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

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

p. 238The other, after the Bishop hath with his right thumb dipped in the Chrism, made the sign of a Cross upon the Front of the Altar, Majestatem tuam, Domine, humiliter imploramus, ut altare hoc sacrae unctionis libamine ad suscipienda populi tui munera inunctam potenter bene. dicere, & sanctificare digneris, ut p. 239quod nunc à nobis sub tui nominis invocatione, in honorem Beatissimae Virginis Mariae, & omnium Sanctorum, atque in memoriam sancti tui N. &c. Where we see, besides the memory of the particular Saint to whom the Altar is dedicated; the honour of the B. Virgin and the Saints are joyned together with the Honour of God in the general dedication of it.

By the Pontifical, no Altar is to be consecrated without Reliques, which the night before, the Bishop is to put into a clean vessel for that purpose with three grains of Frankincense, and then to seal it up; which being conveniently placed before the Church door, the Vigils are to be celebrated that night before them, and the Nocturn and the Mattins, for the honour of the Saints whose the Reliques are; and when the Reliques are brought into the Church, this is one of the Antiphona's, Surgite Sancti Dei, de mansionibus vestris, loca sanctificate, plebem benedicite, & nos homines peccatores in pace custodite. The form of consecration of the Altar it self, is this, Sanctificetur hoc Altare in honorem Dei omnipotentis, & gloriosae Virginis p. 240Mariae atque omnium sanctorum, & ad nomen ac memoriam Sancti N.

In China, Trigautius saith in the Chappel they had there,Trigaut. Exped. Sin. l. 5. c. 15. they had two Altars, one to our Saviour, the other dedicated to the B. Virgin, without any distinction at all. In the speech the Bishop makes to the people he utterly overthrows Bellarmins distinction of Templum and Basilica; for, he saith, nullibi enim quam in sacris Basilicis, Domino offerri sacrificium debet. It seems then Basilica is taken with a respect to sacrifice as well as Templum: and then he declares that he hath dedicated this Basilica in honorem omnipotentis Dei, Beatae Mariae semper virginis, & omnium Sanctorum, ac memoriam Sancti N. So that Basilica is here taken with a respect to God, and not meerly to the Saints; although they joyn them together with God in the honour of dedication.

Let us now compare the practice of the Roman Church in this matter, with the argument which the Fathers made use of, to prove the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, because we are said to be his Temple. If we are said, saith S. Basil, S. Basil. ep. ad Caesariens. ed. Basil. p. 361to be his Temple because he is worshipped by us and dwells in us, then it follows that he is God, for we are commanded to worship and p. 241serve God alone. Where it is plain S. Basil takes a Temple with a respect to worship and not meerly to sacrifice. A Temple belongs only to God and not to a creature, saith S. Ambrose, Ambros. desp. sancto. l. 3. c. 13.therefore the Holy Ghost is God, because we are his Temple. This is peculiar to the Divine nature, saith S. Cyril, S. Syril. Thesaur. sid. l. 34. p. 357. S. August. ep. 66. c.to have a Temple to dwell in. If we were to build a Temple, saith S. Augustin, to the Holy Ghost, in so doing, we should give him the worship proper to God, and he must be God to whom we give divine worship, for we must worship the Lord our God, and him only must we serve: the same argument he urges in several other places; a Temple, Sermon. Arrian. c. 20.29. c. Maxim. l. 1. c. 11. l. 2. c. 11. l. 3. c. 3.saith he, was never erected but either to the true God, as Solomon did, or to false Gods as the Heathens; and this argument from our being said to be the Temple of the Holy Ghost, he thinks is stronger, than if adoration had been said to be given to it; for this is so proper an act of divine worship to erect a Temple, that if we should do it to the most excellent Angel, we should be anathematized from the Church of God. Hoc nunc sit quibuslibet Divis, (saith Erasmus there in the Margin.) This is every where now done to Saints, at which Petavius is very angry; and p. 242saith, they do it not to the Saints per se & praecipué. Petav. de Trinit. l. 2. c. 16. n. 11.But what becomes then of the argument of the Fathers, which supposes the erecting a Temple to be such a peculiar act of adoration, that it cannot be applied to any creature, no not secondarily? For then the opposers of the Divinity of the Holy Ghost might have easily answered S. Augustins argument after the same fashion, viz. that we were said to be the Temple of the Holy Ghost, not per se & praecipuè, but only secondarily, as it was the divine instrument of purifying the Souls of men. From hence we see, how unanimously the Fathers looked on the dedication of Temples and Altars, as an appropriate sign of that absolute worship we owe to God; and that not meerly as an Appendix to sacrifice, but as it contains in it such an act of adoration as is peculiar to God.

