The Grounds of Protestant Religion, Part 3 · Chapter 3 (3 of 3)

The Grounds of Protestant Religion · Part 3 · Chapter 3 (3 of 3)

p. 591We proceed further to see what account Origen gives of the Christian Doctrine touching Invocation in his Answer to Celsus, §. 20.wherein he had sufficient occasion given him to declare the sense of the Church at that time. And if he had known or approved any relative worship given to Angels or Saints, it is not conceivable that he should express himself in such a manner p. 592as he doth. For when Celsus enquires what kind of Beings they thought Angels to be, Origen answers, that although the Scripture sometimes calls them Gods, it is not with that intention that we ought to worship them. For, saith he, all prayers, and supplications, foreign (foreign leg. Usser.) foreign. Orig. c. Celsum l. 5. p. 233. ed. Cantab.and intercessions, and thanksgivings are to be sent up to God the Lord of all, by the High-priest who is above all Angels, being the living Word and God. For to call upon Angels (we not comprehending the knowledge of them, which is above the reach of man) is unreasonable. And supposing it were granted that the knowledge of them, which is wonderful and secret, might be comprehended: this very knowledge declaring their nature to us, and the charge over which every one of them is set, would not permit us to presume to pray unto any other but God the Lord of all, who is abundantly sufficient for all, by our Saviour the Son of God. In which Testimony, we clearly see what the judgement of the Church then was concerning Invocation; For in a matter of Divine worship equally concerning the whole Church, we have no reason to imagine that Origen should deliver any private opinion of his own. And herein we are plainly told, That all prayers and supplications are to be made to God only through Christ, that in such cases where we are Ignorant of the nature of Beings, it is unreasonable for us to pray to them (as we certainly are concerning separated souls as well as Angels); that in case we did know them, yet it would not be reasonable to pray to them, both because they are inferiour and ministring Spirits, and that God himself is abundantly sufficient for all through Christ. Now let any reasonable man judge, whether these Arguments do not hold as well against a relative and subordinate Invocation, as absolute and Soveraign. But no such distinctions were thought of then. For they judged all Prayer and Invocation, by the very nature of it, to import Divinity in that it was made to, and therefore that no created Beings how excellent soever were capable of it. From whence Origen afterwards supposing the Sun, Moon, and Starrs to be Intellectual Beings, gives this account, Why, notwithstanding that, they made no prayers to them. For, saith he, since they offer up prayers themselves to God through his only Son, L. 5. p. 238.foreign, we judge that we ought not to pray to them that pray. Since they would rather send us to God whom they pray to, then bring us down to themselves, or to divide our praying vertue from God, to themselves. Can we then suppose that the Church at that time did allow of prayers to be made to Saints in Heaven, supposing their praying there in behalf of the Church on earth? For we see Origen goes on this ground, that all Intellectual Spirits which pray themselves, are not to be prayed too; And that if they knew of our praying to them, they would send us to God and not accept of those supplications to themselves which are due only to God. In the beginning of the eighth Book, Celsus disputes against the Christians because they worship only the Supreme God, L 8. p. 381.without giving any to the Inferiour Daemons; and that upon this ground, because, saith he, They who worship the Inferiour Gods, acknowledging them Inferiour, is so far from dishonouring the Supreme, that he doth that which is acceptable to him. foreign. For he that honours and worships those who are subject to him, doth not displease God whose they are all. These are Celsus his words; from whence we are to take notice, that Celsus doth not plead for absolute p. 593and Soveraign worship to be given to these Inferiour Deities or Spirits, but only a relative and subordinate worship. So that if the Controversie had been between Celsus and a modern Romanist, all that Celsus here sayes must have been confessed on both sides, and the whole dispute only have been concerning those Daemons or Spirits which were to have this relative and inferiour kind of worship, viz. Whether those which Celsus call'd Daemons, or only the Blessed Spirits and glorified Saints. But Origen who went upon other grounds returns a far different Answer; For, saith he, it is not lest we should hurt God that we abstain from the worship of any but God according to this word (foreign, P. 383.to render the inferiour worship of foreign to any but God) but lest we should thereby hurt our selves, by separating our selves from our portion in God. P. 384.And the reason he gives why Christ is to be worship'd is,P. 385. from that divinity which manifested it self in him, and because of the unity of nature between God and him. And although Origen saith, That in some sense we may be said foreign to give some kind of worship to Angels and Archangels; yet he saith, the sense of the word must be purg'd, and the actions of the worshippers distinguished. Yet in the following words he attributes that worship which is by supplication only to God and his only Son. So that still he reserves the offering up our prayers as the appropriate worship to God himself, through his only Son. For to him, saith he,foreign. Orig. l. 8. p. 386. we first offer them, intreating him who is the propitiation for our sins, that he would vouchsafe as our high Priest to offer our Prayers, Sacrifices, and Intercessions to God over all. Id. Ibid.Therefore our Faith is only in God through his Son, who hath confirmed it to us. And afterwards, Away (saith he) with Celsus his Counsel, that we should worship Daemons (or inferiour spirits not taking them in the worst sense) foreign, for we must only pray to God over all, Id. p. 395.and to the Word of God, his only begotten, and first born of all Creatures; and we must entreat him, that he as High Priest, would present our Prayer, when it is come to him, unto his God, and our God, and unto his Father, and the Father of them that frame their life according to the Word of God. To the same purpose again in another place; To whom we offer our first fruits, Id. p. 400.to him we direct our prayers, having a High Priest, who is entred into Heaven, Jesus the Son of God; and we hold fast this confession while we live, through the favour of God, and his Son, who is manifested to us: And after saith, That the Angels help forward their salvation, who call upon God, and pray sincerely, to whom they themselves also pray. But not one word of any praying to them, but only to God through Christ. For, as he saith elsewhere, We must endeavour to please God only, who is over all, foreign. Orig. l. 8. p. 420.and pray that he may be propitious to us, procuring his good will with piety, and all kind of virtue. But if he will yet have us to procure the good will of any others, after him that is God over all; let him consider, that as when the body is moved, the motion of the shadow doth follow it: so in like manner, having God favourable to us, who is over all, it followeth that we shall have all his friends, both Angels, and Souls, and Spirits, favourable to us. For they have a sympathy with them, that are thought worthy to find favour with God. Neither are they only favourable p. 594unto such as be worthy; but they co-operate with them also that are willing to serve God over all, and are friendly to them, and pray with them, and intreat with them. So as we may be bold to say, that when men, who with a resolution, propose to themselves the best things, do pray unto God, many thousands of the Sacred Powers pray together with them uncalled upon. Here indeed we find that Saints and Angels do intercede in Heaven in behalf of the Saints on Earth, but that is not the thing in dispute between us: but here we find no such thing at all as an Invocation of them; but he sayes, They pray together with us, when we pray to God himself, not when we pray first to them to pray with us. For this Origen makes to be wholly needless; for if God be propitious to us, so will all the Sacred Powers be too. So that still we find in Origen, that Invocation was only to be made to God over all, although he saith, That with those who do sincerely call upon God, the Holy Spirits do joyn with them. To the same purpose Arnobius speaks,Arnob. l. 3. when the Heathens asked, Why they did not worship any Inferiour Gods, satis est nobis, saith he, Deus primus, the Supreme God is sufficient for us. In hoc omne quod colendum est colimus; quod adorari convenit adoramus, quod obsequium venerationis poscit, venerationibus promeremur. In worshipping him, we worship all that is to be worshipped; we adore all, that is fit to be adored; we procure favour by shewing reverence to all that require it. Where we are still to take notice, that the Heathens did not blame them for not giving the highest kind of Worship to these Inferiour Deities, but for not worshipping them with the subordinate & relative Worship, which they said belonged to them. Now when in the Answer he saith, That in worshiping God, they worship'd all that was to be worship'd; he utterly destroies any such Relative Worship, which may be given to Inferior Spirits.

