Defense of the Discourse Concerning Idolatry in the Church of Rome, Part 1 · Chapter 2 (1 of 3)

Defense of the Discourse Concerning Idolatry in the Church of Rome · Part 1 · Chapter 2 (1 of 3)

p. 184CHAP. II. Of the Nature of Divine Worship.

§. 1.I Now come to the second Enquiry, Wherein the Nature of that Divine Worship lies, which being given to a creature makes that Worship Idolatry? And that I may proceed with all possible clearness in this matter, I shall enquire, 1. What Worship is? 2. What Divine Worship is, and what are the proper acts of it? 3. How the applying of these Acts to a Creature, doth make the worship of it Idolatry?

1What worship is. Aquinas hath given this distinction between honour and worship;Aquin. 2.2. q. 102. art. 2. that honour is quaedam recognitio excellentiae alicujus, an acknowledgement of anothers excellency, but cultus or worship in quodam obsequio consistit, implies subjection to another. The foundation of this distinction doth not lie so much in the force and signification of the words, as in the different effects that excellency alone p. 185considered hath upon our minds; from what it hath when it is joyned with Superiority and a Power over us. Meer excellency doth produce only in our minds a due esteem according to the nature and degrees of it; which is a debitum morale, as the Schoolmen speak, from us towards it, i. e. something which according to nature and reason we ought to give it, and therefore it is accounted a part of natural justice, to esteem whatever excellencies we apprehend to be in others, although we receive no benefit by them our selves; and whatever implies a real excellencie, whether it be intellectual or moral, whether infinite or finite, whether natural or acquired, it deserves an estimation suitable to its kind and degree. But the honour which is due to excellencie doth not only lie in an act of the mind; but in a correspondent inclination of the will to testifie that esteem by such outward expressions as may manifest it to others; and that either by words, which is called Praise; or by gestures, as bowings of the body; or by facts, as gifts, statues, &c. All these Aquinas tells us do belong to honour. q. 103. art. 1.But Worship implies something beyond this; which is subjection to anotheron the account of his Power over us; p. 186for we may express honour and esteem towards equals or inferiours, because the reason of it may be in those as well as others; therefore there must be a different duty in us with respect to Superiority; and this is worship. So the Schoolmen define adoration; adorare non dicimur, nisi in dignitate constitutos, quos nobis Superiores cognoscimus, saith Vasquez. Vasquez in 3. part. Tho. disp. 93. c. 1.Honor potest esse ad aequalem, saith Suarez, Suarez. in 3. part. disp. 51. q. 25. sect. 1.juxta illud ad Rom. 12. honore invicem praevenientes; adoratio vero respicit alium ut excellentem & superiorem. Ex parte adorantis plane necessarium est, saith Tannerus, Tanner. Theolog. Scholast. Disp. 5. de Rel. q. 2. dub. 1. n. 27.ut is rem adorandam concipiat, tanquam aliquo modo se superiorem seu praestantiorem. But more fully Bernardus Pujol, Pujol. de sacro adorat. cultu disp. 1. sect. 1.Adoratio est submissio quaedam & quasi humiliatio, quam subditus facit propter excellentiam superioris, & in honorem illius: and Gamachaeus, Gamache. Comment. in 3. p. Th. q. 25. de Adorat.Adoratio essentialiter includit subjectionem ac submissionem aliquam. Adoratio est inferioris ad superiorem, saith Ysambertus: Ysambert. in 3. part. Thom. ad. q. 25.Cardinal Lugo goes farther,Lugo de mysterio Incarn. disp. 33. n. 2. saying of Cultus, se apud probatos auctores videre, semper eam vocem applicari ad significandam reverentiam erga superiores. And although Arriaga thinks Cultus of a larger signification,Arriaga in 3. Th. disp. 50. sect. 1. yet the definition he gives of adoration p. 187is, that it is honor exhibitus superiori in signum submissionis & humiliationis. Bellarmine makes the first act of adoration, to be in the mind, and that only the apprehension of the excellencie of the object; but the second in the will, to be not only an inclination of it towards the object, but a willing by some internal or external act to acknowledge the excellencie of the object and our subjection: and to these he adds, the external act, either of bowing the head, or bending the knee, or some other token of subjection. So that Bellarmine agrees with the rest in making the formal act of adoration to be subjection to a superiour:Bellarm. de sanct. beatit. l. 1. c. 12. but withal, he makes the meer apprehension of excellencie to include the formal reason of it; whereas meer excellencie without Superiority doth not require any subjection but only estimation. For let us apprehend never so great excellencie in a Person that hath no Authority over us, the only effect of it in us, is only a mighty estimation; whereas the apprehension of Power and Authority in a Person, where there is not that opinion of excellencie doth naturally incline men to submission to him. Nay, although we apprehend a conjunction of Excellencie and Power together, p. 188if that power doth not respect us, we find no inclination in our selves by any acts to testifie our subjection to it. As if we apprehend the greatest things in the world of the Emperor of China, or Iapan; how doth that apprehension move us to express any acts of subjection to either of them? we are well enough contented for all that to let them govern at home, and think it more our own interest and duty to submit to those who have the Power over our Selves. Nay, yet farther, if according to the Epicurean Hypothesis, we could suppose God himself to be a most excellent being, but to exercise no power or Authority over the world, there would be still reason for a great esteem left; but not for the subjection of our selves to him: and we might express that esteem by praises, and other testimonies of his honour; but there would be no ground for any proper service or worship of him; either in prayers or thanksgivings, or any rites of Religious worship which imply any dependence upon him, or subjection to him. So that the notion of Honour and Worship are in themselves distinct things, the one arising from the apprehension of excellencie, and the formal reason of the other, being Superiority and a Power over us.

p. 1892. For the nature of Divine Worship;§. 2. it must consist in such a subjection of our selves to God; as is most suitable to the apprehensions we ought to have of his infinite Power and Soveraignty over us. And because his Soveraignty is supreme, absolute and peculiar to himself; therefore our worship of him must approach as near to the expression of this, as it is possible for us to come, i. e. it must be of the highest nature, with the greatest submission of our souls to him, it must be entire, not divided between him and others, and it must have such a peculiarity in it, as may not be given to any besides himself. For whatever worship is common to him and others, doth not serve to express the sense of our minds as to his peculiar Soveraignty over us; and this is one of the inviolable Rights of Soveraignty, to have such acts of Worship appropriated to it, that the giving of these to any other, is a violation of the Royal Dignity: and this hath been looked on as a crimen Laesae Majestatis, and to deserve as high a punishment as any other whatsoever; because it is an immediate attempt upon the Soveraign Power, and whatever lessens it tends to overthrow it. If then God be p. 190acknowledged by all to have the only Supreme Power over us, nothing can be more unreasonable in it self, nor a greater affront to his Majesty, than to make all outward expressions of our duty to him common to himself and his Creatures.

I know it is not denied by T. G. or his Brethren, that there is a Soveraign Worship which belongs to God: but we are to consider,T.G. p. 178. p. 288. that withal they tell us, (1.) That the external acts of adoration or worship are equivocal, and sometimes may signifie the honour which belongs to God, and sometimes that which belongs to the Creature. (2.) That even sacrifice it self, which they look on as most peculiar to God and an acknowledgement of the absolute worship due to him, doth receive the formality of such an act from an intention to profess a total submission of our selves to God as the Supreme Author of life and death; otherwise T. G. saith,T.G. p. 182. the material action of sacrifice may be done for several ends and intentions. By which it appears that upon the whole matter, the nature of divine worship is not, according to them, to be taken from any external acts, but from the inward intention of the mind.