§. 10.4. The burning of Incense as a token of Religious worship. For otherwise, it is of the nature of the outward act of adoration, and may be done on meerly civil accounts; and so far T. G. was in the right when he said,T. G. p. 90. that burning incense is a ceremony of the like nature with bowing, i. e. it may be accommodated to p. 243several uses; but as I have proved that Religious adoration is a peculiar act of divine worship, so I shall now do, concerning the burning of incense when it is used as a token of Religious worship. If there were any difference under the Law between the Altar of burnt offerings, and the Altar of incense, this latter seems to be more particularly appropriated to the worship of God. For the High Priest is not only commanded to burn upon it perpetual incense before the Lord; but it is said, to be most holy to the Lord;Exod. 30.8.10.Exod 30:8Exod 30:10 and it stood in a more holy place. And we see by our Saviours interpretation of the precept of worship, although the restrictive particle were not in the words of the Law, yet he shews us that it was in the sense of it; and that certainly is to be understood, where a thing is said to be most holy to God, i. e. appropriated to himself after a peculiar manner: and we have seen by Maimonides that incense is joyned with sacrifice; so that a person is made by their Law as guilty of Idolatry, if he burns incense to an Idol, as if he offered Sacrifice. But we need not depend on the Iews testimony in this matter; for the Scripture is express in it, where it speaks of Hezekiah's breaking in pieces the brazen p. 244serpent that Moses had made, for in those days the Children of Israel did burn incense to it. 2 King. 18.4.2 Kgs 18:4Bellarmine cannot deny,Bellarm. de imag. sanct. l. 2. c. 17. that burning of incense was a sacrifice among the Iews, and that was the reason that Hezekiah brake the brazen Serpent in pieces; but, he saith, it is not a sacrifice now. But how comes it to change its nature? hath it lost any part of its definition? if not, hath the Church power to make that which was a sacrifice to become none? i. e. to take away an appropriate sign of Gods absolute worship? for so they acknowledge sacrifice to be. Paulus Maria Quarti in his late Commentaries on the Rubricks of the Missal confesses that all the material parts of the definition of a sacrifice agree to the burning of Incense in the Roman Church, Paul. Maria Quarti Comment. in Rubric Missal. part. 2. tit. 4. sect. 1. dub. 2.for it is an oblation made to God for his honour by the change of a sensible thing, but, he saith, from Suarez that it is not a sacrifice among them, but only an accidental appendix to a sacrifice: and might not the same have been said among the Iews? and yet himself afterwards grants, that it is a part of Religious worship as honour is thereby given to those that are incensed; and is to be determined according to the nature of the object; if it be given to God, it is Latria, p. 245if to Saints, it is Dulia, &c. It seems now, it is become more than an appendix, being a proper act of worship; but all their care is to avoid its being a sacrifice, because they give it to Saints and Images, and when they are off from that difficulty they think they can dispose of it as they please. Catharinus grants,Catharin. de cultu & adorat. imaginum. p. 126. that burning of incense had the proper nature of a sacrifice among the Iews; and that the reason why Hezekiah brake in pieces the brazen Serpent was because they did not direct their incense to the thing represented by it, but terminated their worship on the sign: but (1.) it seems then, the Scripture gives a very lame account of the reason of it, for that mentions no more but their burning incense before it, which was no fault of it self; but only that they did not direct their intention far enough. (2.) It seems, that sacrifice it self may be offered to an Image; for Catharinus grants, that this had the nature of sacrifice, and there was no harm in the meer oblation, but only in the shortness of the intention. Sanders saith,Sander. de honorat. imaginum adorat. l. 2. p. 138. that God commanded the Iews to give Religious worship to the brazen Serpent; for, he saith, their very looking upon it was such; and from thence he proves it lawful to worship p. 246Images; but Cope (or rather Harpsfield) will not allow it to be of the same nature with Images, Alan. Copi Dialog. 5. p. 662.easily discerning, that the breaking of it down would make more against the worship of Images, than the setting of it up ever made for them. For Vasquez saith,Vasquez in 3. p. disp. 104. art. 3. c. 5. the peoples looking upon it in order to their being healed, was no part of worship, being no token of submission; and that God intended no worship should be given to it. And he ingenuously confesses, that when Hezekiah brake it in pieces, it was not because it was worshipped for a God among them, or had the worship terminated upon it, but because the people gave the same kind of worship to it which in the Roman Church they give to their Images: but he thinks that worship was unlawful to the Iews, which is lawful to Christians. And then why not the offering sacrifice to Images, as well as burning of Incense? But T. G. thinks,T.G. p. 428. that perhaps the smoke of the incense (when used as a sign of Religious worship) troubles my eyes so that I cannot distinguish between the use of it, as applied to God, and as applied to his servants, or other things relating to him. It is pity T. G. had not been Hezekiahs Confessor, to have better informed him about the Iews burning p. 247of Incense before the brazen Serpent; for he would in all probability have done his endeavour to have preserved it; and if Hezekiah had pleaded the Law that appropriated incense to the worship of God, he would have desired him to clear his eyes a little better; for then he might discern that burning incense was an indifferent ceremony, and may be applied either to God or the creature; and that the difference of these depends on the intention of the persons who do them; now how could any man tell by the outward act what the intention of these persons was? For all that appeared, they intended only to honour God by it in memory of the great miracles he had wrought by means of it; and then it was so far from being evil, that it was an act of Latria to God. And why should Hezekiah destroy the brazen Serpent, for being an occasion of Gods honour? This were fitter for Senacherib, or Rabshakeh to do, than one that professed to worship the true God: Is not incense used daily in the Temple, are not the Altar and the vessels of the Temple perfumed by it? Why then should the brazen Serpent be profaned by that, which sanctifies other things? p. 248Therefore only advise them to direct their intention aright, and there can be no harm in the use of such an indifferent ceremony; and let the Brazen Serpent stand, to excite the devotion of the people towards God in remembrance of what he did to the people of old by the means of it. But it seems Hezekiah had not looked over Aristotle's threshold so far as to know, that acts go whither they are intended; and therefore he took the giving of that part of worship which God had appropriated to himself, to the Brazen Serpent, to be sufficient ground for the demolishing of it, without particular enquiry into the intentions of the persons. Yet I must say for T. G. that he doth not seem so confident of the indifferency of this ceremony under the Law; for he saith, That it is not appropriated, at least in the new Law, to the worship of God, and therefore it is in the freedom of the Church to determine how and when it shall be used. If he means by the new Law, the Rubricks or practise of their Church, he saith true; for Incense is appointed to be burnt to Images and Crucifixes, Bellarm. de sanct. beat. l. 1. c. 13.and Reliques out of Religious honour to them: but if by the new Law he means the Law of Christ, that doth not, that I can find, make any thing p. 249that God had appropriated to himself, as a sign of his own worship, to be common to any creature with him; but I am sure before, that burning of Incense before Images, Ezek. 8.9, 10, 11.Ezek 8:9Ezek 8:10Ezek 8:11was accounted one of the abominations of Israel.

5. Solemn Invocation was an external act of worship appropriated to God himself. §. 11.My House is the House of Prayer, saith our Saviour of the Temple;Luk. 19.48.Luke 19:48 by which it appears that solemn Invocation was then looked on as a peculiar part of divine worship. But I need not prove this, since it is granted by our Adversaries, that one sort of Invocation is so proper to God, that to give it to any besides him were Idolatry; which is, as T. G. expresseth it,T.G. p. 288. the Prayer we make to God as the Author and Giver of all Good; but a lower sort of Invocation, he contends, may be given to Saints and Angels. My business here, is not to discuss the point of Invocation, (which is to be handled at large in its proper place) but to shew, in what sense it was understood among those to whom God gave the Laws of his worship, and whether this inferiour sort of Invocation were thought consistent with the true worship of God. We will then suppose p. 250that in the Temple of Hierusalem, at the hours of prayer, the Iews at the same time, and with the same outward solemnity of worship, should make their prayers first to God, to have mercy upon them; and then immediately to make their addresses to Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, Iacob and Ioseph, and Moses, and the Prophets to pray for them; whether would this have been thought agreeable to the command of worshipping God alone? especially, if these prayers were said before the Images of those persons set up in the Temple: for if the Law did only forbid the worship of Heathen Idols, there would be no repugnancy to the Law in all this. What course can we now take to resolve this Question? I know but three waies of doing it. 1. By comparing this practice with the precept of worship. For God being to appoint the Laws and Rules of it, we are to enquire in the first place, what his will and pleasure was, as to this matter; for he best knew what worship was pleasing to him. If he hath therefore appropriated all acts of Religious worship to himself, as it is plain he hath done by that Law, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve, then it is unlawful to give it to any other. p. 251If it be said, they do not give the worship proper to God; I desire to know who shall judge what is the worship proper to God, He by his Law, or we by distinctions of our own making? Hath God himself made any such distinction as this is? Hath He bid men to pray to Him as the Author and Giver of all Good, but to Angels or Saints as Mediatours and Intercessors to Him? Nay hath He not forbidden it, when he commands that all Religious worship without distinction, be given to himself? And where the Law doth not distinguish, what presumption is it in us to do it? 2. By the practise of the Iewish Church; and it is granted by our Adversaries, Bellarm. de Sanct. Beatit. l. 1. c. 19, 20. Perron Replic. l. 5. p. 981. Suarez in 3. p. Th. fo. 2. disp. 42. sect. 1. de orat. l. 1. c. 10.that there was no Invocation of Saints then used, because, say they, the Saints were then only in Limbo, and not in their perfect happiness, nor placed over the Church as they are now; but the Iews knew of no such reason as this to hinder them; for they believed those great Saints to be in a state of perfect Felicity, therefore this could be no ground to hinder them; and withal they had so mighty a veneration for the Patriarchs, and so great a dread of the Divine Majesty, that if it had been lawful, none would have been more ready to have made use of them as Mediators p. 252than they; for we see how ready they were to entreat Moses to be a Mediator between God and them;Deut. 5.27.Deut 5:27 why should not they have continued this after his death, if they had believed one to be as lawful as the other? But although they did not Invocate Saints, they might do Angels; and some have attempted to prove they did, although the Iews know of no such practice among them, albeit they attribute so much to the Power of Angels, Reuchlin. de arte Cabalist. l. 3. Vorstius in Maim. de Fund. legis p. 16, 17.that nothing but the fear of Idolatry could restrain them; for they believe one to be a Spirit set over Fire, and another over Water, another over Clouds, &c. as the Eastern Idolaters did.