§. 21.For we are to consider, that the Heathens themselves did not give the same kind of Adoration to their Heroes, and Inferiour Deities, which they did to him whom they accounted Supreme. And, setting aside the difference of the object, I can find no possible difference between the Invocation of Saints in the Church of Rome, and that of Daemons among the Heathens. And althoug… Bellarmin hath taken the greatest pains to clear the nature of that Worship, Bellarm. de Sanct. beatitud. l. 1. c. 12.which is given to Saints; yet, upon a thorow examination of it, we shall find that all his pleas would have held as well for the Worship of Daemons in the Platonists sense of them, as they do for the worship of Saints among Christians. Three things he tells us Adoration consists in, An Act of Vnderstanding apprehending some excellency; An Act of the Will, whereby we are inwardly inclined to do something by an internal, or external act, by which we declare our sense of that excellency, and our subjection to it; and lastly, An external Act, in which we bow or kneel, or shew some outward sign of subjection. Now of these three he saith, the second is most proper and essential, because the first may be without Adoration, and the last with Irrision of that we pretend to worship. Further he observes that there are so many sorts of Adoration or Worship, as there are degrees of excellency, of which he reckons three kinds, Divine, Humane, and between both, as the Grace and Glory of the Saints: and that these several sorts of Worship, according to these several excellencies, are not univocal, but analogical: and that they may be very well distinguished by the Internal Acts, for the inclination of the will is greater or less, according to the degree of excellency apprehended in the object. But as to the External Acts, it is not easie to distinguish them; for, almost all External Acts, (sacrifice only, and the things referring to it excepted) p. 595are common to all kinds of Adoration. This is the substance of what he hath, for explaining the nature of Divine Worship: And by which I cannot possibly see, but that kind of Worship which was given by the Heathens to their Daemons, was defensible upon the same grounds that the Invocations of Saints is now. For as these apprehend a greater excellency in God, than in the Saints; so did they in the Supreme God, than in those Inferiour Deities; which they did not acknowledge to have an Infinite Nature in themselves, but only that they had the honour of being solemnly worshipped bestowed upon them. But this will be much clearer in the case of the Heroes, or the Apotheosis of the Roman Emperours, as Augustus for instance. The Roman Senate decrees, that Divine Honours shall be given to Augustus: we cannot think, that by virtue of this decree he assumed a Divine Nature, or became absolutely God, so that the Act of the Vnderstanding was of the same nature, which it would have been, supposing some Roman-Catholick should believe Augustus to have been a Saint: on which supposition, we will suppose a Heathen and him to be at their prayers together to him. I pray now tell me, Wherein lyes the difference, that one is Idolatry, and the other is not: for neither of them suppose him to be the Supreme God, both look on him as having a middle kind of excellency between God and man, the external actions are the same in both, and their apprehensions of excellency being equal, the inclinations of their Wills to testifie their devotion must be equal too. If you answer me, that one looks on him as a Saint, and the other doth not; I may soon tell you, that is nothing to the purpose; for, the Question is not, Whether he was a Saint or no, but, Whether the apprehension of a middle excellency between Divine and Humane, with a correspondent inclination of the Will, testified by external acts of Adoration be Idolatry or no? If it be Idolatry in the one, it must be in the other; for the ratio formalis is the same in both, viz. the apprehension of an excellency between Divine and Humane: for we are not enquiring, Whether the apprehension be true or false, but, What the nature of that act of Religion is, which is cons…quent upon such an apprehension. Now if it were not Idolatry in him▪ that believed Augustus to be a Saint, and worshipped him; How can it be made appear to be so in him, that believed him deified, or that Divine Honours did belong to him? And if this be granted; for my part, I cannot tell how you can excuse the Primitive Christians, that would rather suffer Martyrdom, than worship the Heathen Emperours; for, although they all thought it Idolatry, yet upon these principles it could not be so; but the worst that could be made of it, was this, That the Senate took that upon it, which it had nothing to do with, because it belonged to the Pope to Canonize men, and not to the Roman Senate. For, let me put it seriously to you, Whether you do not attribute the very same kind of authority to the Pope now, which the Roman Senate challenged in the foreign, of the Roman Emperours? For, whosoever will compare the rites of Canonization in Bellarmin with the ancient rites of the foreign,De Sanct. beat. l. 1. c. 7. will find them exactly answering to each other. For, 1. They are put in a Catalogue of Saints, and must be owned by all for such. 2. Invocantur in publicis Ecclesiae precibus, They are prayed to in the publick prayers of the Church. 3. Temples and Altars for their sake, are dedicated to God. 4. The sacrifices of the Eucharist, of prayers, and praises, are publickly offered to God for their honour; and then follow their Festivals, Images, Relicks, &c. What was there more done then, that publick Divine Honours were made to the Deified Emperours; not that p. 596these Honours were wholly terminated upon them, but they thought the giving of this relative Honour to them, did redound to the greater Honour of the Supreme Deity? So that we see, a new object of Divine Worship is solemnly appointed, upon the Popes Canonizing a Saint; and no pretence can be made to excuse this from Idolatry, which would not have excused all those Heathens from it, who believed there was one Supreme Deity, and yet allowed Divine Honours to be given to such Spirits which were imployed by him, or attended on him. So that if the notion of Idolatry must only lye in such an act of the Will, which results from an apprehension of infinite excellency, which is only in the Supreme Being; very few, if any, of the more intelligent Heathens were ever guilty of it. But if the formal reason of their Idolatry lay in offering up those devotions to that which was not God, which only belong to an Infinite Being; I see not, but the same charge will hold on the same grounds, against those who Invocate Saints with those external acts of devotion, which are confessed to be the same with those wherewith we call on God. But nothing can be more unreasonable, than that Bellarmin should except Sacrifices, and things belonging thereto, from being common to the first and second sort of Adoration, and not except Invocation. For, Is it possible to conceive any act which doth more express our sense of an Infinite Excellency, and the profession of our subjection to it, than Invocation doth? which doth it far more than Sacrifice doth; for that being a meer external act, is consistent with the greatest mockery of God; but solemn Invocation implies in its own nature our dependence upon God, and an acknowledgement of his Infinite Knowledge and Power. For Invocation lyes chiefly in the internal acts, and denotes primarily the inward desire of obtaining something