Burnet on Article XXII: Of Purgatory

THERE are two small Variations in this Article from that published in King Edward’s Reign. What is here called the Romish Doctrine, is there called the Doctrine of School-men. The plain reason of this, is, that these Errors were not so fully espoused by the Body of the Roman Church, when those Articles were first published, so that some Writers that softened matters threw them upon the School-men; and therefore the Article was cautiously worded, in laying them there: But before these that we have now, were published, the Decree and Canons concerning the Mass had passed at Trent, in which most of the Heads of this Article are either affirmed or supposed; though the formal Decree concerning them, was made some Months after these Articles were published. This will serve to justifie that diversity. The second difference is only the leaving out a severe word. Perniciously repugnant to the Word of God, was put at first; but perniciously being considered to be only a hard word, they judged very right in the Second Edition of them, that it was enough to say repugnant to the Word of God.

There are in this Article five Particulars that are all Ingredients in the Doctrine and Worship of the Church of Rome, Purgatory, Pardons, the Worship of Images, and of Relicks, and the Invocation of Saints; that are rejected not only as ill grounded, brought in and maintained without good warrants from the Scripture, but as contrary to it.

The first of these is Purgatory; concerning which, the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, is that every Man is liable both to Temporal and to Eternal Punishment for his Sins; that God upon the Account of the Death and Intercession of Christ, does indeed pardon Sin as to its Eternal Punishment; but the Sinner is still liable to Temporal Punishment, which he must expiate by Acts of Pennance and Sorrow in this World, together with such other Sufferings as God shall think fit to lay upon him; but if he does not expiate these in this Life, there is a State of Suffering and Misery in the next World, where the Soul is to bear the Temporal punishment of its Sins; which may continue longer or shorter, till the Day of Judgment. And in order to the shortening this, the Prayers and Supererogations of Men here on Earth, or the Intercession of the Saints in Heaven, but above all things, the Sacrifice of the Mass are of great Efficacy. This is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, asserted in the Councils of Florence and Trent. What has been taught among them concerning the Nature and the Degrees of those Torments, though supported by many pretended Apparitions and Revelations, is not to be imputed to the whole Body; and is indeed only the Doctrine of Schoolmen, though it is generally preached and infused into the Consciences of the People. Therefore I shall only examine that which is the established Doctrine of the whole Roman Church. And first as to the Foundation of it, that Sins are only pardoned as to their Eternal Punishment, to those who being justified by faith have peace with God through our Lord Iesus Christ. ¹ There is not a colour for it in the Scriptures. Remission of Sins is in general that with which the Preaching of the Gospel ought always to begin; and this is so often repeated, without any such reserve, that it is a high assuming upon God, and his Attributes of Goodness and Mercy, to limit these when he has not limited them; but has expresly said, that this is a main part of the New Covenant,² that he will remember our sins and iniquities no more. Now it seems to be a Maxim, not only of the Law of Nations, but of Nature, that all offers of Pardon are to be understood in the full extent of the Words, without any secret Reserves or Limitations; unless they are plainly expressed. An Indemnity being offered by a Prince to persuade his Subjects to return to their Obedience, in the fullest Words possible, without any reserves made in it, it would be lookt on as a very perfidious thing, if when the Subjects come in upon it, trusting to it, they should be told that they were to be secured by it against Capital Punishments; but that as to all Inferior Punishments, they were still at Mercy. We do not dispute whether God, if he had thought fit so to do, might not have made this distinction; nor do we deny that the Grace of the Gospel had been infinitely valuable, if it had offered us only the Pardon of Sin with relation to its Eternal Punishment, and had left the Temporal Punishment on us, to be expiated by our selves; but then we say, this ought to have been expressed: The Distinction ought to have been made between Temporal and Eternal; and we ought not to have been drawn into a Covenant with God, by words that do plainly import an intire Pardon and Oblivion, upon which there lay a limited Sense, that was not to be told the World till it was once well engaged in the Christian Religion. Upon these Reasons it is, that we conclude that this Doctrine not being contained in the Scriptures, is not only without any warrant in them, but that it is contrary to those full offers of Mercy, Peace, and Oblivion, that are made in the Gospel; it is contrary to the Truth and Veracity, and to the Justice and Goodness of God, to affirm that there are Reserves to be understood for Punishments, when the Offers and Promises are made to us in such large and unlimited Expressions.

