange that ſharp-witted men will take pains to extol ſuch dull inanimate things as can never thank them. And concerning inanimate liveleſs things, how ſuperſtitiouſly ſuch glory, as belongeth to God alone, hath been imparted unto them, I ſhall ſpend my labours at this time: for concerning rank Heathen Idol Gods, imaginaries Deities, and concerning the Hoſt of Heaven above, and the Spirits of darkneſs beneath, how they are idolized by ſome, I have maintained the judgment of our Church before. But our quarrel againſt the Pontificians to vindicate all religious worſhip latrical and dulical to the Lord of Heaven alone, is, like a Suit in Law that holds many Terms, as long a quarrel as upon any other common place in all Divinity. I am in hand at this time with the ſame Controverſie again, to proteſt againſt four things; namely 1. foreign, Religious adoration of the Reliques of Saints; 2. foreign, Religious adoration of the Elements in the Lords Supper; 3. foreign, Religious adoration of the Sign of the Croſs, and that moſt ſtiffely and impudently maintained; 4. foreign, Worſhip of Pictures and Images, whether reſembling Chriſt or his Saints. Wo is it for the Church of Chriſt, that we muſt ſpend an hour in theſe diſſentions: but what peace can there be while theſe Idolatries are maintained under the name of great devotion, and anathema denounced againſt them that cry out for the Lord, and for his Chriſt, to them glory and worſhip, and to none but them. And now I have ſounded the trumpet to this battel, I betake me to the particulars propounded: Firſt that Religious adoration of Reliques confronts the verity of my Text, &c.
But in the Exordium if any one ſhall ask how do our Oppoſites worſhip or ſerve Reliques, or any of the aforenamed? I will ſatisfie him, that for the intentions of their heart in their inward reverence towards theſe things we could not accuſe them but that they profeſs and teach, it is religious and holy honour; for if it were no more than precious eſtimation to ſome of thoſe things, we would not disfavour their practice, but conſent unto it: and for their outward behaviour which expreſſeth the affections within, judg if this be not to worſhip; to kneel unto, to kiſs thoſe things, to proſtrate the body, to hold up the hands and eyes, and uncover the head before them; judg alſo if this be not ſerving of them, cenſing of perfumes in thoſe places, lighting candles to honour them, adorning with the richeſt coſt of jewels and gold, Circumgeſtation, Proceſſion, Supplication, Feſtival days appointed for their ſervice; and, as much as all theſe, Guilds and Religious Orders appointed to attend them: This is ſquare and open dealing, that I impute Idolatry and Will-worſhip unto them upon grounds of practice and confeſſion. Nay, I have not ſaid all, no not by half, touching that over reſpect which is done to the Reliques of Chriſt and his Saints: They exalt them above the Altar: St. Ambroſe thought it a great honour for himſelf, or any deceaſed Biſhop, to lye under the Altar: they call that adoration which is given to them meritorious. The Prieſts teach the people, that there is a kind of grace communicated to thoſe Reliques, they take Pilgrimages to them, ſwear by them, carry parts about as Prophylacticks againſt bodily and ghoſtly evil, and pronounce indulgence for venial ſins to them that fall down and worſhip them. Beſide the main ſin, ſee the uncertainty of all this: Of Saints they have mightily multiplied the number, and of their Reliques far more than is poſſible to belong unto them. Yet it is impoſſible to know by faith who are Saints deceaſed, but thoſe whoſe memorial is recorded in Scripture; and for their Reliques it is not denied, they are conjectur'd at by mere humane credulity: The bones of a Varlet may be carried in proceſſion for the bones of a Martyr; decem millia talium rerum Romae fiunt, ſays L. Valla, Ten thouſand ſuch cheats are done at Rome, yet he a Romaniſt that ſaid it. But theſe Impoſtures are maintain'd, as Demetrius buſled for the ſilver Shrines of Diana, becauſe the cuſtody of Reliques brings in more gain than the Revenue of a rich Archbiſhoprick to places much frequented.
Theſe Trinkets that we ſpeak of are of two ſorts: Firſt ſome external things of apparel, habitation, or ſome other civil uſe belonging (as they ſpread the rumour) to Chriſt, to his Apoſtles, or ſome glorious Martyrs or Confeſſors: Far be it from us to gainſay, but ſuch things, if they be right, are very venerable, both for thoſe that once poſſeſſed them, and for their very antiquity: whatſoever thing hath belonged to a perſon of noted worth deſerves a valuable eſteem for the owners ſake. The ſtory is in Aelian, that ſome ſtudious Scholars bad great ſums of money for an earthen Candleſtick that had been Epictetus the Philoſopher's: the victorious Sword of Edward the Third is a monument among us; how much more preciouſly and charily would we preſerve ſuch parcels as could be derived from Chriſt, and his moſt holy Saints? at leaſt this negative honour ſhould be done, not to diſhonour them, to burn them, and ſport our ſelves with the aſhes, as we are often ſlandered. But at this point we make a ſtand, and deteſt it, where Religious worſhip is offer'd to them. For what ſhould win us to the other opinion? I know not; O there is ſanctity in all ſuch things which thoſe admired Worthies of God did wear or uſe! what in all them? I know, when Chriſt pleaſed, virtue did go out of him to the very hemm of his Garment: it was not a natural or phyſical virtue which went neceſſarily from him, as fire heats the air, or a mans body the garments upon him: whatſoever Chriſt aſſumed for ordinary uſes and conveniencies as He was man, it had not holineſs imprinted in it: not the Beaſt He rode on, or the Ship He preacht in, or the ground He trod, or a thouſand things more: He ſanctified only where it was his expreſs pleaſure to ſanctifie. But grant all things about him to be ſanctified, yet nothing but himſelf to be adored. For ſanctification is either eſſential, and that is only in God, or rather God himſelf; God is holineſs, and that is to be worſhipped: or it is created ſanctity, and then it is either that infuſed and inherent holineſs which is in the hearts of good men; or it is that relative ſanctity by which ſome things are called holy as applied to holy uſes, the Church, the Lords Table, the Font, and many things beſide are called holy in that low reſpect. Do any of theſe deſerve adoration for that uſe? I trow not; but the garments or other utenſils of holy men were never called holy for that relation, which is meerly civil and ſecular. The Handkerchiefs and Aprons which were brought from Paul's body, and cured diſeaſes, is only urged for this purpoſe out of of Scripture, Acts xix. 2. 'Tis true that the Veſtments of Paul did cure diſeaſes by miracle where he was abſent, that they which were abſent might admire his doctrine, though they did not hear it from his mouth: Here's a miracle, that's apparent, but here is no adoration, that's falſely preſum'd. Every thing which God made the inſtrument of a miracle, He made it not for an object to be worſhipped. I will clear that upon the next inſtance