But that there are some peculiar external acts of Divine Worship which ought to be p. 191attributed to none but to God himself; I prove, 1. From the nature and design of Religious worship. 2. From the Law of God appropriating some acts only to God. 3. From the practise of the Christian Church, condemning those for Idolatry, who have given them to any creature.

1. From the nature and design of Religious worship, which is to put a difference between the worship we give to God and to his Creatures. For since God hath appointed Government among men, it is plain that his intention was, that some kind of worship should be given from some of his creatures to others, although of the same nature with themselves; for where there is a power to punish and to reward, there is the foundation of worship in those who are under that power: which worship lies in expressing a due regard to that power, by a care not to provoke it, and an endeavour to obtain the favour of it; which being among mankind living in Society with each other, is therefore called civil worship. Which denomination it doth not lose although we give that worship to Superiours upon a Religious account, i. e. though I give worship to my Soveraign with a respect to God, because he hath commanded it, p. 192and I intend to honour him by it; yet the worship doth not take its denomination from my intention, but from the nature of the Act, which being civil, the worship continues to bear that name. By which we see that the external circumstances which do accompany mens acts, are those which do so circumscribe and limit them, that from thence they become either civil or Religious. I cannot therefore but extremely wonder to see men of understanding so much to seek in this matter, because the same external acts are common to divine and civil worship; but what then? doth it therefore follow that there is no certain way to discriminate these one from the other? I grant the same external act of adoration may be used to men which is used to God; as Abraham bowed to the Children of Heth in token of civil respect, as well as when he worshipped God; but could not any one that considered the circumstances make a plain difference between these two sorts of adoration? When the Roman Emperours would have divine honours given to them, were any of the people of Rome so senseless to say they knew no difference between them and the worship given them before, because they might use p. 193the same external acts of adoration in both cases? Suppose the Pope one day to sit on, a throne as a temporal Prince, and on that account summoning his subjects to give homage to him, and another day to be placed upon the Altar, as he is after his election by the Orders of the Roman Church, Ceremon. Rom. l. 1. sect. 6.there to receive adoration from the Cardinals as the Vicar of Christ; would any man say he could see no difference in these, because the same postures may be used in both? Although then the outward acts may be the same, yet the signification of those acts may be far from equivocal, because determined by the circumstances which do accompany them. I grant then, that the meer external act of adoration in bowing or kneeling, may be given both on the account of honour and worship, i. e. upon the account of excellencie, and superiority; as some of the Patriarchs bowed to Angels, as a token of honour of their excellencies, and not out of Religious worship; and men may bow and kneel to their Soveraign Princes on the account of civil worship; and Children to their Parents in token of their subjection to them; as well as creatures to their Creator in their solemn acts of devotion: but I say in all these cases, p. 194the different signification of these acts is to be gathered from the circumstances of them.

§. 3.And that acts of Religious, and civil worship might be distinguished from each other, came the appointment of set times and places, and solemn rites for the performance of Religious worship. From hence Cicero gives that definition of Religion, De Invent. l. 2. c. 53.Religio est, quae superioris cujusdam naturae (quam divinam vocant) curam ceremoniamque affert: therefore they thought the solemn rites and circumstances of Religious worship were sufficient to discriminate the nature of that worship from any other: and these they thought so peculiar to the divine nature, that whatever Being they gave this solemn worship to, they thought to deserve the name of a Deity although inferiour and subordinate: because these acts of worship were appropriated to a Divine Being. Aquinas cannot deny that there are some external acts of Religion so peculiar to God that they ought not to be given to any other;Aqu. 2.2. q. 81. art. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. and on this account he makes Religion a moral vertue, and a part of justice, because it is its office reddere cultum debitum Deo, to give God the worship which belongs to him; now, saith he, because p. 195the excellencie of God is peculiar to himself, being infinitely above all others, therefore the worship which belongs to him ought to be peculiar. Ad Religionem pertinet, saith Cajetan, Cajet. Comment. in Aq. 2.2. q. 81. art. 3.exhibere reverentiam uni Deo, secundum unam rationem, in quantum sc. est primum principium creationis & gubernationis rerum. But since this reason of Religious worship, from the creation and government of the world, is so peculiar to God, as to be incommunicable to any else besides him, is there not all the reason in the world that the Acts of this worship should be peculiar to him too? And upon this ground Aquinas doth grant it in the case of sacrifice;Aq. 2.2. q. 85. art. 2. hoc etiam videmus in omni Republica observari, quod summum Rectorem aliquo signo singulari honorant, quod cuicunque alteri deferretur esset crimen laesae Majestatis; & ideo in lege divina statuitur poena mortis iis qui divinum honorem aliis exhibent. From whence we infer, not only that there ought to be peculiar external acts of Religious worship appropriated to God, but that the giving the worship done by those acts to any creature, is a crime of the highest nature. The same Aquinas, Aqu. c. Gentes c. 120.disputing against the Heathens, saith, that it is an unreasonable thing, to those that hold one first principle, p. 196to give divine worship to any other besides him: and we give worship to God, not that he needs it; but that hereby the belief of one God may be confirmed in us by external and sensible acts, which cannot be done, saith he, unless there be some peculiar acts of his worship, and this we call divine worship. Besides, this external worship is necessary to men, to raise in their minds a spiritual reverence of God; and we find that custom hath a great influence on mens minds; but it is a custom among men that the honour or worship given to the Supreme Governour should be given to none else; therefore it ought to be much more so towards God; because if a liberty be allowed of giving this worship to others of a higher rank and not only to the supreme, then men and Angels might give divine worship to one another. To which he adds, that the benefits we receive from God are peculiar to him, as that of creation and preservation, and that he is our Lord by a proper title, and Angels and the best of creatures are but his servants, therefore we ought not to give the same worship to them that we do to God as our Lord. In his disputation about Idolatry, Aq. 2.2. q. 94. art. 2.he shews, that the command Exod. 20. doth reach to external as p. 197well as internal worship; and he argues against those, who pleaded that all visible and external worship ought to be given to other Gods, and only internal to the supreme God; as being much better, upon this principle, that the external belongs only to him, to whom the internal belongs; and he disputes against those Hereticks, who thought it lawful in time of persecution to give external worship to Idols, as long as they preserved the true faith in their minds; for, saith he, the external worship is a profession or sign of the internal, but as it is a pernicious thing for a man to speak contrary to his mind; so it is to act contrary to it, and therefore S. Augustin condemned Seneca as so much the more culpable in the worship of Idols, because he acted against the sense of his own mind. In the next article, art. 3.he shews, that Idolatry is a sin of the highest nature; for, saith he, as in a commonwealth, it is the greatest crime to give the honour due to the Soveraign to any other (for this is as much as lies in a man to put all things into disorder and confusion) so among the sins that are committed against God, that seems to be the greatest, whereby a man gives divine worship to a creature: and saith, that it includes blasphemy p. 198in it, because it takes away from God the peculiarity of his dominion; Cajetan there saith, that the Idolater, as much as in him lies, tollit à Deo suam singularem excellentiam qua solus est Deus; robs God of that peculiar excellencie whereby he is God alone. Thus we see the necessity of some peculiar external acts of divine worship is asserted by these men in order to the preserving the belief and worship of one God in the world. Suarez grants,Suarez in 3. p. q. 25. disp. 51. sect. 4. that as the excellency of God is singular and above all creatures; so he ought to have a singular and incommunicable worship, as is plain from those words of Scripture, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve: but then he makes this worship peculiar to God, to consist chiefly in the internal acts of the mind, which only in themselves and of their own nature are such as do belong to the worship of God; but external acts are not so determined of themselves, but they may be given either to God or to the creature: however, he grants, that although outward acts be in themselves indifferent, yet when sufficient Authority hath apprepriated some acts as peculiar to divine worship, they ought to be used for no other purpose; and that if these acts of worship be p. 199applied to a creature, it makes that worship at least external Idolatry, if it be not done ex animo and out of a false opinion.