Thus we lay our Foundation in this matter, which does very fully overthrow theirs. We do not deny but that God does in this World punish good Men for those Sins, which yet are forgiven them through Christ,³ according to these words in the Psalm, Thou wast a God that forgavest them, though thou tookest vengeance of their inventions: But this is a consideration quite of another nature. God in the Government of this World, thinks fit by his Providence sometimes to interpose in visible Blessings, as well as Judgments, to shew how he protects and favours the Good, and punishes the Bad; and that the bad Actions of good Men are odious to him, even though he has recieved their Persons into his favour. He has also in the Gospel plainly excepted the Government of this World, and the secret Methods of his Providence out of the Mercy that he has promised, by the Warnings that are given to all Christians to prepare for Crosses and Afflictions in this Life. He has made Faith and Patience in Adversities a main Condition of this New Covenant; he has declared that these are not the Punishments of an Angry God, but the Chastisements of a Kind and Merciful Father, who designs by them both to shew to the World, the Impartiality of his Justice in punishing some crying Sins, in a very signal manner, and to give good Men deep Impressions of their odiousness, to oblige them to a severer Repentance for them, and to a greater Watchfulness against them; as also to give the World such Examples of Resignation and Patience under them, that they may edify others by that, as much as by their Sins they may have offended them. So that upon all these Accounts, it seems abundantly clear, that no Argument can be drawn from the Temporal Punishments of good Men, for their Sins in this World, to a reserve of others in another State. The one are clearly mentioned and reserved in the offers of Mercy, that are made in the Gospel, whereas the others are not. This being the most plausible thing that they say for this Distinction of those twofold Punishments, it is plain that there is no foundation for it.

As for those words of Christ’s,⁴ Ye shall not come out till ye have paid the uttermost farthing; from which they would infer that there is a State in which, after we shall be cast into Prison, we are paying off our Debts; this, if an Argument at all, will prove too much; that in Hell the Damned are clearing Scores; and that they shall be delivered when all is paid off. For by Prison there, that only can be meant, as appears by the whole Contexture of the Discourse, and by other Parables of the like nature. It is a Figure taken from a Man Imprisoned for a great Debt, and the continuance of it, till the last Farthing is paid, does imply their perpetual Continuance in that State, since the Debt is too great to be ever paid off: From a Phrase in a Parable, no Consequence is to be drawn, beyond that which is the true Scope of the Parable, which in this particular, is only intended by our Saviour, to shew the severe Punishment of those, who hate implacably, which is a Sin that does certainly deserve Hell, and not Purgatory.

Our Saviour’s Words concerning the Sin against the Holy Ghost, That it is neither forgiven in this Life, nor in that which is to come;⁵ is also urged to prove that some Sins are pardoned in the next Life, which are not pardoned in this. But still this will seem a stronger Argument against the Eternity of Hell-Torments, than for Purgatory; and will rather import that the Damned may at last be pardoned their Sins, since these are the only Persons whose Sins are not pardoned in this World; for of those who are justified, it cannot be said, that their Sins are not forgiven them, and such only go to Purgatory: Therefore, either this is only a general way of speaking, to exclude all hopes of Pardon, and to imply that God’s Judgments will pursue such Blasphemers, both in this Life, and in the next; or if we will understand them more critically, by this Life, or this Age, and the next, according to a common Opinion and Phrase of the Iews, which is founded on the Prophecies, are to be understood the Dispensation of the Law, and the Dispensation of the Messias; the Age to come being a common Phrase for the times of the Messias; according to those Words in the Epistle to the Hebrews, ⁶ He hath not put in subjection to Angels the world to come: By the Mosaical Law, Sacrifices were only received, and by consequence Pardon was offered for Sins of a less heinous Nature; but those that were more heinous were to be punished by Death, or by cutting off without Mercy; whereas a full promise of the Pardon of all Sins is offered in the Gospel: So that the meaning of these words of Christ’s, is, that such a Blasphemy was a Sin not only beyond the Pardon offered in the Law of Moses, which was the Age that then was, but that it was a Sin beyond that Pardon which was to be offered by the Messias in the Age to come, that is, in the Kingdom of Heaven, that was then at hand. But these Words can by no means be urged to prove this Distinction of Temporal and Eternal Punishment; therefore we must conclude, that since Repentance and Remission of Sins are joyned together in the first Commission to Preach the Gospel;⁷ and since Life, Peace, and Salvation, are promised to such as believe, that all this is to be understood simply and plainly, without any other Limitation or Exception than that which is expressed, which is only of such Chastisements as God thinks fit to exercise good Men with in this Life.

In the next place, we shall consider what reason we have to reject the Doctrine of Purgatory; as we have already seen how weak the Foundation is upon which it is built. The Scripture speaks to us of Two States after this Life, of Happiness, and Misery; and as it divides all Mankind into good and bad, into those that do Good, and those that do Evil, into Believers and Unbelievers, Righteous and Sinners; so it proposes always the end of the one to be everlasting Happiness, and the end of the other to be everlasting Punishment, without the least hint of any Middle State after Death. So that it is very plain there is nothing said in Scripture, of Men too good to be Damned, but not so good as to be immediately Saved. Now if there had been yet a great deal to be suffered after Death, and that there were many very effectual ways to prevent and avoid, or at least to shorten those Sufferings; and if the Apostles knew this, and yet said not a Word of it, neither in their first Sermons, nor in their Epistles; here was a great Treachery in the discharge of their Function, and that to the Souls of Men, not to warn them of their Danger, nor to direct them to the proper Methods of avoiding it; but on the contrary, to speak and write to them, just as we can suppose Impostors would have done, to terrify those who would not receive their Gospel, with Eternal Damnation, but not to say a Word to those who received it, of their danger, in case they lived not up to that Exactness that their Religion required, and yet upon the main adhered to it, and followed it. This is a Method that does not agree with common Honesty, not to say Inspiration. A fair way of proceeding, is to make Men sensible of Dangers of all sorts, and to shew them how to avoid them: The Apostles told their Converts, That through much tribulation we must enter into the Kingdom of Heaven;⁸ they assur[?]d them, That their present sufferings were not worthy to be compared to the Glory that was to be revealed: and that those light afflictions which are for a moment, wrought for them a more exceeding and eternal weight of Glory. ⁹ Here, if they knew any thing of Purgatory, a powerful Consideration was past over in silence, that by these Afflictions they should be delivered from those Torments.