from a Being above our own: So that, though I should grant the meer external acts of bowing and kneeling to be common to Adoration given to infinite and finite perfections; yet I utterly deny that these acts are common to both, when the circumstances do determine the end and design of them. As no man by the meer bowing of Abraham to the Children of Heth could tell, whether it were civil or divine Adoration which he meant; but none who understood all the circumstances of it, would have any reason to question it. But, suppose it had been declared before, that these men expected a more than civil Adoration, and that all the rites of solemn Invocation which Abraham at any time used to God, must be used to them too; then the same external acts must have received a new denomination. So that though the meer external acts be common to civil and religious Worship, yet as those acts are considered with their several circumstances, they are appropriated to one or the other of them. Thus, though a man may use the same form of words to an Emperour on his Throne, and the same external posture, which he doth use after his death in a Temple consecrated to him; yet in the one they are meerly signs of Civil Worship, but in the other they become Testimonies of Religious Adoration. So, although in the Invocation of Saints, no other words were used, but such as denote them to be Creatures still, yet if they be used with all the rites of solemn Invocation; in places appropriate to Divine Worship, and in Sacred Offices, they thereby declare the Adoration intended to be greater than any meer creature is capable of. For we must consider, that as God is owned to be Infinite in himself, and to have incommunicable perfections, so by reason of them there ought to be some appropriated acts or signs of Worship, to declare our subjection to him; which being determined for this end, either by the p. 597Law of God, or the consent of people, the attributing of them to any else but him, is a publick violation of his honour. Although in so doing, men profess that they intend them only as expressions of a lower kind of Worship than is due to the Supreme Being. But in such cases the protestation avails not, where the fact is evident to the contrary. For when men in the most solemn manner, in publick places of devotion, and in sacred offices, do invocate Saints, and yet think they dishonour not God by it, because they say, they do not worship them as God; it is just as if a man should upon all occasions, in the Presence-Chamber, address himself to one of the King's subjects as to the King himself; and being questioned for it, should only say, he did not dishonour the King by it, because he meant it not to him as a King, but as a Subject. But by so much is the dishonour greater because the Soveraignity of the King doth require that the rights of Majesty should not be given to any Subject whatsoever. So that it is but a vain pretence, when men use all the expressions whereby we declare our sense of the Infinite Perfections which are in God, to any Creatures, to say, They give them not that Worship which belongs to God, meerly because they do believe they are Creatures still. But, Is it possible for men to give the honour which is due to God, to the Creatures, or no, acknowledging them to be Creatures still? or, Is it not? If not, then none of the Heathens could be guilty of Idolatry, in worshipping Daemons, Heroes, and Deified Emperours; if it be possible, then the acknowledging the Saints not to be God, cannot excuse men from the same kind of Idolatry, in the Invocation of them. And it is as frivolous a plea which is made for those forms of Invocation which are made to the Saints in plain terms, not to intercede with God for them, but to bestow upon them both temporal and spiritual Blessings (of which multitudes have been produced by our Writers) viz. That though the form of words be the same that is used to God, yet the sense is wholly that they would pray to God to bestow them. For, How should any other sense be understood, when these forms are allowed in Invocation? For, although the Scripture may sometimes attribute the effect to the subordinate Instrument, as when S. Paul is said to save some, yet certainly the Scripture is far from allowing such a liberty in solemn Invocation: For upon this ground it might have been lawful for men to have fallen down upon their knees to St. Paul, and have intreated him to save them. Do you think, St. Paul would have approved such phrases in Invocation? So that it is not the meer phrase, but as it is joyned with all rites of Invocation, which makes it look so like the most gross Idolatry. When you pray to the Virgin Mary, to protect you from your enemies, and receive you in the hour of death; and to the Apostles, to heal your spiritual maladies, which forms are acknowledged by Bellarmin; Can any reasonable man think,Bell. de San…. beat. l. 1. c. 17. that the meaning of them only is, that they would pray to God to do these things for them. If one should bring his Petition to a Courtier for his Pardon, and in plain terms beg that of him which the King only can grant; What man that had his wits about him, would ever imagine that he only meant by it, that he would entreat the King to do it for him. But God is more jealous of his honour, than to be put off by such Mockeries as these are: Nay, when your great men at the end of their most elaborate works conclude with a Laus Deo & beatissimae Virgini, What can be meant by it, but the attributing an honour of the same kind to the one as the other? And when prayers are made to Saints, that through their merits they would do such things for them, it is hard conceiving the meaning p. 598should only be, that they would pray to God for them. Nay, some have expresly said, That God hath communicated that which of right belonged to him because of his divinity and omnipotency,to the blessed Virgin, & the Saints; and, that which is more wonderful to their Images too. So Gulielmus Fabricius in his appropriation of Lipsius his Diva Virgo Hallensis, which it is thought by some that Lipsius only writ in imitation of some Heathen Goddess; which may be a very probable account of that otherwise very unhappy undertaking of that learned Man. And as one said of the Pen he offered to the Virgin, Nothing could be lighter, unless it were the Book he wrote with it. Post Tacitum exactum, consummatos que labores Pennam Lipsiades hanc tibi, Diva, dicat. Nil potuit penn… levius tibi Diva dicare, Ni f…erit levius quod tibi scribit opus.But that professed Critick understood well enough the exactness of the parallel of the Worship of the Virgin Mary, with that of the Heathen Goddesses; and therefore very suitably calls her Tutelaris Diva, by which his meaning might be guessed at, as Plato's was, by his using the name of God, or Gods. But however that be, we are sure the parallel is so great between the worship of Saints in the Church of Rome, and that of Heroes and Daemons amongst the Heathens, that if one be justified, the other cannot be condemned, and if one be condemned, the other cannot be justified. So that from hence it follows, that the arguments used by the Primitive Christians against that Worship, will hold against Invocation of Saints; because the Heathens pleaded not for an absolute and soveraign Worship of them, but only such a kind of relative and subordinate Worship, as you profess to be due to Saints. Thus much may suffice to clear the notion of Worship in the Primitive Church, and to shew, how far that was from approving your Doctrine of the Invocation of Saints.