Which concerns the bones, or other parts of the body of Martyrs deceaſed.Anno Chriſti 55. Auguſt. l. 22. de Civ. Dei. c. 8. Baronius reckons up in his Annals many Legends, what miracles came to paſs at the Sepulchres of the dead that died in the Lord: the very Oil that burnt in the lamps before their Sepulture cured ſundry ſickneſſes: The very flowers that toucht the Coffin of St. Stephen reſtored many weak perſons in the very age of St. Ambroſe and St. Auſtin; both of them teſtifie, that a blind man received his ſight coming to the Burial-place of Gervaſius and Protaſius. Well, it ſhall not be denied that God wrought theſe mighty ſigns and wonders at their Sepulchers, to commend that faith which they maintain'd ſo conſtantly to the death; not as if there were any celeſtial virtue in their duſt and aſhes, much leſs to point them out thereby to be glorified with religious worſhip. Surely if God meant any ſuch branch of holy ſervice unto them, their living bodies had deſerved it, rather than their dead, when they carried the Image and ſimilitude of their Maker: and ſtill I retort, that miracles are no warrants for adoration: elſe the Waters of Jordan that cured Naaman of his leproſie, the Waters in the Law that diſcovered to the jealous Husband whether his Wife were falſe or loyal, the Clay that was dawbed upon the Blind-mans eyes, all theſe ſhould be adored. And I ſtep in upon them further, that the Reformed Churches do more honour the dead bodies of the Saints than they: we carry them to the Grave with Chriſtian reverence, and decently interr them in aſſured hope of the Reſurrection. They do that to the Saints which God ſaid he would do to his Enemies, dig up their bones from their Sepulchers: Thou art caſt out of the grave like an abominable branch, Iſa. xiv. 19. Eliſha's bones lay quiet, unremoved, not taken out for adoration, for pomp or lucre, albeit a dead corps was raiſed to life that touched them. Moſes carried Joſeph's bones out of Egypt into the Land of promiſe; they were preſerved 300 years unburied in the Coffin by prophetical inſtinct, to confirm the faith of the Children of Iſrael, that they ſhould return out of bondage into the land from whence their Fathers came: Now theſe bones were never taken out of their Grave, but carried to their Grave by that divine Moſes, and all the Princes of the people. And what ſays St. Auſtin of Moſes himſelf? Deus ipſe Moſis corpus honoravit, dum illud propriis manibus ſepelivit, God did honour the body of Moſes, becauſe He buried it with his own hands. If the people might have honored Moſes bones, why were they hid out of the way, that no man knoweth of his burial place to this day? The devotion of good times (yet I know not whether it were too far) took up the Carcaſſes of Martyrs which were interred in meaner places, to carry them to the Cathedral Churches of Imperial Cities. So Conſtantine the Great cauſed the bones of St. Andrew, Luke, and Timothy to be conveyed, and that in ſolemn Proceſſion from their firſt obſcure Burial-places to his own City▪ (I believe this was it which moved Vigilantius firſt to conteſt againſt the Reliques of Saints) yet theſe were encloſed in the earth again, and not denied a quiet Grave, that they might be kiſt and worſhipped. What need more teſtimony than St. Hierom, who ſpake as ho…ly for the due reſpect to be had to Saints Reliques, as ever any did, yet he ſtates the controverſie againſt Vigilantius thus, Nos martyrum reliquias nec colimus, nec adoramus, ſed honoramus; We neither worſhip nor adore the Reliques of Martyrs, but honour them. Now decent burial is the honor of their bones, as I proved before; and ſo much for that point.
In the next place, as Chriſt urged my Text againſt Satan, ſo I do allege it againſt them that profeſs a ſuperſtitious adoration of the Croſs: for the very Croſs on which Chriſt ſuffred hangs ſo near to the former Treatiſe, that it is accounted the very Flower of Reliques: Prima crux non modò inter imagines, 3a P. qu. 25. art. 4.ſed etiam inter reliquias habenda eſt, ſays Aquinas, the firſt Croſs of all ſtands both for an Image, and for a Relique to be adored. The Pontifician Authors have emulated one another, who ſhould ſay moſt for the Worſhip of the Croſs: deterior qui vicerit, he that hath gone fartheſt hath wrote fouleſt. Aquinas ſpeaks all at a breath, that it behoves to give it latriam, the higheſt religious ſervice which is given to God, cum habitudine & relatione ad prototypum, with importance and relation to the Prototype that ſuffer'd upon it. Turrecremata finds out three ways to worſhip the Croſs, either as it repreſents Chriſts arms ſtretched out, and himſelf ſuffering, or as it was honour'd by touching his very body, or as in ſome places his blood was ſprinkled upon it. So Turrecremata leavs it, but one Saleſius (quoted truly by Chamierus I make no queſtion) thus diſpoſeth it:Chamierus, tom. 2. lib. 22. c. 2. Ordinary Croſſes, exemplified by the firſt, are to be adored as all Images. The very firſt Croſs, as it is a Relique of Chriſt, is to be worſhipped with the adoration of hyperdulia, but as it repreſents Chriſt crucified, and is ſprinkled with his blood, it deſerves latria, the ſame worſhip that Chriſt himſelf hath: thus that Saleſius. Coſterus hath a crotchet by himſelf: 1. That every Croſs muſt have more veneration given it than the Images of the Saints. 2. That which had Chriſt nailed upon it muſt have a more pretious religious veneration than all Creatures: but where a drop of Chriſts blood ſhall appear to have coloured it, there not the wood of the Croſs, but Chriſt in that drop of blood is to be adored. Thus they all ſtudy, as it ſeems to me, which of them by the acuteneſs of his learning ſhould run furtheſt into Idolatry.