This Argument goes further than meer Silence; though that is very strong. The Scriptures speak always as if the one did immediately follow the other; and that the Saints or true Christians pass from the Miseries of this State, to the Glories of the next. So does our Saviour represent the matter in the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Glu[?] ton; whose Souls were presently carried to their different abodes. the one to be comforted, as the other was tormented. He promised also to the repenting Thief, To day thou shalt be with me in Paradise. ¹⁰ St. Paul comforts himself in the apprehension of his dissolution that was approaching, with the prospect of the crown of righteousness that should be given him after death,¹¹ and so he states these two as certain Consequents one of another, to be dissolved and to be with Christ, ¹² to be absent from the body and present with the Lord: And he makes it appear that it was no peculiar Privilege that he promised to himself, but that which all Christians had a Right to expect; for he says in general; this we know, that if our earthly house of this Tabernacle be dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands eternal in the heavens. In the Epistle to the Hebrews the Patriarchs under the Old Dispensation, are represented as looking for that City whose builder and founder is God: Though in that State the manifestations of another Life were more imperfect than in this: In which life and immortality are brought to light; they being veiled and darkned in that State. And finally St. Iohn heard a voice commanding him to Write, Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord (that is, being true Christians) from henceforth (or immediately) yea, ¹³ saith the Spirit; that they may rest from their labours, and their works do follow them. The solemnity in which these words are delivered, carry in them an Evidence sufficient to determine the whole matter. So that we must have very hard thoughts of the sincerity of the Writers of the New Testament, and very much disparage their Credit, not to say their Inspiration, if we can imagine that there are Scenes of Suffering, and those very dismal ones to be gon through, of which they gave the World no sort of notice: But spoke in the same style that we do, who believe no such dismal Interval between the Death of good Men and their final Blessedness. The Scriptures do indeed speak of a full reward, and of different Degrees in Glory, as one Star exceeds another. They do also represent the Day of Judgment upon the Resurrection of the Body,¹⁴ as that which gives the full and entire possession of Blessedness; so that from hence some have thought upon very probable Grounds, that the Blessed, though admitted to Happiness immediately upon their Death, yet were not so compleatly Happy as they shall be after the Resurrection: And in this there arose a diversity of Opinions, which is very natural to all who will go and form Systems out of some general Hints. Some thought that the Souls of good Men were at Rest, and in a good measure Happy, but that they did not see God before the Resurrection. Others thought that Christ was to come down and Reign visibly upon Earth a Thousand Years before the End of the World: And that the Saints were to rise and to Reign with him, some sooner and some later. Some thought that the last Conflagration was so to aff[?]ct all, that every one was to pass through it, and that it was to give the last and highest Purification to those Bodies, that were then to be glorified; but that the better Christians that any had been, they should feel the less of the Pain of that last Fire. These Opinions were very early entertained in the Church: An itch of intruding too far into things which Men did not throughly understand, concerning Angels, began to disturb the Church, even in the days of the Apostles: which made St. Paul charge the Colossians to beware of vain Philosophy. Plato thought there was a middle Sort of Men, who though they had sinned yet had repented of it, and were in a curable condition, and that they went down for some time into Hell to be purged and absolved by grievous Torments. The Iews had also a Conceit, that the Souls of some Men continued for a Year, going up and down in a state of Purgation. From these Opinions somewhat of a Curiosity in describing the Degrees of the next State began pretty early to enter into the Church.