In this point of the external acts of divine worship, §. 4.these two things may be observed of the Divines of the Roman Church.

1. That in the general they confess, that there ought to be some peculiar external acts of divine worship, as most agreeable to Gods incommunicable excellencie; and in particular, when they are pressed with any difficulties from Scripture or Fathers, about not giving divine worship to a creature, then they are sure to tell us, those places are to be understood of the worship that is proper only to God. Thus they think to escape the force of that place which is so evident, that it blinds them with the light of it;Mat. 4.10▪Matt 4:10 Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve; which was certainly understood of an external act of worship; for the Devil said to Christ, Fall down and worship me. Yes, say they, that is very true of the adoration proper to God; but what is that? for they say there is no outward act of adoration but is common to God and his Creatures. Tannerus excepts no creature, Tanner. To. 3. disp. 5. de Rel. q. 2 dub. 1. n. 19.inanimate or animate, but only the Devil; p. 200yet lest he should have gone too far in this, he saith afterwards, that physically speaking God may be worshipped in any creature, but then men must have a care that they do not truely and properly worship the thing it self; but only use the external signs of divine honour before it, applying them to what is represented. I confess this gives a very slender account of our Saviours answer, for it seems he might physically speaking have worshipped God, by falling down before the Devil; all the danger was in the scandal and indecencie of it: but being done in a Wilderness, the scandal of it, as to men at least, had not been great. Vasquez resolves the case,Vasquez in 3. p. Thom. disp. 110. …. 5. that if the Devil appear to a man, he may do all the external acts of adoration before him, provided he be not well assured it is the Devil, and that he direct his worship to God: and that he proves by this demonstrative argument, because all external acts of adoration are to be directed by the inward intention of the mind; but he confesses many of their Divines allow only a conditional adoration in this case; however it seems our Saviour spake a little too peremptorily, in utterly refusing it upon any terms. But then they tell us the Devil was too fancy, p. 201and demanded the absolute worship proper only to God; i. e. saith Vasquez, not meerly the external act of adoration, disp. 94. c. 1.but that inward submission of mind which is only due to God, which is more than appears by the words. Bellarmine and the rest of them say that our Saviour refused to give the worship of Latria to the Devil;Bellarm. de sanct. beatit. l. 1. c. 14. by which it seems, our Saviour did not answer to the purpose, for the Devil expressed no more, than falling down and worshipping him; which according to them might be done without Latria, by the same external act, but not the same intention of mind: which not being in the power of him that demands, but only of him that gives, nothing had been more necessary than to have expresly required the intention of the mind, otherwise the Devil might have been easily cheated by directing the intention of the external act quite another way; but for all that we can see, the Devil was then to learn these subtilties. However, this now serves to turn off the plainest places that would seem to prove, that all external acts of Religious worship are to be given only to God. The Hereticks, saith Arriaga, Arriag. in 3. p. Th. disp. 54. sect. 1. n. 5.object many things out of Scriptures, and Fathers, and Councils, in which it is p. 202said that God only is to be worshipped; but to all these we answer in one word, that they only speak of the worship of Latria which is proper to God: and so they would have answered thousands of places more, as well as those that are urged against them: so that the reserving this worship as peculiar to God serves them to very good purpose, viz. to turn off as with a wet finger whatever is urged against them. So Bernardus Pujol without more ado sends away all the Testimonies of the Fathers, Pujol de cultu Adorat. disp. 2. sect. 3. in fin.Ad loca sanctorum Patrum respondemus, illa intelligenda esse de adoratione Latriae quae soli Deo tribuitur; and so fare them well, without any farther examination. And yet some of these men upon better thoughts have concluded that some of the places of Scripture cannot be understood of the worship of Latria. For although Aquinas, Tannerus and several others,Aq. 2.2. q. 84. art. 1. Tanner. ubi supra. answer the instance of Mordecai refusing to worship Aman, with the common shift, that he would not give Latria to him, yet Cajetan, Suarez, Vasquez, Pujol and Arriaga, all conclude, that this is not to be understood of the worship of Latria; but that Mordecai refused to use the same external act of adoration, which among the Iews they were wont to give p. 203to God: wherein Cajetan thinks,Cajet. in Aq. he was not so wise as he might have been, because Jacob worshipped his Brother Esau; Arriaga, that he did well though he followed an erring conscience: Suarez, Vasquez, and Pujol, Suarez in 3. p. disp. 52. sect. 3. Vasquez. disp. 97. c. 3. Pujol. ib.that he did prudently, because the constant using of that act of adoration to Aman, which among them did belong to the worship of God, would have tended to the dishonour of God and Religion, and have been a great scandal to the Iews. Neither is Cajetan satisfied with the same answer to the instance of St. Iohn's offering to worship the Angel, for this were, saith he, to charge St. John with committing a very great sin, which the Angel hindred him from the consummation of: but, saith he, St. John intended no more than the greatest external act of Reverence; but because so great reverence ought to be reserved only to God, that some outward reverence might be appropriated to Him, therefore the Angel forbad him giving it to him. Suarez confesses, that it cannot be understood of Latria, but that the Angel put it off with a complement, as St. Peter did to Cornelius: and with him the rest agree, either as a complement to his Person, or to humane nature since the Incarnation: but p. 204Aquinas pertinently saith, it was to avoid the occasion of Idolatry, because the Angel immediately adds, Worship God. Thus far we find they go in the avoiding of difficulties.