Here is zeal, as it ſeems, but not according to Scripture, that's not once thought of in all theſe concluſions: That one word is enough to daſh all their ſophiſtry; but to tear all their devices piece-meal, liſten briefly. Firſt, the Figure of the Croſs repreſents our Lord as He died for our ſins. I deny that, it repreſents not him in the matter or in the figure; it may repreſent the ſufferings of ſundry others, yet if by uſe and often remembrance it doth more eſpecially recall his paſſion to our mind, it is no more to be adored than the word which is preached upon the ſame occaſion: But if I ſhould ſwallow that, how it exemplifies unto us Chriſt crucified, that comes not home to the mark, that it is fit to be adored. The Brazen Serpent prefigured how Chriſt ſhould be lifted up, and die upon a tree, yet when the people fell down before it Hezekiah made it away, and would not ſuffer it. And how hath it neceſſarily merited religious honour becauſe our Saviours body touched it? happy were they that ſaw him, and touched him by faith; but it was no happineſs to Judas lips, to the Executioners arms that lifted him, to the thorns that ſat cloſe upon his brows, or to the wood that bore his body. And whereas they make great reckoning that ſome of that blood which ſaved us was to be ſeen where it had run down upon his Croſs, I anſwer with reverence, that if mine eyes were ſo happy to ſee any true tokens of my dear Redeemers blood, I would bleſs God with all humility of heart and body to behold a drop of that ſtream which flowed from my Saviour, that my poor eyes ſhould ſee part of the richeſt ranſom that ever the world had; but I muſt not give it divine worſhip. For ancient Councils tell me, the Humanity of Chriſt ought to have divine honour done unto it, as united perſonally to the Godhead; therefore thoſe drops of blood divided from the unity of his perſon were not religiouſly to be honoured.
It is eaſie to multiply fluent phraſes on their ſide, as that the Croſs was the Chariot in which our Lord triumphed over death, the Ladder upon which he choſe to go up to heaven: that wood once accurſed, in which He took away all malediction from us. Well, all this is as if you had ſaid, that the Croſs by accident was an inſtrument of his glory and our ſalvation, as much as the nails were, and no more. It was not the Croſs that made him triumph, but the Death He ſuſtained on the Croſs: for by death he overcame death, I ſaid they did not once quote Scripture in all this Argument, but a few of their looſe rovers, venture at the xxiv. of Matth 30. Then ſhall appear the ſign of the Son of man in heaven. It is worth the ſifting to anſwer it: What if that be an Hebraiſm, as ſome ſay it is, that the ſign of the Son of man is the Son of man himſelf, ſignantèr & perſpicuè venturus, moſt evidently and expreſly coming in the Heavens to judge the world; or if with more likelihood the Sign of Chriſt is not Chriſt himſelf, yet whether the Apoſtle means the wounds in his Body or his Croſs; or it may be a ſtrange Star, ſuch as appeared at his Birth, who knows? but here's no hint of Adoration; no matter for the reſt, be it what you will. But the laſt refuge is to betake them to Legends and ſtrange ſtories, eſpecially in two inſtances, I will not cloy you with them at large: but firſt we are told how Helen, the renown of our Britany in her age, and the Mother of Conſtantine, had a divine admoniſhment how to find the Croſs which had been loſt above three hundred years: And long after when the Pagans had taken it by violence from the Chriſtians, that Heraclius the Emperor fought with Choſroes and his Perſians to recover it, and that ſtones from heaven fell upon the Perſians; never the like ſeen but once in the days of Joſhua. Touching the Invention of the Croſs by Helena, though St. Ambroſe ſpeaks of it, yet it ſticks hard with me to believe it, becauſe Euſebius omits it, who ſpake of other renowned works of Helens, and how Conſtantine her Son found out the Holy Sepulcher; but let it have credit, and that of Heraclius too, though both deſervedly ſuſpected. What will it come to? the Book of the Law was as ſtrangely found out by Joſiah, and more certainly, yet never adored. Elizeus his bones were found by caſting a dead man into his Grave, and nothing followed: Yea, Saul found out his Fathers Aſſes by divine admonition. And for the miraculous and victorious recovery of it from the Perſians, remember how powerful and wonderfully God made the Philiſtins reſtore the Ark again, but far from any purpoſe to have it religiouſly worſhipped. The material Figure of the Croſs was never in common uſe till Conſtantine's days, then it was reared up as the Trophy of Chriſt, who had ſubdued all things to himſelf. Indeed the tranſient Sign of the Croſs, ſtricking their hand or finger thwart through the air was in great uſe in very ancient times: (that you know being a tranſient whiffing of the hand could not be adored) but they uſed it to keep ſafeguard over every member of their body, and to drive away Devils. They had ſome cauſe I ſuppoſe to make an operative ſign of it in thoſe days, when God was preſent with them by miracles. Our reaſon and experience tells us that now they are ceaſed, ſo that we ſtep not after them in that imitation. And being but an adiaphorus Ceremony, they are too blame that affect it in our Church, further then where it is commanded in Baptiſm: for I do ever guide my ſelf in this caſe by that rule which St. Auſtin ſaies St. Ambroſe taught him, uſe ſuch Ceremonies, and no other, as that particular Church hath appointed wherein you are: there are no banks to keep us in order, if that be contradicted.