§. 22.The next Argument I intended to have insisted on, should have been the proving the Divinity of Christ from the Invocation of him,Athanas. Orat: 4. Cont. Arrian. Greg. Nyssen. Orat. 4. Cont. Eunom. Novatian. de Trin. c. 14. as Athanasius and several others do; which could signifie nothing, if Invocation were then allowed to Saints. But this hath been so amply managed by others, and the sense of the Church having been sufficiently discovered by our precedent discourse; I shall not need to insist any more on those foregoing times, but now come to that age of the Church, wherein the honour of the Martyrs seems to be advanced higher upon the ceasing of persecution. But still his Lordship saith, That the Church then admitted not of the Invocation of Saints, but only of the Commemoration of the Martyrs, as appears clearly in S. Augustine,Aug. de Civit. Dei. l. 22. c. 10. who saith, Although they be at the Sacrifice named in their order, non tamen à Sacerdote qui sacrificat invocantur: they are not invoked by the Priest who sacrifices. P. 291.Now to this you answer, The Father's meaning is, that the Saints departed are not invocated, or call'd upon by way of Sacrifice, i. e. as persons to whom the Sacrifice is offered; which, you say, is a work of Religion due to God only: and this you prove was all that S. Austin meant, because in other places of his works, where he teaches, that not only Commemoration is made of the Saints departed in time of Sacrifice, but that it is done to this particular intent and purpose, viz. that they would pray for us; which doubtless amounts to a virtual Invocation of them. And for this you produce several passages out of his works. Two things therefore must be enquired into. 1. What the meaning of S. Austin is, when he saith, That the Saints are not invocated at the sacrifice. 2. What his meaning is, in those places wherein he allows of that you call Virtual Invocation, viz. that the Saints would pray for us. 1. We are to enquire, What S. Austin's meaning is, when he saith, That the Saints are not invocated at the Sacrifice; p. 599meaning no other, (say you) but the Sacrifice of the Mass, which you hope the Reader will mark for S. Austin's sake; wherein you betray most egregious ignorance or fraud, if you either suppose the Christians called nothing else a Sacrifice at that time, but what you now call the Mass, or that they did it in the same respect that you do now. A Sacrifice of Prayer and Praise indeed they had, and a Commemoration of Christs Sacrifice in the Lords Supper, but no such thing as a propitiatory Sacrifice for the living and the dead; and I pray mark this for your own sake. But for our better understanding S. Austin's meaning, we must consider that he is there comparing the honours which the Heathens gave to their Heroes, with those which the Christians give to the Martyrs. They, saith he, to those Gods of theirs, build Temples, erect Altars, appoint Priests, and offer Sacrifices; but we do not build any Temples to the Martyrs as to gods, but raise Sepulchres as to dead men, whose spirits live with God; neither do we build Altars, at which we may sacrifice to the Martyrs, but we offer up a Sacrifice only to the God of the Martyrs, and of us; at which Sacrifice, saith he, as holy men of God, who through their confession of him have overcome the world, they are named in their place and order, but are not invocated by the Priest, who offers up the Sacrifice. Two things may here be understood by the Sacrifice, either the anniversary Sacrifice of praise to God, on the day of their Natalitia or Martyrdoms; or else the celebration of the Eucharist, which was wont to be done at the memoriae Martyrum chiefly upon that anniversary day. Now there are many reasons to incline me to think that S. Austin doth not speak of any ordinary celebration of the Eucharist, but of that anniversary solemnity, which was wont to be kept at the tombs of the Martyrs on the day of their sufferings. Chiefly because S. Austin is here paralleling the honours of the Martyrs, with those of the Heathen Heroes; and therefore it was reason he should speak of the greatest solemnities which were used for them. Now it is certain that there were such anniversary dayes then kept (by many passages of those times, and somewhat before them) especially in the African Churches; and at these they offered up solemn prayers and praises to God. Both which are clear from this passage of S. Cyprian, Sacrificia pro iis semper ut meministis offerimus, Cyprian. ep. 34. p. 53.quoties Martyrum passiones & dies anniversariâ Commemoratione celebramus: Where we find an anniversary Commemoration and Sacrifices offered at them. What these Sacrifices were, Rigaltius in his Observations on that place tells us; Christiani, saith he, sacris anniversariis, laudes Deo dicunt, commemoratis eorum nominibus qui pro fide Christo dicta Martyrium fortiter obierunt. Rigalt. obs. ad Cyprian. p. 50.So that the Sacrifice was a Sacrifice of praise to God in behalf of the Martyrs. At which they had their Orationum Sacrificia too, as Tertullian calls them, who saith, VnderUnder the Gospel the pure Sacrifice is Prayer to God; and that the sinner being cleansed, ought to offer to God, munus apud Templum,Tertull. c. Marcion. l. 3. p. 497. l. 4. p. 502. orationem sci. & gratiarum actionem apud Ecclesiam per Jesum Christum Catholicum Patris Sacerdotem, a Sacrifice in his Temple, viz. prayer and praise in his Church through Jesus Christ the Catholick High Priest of his Father. Hence S. Cyprian, Quando in Sacrificiis precem cum pluribus facimus, P. 512. Ed. Rigalt.which Rigaltius explains by the publick prayers, which the Priest made for the people, and understands it wholly of the Sacrifices of prayers. Cypr. ep. 15.So that these solemn thanksgivings to God in behalf of the Martyrs, and the prayers which were made for others, are those Sacrifices which did belong to these anniversary solemnities, Oblationes pro defunctis, Tertull. de Coron. M…lit. c. 3.pro natalitiis annuâ die facimus. Those oblationes pro natalitiis, were nothing else but p. 600these solemn Eucharistical Sacrifices in behalf of the Martyrs sufferings, which were called their Natalitia. Now to apply this to S. Austin: among the honours belonging to the Martyrs, he mentions the Sacrifice which was offered to God in Commemoration of them, and, What can this be other than on that anniversary solemnity which Tertullian and Cyprian mention, that was duly kept on that account. Now at this Sacrifice, saith he, they are named in their order, but not invocated. Which being understood of the anniversary day, and of the Sacrifices of prayers and praises, nothing can be more express against Invocation of Saints, than this place is. For, if ever they were solemnly invocated, it certainly would be on the day of the great solemnity for them; and if then all prayers and praises were looked on as due only to God, as Sacrifices belonging to him, then it cannot but be a robbing God of his honour, to offer up either prayers or praises to any but himself. But, because it was the custom at those solemnities, to have the Eucharist administred, and that S. Austin afterwards mentions this, I shall not exclude the Eucharist here, yet that Sacrifice may still comprehend all the supplications which were then used; and if the Saints were not invocated then, we have reason to conclude they were not at all. For the Commemoration of the Martyrs was made after the Ite, missa est, and the Catechumens were departed; so that there was no such occasion for their Invocation at any other time, as then. So that if there were no Invocation of them at the Sacrifice, much less was there out of it; since all the solemnities concerning the Martyrs were used in the time of Celebration. Thus we see, this place of S. Austin is full and clear against Invocation of Saints, and we must now enquire into what he saith elsewhere. Only we take notice here, that S. Austin not only appropriates Sacrifices as a thing peculiar to God, but Temples and Altars too. And that Sacrifice which was then appropriated to God, was not a propitiatory Sacrifice, but Eucharistical and supplicatory; and by consequence, if Sacrifice only belongs to God, then all Thanksgiving and Invocation doth too. For both those, we see, were comprehended by the African Fathers under the notion of Sacrifice.