2. But when they deliver their minds freely, they reserve no one act of external adoration as proper to God; and to be performed by all Christians. De sanct. beat. l. 1. c. 12.Bellarmin saith, that fere omnes actus exteriores communes sunt omni adorationi, almost all external acts are common to the adoration of God and the Creatures, excepting sacrifice, and what belongs to that, as Temples, Altars and Priests, which, he saith, God hath reserved to himself. Arriaga saith,Arriag. ad 3. p. disp. 51. sect. 6. in sine. that there is no external act of adoration but may be given to creatures, excepting only sacrifice; Suarez, Suarez in 3. p. quest. 51. sect. 4. quest. 52. sect. 3.that sacrifice it self doth not signifie our acknowledgement of Gods soveraignty of it self, but only by custom and imposition; for the killing of a sacrifice doth not of it self signifie that God is the Author of Life and Death. And for other parts of Religious worship he confesses, that Temples are erected and Festivals kept to the honour of Saints, at least secondarily; that they are worshipped with Fastings, Vigils, Pilgrimages, and such like; that their p. 205worship is deservedly called Religious worship. 1. Because it consists of Religious actions. 2. Because it is so nearly conjoyned with divine worship. 3. Because it tends to mens improvement in Religion. 4. Because it is founded in sanctity, which is next to Religion. It seems then nothing is left to God, but having the same things done to him in the first place, which may in a secondary respect be done to his creatures; for we are told,T.G. p. 393. that even Sacrifice it self may be offered to God for the honour of his creatures. But what is this Sacrifice now among Christians, which is peculiar to God? There is no other, saith Arriaga, but that of the Altar; Disput. 52. sect. 2.and this, as Cajetan observes,Cajet. in 2.2. q. 86. art. 4. cannot reach to all Christians, but only belongs to the Priests to offer it: but instead of this, he saith from Aquinas, that two sorts of spiritual sacrifices do belong to all, viz. the offering up of their minds in devotion to God, and the offering up the acts of other vertues. So that at last we see no one external act of proper Religious worship is by them left as peculiar to God, which all mankind are obliged to perform.

And to this purpose we have the plain resolution of Cardinal Lugo, which I the rather mention because of his great Authority, p. 206and Eminency, and writing since the rest; He puts the question, Whether there be any sign,Lugo de Myst. Incarn. disp. 33. sect. 1. n. 22, &c. or external act of adoration, which it is not lawful to give to any, but to God alone? For, saith he, genuflection, and smitting the breast, and such like, are given to Saints. To this he answers, 1. That it is possible such a sign or external act may be instituted by men, as may signifie only that worship which is proper to God. 2. That Sacrifice is not properly an act of adoration, but of another kind distinct from it. 3. That there is no one external act of adoration, which is proper to Latria, or the worship peculiar to God.

§. 5.But to what end were there any such thing as publique Religious Worship among men, on the account of Gods peculiar Soveraignty over us, if the acts of that worship be not appropriated to himself? For there is no necessity of publique worship for the acts of the mind, which are performed out of the view of others. What is publique must be external; and if there be any necessity that God be publickly owned and worshipped by us, as our only Lord and Almighty Maker of Heaven and Earth; the very same natural reason which directs p. 207to this, doth likewise shew, that what is intended for his publique worship, ought to be communicated to none else besides him. Neither is it enough, that he have the first and chief place in worship, which only implies a superiority of order and degree; but since he is acknowledged to be infinitely above all creatures, and to be the sole Creator and Governour of the world, the acts of worship to him as such, ought to be peculiar, and appropriated wholly to himself: For if other Beings come to have a share, although secondarily, with him in the acts of his worship, they ought to have a share with him in the proper reason of that worship, i. e. in the Creation and Government of the world. But if Creation and Providence be the Foundations of divine worship, and those do suppose infinite and incommunicable perfections, on what pretence of reason can beings infinitely distant from God, come to have a share in the Acts of Religious worship, which were purposely designed for the acknowledgement of such a Being, whom the most excellent creatures are bound to adore as well as we? Is not this joyning subjects together with their Soveraign in the highest expressions of our duty to him? What Prince in the world would bear such an affront p. 208from an Embassadour of a Foreign Prince, as that in a publique Audience, when he is introduced on purpose to express the Honour that is to be given to the Person of the King, he should use all the same expressions of it, to his servants and subjects who stand about him, that he doth to himself? Would this be a just excuse, that these were done to him in the first place, and only secondarily to his servants? And if this would not be born by one Prince from the subject of another, how much less from his own? And if Princes will not bear this from their subjects, who are of the same nature with themselves; how can men be so vain to imagine the great God will bear it from his creatures, to have no publique Religious act of worship given to himself, but what is given to those who are confessed to be infinitely distant from him? It is not the supposition of excellency in them will ever justifie this: For let their excellency be never so great, it is still but a created excellency: And their excellency can never make them so much above us, as their being created makes them inferiour to God: and in acts of Religious worship, we ought not so much to consider our distance from them, as their distance from God. Let them be never so much p. 209above us, they are creatures still, and that sets them at an infinite distance from him, whereas all their excellencies can make them but finitely distant from us. Let them be never so excellent, they still worship the same God that we do, and with the most profound adoration of Him; and if their excellency be consistent with their worship of a Being infinitely above them, it is not sufficient to make them an object of adoration to us. We are willing to give them the utmost, their excellency requires from us (provided, we be well assured of it) and that is, a mighty esteem of them, and a readiness to express our honour in celebrating their praises, and commending them as Heroick patterns of goodness, and (supposing them actually present with us) the expressing our esteem in the highest tokens of respect that are used among men: Thus far we go; and if those beings are such, as we suppose them, they would not have us to go farther; but (as the Angel said to St. Iohn) they would bid us, Worship God. But we dare not use the same solemn Acts of Religious worship in places and at times set apart for the service of the Great God, to any of his Creatures how excellent soever they be: for this is an encroachment upon the Divine p. 210Majesty, and as Cajetan expresses it, A taking away from him, as much as in us lies, that peculiar excellency whereby he is God over all, Blessed for evermore. We dare not apply those things to the worship of his creatures, which God hath ever appropriated to His own worship as the proper acts of it; such as Sacrifice, Incense, &c. we dare not give that honour to his servants, which God hath forbidden to be given to any creature, such as incurvation to Images, Invocation of Persons, &c. we dare not express our adoration of any created being in such a way as doth suppose those perfections which can be only in an uncreated being, as knowing the desires of our hearts, help in trouble, pardon of sin, strength in Grace, and receiving to Glory; we dare not make the outward acts of Religious worship common to God and his creatures, for that would be repugnant to the nature and design of Religious worship, which was intended for a publique manifestation of the peculiar service we owe to the Creator and Governour of the World.