As for that Opinion of the Platonists, and the Fictions of Homer and Virgil setting forth the Complaints of Souls departed, for their not being relieved by Prayers and Sacrifices, though these perhaps are the true Sources of the Doctrine of Purgatory, and of redeeming Souls out of it, yet we are not so much concerned in them, as in what is represented to us by the Author of the Second Book of the Maccabees, concerning the Sacrifice that was offered by Iudas Maccabeus, for those, about whom after they were killed; they found such things as shewed that they had defiled themselves with the Idolatry of the Heathens. All this is of less Authority with us, who do not acknowledge that Book to be Canonical: According to what was set out in its proper Place. And although we set a due value upon some of the Apocryphal Books, yet others are of a lower Character. The First Book of Maccabees is a very grave History, writ with much exactness and a true Judgment; but the Second is the Work of a mean Writer: He was an Abridger of a larger Work, and as he has the Modesty to ask his Readers Pardon for his Defects, so it is very plain to every one that reads him, that he needs often many grains of allowance. So that this Book is one of the least valuable Pieces of the Apocrypha; and there are very probable Reasons to question the Truth of that Relation, concerning those who were thus prayed for. But because that would occasion too long a Digression, we are to make a difference between the Story that he relates, and the Author’s own Reflections upon it; for as we ought not to make any great Account of his Reflections, these being only his private Thoughts, who might probably have imbibed some of the Principles of the Greek Philosophy, as some of the Iews had done, or he might have believed that Notion which is now very generally received by the Iews, that every Iew shall have a share in the World to come, but that such as have lived ill must be purged before they arrive at it. It is of much more importance to consider what Iudas Maccabeus did;¹⁵ which even by that Relation seems to be no more than this, That he finding some things Consecrated to the Idols of the Iamnites, about the Bodies of those who were killed, concluded that to have been the cause of their Death: And upon this he and all his Men betook themselves to Prayer, and besought God that the Sin might be wholly put out of remembrance: He exhorted his People to keep themselves, by that Example from the like Sin, and he made a Collection of a Sum of Money, and sent it to Ierusalem to offer a Sin-offering before the Lord. So far the matter agrees well enough with the Iewish Dispensation.¹⁶ It had appeared in the days of Ioshua, how much guilt the Sin of Achan, though but one Person, had brought upon the whole Congregation; and their Law had upon another Occasion prescribed a Sin-offering for the whole Congregation, to expiate Blood that was shed, when the Murderer could not be discovered: That so the Judgments of God might not come upon them, by reason of the cry of that Blood. And by a parity of Reason, Iudas might have ordered such an Offering to free himself and his Men, from the guilt which the Idolatry of a few might have brought upon greater Numbers; such a Sacrifice as this might according to the nature of that Law, have been offered: But to offer a Sin-offering for the Dead, was a new thing without ground, or any intimation of any thing like it in their Law. So there is no reason to doubt, but that if the Story is true, Iudas offered this Sin-offering for the Living, and not for the Dead. If they had been alive then, by their Law, no Sin-offering could have been made for them; for Idolatry was to be punished by cutting off, and not to be expiated by Sacrifice: What then could not have been done for them if alive, could much less be done for them after their death. So we have reason to conclude that Iudas offered this Sacrifice only for the Living: And we are not much concerned in the Opinion which so slight a Writer, as the Author of that Book, had concerning it. But whatever might be his Opinion, it was far from that of the Roman Church. By this Instance of the Maccabees, Men who died in a State of mortal Sin, and that of the highest nature, had Sacrifices offered for them: Whereas according to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, Hell, and not Purgatory, is to be the Portion of all such: So this will prove too much, if any thing at all, that Sacrifices are to be offered for the Damned. The design of Iudas his sending to make an Offering for them, as that Writer states it, was that their Sins might be forgiven, and that they might have a happy Resurrection. Here is nothing of Redeeming them out of Misery, or of shortening or alleviating their Torment: So that the Author of that Book seems to have been possessed with that Opinion, received commonly among the Iews, That no Iew could finally perish; as we find S. Ierom expressing himself with the like partiality for all Christians. But whatever the Author’s Opinion was, as that Book is of no Authority, it is highly probable that Iudas’s design in that Oblation was misunderstood by the Historian, and we are sure that even his sense of it differs totally from that of the Church of Rome.

A Passage in the New Testament is brought as a full proof of the Fire of Purgatory:¹⁷ When St. Paul in his Epistle to the Corinthians is reflecting on the Divisions that were among them, and on that diversity of Teachers that formed Men into different Principles and Parties, he compares them to different Builders. Some raised upon a Rock an Edifice like the Temple at Ierusalem, of Gold and Silver and noble Stones, called precious Stones; whereas others upon the same Rock raised a mean Hovel of Wood, Hay, and Stubble; of both he says, every man’s work shall be made manifest. For the day shall reveal it; because it shall be revealed by fire; for the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. And he adds, If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward; and if any man’s work shall be burnt, he shall suffer loss, but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire. From the first view of these words it will not be thought strange if some of the Ancients who were too apt to Expound places of Scripture according to their first appearences, might fancy, that at the last day all were to pass through a great Fire; and to suffer more or less in it: But it is visible that that Opinion is far enough from the Doctrine of Purgatory. These words relate to a Fire that was soon to appear; and that was to try every Man’s work: It was to be revealed, and in it every Man’s work was to be made manifest. So this can have no relation to a secret Purgatory Fire. The meaning of it can be no other, but that whereas some with the Apostles were building up the Church, not only upon the Foundation of Jesus Christ, and the Belief of his Doctrine, but were teaching Men Doctrines and Rules that were Vertuous, Good and Great: Others at the same time were daubing with a profane mixture, both of Judaism and Gentilism, joining these with some of the Precepts of Christianity; a day would soon appear, which probably is meant of the destruction of Ierusalem, and of the Iewish Nation; or it may be applied to the Persecution that was soon to break out; in that day those who had true Notions, generous Principles, and suitable Practices, would weather that Storm: Whereas others that were entangled with weak and superstitious Conceits, would then run a great risk, though their firm believing that Jesus was the Messias would preserve them: Yet the weakness and folly of those Teachers would appear, their Opinions would involve them in such danger, that their escaping would be difficult; like one that gets out of a House that is all on fire round about him. So that these words cannot possibly belong to Purgatory; but must be meant of some signal discrimination that was to be made, in some very dreadful appearances which would distinguish between the true and the false Apostles; and that could be no other but either in the destruction of Ierusalem, or in the persecution that was to come on the Church; though the first is the more probable,