This may ſuffice to be ſpoken againſt them that deceive themſelves in voluntary humility, and worſhip toward the Croſs of Chriſt; to maintain which ſuperſtition the Pontificians contend ſharply with words: to uphold the next Idolatrous Tenet they have fought againſt us cruelly with fire and ſword; 'tis their foreign, their adoring the Bread or Wafer-cake conſecrated, but they ſay tranſubſtantiated in the Lords Supper. This opinion is their Baſilisk that hath murdered ſo many holy Martyrs, foreign, that ſet their hearts againſt it. To make their Divinity ſeem devout and plauſible, it walks upon two crutches. Firſt it claims right from the new Philoſophy of Tranſubſtantiation, ſaying that Chriſt in his whole manhood is carnally and corporeally there under the ſpecies of the Elements. Secondly, that the Lords Supper is not only a Sacrament, wherein Chriſt gave himſelf in bread and wine to his Diſciples, but alſo a Sacrifice, offering himſelf under thoſe Elements, or their ſpecies to his Father at that time, upon which far-rooted error the Prieſt doth offer Chriſt every day to God in the Maſs, and having it in his belief, that it is an Expiatory Sacrifice both for quick and dead, all that are preſent fall down at the Elevation, and worſhip the Hoſtia: But if there be neither Tranſubſtantiation, nor any ſuch external Expiatory Sacrifice in the Lords Supper, their practice without more queſtion is confeſſed Idolatry.
I will not take a large ſwing to diſpute upon ſuch copious matters, but briefly by what conjecture or divination can the wit of man make a Sacrifice of it? Did Chriſt do any more than give thanks and bleſs the Elements, and then brake and gave to his Diſciples to eat, and bad them do the like for ever in remembrance of him? upon which of theſe clauſes can a Sacrifice be grounded? St. Paul ſays it is appointed unto men once to die, Heb. ix. 28.ſo (that is by death) Chriſt was once offered to bear the ſins of many. Attend, ſaies the Adverſary, He offered himſelf but once, the Prieſt may offer him oftner; nay, but if he offered himſelf to his Father in his laſt Supper, and again at his death upon the Croſs, He muſt offer himſelf twice, and that's repugnant to Scripture: But we are told the Paſchal Lamb was both Sacrament and Sacrifice; it is not denied; yet thus it is truly reſolv'd. As the Paſchal Lamb was ordeined to be eaten in remembrance of Deliverance and Redemption, ſo it anſwers to the Lords Supper: but as the Beaſt was a bloody Sacrifice ſlain to God, ſo it anſwers to Chriſt on the Croſs: the Scripture confirms it; for when Chriſt was dead before the Souldiers came to break his legs, the Type of the Paſchal Lamb is called to mind, not a bone of him ſhall be broken. But were it a Sacrifice, as it is but the Commemoration of a Sacrifice, yet it proves not adoration; it hangs all upon the ſlender thread of Tranſubſtantiation, which will quickly break, as when a ſpark of fire lights upon a thread of Flax. 1 Cor. xi.For St. Paul calls it bread five times in one Chapter after Conſecratian: This doth not evince us, ſay the Romaniſts; for there are examples to match this, that many things converted into new ſubſtances carry their former names. Aarons rod, which became a ſerpent is yet called a rod. Adam ſaith of Eve, ſhe was bone of his bone. The Governor is ſaid to taſte of the water which was made wine: ſo St. Paul calls the Hoſt bread, becauſe it had been bread, yet after conſecration it is not. Well, I ſay theſe inſtances are not matches. Firſt, Eve was made out of the bone, the ſerpent of the ſubſtance of the rod, the wine of the ſubſtance of water; and therefore propter materiam ex quâ they are called Synechdochically, what they had been: but is Chriſts body made of the bread productivè? (ſo they were wont to ſpeak indeed) then it is not that Chriſt who was made of the ſubſtance of the bleſſed Virgin, for their Chriſt is made out of bread. No, now they philoſophize that it is adductivè, all the ſubſtance of bread is annihilated, and Chriſt's body fills that place which it had. Secondly, in the rod, in that bone, in the water when the ſubſtances were changed new accidents reſulted from the new form, but here are the accidents of bread and wine palpable to all the ſenſes. Surely if God by his omnipotency would cauſe the colour, and taſte, and ſcent, and moiſture, and thickneſs of bread and wine to be there without their ſubſtances, He would have given that gift to the faithful receivers, that they ſhould have taſted none of thoſe creatures to contradict his mighty work; which were a far leſs miracle than the other.
