Respect given to it is a Fence against the Contempt of his Person He that passes by that with his Hat on thinks himself excus'd upon the same account from putting it off to the King himself The End of the First Part. THE SECOND PART OF THE ADORATION OF THE Most Blessed Sacrament CHAP. I. The Practise of the Primitive Church in this Point The Doctor 's Argument to prove it to be Idolatry built upon an Injurious Calumny that Catholicks believe the Bread to be God The sense of his first Proposition cleared and the Proofs he brings for it refuted § 1. HAving cleared the Doctrin and Practise of the Catholick Church from my Adversaries Unjust Charge of Idolatry in the Worship or Veneration she gives to the Images of Christ I come now to show the Injustice of a like accusation he brings in upon account of the Adoration she gives to Christ himself in the most H. Sacrament of the Altar A thâ—â—g so universally practiced and recommended by the Fathers of the Primitive Church both Greek and Latin that who so will condemn the practise of it at this day in the Church of Rome must have the confidence to involve the Church of that time in the same Condemnation with it Among other Apostolical Traditions which were delivered to the Church without Writing St. Basil reckons the words of Invocation when the Eucharistical Brâ—ad and Cup of Blessing were shewed And Theodoret affirms expresly that The Mystical Symbols are understood to be what they are made and are believed and adored as being the things they are believed S. Gregory Nâ—zianzen reporteth of his Sister Gorgonia as a great testimony of her devotion that in a certain sickness she had she went with Faith to the Altar and with a lowd voice besought him who is worshipped upon it for remedy giving him all his Titles or Attributes and remembring him of all the miraculous things which he had done And the same no doubt was done by St. Monica the Mother of St. Austin in her daily devotions at the Altar at which she used to assist without pretermission of any one day and from whence she knew saith he that Holy Victime to be dispensed by which the 〈◊〉 writing was blotted out which carried our condemnation in it To this Sacrament of our Redemptiâ—â— she had tied her Soul fast by the Bond of â—â—ith And in this she did no more 〈◊〉 what her Son teacheâ—â— upon the 98th Psalâ—â— where expounding 〈◊〉 words of the Psalmist Adore ye his Foot-stool to be meant of the Earth and by the Earth to be understood the Flesh of Christ he addeth that whereas Christ walked here in the Flesh and gave us that very flesh to be eaten for our Salvation and no man eateth that Flesh unless he have first adored we find saith he how such a Foot-stool of our Lord may be adored and that we do not only not sin in adoring but we sin in not adoring Viz. that Foot-stool of our Lord by which he said before was meant his most Holy Flesh And from whom did he learn this Doctrin but from the same Master from whom he learn't Christianity St. Ambrose who treating of the same place of the Psalmist saith By the Foot-stool is understood the Earth and by the Earth the Flesh of Christ which we adore also at this day in the Mysteries and which the Apostles adored in our Lord Jesus Upon this Account it is that St. Chrysostome exhorts Christians to this duty by the Example of the Wise-men These Men saith he though Barbarians after a long Journey adored this Body of our Lord in the Manger with great fear and trembling Let us imitate what they did Thou seest Him not in the Manger but on the Altar And then again by the Example of the Angels who saith he assist the Priest at the time of offring the Holy Sacrifice and the whole order of Heavenly Powers list up their Voices and the place round about the Altar is filled with the Quires of Angels in honour of Him who lyeth upon it And therfore it is called by St. Optatus the Seat or Throne of the Body of our Lord. Thus these Holy Men not as private Doctors delivering their own Opinions but as Fathers testifying and transmitting to Posterity the Doctrin and Practise of the Church of their time which was so notorious in this point of the Adoration of the Eucharist that the Heathens because they knew Christians made use of Bread and Wine in the Mysteries objected to them as St. Austin reports that they worshipped Ceres and Bacchus And hereupon Mr. Thorndike Epil 3. p. pag. 351. ingenuously saith I do believe that it was so practised and done in the ancient Church which I maintain from the beginning to have been the true Church of Christ For I do acknowledge the testimonies that are produced out of St. Ambrose St. Austin St. Chrysostome St. Gregory Nazianzen with the rest and more than I have produced And now it is in the Reader 's choice whether he will condemn so great and Holy Men and with them the Church of that time of Idolatry for adoring our Lord Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar or will absolve Uj for doing what they did It is with them we must stand or fall And the Doctor 's argument will make neither or both Idolaters But before I speak to that and that the Reader may see what force it is like to have behold how he ushers it in § 2. I proceeded saith he to the Adoration of the Host and here the argument I proposed was to take off the common answer viz. of Catholicks that it cannot be Idolatry because they believe the Bread to be God This is what the Doctor exposes in the front of his Rejoynder to publick view And if the Reader meet with such sophisticate Ware in the Mouth of the Sack What may he expect when he comes neerer to the bottom The argument I proposed saith he was to take off the Common Answer viz. of Catholicks that it cannot be Idolatry because they believe the Bread to be God And that too just as the Worshippers of the Sun believed the Sun to be God For upon the same ground he saith it is that they who believe the Sun to be God and worship him on that account would be excused from Idolatry too The unhandsomness of this Proceeding I fairly hinted to him in my Reply whereas I might justly have called it a most injurious calumny and it became an Ingenuous Writer either to have justified his charge or if he could not do that nor yet had humility enough to retract it to have wav'd at least the repeating it in his Answer But this he is so far from doing that without any proof at all what he did but insinuate before in the Body of his Argument he lays down now expresly in his Rejoinder as the Ground of his charge of