And herein those of the Church of Rome fall short of the Heathens themselves, who had so great an apprehension of the necessity p. 211of some appropriate acts of divine worship, that some of them have chosen to die, rather than to give them to what they did not believe to be God. We have a remarkable story to this purpose in Arrian and Curtius concerning Callisthenes. Alexander arriving at that degree of vanity,Arrian de exped. Alex. l. 4. Curt. l. 8. as to desire to have divine worship given him, and the matter being started out of design among the Courtiers, either by Anaxarchus, as Arrian, or Cleo the Sicilian, as Curtius saith; and the way of doing it proposed, viz. by incense, and prostration; Callisthenes vehemently opposed it, as that which would confound the difference of humane and divine worship, which had been preserved inviolable among them. The worship of the Gods had been kept up in Temples, with Altars, and Images, and Sacrifices, and Hymns, and Prostrations, and such like; but it is by no means fitting, saith he, for us to confound these things, either by lifting up men to the honours of the gods, or depressing the gods to the honours of men. For, neither would Alexander suffer any man to usurp his Royal dignity by the votes of men; how much more justly may the gods disdain for any man to take their honours to himself? Which freedom p. 212of speech cost Callisthenes his life, a little after. And it appears by Plutarch, Plutarch vit. Artaxerx. Aelian. Var. hist. l. 1. c. 21.That the Greeks thought it a mean and base thing for any of them, when sent on an Embassy to the Kings of Persia, to prostrate themselves before them, because this was only allowed among them in divine adoration; therefore, saith he, when Pelopidas and Ismenias were sent to Artaxerxes, Pelopidas did nothing unworthy, but Ismenias let fall his Ring to the ground, and stooping for that, was thought to make his adoration; which was altogether as good a shift as the Iesuits advising the Crucifix to be held in the Mandarins hands while they made their adorations in the Heathen Temples in China. Iustin. l. 5.Conon refused to make his adoration, as a disgrace to his City; and Isocrates accuseth the Persians for doing it,Isocrat. Panegyr. because herein they shewed, that they despised the gods rather than men, by prostituting their honours to their Princes. Herodotus mentions Sperchies and Bulis, Herod. l. 7.who could not with the greatest violence be brought to give adoration to Xerxes, because it was against the Law of their Country to give divine honour to men. Valerius Maximus saith,Val. Max. 6. c. 3. l the Athenians put Timagoras to death for doing it; so strong an apprehension had p. 213possessed them, that the manner of worship which they used to their gods, should be preserved sacred and inviolable. And yet Artabanus in Plutarch, when he was perswading Themistocles to do it,Plutarch in Themist. made use of the very argument of a relative Latria, viz. that he was to do it to the King as the Image of God that preserves all things; which according to T. G. and his Brethren was a sufficient salvo for it.T.G. p. 190. For why may not a Prince have this relative Latria given him, with far better reason than a senseless Image, in as much as he represents God with much more Authority and Majesty than any Image can do? I confess Cajetan hath in some measure proposed this objection, Cajet. in Aq. 2.2. qu. 103. art. 3.but he only puts it as to man in general as made after the Image of God, viz. Why God may not be worshipped in that Image as well as in an inanimate one? And the answer he gives, shews how much he was troubled with it; for he distinguishes of a twofold Image, viz. one that is capable of no honour for it self; and another that is, viz. a rational Image such as man is; now, saith he, we may give a relative Latria, where the Image is not capable of honour for it self; but not where it is. For what reason, I beseech him? I had thought, the more lively the p. 214representation had been; and the more excellent the Image, it had been the greater Motive to worship what was represented by it. Otherwise the more deformed and unlike the Image is, the fitter it were for worship; and I should think there were no comparison between the representation of God, in the perfections of mens minds, and their dominion over the inferiour creatures, and that which is made of dull and senseless matter: and among men no Image so fit to represent God, as that of a mighty Prince sitting upon his Throne of Majesty, which strikes more awe and terrour into mens minds, than the picture of an old man upon a Church wall: and notwithstanding what T. G. hath admirably said on behalf of pictures (which I shall consider in its due place) I am still apt to think,T. G. p. 88, 89. that the nearer any being approaches to God in Majesty and Wisdom, it doth give more lively and powerful representation of him, as an object of worship; why then may not we worship God in the Person of a great Prince, better than in a curious Image or Picture? All the sense that I can find by way of answer in Cajetan is this, That we ought not to worship God in a man although he be the Image of God, to avoid the danger of giving divine worship to a Creature: p. 215very well! but is it not a greater fault to give divine worship to mans creature than to Gods? for a picture at the best is but the work of mens hands. But he cannot deny, that in such a case the Latria passes to God, through such an Image as a man or a Prince is; but because of the danger men are in of giving divine worship to creatures, they ought to abstain from it. Very good! but is there not as much danger of mens worshipping Stocks, and Stones, and Images, as there is in worshipping Princes or mankind? And if a relative Latria will not justifie the one, much less certainly can it do the other. But of this hereafter. The thing I observe now is, how careful even the Heathens have been, notwithstanding they heard of the same pleas that are used in the Church of Rome, to preserve the customs of external adoration peculiar to their Gods.

2. I come now to shew, That God by his Law hath appropriated some external acts of worship to himself, §. 7.so as to make it unlawful to use them to any other besides him. Maimonides saith, That to make a man guilty of Idolatry by the Law of Moses,Maimon. de Idol. c. 3. sect. 2, 3, 4, 5. it was necessary that he were convicted p. 216of one of these two things. 1. Either that he did use the acts of worship proper to the Idol, therefore the Sanhedrin were to enquire not only whom men worshipped, but in what manner. Or, 2. That he made use of any of those acts of worship to an Idol, which God hath appropriated to himself, for which he instanceth in Incurvation, Sacrifice, Incense, and Oblations: and adds, That whatever worship was made proper to God by their Law, the using of that to an Idol, although it were not the proper worship of that Idol, made a man guilty of Idolatry. Here are two things farther to be enquired into. 1. What those acts are which God did appropriate to himself? 2. How far Gods appropriating them to himself doth now concern us? i. e. whether the Church hath any liberty to alter the nature of those acts, so as to make any to be common to God and his creatures, which were then peculiar to God?

1. What those acts are which God did appropriate to himself? i. e. which he commanded to be used to himself, and did forbid to be used to any other?

1. And of these, the most indisputable between us and our Adversaries is Sacrifice. For they confess in words, that Sacrifice is p. 217so peculiar to God that it ought not to be offered to any else; because the words of Scripture are so plain to this purpose.Exod. 22.20.Exod 22:20 He that sacrificeth to any God save unto the Lord only, shall surely be put to death: which words are cited by Aquinas to this purpose;Aquin. 2.2. q. 85. art. 2. and my Adversary T. G. doth confess,T.G. p. 389. that the offering of sacrifice not only by the custom of the Church but of all mankind, as St. Austin teacheth, is appropriated to signifie the absolute worship due only to God. It seems so much the more strange to me, that after this he should contend, that Saints may have a share in the honour of sacrifices, but he pretends, that all that their Church means by it, is no more than giving God thanks by a sacrifice offered to him for the vertues and prerogatives (for instance) he bestowed on the Blessed Virgin, p. 395.although the sacrifice be offered to God and not to her. What the sense of their Church is, will be best understood by the practice of it. In the Missal of Sarum, A. D. 1554. and in the Portiforium of Sarum, 1556. and in an old Sarisbury Missal, A. D. 1494. I find this prayer to be used by the Priest, when he offers the Sacrifice, as the express words of the Rubrick are, p. 218Suscipe sancta Trinitas hanc oblationem quam ego indignus peccator offero in honore tuo, B. Mariae & omnium sanctorum pro peccatis & offensionibus meis, & pro salute vivorum & requie omnium fidelium defunctorum. In nomine Patris & Filii & spiritus sancti acceptum sit omnipotenti Deo hoc sacrificium novum.

In the old and new Roman Missal, and the Missal of Paris, 1520. and the Missal of Lyons, it is thus, Suscipe sancta Trinitas hanc oblationem quam tibi offerimus ob memoriam passionis, resurrectionis, & ascensionis Iesu Christi Domini nostri; & in honore B. Mariae semper Virginis, & B. Iohannis Baptistae, & sanctorum Apostolorum, Pauli, & istorum & omnium sanctorum, ut illis proficiat ad honorem, nobis autem ad salutem, & illi pro nobis intercedere dignentur in coelis, quorum memoriam facimus in terris, per Christum Dominum nostrum.

In the old Monastick Missals, mentioned by Cardinal Bona, Bona de rebus Liturg. l. 2. c. 9.the Offertory ran in this Form, Suscipe sancta Trinitas unus Deus, hanc oblationem quam tibi offerimus in memoriam beatae Passionis, Resurrectionis, p. 219& Ascensionis Domini nostri Iesu Christi, & in honorem B. Mariae semper Virginis, genitricis ejusdem Domini nostri, & omnium sanctorum & sanctarum, Coelestium virtutum, & vivificae crucis, ut eam acceptare digneris, pro nobis peccatoribus, & pro animabus omnium Fidelium defunctorum.

