Concerning Idolatry in the Church of Rome, Chapter 2

Concerning Idolatry in the Church of Rome · Chapter 2

p. 108CHAP. II. Of their Idolatry in Adoration of the Host and Invocation of Saints.

The Argument proposed concerning the Adoration of the Host; the insufficiency of the Answer to it manifested: supposing equal revelation for Transubstantiation as for Christs Divinity, yet not the same reason for Worshipping the Host as the person of Christ; the great disparity between these two at large discovered; the Controversie truly stated concerning Adoration of the Host: and it is proved, that no man on the principles of the Roman Church can be secure he doth not commit Idolatry in it. The confession of our Adversaries, that the same Principles will justifie the Worship of any Creature. No such motives to believe Transubstantiation as the Divinity of Christ. Bishop Taylor's Testimony answered by himself. To Worship Christ in the Sun as lawful as to Worship him in the Host. The grossest Idolatry excusable on the same grounds. The argument proposed and vindicated concerning the Invocation of Saints practised in the Church of Rome. The Fathers Arguments against the Heathens hold against Invocation of Saints; p. 109the state of the Controversie about Idolatry as managed by them. They make it wholly unlawful to give divine Worship to any Creature how excellent soever. The Worship not only of Heathen Gods, but of Angels condemned. The common evasions answered. Prayer more proper to God than Sacrifice. No such disparity as is pretended between the manner of Invocating Saints and the Heathens Invocating their Deities. In the Church of Rome, they do more than pray to Saints to pray for them, proved from the present most Authentick Breviaries. Supposing that were all, it would not excuse them. St. Austin no friend to Invocation of Saints. Practices condemned by the Church pleaded for it. Of Negative points being Articles of faith.

§. 1. I Proceeded to the Adoration of the Host;Of the Adoration of the Host. and here the Argument I proposed, was, to take off the common answer, That this could not be Idolatry because they believed the Bread to be God, upon the same ground, I said, they who believe the Sun to be God and Worship him on that account would be excused from Idolatry too, nay the grosser their Idolatry was, the more excusable it would be, as that of those who supposed their Images to be Gods, and upon this ground their Worship was more Lawful than of those who supposed them not to be so. To p. 110this he answers two wayes; 1. That they do not barely suppose that the substance of bread is changed into Christs body, and that he is really present under the form of Bread, but that they know and believe this upon the same grounds and motives upon which they believe that Christ is God, and consequently to be adored; and further addes, that the same argument will hold against the adoration of Christ as God, as against the adoration of him in the Eucharist, since they have a like Divine Revelation for his real presence under the Sacramental signes, as for his being true God and man. 2. Supposing they were mistaken, yet it would not follow they were Idolaters, which he proves from Dr. Taylors words. But notwithstanding these appearances of answering, that my argument still stands good, will be evident by proving these things. 1. That supposing there were the same revelation of Christs Divinity, and of his presence in the Eucharist by Transubstantiation, yet there could not be the same reason for the Adoration of the Host, as for worshipping Christ himself. 2. That there are not the same motives and grounds to believe that Doctrine of Transubstantiatim, that there are to believe that Christ is God. 3. That supposing they are mistaken in the doctrine of Transubstantiation, this doth not excuse them from Idolatry. 4. That the same reason which would excuse p. 111them, would excuse the most gross Idolaters in the World.

§. …. That supposing there were the same divine revelation of Transubstantiation and of Christs Divinity, yet there could not be the same reason for adoration of the Host as of Christ himself. 1. Because there is a plain command in Scripture for one, and there is nothing like it for the other. All the Angels are commanded to Worship the Son of God, Heb. 1. 6. and much more all men who have greater obligation to do it. All men are to honour the Son as they honour the Father, Joh. 5. 23. and to his name every knee is to bow, Phil. 2. 10. But where is there the least intimation given that we are to Worship Christ in the Elements, supposing him present there? If it be said, the general command doth extend to him whereever he is present, It is easily answered that this argument doth prove no more his Worship in the Elements, than in a turfe, or any other piece of bread; for Christ being God is every where present; and if his presence only may be ground of giving adoration to that wherein he is present, we may as lawfully Worship the Sun, or the Earth or any other thing, as they do the Sacrament. For he is present in all of them. But our Worship is not to be guided by our own Fancies, but the will of God; and we have a command for Worshipping p. 112of the person of Christ, and till we see one as to his presence in the Sacrament, we ought not to think the one parallel with the other. And by this the weakness of his retorting the argument in the Arrians behalf (so he calls those who believe Christ to be a pure man) against those who Worship the Son of God will appear: for our Worship doth not meerly depend upon our belief but upon the divine command; and therefore those who have denyed the one, have yet contended for the other. 2. The one gives us a sufficient reason for our Worship, but the other doth not: There can be no greater reason for giving his person adoration than that he is the eternal Son of God; but what equivalent reason to this is there, supposing the bread to be really converted into the body of Christ? All that I can believe then present is the body of Christ; and what then? is that the object of our adoration? do we terminate our Worship upon his humane nature? and was it ever more properly so than in dying? is it not the death of Christ that is set forth in the Eucharist? And is his body present any other way than as it is agreeable to the end of the institution? But it may be they will say, the body of Christ being hypostatically united with the divine nature, one cannot be present without the other. That indeed is a good argument to prove p. 113the body of Christ cannot be there by transubstantiation: for if the bread be converted into that body of Christ which is hypostatically united with the divine nature, then the conversion is not meerly into the body but into the Person of Christ, and then Christ hath as many bodies hypostatically united to him, as there are Elements Consecrated, and so all the accidents of the bread belong to that body of Christ which is hypostatically united with the divine nature. Nay to make the Elements the object of divine worship as they do; they must suppose an hypostatical union between them and the divine nature of Christ; for if the only reason of joyning the humane nature with the divine in the person of Christ as the object of our Worship, be the hypostatical union of those Natures; then we can upon no other account make those Elements the object of Worship, but by supposing such an union between Christ and them. But I suppose they will not venture to say, that Christ is hypostatically united with the shape, figure and colour of the bread: for they will have nothing else to remain after Consecration (in spight of all the reason and sense of the world) but meerly those accidents; Concil Trident. Sess. 13. c. 5.and the Council of Trent determines That the same Divine Worship which we give to God himself, is in express terms to be given to the most holy Sacrament, p. 114and pronounces an Anathema against all who deny it. And what is the holy Sacrament but the body of Christ, according to them under the accidents of the bread; and although the body of Christ being believed to be there is the reason of their Worship, yet the Worship is given to the Elements upon that account.

§. 3. But this being a matter of so great importance,The State of the Controversie. to make it as clear as the nature of the thing will allow, I shall yet further prove, that, upon the principles of the Roman Church, no man can be assured that he doth not commit Idolatry every time he gives adoration to the Host: and I hope this will abundantly add to the discovering the disparity between the Worship given to the person of Christ, and that which is given to the Eucharist upon supposition of Transubstantiation. But before I come to this, I shall endeavour to give a true account of the State of the Controversie between us: which I shall do in these particulars.

1. The Question between us is not, whether the person of Christ, is to be Worshipped with divine worship; for that we freely acknowledge. And although the humane nature of Christ, of it self, can yield us no sufficient reason for adoration, yet being considered as united to the divine nature, that cannot hinder the same p. 115divine Worship being given to his person, which belongs to his divine nature; any more than the Robes of a Prince, can take off from the honour due unto him.

2. It is not, whether the person of Christ, visibly appearing to us in any place, ought to have divine honour given to him? For supposing sufficient evidence of such an appearance, we make no more question of this, than we do of the former. Neither do we say, that we need a particular command in such a case to make it lawful; any more than the Patriarchs did at every appearance of God among them; or those who conversed with our Lord on earth, every time they fell down and Worshipped him. Where our sense and reason is satisfied as well as St. Thomas his was in a visible appearance of Christ, we can give divine Worship as he did when he said, My Lord and my God; for in this Worship given to the Person of Christ, I am sure I give it to nothing, but what is either God or hypostatically united to the divine nature: But is there not the same reason of believing Christ to be present as seeing him? I answer, in matters of pure revelation there is, where the matter proposed to our faith can be no object of sense; as Christs infinite presence in all places as God, I firmly believe upon the credit of divine revelation, and I give divine Worship to him as God suitable to that infinite presence; p. 116but our question is, concerning the visible presence of Christ, where honour is given on the account of the divine nature, but he can be known to be present only by his humanity, in this case I say, the evidence of sense is necessary in order to the true Worshipping the person of Christ. If any should be so impertinent to urge that saying to this purpose,Joh. 20. 29.John 20:29 blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed, I shall only say, that doth not at all relate to this matter, but to the truth of Christs resurrection.