It were easy to pursue this Argument further, and to shew that the Doctrine of Purgatory, as it is now in the Roman Church, was not known in the Church of God for the first six hundred Years; that then it began to be doubtfully received. But in an ignorant Age, Visions, Legends, and bold Stories prevailed much; yet the Greek Church never received it. Some of the Fathers speak indeed of the last probatory Fire; but though they did not think the Saints were in a state of consummate Blessedness, enjoying the Vision of God, yet they thought they were in a state of ease and quiet, and that in Heaven. St. Austin speaks in this whole matter very doubtfully; he varies often from himself;¹⁸ he seems sometimes very positive only for two States; at other times as he asserts the last probatory Fire, so he seems to think that good Souls might suffer some grief in that sequestred state before the last Day, upon the account of some of their past Sins, and that by degrees they might arise up to their Consummation. All these Contests were proposed very doubtfully before Gregory the Great’s days; and even then some Doubts seem to have been made: But the Legends were so copiously plaid upon all those Doubts, that this Remnant of Paganism got at last into the Western Church.¹⁹ It was no wonder that the Opinions formerly mentioned, which began to appear in the Second Age, had preduced in the Third the practice of Praying for the Dead; of which we find such full evidence in Tertullain and St. Cyprian’s Writings, that the matter of Fact is not to be denied. This appears also in all the Antient Liturgies. And Epiphanius charges Aerius with this of rejecting all Prayers for the Dead, asking why were they prayed for? The Opinions that they fell into concerning the State of departed Souls, in the Interval between their Death and the Day of Judgment, gave occasion enough for Prayer; they thought they were capable of making a Progress, and of having an early Resurrection. They also had this Notion among them, That it was the peculiar Priviledge of Jesus Christ to be above all our Prayers; but that no Men, not excepting the Apostles, nor the Blessed Virgin, were above the Prayers of the Church. They thought this was an Act of Church-Communion, that we were to hold even with the Saints in Heaven, to pray for them. Thus in the Apostolical Constitutions, in the Books of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, and in the Liturgies that are ascribed to St. Basil and St. Chrysostom, ²⁰ they offer unto God these Prayers which they thought their reasonable Service, for those who were at rest in the Faith, their Forefathers, Fathers, Patriarchs, Prophets, and Apostles, Preachers, Evangelists, Martyrs, Confessors, Religious Persons, and for every Spirit p[?]rfected in the Faith; especially for our most Holy, Immaculate, most Blessed Lady, the Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary. Particular Instances might also be given of this, out of St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, Nazianzen, and St. Austin;²¹ who in that famous and much cited Passage concerning his Mother, Monica, as he speaks nothing of any Temporal Pains that she suffered, so he plainly intimates his belief that God had done all that he desired. Thus it will appear to those, who have examined all the Passages which are brought out of the Fathers concerning their Prayers for the Dead, that they believed they were then in Heaven, and at rest; and by consequence, though these Prayers for the Dead, did very pro[?]ably give the chief rise to the Doctrine of Purgatory; yet as they then made them, they were utterly inconsistent with that Opinion. Tertullian, who is the first that is cited for them, says, we make Oblations for the Dead,²² and we do it for that Second Nativity of theirs (Natalitia) once a year. The Signification of the word Natalitia, as they used it, was the Saint’s Days of Death, in which they reckoned he was born again to Heaven: So, though they judged them there, yet they offered up Prayers for them: And when Epiphanius brings in Aerius asking, Why those Prayers were made for the Dead? Though it had been very natural, and indeed unavoidable, if he had believed Purgatory to have answered, that it was to deliver them from thence; yet he makes no such answer, but only asserts that it had been the Practice of the Church so to do. The Greek Church retains that Custom, though she has never admitted of Purgatory. Here then an Objection may be made to our Constitution, that in this of praying for the Dead, we have departed from the practice of the Ancients: We do not deny it, both the Church of Rome and we in another Practice, of equal Antiquity, of giving the Eucharist to Infants, have made changes and let that Custom fall. The Curiosities in the Second Century seem to have given rise to those Prayers in the Third; and they gave the rise to many other Disorders in the following Centuries. Since therefore God has commanded us, while we are on Earth, to pray for one another, and has made that a main Act of our Charity and Church-Communion, but has no where directed us to pray for those that have finished their Course; and since the only pretence that is brought from Scripture, of St Paul’s praying that Onesiphorus might find mercy in the day of the Lord, cannot be wrought up into an Argument, for it cannot be proved that he was then Dead; and since the Fathers reckon this of praying for the Dead, only as one of their Customs, for which they vouch no other Warrant, but Practice; since also, this has been grosly abused, and has been applied to support a Doctrine totally different from theirs, we think that we have as good a Plea for not following them in this, as we have for not giving Infants the Sacrament; and therefore we think it no Imputation on our Church, that we do not in this follow a groundless, and a much abused Precedent, though set us in Ages which we highly reverence.