And how can they ſo abſtract, but they ſhall terminate religious worſhip to the external ſpecies of bread! if they look upon it, and thereby remember Chriſts Paſſion, and fall down to glorifie him for his benefits, ſo will we: but they profeſs Chriſts body to be in the Prieſts hand, and there they worſhip him; then the accidents of the Elements which remain are part of the Object which they adore: a man may idolize meer colours, I am ſure, where there is no ſubſtance; as a Rainbow which is nothing but ſhadows of colours by reflexion, may be idolized. The word which we hear preacht is to be reverently received, yet not adored: now the Sacrament is but verbum viſibile, the Goſpel of faith, as well made viſible to the eye, as audible to the ear; and God forbid but we ſhould receive it foreign, as St. Paul ſaies, worthily, with due expreſſion of outward, as well as zealous intention of inward reverence. Behold the creatures of bread and wine, non quà ſunt, ſed quà ſignificant; not as they are elementary food, but as they are ſignificant of greater things. And for that ſignificancy we bend our knees in the receiving to our Lord Jeſus Chriſt; not to do honour to the Elements; let none be ſo ſimple or ſo uncharitable to ſay it, nor to any viſible thing preſent; but to the Immortal God who hath ſaved us by the blood of his Son, as of a lamb undefiled. Now upon the taking of the bread and wine not abſolute neceſſity, but decency and order call for the duty of our knee. The viſible Sacrament is objectum adorationis à quo, non ad quod: upon occaſion of ſeeing thoſe things we do worſhip, but the worſhip is not terminated to thoſe things. The people of Iſrael for certain worſhipped before the Ark: was the Ark any better ſign of Gods preſence, than the Bread and Wine are of the Body and Blood of Chriſt? The Ark was called Jehovah, ſo thoſe Elements are called his Body and Blood for the repreſentation and Sacramental relation. Throughout all the Old Teſtament whereſoever the people of God had notice of the divine preſence and grace in ſigns ordinary and extraordinary they have with free conſcience bowed down and worſhipped. Moſes fell down to God when he ſaw the fire in the Buſh. Joſhuah worſhipped not the Angel, but Jehovah at the ſight of the Angel, Joſh. v. The people fell down and worſhipped when they ſaw the fire from heaven fall on the Sacrifice, 2 Chron. vii. 3. Nay, Ezra caſt himſelf down before the Houſe of God, when there was no Houſe ſtanding, but the remembrance of the place. What if a devout man walking through goodly Fields of ſtanding corn, and marking thoſe plentiful bleſſings ſhould uncover his head, yea and kneel to give God thanks? were not this well done? much more (though not any worſhip is done to the bread) when he ſees that bread, in which by faith he receives Chriſt and all his benefits. I will follow this point no further: happy is he that believes, and doth neither commit Idolatry to the outward Elements, nor grudg at due and devout reverence to be done at the moſt Holy Supper of the Lord.
Me-thinks now our laſt buſineſs of all touching the worſhipping of Images ſhould be but ſport to skirmiſh with Babies and Puppies, like the fray that is ſpoken of between the Cranes and the Pigmies. O ſtrong deluſions in the hearts of men, that there ſhould be any cauſe to conteſt with Chriſtians in ſuch a Controverſie! Blaſphemy, Witchcraft, Murder are not more plainly condemn'd in Scripture, than to ſet up an Image for adoration: and if Gods own words utter'd with his own mouth from Mount Sinai in thunder and lightning will not ſerve the turn, to what end is it to diſpute or preach againſt it? but for Sions ſake I will not hold my peace, and for Jeruſalems ſake I will not reſt. The worſhipping of Images is accounted no ſlender Ceremony among the Romaniſts, but a branch of Religion wherein they ſhew great zeal to God and the Saints. The Tridentine Catechiſm provides that the catechized in their childhood ſhould learn this (for Catechiſms are principally for youth) that it is not only lawful to have Pictures and Images in Churches, (wherein they ſee we aſſent ſo far) but to exhibit honor and worſhip unto them. Parochus ſanctorum imagines in templis poſitas demonſtrabit ut colantur, left the people ſhould think the Images ſtand in the wall for a cypher, or for bare ornament, the Pariſh Prieſt ſhall admoniſh his Flock that they ſtand there to be worſhipped. So Cajetan: thoſe ſtand not for faſhion ſake only in the Church, like the Cherubins in Solomons Temple, Cajet. in 3. Thom. q. 25. art. 3.meerly to be lookt upon, but to be adored: and this is upheld with ſo much vehemency, that they accurſe all ſuch as oppoſe it, and with ſo much cruelty that we learn out of their own ſtorie, that Balthaſar Hin…marus was burnt at Vienna, and Aegidius Hiſpanus at Sevil, for denying that Religious Adoration was due to Images. Beſide what Panegyricks, Praiſes, and Poems have been made in honor of thoſe Statues, before which many miracles have been wrought? though nothing truly done but by impoſture and deluſion: What injunctions given to Penitentiaries to creep unto them? What offerings of Plate, and Coin, and Jewels beſtowed upon them? and by the bounty of fools they are made richer than the givers; and the living are defrauded of the works of mercy, to deck an Idol with ſumptuous bravery. And after all this madneſs and coſt to uphold the credit of their golden Gods, Cardinal Bellarmine's voluntary confeſſion is worthy to be noted, nihil periret de fide aut religione ſi nulla ficta vel picta eſſet imago; Faith and Religion ſhould ſuffer no loſs, though there were no Image in the world. This is even ſuch another lightning as came from him in his Controverſies upon Juſtification: for after all his arguments to make the good works of the faithful have a merit of condignity, he concludes, tutiſſimum eſt, yet it is the ſafeſt way to hope to be ſaved by Chriſt alone: ſo after all his ſophiſtry for Images this is plain dealing, nihil periret de fide & religione, it were not the worſe for Faith and Religion if there were no Images at all.