true notion of external sacrifice is when he takes it as distinguish'd from Prayer And it would seem as he saith p 159. very strange indeed that sacrifice so taken should be that Latria which is proper to God But it seems as strange to me that He should take it so when himself confesseth that those who did appropriate sacrifice to God by which it seems himself is none of them did comprehend Prayer as the most spiritual and acceptable part of it and that 〈…〉 that sacrifices of old were Solemn 〈◊〉 of supplication unless he meant to make his Reader believe that Catholicks wâ—â—en they speak of sacrifice as proper to Goâ— mean only the external action as distinguish'd from Prayer which as 〈◊〉 is far from the◠〈…〉 minds to think so the Doctor in applauding the Doctrine of the Heathens and siding with them against St. Austin manifestly shows that he judg'd the Argument of the Heathens more rational than St. Austin's Answer 3. His third Reason of dissatisfaction is p. 159. because upon the same account that the Heathen did give divine honour to their Inferiour Deities those of the Roman Church he saith do so to Angels and Saints But this hath been sufficiently refuted already in the First Chapter § 6. And at present there needs no more but to put down the Negatives to the Doctor 's Affiâ—matives viz. that Catholicks do not use Solemn Ceremonies of making any capable of Divine Worship nor set up the Images of the Saints or Angels for that End nor consecrate Temples and erect Altars to them or keep Festivals and burn Incense before them as Gods or offer sacrifice to them as the Heathens did even to their Inferiour Deities These are all such known Truths both from the Doctrine and Practice of Catholicks that nothing but a Prodigious deal of Zeal to fix the black note of Idolatry upon that Church from which the English Nation receiv'd the Faith of Christ could occasion the frequent repetition of so notorious a slander Nor doth the Doctor so much as offer to prove the contrary of any of these Negatives against the Church of Rome but only the last of not offering sacrifice to the Saints and Angels And here he thinks he hath found something to catch at because Bellarmin saith That the sacrifices of the Eucharist and of Lauds and Prayers are publickly offered to God for their honour But is this what the Fathers say of the Heathens worship of their Inferiour Deities that they offered sacrifices to God for their honour No they say expresly that the Heathens offered sacrifices to them and maintained that they ought to do so whereas yet Catholicks profess it ought not to be done even to the Holy Angels and Saints but only to God though as Bellarmin saith it may be offered to God in honorem in or as the Doctor translates it for their honour And this is but what St. Austin professed when he said that what is offered at the Memories of the Martyrs is offered to God who made them both Men and Martyrs and joyned them in Heavenly Honour with his Holy Angels that by this solemnity we may give thanks saith he to the true God for their Victories and be excited to imitate what they did and suffered But the Doctor saith p. 116. that to sacrifice to one for the honour of another is a thing beyond his reach if that sacrifice does not belong to him for whose honour it is offered I have heard that some Beggars have the skill to shrink up their Armes into their Sleeves as if they could not reach above a span from their shoulders And now I perceive there is an Art of shrinking up Understandings as well as Armes For who can believe it beyond Dr. St.'s reach to understand how sacrifice may be offered to God in honour or for the honour of the B. Virgin but that it must be offered to the B. Virgin her self and that so as not to honour God by it as he most uncharitably and unchristianly would make his Reader believe we do A sudden twitch by the hand will serve to pluck out the Beggar 's arm to its full length and because I am perswaâ—ed a home-example may do as much for a shrunkâ— up Understanding I must desire the Doctor to reflect whether it would not be for his honour that his whole Party should keep a Solemn Day of Thanksgiving for the Great Wit and burning Zeal with which the Lord hath endow'd Him to the utter confusion of the Popish Cause If he think this would be much foâ— his honour although the Thanks were given to God and not to him I hope it is not beyond his reach now to Understand that sacrifice also may be offered to God in thanksgiving for the great Vertues and Prerogatives he bestow'd upon the B. Virgin although the sacrifice be offered to God and not to her In◠〈…〉 Honour is nothing but a Testimony oâ— Protestation of some excellency and whether Thanks be given to God by words or by sacrifice for the Gifts and Graces he hath bestowed on such a Person it is an evident Protestation of such excellency in that Person and consequently for his honour though both words and sacrifice be directed to God and not to him His 4th and last Reason that although Catholicks do not call the Saints and Angels Gods yet they give them the Worship of Invocation and the honour of sacrifices which are only due to God This I say is but a Repetition of the Burden of the old Song of Julian the Apostate and Faustus the Manichaean and hath been at large refuted in the precedent discourse I shall only add two Testimonies for a farther confutation of it as sung over anew by the Doctor The first is of S. Austin We do not saith he erect Temples or ordain Priests nor make Dedications nor offer sacrifices to the Martyrs because not They but their God is our God We honour indeed their Memories as of Holy Men of God who fought for the Truth even to the loss of their Lives But we do not worship them with divine honours as the Heathens did their Gods nor do we offer sacrifice to them The second is of Bishop Mountague in his Treatise of Invocation of Saints p. 60. Where he telleth all who are or will be concern'd for Truth that the Doctors of the Church of Rome do teach that the Saints are no Immediate Intercessors for Us with God but whatsoever they obtain for Us at GOD's hands that they do obtain by and through Christ And it is saith he for ought I know the voice of every Romanist Non ipsi sancti sed eorum Deus Dominus nobis est that is Not the Saints themselves but their GOD is our Lord. So it must not be imputed which is not deserved Were they worse than they are it is a sin they say to bely the Devil a shame to charge Men with what they are not guilty of