But did not Jacob pray to the Angel, Gen. 48.16. the Angel that redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads? No saith Abarbinel, Abarb. de capite fidei c. 12. ad dub. 2.it was only a prayer to God, that had made use of his Angel; for, he saith, God before whom my Fathers did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day, the Angel which redeemed me, &c. if this were an invocation of the Angel, it was an invocation of him as the Author and Giver of all Good; which T. G. confesses to be Idolatry: but Abravanel parallels it with that saying of Abraham, The Lord God of Heaven which took me from my Fathers House, Gen. 24.7.Gen 24:7He shall p. 253send his Angel before thee. But we need not run to the Iews to clear this place, for S. Athanasius supposing it to be an Invocation, Athanas. c. Arrian orat. 4. p. 464.from thence proves, that it must be understood of the Eternal Son of God, for, saith he, Jacob would never have joyned a Creature together with God in his prayers: and S. Cyrill, Cyrill. thesaur. assert. 20. p. 209. S. Hier. in Proverb. 2.more generally; who would ever pray in the name of Angels? And S. Hierome in terms as large and express as may be, Nullum invocare, i. e. in nos orando vocare nisi Deum debemus; we ought to invocate none by praying to them but God himself: and from thence he proves the Wisdom there spoken of could be no created Wisdom. So that neither Iews nor Christians did believe the Invocation of Angels to have been practised in the Church of Israel.

3. In this case it is reasonable to appeal to the sense of Iewish Writers, who must be presumed to understand their own customs best; especially in respect to Idolatry, which they have suffered so much for; and they unanimously declare it to be against the sense of the Law, to make Saints or Angels to be Mediators between God and them. Maimonides makes this to be consequent upon the precept against Idolatry;Maimon. ap. Abrav. p. 7. and makes it the fifth Fundamental p. 254of the Law; That we ought to worship God alone, and to make no Mediators between God and us; neither Angels, nor Stars, nor Elements, nor any such things, because we ought to direct all our thoughts to God alone. Abrav. de capite fidei c. 12. p. 43.And Abravanel in his Commentary upon the Fundamentals of the Law, saith, their wise men interpreted that verse, the Lord our God is nigh unto us in all that we call upon him for, that they should only invocate God, and not Michael or Gabriel, &c. and saith presently after, That this sort of worship belongs only to God, and to none else, according to the sense of their Wise-men. Maimonides saith,Maim. More Nevoch. l. 1. c. 36. That none of the Idolaters were ever so mad to think there was no God besides the Idol they worshipped; or that the Figure they worshipped made and governed the World; but they worship them as Mediators between the great God and them, and so he interprets that place, Mal. 1.11. Incense shall be offered foreign not Nomini meo, but propter me: as though the Incense they offered to their Idols were for his sake, and so it is a meer relative Latria: and he adds, That the Idolaters did believe one God, but offended against the precept which commands Him alone to be worshipped. The Paraphrase of Ionathan p. 255upon 1 Kings 18.21. If the Lord be God, follow Him; renders it thus, Is not God thy Lord? therefore serve Him alone: and why do ye wander after Baalim in which there is no profit. But I need mention no more since a Learned person of our Church hath proved in a set Discourse from the several Testimonies of Aben-Ezra, Kimchi, Iarchi, Veri Cultûs unitas, &c. Auct. L.S. Lond. 1643.Moses bar-Nachman, R. Bechai, Alschech, and others of greatest reputation among the Iews, that they were guilty of Idolatry by their Law, who believed one true God, but gave Religious worship to other things, as Mediators between God and them.

6. The last I shall mention as an appropriate act of divine worship, is,§. 12. making Vows to God; which the Scripture hath so fully declared to belong to God, as a part of divine worship, that our Adversaries do not offer to deny it. For Vows are not only said to be made to God, Numb. 30.2. Deut. 23.21, 23. but they are joyned with Sacrifice and Oblations, Isa. 19.21. And therefore Aquinas makes vowing one of the proper acts of Latria; and Bellarmin confesses,Aq. 2.2. q. 88.5. Bellarm. de cultu sanct. l. 2. c. 9. That it is an act of Religion due only to God. Who could now have imagined, after such confessions to have p. 256found them in the Church of Rome making vows to Saints as solemnly as to God himself; so that if ever men did condemn themselves for Idolatry, they seem to do it by such plain confessions of both parts, viz. that Vows are a part of the worship due only to God; and that they give this worship to Creatures. Here one would think we had them fast; yet if we do not look to our selves, they will slip through our fingers, and escape. Is not, say I, a Vow a part of Latria that is due only to God? Yes, say our Adversaries, it is so. Do not you make Vows to Saints as formally and solemnly as to God himself; as the Dominicans Vow at entrance into their Order, as Cajetan saith,Cajet. in Aq. ib.is made Deo, Beatae Mariae, Beato Dominico & omnibus sanctis? True, say they, this cannot be denied. Do not you then give to the creature the worship proper to God, which you confess to be Idolatry? Hold, say they, we distinguish: but about what? about making Vows to Saints together with God; for may not we make a Vow to men and to God too, and who will say that is Idolatry? as for instance, may not a man Vow to A. and B. that he will give a hundred pound to an Hospital? here the Vow is made both to God, and to A. and B. But p. 257here A. and B. are only witnesses to the Vow, but the formality of the Vow lies in the promise made to God to do such things for his service and honour; and A. and B. have no concernment in this. But may not men Vow obedience to Superiours, and that is more than making them witnesses? Very true, but then this obedience is the matter of the Vow, or the thing that is vowed; and in all Vows of obedience, there are many limitations implyed, but there are none in the Vows made to God or the Saints; but withal they Vow to God and the Saints that they will obey their Superiours. So that their obedience to Superiours is but the matter of the Vow made to God and the Saints. Well then, say they, suppose we do make the Saints the object of our Vows as well as God; yet we do not consider the Saints as rational creatures; but as they are Dii participativè, as Cajetan and Bellarmin both say. And is not this the very answer of the Heathens, that they gave divine worship to creatures, not as creatures, but as Gods by way of participation? Is it indeed come out at last, that we are to look on the Saints as inferiour Deities, and on that account may give to them the worship proper to God? Votum non convenit sanctis, saith Bellarmin, nisi p. 258quatenus sunt Dii per participationem. I see truth may be smothered a long time, and kept under by violence, but it will break out at last, one way or other. I began to suspect something, when I found the Master of Controversies, speak of the Saints being praepositi Ecclesiae set over the Church, De sanct. beat. l. 1. c. 20.but I could hardly have expected to have found them owned for inferiour Deities, for what are Gods by participation but such as derive their power from God, and are employed by Him to take care of these lower things? So he saith, the Saints do curam gerere rerum nostrarum, take care of our affairs: and now I do not wonder to see them make Vows to them, or perform any other act of Religious worship to them as well as to God. But after all this ado, may we not Vow to God upon a higher account, and to the Saints upon a lower? Yes, no doubt; just as a man may swear Allegiance to his Prince upon the account of his Soveraign Authority; and to one of his Subjects, as a less soveraign. For if Allegiance be peculiar to Soveraign Authority, how can it be given to any one that hath it not? And in this case, it is confessed that Vows are a part of that worship which is proper only to God; and how then can they be given to any else besides p. 259Him? And Bellarmin confesseth, That Vows in the Scriptures are alwaies taken for promises made to God; for when they were written, there was no such custom of vowing to Saints. A very fair confession! But how then comes that, which all the time when the Scripture was written was peculiar to God, to become common to Him and His Creatures? why may not sacrifice be made common as well as Vows? if it be in their power to change those things which God by the acknowledgement of our Adversaries hath throughout the Scripture made peculiar to himself.