The greatest Corruption of this whole matter, comes in the last place to be considered; which is the Methods proposed for redeeming Souls out of Purgatory. If this Doctrine had rested in a Speculation, we must still have considered it as derogatory to the Death of Christ, and the Truth of the Gospel; but it raises our Zeal a little more, when we consider the use that was made of it; and that Fears and Terrors being by this means infused into Mens minds, new Methods were proposed to free them from these. The chief of which was the saying of Masses for departed Souls. It was pretended, that this being the highest Act of the Communion of Christians, and the most sublime Piece of Worship, therefore God was so well pleased with the frequent Repetition of it, with the Prayers that accompanied it, and with those that made Provisions for Men, who should be constantly imployed in it, that this was a most acceptable Sacrifice to God. Upon this followed all those vast Endowments, for saying Masses for departed Souls. Though in the Institution of that Sacrament, and in all that is spoken of it in the Scripture, there is not an hint given of this. Sacraments are positive Precepts which are to be measured only by the Institution, in which there is not room left for us to carry them further. We are to take eat and drink, and thereby shew forth the Lord’s death till his second coming: All which has no relation to the applying this to others who are gone off this Stage; therefore if we can have any just Notions either of Superstition, or of Will-worship, they are applicable here. Men will fancy that there is a virtue in an Action, which we are sure it has not of it self, and we cannot find that God has put in it; and yet they without any Authority from God, do set up a new piece of Worship; and imagine that God will be pleased with them in every thing they do or ask, only because they are perverting this piece of Worship clearly contrary to the Institution, to be a Solitary Mass. In the Primitive Church, where all the Service of the whole Assembly ended in a Communion, there was a Roll read, in which the Names of the more Eminent Saints of the Catholick Church, and of the Holy Bishops, Martyrs or Confessors of every particular Church, were registred. This was an honourable remembrance that was kept up of such as had died in the Lord. When the soundness of any Persons Faith was brought in suspicion, his Name was not read till that Point was cleared, and then either his Name continued to be read, or it was quite dasht out. This was thought an Honour due to the Memory of those who had died in the Faith: And in St. Cyprian’s time in the Infancy of this Practice,²³ we see he counted the leaving a Man’s Name out, as a thing that only left a Blot upon him, but not as a thing of any Consequence to his Soul: for when a Priest had died, who had by his Last Will named another Priest the Tutor (or Guardian) of his Children. this seemed to him a thing of such ill Example, to put those Secular Cares upon the Minds of the Clergy, that he appointed that his Name should be no more read in the daily Sacrifice; which plainly shews, unless we will tax St. Cyprian with a very unreasonable Cruelty, that he considered that only as a small Censure laid on his Memory, but not as a Prejudice to his Soul. This gives us a very plain View of the Sense that he had of this Matter. After this Roll was read, then the general Prayer followed, as was formerly acknowledged for all their Souls, and so they went on in the Communion-Service. This has no relation to a Mass said by a single Priest to deliver a Soul out of Purgatory.