§. 23.We proceed now to enquire, what S. Austin saith elsewhere; Whether he doth any where else allow Invocation as due to Saints? For which we must consider, that St. Austin every where appropriates all acts of Religion only to God; for he expresly saith, That we must only ask of God that good which we hope to do, S. Augustin Enchirid. c. 114. De quantitate animae. c. 34. De ve…á Relig. c. 55. De Civit. Dei. l. 10. c. 1. c. 4. l. 5. c. 15. l. 7. c. 32. Epist. 49. quaest. 3. Epist. 63. Confess. l. 10. c. 42.that God alone must be served by the soul, because he alone is the Creatour of it: and that every glorified rational creature, is only to be loved and imitated; that we ought not to apply our Religion to yield service to the dead; that they must be honoured for imitation, not worshipped for Religion. That Religion is nothing else but the Worship of God, and therefore we ought not to consecrate our selves to any thing else, by any Religious rites. That those who have gone to Angels, instead of God, have fallen into many illusions, and deceitful fancies. Now is it conceivable, that a person constant to himself, should so often, and on such good grounds assert, that all Acts of Religion belong only to God, and yet withall ascribe religious Invocation as due either to Saints or Angels? But we must further consider, that the ground of S. Austin's distinguishing between foreign and foreign, was not to p. 601assert different degrees of religious worship, but to make different kinds of worship of those two; the one being properly religious worship, the other only cultus dilectionis & societatis, as he calls it, a worship only of love and respect. So that we quarrel not with the distinction it self, but with your misapplying it. For St. Austin plainly makes the honour given to Saints departed, Colimus ergo Martyres eo cultu dilectionis & societatis, quo & in hâc vitâ coluntur Sancti homines Dei. Cont. Faustum. l. 20 c. 21.to be of the same nature with that which is given them, while they live: all the difference is, saith he, we may render that honour to them with the more confidence, after they have over come. But still adds, That all religious worship is proper only to God. The only difficulty then is, What is to be understood by those other passages you produce out of him. And this we have gained already, that they cannot be understood of any religious worship, without an apparent contradiction. Your first Citation is, That the commemoration of Martyrs at the Holy Table, Tract. 84. in Johan. De verbis Ap. serm. 17. (not) 34.is not that we should pray for them, but rather that they should pray for us. To the same purpose the second is, That it is an injury to pray for a Martyr, to whose prayers we our selves ought to be recommended. The only things which can be drawn from hence are, that the Martyrs do pray for the Church on earth, and that we ought to recommend our selves to their prayers: But what is this to an Invocation of them, when it doth not so much as imply a direct desire of them to pray for us? When this recommending our selves to the prayers of the Martyrs, is probably understood of nothing else, but a desire that God would hear the prayers which the Saints in Heaven do make on our behalf, without any address to the Martyrs themselves, that they would pray for us. Which seems very unreasonable, without good assurance that they did hear or understand those requests of that nature which are made to them. It is not therefore the saying that the Saints do pray for us, which makes it either lawful or profitable for us to pray to them. For since they ascribe that honour as alone due to God, so ought we to do too; and I can hardly see how the very praying to Saints to pray for us, being performed with all the rites of solemn and Religious Invocation, can be excused from attributing that honour to the creature which is due only to the Creatour. And therefore I cannot but wonder at those who would make this only of the same nature, with our desiring Fellow-Christians to pray for us. For is there no difference between a mans intreating a Courtier to present his Petition to the King, and his falling down on his Knees to him with all the ceremony due to the King himself; and then put it off, with saying, that in all that, he only desired him to sue to his Majesty in his behalf? Although therefore we condemn not the solemn praying to God, not only to hear the prayers of the Church Militant, but of that part of it which is triumphant in behalf of the other in General; yet this falls far short of solemn addresses in places of Divine worship, and in Sacred offices to the Saints, that they would pray for us. This is it, which as to that you call virtual Invocation, you should have proved out of St. Austin; and yet even that falls much short of that direct and formal Invocation which is both used and allowed in the Church of Rome. But you offer at a further proof of a direct Ora pro nobis in St. Austin. For (say you) St. Austin doth profess it to be the General custom of Christians in their recommending themselves to the Saints, to say, De Civit. Dei. l. 21. c. 27▪Memor esto nostrî; which surely no man will contend to signifie less than ora pro nobis. I grant, it signifies as much where St. Austin uses it; but if you had consulted the place you might easily have seen how wholly impertinent p. 602it is to your purpose. For St. Austin speaks not at all there of Saints departed, but of them living; and that it was a common thing among Christians to say to any one of them Memor esto meî, Remember me in your prayers; which appears by the whole scope of that Chapter, where he speaks of giving alms, and the effect of them on those who received them in making them mindful of them. It cannot be denyed, but some of them did use such expressions to those who were near their Martyrdom; but still this only shews the requesting it of them, when they were sure they heard them; but it proves not any solemn Invocations of them when they were dead. But if we should grant, that there are expressions intimating a desire that Saints in Heaven should pray for them, which is the utmost you can make of the citation out of the Sermon on St. Stephen (which with the rest de Sanctis is vehemently suspected, and the other on Job is counterfeit) yet there is a great deal of difference to be put between such a calling upon Martyrs (of whom only St. Austin speaks) out of a desire of their prayers; and a solemn and direct praying to them in the most Sacred offices and publick devotions: which is used and approved in your Church. For whatever there might be of private devotion (not to call it superstition) this way in St. Austins time, in desiring the prayers of departed Saints whom they could have no ground at all to believe they heard them; yet you can bring no evidence of any use of this in the publick offices of the Church, much less of that direct Invocation, which we most of all charge your Church with. That then which began in meer hypothetical addresses, went somewhat further, when they began to grow more confident that in some extraordinary way or other the Saints heard them; but still this kept it self within the bounds of the cultus dilectionis & societatis, that respect which arose from Love and Communion; but it was a good while after before it obtained a place in the publick Offices, and yet longer, before it came to that height of Religious Invocation, which is more practised then pleaded for in the Church of Rome. For although great endeavours be used to smooth over these gross abuses with fair distinctions, of relative and absolute, direct and indirect worship; yet the general practise is uncapable of being palliated by these narrow coverings, there being the most formal and direct Invocations used to Saints for spiritual and temporal blessings. Which being allowed of in common practise and the most sacred Offices, can never be excused from as great Idolatry as the Heathens were guilty of, in the worship of their Inferiour Deities. I conclude this therefore with that of Spalatensis, Sp…lat. oste…. err. Suarez. c. 2. sect. 20. Wicel. via regia. de I…vocat. Sanct.Religious Invocation of Saints is Heathenism; and meer civil Invocation of them, though not so bad is yet dangerous. And therefore Wicelius justly saith, That the Invocation of Saints, is to be cast out of the Church, because it ascribes Gods honour and attributes to his creatures, and derogates from the office and glory of Christ by making Saints, Mediatours and Intercessours.

§. 24.Which is that we now come to consider. For, as his Lordship saith, When the Church prayed to God for any thing, Pag. 276.she desired to be heard for the mercies and the merits of Christ, not for the merits of any Saints whatsoever. For I much doubt, this were to make the Saints more then Mediatours of Intercession, which is all that you will acknowledge you allow to the Saints. For I pray, is not by the Merits more then by the Intercession? Did not Christ redeem us by his merits? And if God must hear our prayers for the merits of the Saints, how much fall they short of sharers in the mediation of Redemption? Such prayers as these the Church of Rome makes at this day, and they p. 603stand (not without great scandal to Christ and Christianity) used and authorized to be used in the Missal. To this you Answer in two things. 1. That such prayers as these, are used in Scripture. P. 292.2. That they are no derogation to the merits of Christ. For the first, you say, Solomon, Psal. 132. pray's to God to hear him, in effect for the merits of his Father David deceased, when he saith, Memento, Domine, David & omnis mansuetudinis ejus, Lord remember David and all his meekness, &c. This (you say) cannot be understood of Gods Covenant and promise made to David (as Protestants vainly pretend) but of Davids piety and vertue by which he was acceptable to God. For which reason he adds again, For thy servant Davids sake turn not away the face of thine Anointed. The like was done by Daniel, Moses, Hieremias and other Prophets praying unto God, and desiring their petitions might be heard for Abraham, for Isaac, for Israels sake, and for the sakes of other Holy men, who had lived before, and been in their times persons acceptable to God. And for this you quote St. Austin and Chrysostome. So far you have very fairly rendred Bellarmin exactly in English. But we are yet to seek,De Sanct. beatitud. l. 1 c. 19. Why all those expressions in Scripture are not to be understood of the Covenant and Promise God made with those persons who are mentioned by you. For it is considerable, that you instance in none but such whom God had made an express Covenant with, as with the Patriarchs, and with David. But since you say, That this Answer hath not the least ground from the Text, therein you out-do Bellarmin, and speak that which the Text evidently contradicts you in. For Psal. 132.11. next after those very words, For thy servant David's sake; it follows, The Lord hath sworn in truth unto David; and, in the following verse, The Covenant God made with David is mentioned. If thy Children will keep my Covenant and my Testimony that I shall teach them, their Children also shall sit upon thy throne for evermore. You had then much consulted the Text when you say, This exposition had not the least ground from it; for that speaks expresly of the Promise and Covenant which God made with David. And what you add to the text, of Davids piety and vertue, we may more justly say, hath not the least ground from it. For the word doth not signifie meekness but affliction, and therefore Aquila renders it foreign, Symmachus foreign, and some old Copies foreign, all referring not to Davids merits, but to his sufferings. And it is not improbably conceived by some, that this Psalm is not of Solomons penning, but of Davids; and that at the time when the Ark was to be brought back from the House of Obed Edom to Hierusalem. And in all those other places of Scripture mention'd, referring to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; the Scripture is very plain, that they are to be understood of the Covenant God made with them: As appears by the very words of Moses, Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel thy servants, Exod. 32.13. Exod. 6.5.8. Levit 26.42, 45.Exod 32:13Exod 6:5Exod 6:8Lev 26:42Lev 26:45to whom thou swarest by thine own self, &c. And God himself speaks often of his remembring his Covenant which he made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and that is the ground why the Prophets afterwards plead the remembrance of those persons, because the Covenant made with them was the foundation of all those blessings which the Children of Israel expected afterwards. The utmost that can be made of St. Augustins testimony is,Aug. in Exod. quaest. 49. That God may sometimes shew favour to a people that hath deserved ill at his hands for the sake of such as pray for them; as he did to the people of Israel for the sake of Moses. And all that St. Chrysostom saith, is, That God may shew mercy to wicked men for the sake of their righteous Ancestours who are dead. Chrysost. hom. 42. in Gen. hom. 27. in Matth.But this is no more then he hath promised, That he will shew mercy to them that love him p. 604to the third and fourth Generation. But there is a great deal of difference to be made between the expressions of Gods bounty and the Foundation of our prayers; which ought to be only a promise of God. And in this case we deny it not to be lawful, to pray that God would remember his promise: but that is a quite different thing from praying that we may receive blessings through the merits of the Saints in Heaven. So that it cannot be hence concluded, that 'tis no unwarrantable thing to pray that God would hear us for the merits of the Saints.