2. This therefore will require a farther debate,§. 13. viz. how far Gods appropriating these Acts of worship to himself doth concern us? For which we are to consider,

1. That it is granted by T. G. to be reasonable, that there should be some external acts of worship peculiar to God; because the reason of his worship is peculiar, as he is the supreme Lord and Governour of the world.

2. That acts of worship being designed to honour and please God, he is the fittest to determine what those peculiar acts of worship shall be. For S. Augustin mentions that saying of Socrates as a principle of p. 260natural reason; August. de consens. Evangel. l. 1. c. 18.Unumquemque Deum sic coli oportere, quo modo se ipse colendum esse praeceperit; that God ought to be worshipped according to His own appointment. To which himself adds, That if men worship God against His Will, they do not worship Him, but their own imagination: and therefore they are to examine what worship this God doth reserve to himself, and what He will allow to any other. Orig. c. Cels. l. 8. p. 384.Origen embraces that saying of Celsus, That no inferior Being ought to receive any Honour against the Will of the Supream: and therefore he desires Celsus to prove, that those Daemons and Heroes, which had divine worship given them among them, ever had the consent of the Supreme God for it; but it rather came from the ignorance and barbarism of mankind, which by degrees fell off from the true worship of God. And he insists upon the demonstration of this, as to all their Deities, how they can shew that ever God gave way they should be worshipped. foreign; but we can prove, saith he, by evident arguments that it was the Will of God that all men should honour the Son, as they do the Father. Dei honorem per Deum docemur, saith Hilary;Hilar. de Trinit. l. 5. p. 54. we understand how to p. 261worship God by himself. S. Chrysostom saith,Chrysost. hom. 60. ad pop. Antioch. Let us learn to honour Christ as he would have us, for that is the most pleasing honour, which he would have, and not that which we would give. S. Peter thought to honour Christ by refusing to be washed, but this was not honour, but directly contrary. Which I desire T. G. to take notice of, that he may better understand, that God cannot be honoured by prohibited acts of worship, whatever the intention of the person be. But one would think this were a principle so reasonable in it self, that I need not vouch Authorities for it; yet we shall soon find that all these Authorities are no more than necessary.

3. Acts appropriated to the worship of God by his own appointment, must continue so, till himself hath otherwise declared. For who dares alter what God hath appointed? Indeed if the peculiar acts of worship had depended only on the consent of mankind, there might have been some reason for men by common consent to have changed the nature and signification of them. But since God by a Law hath appropriated some parts of worship to himself, we ought in manners to know his mind, before we give away any part of that which was once peculiar to himself, p. 262to any of his creatures.

4. Christ hath no where made it lawful to give any Acts that were before appropriate to the worship of God to any creature. We do acknowledge that Christ did take away by the design of his doctrine, that external ceremonial worship that was among the Iews; but he no where gives the least intimation, that any acts which before were peculiar to God, might now be given to any else besides him. Nay, instead of this, he layes down the same Fundamental precept of worship which was in the Law, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve, and he explains it more clearly to avoid all ambiguity in it, by expressing that restrictive particle only, which was implyed before: His Apostles utterly refused any thing like divine honour being given to them, and when one of them after an ecstatical manner fell down before an Angel, he was severely rebuked for it, and bidden to worship God. So that our Adversaries grant, that since the incarnation the Angels would not receive any adoration from men; it seems then the Gospel is so far from giving any countenance to it, that it suggests a new argument against it.

p. 2635. The notion of Idolatry under the Gospel, doth remain the same that it was before. For we find such a sin often expressed, and condemned, and cautions given against it, Neither be ye Idolaters, 1 Cor. 10.7.14.1 Cor 10:71 Cor 10:14as were some of them: wherefore my dearly beloved, flee from Idolatry; Little Children keep your selves from Idols. 1 S. John 5.21.John 5:21What notion of Idolatry could they have, but what was the same, which the Iews had from the Law of Moses? The notion of Idolatry was a new thing among the Gentiles who knew no harm at all in giving divine worship to creatures; from whence should they understand the sinfulness and the nature of it, if not from some Law of God? the Apostles pretended to give no new Law about it, and never corrected any mistake among the Iews concerning it, as they did in other things; therefore the notion of Idolatry did continue the same, that it was before.

6. It was Idolatry among the Iews to give the appropriate acts of divine worship to any thing but God: which I have already proved from the words of the Law, and the concurrent Testimony of the Iewish Writers; and from these things laid together, it follows, that it is Idolatry for men now to give any of the fore-mentioned appropriate p. 264signs of divine worship to any thing but God: whether it be sacrifice, or adoration, or building Temples and Altars, or burning incense, or invocation, or making Vows; for if all these were things appropriated to the worship of God by his Law, the using of these to any creature, is not meer disobedience to his Law, but a giving to the creature the worship proper to God; which on all sides is confessed to be Idolatry.

