The Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome, Part 4
IV. Of paying Divine Worship to Reliques.
FOR the right understanding this Controversy, we are to consider,
1. That there is a due Veneration to the Bodies of Saints and Martyrs, allowed on both sides; and there is an undue Worship of them, which is disowned on both sides. The due Veneration is, a Religious Decency to be observed towards them; which lies in avoiding any thing like Contempt or Dishonour to them, and using all such Testimonies of Respect and Decency, which becomes the Remains of Excellent Persons; provided we are satisfied of their Sincerity, without having recourse to Divine Omnipotency to prove them; which Ferrandus the Jesuit runs so much to, to prove the Truth of many Reliques, worshipped in the Church of Rome in many places at once. But that it is possible to exeeed in the Worship of true Reliques, even Bellarmin confesseth, who says, that God took away the Body of Moses, lest the People should give Divine Worship to it. And St. Jerom as hot as he was against Vig…antius, yet he utterly denied giving any De Imag. Sanct. l. 2. c. 4.Adoration to the Reliques of Martyrs. It seems then it is very possible to exceed that way.
2. The Question then is, Whether those Acts of Worship which are allowed in the Church of Rome, do not go beyond due Veneration? For it is unreasonable to suppose those who give it, to believe those Reliques to be Gods; and therefore it must be such a Worship as is given to them, supposing them to be only Reliques of such Persons. The Council of Trent decrees Honour and Veneration to be given to them, but never determines what is due, and what not: it forbids all Excesses in drinking and eating, in the visiting of Reliques; but not a word of Excesses in worshipping of them, unless it be comprehended under the name of Superstition. But Superstition lies in something forbidden, according to their notion of it: therefore, if there be no Prohibition by the Church, there can be no Superstition in the Worship of them. And if they had thought there had been any in the known Practices of the Church, they would certainly have mentioned them; and because they did not, we ought in Reason to look on them as allowed. And yet not only Cassander complains of the great Superstition about them; but even the Walenbergii lately confess, that the Cassand. Consult. Art. 21. Tract. special. 4. Controv. 4.Abuses therein, have not only been offensive to us, but to themselves too.
But what saith our Representer to them?
He believes it damnable to think there's any Divinity in the Reliques of Saints, or to adore them with Divine Honour. P. 7. But what is this adoring them with Divine Honour? A true Representer ought to have told us what he meant by it, when the whole Controversy depends upon it. Is it only saying Mass to Reliques, or believing them to be Gods? Is there no giving Divine Honour by Prostration, burning of Incense, &c.? Nothing in expecting help from them? Yes, if it be from any hidden Power of their own. But here is a very hard Question: If a Man doth not believe it to be an intrinsick Power in the Reliques, may a Man safely go to them, Opis impetrandae causà, as the Council of Trent saith, in hopes of Relief from them? Is it not possible for the Devil to appear with Samuel's true Body, and make use of the Relique of a Saint to a very bad end? Then, say I, no Reliques can secure Men against the Imposture of Evil Spirits, who, by God's Permission, may do strange things with the very Reliques of Saints.
But God hath visibly worked by them, saith our Author, by making them Instruments of many Miracles; and it is as easie for him to do it now. P. 8, 9. This is the force of all he saith. To which I answer, (1.) It is a very bold thing to call in God's Omnipotency, where God himself hath never declared he will use his Power; for it is under his own Command, and not ours. But there is no Reason to deduce the Consequence of using it now, because he hath done it formerly. And that they may not think this is cavilling in us, I desire them Rabat. Joy de Jasenists, A. D. 1656.to read Pere Annat's Answer to the Jansenists pretended Miracle at Port Royal, viz. of the Cure wrought by one of our Saviour's Thorns. There he gives another account of such Miracles than would be taken from us. But where he saith, It is as much for the Honour of God's Name to work such Miracles now; their own Authors will tell him the contrary; and that there is no such Reason now, as in former times, when Religion was to be confirmed by them; and when Martyrs suffered upon the sole account of the Truth of it; and therefore their Reputation had a great Influence upon converting the unbelieving World. (2.) Suppose it be granted, yet it proves not any Religious Worship to be given to them. For I shall seriously ask an important Question: Whether they do really believe, any greater Miracles have ever been done by Reliques, than were done by the Brazen Serpent? And yet, altho that was set up by God's own Appointment, when it began to be worshipped after an undue manner, it was thought fit by Hezekiah to be broken in pieces. What now was the undue Worship they gave to it? Did they believe the Serpent, which could neither move nor understand, was it self a God? But they did burn Incense to it. And did that make a God of it? Suppose Men burn Incense to Reliques; What then, are they made Gods presently? Suppose they do not, but place them upon Altars, carry them in Procession, fall down before them, with intention to shew the Honour they do them; are not these as much as burning a little Incense, which could not signifie so much Honour as the other do? and it is hard then to make the one unlawful, and not the other.