But this will be further explained now we come to see, how you vindicate this from being any derogation to the merits of Christ. §. 25.We believe, say you,P. 293. and confess that Christ alone is our Redeemer; and that he, and none but he, by the just price of his most precious blood, hath paid our ransome, and fully satisfied the justice of God for our sins: all that we desire of the Saints, either when we mention their merits to God, or simply beg their Intercession with God for us, is only, that they would joyn with us in prayer to God, and that God would be pleased for their sakes, whose works were so grateful to him, to bestow on us the favours we ask. When things are so odious in the practise of them, that they cause all persons of any ingenuity among your selves to cry out upon them, then your Arts are, To let the same practises continue still, but to find out some plausible pretext to colour them over with. As it is here in the business of praying to Saints, and making them thereby to be Mediatours between God and us; which implying so great dishonour to the all-sufficiency of the Merits and Intercession of Christ, you are fain to find out the fairest excuses you can make for it, although the practises still continue which overthrow all the distinctions you use. Thus it is plain, that direct and formal prayers in your Church are made to Saints; but, you say, these are only to intreat them to pray for us: You pray expresly (as his Lordship tells you) That God by the merits and prayers of Saints would deliver you from the fire of Hell; P. 277.that you may obtain the glory of eternity by their merits; and that God would absolve you from your sins by their Interceding merits: and yet for all this, you would have us believe, that you offer no derogation at all to the Merits and Intercession of Christ. But is it not the great honour of Christ that his Merits and Intercession alone are all-sufficient to procure all spiritual blessings for us? And can any spiritual blessings be greater than deliverance from hell, eternal glory, and the forgiveness of sins? And when you pray for all these through the Merits of the Saints, how can you possibly more disparage the all-sufficiency of the Merits of Christ? For, if those be sufficient what need any more? Will God grant that for the Merits of the Saints, which he would not do for the Intercession of Christ? Or, do we want the Merits of the Saints to apply the Merits of Christ? but still something of weakness and defect must be implyed in them, if some further additional Merits be wanting for the application of the former. If a Prince should declare to some of his Fathers Subjects, that he would satisfie his Fathers displeasure, and intercede for them that they should have an absolute pardon; Would it not argue a distrust of the Princes Interest to sollicite some Inferiour Attendants to intreat the King to pardon them for their sakes? And it is here a plain case, whatever you pretend, that you do not only pray that the Saints would joyn in prayer to God with you, but you run to them for help and assistance, in order to the obtaining the greatest spiritual blessings from God. For so the Council of Trent expresly defines, That it is not only good and profitable to Invocate the Saints, but p. 605ob beneficia impetranda à Deo per Christum ad eorum orationes, Concil. T…nt. sess. ult.opem auxilium que confugere; for the obtaining of blessings from God through Christ, we ought to fly to their prayers, help and assistance. If nothing else were meant, but only that the Saints should pray for us, What means help and assistance mentioned as distinct from their prayers?Catech. Rom. p. 3 p. 504. And the Roman Catechism more fully delivers it (which was published by order of the Council of Trent) viz. That Saints are not only to be invocated, because of their prayers to God, but because God bestows many blessings on us, eorum merito & gratiâ, by their merits and favour; and after adds, Roga…i & peccatorum veniam impetrabunt, & conciliabunt nobis Dei gratiam; Being asked, they will obtain the pardon of sin, and procure for us the savour of God. And, What can be more said concerning Christ himself? Although therefore you say never so much, That your prayers are made to the Saints through the merits of Christ, and that you conclude all your prayers, per Christum Dominum nostrum; yet all this cannot clear you from offering the greatest dishonour to the merits and intercession of Christ, since it is plain you rely on the Saints merits, in order to the obtaining the Blessings you pray for. But, say you, If the Saints being rewarded in Heaven for their merits, Ibid.be not injurious to the fulness of Christ… merits, Why should their being heard by virtue of those merits, when they pray to God for us through Christ, or our desire that they may be heard for them, be thought injurious to Christs merits? To which I answer, Those merits which you suppose in Saints, when they are rewarded in Heaven, have either an equal proportion with the reward they receive, or not ? If not, then they cease to be merits, and the giving the reward, (though an act of Justice, the Promise supposed) yet in it self is wholly an act of Grace and Favour; if they have, then the full recompence is received by that reward, and nothing further can be obtained for others on their account. But in the sense it is to be suspected you take merits in, we as well assert, that the proportioning the reward in Heaven to the merits of Saints, is injurious to the fulness of Christs merits, as their obtaining mercies for others by reason of them. Only this latter adds to the dishonour, in that there is not only supposed a proportion between Heaven and them; but, as though that were not enough, a further efficacy is attributed to them, for obtaining mercies for others too. His Lordship therefore does not go about to pervert the sense of the prayers used in your Missal; but the plain words and sense of them evidently shew, how contrary they are to Christian Doctrine and Piety. Bellarmin's saying, that the Saints may in some sense be called our Redeemers, cannot be vindicated by that saying of S. Paul, That he became all things to all men, that he might save some;1 Cor. 9.23.1 Cor 9:23 because salvation respects the effect of Christs death, the promotion of which may in some sense be attributed to the Instruments of it, such as S. Paul was here on Earth; but Redemption respects the merits by which that effect was obtained, and so belongs wholly to Christ, and cannot be attributed to any Saints, either in Earth or Heaven. When you can prove that any subordinate Instruments of Gods Power are called Numina, you may then excuse Bellarmin for calling the Saints so; but that is so incongruous a sense of the word, that it needs no confutation.