In the Ambrosian Missal, it runs thus, Et suscipe sancta Trinitas hanc oblationem quam tibi offerimus pro regimine & custodia atque unitate catholicae fidei, & pro veneratione quoque B. Dei genitricis Mariae, omniumque simul sanctorum tuorum; & pro salute & incolumitate famulorum, famularumque tuarum, &c.

In the old Missal of Illyricus, published by Cardinal Bona, Bona Append. p. 545.the form in other things agrees with the Roman Missal, only after Iesu Christi, it hath, & in honorem sanctorum tuorum, qui tibi placuerunt ab initio mundi, & eorum quorum hodie Festivitas celebratur, & quorum hic nomina & reliquiae habentur, ut illis proficiat ad honorem, nobis autem ad salutem, &c

I desire to know of T. G. whether this be no more than giving God thanks for their vertues, when a propitiatory sacrifice is offered up to God for their honour? and that their honour may be increased p. 220by it, and at the same time to pray, that they would intercede with God for them. What is joyning creatures together with God in the honour of sacrifice, if this be not? How comes a propitiatory sacrifice for sin, and that both for the quick and the dead, to be turned into a sacrifice of thanksgiving for the Graces of a particular Saint? How strangely would it have founded among the Iews, for a man to have offered a sin-offering to give God thanks for the Faith of Abraham, or the meekness of Moses, or the wisdom of Solomon? And at the same time when this sacrifice was pretended to be offered only to God, to pray that they would intercede with God for him. Is not the address to be made to him to whom the sacrifice is offered? And yet we find, that this is not only practised but justified and defended in the Roman Church; for Bellarmin not only saith,Bellarm. de cultu sanct. l. 3. c. 4. that the Mass of St. Peter is so called, because it is offered to God to give thanks for the Glory conferred on him, but because he is at the same time called upon as a Patron and Advocate with God. But saith T. G. Honour is nothing but a Testimony or Protestation of some excellency; and whether thanks be given to God by words or by sacrifice for the Gifts and Graces he hath p. 221bestowed on such a person, it is an evident Protestation of such excellency in that person, and consequently for his honour, though both words and sacrifice be directed to God and not to him. Who denies, that it is for the honour of a Person to praise God for him? but the Question is, if sacrifice be appropriated to the sole Honour of God, how the Honour of Saints comes to be declared by it? For a man whose understanding is not shrunk up as Beggars arms use to be, might have stretched it at least so far, as to have considered, that sacrifice being an external sign, there are two things to be looked at in it. 1. The signification of that sign. 2. The term to which it is directed. Now the main thing to be regarded in it as to Honour, is not the direction of it to its term by the mind, for that is secret; but the external signification of it among men. For, saith Aquinas, Aqu. 2.2. qu. 85. art. 1.the reason of sacrifices is, that men by some sensible external Actings should make a Protestation by offering them to God, of the subjection and Honour that is due to him: now if this sign may be made use of to signifie any other thing, it is not a peculiar and appropriate sign only for that purpose to testifie our subjection to God. And to return the kindness of his p. 222twitch, by an example far more pertinent to the purpose than his was; how strange would it have been thought among the Persians, where prostration was appropriated to their King as a sign of subjection to him alone, for a man to have said to him, Sir, I fall down before you in honour of the Captain of your Guards; or of such and such a Minister of State: would the King have taken this for an appropriate act of Honour to himself? So that though he falls down only to the King, if he declares he intends it for the honour of another, he takes away by his words, the significancy of his action: Thus if sacrifice be so appropriate to the honour of God, that it cannot signifie any thing else; then it is nonsense to sacrifice to God for the Honour of another; if it may signifie any thing else, and be so used in the Church of Rome, then they do not reserve so much as sacrifice for an appropriate sign of the absolute worship of God.