Here without going far in Tragical expressions, we cannot hold saying what our Saviour said upon another occasion, My house is a house of prayer, but ye have made it a den of thieves. ²⁴ A Trade was set up on this Foundation. The World was made believe, that by the Virtue of so many Masses, which were to be purchased by great Endowments, Souls were redeemed out of Purgatory; and Scenes of Visions and Apparitions, sometimes of the tormented, and sometimes of the delivered Souls, were published in all Places; which had so wonderful an effect that in two or three Centuries, Endowments increased to so vast a degree, that if the Scandals of the Clergy on the one hand, and the Statutes of Mortmain on the other, had not restrained the Profuseness that the World was wrought up to, upon this account; it is not easy to imagine how far this might have gone, perhaps to an entire subjecting of the Temporalty to the Spiritualty. The Practices by which this was managed, and the Effects that followed on it, we can call by no other Name than downright Impostures; worse than the making or venting false Coyn; when the World was drawn in by such A[?]s to plain Bargains, to redeem their own Souls, and the Souls of their Ancestors and Posterity, so many Masses were to be said, and Forfeitures were to follow upon their not being said: Thus the Masses were really the Price of the Lands. An Endowment to a Religious Use, though mixed with Error or Superstition in the Rules of it, ought to be held Sacred, according to the Decision given concerning the Censures of those that were in the Rebellion of Corah: ²⁵ So that we do not excuse the Violation of such from Sacriledge; yet we cannot think so of Endowments, where the only Consideration was a false Opinion first of Purgatory, and then of Redemption out of it by Masses; this being expressed in the very Deeds themselves. By the same Reasons, by which private Persons are obliged to restore what they have drawn from others by base Practices, by false Deeds, or counterfeit Coyn: Bodies are also bound to restore what they have got into their Hands by such fraudulent Practices; so that the States and Princes of Christendom were at full liberty, upon the discovery of these Impostures, to void all the Endowments that had followed upon them; and either to apply them to better Uses, or to restore them to the Families from which they had been drawn, if that had been practicable, or to convert them to any other use. This was a crying Abuse, which those who have observed the progress that this matter made from the Eighth Century to the Twelfth, cannot reflect on without both Amazement and Indignation. We are sensible enough that there are many political Reasons and Arguments for keeping up the Doctrine of Purgatory. But we have not so learned Christ. We ought not to lie even for God, much less for our selves; or for any other pretended ends of keeping the World in awe and order; therefore all the Advantages that are said to arise out of this, and all the Mischief that may be thought to follow on the rejecting of it, ought not to make us presume to carry on the Ends of Religion by unlawful Methods. This were to call in the Assistance of the Devil to do the Work of God: If the just Apprehensions of the Wrath of God, and the Guilt of Sin, together with the Fear of Everlasting Burnings, will not Reform the World, nor R[?]strain Sinners, we must leave this Matter to the wise and unsearchable Judgments of God.

The next Particular in this Article is, the condemning the Romish Doctrine concerning Pardons: That is founded on the Distinction between the Temporal and Eternal Punishment of Sin; and the Pardon is of the Temporal Punishment, which is believed to be done by a Power lodged singly in the Pope, derived from those Words, Feed my Sheep, and To thee will I give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. This may be by him derived as they Teach, not only to Bishops and Priests, but to the Inferior Orders, to be dispensed by them; and it excuses from Penance, unless he who purchases it, thinks fit to use his Penance in a medicinal way as a Preservative against Sin. So the Virtue of Indulgences, is the applying the Treasure of the Church upon such Terms as Popes shall think fit to prescribe, in order to the redeeming Souls from Purgatory, and from all other Temporal Punishments, and that for such a number of Years as shall be specified in the Bulls; some of which have gone to Thousands of Years; one I have seen to Ten hundred thousand: And as these Indulgences are sometimes granted by special Tickets, like Tallies struck on that Treasure; so sometimes they are affixed to particular Churches and Altars, to particular Times, or Days, chiefly to the Year of Jubilee; they are also affixed to such things as may be carryed about, to Agnus Dei’s, to Medals, to Rosaries and Scapularies; they are also affixed to some Prayers, the Devout saying of them being a mean to procure great Indulgences. The granting these is left to the Pope’s Discretion, who ought to distribute them as he thinks may tend most to the Honour of God, and the Good of the Church, and he ought not to be too profuse, much less to be too scanty in dispensing them.

This has been the received Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome since the Twelfth Century; and the Council of Trent in a hurry, in its last Session, did in very general Words, approve of the Practice of the Church in this Matter, and Decreed that Indulgences should be continued; only they restrained some Abuses, in particular that of selling them; yet even those Restraints were wholly referred to the Popes themselves: So that this crying Abuse, the Scandal of which had occasioned the first beginnings and progress of the Reformation; was upon the matter established; and the correcting the Excesses in it, was trusted to those who had been the Authors of them, and the chief Gainers by them. This Point of their Doctrine is more fully opened than might perhaps seem necessary, if it were not that a great part of the Confutation of some Doctrines, is the exposing of them. For though in Ages and Places of Ignorance, these things have been, and still are Practised with great assurance, and to very extravagant exces[?]es; yet in Countries and Ages of more Light, when they come to be questioned, they are disowned with an assurance equal to that with which they are Practised elsewhere. Among us some will perhaps say, that these are only exemptions from Penance; which cannot be denied to be within the Power of the Church; and they argue, that though it is very fit to make severe Laws, yet the execution of these must be softened in practice. This is all that they pretend to justify, and they give up any further Indulgences, as an abuse of corrupt Times. Whereas at the same time a very different Doctrine is Taught among them, where there is no danger but much profit in owning it. All this is only a pretence; for the Episcopal Power in the inflicting, abating, or commuting of Penance, is stated among them, as a thing wholly different from the power of Indulgences. They are derived from different Originals; and designed for Ends totally different from one another. The one is for the outward Discipline of the Church, and the other is for the inward quiet of Consciences; and in order to their future State. The one is in every Bishop, and the other is asserted to be peculiar to the Pope. Nor will they escape by laying this Matter upon the Ignorance and Abuses of former Times. It was published in Bulls and received by the whole Church: So that if either the Pope, or the diffusive Body of the Church are Infallible, there must be such a Power in the Pope; and the Decree of the Council of Trent confirming and approving the Practice of the Church in that Point, must bind them all. For if this Doctrine is False, then their Infallibility must go with it: For in every Hypothesis in which Infallibility is said to be lodged, whether in the Pope, or in Councils, this Doctrine has that Seal to it.