Lend your ear now to the ſtir that is made among their Writers, what portion of Religious Worſhip is allowed to their Pictures and Statues that ſtand for Chriſt eſpecially, and likewiſe for the Saints. That infamous ſecond Nicene Synod, whoſe Canons are precious in the eye of the Church of Rome to this day, that pack of Idol-mongers condemned all ſuch as ſaid their uſe went no further than to put us in mind of Chriſt: nay Tharaſius, the buſieſt man in that ill work, ſaid, all that confeſſed they did eſteem venerably of ſacred Images, and would not adore them, were hypocrites. It was there defined they ſhould have Religious Salutation and Adoration, but not latriam, the moſt Religious Worſhip which is proper only to God. The Triden…ine Council leaves men to pick what they can out of indefinite words, and ſays only ſuch Images are to have Veneration made to them, and Holy Worſhip. There are three Sects of opinions among their learned men, who differently ſtate the caſe. Durandus ſays, that Images are not adored but improperly, and by abuſe of the word, quia ad praeſentiam earum fit rememoratio exemplarium, tunc adorantur in praeſentia imaginum, they being at hand do make men remind Chriſt, and think upon him; and then Chriſt is adored in the preſence of the Image, but not the Image at all. Such remembrances ſometimes might be ſpared, becauſe of the danger and ſcandal; yet this opinion is moderate. I only diſlike that he ſays he would not have the people ſo taught: for Chriſt bad his doctrin ſhould be preacht upon the houſe top to all the world. Secondly, the Jeſuit Valentia commends the doctrin of Aquinas, that the Image and the Semplar is to be worſhipped with the ſame act of adoration is moſt true, moſt pious, and very conſonant to the decrees of faith: and Azorius the Jeſuit ſays, that's conſtant Theologorum ſententia, the moſt conſtant opinion of their Divines: I am ſure worſe can hardly be. Vaſques the Jeſuit thinks he hath caſt on water to cool this hot opinion by ſaying, that the Image of Chriſt and Chriſt himſelf are worſhipped with the ſame worſhip together, as Thomas ſays, but the intention of the worſhip is meant not at all to the Image, but to the Prototypon. Suarez is of a third opinion, and ſays, to oppoſe Durandus, that the act of worſhip is intended and directed to the Object before them, that is to the Image; yet to oppoſe Vaſquez, that it is homage inferior to that they do to Chriſt, but ſome worſhip reſts even in the very Image propter prototypon for Chriſts ſake: it is ſuppoſitum quod adoratur, non ratio adorationis, ſed quoddam adjunctum. Bellarmine is of this laſt opinion, but involves his mind moſt intricately to avoid all oppoſition. Says he, we are indebted to ſome Images in a Religious Worſhip, which is an imperfect form of worſhip, and is reduced to that worſhip which is due to the ſubſtance for which they ſtand: As Chriſts Image muſt have an honour reduced to latria, but inferior to it. The Images of the Saints not ſuch worſhip as pertains to a Saint, ſed cultus inferior qui dici poteſt dulia ſecundum quid, vel dulia anologicè & reductivè: dulia after a ſort, reductively, and by proportion. The beſt underſtanding of theſe quidlibets are, that they were meant not to be underſtood. We may profeſs ignorance of ſuch minced meat without bluſhing, when Vaſquez ſays, Mille modis difficultatem illius doctores explicare conantur; their Doctors have tried a thouſand waies to untie theſe knots, and ſtill queſtions ſtart up to puzzle them. I remember what Eutropeus ſays, that when Irene the Empreſs had maintain'd the Worſhip of Images with horrid unnatural cruelty and murders, for ſeventeen daies together the wether was moſt unuſually dark certainly to notifie the blindeſs that was come into the world by the Doctrine of Images.
Let them varniſh their cauſe with what art they will, let us hear what they can ſay that their doctrine falls not foul upon the ſecond Commandment; marry that they have nothing to do with Idols, which were the ſhapes of imaginary Gods, ſuch as never were extant: how prove they that, that an Idol is a reſemblance of that which never had any true being, becauſe St. Paul ſays an Idol is nothing. I am ſure this ſhift is as good as nothing; for properly in the Greek tongue foreign is any artificial reſemblance of a bodily thing, anſwering part by part unto it, ſo that it hath a right in nature to ſtand for it: but according to Scripture, and the phraſe of ancient holy Writers, Idola fiunt ex ſimulacris quando adorantur, any graven ſimilitude or image, when it is once adored, it becomes an Idol. The faſhions of all things in all places are rehearſed in the ſecond Commandement, in heaven above, in earth beneath, in the water under the earth; and yet if you make a Figure or Statue of any of theſe to worſhip it, that's an Idol, and you an Idolater. As Lucullus was aſham'd to fight with the Aſiatiques, whom he vanquiſht ſo eaſily; ſo I am aſham'd to toſs an objection about which hath no tang of probability in it. An Idol is nothing, ſayes the Scripture, that is it hath nothing of divine Majeſty in it to be ador'd. As Euripides ſays elegantly of lazy men, they were foreign, a very nullety nothing. Says St. Chryſoſtom upon it, an Idol is nothing, becauſe there is but one God, and none beſide him: The Sun, the Moon, and the Stars, thoſe are thoſe nothings when they are idolized: Lib. 1. cont. Fauſt. cap. 5.and St. Auſtin, the Pagans worſhip thoſe things which are, but they are nothing to make Gods of; they can not help us, they can not ſave us. St. Paul therefore adds 1 Cor. viii. 4 an Idol is nothing in the world, and there is none other Gods but one.