§. 8.2. Religious adoration is appropriated to God in Scripture; for so the command runs, as it is explained by our Saviour, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Mat. 4.10.Matt 4:10They who would make the restrictive particle belong p. 223to the latter clause and not to the first, do not attend to the reason of our Saviours using these words,Concil. Nicen. 2. Leonard Ruben. de Idolol. l. 2. c. 15. n. 1. Bellar. de sanct. Beatit. l. 1. c. 14 which was to reject the Devils temptation about adoration; and it would not have had force against the temptation, if men were more at liberty as to worship, than they are as to service. And it is observed by those who have most considered the importance of the Hebrew word, foreign, that it doth not signifie an act of the mind, but of the body, either by incurvation or prostration. Although adoration be sometime taken for all the external acts of Religious worship, as Iohn 4.20. Acts 8.27. yet the general signification of it, is that act of Religious Worship which is performed by the motion of the body. And so adoration is accounted in the Schools one particular part of proper Religious worship; Aquinas, Aq. 2.2. q. 84. art. 1, 2.puts it before sacrifice, and makes that place of our Saviour the foundation of it; and among external signs, he makes this the greatest; and that it is intended not barely to declare our inward Reverence, but that by the use of this, our inward devotion may be more excited, it being natural for us to proceed from sensible to intellectual acts. And it is observed by Ysambertus, Ysambert. in 3. part. Thom. ad q. 25. disp. 1. art. 4.a late Professor of Divinity in the Sorbon, That where ever p. 224the Scripture speaks of adoration, it is alwayes expressed by some external sign, as a note of subjection in him that adores towards him that is adored: (which observation if understood of a corporeal sign, is not intended for Angels, but men, for adoration is in Scripture attributed to Angels.) And he well observes, as to the sense of Aquinas, That he must make the external sign necessary to the formal act of adoration, because he ranks prayer among the internal acts, which he could do upon no other reason, but because prayer may have its compleat act in the mind, which he supposed that adoration could not; and withal he proves (contrary to the opinion of Suarez) That the internal acts of vertue, though designed by the mind, as a token of submission to God, cannot be the proper acts of adoration, because they are not adequate and proportionable signs to express our submission to God. And therefore Damascen defined adoration to be foreign,Damascen. orat. 3. p. 775. Synod. 7. Act. 4. Vasq. in 3. p. disp. 93. c. 4.Acts 4 a sign of subjection, and Anastasius Bishop of Antioch, foreign, an outward expression of honour, by which, saith Vasquez, he doth not mean any bare honour, but that which implies subjection. But Damascen yet more fully saith, it is a sign, not barely of honour, but foreign p. 225foreign, of submission and humility, not as it is taken for that particular vertue, whereby an inordinate value of our selves is repressed, but as it implies an acknowledgement of Gods superiority and dominion over us. And it is observable that St. Augustine, Aug. de Civit. Dei. l. 10. c. 19where he speaks of those things which are most peculiar to the worship of God, he joyns adoration and sacrifice together. Putaverunt quidam deferendum Angelis honorem vel adorando vel sacrificando, qui debetur Deo; & eorum sunt admonitione prohibiti, jussique sunt haec ei deferre cui uni fas esse noverunt; whereby we see he makes external adoration as peculiar to God as sacrifice; and Ludovicus Vives there saith, That he meant by the Angel that refused adoration, the Angel that forbad St. John, and bad him to worship God. Which makes me wonder, that T. G. should make the act of adoration aequivocal, and only sacrifice according to St. Augustin, to be appropriated to signifie the absolute worship of God; for St. Augustin joyns both together, and makes one as unlawfal to be given to any creature as the other. How then comes St. Augustin's authority to be quitted for the one, and so greedily embraced for the other? Is it that sacrifice doth of p. 226it self more properly signifie our inward and total subjection of our selves to God than the other doth? But it would become T. G's learning to inform us in this matter: since the best learned of their Divines do confess, That sacrifice doth not naturally signifie any worship of God but only by the imposition of men, and that which it signifies, say they, is Gods being Author of Life and Death, and if we take away this imposition it contains nothing of divine worship in it; so Suarez, Suarez ad 3. p. Th. q. 25 disp. 51. sect. 4.who saith, he follows St. Augustin in it. How comes the destruction of any creature under our command to signifie the inward subjection of our selves to God? What pleasure can we conceive the Almighty should take in seeing us to destroy his creatures for his sake? Our minds may be as far from submitting to God, as these things are of themselves from signifying such a submission. Nay how comes a sacrifice to stand so much in our stead, that because we take away the life of that, therefore we own God as our Lord? It might rather of it self signifie that we have the power of life and death over Beasts, than that God hath it over us: yet all that Sacrifice signifies, saith Vasquez, Vasquez ad 3. p. disp. 93. q. 25. art. 5.is, that God is acknowledged thereby to be the Author of life p. 227and death; and to this end, saith Ysambertus, Ysambert. ad 3. p. q. 25. desp. 1. art. 4. in fine.it is necessary that the thing be destroyed, because the reason of Sacrifice lies in the destruction of a thing offered to God. Be it so: but of all things in the world, it would never have come into my mind, nor I think into any mans well in his senses, to offer up God himself unto God as a Sacrifice, in order to the testifying the devoting of our selves unto him; and yet this, after all their talk, comes to be that external Sacrifice which is the only appropriate sign of the absolute worship of God, viz. the Sacrifice of the Mass, wherein the Priest is believed, to offer up God himself under the species of Bread and Wine to the Eternal God in token of our subjection to him. Methinks yet it were somewhat more reasonable to offer up brute Creatures that are under us, than God that is so infinitely above us; and such is the weakness of my understanding, that this seems to be rather an argument of our power over God, than of our subjection to Him. But since the formal reason of a Sacrifice is said to lie in the destruction of it, Tanner. ad 3. p. disp. 5. de Relig. q. 3. dub. 1. n. 8.Good Lord! what thoughts must these men have in their minds, (if they have any) when they think it in their power, first to make their God by speaking p. 228five words; then to offer him up as a Sacrifice; then to suppose him destroyed, and all this to testifie their submission to God! I want words to express the intolerable blasphemy and absurdity of these things. Yet this, saith T. G. is so appropriate a sign of the absolute worship of God, T.G. p. 391.that that Religion which admits no external visible Sacrifice, must needs be deficient in the most signal part of the publick worship of God. What external visible Sacrifice have you that we have not, besides that of God himself whom you believe to be personally present as the object of divine worship under the species of Bread and Wine? and yet when you have pleaded so much for this presence to justifie your Adoration, you then make a Sacrifice of Him; and that he may be so, you grant it is necessary there be some destruction of what was before, i. e. (if to the purpose) of him that was the Sacrifice, otherwise the species are made the Sacrifice, and not the body and blood of Christ. But suppose you only make him a Sacrifice, as to his body and blood, and not as to his divine nature; what becomes then of the body and blood of Christ? for, it must be destroyed to make a Sacrifice; where, how, by what means comes the body and p. 229blood of Christ to be destroyed? When you say, it is there without the qualities of a body, that it cannot be seen, or felt, or tasted; and yet is capable of being destroyed: suppose all this be passed over, how comes the offering up the very body and blood of Christ to God to signifie our absolute worship of him? Will nothing else satisfie to testifie, that we are his subjects, unless we offer up to him the body and blood of his own Son? Is this indeed the most signal part of divine worship, which we must be deficient in, if we have it not? We do from our souls praise God for that unvaluable Sacrifice, the Son of God was pleased to make of his own life, when he was incarnate in our nature; We do frequently commemorate this Sacrifice of his according to his own institution; and in the doing of that, we offer up our selves unto Him as a reasonable service; We adore, and magnify Him for all His mercies, especially the sending of His Son to die for us, as the greatest of all: But we dare not let it enter into our thoughts, that we should ever eat or swallow down the very body and blood of Christ; and then pretend we have offered it up to God as a Sacrifice, and that in token of our absolute worship of Him. But setting aside p. 230the nature of this Sacrifice, which is the only external and visible sign of appropriate worship to God, they pretend to have; I desire yet to know how a Sacrifice doth come to signifie this absolute worship more than adoration? Not by nature, for the lowly submission of our bodies seems more naturally to signifie the behaviour of our minds, than anything without us can do? if it be by institution, it must be either Gods or mans; if mans, then either offering Sacrifice to a creature is Idolatry, or not: if not, then giving absolute worship to a creature is no Idolatry; if it be, then it is Idolatry to make use of the outward signs of divine worship which mankind have agreed upon, to any thing else but God. If it be said to be Gods institution; then it follows, that the applying any outward signs of worship which God hath appropriated to himself, to any Creature, is Idolatry; which is as much as I desire, for then it will equally hold for Religious Adoration; especially if the principle of Arriaga hold true true,Arriaga in 3. p. Thom. Disp. 50. sect. 4. n. 45. that the value of Sacrifice lies in the act of adoration performed by it.