and the other two places I but the word Pesel is oâ— so large a signification that he saith it properly signifies any thing that is carved out of Wood or Stone and being so often rendred by the Septuâ—gint a graven thing it is plain from thence saith he that when they translate it by an Idol they mean no more thereby than a graven Image But what a strange kind of consequence is this that because they oftentimes translate it a graven thing therefore when they translate it Idol they mean no more thereby than a graven thing As if the sense of a word of a stricter signification were to be regulated by another of a larger and not the more ample by the narrower especially in this place where the words Thou shalt not worship them nor serve them are as Tertullian above-cited saith a Restriction limiting the Generality of a Carved Image No assistance then can be given him from hence nor yet from the Alexandrian MS. rendring it glypton in the repetition of the Law Deut. 5. 8. nor its being translated â—ikoon Isa 40. 18. nor yet from the Vulgar Latin using Idolum Sculptile and Imago all to express the same thing Isa 44. 9 10 13. for in all these places as They may see who will look into them there is still some term or clause restraining the words Sculptile and Imago to signifie such a graven thing or Image as is made to be compared with God or to be the Object of Divine Worship that is to be an Idol from whence the contrary to what he infers is plain that when they translate it by graven Image they mean no more thereby than an IDOL As for that final Conclusion of his viz. By which it appears that any Image being made so far the Object of Divine Worship that men do bow down before it doth thereby become an Idol and on that account is forbidden in this Commandment not to spend time in divining what that is by which this appears it is so very mystical the Proposition it self 1. Supposes most falsely that to bow down before any Image though with intent to worship God is to make it the Object of Divine Worship and consequently an Idol 2. It contradicts also what he said before that to do so is Idolatry upon the quite contrary account viz. because it is forbidden as hath been shewn more at large above Let him not contradict Christs holy Spouse the Church if he will not contradict himself much less accuse her of Idolatry for worshipping God by bowing or kneeling before a Crucifix as the Jews were allowed to do by the like actions before the Ark and the Cherubins When he can prove this to be Idolatry from the Terms of the Law or any thing else he will do something Hitherto he hath done nothing there being not any one Term in the Law as I have shewed by which it is expresly prohibited to give Worship to God himself by an Image I advance now to his Second Proof drawn as he says from the Reason annexed to the Law CHAP. IV. Dr. St.'s Second Proof from the Reason of the Law Sophistical All Representations of God not dishonourable to him nor rejected as such by the Church of England The Proper Reason of the Law on Gods part assigned and asserted to be the Supream Excellency of his Nature § 1. THe Second Proof he brings p. 62. to shew that God in the second Commandment hath expresly prohibited the giving any Worship to himself by an Image is from the Reason annexed to it P. 58. And that he saith the Scripture tells us was derived from Gods Infinite and Incomprehensible Nature which could not be represented to men but in a way that must be an infinite disparagement to it I expected to find this Reason because he saith it is annexed to the Law either in the Law it self or in the Preface or in the Commination against the Transgressors of it but it seems he could not find it there himself and therefore he cites for it that Text of Isa 40. 18. To whom will ye liken God Or what likeness will ye compare to him And that of Deut. 4. 15 16. Take good heed to your selves c. for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you And the Consequence from all is a desire to know whether by this Reason God doth not declare that all Worship given to him by any visible Representation of him is extreamly dishonourable to him This is the Sum of his Discourse apt enough I confess to dâ—lude a vulgar Auditory out of the Pulpit but altogether empty and insignificant when brought to the Test of Reason as I shall make appear in this Chapter The Reader in the mean time may please to take notice that whereas he infers now onely from the Promisses That all Worship given to God by any visible Representation of him is extreamly dishonourable to him and not that it is flat Idolatry he is either grown kind all on the suddain or jealous that his Proof falls short of his Charge since every extreamly-great sin as Blasphemy and the like is extreamly dishonourable to God and yet not Idolatry As for the Conclusion it self whether and in what sense it may be true or false shall be examined below Let us see first what truth there is in the Antecedent from whence he infers it § 2. The Proposition he lays down for the Reason of the Law is this Gods Nature being Infinite and Incomprehensible cannot be represented to men but in a way that must be an infinite disparagement to it And if this be so what shall we say to one that should represent God in Picture as a Three-Corner'd Light casting out radiant Beams on all sides of it at a little distance a resplendent Cloud of Glory in a Circular form encompassing the Light Within the Cloud near to the Fountain of Brightness Angels adoring without the Cloud Faith and Religion praying and directly under it an Altar with an inflamed Heart offering it self in Sacrifice Would such a visible Representation as this be an infinite disparagement to God or no If my Adversary grant it as he must do if he speak consequently to himself then what becomes of the Church of England For in the Frontispiece of her Book of Common-Prayer Printed at London by Robert Barker 1642. in octavo this very Picture is exposed to the Eyes of all her People and to prevent their mistaking it as intended to represent any thing but God the incommunicable Name JEHOVAH is written in the midst of the Triangular Light and that in Hebrew Characters to strike no doubt a greater respect and reverence in the Beholders If he deny it to be an infinite disparagement then what becomes of his Fundamental Position that God being infinite and incomprehensible cannot be represented to men but in a way that must be an infinite disparagement to his Nature Whatever Calvin denies