Our Adverſaries muſt nock another arrow, this was headleſs: why, it is pretended they do not leave God, to worſhip Idols of wood or metals, which the Law condemns, but they worſhip God in the Image, or the Image with God, or the Image for God's ſake; let them vary it as they will, 'tis naught every way: for where hath the Almighty condeſcended that ſuch Concomitancies ſhould be co-worſhipt with him, or for him? never, never, there are no ligaments for ſuch a conjunction. Our Divines have often rubb'd the ſalt of ſome inſtances in their ſores, and yet they do not feel them. The Children of Iſrael when they worſhipped the ſimilitude of an Ox that eateth hay, do you think they caſt away all thought of the Lord their God, and went to it down right with that molten Effigies? I believe the weaker capacities among them might do ſo, as the Pontificians confeſs that the ruder and ſimpler among them fall down and worſhip the very ſubſtance of the Image that is before them; but Aaron and the Princes of the people bowed not to the golden lump of their own Bracelets and Earerings, but to God in that ſimilitude of an Ox. The Lord had given them manna or food from heaven, and an Ox among all the cuſtoms of the Heathen which they had ſeen, was the Embleme of plenty; ſo Joſeph, who was the Granary of Egypt by his providence, Moſes calls him the firſtling of a Bullock; and T. Livie ſays, when Minutius had ſupplied Rome with corn in time of great neceſſity a golden Ox was ſet up in the Market-place to honour his memory; that beaſt you know plows up the ſurrows of the earth to receive the ſeed which yields the increaſe of the year: from this ſuperſtition a Calf or Ox (for a Calf, remember it, is not the name of the age) was the Object wherein they worſhipped God. Ferus a Roman Writer, confeſſeth,Com. in 7. cap. Act. that the Iſraelites did honour God himſelf in their molten Image: He had reaſon to ſay ſo, for Aaron, who beſt knew the meaning of it, proclaimed againſt the morrow a Feaſt unto the Lord Jehovah. And though the people were mad with their own inventions, make them not ſo bad, that when they cried out, Theſe are thy Gods which brought thee out of Egypt, Exod. xxxii. 4. they meant their Baby which they had made but yeſterday: That plural number is in the ſingular, Nehem, ix. 18. They made them a molten Calf,and ſaid, this is thy God that brought thee out of Egypt, attributing that power to the ſign for the thing ſignified. Indeed the Pſalmiſt ſays, they forgat God who had done ſo great things for them. Why? becauſe they obeyed not his word: They knew it was not their Idol, but the Lord who had deliver'd them, yet they are ſaid to have forgot the Lord, becauſe they worſhipped him after their own inventions, and did not obey him. Next to this, weigh but the actions of Micah of Mount Ephraim, Jud. xvii. he that can but ſpel words and put them together, ſhall find his Mother dedicated her ſilver to the Lord for her Son, to make a graven Image. Micah had theſe Images for the honour of God, and having thoſe abominations, ſtill profeſt himſelf a Prieſt of the Lord; therefore this muſt be his crime, that he worſhipped God in his Images. Cajetan and Abulenſis are of that judgment,In 17. cap. Jud. that where the Idol hath a peculiar name, as Baal, Aſhteroth, the people ſeduced ſerved the very Idol; but where the Idol had no peculiar name, as in my inſtance of Micah's Images, and the Calf that Aaron made, there they ſerved the true God in the Idol. If this be not directly the Popiſh Doctrine, the Sun hath no light in it. To be even with their evaſion every way, the very Heathen as well as they could apprehend the eternal God by the light of nature, worſhipt him in their Idols and Penates; few or none of them thought the matter of an Idol to be a God. Seneca ſays,Qu. nat. lib. 2 cap. 45. ſays, that by Jupiter ſtanding in the Capitol with lightning in his hand, they underſtood the Preſerver and Governor of all things, the Maker of the world. Mark now, nether the Jewiſh, nor Heatheniſh Idolaters did any more than worſhip the true God, in, or before, or with their Images.
Give them audience by the way how they profeſs both moral and natural Philoſophy for their defence. Moral firſt, how he that honoureth the Image of the King honoreth the King himſelf: this is called St. Athanaſius and St. Baſil's morality, and ſo it is; but Lord how little to the caſe? The Arrians contended that glory was to be given to one eternal God, but if one were the perſon of the Father, another of the Son, there were two Eternals to be glorified; thoſe Fathers anſwer,the Son is the Image of the Father, the expreſs image of his perſon, and the brightneſs of his glory; and he that honour'd that Image of the King, honour'd the King himſelf. Is there not main difference between the carved Image which ſtands for Chriſt's manhood, and between his perſonal filiation, wherein He is the Image of his Father? The outward Image ſtands for Chriſt by humane imagination, it hath no eminent undeniable right to preſent him; but Religious Adoration is founded upon that Union which is perſonal, ſubſtantial, relative, by divine ordination. And for the moral rule, he that honours the King will honour his Image, it holds only in negative honour, a good Subject will not deface the Kings Picture in a deſpiteful ſpleen againſt the exemplar, no more do we diſhonour the Images of Chriſt and the Saints, unleſs where flagrant Idolatry is committed to them; then with good zeal they may be burnt or defaced, to do God honour againſt the Creature. Is their natural Philoſophy any ſounder? 'tis Ariſtotle's Idem eſt motus in imaginem, & exemplar; Lib. de Memor,his meaning is the abſtractive underſtanding conſiders the abſtracted notion of a material thing, and the thing it ſelf at once: the verbum intellectus, as it is called, the intellective word and the real thing underſtood at once. This is all he ſays; but they have made a matter of it, that when I ſee Chriſt's Image, and rememorate Chriſt upon it, and then worſhip him, I muſt worſhip the Image together with him. To deliver you quickly out of theſe thorny paſſages, I ſay there cannot be the ſame motion of the mind towards this Image and the Exemplar, for the mind is fixt upon the Image as upon a Sign, and upon an Object much inferiour to the Exemplar, The Image is a thing create, Chriſt uncreate: they confeſs a reſpective difference, that Chriſt is adored ſimply and for himſelf, the Image in regard of ſimilitude and reference to the principal. The Image is not the terminus of worſhip for it ſelf, but for Chriſts ſake; therefore the motion of mans heart toward Chriſt and the Image cannot be one, but divers. When I deſire the means becauſe of the end, here are two diſtinct actions and motions of the will, to wit election of means, intention for the end. But with them the worſhip of Chriſt and his Image is one and the ſame phyſical act of the body at once; they talk that it is virtually twofold; but if they hold there is the ſame motion of the mind too to both at once, that will make it complete idolatry.