§. 14.No, saith T. G. this proves only an extrinsecal denomination of Idolatry;T.G. p. 28, 29. for if, for instance, God hath forbidden external adoration to be given to an Image, his prohibition of such worship may make it indeed to be unlawful, but hinders not the Act from passing whither it was intended; and consequently if it be intended or directed by the understanding and will to God, though after an unlawful manner, it will not fail to be terminated upon God; and the act is an act of disobedience, or of some other sin, and called Idolatry only by a Metaphorical denomination, as Idolatry is called Adultery, and the Fields are said to be joyful and sing. … 323.For, as he saith elsewhere, as no command of God can make that to be not Idolatry, which is so in the p. 265nature of the thing; so no prohibition (if there were any) could make that to be Idolatry which hath not in it the true and real nature of Idolatry.

To make this matter the more clear, I shall here take away this cavil of T. G., because it relates to the right stating of the Nature of Idolatry; which is agreed on both sides to be, giving to the creature the worship due only to God; and the controversie between us is this, whether on supposition that God hath prohibited the act of adoration to an Image under the notion of Idolatry; that act be real Idolatry or no? The only pretence on their side that it was not, was this, that the intention of the Person being to terminate his worship on God, and not barely on the Image, it could not be real Idolatry; my business was to remove this pretence; which I did by this argument, because God himself denyes to receive it, and therefore it must be terminated on the creature: the consequence of this T. G. rejects as utterly false, because humane acts go whither they are intended, and that the prohibition of God only makes the act unlawful, and doth not hinder its going to its object. To take off this, I undertook to shew, that where God hath prohibited any acts of worship, that p. 266worship so given cannot be said to be terminated upon him: because worship being as here understood, an outward signification of honour and respect, God making a rule for his own worship, whatever hath disobedience in it, must dishonour God; and that were a contradiction to honour God by dishonouring him; and therefore God giving it the denomination of Idolatry, mens intentions could not excuse them from the guilt of it. For I said, whither soever men directed their intention, it is plain from Scripture, that God doth interpret this kind of worship to be terminated on the Image; and therefore the Israelites are said to worship the molten Image, although they directed their intention to God by it. This is the short and true account of the force and design of that discourse, upon which T. G. makes such clamours of vanity, impertinency, changing the Question, contradiction, downright Sophistry, and what not? save only answering the argument contained in it. But I beseech T. G. to let me understand the Sophistry of this argument:T.G. p. 24, &c. for he hath not yet discovered any thing like it, but only that he did not, or would not understand the strength and design of it. I will therefore do him the kindness to make it plainer to him.

p. 267In all Acts of worship there are three things to be explained. 1. The inward intention of the mind. 2. The outward act of worship. 3. The passing of that outward act according to the inward intention; or the terminating of it.

1. The inward intention of the mind, is either (1.) Actual cogitation of the object intended, or (2.) Directing the outward act to some particular end. As when I see a picture that puts me in mind of a Friend, the inward intention of the mind in the act of seeing is carried to the object represented, which is no more than simple cogitation, or apprehension of the Person by an Idea of him in my mind; but when I kiss that picture out of the esteem I have for him, the intention of the mind is by that outward act to shew the respect I have for his Person.

2. The outward act of worship may be considered two wayes. 1. Physically, and abstractly from any Law, and so it depends upon the nature of the intention. 2. Morally, as good or evil, and so it receives its denomination from the Law, and not from the bare intention of the Person; as if a man steals with an intention of charity, the goodness of his intention doth not hinder the act from falling under the denomination of theft.

p. 2683. The passing of the outward act according to the inward intention, or the terminating of it, signifies no more out of these terms, than that it was the intention of the person who did it to honour God by doing it; but whether this be really an act of honour to God or no, is not to be judged by the simple intention of the Doer, but by the Law and Rule of worship which God hath given. And how can God be honoured by a palpable act of disobedience? and how can that worship be terminated as worship upon him, who hath utterly refused it? And supposing that God hath appropriated that outward act of worship to himself, which is given to an Image, this is giving the worship to a creature, which is proper to God; which T. G. cannot deny to be the definition of real Idolatry. This was the meaning and intention of my former discourse, however T. G. lamentably mistakes and perverts it.

1. He saith, this is changing the State of the Question; how so? Why, forsooth, my charge was of real Idolatry, and my proof is only of Metaphorical Idolatry, and by extrinsecal denomination. What need is there that men have a care of their words that have to do with such Sophisters! All p. 269that I said of denomination, was no more than this, The Divine Law being the rule of worship all prohibited wayes of worship must receive that denomination which God himself gives them: what is this to Metaphorical Idolatry? If I say that unjust reproaching ones neighbour, or taking away his Goods, or lying with his wife, must receive that denomination which the Law gives them, doth this imply that it is only Metaphorical Theft and Adultery, and false Witness? I do assure him, I meant very real Idolatry, under that denomination; and that upon this reason, which I have now more largely insisted upon, viz. that it belongs to God to appropriate acts of worship to himself, that God having appropriated them, they become due only to him; and therefore they who do these acts to any besides himself, do give to the creature the worship due to God alone, which is the very definition of real Idolatry T. G. contends for. But the real Idolatry I meant, he saith, was that which was so antecedently to any prohibition, as appears by my contending that the Church of Rome doth require the giving the creature the honour due only to God. What strange arguing is this, for so a subtile a Sophister! Would not any one that had p. 270looked over Aristotles threshold (to use his own phrase) discern, that if Idolatry doth consist in giving the creature the worship due only to God, as many wayes as worship may become due, Idolatry may be committed? Cannot God make any of the former appropriate acts of worship to become due only to himself? cannot he tye us to perform them to him? and then they become due to him: and cannot he restrain us from doing them to any other? and then they become due only to him: and is not then the doing of any of these prohibited acts to a creature, the giving to them the worship due only to God? Is the outward act of sacrifice due only to God antecedently to a prohibition or no? If it be due only to God antecedently to his will, it is alwayes and necessarily due to him, and to him alone: and let T. G. at his leisure prove, that antecedently to any Law of God, it was necessary to worship God by sacrifice, and unlawful so to worship any else besides him. If it depends on the will of God, then either it is no Idolatry to offer sacrifice to a creature; and then the Sacrifice of the Mass may be offered to Saints or Images: or if it be, then real Idolatry may be consequent to a prohibition. But he thinks he hath a greater advantage p. 271against me by my saying, that any Image being made so far the object of divine worship, p. 24, 25, 26.that men do bow down before it, doth thereby become an Idol, and on that account is forbidden in the second Commandment. This is downright trifling; for if I should say, that taking away a mans goods against his consent is Theft, and on that account is forbidden in the eighth Commandment, would any man imagine, that I must speak of Theft antecedent to the Command? for it implyes no more, than that it is contrary to the Command. But as it is in the case of Theft, that is alwayes a sin, although the particular species of it, and the denomination of particular acts doth suppose positive Laws about Dominion and Property; so it is in the case of Idolatry, the general nature of it is alwayes the same, viz. the giving the worship to a creature, which is due only to God, although the denomination of particular acts may depend upon positive Laws, because God may appropriate peculiar acts of worship to himself, which being done by him, those acts being given to a creature, receive the denomination of Idolatry, which, without those Laws they would not have done. So that still the general notion of Idolatry, is antecedent p. 272to positive Laws, but yet the determination of particular acts, whether they are Idolatry or no, do depend on the positive Laws which God hath given about his worship. And if T. G. had understood the nature of humane acts, as he pretends, he would never have made such trifling objections as these: For is it not thus, in the nature of the other sins forbidden in the Commandments as well as Idolatry, that are supposed to be the most morally evil antecedent to any prohibition? Suppose it be murder, adultery, or disobedience to Parents; although I grant these things to have a general notion antecedently to any Laws; yet when we come to enquire into particular acts, whether they do receive those denominations or no, we must then judge by particular Laws, which determine what acts are to be accounted Murder, Adultery, or Disobedience; as whether execution of malefactors be prohibited Murder, whether marrying many Wives be Adultery, whether not complying with the Religion of ones Parents be disobedience. These things I mention, to make T. G. understand a little better, the nature of Moral Acts, and that a general notion of Idolatry being antecedent to a prohibition, is very consistent with the determining p. 273any particular acts, (as the worship of Images, to be Idolatry,) to be consequent to that prohibition.