We are now come to the last Errour, which his Lordship here charges your pretended General Councils with, which is,§. 26. concerning Adoration of Images. Of which, his Lordship sayes, That the Ancient Church knew it not. And the Modern Church of Rome is too like to Paganism, in the practice of it; P. 277.and driven to scarce intelligible subtilties in her servants writings that defend p. 606it. And this, without any care had of millions of souls, unable to understand her subtilties, or shun her practice. Here you say, The Bishop is very bitter; but no more than the nature of the thing required. All the Answer you return to this, lyes in these things. 1. That the Church of Rome teaches nothing concerning the Worship of Images, P. 294.but what the second Council of Nice did nine hundred years ago; which is, that they must be had in Veneration, and due Reverence, but not have Divine Worship given to them. 2. That Images were in common Vse and Veneration too, amongst Christians in the Ancient Church. 3. That what abuses are crept in, are not to be imputed to the Church, but to particular persons. This is the substance of what you say to the end of the Chapter; as to which a brief Answer will suffice, because I design not a full handling the Question of the worship of Images. If that which you say in the first place, be true, it doth the more prove that which his Lordship intends, viz. that not one barely, but two of those you own to be General Councils, have erred in this particular. If either those Councils, or you, had intended to have dealt fairly and honestly with the world, they and you should have declared, what that Veneration andReverence is, which is due to Images; What difference you put between that, and the Worship due to God; and, Whether the same pretences and excuses would not as well have justified the Pagan Idolatries? For this was it which his Lordship charged you with, that you came too near Paganism in your practice. But as to this you answer nothing, but that if you do, so did the Council of Nice too: But, Is that a sufficient excuse for you? It is well enough known, What kind of Council that was; How much it was opposed by the Synod of Frankford; How many persons both in the Eastern and Western Churches, declared themselves against the Doctrine of it? But, What a pitiful plea is it for you to say, That the Council of Trent had silenced all calumnies, by saying, That you attribute no Divinity to the Images, but only worship them with such honour and reverence as is due to them? Would not any considerate Heathens have said as much as this is? But, the Question is, Whether that Veneration of them which is used by you towards Images, be due to them, or no? This you should have undertaken, and set the distinct limits between the worship due to God, and that which is given to these. You should have proved, that this is no prohibited way of worship; for, if it be, it can in no sense be due to them. For, since God may determine the modes of his own worship, what he hath forbidden in his service, becomes unlawful; and, so long as that command continues in force, all acts of worship contrary to it, are a positive kind of Idolatry. For, as there is a kind of Natural Idolatry lying in the worship of false Gods instead of the true; so there is that which may be called Positive Idolatry, which is a worshipping God in a way or manner which he hath forbidden. From whence the Israelites in the Golden Calf, and the Ten Tribes in the worship of the Calves at Dan and Bethel, are charged with Idolatry, although they acknowledged the true God, and designed that for a Relative worship to him. If it were so then, you should have shewed us, How it comes to be otherwise now? Where it was, God repealed the second Commandment? or, What there was in it typical and ceremonial, that it must cease to oblige at Christ's coming? or, What Reasons it was built on, which were only proper to the Jews, and cannot extend to the Christians too? and, Why Relative Worship, and the helps for memory and devotion would not as well have justified the use and worship of Images, before Christ as after? And why the same reasons from the danger of Idolatry, low conceptions p. 607of God (and what other reasons you will give of that prohibition then) may not hold as well still? These, and many other things, if you would have vindicated the practice of your Church you ought to have insisted on. But since you omit them wholly, and think to put us off with repeating the decree of the Council of Trent, you only shew the weakness of your cause, and of those unintelligible subtilties which are used to defend it.

To what his Lordship saith, That, in Optatus his time, §. 27.the Christians were much troubled upon but a false report, Optal. l. 3.that an Image was to be placed upon the Altar; What would they have done, if Adoration had been commanded? You answer, That it was either some Idol, or common Image of a Man, or of the Emperour, or the Governour of the Province, or something or other, but you cannot tell what. But if it had been any of all these, How easie had it been for them to have vindicated themselves by saying, That if it had been the Image of Christ, or some Saints, they would then have worshipped it, but they could not otherwise. But we see, it was not because it was such or such an Image, that the displeasure was taken, but that it was any at all; and this was then justly looked on as a strange thing, being so contrary to the practice of the Christian Church, from Christ's time till that. This you deny, and say, That the Images of Christ and the Saints were in common use and veneration too, amongst Christians in the Ancient Church. How is it possible to deal with you, that dare with so much confidence obtrude such notorious falsities upon the world? There being scarce any thing imaginable, in which there are more express testimonies for so many ages together then against the use or veneration of Images in the Ancient Church. With what scorn and contempt do the Primitive Christians reject the use of Images, and that not in regard of an absolute, but a relative Worship? If you had read the discourses of the Christians in the Primitive times, such as Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen against Celsus, Tertullian, Minutius Felix, Arnobius, Lactantius, Athanasius, Eusebius, S. Augustin where they dispute against the Heathens, not meerly for worshipping Idols, but for any worship of Images, though meerly as they are signs or symbols of the proper objects of worship, you could not possibly have uttered so gross a falshood as that foregoing, unless you were resolved to offer violence to your conscience in it. If you think the Council of Trent brings off all this by saying, Men must not believe there is any Divinity in Images, and that it was the worship which arose from such an apprehension which the Fathers disputed against; I assure you, you are greatly deceived. For there is no such difference between the Heathens apprehensions, and yours, as to the worship of Images, as you imagine. Who is such a fool, saith Celsus, to think that these are gods, and not the bare Images of them. Orig c. Cels. l. 7. Arnob. l. 6.You are greatly mistaken (saith the Heathen in Arnobius) if you think that we worship the Images for gods; no, we worship the gods by and through them: and therefore saith, That the Ancients were not ignorant that the Images had neither sense nor divinity in them, but only that the rude and ignorant people wanted such things to put them in mind of the gods. What is there more than this, that you have to plead for the Vse of them? Non ipsa timemus simulachra (say the Heathens in Lactantius) sed eos ad quorum imaginem ficta, Lact. l. 2. c. 2.& quorum nominibus consecrata sunt; We worship not the Images, but them to whom they are consecrated; which in your language is,Aug. in Ps. 113. c. 2.Ps 113 They give them not an absolute, but a relative Worship. Nec simulachrum nec Daemonium colo, sed per effigi…m corporalem ejus rei signum intu…or, quam colere debeo, saith p. 608the Heathen in S. Augustin; I neither worship the Image, nor the Daemon in it, but only by that visible representation, I am put in mind of that which I ought to worship. If you say, This was not the common sense of them, but only some more subtle men asserted this, because they could not defend their gross Idolatries otherwise; the very same is most true of your selves; your distinctions are such which the people are not capable of in the worship they give; and they only serve to answer those, who dislike so palpable an imitation of Heathenism, as is in the worship of Images. And it will be hard to find that any Heathens had any higher thoughts of their Images, or used greater acts of worship towards them, than the people of your Church do. For, Are not miraculous operations among you ascribed to Images of Saints? And what greater testimony of Divinity can be supposed in them? Do not they fall down in the most devout manner to them, and make the most formal addresses before them? and that not meerly with a respect to what is represented, but with a worship belonging to the Images themselves? And▪ What more than this did ever the Heathens do? So that those Fathers who so much condemned that use and veneration of Images which was among the Heathens, must needs be understood to condemn as much that in your Church too. And thence Eusebius ascribes the