3. It is not, concerning the spiritual Worship of Christ, in the Celebration of the Eucharist: For we declare that in all solemn acts of Religious Worship, and particularly in the Eucharist we give divine honour to the Son of God, as well as to the Father. We affirm that we ought not only perform the offices of Religion out of obedience to his divine commands, but with a due Veneration of his Majesty and power, with thankfulness for his infinite goodness, and with trust in his promises, and subjection of our souls to his supream Authority. About these things which are the main parts of divine and spiritual Worship we have no quarrel, nor do we find fault with any for giving too much to Christ in this manner; but rather for placing too much in the bare external acts of adoration, which may be performed with all external pomp p. 117and shew, where there is no inward reverence nor sincere devotion. And yet,

4. It is not, concerning external Reverence to be shewn in the time of receiving the Eucharist: For that our Church not only allowes but enjoynes, and that not barely for the avoiding such profanation and disorder in the holy Communion as might otherwise ensue, Rubrick after Communion.but for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgement of the benefit of Christ therein given to all worthy receivers. But it is withall declared, that thereby no Adoration is intended or ought to be done either unto the Sacramental Bread and Wine there bodily received, or unto any corporal presence of Christs natural flesh and blood; as I have already recited it. But the Controversie concerning the adoration of the Host lyes in these two things. 1. Whether proper divine Worship in the time of receiving the Eucharist may be given to the Elements on the account of a corporal presence of Christ under them? 2. Whether out of the time of receiving, the same adoration ought to be given to it, when it is elevated or carried in procession, which we would give to the very person of Christ? And that this is the true state of the Controversie, I appeal to the doctrine and practice of the Roman Church in this point. For it is expresly determined by the Council of Trent, Concil. T… dent. … c. 5.That there is no manner of doubt left, but p. 118that all Christians ought to give the same Worship to this holy Sacrament which they give to God himself. For it is not therefore less to be Worshipped because it was instituted by Christ our Lord that it might be taken. By which words the true state of the Controversie is made evident, which is not about the reverence due only to Christ, supposed to be corporally present there, but the adoration due to the Sacrament upon that account. And by the Sacrament the Council must understand the elements or accidents (or whatever name they call them by) as the immediate term of that divine Worship, or else the latter words signifie nothing at all. For what was that, which was instituted by our Lord as a Sacrament? was it not the external and visible signes or elements? why do they urge, that the Sacrament ought not the less to be adored because it was to be taken, but to take off the common objection that we ought not to give divine Worship to that which we eat? And what can this have respect to but the Elements? But this is not denyed, that I know of, by any who understand either the doctrine or practice of that Church; although to answer our Arguments they would seem to direct their Worship only to Christ as present under the elements, yet yielding that on the account of this corporal presence, that which appears, ought to have the same Worship given to it, p. 119with that which is supposed or believed. And so they make the accidents of the Sacrament to have the very same honour which the humane nature of Christ hath, which they say hath no divine honour for it self, but on the account of the conjunction of the divinity with it.

§. 4. The Controversie being thus stated I come to shew that upon the Principles of the Roman Church, No security in the Roman Church aga…nst Idolatry in Adoration of the Host.no man can be assured that he doth not commit Idolatry every time he gives Adoration to the Host. For it is a principle indisputable among them, that to give proper divine honour, called by them Adoration, to a creature is Idolatry; but no man upon the principles of their Church can be assured every time he Worships the Host, that he doth not give proper divine honour to a creature. For there are two things absolutely necessary to secure a mans mind in the performance of an act of divine Worship. 1. That either the object be such in it self, which deserves and requires such Worship from us as in the divine nature of Christ: Or, 2. That if of it self, it doth not deserve it, there be a reason sufficient to give it; as is the humane nature of Christ upon its union with the Divine: but in this matter of the adoration of the Host no man can be secure of either of these upon their own Principles.

p. 1201. He cannot be secure that the object is such as doth deserve divine worship. If a man should chance to believe his senses, or hearken to his reason, or at least think the matter disputable, whether that which he sees to be bread, be not really bread, what case is this man in? He becomes an Idolater by not being a fool or a mad man. But because we are not now to proceed upon the principles of sense or reason, but those of the Church of Rome; I will suppose the case of one that goes firmly upon the received principles of it, and try whether such a one can be satisfied in his mind, that when he gives divine worship to the Host, he doth not give it to a creature. And because we are now supposing unreasonable things, I will suppose my self to be that person. The Mass-bell now rings, and I must give the same divine honour to the Host, which I do to Christ himself: but hold, if it should be but a meer creature, all the world cannot excuse me from Idolatry, and my own Church condemns me, all agreeing that this is gross Idolatry; how come I then to be assured, that what but a little before was a meer creature, is upon the pronouncing a few words turned into my Creator. A strange and sudden change! And I can hardly say, that God becoming man was so great a wonder, as a little piece of bread becoming God. When God became p. 121man, he shewed himself to be God, by Wonders and Miracles which he wrought for the conviction of the world: I will see, if I can find any such evidence of so wonderful a transformation from a Wafer to a Deity. I see it to be the very same it was, I handle it as I did, if I taste it, it hath the very same agreeableness to the Palat it had: Where then lyes this mighty change? But O carnal reason, what have I to do with thee in these mysteries of faith! I remember what Church I am of, and how much I am bid to beware of thee: but how then shall I be satisfied? Must I relye on the bare words of Christ, This is my body? But I have been told, the Scripture is very obscure and dangerous for me to be too confident of the sense of it. I have heard some wise men of our church have said, that these words may bear a figurative sense, like that rock was Christ, and that if there were no other evidence for transubstantiation, but what the Scripture gives, there were no reason to make it an Article of faith. I have heard the great names of Scotus, Aliaco, Biel, Fisher, Cajctan, Canus and others quoted to this purpose, and their testimonies produced. What a case am I in then, if those words do not prove it? Now I think better of it, I must trust the Church for the sense of Scripture; and if I be not strangely mistaken, I am sworn p. 122to interpret Scripture according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers: but alas, what relief is this to my anxious mind? This is a thing I am to do or not to do almost every day, and to be resolved of it, I am put to a task which will hold me all my life time: and may be as unsatisfied at last as I am now. For I see the world is full of Disputes concerning the sense of their words as well as the Scriptures: One saith, that a Father by a figure means a substance, and that another by a substance means a figure; one man sayes his adversaries authorities are counterfeit, and another sayes the same of his: one quotes the saying of an Heretick for the Orthodox; and another makes it appear, that if he spake his own mind, he must contradict himself and others of the Fathers. One produces a Pope confirming the Doctrine of transubstantiation, and another as plain a testimony of a Pope of greater antiquity and more learning overthrowing it. One appeals to the first Ages of the Church, another to the latest: one saith, the Fathers spake Rhetorically, and another, Dogmatically. One, that they loved to talk mystically, and another, that they spake differently about this matter. In this great confusion what ground of certainty have I to stand upon, whereby to secure my mind from commission of a great sin? I am sure if I live in wilful sin p. 123all my dayes, I shall be damned; but God hath never told me, if I do not study the Fathers all my life, I shall be damned. It is satisfaction I desire, and that I am not like to have this way, when I see men of greater Wit, and Subtlety, and Judgement, than ever I am like to come to, are still disputing about the sense of the Fathers in this point: Witness the late heats in France about it. While I am in this Labyrinth a kind Priest offers to give me ease, and tells me, these are doubts and scruples I ought not to trouble my self about, the authority of the present Church is sufficient for me: I thank him for his kindness, only desiring to know, what he means by the authority of the present Church: For I find we Catholicks are not agreed about that neither. May I be sure if the Pope who is Head of the Church say it? No, not unless he defines it: but may I be sure then? No, not unless a General Council concur: but may I be sure, if a General Council determines it? Yes, if it be confirmed wholly by the Pope, and doth proceed in the way of a Council: but how is it possible for me to judge of that, when the intrigues of actions are so secret? I see then, if this be the only way of satisfaction, I must forbear giving adoration, or be guilty of Idolatry in doing it. But suppose I am satisfied in the point of transubstantiation, it is not enough for me to p. 124know in general, that there is such a change; but I must believe particularly that very bread to be changed so, which I am now to worship, and by what means can I be sure of that? For my Church tells me, that it is necessary that he be a Priest that consecrates, and that he had an intention of consecrating that very bread which I am to adore. But what if it should come to pass after many consecrations, that such a person prove no Priest, because not rightly baptized; (which is no unheard of thing) what became of all their actions who worshipped every Host he pretended to consecrate? They must be guilty of Idolatry every Mass he celebrated. But how is it possible for me to be sure of his Priesthood, unless I could be sure of the intention of the Bishop that ordained him, and the Priest that baptized him? which it is impossible for me to be. Yet suppose I were sure he was a Priest, what assurance have I, that he had an intention to consecrate that very Wafer which I am to adore? If there were thirteen, and he had an intention to consecrate only twelve, if I worship the thirteenth, I give divine honour to a meer creature; for without the intention of the Priest in consecration, it can be nothing else; and then I am guilty of downright Idolatry. So that upon the principles of the Roman Church no man can be satisfied, that he doth not p. 125worship a meer creature with divine honour, when he gives adoration to the Host.

2. No man can be satisfied that he hath sufficient reason for giving this worship to the Host. For which we must consider, what suppositions the adoration of the Host depends upon, if any of which prove uncertain, I am in as bad a case as I was before. I first suppose, that the bread being really and substantially changed into that very body of Christ which was crucified at Hierusalem, I ought to give the same honour to that body of Christ in the Sacrament, which I am to give to the person of Christ as God and man, and that the body of Christ being present in the Sacrament, I may on the account of that presence give the same honour to the Sacrament, in which he is present. But if it prove uncertain, whether the humane nature of Christ as conjoyned to the divine nature be capable of receiving proper divine worship, then it must be much more so, whether the body of Christ as present in the Sacrament be so? But granting that, it may be yet uncertain, whether I ought to give the same honour to the visible part of the Sacrament, which I do to the humanity of Christ; for though Christ may be present there, his presence doth not make the things wherein he is present, capable of the same divine honour with himself. Now that p. 126these things are uncertain upon their own principles, I now make appear. I find it generally agreed by the Doctors of the Roman Church, that the humane nature of Christ, considered alone, ought not to have divine honour given to it; and I find it hotly disputed among them, whether Christs humane nature though united to the divine, ought, abstractly considered, to have any true divine honour given it; and those who deny it, make use of this substantial argument, proper divine honour is due only to God, but the humane nature of Christ is not God, and therefore that honour ought not to be given it: and I am further told by them, that the Church hath never determined this controversie. Let me now apply this to our present case: It is certain if the body of Christ be present in the Eucharist as distinct from the divine nature I am not not to adore it: It is very uncertain, if it be present, whether I am to give divine worship to the body of Christ; but it is most certain, that if I worship Christ in the Sacrament, it is upon the account of his corporal presence. For although when I worship the person of Christ as out of the Sacrament, my worship is terminated upon him as God and man; and the reason of my worship is wholly drawn from his divine nature, yet when I worship Christ as in the Sacrament, I must worship him there upon p. 127the account of his bodily presence, for I have no other reason to Worship him in the Sacrament, but because his body is present in it. And this is not barely determining the place of Worship, but assigning the cause of it; for the primary reason of all adoration in the Sacrament is, because Christ hath said this is my body, which words, if they should be allowed to imply Transubstantiation, cannot be understood of any other change than of the bread into the body of Christ. And if such a sense were to be put upon it, why may not I imagine much more agreeably to the nature of the institution, that the meer humane nature of Christ is there, than that his Divinity should be there in a particular manner present to no end; and where it makes not the least manifestation of it self.