But I perceive a particular pleasure these men take, to make me seem to contradict my self; and here T. G. is at it, as wisely as the rest; thus blind men apprehend nothing but contradictions in the diversity of colours by the different reflections of light; but the comfort is, that others know that it is only their want of sight, that makes them cry out, contradictions. But wherein lyes this horrible self-contradiction? Why truly it seems I had said, that an Image being made so far the object of divine worship that men do bow down before it, doth thereby become an Idol, and on that account is forbidden in the second Commandment. Well! and what then? where lyes the contradiction? Hold a little, it will come presently: in the mean time mark those words, on that Account: but I say, that the worship which God denyes to receive, cannot be terminated on him but on the Image. Is this the contradiction then? No, not yet neither. The conceit had need be good, it is so long in delivering; but at last it comes like a thunder-showre, full of sulphur and darkness, with a terrible crack: either I mean p. 274that this worship cannot be terminated on God antecedently to the Prohibition, because on that account the worship of an Image is forbidden in the second Commandment; or if it cannot be terminated on the account of the Prohibition, then it is not on that account forbidden. What a needless invention was that of Gunpowder! T. G. can blow a man up with a train of consequences from his own words, let him but have the laying of it. Could I ever have thought, that such innocent words, as on that account, should have had so much Nitre and Sulphur in them? For let any man read over those words, and see if he can find any thing antecedent to the prohibition in them. For having in that place shewed that the words Idolum, sculptile, imago are promiscuously used in Scripture, I presently add, By which it appears, that any Image being made so far the object of divine worship that men do bow down before it, doth thereby become an Idol, and on that account is forbidden in this Commandment. By which it appears (mark that) this T. G. pares off, as not fit for his purpose; i. e. from the sense of the word in Scripture; that any Image being made so far the object of divine worship that men do bow down before it; i. e. if p. 275men do perform that act of worship to an Image which God hath forbidden the doing towards it; what then? then say I, it becomes an Idol, for whatever hath divine worship given to it, is so; and on that account, i. e. of its having that act of divine worship done to it by bowing before it, it is forbidden in this Commandment, i. e. it comes within the reach of that prohibition; the meaning of all which is no more than to shew, that adoration of Images is Idolatry by vertue of that Commandment. But, thus are we put to construe and paraphrase our own words, to free our selves either from the ignorance, or malice of our Adversaries. But with this fetch T.G. stands and laughs through his fingers, at the trick he hath plaid me; and bids me, with a secret pleasure at his notable invention, to extricate my self out of this Labyrinth. But doth not T. G. remember the old woman in Seneca, that thought the Room was dark, when she lost her sight, and no doubt would have pleased her self to think she left Children in the dark, when the Sun shined? I would desire T. G. to look for the Labyrinth nearer home; for I cannot discern any, unless it should be in the perplexity of his own thoughts; for I am unwilling to believe that he doth this p. 276with a design to play tricks; and to fly-blow my words on purpose to make others distaste them. But what if after all this Sophistry, T. G. very mercifully yields me the thing I pleaded for, viz. that the worship which God hath forbidden, cannot be terminated upon himself? For, he saith, that if God have forbidden himself to be worshipped after such a manner, P. 29.the giving him such worship will be a dishonouring of him, though the Giver intend it never so much for his Honour. I see T.G. after all, is a good natured man, and although he will shew a thousand tricks, rather than be thought to have it forced from him, yet let him alone, and he will give as much as a man would desire. For what could I wish for more, than he here grants? Prohibited worship, he grants, is dishonouring God, though a man intend it never so much for his honour: and worship, he yields to be an external signification of honour; then God is honoured when he is worshipped; how then can he be worshipped by the same act by which he is dishonoured; for so he would be honoured by that by which he is dishonoured; which comes much nearer to a contradiction, than any thing he charges me with. But all this while he cannot understand, that this is p. 277terminating the honour due to God on the Image: I ask him then, where that honour rests? it must be some where; not on God, for, he confesses God is dishonoured, and therefore it can be no where else, but on the Image, and consequently it is real Idolatry, and not meerly Metaphorical, or by extrinsecal denomination.