that none of the Idols of the Heathen were to be compared to Him in Wisdom Greatness Power c. as is manifest he does from v. 12. to the end of the Chapter it is no more to the purpose for which he alledges it viz. Therefore it is forbidden to worship God himself by bowing or kneeling before an Image than if one should say There is no comparison for Riches and Greatness between a King and a Peasant therefore it is not lawful to give honour to the King by putting off ones Hat before his Picture or the Chair of State § 7. To the other Text of Deut. 4. 15. where Moses saith Take good heed to your selves for ye saw no manner of Similitude in the day that the Lord spake to you I answer That de facto no manner of Similitude was seen at that time by the People that afterwards they might not take occasion as they were apt enough to conceive it to have been a proper Representation of the Divinity and so entertain an erroneous Conceit of God Notwithstanding if it had so pleas'd him when he gave the Law he might have appeared to the People in some visible likeness without disparagement to his Nature as it is likely he did in a glorious manner to Moses at the Second giving of the Law when he descended and stood with him on the Rock and he saw the back parts of God and bowed to the Earth and worshipped Exod. 33. 23. 34. 5 8. and as both before and after he appeared to the Patriarchs and Prophets and consequently his not appearing so de facto could not be the Reason of the Law For as Dr. St. himself confesses very ingenuously p. 63. Although God had appeared with a Similitude then yet there might have been great reason for making a Law against worshipping the Heathen Idols or fixing the intention of their Worship upon the bare Image I add Even against thinking of honouring God by an Image made by men if that were the meaning of the Law as it is not since such a Law if necessary might have been made and would have obliged although God had chosen some visible likeness to appear in at that time The words then For ye saw no manner of Similitude on the day that the Lord spake to you though cited by the Doctor without a Parenthesis to make them seem of more force were not set down by Moses as the Reason of the Law But the matter of fact was made use of by him as a Motive to induce the People to the Observance of it in a Sermon he makes Deut. 4. to press them to that duty And this Explication also the Doctor might have found in his own Bible if he had but vouchsafed to cast his Eye upon the Contents of the Chapter where the whole Discourse is entituled An Exhortation to Obedience or on the Breviate on the top of the Page where the Arguments us'd in it are call'd Perswasions to Obedience But there was the word likeness in the first Text and Similitude in the second denied of God and these were enough without considering the Context or the intent of the Writer or the Contents of the Chapters to ask Whether God by that Reason doth not declare that all Worship given to him by any visible Representation of him is extreamly dishonourable to him Now though Protestants may hold with Dr. St. that the Scripture is the most certain Rule of their Faith yet unless they wilfully shut their Eyes they cannot think the Method he takes to be the most certain way to find out its Sense But to draw to a Conclusion in this matter § 8. Let us suppose the Argument notwithstanding all that hath been said to shew its deficiency in all its parts to be good and sound and that in its largest extent viz. The Nature of God being infinite and incomprehensible cannot be represented to men but in a way that must be an infinite disparagement to it Let us grant I say this Antecedent and the Places of Scripture in the sense they are cited by him Let us grant the Consequence too he infers from them Therefore all Worship given to Him by any visible Representation of him whether Proper or Analogical is extreamly dishonourable to him Suppose I say all this to be so Will it follow from hence that Christ according to his Humanity cannot be represented but with great disparagement to Him Or that to put off our Hats when we behold the Figure of his Sacred Body as Nailed upon the Cross with intent to Worship Him must be extremly dishonourable to Him What if the Soul of Man be Invisible and cannot be represented by any Corporeal Figure or Colours Will it follow from thence that any Picture made to represent a Prince according to his External Features would be a disparagement to him and any Honour given him by means of such a Representation a Dishonour The Consequence he brings is no better in order to Christ and his Image If then his Argument do not at all concern the practise of Catholicks in making the Images of Christ and his Saints with respect to their Honour to what purpose was it to lay down for the Reason of the Law in which he will have it to be forbidden That God's Nature being Infinite and Incomprehensible could not be represented without infinite disparagement to it To what purpose was it to spend no less than three Pages as he does § 6. in citing Authours to prove that the Wiser Persons of the Heathens themselves condemned the Worship of God by Images as incongruous to a Divine Nature Was it to make his Reader believe that Catholicks allow of any Pictures as proper Representations of the Invisible Deity Let him lay his Hand upon his Heart I have told him the Churches Sense in that Point What those Wiser Persons of the Heathens meant is evident from their Words and from the Time in which they lived to be this That the Nature of God being Spiritual and Invisible it could not be represented by any thing like unto it and therefore the Worship which the People gave to their Images as Gods or like unto the Gods they worshipped was incongruous to the Divine Nature and a disparagement to the Deity And if the Germans as Tacitus reporteth de morib German c. 9. rejected Images made in the likeness of men which the Doctor conveniently leaves out because they thought them unsuitable to the Greatness of Celestial Deities for Other Figures and Symbols they had in their consecrated Groves as the same Tacitus there witnesseth and Dr. St. suppresseth it was but what the Light of Nature taught them concerning the notion of a Deity which had the mystery of God made Man been revealed to them would have taught them also that it was no disparagement to Him to be represented in the likeness of Man and to be worshipped by such an Image His other Citations I took upon his word without