But if I should yield all that can be begged in this kind, viz. that the body of Christ being present, his divinity is there present too; yet my mind must unavoidably rest unsatisfied still as to the adoration of the Host. For supposing the divine nature present in any thing gives no ground upon that account, to give the same Worship to the thing wherein he is present, as I do to Christ himself. This the more considerative men of the Roman Church are aware of, but the different wayes they have taken to answer it, rather increase mens doubts p. 128than satisfie them.Greg. de Val. de Idolol. l. 2. c. 5. Greg. de Valentiâ denies not that divine honour is given by them to the Eucharist, and that the accidents remaining after Consecration are the term of adoration, not for themselves, but by reason of the admirable conjunction which they have with Christ. Which is the very same which they say of the humane nature of Christ, and yet this same person denies, that they are hypostatically united to him: which if any one can understand, I shall not envy him.Bell. de Sacr. Euchar. l. 4. c. 30. Bellarmin in answer to this argument, is forced to grant as great an hypostatical union between Christ and the Sacrament, as between the divine and humane nature; for when he speaks of that,De Incarnat. l. 3. c. 8. he saith it lyes in this, that the humane nature loseth its own proper subsistence, and it assumed into the subsistence of the divine nature; and in the case of the Sacrament, he yields such a losing the proper subsistence of the bread, and that what ever remains makes no distinct suppositum from the body of Christ, but all belong to him and make one with him, and therefore may be Worshipped as he is. Is not this an admirable way of easing the minds of dissatisfied persons about giving adoration to the Host, to fill them with such unintelligible terms and notions;Vasquez. Tom. 1. disp. 108. c. 12 n. 111. which it is impossible for them to understand themselves or explain to others? Vasquez therefore finding well that the p. 129force of the argument lay in the presence of Christ, and that from thence they must at last derive only, the ground of adoration; very ingenuously yields the Consequence and grants that God may very lawfully be adored by us in any created being, wherein he is intimately present: and this he not only grants, but contends for in a set disputation, wherein he proves very well from the principles of Worship allowed in the Roman Church, Disput. 110. c. 2, 3.that God may be adored in inanimate and irrational beings as well as in Images, and answers all the arguments the very same way that they defend the other, and that we way Worship the Sun as lawfully, and with the same kind of Worship that they do an Image, and that men may be worshipped with the same worship with which we Worship God himself if our mind do not rest in the Creature, but be terminated upon God, as in the adoration of the Host. See here the admirable effects of the doctrine of divine worship allowed and required in the Roman Church! For, upon the very same principles that a Papist Worships Images, Saints, and the Host, he may as lawfully worship the Earth, the Stars, or Men; and be no more guilty of Idolatry in one than in the other of them. So that if we have no more reason to Worship the person of Christ, than they have to adore the host, upon their principles we have no p. 130more ground to worship Christ, than we have to worship any creature in the World.

§. 5. 2. There are not the same motives and grounds to believe the doctrine of Transubstantiation, No such motives to believe Transubstantiation as the Divinity of Christ.that there are to believe that Christ is God, which he affirms, but without any appearance of reason. And I would gladly know what excellent motives and reasons those are which so advantageously recommend so absurd a doctrine as Transubstantiation is, as to make any man think he hath reason to believe it? I am sure it gives the greatest advantage to the enemies of Christs Divinity, to see these two put together upon equal terms: as though no man could have reason to believe Christ to be the Eternal Son of God, that did not at the same time swallow the greatest contradictions to sense and reason imaginable. But what doth he mean by these motives and grounds to believe? The authority of the Roman Church? I utterly deny that to be any ground of believing at all, and desire with all my heart to see it proved: but this is a proper means to believe Transubstantiation by, for the ground of believing is as absurd as the doctrine to be believed by it. If he means Catholick Tradition, let him prove if he can, that Transubstantiation was a Doctrine received in the universal Church from our Saviours time; and when he pleases I shall joyne p. 131issue with him upon that Subject. And if he thinks fit to put the negative upon me, I will undertake to instance in an Age since the three first Centuries, wherein if the most learned Fathers, and Bishops, (yea of Rome it self) be to be credited, Transubstantiation was not believed. But if at last he means Scripture, (which we acknowledge for our only rule of faith, and shall do in spight of all pretences to infallibility either in Church or Tradition) I shall appeal even to Bellarmin himself in this case, whether there are the same motives and grounds from thence to believe Transubstantiation, as there are, the Divinity of Christ. In the proof of Transubstantiation, his only Argument is from those words, this is my body, which words saith he,Bellar. de Sacr. Euch. l. 3. c. 19. do necessarily inferre either a real mutation of the Bread as the Catholicks hold, or a metaphorical as the Calvinists, but by no means do admit the Lutherans sense; and so spends the rest of the Chapter against them: and concludes it thus, although there be some obscurity or ambiguity in the words of our Lord, yet that is taken away by Councils and Fathers, and so passes to them. Which are a plain indication, he thought the same which others of his Religion have said, that the doctrine of Transubstantiation could not be proved from Scripture alone. De Christo l. 1. c. 4.But when he proves the Divinity of Christ, he goes through nine p. 132several classes of arguments, six of which are wholly out of Scripture; the first out of both Testaments, the second only out of the Old, the third out of the New, the fourth from the names of the true God given to Christ, the fifth from the Divine Attributes, Eternity, Immensity, Power, Wisdome, Goodness, Majesty; the sixth from the proper works of God, Creation, Conservation, Salvation, Fore-knowing of secret things, and working Miracles. All which he largely insists upon with great strength and clearness, so that if he may be judge, the motives to believe the Divinity of Christ, are far from being the same in Scripture, that there are to believe Transubstantiation.

§. 6. 3. But supposing they are mistaken in the belief of this doctrine,A mistake doth not excuse from Idolatry. this doth not excuse them from Idolatry. To his quotation out of Dr. Taylors Liberty of Prophecying to the contrary, I shall return him the opinion of their own Divines. The Testimony of Coster is sufficiently known to this purpose, who saith the same thing in effect that I had done, Coster. Enchir Contr. c. 8. de Euch. Sacram. p. 308.If the doctrine of Transubstantiation be not true, the Idolatry of the Heathens in Worshipping some Golden or Silver Statute, or any Images of their Gods, or the Laplanders Worshipping a red cloth, or the Aegyptians an animal, is more excusable than of Christians that Worship a bit of p. 133bread.Fisher c. Oecolompad. l. 1. c. 2. p. (foreign.) 760. And our Country-man Bishop Fisher confesseth, That if there be nothing but bread in the Eucharist, they are all Idolaters. But none is so fit to answer Dr. Taylor as himself, after almost twenty years time to consider more throughly of those things, and then he confesseth, B. Taylors second part of disswasive Introduct. in Answ. to I S. 5. way.That the Weapons he used for their defence were but wooden daggers, though the best he could meet with; and if that be the best they have to say for themselves which he hath produced for them, their probabilities will be soon out-ballanced by one Scripture-testimony urg'd by Protestants; and thou shalt not Worship any graven Images will outweigh all the best and fairest imaginations of their Church: and elsewhere, That the second Commandment is so plain,2. Part of diss…as. b. 2. s. 6. p. 139. so easie, so peremptory against all the making and Worshipping any Image or likeness of any thing, that besides that every man naturally would understand all such to be forbidden, it is so expressed, that upon supposition that God intend to forbid it wholly, it could not more plainly have been expressed. By which it is clear he did not think that Idolatry did lye only in forsaking the true God, and giving divine Worship to a Creature or an Idol, that is to an imaginary God, who hath no foundation in essence or existence; which is the reason he brings why they are excused from Idolatry in Adoration of the Host, because the object of their adoration is the true p. 134God; for he not only makes the second command to be peremptory and positive against the Worship of the true God, by an Image, but elsewhere plainly determins this to be Idolatry;Ductor dubitant. b. 2. c. 2. p. 344. p. 339. and saith that an image then becomes an Idol, when divine Worship is given to it; and that, to Worship false Gods, or to give divine honour to an image which is not God is all one kind of formal Idolatry. If therefore they cannot be excused from Idolatry who Worship the true God by an Image; though the object of their adoration be right and they think the manner of it to be lawful; neither can they who worship Christ upon the account of Transubstantiation in the Sacrament; for not only the superstition of an undue object, but of a prohibited manner or way of Worship is Idolatry; even according to the opinion of him whom he produces as a testimony of their innocency.