3. I now proceed to shew,§. 15. that the Christian church hath condemned those for Idolatry who have been guilty only of applying some external appropriate acts of divine worship to other things besides God. What made the Church of Alexandria be so severe with Origen for but holding the incense in his hands, which those about him cast from thence upon the Altar? yet for this, he was cast out of the Church, saith Epiphanius. Epiphan. haer. 64.In the Acts of Marcellinus, which Baronius produces,Baron. A. 302. n. 90. he is condemned for offering incense in the Temple of Vesta, out of complyance with Dioclesian; yet he was only guilty of the external act of Idolatry, saith Bellarmin, Bellar. de R. Pont. l. 4. c. 8.having no infidelity in his mind; and this was the common case of the Thurificati, viz. of those who offered incense only out of fear; and not with an intention to honour the Idol by it; yet these were looked on p. 278as lapsed persons, and great severities of penance were prescribed them, as appears by the Canons of Ancyra and many others. But if there be no external appropriate acts of divine worship; if burning in…ense be an indifferent thing, and may be used to God, or the Creature; if Idolatry depends on the intention of the mind; I desire to know, what the fault of the Thurificati was? For if it were lawful to burn incense to a creature, what harm was there in the doing it by Marcellinus at the request of the Emperour, if he intended it for no more than a civil respect to him? But it was in the Temple of Vesta, and therefore was divine worship. Then, say I, an act in it self equivocal, becomes appropriate to divine worship, being performed with the circumstances of Religion; which is that I have been hitherto proving. But if external acts receive their denomination from the inward intention of the mind, no doubt the Iesuits in China, were far more in the Right than the primitive Church; and by this doctrine of directing the intention in outwards acts of worship, the lives of many thousand Martyrs might have been saved. For in the Roman Martyrology Decemb. 25. we find in Nicomedia at one time,B…on. not. in Martyrol. Rom. Decemb. 25. many thousand Martyrs destroyed p. 279by Dioclesian, being met together in a Church, rather than they would escape by offering a little incense at their coming out: the Greek Menology saith, they were twenty thousand; too great a number to lose their lives for so indifferent a ceremony, as T.G. accounts it; might not they, when they were bid to offer incense to Iove, direct their intention to the Supream God? and then T. G. would assure them, the act must pass whither it was directed; and it was meer ignorance of the nature of humane acts for men to imagine otherwise. What great pity it is, so saving a doctrine (to the Lives at least, though not to the Souls of Christians) had not been known in that age, when so many poor Christians suffered Martyrdom for the want of it! How admirably would T. G. upon his principles have perswaded those Christians of Nicomedia to resolution and constancy in suffering!T. G. p. 420. What is it the Emperour requires of you to save your Lives? [O Sir say they, it is to burn incense.] To burn incense! is that a thing for you to venture your Lives for? I am ashamed of your ignorance; what do not you know, that burning incense at least now in the New Law is an indifferent ceremony, and may be used to p. 280God or to men? [O but we are required to burn incense to Jove.] What have none of you looked over Aristotles threshold, that you do not know, that actions go whither they are intended? well, let me give you this advice; when you burn the incense, direct your intention aright to God, and my life for yours, the act will pass to him, and not to Iove, as surely as an Arrow well level'd hits the mark that is aimed at. I see plainly, this threshold of Aristotle would have done more service to have saved the Christians Lives, than all the precepts of Christ or his Apostles. But I find none of the primitive Christians had peeped through Aristotles Keyhole, much less had they stept over his threshold, unless they were those Philosophical Christians, the Gnosticks; for they perfectly understood this principle, and ordered their actions accordingly; for they had a mighty care of their intention, and kept a good sound faith within, and for all the outward acts of worship among the Gentiles, they could do them with the best of them, and only they did by them, as they do with Pigeons in the East, they bound their intention fast about them, and with them then they were sure they would fly to p. 281the place they intended them. But why doth S. Augustine find such fault with Seneca for complying with the outward acts of worship among the Heathen Idolaters? De Civit. Dei, l. 6. c. 20.and with the rest of the Philosophers for the same things?De Verae Relig. c. 5. Why doth Aquinas quote these passages with approbation? Did they know the intention of Seneca, or the Philosophers? Why doth Cajetan say,Aq. 2.2. q. 94. art. 2. that a man that commits only the external act of Idolatry, is as guilty as he that commits the external act of theft? To both which, he sayes, no more is necessary than a voluntary inclination to do that act; not any apprehension in the mind that what he worships is God, nor any intention to direct that act only to the Image. Nay, why doth Gregory de Valentia himself say,Greg. de Valent. de Idolol. l. 1. c. 1. that outward acts of worship may be so proper to God either from their own nature, or the consent of mankind, that whosoever doth them, whatever his inward intention be, ought to be understood to give the honour proper to God to that for whose sake he doth them? And this he calls an implicit, Tannerus an indirect intention, Tanner. to. 3. disp. 5. q. 7. dub. 1.but neither of them suppose it to be either an actual, or virtual intention of the mind, but only that which may be gathered from the outward acts. Nay, T. G. himself p. 282saith,T. G. p. 99. that on supposition the Philosophers did believe one God, and yet joyned with the people in the practice of their Idolatry, they were worthily condemned by the Apostle, though but for the external profession of praying and offering sacrifice to their Images. Say you so? and yet do outward acts certainly go whither they are intended? Suppose then these Philosophers intended to worship the true God by those Images? where this Idolatry or no? if not, why were they so much to blame, for giving worship to the true God by an Image? which T. G. commends, as a very good thing. Was it the figure of their Images displeased him? that could not be, for the Statue of Iupiter Capitolinus might as fitly represent God to them as that of an old man in their Churches; and young Iupiter in the lap of Fortune, (an Image Cicero mentions) might put him in mind of one of the most common Images in their Church; Cicero de Divin. l. 2. c. 41.and by the help of a good intention might be carryed to a right object. And why might not intention do that, which their Church afterwards did, when it changed the Temple of Hercules to S. Alexius, because he was called foreign;Bellarm, de' Sanct. Beat. l. 1. c. 20. and that of the two Brothers Romulus and Remus, or as Bellarmin saith p. 283Castor and Pollux, to Cosmas and Damianus; and the Pantheon to Omnium Sanctorum? If there be no harm in the thing, there could be none in the intention. Or was it the scandal of their practice? but to whom was the scandal given? it would have been rather scandal among them not to have done it. So that if a secret Intention doth carry that act whither it is intended, and it be lawful to worship God by Images, I do not see, wherein the Philosophers were to blame in complying with those outward acts, whose good or evil according to T. G. depends upon the intention of the doers of them. But if they were really to blame, it was for doing those external acts of worship to creatures, which belong only to the worship of God, and so the Apostle by condemning them, doth prove that which I intended, viz. that there are such peculiar external acts of divine worship, that the doing of them for the worship of a Creature is Idolatry.

But my Adversary, §. 16.thinks to clear the Church of Rome from the charge of Idolatry, by two general answers which serve him and his Brethren on all occasions. viz. 1. That there are two sorts of worship, one called Latria, or Soveraign worship p. 284which is proper to God, and another called Dulia or inferiour worship that may be given to creatures on the account of excellencies communicated to them from God. 2. That the worship they give to any inanimate creatures, that have no proper excellencies of their own is not absolute, but a relative Latria, they intending thereby only to worship God.

In the examining of these two, I shall clear the last part of this Discourse, viz. 3. How the applying the acts of Religious worship to a creature doth make that worship Idolatry?

1. I shall consider the different sorts of worship which T. G. insists upon,T. G. p. 353. to clear the Church of Rome from the practice of Idolatry. The Question at present, saith T. G. between Dr. St. and the Church of Rome is not, whether Divine worship be to be given to Saints (for this is abhorred of all faithful Christians) but whether an inferiour worship of like kind with that which is given to Holy men upon earth for their Holiness and near relation to God, may not be lawfully given to them, now they are in Heaven? Again, he saith,P. 355. if by Religious worship, I mean that honour which is due to God alone, it is true what the Fathers say, that it is not to be given to the most excellent created p. 285Beings, but nothing at all to the point in debate between us; if I mean that honour of which a creature is capable for Religions sake, and that relation which it setleth, he will, he saith, shew it to be false, that the Fathers deny any such honour to be given to the Holy Angels or Saints: and if I prove that this worship ought not to be called Religious, he tells me from S. Austin, that it is but a meer wrangling about words, because Religion may be used in other senses besides that of the worship due to God. And by the help of this distinction between the Religious worship due to God, and that of which a creature is capable for Religions sake, he saith he can clearly dispell the mist I have raised from the Testimony of the Fathers, and let the Reader see that I have perverted their meaning, and yet said nothing to the purpose. Thus he answers the testimonies of Iustin Martyr, Theophilus, Origen, S. Ambrose, (or the Writer under his name) Theodoret, S. Austin; and if they had been a hundred more, it had been all one; they had been all sent packing with the same answer; let them say what they would, they must be all understood of Divine worship proper to God, and not of the inferiour worship which creatures are capable p. 286of, which from S. Austin he calls Dulia;P. 386. as the former Latria. The whole strength of T. G's defence, as to the Worship of Saints and Angels, lyes in this single distinction; which I shall therefore the more carefully consider, because it tends to clear the nature of Divine worship, which is my present subject.