that it carries not the show of a Probability For if the Bread be converted into that Body of Christ which is hypostatically united with the divine nature and not meerly into that but into the Person of Christ does it follow that he hath as many Bodies hypostatically united to him as there are Elements consecrated No more than because the Bread the Flesh the Fish which he eat upon Earth were converted into the substance of his Body and hypostatically united to him it follows that he had as many bodies hypostatically united to him as there were several meats eaten by him Before Digestion or Conversion they were distinct by Conversion they were made the same body But if this will not serve the turn he wants not a false supposition to blind his Reader with Viz. that we make the Elements i.e. the Accidents of Bread for we we will have nothing else remain after Consecration in spight he says of all the reason and sense of the World the Object of divine worship But the falsity of this supposition I shall make appear in the next Chapter together with his mistake if it be no more of the meaning of the Council of Trent CHAP. II. The true State of the Controversy laid open together with the Doctor 's Endeavours to misrepresent it His manner of arguing against the Adoration of Christ in the Eucharist equally destructive to the adoration of Him as God § 1. IN pursuance of his former design my Adversary will now undertake p. ii4 to prove yet further 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 this he hopes will abundantly add to the discoâ—ering of 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 he can come to this he must needs mistake or rather mis-state the Controversy which he does in most ample manner when after a great many Preambles for three whole Pages together no more to the purpose than the Flourishes of a great Text-letter are to the force of a Bond he tells the Reader at length that the state of the Controversy between us is whether proper divine worship may be given to the Elements i. e. the Accidents on account of Christ's corporal presence under them But whatever Divines dispute concerning the Worship of the Accidents the Object of Catholicks Adoration as Dr. Taylor ingenuously confesses Viz. What is represented to them in their mind their thoughts and purposes in the B. Sacrament is the only true and Eternal God hypostatically joined with his Holy Humanity And consequently the Question between us is Whether supposing our Lord Christ to be really present under the Sacramental signs the same proper divine worship be not to be given to him there which is due to his Person wherever it is present by hypostatical union with his sacred Humanity Let the Doctor do thus and we have no quarrel with him which is an evident sign that the Question between us is not as he says whether the same Adoration ought to be given to the Accidents which we would give to the very Person of Christ But what may not be venture to say who had the confidâ—nce to advance so notorious a calumny as that it is our common answer in this matter to excuse our selves from Idolatry that we believe the Bread to be God I told the Reader what he was like to find neer the bottom of the Sack when he met with such sophistical Ware at the very top But the Doctor pretends he hath something to say here in his defence and it is this that the Council of Trent hath expresly determin'd that there is no manner of doubt left but that 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 But who tells him that the Council here by the word Sacrament means only the Signs or Accidents of Bread Why may it not mean the Holy Victime which is dispensed from the Altar as St. Austin did when he said that his Mother St. Monica had tied her Soul fast to this Sacrament by the bond of Faith If the Council may be allowed to explicate its own meaning we shall find the sense of the word to be the Body of Christ and with it his Divinity under the Sacramental Veil for the reason it gives in the words immediately following which the Doctor conveniently leaves out of this adoration is because we believe the same God to be present in it of whom the Eternal Father said Let all the Angels of God adore him And this is yet more plain from the 6th Canon where the Anathema is denounced against those who shall say that in the most H. Sacrament of the Eucharist the only begotten of God is not to be adored with the worship of Latria But let the Council say what it will Dr. St. says that by the Sacrament it must understand the Elements or Accidents as the Immediate term of that divine worship or else the latter words that the Sacrament ought not less to be adored because it was instituted to be taken signify nothing at all And why so Do Catholicks understand nothing by the Sacrament but the Accidents Or was nothing instituted to be taken but the bare signs of Bread and Wine Dr. St. is or would be an Author of great Authority and from his own Confession we have it p. 111. that the Holy Sacrament according to Catholicks is the Body of Christ under the Accidents of Bread These are his own words and if he will not believe the Council let him believe himself whether he do so or no 〈◊〉 proceeding upon his supposition that proper divine worship is to be given to the Accidents he affirms p. 118. that this is not denied that he knows of by any who understand the Doctrine or Practise of the Roman Church I leave to the Reader to judg when he shall have heard what Bellarmin an Author not unacquainted with the Doctrin and Practise of the Church says in this matter There is not saith he any one Catholick who teaches that the External Symbols per se that is absolutely and properly are to be adored with the worship of Latria but only to be reverenced with a certain inferiour worship which is due to all Sacraments What we affirm is that Christ is properly and per se to be adored with the worship of Latria and that this adoration belongs also to the Symbols of Bread and Wine under which he is contained as they are apprehended united with him in such manner as those who adored him apparl'd upon Earth did not adore him alone but quodammodo in a certain kind his Garments also For neither