§. 7. 4. That if a mistake in this case will excuse them,The grossest Idolatry excusable on the same grounds. Aug. prefat. in Psal. 93. To. 8. p. 2. p. 184.Ps 93 it would excuse the grossest Idolatry in the world. St. Austin speaks of some, who said that Christ was the Sun, and therefore worshipped the Sun, I desire to know whether this were Idolatry in them or no? They had Scripture to plead for it as plain as, This is my body, for he is not only called the Sun of Righteousness; but the Vulgar Latin (which they contend to be the only authentick version) reads that place, p. 135Psal. 19. 6. in sole posuit tabernaculum suum, he hath placed his Tabernacle in the Sun; and that this is to be understood of Christ, may be proved from the Apostles applying the other words, their line is gone out through all the earth; to the Apostles Preaching the Gospel, Aug. c. Faust Manich. l. 20. c. 1. 68.Rom. 10. 18. And the Manichees did believe that Christ had his residence partly in the Sun and partly in the Moon, and therefore they directed their prayers alwayes to the Sun. Let us now consider two persons equally perswaded, that the Sun is now the Tabernacle of Christ, and that he is really present there, and dispenses all the comfortable influences of heat and light to the world, he being so often in Scripture called the true light, 1 Joh. 8. 9. and another, that he is really present by Transubstantiation in the Sacrament. I would fain understand why the one should not be as free from Idolatry as the other? If it be said, that all those places which speak of Christ as the Sun, are to be understood metaphorically, that is the same thing we say to them concerning those words of Christ, this is my body; and if notwithstanding that, they are excused by believing otherwise; so must the other person unavoidably be so too. It is to no purpose to alledge Fathers and Councils for the opinion more than for the other; for the question is not concerning the probability of p. 136one mistake more than of the other (although if they be strictly examined, the absurdities of Transubstantiation are much greater) but we suppose a mistake in both, and the question is whether such a mistake doth excuse from Idolatry or no? and we are not to enquire into the reasons of the mistake, but the influence it hath upon our actions. And then we are to understand why a mistake equally involuntary as to the real object of divine adoration may not excuse from Idolatry, as well as to the wrong application of Worship due to a real object of adoration? i. e. whether a man giving adoration to what he believes to be God, which is not so in it self, be not as excusable, as believing a true object of adoration in general, but giving divine worship to that which is not it? as whether the Worshipping false Gods, supposing them to be true, be not as venial a fault, as Worshipping that for the true God which is not so? as for instance, suppose the Aegyptians Worshipping the Sun for God, and the Israelites the golden Calf, believing it was the true God which brought them out of the Land of Aegypt? or let us take one of the Inca's of Peru, Garcilasso de la vega le Conmentaire Royal. liv. 2. c. 1.who believed by a Tradition supposed infallible among them, that the Sun was their Father and the visible God, by which the Invisible did govern the World; and therefore they ought to give all external p. 137adoration to the Sun, and internal only to the Invisible Deity; upon what account shall these be charged with Idolatry, if an involuntary mistake and firm belief that they worship the true God doth excuse from it? Nay the most stupid and senseless of all Idolaters who worshipped the very Images for Gods (which the wisest among them alwayes disclaimed, and pretended only such a relative worship as he pleads for) were in truth the most excusable upon this ground; for supposing that it be true which they believed, they did a very good thing; and which every person else ought to do upon the same belief. Which is the utmost can be said for the Papists adoration of the Host, supposing the doctrine of transubstantiation were as true, as it is false and absurd.

§. 8. 3. As to invocation of Saints,Of Invocation of Saints. I found the chief answer given was this, That they did not attribute the same kind of excellency to Saints, which they give to God; but suppose only a middle sort of excellency between God and us, which they make the foundation of the worship which is given to them. And as to this my argument was thus framed, If the supposition of a middle excellency between God and us, be sufficient ground for formal invocation, then the Heathens worship of their inferiour Deities could be no Idolatry, for they still pretended p. 138they did not give to them the worship proper to the supream God; which is as much as is pretended by the devoutest Papists in justification of the Invocation of Saints. To this he answers two wayes: 1. By shewing the disparity of the Heathens worship from theirs in two things: 1. In the object. 2. In the manner of their worship. 1. The persons whom they worship, he saith, are such as are endowed with supernatural gifts of grace in this life, and glory in Heaven, whose prayers by consequence are acceptable and available with God, but the Supream Deity of the Heathens, is known to be Jupiter, and their inferiour Deities Venus, Mars, Bacchus, Vulcan, and the like rabble of Devils as the Scripture calls them; and therefore there can be no consequence, that because the Heathens were Idolaters in the worship of these, though they pretended not to give them the worship proper to Jupiter the supream God; therefore the Catholicks must be guilty of Idolatry in desiring the servants of the true God to pray for them to him. 2. As to the manner of worship, he saith, If any of them did attain, as the Platonists, to the knowledge of the true God, yet as St. Paul sayes, they did not glorifie him as God, but changed his glory into an Image made like to corruptible man, adoring and offering sacrifice due to God alone to the Statues themselves, or the inferiour Deities they supposed to dwell or assist in p. 139them; which St. Austin upon the 90. Psalm proves to be Devils, or evil Angels, because they required sacrifice to be offered to them, and would be worshipped as Gods. But all he means by formal Invocation, he saith is, desiring or praying the Saints to pray for them. And if this were Idolatry, we must not desire the prayers of a just man, even in this life, because this formal invocation will be to make him an Inferiour Deity. 2. He answers, that the same calumny was cast upon the Catholicks in St. Austins time, and is answered by him, and his answer will serve as well now as then, in his twentieth Book against Faustus, Chap. 21. who himself held formal Invocation a part of the worship due to Saints, as is evident from the prayer he made to St. Cyprian after his Martyrdom, l. 7. de bapt. c. Donat. c. 1. and Calvin confesseth (he saith) it was the custom at that time to say, Holy Mary, or Holy Peter pray for us. This is his full answer: in which are two things to be examined. 1. Whether the disparity between the Heathen worship and theirs be so great as to excuse them from Idolatry? 2. Whether the answer given by St. Austin doth vindicate them: and whether Invocation of Saints as it is now practised in the Church of Rome, were allowed or in use then?

p. 140§. 9. 1. Concerning the disparity.The Fathers arguments against Heathen Idolatry condemn Invocation of Saints. 1. As to the object of worship. Far be it from me to parallel the Holy Angels and Saints, with the impure Deities of the Heathens; as to their excellencies: but the true state of the Question is, whether the Heathens were only too blame in making an ill choice of those they worshipped, as in worshipping Iupiter, and Venus, and Vulcan, who are supposed to have been wicked wretches; or else in giving divine worship to any besides the true God? And if their Idolatry lay not only in the former, but the latter, then this disparity cannot excuse them. There were two Questions in debate between the Primitive Fathers of the Christian Church, and the Heathen Idolaters; The first was more general, and in thesi, whether it were lawful to give divine worship to any besides the true and Supream God? The second was more particular, and in hypothesi, whether on supposition that were lawful, those whom the Heathens worshipped were fit objects for such adoration? In this latter they triumph over them with a great deal of eloquence, laying open the impiety of those whom they commonly worshipped; but withal knowing that the wiser among them had another notion of these Deities under the common names than the Vulgar had; they therefore charge them with Idolatry in giving the worship proper p. 141to God to any creature, let it be never so excellent and serviceable to mankind, and that it was the property of the Christian Religion to give divine worship to none but God himself and his Son Christ Iesus, without ever making any distinctions of absolute and relative worship which they must have been driven to, in case they had given Religious worship to any besides. Thus Iustin Martyr tells the Heathen Emperours, Iustin. Martyr Apol. 2. p. 65, 66.to whom he makes his Apology for the Christians, that Christ did perswade men to worship God alone, by saying, this is the great Commandment, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve; and that we are to render to Caesar the things that are Caesars, and to God the things that are Gods: on which account, saith he, we worship God alone, and give cheerful service in all other things to you. Theophil. ad Autolyc. l. 1. p. 77.Theophilus Bishop of Antioch (who lived in the second Century after Christ, as well as Iustin) giving an account why the Christians refused giving adoration to the Emperours which was then used (not that adoration which was proper to the Supream God, for none can be so senseless to imagine they required that; but such kind of religious worship as they gave to the Images of their Gods) saith, That as the King or Emperour suffers none under him to be called by his name; and that it is not lawful to give it to any but himself: so neither p. 142is it to worship any but God alone: and elsewhere saith,L. a. p. 110. that the Divine Law doth not only forbid the worship of Idols, but of the Elements, the Sun, and Moon, and Stars, or any thing else in Heaven, in Earth, in Sea, or Fountains, or Rivers, but we ought only to worship the true God and Maker of all things, in the holiness of our hearts and integrity of our minds. To the same purpose speak Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen, Athenagoras, Lactantius, Arnobius, who all agree, that religious worship is proper to the true God, and that no created thing is capable of it, on that very account because it is created; it were easie to produce their testimonies, if it were requisite in so evident a matter as this is. If it be said, That all these testimonies are only against that Idolatry which was then practised by the Heathens. I answer, 1. Their reasons equally extend to the giving divine worship to any created being whatsoever, so that either they argued weakly and unskilfully, or else it is as unlawful to give divine worship now to Saints, as it was then to any creature. 2. I would willingly understand why it should be more unlawful to worship God for his admirable Wisdom, and Power and Goodness in the works of Creation; than in supposed Saints? i. e. why I may not as well honour God by giving worship to the Sun, as to Ignatius Loyola, p. 143or St. Francis, or any other late Canonized Saint? I am sure the Sun is a certain monument of Gods Goodness, Wisdom, and Power, and I cannot be mistaken therein, but I can never be certain of the Holiness of those persons I am to give divine worship to. For all that I can know, Ignatius Loyola was a great hypocrite; but I am sure that the Sun is none; but that he shines and communicates perpetual influences to the huge advantage of the world. However I know the best of men have their corruptions, and to what degree it is impossible for others to understand; but I am certain the spots in the Sun are no Moral impurities, nor displeasing to God. And Philip Nerius could not be mistaken in the shining of the Sun, although he might be in the shining of Ignatius his face, which yet is thought so considerable a thing,Breviar. Rom. 31. Iul. Antw. 1663. that it is read in the Lessons appointed for Ignatius in the Roman Breviary.