No marvail, you ſee, if you have quite loſt the ſecond Commandment out of ſome Portreſſes and Breviaries, when they have found it again in their larger Miſſals they will not keep it. When men have rampar'd witty ſhifts againſt truth, it is in vain to tell them from S. John, Babes, beware of idols; or from St. Paul, foreign, What agreement hath the Temple of the Lord with idols? they will tuſh at it, and ſay they mean the Idols of Pagans. St. Pet. 1. Ep. c. iv. v. 3. ſpeaks againſt luſts, exceſs of wines, revellings, abominable Idolatries. Speaks he not againſt the luſt and drunkenneſs and riot of Chriſtians? verily and as manifeſty againſt Chriſtian Idolatries. But if they toy with the Scripture that is againſt them, let them point to that Scripture that doth licenſe their religious honour done to Images? for faith comes by hearing, hearing by the word of God. What not one Text to ſuit for them? then belike it holds of Tradition: nay, Suarez ſays neither Scripture nor Tradition hath commended it, but invaluit ex praxi & conſuetudine eccleſiae, practiſe and cuſtom hath allowed it. How eaſily, if time did not ſhorten me, could I ſhew that for the firſt 500 years neither the Image of Chriſt or his Saints were ſet up in any Church: ſo little was the practiſe of worſhipping them on foot.Lib. 7. cont. Celſum. A little of antiquity will ſpend but a little time, ſays Origen, Who, having his right wits, after the Commandment of God, will look upon Images to pray to them, foreign: Or by the ſight thereof offer prayers thereby to him that is reſembled? St. Auſtin upon the 113. Pſalm hath a full Sermon of it, theſe few words are the pith, quis adorat vel orat intuens ſimulacrum? who is he that doth either pray or worſhip looking on an Image? who is he? marry an Idolater. Procap. in 11. cap. Gen.Procopius hath a memorable paſſage, that from twenty Generations after Adam the Son did ever ſurvive the Father, which is moſt natural, but Thare buried his Son Haran, who was the firſt that made Images, and God made him an example for doing a work ſo hateful to him. I will confine my ſelf to one inſtance more; Serenus Biſhop of Marſeilles offended that ſome fell down to Images in Churches, whereupon he took them down and brake them to pieces about the year 600: He writes to Gregory the firſt to know how he liked it; Gregory anſwers, you do very well to teach your people not to worſhip thoſe Images, but you might have let them remain for Ornament. Thus Pope Gregory the firſt; but before 160 years after, Pope Gregory the third maintain'd tooth and nail againſt the Eaſtern Biſhops they were to be worſhipped. What's anſwered to all theſe authorites? why, the Fathers condemned the uſing Images after an unlawful manner: they might even diſtinguiſh as well of lawful lying, and lawful treaſon and adultery, as to tell us a tale of lawful idolatry.
No Scripture, no Tradition, no Antiquity ſtands for them, and verily no Reaſon: for why is not every man adored for being the true Image of God, as well as a Statue? hear a ſubtilty; man is capable of ſome civil reverence in himſelf, if he were worſhipped, it would fall out the worſhip would be terminated unto him for himſelf, but a portable God of mettal or ſtone deſerves no honour for it ſelf, therefore it cannot likely be miſtaken, how all the veneration done to it is done for Gods ſake: what will they ſay then to ſuch Images and Crucifixes as have moved their head and eyes miraculouſly? ſuch as have ſweat like men, ſpoke like men? ſuch things are often done by tricks and jugling; is not that a ſcandal to the ignorant, to make them bend the whole act of worſhip to the very Image; as the Gentiles were often deluded by the Devil, when he made his Idols and Oracles ſpeak? Thus they lay baits to deſtroy the ſoul of their weak brother, to advance their own inventions. And for the credit of all Miracles wrought before Image-worſhipping, let Biel ſpeak: ſometimes ſuch things are effected by the working of Satan, to delude ſuperſtitious Devotaries: Deo permittente, exigent… talium infidelitate; God permits it for their deſtruction, and their own infidelity deſerves it. I am almoſt concluding: mark what honour God hath peculiarly call'd for to himſelf, and that's to worſhip a thing religiouſly to impart it unto it. He bad his Church of Iſrael kneel toward the Ark of his glory, and worſhip him. The people did not ſee the Ark, for it was within the Veil, but they were bidden to worſhip the Lord before his Footſtool, or before the Ark. Now to tranſlate this manner of adoration to their own Will-worſhip, to worſhip God before Images, as He willed that himſelf in the Old Law ſhould be worſhipped, looking towards the Ark, is all one as if they had ſacrificed to their Images, which is confeſt idolatry. But I pray you what ſatisfaction ſhall be made to my Text (it ſatisfied the Devil and put him to ſilence) Thou ſhalt worſhip, &c. Thus they ſhuffle with it, when Chriſt ſays excluſively God only is to be worſhipped, all perſons are excluded that claim latria, but not appertinences or concomitances, ſuch as Images, that are adored for the example ſake. Belike by this anſwer it muſt be ſo, his Devilſhip muſt not be ſerved or cringed; but if he can turn himſelf into the ſhape of an Image of Chriſt, or one of the Saints, he might have his asking. You ſee into how many ſhapes he turned himſelf in theſe Tentations: he can change himſelf into an Angel of light, and why not as eaſily into as fine an Image as ever Nebuchadonoſer's was. Thus their own wit may bring them to do the fowleſt act in the world, to fall down and worſhip the Devil. How much better are our ſouls, and our Religion in ſafety, when we aſcribe all praiſe, glory, ſervice, and worſhip to him only that ſits upon the throne, and to the Lamb for evermore? AMEN.