a God But then again supposing the honour which Cornelius there intended to have been only an Inferiour respect as to a Holy Man and that St. Peter as St. Chrysostome thinketh refused it out of Humility or as the Doctor terms it Modesty Does that hinder but that upon another occasion he might have admitted it without danger to his Modesty and much more securely now that He is in Heaven For my part I believe that the Prophet Elizeus lost nothing of his Modesty or Humility when the Sunamitess fell down and held Him by the Feet and He forbad his Servant to thrust Her away To accept or refuse due honour is a matter belonging to Prudence and as sometimes it may be refused with vain glory so at an other it may be admitted with Humility What a Caprichio then was it to say that if we impute it only to St. Peter 's Modesty we will not allow him to carry it to Heaven with him as if St. Peter could not without forfeit forsooth of his Modesty have seen Christians do to him what they every Day do to one another in the Church § 3. The Second thing he hints at is that we can never be sure that the Saints do hear us therefore it must be unlawful or as he would make it Idolatrous to desire them to pray for us To this I answer first that this can be no excuse for him not to desire the Angels to pray for him for it is certain by many Texts of Holy Scripture that they know our necessities and prayers as Dan. 12. 1. At that time shall Michael stand up that great Prince which standeth for the Children of thy People Zach. 1. 12. The Angel of the Lord said O Lord of Hosts how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem and on the Cities of Juda against which thou hast had Indigration these threescore and ten Years Psal 137. 2. I will sing unto thee in the sight or presence of the Angels Luc. 15. 7. There shall be Joy in Heaven and V. 10. There shall be Joy before the Angels of God upon one Sinner that doth Penance Apoc. 8. 4. The smoke of the Incenses of the Prayers of the Saints ascended from the hand of the Angel before God All these places and divers others do manifestly show that our Prayers and Actions are not unknown to the Angels And whereas our Saviour himself saith that the Just in the Resurrection shall be as the Angels in Heaven Matth. 22. 30. the equality as to knowledge not depending upon the Body it follows by the Analogy of Faith that our prayers and concerns are known also to the Saints now enjoying the same Blissful Vision with the Angels and they no doubt rejoice as much at the Conversion of a Sinner as the Angels do and of them it is recorded also Apoc. 5. 8. as well as of the Angels that they had golden Vials full of Odours which are the prayers of Saints that is of the Faithful upon Earth who are here called Saints as they are often in other places of Holy Scripture also To this I might add the Incomparable perfection of the knowledge which the Blessed enjoy in Heaven with many other arguments both from Authority and Reason brought by Catholick Divines to prove this Tenet But because the Doctor brings nothing to prove the contrary viz. that the Saints do not hear us besides his own Ipse dixit I shall not inlarge further upon this Point but give him all the fair play he can desire which is to suppose with him at present that the Saints do not hear our prayers But will it follow from thence that it is unlawful or Idolatrical to desire their Intercession I answer 2dly with Bellarmine and deny the Consequence 1. Because although Protestant Writers do cite some of the Fathers as expressing themselves doubtfully whether the Saints hear our prayers or no yet supposing this to be as those Protestants would have it this was no Argument to those very Fathers not to call upon the Saints in particular to pray for them as is manifest from their own doctrin and practise by what hath been said above and from the Confession of Protestants themselves 2. Because it is certain by many and great Miracles wrought by God upon Addresses made to the Saints that those who call upon them are heard and obtain what they desire And for the Protestant Reader 's satisfaction in this Point I shall set down some of them as they stand recorded in the Works of St. Basil Theodoret and St. Austin witnesses of too great Authority and Integrity to be question'd much less rejected as Writers of Fables or Romances 1. St. Basil in his Hâ—mily upon the 40. Martyrs after he had told his Auditors that there was Help prepared for Christians Viz. The Church of the Martyrs and that those who had taken pains to find one to pray for them had here no less than Forty and that it was the practise of Christians at that time for those who were in Tribulation or Joy to fly and have recourse to the Forty Martyrs those for deliverance from their Troubles and these for the Conservation of their Prosperity he adds Here a Pious Mother praying for her Children is accepted or heard as also asking a safâ— return for her Husband when in a Journey or health for him in sickness Let us therefore pour forth our Prayers with these Holy Martyrs The Doctor will be apt to catch at these last words as if St. Basil meant that Christians were only to join their prayers with the Prayers of the Martyrs and not to desire them to pray for them But this exception is excluded by what he said before that those who are in Affliction fly and have recourse to the Martyrs themselves which practise of the People saith Dr. Forbes the first Bishop of Edinburgh had not St. Basil approved he would never have proposed as an Example to be imitated and with him agrees Vossius there cited by him 2dly Theodoret is yet more express in this matter Li. 8. de Graec. Affect The Temples of the Martyrs saith he are conspicuous and Illustrious both for their Greatness and Beauty Nor do we frequent them only once or twice or five times in a year but we celebrate frequent Assemblies in them and often sing praises every Day to the Lord of those Martyrs Those who are in good health begg of the Martyrs the conservation of it and such as are afflicted with any disease beg health Those who are barren pray that they may have Children and those who have Children that they may be preserved to them In like manner those who travel desire the Martyrs to be the companions or rather Guides of their Journey and those who return safe return also to give thanks for the benefit they have received Not that they imagin they go to Gods but they beseech and pray the Martyrs of God as Heavenly Men to