3. On what account should the Christians refuse giving all external signs of Religious worship to the Heathen Emperours, if they thought it lawful to be given to any sort of men? Why might not they worship the Statues of Kings and Princes, as well as others do those of Rebels and Traytors? I mean, why might not the Image of King Henry the second have the same reverence shewn to it, that the Shrine of Thomas Becket p. 144had? unless it be more meritorious to disobey a Prince, than to give him reverence. Might not the Primitive Christians have much easier defended themselves in giving those outward signs of worship to the Images of Emperours, than others can do in the worship they give to Saints? For they might have pleaded, that external signs are to be interpreted by the intention of the person who uses them, that they intended no more by it, but the highest degree of Civil honour on the account of the authority they possessed? or if this would not serve, might not they have said, that Kings and Princes were Gods Vicegerents, and represented him to the world, and that in giving divine worship to them, they gave it to God; and that their absolute, ultimate, and terminative worship was upon God; and only a relative, inferior, and transient worship was given to them, and all this might be better justified by St. Basils rule,S. Basil. ad Amphiloch. p. 332. That the honour of the Image passes to the Prototype; for he there pleads for the worship of Christ, because he is one with the Father being his Image, as the Image of a King is called the King, and hath the same honour given to it; for the honour of the Image passeth to the thing represented. And as Christ hath the advantage above all, by being Gods natural Image; so Princes above Saints, in that they represent God to the world, p. 145which the other do not. But notwithstanding all these Pleas, the Primitive Christians were so punctual in observing that Command of worshipping God alone, that they rather chose to lose their lives and suffer Martyrdom, than be in the least guilty of giving any divine worship to a creature.

4. They absolutely deny any religious worship to be given to the most excellent created Beings, and therefore did not only condemn the Idolatry then in use, but that which hath obtained in the Roman Church: supposing all the persons worshipped therein to have been real Saints. For that, we are to consider that all the Heathens were not such great Fools, as some men make them to excuse themselves:V. Aug. c. Faust. l 20. c. 9. if the wiser men were contented to let the people worship the Poetical Gods, having their minds possessed with those Idea's of them, which they had taken up by their education; yet they understood them only as Allegories, Baron. Martycol. Apr. 23 & Iulii 25.(as some make the Image of St. Christopher and St. George in the Church of Rome to be no other) and they had Temples erected to the greatest Vertues, to Piety, Faith, Concord, Iustice, Chastity, Clemency, &c. and others to the greatest Benefactors to mankind, which was the only ground they pleaded for giving worship to them: but still they acknowledged one Supream God, not Iupiter of Creet, but the Father of Gods p. 146and men; only they said, this Supream God being of so high a nature, and there being other intermediate beings between him and men whose Office they conceived, it was to carry the prayers of men to God, and to bring down help from him to them; they thought it very fitting to address their solemn supplications to them. Here now was the very same case in debate, (altering only the names of things) which is between us and the Church of Rome; and if ever they speak home to our case, they must do upon this point. And so they do, but very little to their comfort.

§. 10. These things I shall largely prove if farther occasion be given,All divine worship given to a cre…ture condemned by the Fathers. at present I shall only insist on two things. 1. That they did condemn all such kind of worship, supposing their principle true. 2. That they did not only condemn it in those Spirits which the Heathens worshipped, but in good Angels themselves. 1. They did condemn the worship, supposing their principle true. For this I shall produce now but few Authorities, but such as are full as to the Heathens pretences, Origen. c. c…ls. l. 8. p. 381.and the Christians answers. The first is of Origen in his answer to Celsus, who objects against the Christians, the unreasonableness of forsaking the worship of inferiour Deities, because no man can serve two Masters; which, saith he, is a seditious principle, and arises from attributing p. 147our passions to God; but he that honours them as Subjects to the Supream God, cannot offend him who is the Lord of them. To which Origen answers, That the Scripture doth indeed stile God, the God of Gods, and Lord of Lords, but withal saith, that to us, there is but one God the Father, of whom are all things, and one Lord Iesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him; which the Apostle speaks, saith he, of himself and all others whose minds were raised up to him, who is the God of Gods, and Lord of Lords; and his mind ascends up to the Supream God, who worships him inseparably and indivisibly by his Son, who alone conducts us to the Father. Therefore seeing there are many Gods and many Lords, we endeavour by all means, not only to carry our minds above those things on Earth, which are worshipped by the Heathen for Gods, but above those whom the Scripture calls Gods, by which it is plain by the drift of his discourse, he means the Angels. And Celsus afterwards yielding, P. 384.That it is not lawful to give honour to any, but to whom the Supream doth communicate it: Origen desires proof from them, That God hath communicated this honour to their Gods, Heroes and Daemons, and that it did not arise from the ignorance and folly of mankind, who thereby fell off from him who ought properly to be worshipped. But he proves, from Miracles and Prophecies and Precepts, than p. 148this honour was given to Christ, that they who honour the Father, should honour the Son also: and that was all which Celsus had to object against the Christians, That they did not keep to their own rule of worshipping God alone; for they thought God was not dishonoured by the honour they gave to Christ; and on the same account he thought, they might give it to inferiour Deities. If there had been then any suspicion of Religious worship given to Saints or Angels by the Christians, when had there been a more proper season to object it? No man of the meanest capacity would have omitted a matter so necessary to his business, much less so inquisitive and malicious an enemy as Celsus was. And the account Origen gives of the worship the Christians attribute to the Son of God is, because it is said, I and my Father are one; and the Father in me, and I in him; which cannot be said of any created Beings. It is true afterwards he saith, That if Celsus had spoken of the true Ministers of God, such as Gabriel, Michael and all the Angels and Archangels, he acknowledges, that by explaining the notion of worship or respect, and the actions of those who give it, somewhat more might be said on that subject. But he utterly denyes, that our prayers are to be offered to any but Christ alone, and that any word which is proper only to Religious worship, is to be attributed to the Angels p. 149themselves. For he saith elsewhere, Although the Angels be called Gods in Scripture,L. 5. p. 233. yet we are not to worship them with divine worship: and lest any should think, that offering up our Prayers or Invocations to them were not excluded by this; he immediately explains himself; For, saith he, all our supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings are to be offered only to God over all; by that High Priest who is greater than all the Angels, the living Word and God. And afterwards saith, foreign,P. 238. we ought not to pray to them, who pray for us; for they would rather themselves send us to that God to whom they pray, than have us pray to them, or divide our supplications between God and them. This he speaks indeed of the Sun, and Moon, and Stars, but upon the supposition that they are intellectual Beings, and do pray to God for us. And again he saith, I. 8 p 395.We ought to pray only to the God over all, and his only Son the first born of every creature, who as our High Priest,P. 402. offers our prayers to his God and our God. And because Celsus argues much for worship to be given to Daemans, because to them is committed the care of terrestrial affairs: to this Origen answers, by denying those whom he calis Daemons,P. 416. to have any administration of the affairs of Christians; but supposing we knew they were not Daemons, but Angels, which had the management p. 150of these things committed to them, yet then we dare not give them that honour which is due to God, for neither would God have it so, nor they themselves; but foreign, we celebrate their praise and happiness, to whom God hath entrusted such great things. But Celsus yet further urges, that according to the doctrine of the Aegyptians every part of a man hath a particular Daemon or Ethereal God, and every one of these being invocated, heals the diseases of the parts proper to themselves. Why then may they not justly invocate them, if they love health better than sickness, and happiness than misery. If one of the Church of Rome had been to answer Celsus, he must have told him, that the thing was rational which he said, only they were out in their names; for instead of Chnumen, Chnaachumen, Cnat, Sicat, Biu, Eru, &c. they should have chosen Raphael for travelling and against Diseases, Apollonia against the Tooth-ach, Sebastian and Roch against the Plague, St. Nicholas against Tempests, Michael and St. George against Enemies; and others in like cases. Serrar. Litan. 2 q. 32.For so Serrarius tells us, That experience and tradition hath discovered the particular help of these in such cases; if they be particularly invocated. But Origen gives a shorter answer, That these things do arise from a distrust of the sufficiency of that incommunicable worship we give p. 151to God alone, as though he were not able to protect every one that serves him from all snares: and that far more effectual cures have been wrought by the name of Iesus than all their Daemons. And how much better do those who are Christians who slight all these things and commit themselves to God over all through his son Iesus Christ, and of him do desire the help and protection of his Holy Angels? I shall conclude his Testimony with that excellent saying of his. p. 420.Our care ought to be to please one God over all, and to make him propitious to us, by piety and all vertue, but if we would have others under God to be pleased with us too, we ought to consider, that as the shadow follows the body, so God being pleased, all his friends whether Angels, Souls or Spirits will be so too, and not only so, but are ready to help them, and pray to God for them. But not the least foundation in his discourse for our invocation of them.