To proceed with all possible clearness in this debate, which T. G. hath endeavoured to perplex, I shall 1. Give a true account of the State of the Controversie. 2. Enquire into the sense of the Fathers about this distinction about Soveraign and inferiour worship, whether those acts of worship which are practised in the Roman Church, he only such as the Fathers allowed.

1. For the true state of the controversie; which was never more necessary to be given, than in this place. For, any one that only reads T. G. and doth not understand the practice of the Roman Church, would imagine all the dispute between him and me were, whether the Saints in Heaven be capable of receiving any honour from men; and whether that honour being given upon the account of Religion, might be called Religious Honour or no? This were indeed to wrangle about words, which I perfectly hate. I will p. 287therefore freely tell, him how far I yield in this matter, that he may better understand where the difficulty lyes.

1. I yield, that the Saints in Heaven do deserve real honour and esteem from us; and I do agree with Mr. Thorndike, whose words he cites, therein, that to dispute whether we are bound to honour the Saints, were to dispute whether we are to be Christians, or whether we believe them to be Saints in Heaven. For on supposition that we believe, that the greatest excellencies of mens minds come from the Grace of God, communicated to men through Iesus Christ; and we are assured that such persons now in Heaven were possessed of those excellencies, it is impossible we should do otherwise than esteem and honour them. For honour in this sense, is nothing else, but the due apprehension of anothers excellency; and therefore it must be greater, or lesser according to the nature and degree of those excellencies. Since therefore we believe the Saints in Heaven are possessed of them in a higher degree than they were on earth, our esteem of them must increase according to the measure of their perfections.

2. That the honour we have for them may be called Religious honour, because it p. 288is upon the account of those we may call Religious excellencies, as they are distinguished from meer natural endowments and civil accomplishments. On which account I will grant, that is not properly civil honour, because the motive or reason of the one is really different from the other. And although the whole Church of Christ in Heaven and Earth make up one Body, yet the nature of that Society is so different from a Civil Society, that a different title and denomination ought to be given to the honour which belongs to either of them; and the honour of those of the triumphant Church may the better be called Religious, because it is an honour which particularly descends from the object of Religion, viz. God himself as the fountain of it; as civil honour doth from the Head of a Civil Society.

3. That this honour may be expressed in such outward acts, as are most agreeable to the nature of it. And herein lyes a considerable difference, between the honour of men for natural and acquired excellencies, and divine graces, that those having more of humane nature in them, the honour doth more directly redound to the possessor of them; but in Divine Graces which are more immediately conveyed p. 289into the souls of men, through a supernatural assistance, the Honour doth properly belong to the Giver of them. Therefore the most agreeable expression of the honour of Saints is solemn Thanksgiving to God for them: for thereby we acknowledge the true fountain of all the good they did or received. However, for the incouragement of men to follow their examples, and to perpetuate their memories, the primitive Christians thought it very fitting to meet at the places of their Martyrdom, there to praise God for them, and to perform other offices of Religious worship to God, and to observe the Anniversary of their sufferings, and to have Panegyricks made to set forth their vertues, to excite others the more to their imitation. Thus far I freely yield to T. G. to let him see what pittiful cavils those are, that if men deserve honour for natural or supernatural endowments, surely the Saints in Heaven much more do so: Who denyes it? We give the Saints in Heaven the utmost honour we dare give, without robbing God of that which belongs only to him.

Which is that of Religious worship, and consists in the acknowledgements we make of Gods supream excellency together with p. 290his Power and Dominion over us: and so Religious worship consists in two things. 1. Such external acts of Religion which God hath appropriated to himself. 2. Such an inward submission of our souls, as implyes his Superiority over them: and that lyes, as to worship, 1. In prayer to him for what we want. 2. In dependence upon him for help and assistance. 3. In Thankfulness to him for what we receive.

Prayer is a signification of want, and the expression of our desire of obtaining that which we need: and whosoever beggs any thing of another, doth in so doing, not only acknowledge his own indigency, but the others power to supply him: therefore Suarez truly observes from Aquinas, Suarez de Virtut. Relig. To. 2. l. 1. c. 3.that as command is towards inferiours, so is prayer towards Superiours: now to this, saith he, two things are requisite, 1. That a man apprehends it is in the power of the Superiour to give what we ask. 2. That he is willing to give it, if it be asked of him. The expectation of the performance of our desire is that we call dependence upon him for help and assistance; and our acknowledgement of his doing it, is Thankfulness.

Now if we consider Prayer, as a part of Religious worship, we are to enquire on p. 291what account it comes to be so; not, as though thereby we did discover any thing to God which he did not know before, nor as though we hoped to change his will upon our prayer; but that thereby we profess our subjection to him, and our dependence on him for the supply of our necessities. For although prayer be looked on by us as the means to obtain our requests, yet the consideration upon which that becomes a means, is, that thereby we express our most humble dependence upon God. It being the difference observed by Gul. Parisiensis between humane and divine prayer; Gul. Paris. Rhet. Div. c. 2.that prayer among men is supposed a means to change the Person to whom we pray; but prayer to God doth not change him, but fits us for receiving the things prayed for. This one consideration is of greater importance towards the resolution of our present question than hath been hitherto imagined: for the Question of invocation, doth not depend so much upon the manner of obtaining the thing we desire, i. e. whether we pray to the Saints to obtain things by their merits and intercessions, which is allowed and contended for by all in the Roman Church; or whether it be, that they do bestow the things themselves upon us, which they deny: but the p. 292true State of the Question is this, whether by the manner of Invocation of Saints which is allowed and practised in the Roman Church, they do not give that worship to Saints, which is only peculiar to God? Now we are farther to consider, wherein that act of worship towards God doth lye; which is not in an act of the mind whereby we apprehend God to be the first and independent cause of all good; but in an act of dependence upon him for the obtaining that good we stand in need of. For a man may apprehend God to be the first Author of all good, and yet make no prayer to him, nor use the acts of Religious worship; because he may suppose that God may have committed the care of humane affairs to inferiour Deities, and therefore all our addresses and acts of worship are to be performed to them: on this account the worship proper to God must lye in dependence upon him as the Sole Author of all Good to us; and this to be expressed by our Solemn Invocation of him. For although the internal desire be sufficiently known to God; yet the necessity of external Religious worship, and owning this dependence upon God to the world, doth require the expression of it, by outward duties and offices of Religion, p. 293in such a manner, that our sole dependence upon God be understood thereby.