condescended to go with the third who fell on his Knees before Him And I would gladly be inform'd what Evil at all it would be to set a Saint were he present in some higher Place in the Church as we do a Bishop for the People to see Him and desire his Prayers Perhaps it is the smoke of the Incense which troubles his Eyes that he cannot distinguish between the use of it as applyed to God and as applyed to his Servants or other things relating to him But this being of its own nature an indifferent Ceremony as bowing and kneeling also are and not appropriated at least in the new Law to the worship of God it is in the freedome of the Church to determine how and when it shall be used And as when we kneel to God that posture is a sign of the soveraign honour we give to him as the Lord of all things but when we do it to a Holy Man or our Parents it is but a sign of an Inferiour respect due to them So likewise the Ceremony of Incense when directed to God signifies the worship we owe to him but to Holy Persons or things an Inferiour respect or veneration to them for his sake The use of it is very ancient as Bellarmin shows and the significations many and very fitly adapted to the Publick Service of God as well for the Reverence of the Place as to mind us of the Inaccessible Glory of God who appeared in a Cloud and the sweet Odour our Prayers are to him if sent up from a heart inflamed with the love of God This then being the Intention of Catholick People in the use of these and the like Ceremonies viz. to give only a Honourary respect or Veneration to the Saints and to desire them only to pray for us it is evident that neither in the place nor the time nor the manner any incroachment at all is made upon the worship and service due to God alone and all the Dr. hath done in this Paragraff was to endeavour to tye a knot in a Bull-rush when he could find none and the matter was so brittle that it would not hold the tying CHAP. VI. Of the Practise of Christian People in St. Austin's time in the Invocation of Saints § 1. THe second Answer I gave to the Dr.'s Injurious Parallel of the Heathens Worship of their Inferiour Deities and the worship given by Catholicks to the Saints was that the same Calumny as St. Austin calls it was cast upon the Catholicks in his time and is answered by him and his Answer will serve now as well as then That Himself held such Formal Invocation a part of the Worship due to Saints as is evident from the Prayer he made to St. Cyprian after his Martyrdome Let B. Cyprian therefore help us with his Prayers c. And for a farther Confirmation of it I added that Calvin himself acknowledgeth it was the custome at that time to say Holy Mary or Holy Peter pray for us The Dr. comes now as he saith p. 170. to consider the Answer of St. Austin whether it will serve to vindicate us now as well as then And I must desire the Reader to take the pains to peruse attentively the words of St. Austin as they stand cited in the Reply and the Doctor 's Considerations upon them for himself thought not fit to call them an Answer that by his Performance in this Point he may see to what miserable shifts and disengenuous Arts they are put who will shut their Eyes and fight against the light of a Noon-day Truth § 2. His first Consideration is that Sr. Austin utterly denies that any Religious worship was performed to the Martyrs And how could he affirm this if he had not shut his Eyes when St. Austin says expresly in the place cited that it was the custom of the Christian People in his time to celebrate with Religious Solemnity the Memories of the Martyrs That the Reader might not see this Contradiction he corrupts the words of St. Austin by translating them after his mode Viz. It was the Custome of the Christians in his time to have their Religious Assemblies at the Sepulchres or Memories of the Martyrs As if their Meetings were only to honour God in Himself and not his Martyrs for his sake But this is both expresly opposite to the words themselves and is refuted by St. Austin himself when having admitted in Answer to Faustus his Objection that Christians did celebrate the Memories of the Martyrs with Religious Solemnity he declares himself not to speak of that Religious Worship which is due only to God but such a kind of worship with which even Holy Men in this life are worshipped We worship therefore saith he the Martyrs with that worship of Love and Society c. But we worship them so much more devoutly than we do Holy Men upon Earth because more securely after they have overcome all the Dangers and Incertainties of this Life He that hath but half an Eye open must see that St. Austin speaks here of the Worship which the Christians of his time gave to the Martyrs themselves And that the Dr. doth but Equivocate in the term Religious worship which may reasonably be applyed to the honour due to the Saints as I shewed above in the 2d Chap. And whereas he saith that I conveniently left out what St. Austin adds 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. John to fall down and Worship Him had He not conveniently put those words any other Religious honour into the Text for they are not in St. Austin he had had nothing to blind his Reader with and yet as himself cites the words it is evident that St. Austin speaks of such Religious honour as is due to God himself Whoever looks into the Text which I omitted only for brevities sake will judge he had done much more conveniently for his cause had he left it out § 3. His second Consideration is p. 171 that Invocation is expresly excluded by St. Austin as no part of the Worship due to Saints And how again without shutting his Eyes could he affirm this when St. Austin expresly says that Christians did celebrate the Memories of the Martyrs with Religious Solemnity not only to excite to the Imitation of their Vertues but also to be partakers of their Merits and to obtain help by their Prayers This he conveniently avoids the repeating of and slies for refuge to another place of St. Austin where he saith 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 Confession of Him they are named in their place and order but are not invocated by the Priest who sacrifices And here he thinks he hath done our work for