The Author of the Commentaries under the name of St. Ambrose,Ambros. in 1. Rom. To. 5. p. 174. of the same age with him, as appears by several passages in him: saith, That the Idolaters made use of this miserable excuse for themselves, that by those inferiour Deities they worshipped they went to God himself, as we go to the King by his Courtiers. But, saith he, is any man so mad, or regardless of himself, to give the honour due to the King to any of his Courtiers, which if a man does he is condemned for p. 152treason? And yet they think themselves not guilty who, give the honour due to Gods name to a creature, and forsaking God adore his fellow servants, as though any thing greater than that were reserved for God himself. But therefore we go to a King by his Officers and Servants, because the King is but a man, who knows not of himself whom to imploy in his publick affairs, (without being recommended by others:) But with God it is otherwise, for nothing is hid from him, he knows the deserts of every one, and therefore we need no one to recommend us to his Favour; a devout mind is enough. Was this now all the quarrel the Christians had with the Heathens that they worshipped Iupiter and Venus and Vulcan? Do they not expresly deny the giving Gods Worship to any Creature? and do they not as plainly affirm that men do it when they invocate their fellow servants to be intercessors with God for them? and that it is no less a guilt of Idolatry in this case, than it is in giving the Honour due to a Prince to any of his Servants?

St. Austin gives this account of the principles of the Heathen Worship,Aug. de Civit. Dei. l. 8. c. 14. 18. that there were three sorts of beings to be considered, purely divine, and mortal, and a middle sort between them which participated of both, and that the entercourse between Gods and men was by the means of those intermediate p. 153Beings, who carried the prayers of men up to God, and brought down the blessings they prayed for to men. Against these indeed St. Austin disputes first, by shewing that those spirits which they worshipped were evil spirits, and that there was no reason to imagine that God had a greater entercourse with them, than with penitent sinners, but withall he addes, C. 21.that this kind of worship doth proceed upon the supposition that the Gods cannot know the necessities and prayers of men, but by the intervention of those Spirits: but if our minds can be known without their help, there is no need of their mediation.L. 9. c. 15. And afterwards saith, that those who are Christians do believe that we need not many, but one Mediatour, and that such a one by whose participation we are made happy, i. e. the word of God not made but by whom all things were made: and he hath shewed that to the attaining blessedness we ought not to seek many Mediators, by whom we are to make our degrees of approach to God, because God himself by partaking our Nature, hath shewn us the shortest way of our partaking his divinity. Neither doth he delivering us from mortality and misery carry us so to immortal and blessed Angels, that by participating with them, we should become blessed and immortal; but to that Trinity by whose participation the Angels themselves are blessed. And concludes that Book with p. 154this saying, L. 9. c. 23.that immortal and blessed Spirits however they are called, which are made and created; are no Mediatours to bring miserable mortals, to blessedness and immortality. And it would be ridiculous here to distinguish mediators of redemption and intercession; for all that they attributed to their goods spirits was only Intercession; and Christ being made a Mediatour, effectual for the end he designed, there could be no necessity of any Intercessours besides him. And St. Austin there addes, that the design of his following book, is to prove that those good Spirits which are immortal and blessed, which they thought ought to be Worshipped with Sacred Rites and Sacrifices, whatsoever they are and howsoever called, would not have any one worshipped by such religious worship, (i.e. by sacred rites as well as Sacrifices) but only one God by whom they were created, and by whose participation they are made happy.

§. 11. By which the second thing I proposed will appear to be true,The Worship of Angels condemned. viz. that they did not only condemn giving this Worship to the Spirits which the Heathen Worshipped but to good Angels too.Col. 2. 18.Col 2:18 For St. Paul in the general doth condemn the Worship of Angels; if he had meant only evil Angels he would have expressed it so, especially if St. Austins observation be true, that the evil Spirits are by their names in Scripture p. 155distinguished from the good; if he had meant any particular superstition used in the Worship of Angels, he would not have used such terms which condemn all worship of them as superstitious; if he had meant only the Worship of Angels so as to exclude Christ, he would have intimated that the fault, lay in excluding Christ, and not in the bare worship of Angels; but by the series of his discourse it appears that those who set up other Mediators besides Christ do not hold the head, i. e. do not adhere to Christ alone, as him whom God hath appointed as our Mediatour only. Whether this were practised by Iewes, Philosophers, or Hereticks is all one to us, since the practice is condemned wherever it is found. Theodoret saith,Theod. in Coloss 2. 18.Col 2:18 they were the Iewes who perswaded men to worship Angels, because the Law was delivered by Angels; which practice he saith, continued a long time in Phrygia and Pisidia, and therefore the Synod of Laodicea doth forbid praying to Angels; and to this day the Oratories of St. Michael are among them, they therefore thought it a piece of humility, since God could not be seen, nor touched, nor comprehended by us, to obtain the favour of God, by the intercession of Angels. No wonder Baronius is so much displeased with Theodoret for this interpretation;Baron. An. 60. s. 20, 21. for he very fairly tells us what he condemns (and St. Paul too) was the practice of their p. 156Church; and those Oratories were set up by Catholicks and not by hereticks. But whether as to the lawfulness of this Worship, Baronius or St. Paul, whether as to the ancient practice of the Church, Baronius or Theodoret deserves more to be believed, I leave any one to judge. And yet Theodoret is not alone in this,Iren. l. 2. c. 57. for Irenaeus denies any invocations of Angels to be in use among Christians, if he had meant only evil Angels it seems very strange he should use the name generally given to good, and alwayes indifferent to both.Orig. c. Cels. l. 5. p. 233. Origen expresly denies any offering up of Prayers to them to be practised by Christians or reasonable to be done, P. 236.and produces this very place of the Apostle against it. Con…il. Laodic. Can. 35.The Council of Laodicea we see by Theodoret is very severe against all who Worship Angels and charges them with Idolatry in so doing; if they had only meant the Heathen Idolaters as Baronius contends, yet by that it appears that the Heathens were condemned for Worshipping those whom they believed to be good spirits; but these are only shifts to escape by, and such which would not have come into the mind of any man if he did not first fear the force of that Canon against the practice of the Roman Church. For why the Heathen Idolatry should at that time be called secret or hidden as it is in that Canon, is not easie to be thought upon; but very easily p. 157intelligible according to Theodorets interpretation because of the clandestine meetings of those who worshipped Angels, and therein separated themselves from the Christian Churches. St. Austin discourses purposely on this subject (as is intimated before) whether God or the Blessed Spirits are willing we should perform any sacred offices or Sacrifices to them; Aug. de civit. Dei. l. 10. c. 1.or consecrate our selves or any thing of ours to them by any religious rites, which he denies: For this, saith he, is the worship proper to the Deity, called by him in one word Latria, which he thinks more proper to express divine worship, as distinct from the honour and service we give to men (which is plainly his meaning there) than any one word Greek or Latine besides. And this word he saith is proper to the Deity as such, because he elsewhere tells us,Aug. q. in Exod. q. 94. the difference between foreign and foreign, is this, that foreign is the Service of God properly as God; foreign is the service of God as Lord.

§. 12. I know very well by what arts all these testimonies are endeavoured to be evaded,The common evasions answered. viz. by saying, That these are intended against the Gentiles Idolatry who Worshipped those Spirits as Gods, and offered Sacrifices to them; but this cannot hold as to the Doctrine or practice of the Roman Church, who deny them to be Gods, and assert that the Worship by Sacrifice is proper only to God: p. 158but such devices as these are can never satisfie an impartial mind. For (1.) They do expresly deny that invocation or prayer is to be made to them; for so Origen and Theodoret speak expresly, that men are not to pray to Angels; and any one that reads St. Austin will find that he makes solemn invocation to be as proper to God as Sacrifice is. (2.) On what account should it be unlawful to Sacrifice to Saints or Angels if it be lawful to invocate them? may not one be relative and transient as well as the other? nay the Heathen in St. Austin argued very well,Aug. de Civit. Dei. l. 10. c. 19. that Sacrifices being meer external things might more properly belong to the Inferiour Deities, but the more invisible the Deity was, the more invisible the Sacrifices were to be, and the greater and better the Deity, the Sacrifice was to be still proportionable: and can any man in his senses think that a meer outward Sacrifice is more acceptable to God, than the devotion of our heart is? and wherein can we better express that to God, than in offering up our prayers to him? so that in all reason the duty of prayer ought to be reserved as more proper to God than any external sacrifice, and those who did appropriate Sacrifice to God did comprehend prayer as the most spiritual and acceptable part of it:L. 10. c. 4. So St. Austin speaking of the Sacrifice due to God, makes our heart the Altar, and Christ our Priest, p. 159and our Prayers and Praises to be offered up to God by a fervent charity; and any work which is therefore done that thereby we may be united to God in a holy Communion with him, C. 6.in order to our happiness, to be a true Sacrifice; and let any man judge whether this description do not so naturally agree to prayer, as if it had been only intended for it. Besides it is observable that sacrifices of old were solemn rites of supplication; Gen. 21. 33. 26. 25.Gen 21:33Gen 21:26Gen 21:25and calling upon the name of the Lord where Altars were erected is the main thing spoken of, thence the Temple (though the place of sacrifice) is called the house of Prayer; Isa. 56. 7.Isa 56:7and where God slights sacrifices, Psal. 50. 8. 15.Ps 50:8Ps 50:15he requires prayer as much more acceptable to him. It seems then very strange that sacrifice alone as distinguished from prayer should be that Latria that is proper to God. (3.) Upon the same account that the Heathen did give divine honour to their inferiour Deities, those in the Roman Church do so to Angels and Saints. For the Heathens made a difference in their sacrifices to the supreme God, and their inferiour Deities and their Heroes: so that if the putting any difference in the way of religious Worship doth excuse the one, it must do the other also. Did the Heathen use solemn Ceremonies of making any capable of divine worship? so does the Roman Church. Did they set up their Images in publick places of worship and p. 160there kneel before them and invocate those represented by them? so does the Roman Church. Did they consecrate. Temples and erect Altars to them, and keep Festivals and burn Incense before them? so does the Roman Church. Lastly, did they offer up Sacrifices in those Temples to the Honour of their lesser Deities and Heroes? so does the Roman Church. Bell. de Sanct. beat. l. 1. c. 7.For Bellarmin reckoning up the honours belonging to Canonized Saints besides those before mentioned, reckons up this as one, that the Sacrifices of the Eucharist, and of lauds and prayers are publickly offered to God for their honour. I would fain understand what the sacrificing to one for the honour of another means? To offer Sacrifice to one for another is an intelligible thing, but to Sacrifice to one for the honour of another is a thing beyond my reach, if that sacrifice does not belong to him for whose honour it is offered; and if the sacrifice do belong to him, I wonder at the scrupulosity of those who dare not say they Sacrifice to him as well. For what is sacrificing to God, but sacrificing to his honour, or doing such an act of Religion with a design to honour God by it: but when men offer a Sacrifice, but not to honour God by it, but the B. Virgin, or any Saints or Angels, how can that Sacrifice belong to any other but those whose honour is designed by it? It being then the p. 161opinion and practice of the Roman Church, that Sacrifices are to be offered for the honour of Saints or Angels, it is evident they have reserved no part of divine worship peculiar to God himself, any more than the Heathen did. (4.) There can be no material difference, that the Heathen called those they worshipped Gods, but they do not so in the Roman Church. Aug. de Civit. Dei. l. 9. c. 23.For St. Austin saith there was scarce any difference between the Heathen and them about the name, whether Angels might be called Gods or no: for he thinks that they are called so in Scripture, as well as Origen: but the Question was about the thing, whether they were to be Worshipped as Gods or no, i. e. by giving any part of religious worship to them? which they utterly deny. And were I in the communion of the Roman Church I should much less scruple calling Canonized Saints, or Angels by the names of Gods, than giving them the worship of Invocation, or the honour of Sacrifices: but in so doing they are not only condemned by plain Scripture, and reason, but by those of the primitive Church who writ against the Heathen Idolatry: which was the thing to be shewed.