But T. G. pleads, That the act of adoration is equivocal, that is, that we read in Scripture, that it hath been given to men p. 231as well as to God, and therefore cannot be such an appropriate sign of divine worship. To this I have already answered, by distinguishing the Act, and the signification of it; the external act I grant may be performed upon several grounds; As 1. Civil subjection, as by Nathan to David, 1 Kings 1.23.2. Civil respect, as by Abraham to the Children of Heth, Gen. 23.7.3. Religious respect, or as some call it, Moral Reverence, i. e. out of an opinion of great sanctity, without superiority, as Nebuchadnezzar to Daniel, Dan. 2.46. And so Abraham bowed to the Angels, Gen. 18.2. if he knew them to be what they were; but if not, as appears more probable both of him and Lot, by Heb. 13.2. then it was only an expression of civil respect to them. 4. Out of a sudden transport, as St. Iohn did to the Angel twice, which he would not have done a second time, if he had considered his being checked for the first, Rev. 19.10.22.8, 9. Now if these things may by their circumstances and occasions be apparently differenced from each other, and from that Religious adoration which God doth require to be given to himself, then there can be no reason from thence to make the signification of external adoration to be p. 232equivocal. There is the same nature in these acts that there is in words of different significations; which being taken in general are of an equivocal sense, but being considered with all their particular circumstances they have their sense so restrained and limited, that it is easie to discern the one from the other. That we call therefore Religious adoration, which is performed with all the circumstances of Religious worship, as to time, place, occasion, and such like; as if men used prostration to any thing within the Courts of the Temple, (wherein some of the Iews thought that posture only lawful;) if it were done in the time of Sacrifice, or devotion; if the occasion were such as required no respect of any other kind, as when the Devil demanded of Christ to fall down and worship him; in these and such like circumstances we say adoration hath the determin'd signification of Religious worship, and is an appropriate sign of it, by Gods own institution. Thence the Psalmist saith,Psal. 95.6.Ps 95:6 O come let us worship and bow down, let us kneel before the Lord our Maker; and God forbids bowing down to and worshipping any graven Image, or similitude; where the bowing down is one act of worship, and was so esteemed by the common consent of mankind, as might be p. 233easily made appear by the several customs of external adoration, that have been used in all parts of the world, and it might for the universality of the practice of it, vye with Sacrifice. So that on this account, as well as the proper signification of it, adoration ought to be esteemed as significant and peculiar a sign of absolute worship as Sacrifice. There are only two things that seem yet to make this adoration not appripriate to God, (for the instances of Balaam and Saul are not worth mentioning) and those are, Ioshua's Religious adoration of the Angel that appeared to him; and the adoration that the Iews performed towards the Ark; the latter is easily answered, the Ark being only a Symbol of the divine presence of Gods own appointing, towards which they were to direct their adoration; (but of this at large, when I come to the worship of Images); the other cannot be denied to be Religious worship, but we are to consider, what Aquinas saith to this place,Aq. 2.2. q. 84. art. 1. that it may be understood of the absolute worship of God, who did appear and speak in the person of an Angel. And St. Athanasius expresly saith,Athanas. orat. 4. c. Arrian. p. 467. that God did speak in an Angel to Moses at the burning Bush, when Moses was bid to put off his Shooes; as Ioshua was now; and by the description p. 234on of him,Exod. 3.5.Exod 3:5 as Captain of the Host of the Lord, it is apparent Ioshua looked not on him as an ordinary Angel, but as the Angel of whom God said,Iosh. 5.14.Josh 5:14 that he should go before them, and whom they were bound to obey; and by comparing the places in Exodus together,Exod. 23.21, 22, 23.Exod 23:21Exod 23:22Exod 23:23 where God afterwards threatens to send an Angel, and Moses would not be satisfied till God said His Presence should go with them; 33.2, 14.it is evident this Angel of His Presence was more than a meer Angel; and therefore the Fathers generally suppose it was the Eternal Son of God who appeared in the Person of an Angel, as Petavius hath at lage proved:Petav. de Trinit. l. 8. c. 2. and is sufficiently manifest from hence, that they make use of Adoration as a certain argument to prove, that Christ was not a creature; which argument were of no force at all, if they did not believe, that adoration was an appropriate sign of that absolute worship which belongs only to God: and therefore they observe that when meer Angels appeared, they refused adoration, as the Angels that appeared to Manoe and St. Iohn; but when adoration is allowed or commanded, it was the divine nature appearing in the person of an Angel.

p. 2353. The erection of Temples and Altars, §. 9.is another appropriate sign of divine worship which I need not go about to prove from Scripture, since it is confessed by our Adversaries. Ad Latriam pertinent templa & altaria, sacerdotia, sacrificia, festivitates, ceremoniae, & hujusmodi quae soli Deo sunt exhibenda; saith Durandus Mimatensis from Innocentius 3. and the applying these things to any but God, he makes to be Idolatry. Bellarmin joyns Temples and Altars together with Sacrifice as peculiar to God; Templum, saith Cardinal Bona, est domus Numini Sacra, a house Sacred to God; and yet Bellarmin had the confidence to lay down this proposition,Innocent. 3. de Myst. Missae l. 3. c. 11. Durand. Ration. divin. offic. l. 8. c. ult. Bellarm. de sanct. Beatit. l. 1. c. 12. Bona de reb. Liturg. l. 1. c. 19. Bellarm. de cultusanctorum l. 2. c. 4 Sacrae domus non solum Deo, sed etiam sanctis recte aedificantur & dedicantur: and he is not satisfied with the answer of some Moderns, that say, That Temples cannot properly be erected to any, but God, any more than Sacrifice can be offered to any but him; but because there are many Temples dedicated to God, that they may be distinguished from each other, they have their denomination from particular Saints, (which is an answer we find no fault with, if they do not proceed to the worship and invocation of those Saints to p. 236whose memory the Churches are dedicated, as the particular Patrons of it,) but Bellarmin hath found out a subtlety beyond this; for he saw well enough this would not reach home to their case, and therefore he saith, That sacred places are truely and properly built to Saints; but how? not as they are Temples, but as they are Basilicae; For, saith he, Temples have a particular relation to sacrifice, but Basilicae have not: and he confesses it would be Idolatry to erect them as Temples to Saints, but not as they are Basilicae. This is a distinction without any difference; for Isidore, Isidor. Origin. l. 15. c. 4.who certainly well understood the signification of these words, as used among Christians, saith, Nunc autem ideo divina Templa Basilicae nominantur, quia ibi Regi omnium Deo cultus & sacrificia offeruntur: and that which we insist upon, is not, the names that Churches are called by, nor the preservation of the memories of Saints in them, but the erecting them to Saints as places for the worship and invocation of them. And the vanity of this distinction of Temples from Basilicae, because Temples relate only to sacrifice, will easily appear, if we consider that the proper signification of Templum was Domicilium, as Turnebus observes,Turneb. Advers. l. 19. c. 5. Varro de Ling. Lat. l. 6. which is that which Varro calls p. 237Templum naturâ; and in this sense, he saith, Naevius called the Heaven, Templum magnum Iovis altitonantis; and from thence it was applyed to any place consecrated by the Augurs, A. Gell. l. 14. c. 7.and so by degrees, was taken for any sacred place that was set apart for divine worship; for that was it which made them sacred, sacra sunt loca, saith Isidore, Isid. Orig. l. 15. c. 4.divinis cultibus instituta. Either therefore they must say, there is no proper worship of God but Sacrifice, or the notion of a Temple cannot be said only to refer to Sacrifice. And among the Iews, our B. Saviour hath told us, that the Temple had relation to prayer as well as Sacrifice, My House shall be called a House of Prayer. Mat. 21.13 Mark 11.17. Luk. 19.46Matt 21:13Mark 11:17Luke 19:46Would it not have been a pleasant distinction among the Iews, if any of them had dedicated a Temple to Abraham, with a design to invocate him there, and make him the Patron of it, for them to have said, they built it as a Temple to God, but as a Basilica to Abraham; for they sacrificed there only to God, (or to God for the honour of Abraham) but they invocated Abraham as the particular Patron of it? This is that therefore we charge them with, upon their own principles, that when they dedicate Churches to particular Saints as the Patrons of them, p. 238and in order to the solemn invocation of them there, they do apply that which themselves confess to be an appropriate sign of divine worship to Creatures, and consequently by their own confession are guilty of Idolatry. Neither can it be pleaded by them, that their Churches and Altars are only dedicated to the honour of God for the memory of a particular Saint; for they confess, that it is for the solemn invocation of that Saint. And with all in the Form of dedication in the Pontifical, there is more implied, as appears by these two prayers at the Consecration of the Altar; The first when the Bishop stands before the Altar in these words, Deus Omnipotens, in cujus honorem, ac Beatissimae Virginis Mariae & omnium Sanctorum, ac nomen & memoriam Sancti tui N. nos indigni altare hoc consecramus, &c.