Forb as this could pass for current in the World Is it possible he could have courage enough to cite the place where those words are to be found and not fear a Rat Observe I pray What St. Austin condemns in that place is this that some who brought Wine and Meat to the Sepulchers of the Martyrs took so plentifully of them that they made themselves drunk His words are these As for those who make themselves drunk at the Sepulchers of the Martyrs how can they be approved by us whom sound Doctrine condemns even when they do it in their own private Houses This was the custome of which St. Austin saith that the Governours of the Church did not teach it but bore with till it could be amended And the Doctor had the Conscience by a subtil Insinuation to make his Reader believe that what St. Austin condemned was the desiring or as he calls it wishing the Martyrs to pray for them I shall leave him to make satisfaction to God and the World and proceed to that which he calls the Question between us § 5. The Question between us saith he is not how far such wishes rather than prayers 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. Austin's time This he utterly denies and here saith he p. 174. we stand and fix our Foot against all opposition whatsoever Thus expiring Candle gathers up its spirits and forces it self into a blaze before it dies Alas that so many learned Men should all this while have been mistaken in the Question that they should have spent so much oyl and sweat to no purpose The great Question hitherto controverted between Catholicks and Protestants was held to be Whether it be lawful to Invocate the Saints to pray for Us and whether this were agreeable to the practise of the Primitive times But now like a mischievous Card that will spoil the hand this is dropt under the Table and all the show above-board is whether it may be done in the duties as he calls them of Religious Worship He saw how often his Foot had slipt whilst he endeavoured to stand upon the denial of its being the custome of the Fathers to desire the Saints to pray for them and therefore he catches hold of this Twigg to save himself but in vain for Bishop Forbes confesses that it was their custome to do so both in publick and private prayers although he be loath to give it any other name but that of wishing But Chemnitius That great Light of the German Church as our Doctor calls him in his Irenicum p. 396. where he sets him in the Van for asserting the mutability of Church-Government and of whom he saith Brightman had so high an Opinion as to make Him to be one of the Angels in the Churches of the Revelation this great Man without mincing the matter acknowledges freely that Invocation of Saints began to be brought into the publick Assemblies of the Church by Basil Nissen and Nazianzen who lived in the Century before St. Austin and could little doubt of the Continuance of it in St. Austin's time when he witnesseth that Christian People did then celebrate the Memories of the Martyrs with Religious Solemnity to obtain the Assistance of their Prayers But who can tell us what the Doctor means by the duties of Religious Worship If he mean hearing of Sermons which is so much cry'd up by those of his Party as if it were the Pro and Poop of Religion though the Author of the Causes of the Decay of Christian Piety Ch. 18. call it the most lazie of all Religious Offices he knows the Invocation of Saints was both commended and practised in their Sermons by St. Basil Hom. in 40. Mart. S. Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 20. 21. S. Greg. Nissen Orat. des Theodoro and others If he mean the Letanies although the use of them began to be more solemn in the time of Gregory the Great yet Strabo affirms that that form of Invocating the Saints was believed to be much more Ancient Viz. from the time that St. Hierom translated the Epitome of Eusebius his Martyrologe into Latin or as others explicate his meaning before that time but not in so great a number But then again if he speak of that Part of the Mass which was anciently called the Mass of the Catechumeni and serves as a Preparatory devotion both to Priest and People the Priest indeed before he ascends to the Altar desires the B. Virgin and the rest of the Saints as also the People to pray to our Lord God for him and in the Versicles between the Epistle and Gospel there are some Instances though very rare of Holy Mary or Holy Paul pray for us but as these are not excluded by St. Austin who speaks only of the Priest's directing his Invocation to God alone in the offering of the sacrifice so neither can the Doctor give any satisfactory Reason why the Priest may not lawfully use it then especially being appointed by the Church as in his private Oratory But if he mean that Part of the Mass which begins from the Offertory and was anciently call'd the Mass of the Faithful in which the Priest addresses himself expresly to Offer up the sacrifice of the New Testament which Christ hath Instituted in his own Body and Blood Let him if he can for he saith he hath look'd into our Missals produce any one Instance of Formal Invocation to any Saint or Angel There they are named at this day as they were in St. Austin's time in their place and Order but are not Invocated by the Priest that Sacrifices So that in this which is the most proper and peculiar duty of Religious Worship as I have shown in the 3d. Chap. it was accounted by St. Austin there is a most perfect Conformity between the Primitive and Modern Church and the difference in other less solemn parts of Devotion not at all material as hath been shewed § 6. In the last place p. 174. the Doctor saith He is sent from S. Austin to Calvin whose Authority though never owned as Infallible by Him he need not as he saith fear in this point and therefore the Errand if he will have it so could not be ungrateful I may well think his heart leap'd for joy to hear Calvin alledged for a witness that it was the custome in St. Austin's time to say Holy Peter pray for Us and thereupon as if the day were his own he says He cannot but wonder that if I saw the words in Calvin or Bellarmin that I would produce them But hold Have not I more Reason to wonder at his wonder if it be true what Himself makes Calvin to say Viz. That the Council of Carthage did forbid praying to Saints lest the publick prayers should be corrupted by such kind