§. 13. 2. Another disparity is insisted on by him,Of the practice of Invocation in the Church of Roms. which is, as to the manner of Worship. And as to this, he saith, all that they understand by formal invocation, is desiring or praying p. 162those Iust persons, who are in glory in heaven to pray for us; and if the Catholicks be guilty of Idolatry in this, we must not desire the prayers of a just man even in this life, because this formal Invocation will be to make him an inferiour Deitie. To shew the palpable weakness of this answer, I shall prove these two things. 1. That those in the Church of Rome do allow and practise another kind of formal Invocation from what he asserts. 2. That supposing this were all, it would not excuse them, and that it is of a very different nature from desiring the prayers of just men for us in this life.

1. That they do allow and practise another kind of formal Invocation from what he asserts. He might very well say, he did understand well what I meant by formal Invocation, when he makes this to be the meaning of it; for never any person before him imagined that sense of it; And that term of formal Invocation was purposely chosen by me, to distinguish it from the rhetorical Apostrophe's of some of the Greek Fathers, the Poetical Flourishes, of Damasus, Prudentius, and Paulinus; from general wishes that the Saints would pray for us. Of which are some instances, in good Authors; from assemblies at the monuments of Martyrs, which were usual in ancient times; and that which I thought any man would understand by it was that which is p. 163constantly practised in the Roman Church. viz. in places and times purposely appointed for divine and religious worship, with all the same external signes of devotion which we use to God himself, to offer up our Prayers to Saints, or Angels to help us in our necessities as well as to pray to God for us. The former part none can be ignorant of, that have but so much as heard of the devotion of the Church of Rome; all the difficulty lies in that, whether they pray to them to help their necessities as well as pray for them? And so many forms of Prayer allowed and practised in their Church have been so often objected to them, wherein these things are manifest, that I cannot but wonder this should be denyed. Do they believe, we never look into their Breviaries, Rosaries, Houres, and other Books of Devotion, wherein to this day such Prayers are to be found? Do they think we never heard of the Offices of the B. Virgin, or our Ladies Psalter a Blasphemous Book, never yet censured, wherein the Psalmes, in their highest strains of Prayer to God are applyed to the V. Mary? I have known my self intelligent persons of their Church who commit their souls to the V. Maries protection every day, as we do to Almighty Gods: and such who thought they understood the doctrine and practice of their Church as well as others. But, p. 164Madam, these are mysteries not to be known till they have their Proselytes safe and fast enough, then by degrees they let them know, what is to be done, when they have given away all liberty of judging for themselves. Then it is no matter what they are commanded or expected to do, they must do as others do, or else their sincerity is questioned, and they are thought Hereticks in their hearts, whatever they profess. I shall not insist upon any ancient Breviaries, or obsolete Forms, or private Devotions, which yet they are accountable for, till they do condemn them. I need no more than the present Roman Breviary restored according to the Council of Trent, and authorized by three several Popes. In the Feast of Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, as though it were not enough in the Antiphonae to say,Brev. Rom. Antw. 1663. p 984. Hail Blessed Virgin, thou alone hast destroyed all Heresies in the world; but lest this should be interpreted of doing it by her Son, a formal Invocation of her follows, Vouchsafe to let me praise thee O Holy Virgin; and give me strength against thy enemies. And in the Hymn frequently used in her Office, and particularly that day, she is not only called the Gate of Heaven, but she is intreated to loose the bonds of the guilty, to give light to the blind, and to drive away our evils, and to shew her self to be a Mother; (or as it is in the Massbook p. 165at Paris 1634. Iure Matris impera redemptori, as thou art a Mother, command the Redeemer) In a word, They pray to her therein for purity of life, and a safe conduct to Heaven. But lest the Hymns should be thought only Poetical, in the Feast of S. Maria ad Nives; P. 911.Aug. 5. a formal prayer is made to her, to help the miserable, to strengthen the weak, to comfort those that mourn, and that all who celebrate her holy Festivity may feel her assistance. By which we may understand the meaning of that solemn Hymn used in her Office, wherein she is called the Mother of Mercy and Clemency, Offic. parv. B. Mariae. p. 127.and is prayed to protect us from our enemies, and to receive us in the hour of death. Is all this only praying to her to pray for us? What could be more said to Almighty God or his Son Iesus Christ? Nor is this devotion only to the Blessed Virgin, but we shall see it alike in that to Angels and Saints; Brev. p. 224.in the Antiphona upon the apparition of Michael the Archangel May 8. he is prayed to come to the help of the people of God. And in the Feast of the Guardian Angels recommended to all Catholicks by Paul the fifth in the last words of the Breviary, they are prayed to defend them in War, that they may not perish in Gods terrible judgement. Commun. Apostol. p. 2. 9.In the Hymn to the Holy Apostles they are prayed to command the guilty to be loosed from their guilt, to heal unsound minds, and p. 166to increase their vertues, that when Christ shall come, they may be partakers of eternal glory. These may suffice for a present taste of the sincerity of such persons who say, that in the Church of Rome they do nothing but pray to the Saints to pray for them. And it is a very pitiful shift that Bellarmin is put to,Bell. de Sanct. Beatit. l. 1. c. 17. whereby to excuse such prayers as these, That indeed as to the words themselves they do imply more than praying to them to pray for us; but the sense of the words, he saith, is no more. But whence I pray must the people take the sense of such prayers as these are, if not from the signification of the words? If this were all, why in all this time that these prayers have been complained of, hath not their sense been better expressed? Have not their Breviaries been often reviewed, if this had not been their meaning, why have they not been expunged all this while? Suppose then that any persons in the Roman Church (as no doubt most do) take their sense from the words, and do not force it upon them, and they pray according to the form prescribed; do they well or ill in it? If they do ill in it, their Church is guilty of intolerable negligence in not preventing it; if they do well, then their Church allows of more than praying to Angels and Saints to pray for them. Bellarmins instances of the Apostles in Scripture being said to save p. 167men, do shew what shifts a bad cause will put a man to: For will any man in his wits say the case is the same in ordinary speech and in prayer? Is it all one, for a man to say, that his Staff helped him in his going, and to fall down upon his knees to pray to his Staff to help him? God did use the Apostles as instruments on earth to promote the salvation of mankind, but may we therefore pray to them now in Heaven to save us? May we not truly say, that the Sun enlightens the world, but may we therefore pray to the Sun to enlighten us? No, the Sun is but Gods instrument, and our addresses must be in prayer to the Supream Lord over all. But to take his own explication of praying to them for these things: i. e. praying to them that they would pray to God for them, as we desire one another to pray: would not that man be condemned of gross Idolatry, or prodigious folly, who instead of desiring his Friends to pray to God for the pardon of his sins, and the assistance of Divine Grace, should say to them, I pray you pardon my sins, and assist me with the Grace of God? What would St. Paul have said to such men that should have asked such things of him, who yet saith, that he was an instrument of saving some?