setting up the Statue at Paneas to a Heathen custom, Euseb. h…st l. 7. c. 18. Epiph. ep ad Job. Hieros. Concil. Eliber. can. 36. Aug. de morib. Eccles. Cath. c 34. Clem. Alex. Protrept. Tertull. ad Hermog. ….thence Epiphanius rent the vail at Anablatha, wherein the Image of Christ, or some Saint, was drawn: thence the Council of Elvira in Spain, forbids the placing of pictures in Churches, lest that which is worshipped or adored, should be painted on walls; thence S. Augustin condemns the worshippers of pictures; thence the very Art of Painting was condemned in the Ancient Church, as appears by Clemens Alexandrinus, and Tertullian; and after all this, Is it possible to believe what you say, viz. That Images were in common use and veneration too in the Ancient Church? But surely we shall have some evident proof for so bold an assertion: It were well if there were any thing looked like it.P. 296. For all that you produce, is only that in Tertullian's time, the Christians were abused with the nick-name of Crucis Religiosi; and that in Chrysostom's time, the Cross made a glorious shew upon the Altar. And, Are not these invincible proofs for the veneration of Images in the Ancient Church? But, Why do you not as well say. The Christians worshipped an Asses Head, Tertul. Apolog. c. 16.the Sun, and Ononychites; for all these are in the same Chapter, and equally reckon'd among the false accusations of the Christians. But it seems you had rather believe the Heathens objection▪ than the Christians denial, whose Answer we find express to the contrary in Minutius Felix, Cruces nec colimus, Minut. Fel. p. 33.nec optamus, we neither wish for, nor worship Crosses; and Tertullian, in answer to the former cavil, saith, Quod colimus nos, Deus unus est; That which we worship, is only God. They were then strangers to any such distinctions of worship as you have invented to answer such places with, viz. that they did not worship them absolutely, but relatively. And for all that I can perceive, by the same distinctions you may prove that the Christians did worship Daemons and Heroes; for, although they deny it never so much, I may as well say, they meant only by it, that they did not worship them with the Worship proper only to God, but with an inferiour and relative Worship, as you say as much concerning Images; by which Art you may evade all denyals whatsoever.… For your place of S. Chrysostom, the most that Bellarmin makes of it is, That in his time the Cross was wont to be painted in all places, in Cities, Houses, Chambers, Vessels, not a word in him of Altars, which he would not have left out, had he p. 609found any such thing in him, but you intended to take care we should not search too farr, by not referring us to the Edition of S. Chrysostom, which you, or your Authour made use of. But, What is all this to the veneration of the Cross, if we grant that it did make a glorious shew on the Altar? Could it not make a glorious shew, unless they all fell down and worshipped it? And, Can you think now, that these testimonies are sufficient against the whole strain of Antiquity, to perswade men that the veneration of Images was used in the Ancient Church? But you are men who can believe what you have a mind to; any word, clause, or impertinent allegation, which doth but seem afar off, to cast an eye towards you, is presently the consent of all Antiquity, when the most pregnant testimonies of the best Writers of the Church against you, are pish'd at, and scorned, or else eluded with most frivolous interpretations, or lastly suspected without any shadow of reason. As the Epistle of Epiphanius, and the Canon of the Eliberine Council have been in this present Controversie. When you shall produce your other testimonies, an Answer shall attend them; but you must not think the story of the Statue at Paneas, which Eusebius attributes to a Heathenish Custom (besides the many improbabilities in it) will ever perswade us, that the Christians did then worship Images. But it would now take up too much time to examine that particularly, with others of a like nature. What I have said already, being sufficient to give an account of the sense of the Primitive Church, as to this subject, which is our present business.

We pass by the resemblance between the Feasts at the Oratories of Martyrs, and the Heathen Parentalia, because you say now it seems wholly extirpated. §. 28.And I would not charge you with more faults than you are guilty of, since you have enough without it. An evidence of which, is your discarding all persons from your communion, who are not such Bigots, as to approve all the abuses and corruptions among you: Which sufficiently appears by your censure of Cassander; P. 298.Who (you say) seemed to many to halt between God and Baal; and, although he was not actually excommunicate, yet you would have us believe he was meritoriously so, because he favoured Heresie so much. By which we see, that we must not judge all of the Roman Communion, who profess themselves to be of it; for so Cassander did to his death. But, whoever offer to find the least fault with the practices or Doctrine of your Church, let them pretend never so much to be of it, yet they may be excommunicate, sententiâ juris; and so not only Cassander, but Erasmus, Fspencaeus, Ferus, Barns, Picherellus, and all other persons of reason and ingenuity among you, ought not to be looked on as persons of your Communion, whatever their pretences be. It seems your Church bears none but Hectors, and in a short time none shall be accounted Papists, but Jesuits: but it is hard to determine, Whether this discovers more the corruption, or tyranny of your Church; which loves her degeneracy so much, that she proscribes all who dare in the least to tell her of her faults. But, How can she be found fault with, that takes such excellent care to prevent all abuses, as appears by the caution of the Council of Trent, in the present case of your worship of Images? For, say you, As to any matter of abuse in this kind, crept in amongst the ignorant, we have already shewn, P. 297.how careful the Council of Trent was to prevent and provide against all inconveniencies that could reasonably be foreseen or feared. So it seems, by the admirable Caution used by the Council, to prevent giving undue Worship to Images, by telling men, They must only give that which was due; when all the Question was, What p. 610was due? and, What not? So it seems, by the care used to instruct the people concerning the nature of Divine Worship, and the danger of Idolatry. So it seems, by the leaving out the second Commandment in the offices of frequent use, lest the peoples consciences should check them, for doing that which God had severely prohibited. So it seems, by the unintelligible subtilties concerning the kind of that Worship which is to be given to the Image; when yet a mistake there, makes the person who gives it, guilty of Idolatry. So it seems, by the continuance of the most gross abuses in this nature still in your Church, in this matter of Images. Of which such things are related by eye-witnesses, that the most gross Heathen Idolatries were not more unreasonable, absurd, and ridiculous, than they are. And if people continue ignorant, and sottish enough, all is well; but if with Cassander, they charge you with any corruptions, then they stand meritoriously excommunicate: and it is well if they escape so; for, although Cassander did, Father Barns did not. But, plead as long as you will for the care your Church hath taken to prevent all abuses in the worship of Images; as long as the worship of Images continues, it is impossible to prevent the abuses in it; since that is a great abuse it self, and gives occasion to all others. For, the vindication of your Doctrine depends on such Metàphysical Niceties, which the minds of people are uncapable of; and, however they may serve you in disputation, are impossible to be reconciled with the practice of your Church, and the apprehensions of those who yield the worship you allow to Images. And therefore it is no wonder at all what Llamas relates of the Spanish people, P. 298.that they were so besotted on their old worm-eaten Images, that when they were to have new ones in their rooms, they begg'd with tears to have their old ones still. But, although you grant these people guilty of indiscretion, yet by no means of Idolatry, because they did not call them their gods. If you think none were Idolaters, but such as did believe their Images to be gods; I doubt you may find the number of Atheists as great as that of Idolaters in the world. But if we may guess at peoples apprehensions by their actions, these seemed as much to believe them to be gods, as any Heathens you can instance in. Your vindication of Llamas from saying, That the Images of Christ, and the Saints, as they represent their exemplars, have Deity or Divinity in them; as it is undertaken somewhat fearfully, because (you say) you hope to clear his meaning, whatever his words seem to import;P. 299. so at last it stands on the sandy foundation of relative and absolute Worship, which being taken away, that and your Images fall together. I conclude this subject with his Lordships wish; That men of learning would not strain their wits to spoil the truth, P. 279.and rent the Peace of the Church of Christ, by such dangerous, such superstitious vanities. For better they are not, but they may be worse: And I fear are so.