p. 168§. 14. 2. Supposing this were all that were done and allowed in the Roman Church, The difference between praying to Saints in Heaven, and desiring men on Earth to pray for us.yet this would not excuse them: for their practice is very different in their Invocation of Saints, from desiring our Brethren on Earth to pray for us. And I cannot but wonder, how any men of common sense can suffer themselves to be imposed upon so easily in this matter. For is there really no difference in St. Pauls desiring his Brethren to pray for him, as he often did; and a mans falling down upon his knees with all the solemnity of devotion he uses to God himself, to St. Paul to desire him to pray for him, when he was present upon earth, and did certainly know what he desired of him? Suppose in the midst of the solemn devotions of the Church where St. Peter or St. Paul had been present, the Letanies of the Church had been then as they are now; and after they had prayed to the persons of the Holy Trinity, the people should with the same postures and expression of devotion have immediately turned themselves to the Apostles, and cryed only Peter and Paul pray for us; do you think, this would have been acceptable to them? No doubt St. Peter would have been less pleased with this, than with Cornelius, A…s 10. 25, 26.only falling down before him, and yet then he bid him stand up, I my self also am a man. They who impute this only to p. 169his modesty, will not allow him to carry it to Heaven with him; For they suppose him to be very well pleased with that honour in Heaven, which he refused on earth. And St. Paul would have rent his garments and cryed out, as he did to the men of Lystra, Acts 14. 14, 15.Acts 14:14Acts 14:15Why do ye these things; we also are men of like passions with you? They would not receive any honour that might in the least seem to incroach upon the divine honour, and yet they might upon better grounds have done it to them on earth, than now in Heaven, because they were then sure they heard them, which now they can never be. And would it not be a senseless thing to desire some excellent person in the Indies, when we are at our solemn devotion to pray for us, because it is possible God may at the same time reveal our minds to him? I would willingly be informed, if we had assurance of the Sanctity of a person in this life, as great as they have in the Church of Rome of those they invocate; whether there would be any evil at all in publick places of worship, and at the time used for the service of God, to set such a person up in some higher place of the Church, to burn incense before him, to prostrate themselves with hands and eyes lifted up to him, if at last they pretended, that all that time they only prayed to him, to pray for them? And p. 170certainly a good man is much more the Image of God, and deserves more reverence than all the artificial Images of Saints, or of God himself. If they will condemn this, they may conceive, that supposing, they only prayed to Saints in their devotions to pray for them, this would not excuse them: For they do it in those places, at such times, and in such a manner as highly incroaches upon the worship and service due to God alone.

§. 15. 2. I now come to consider,St. Austin no Friend to Invocation of Saints. whether the answer given by St. Austin will vindicate them, and whether invocation of Saints, as it is now practised in the Church of Rome were allowed, or in use then? Here he tells us, That Faustus the Manichean calumniates the Catholicks (the word is St. Austins he saith, and we do not quarrel with the word, but that they are not such Catholicks as St. Austin speaks of) because they honoured the Memories or Shrines of Martyrs, charged them to have turned the Idols into Martyrs, whom they worshipped said he with like vows. To shew how very far what St. Austin saith, is from justifying the present practices of the Roman Church, we need no more than barely to represent what St. Austin affirms, and what he denyes. He affirms, that it was the custom of the Christians in his time to have their religious Assemblies at the Sepulchres p. 171or Memories of the Martyrs, where the place it self would raise their affections, and quicken their love towards the Martyrs and towards God; but he utterly denyes, that any religious worship was performed to the Martyrs: for neither was any Sacrifice offered up to any of them, nor any other part of religious worship: for thereupon he shews (which is very conveniently left out in the citation) that not only Sacrifice was refused by Saints and Angels, but any other religious honour which is due to God himself, as the Angel forbad St. Iohn to fall down and worship him. All the worship therefore, he saith, that they give to Saints is, That of love and society, and of the same kind which we give to holy men in this life, who are ready to suffer for the truth of the Gospel. But that the worship of Invocation is expresly excluded by St. Austin, appears by what himself saith on a like occasion; where he shews the difference between the Gentiles worship and theirs:Aug. de Civit. Dei, l. 20. c. 10. They (saith he) build Temples, erect Altars, appoint Priests, and offer Sacrifices; but we erect no Temples to Martyrs as to Gods, but Memories as to dead men whose Spirits live with God; we raise no Altars on which to sacrifice to Martyrs, but to one God, the God of Martyrs as well as ours, at which as men of God who have overcome the world by confessing him, they are named in p. 172their place and order, but are not invocated by the Priest who sacrifices. And elsewhere saith,L. 8. 6. 27. Whatever the Christians do at the memories of the Martyrs, is for ornaments to those memories, not as any sacred Rites or Sacrifices belonging to the dead as Gods: we therefore do not worship our Martyrs with divine honours, nor with the faults of men, as the Gentiles did their Gods. Which gave occasion to Lud. Vives in his Notes on that Chapter to say, that many Christians in his time (what sort of Catholicks those were, it is easie to guess, but to be sure, none of St. Austins) did no otherwise worship Saints, than they did God himself; neither could he see in many things any difference between the opinion they had of Saints, and what the Gentiles had of their Gods. I cannot understand then how St. Austins answer should justifie that which he condemns: He denyes that there was an Invocation of Saints, but only a commemoration of them; the Church of Rome pleads for any Invocation of them, and condemns all those who deny it. So that his answer is very far from clearing the Roman Church in the practice of Invocation, and the objection we make against it, that it doth parallel the Heathen Idolatry; for it grants, it would do so, if they gave to the Saints the worship due to God, of which he makes Invocation to be a part.

p. 173But after all this, can we imagine, that he should practise himself contrary to his own doctrine? Yes, saith he, he made a prayer to St. Cyprian,Aug. de bapt. c. Don. l. 7. c. 1. let Blessed Cyprian therefore help us in our prayers. But is there no difference to be made between such an Apostrophe to a person in ones writing and solemn supplication to him with all the so…emnity of devotion in the duties of Religious worship? If I should now say, Let St. Austin now help me in his prayers, while I am defending his constant opinion, that Invocation is proper to God alone, would they take this for renouncing the Protestant doctrine, and embracing that of the Church of Rome? I doubt they would not think that I escaped the Anathema of the Council of Trent for all this. The Question between us, is not how far such wishes rather than prayers were thought allowable being uttered occasionally, as St. Austin doth this to St. Cyprian, but whether solemn Invocation of Saints in the duties of Religious worship, as it is now practised in the Roman Church, were ever practised in St. Austins time, and this we utterly deny. We do not say, that they did not then believe, that the Saints in Heaven did pray for them, and that some of them did express their wishes, that they would pray particularly for them, we do not say, that some superstitions did not p. 174creep in after the Anniversary meetings at the Sepulchres of the Martyrs grew in request; for St. Austin himself saith, that what they taught was one thing, and what they did bear with was another, C. Faust. l. 20. c. 2.speaking of the customes used at those solemnities: But here we stand, and fix our foot against all opposition whatsoever, that there was no such doctrine or practice allowed in the Church at that time, as is owned and approved at this day in the Church of Rome. But from St. Austin we are sent to Calvin, whose authority (though never owned as infallible by us) we need not fear in this point:Calv. Instit. l. 3. c. 20. n. 22. and I cannot but wonder, if he saw the words in Calvin or Bellarmin, that he would produce them. For Calvin doth there say,Bell. de Beatit. sanct. l. 1. c. 16. That the Council of Carthage did forbid praying to Saints, lest the publick prayers should be corrupted by such kind of addresses, Holy Peter pray for us. If St. Austin were present in this Council, as my Adversary saith he was, I wonder what advantage it will be to him from Calvins saying, that the Council did condemn and forbid those prayers; which were in use by some of the people. But it seems, he takes the peoples part against the Council and St. Austin too; and thinks it enough for them to follow the practices condemned by Councils and Fathers; which we are sure they do, and are glad to find p. 175so ingenuous a confession of it. He may as well the next time bring St. Austins testimony for worshipping Martyrs and Images, De Morib. Eccl. Cath. c. 34.because he saith, he knew many who adored Sepulchres and Pictures: and for the worship of Angels, because he saith, he had heard of many, Confess. l. 10. cap. 42.who had tryed to go to God by praying to Angels, and were thought worthy to fall into delusions.

§. 16. But the strangest effort of all the rest,Of Negative points of faith. is what he hath reserved to the last place, viz. That the charge of Idolatry against them must be vain and groundless, because if I be pressed close, I shall deny any one of these Negative points to be divine truths; viz. that honour is not to be given to the Images of Christ and his Saints, that what appears to be bread in the Eucharist is not the body of Christ, that it is not lawful to Invocate the Saints to pray for us. But the answer to this is so easie, that it will not require much time to dispatch it. For I do assert it to be an Article of my faith, That God alone is to be worshipped with divine and religious worship: and he that cannot hence infer, that no created Being is to be so worshipped, hath the name of reasonable creature given him to no purpose. What need we make Negative Articles of faith, where the Affirmative do necessarily imply them? If I believe that the Scripture is my only rule of faith, as I most firmly do; will any p. 176man that considers what he saith, require me to make Negative Articles of faith, that the Pope is not, Tradition is not, Councils are not, a private Spirit is not? for all these things are necessarily implyed therein. And so for all particular doctrines rejected by us upon this principle, we do not make them Negative points of faith, but we therefore refuse the belief of them, because not contained in our only rule of faith: On this account we reject the Popes Supremacy, Transubstantiation, Infalibility of the present Church in delivering points of faith, Purgatory, and other fopperies imposed upon the belief of Christians. So that the short resolution of our faith is this, that we ought to believe nothing as an Article of faith, but what God hath revealed, and that the compleat revelation of Gods will to us is contained in the Bible; and the resolution of our worship, is into this principle, that God alone is to be worshipped with divine and religious worship, and therefore whether they be Saints or Angels, Sun, Moon and Stars, whether the Elements of a Sacrament, or of the World, whether Crosses, and Reliques, or Woods and Fountains, or any sort of Images; in a word, no creature whatsoever is to be worshipped with religious worship, because that is proper to God alone. And if this principle will excuse p. 177them from Idolatry. I desire him to make the best of it. And if he gives no more satisfactory answer hereafter, than he hath already done, the greatest charity I can use to those of that Church, is to wish them repentance, which I most heartily do.