As for the Doctrine it self, all that has been already said, against the distinction of Temporal and Eternal Punishment, and against Purgatory, overthrows it; since the one is the Foundation on which it is built; and the other is that which it pretends to secure Men from: And therefore this falls with those. All that was said upon the Head of the Sufficiency of the Scriptures comes also in here: For, if the Scriptures ought to be our Rule in any thing, it must be chiefly in those Matters which relate to the Pardon of Sin, to the quiet of our Consciences, and to a future State. Therefore a Doctrine and Practice that have not so much as Colours from Scripture, in a matter of such Consequence, ought to be rejected by us, upon this single Account. If from the Scripture we go to the Practice and Tradition of the Church, we are sure that this was not thought on for above Ten Centuries, all the Indulgences that were then known, being only the abatements of the severity of the Penitentiary Canons: But in the Ages in which aspiring and insolent Popes imposed on Ignorant and Superstitious multitudes, a jumble was made of Indulgences formerly granted, of Purgatory, and of the Papal Authority, that was then very implicitly submitted to; and so out of all that mixture this arose: Which was as ill managed as it was ill grounded. The natural tendency of it, is not only to relax all publick Discipline, but also all secret Penance, when shorter Methods to Peace and Pardon may be more easily purchased. The vast Application to the executing the many trifling performances to which Indulgences are granted, has brought in among them such a Prostitution of Holy Things, that either it must be said, that those are publick Cheats, and that they were so from the beginning, or that their Vertue is now exhausted, though the Bulls that grant them are perpetual: Or else a Man may on very easy Terms pres[?]rve himself and redeem his Friends out of Purgatory. If the saying a Prayer before a priviledged Altar, or the Visiting some Churches in the time of Jubilee, with those slight Devotions, that are then enjoined, have such efficacy in them, it is scarce possible for any Man to be in danger of Purgatory.

The Third Head rejected in this Article is the Worshipping of Images. Here those of the Church of Rome complain much of the Charge of Idolatry, that our Church has laid upon them, so fully, and so severely in the Homilies. Some among our selves have also thought, that we must either Renounce that Charge, or that we must deny the Possibility of salvation in that Church, and in Consequence to that conclude, that neither the Baptism nor the Orders of that Church are valid: For since Idolaters are excluded from the Kingdom of Heaven, they argue, That if there can be no Salvation where Idolatry is committed, by the whole Body of a Church, then that can be no Church, and in it there is no Salvation. But here we are to consider, before we enter, upon the Specialties of this Matter, that Idolatry is a general Word, which comprehends ma[?]y several Sorts and Ranks of Sins under it. As Lying is capable of many Degrees, from an officious Lye to the swearing falsly against the Life of an innocent Man, in Judgment: The one is the lowest and the other is the highest Act of that kind: But all are Lying: And yet it would appear an unreasonable Thing, to urge every thing that is said of any Act in General, and which belongs to the higest Acts of it, as if all the Inferior Degrees did necessarily involve the Guilt of the highest. There is another distinction to be made between Actions, as they signify either of themselves, or by the publick Constructions that are put on them, by those who Authorise them; and those same Actions as they may be privately intended by particular Persons. We, in our weighing of Things, are only to consider, what Actions signify of their own Nature, or by Publick Authority, and according to that we must Form our Judgments about them and in particular in the Point of Idolatry; but as for the secret Thoughts or Intentions of Men, we must leave these to the Judgment of God, who only knows them, and who being infinitely Gracious, slow to Anger and ready to Forgive, will we do not doubt make all the Abatements in the weighing Men’s Actions, that there is Reason for. But we ought not to enter into that Matter; we ought neither to aggravate, nor to mollify Things too much: We are to judge of Things as they are in themselves, and to leave the Case of Mens Intentions and secret Notions, to that God who is to Judge them. As for the Business of Images, we know that the Heathens had them of several Sorts. Some they believed were real Resemblances of those Deities that they Worshipped: Those Divinities had been Men, and the Statues made for them resembled them. Other Images they believed had a Divine Vertue affixed to them, perhaps from the Stars, which were believed to be Gods, and it was thought that the Influences of their Aspects and Positions, were by secret Charms called down and fastened to some Figures. Other Images were considered as Emblems, and Representations of their Deities: So that they only gave them occasion to represent them to their Thoughts. These Images thus of different Sorts, were all Worshipped; some more, some less: They kneeled before them; they prayed to them, and made many Oblations to them; they set Lights before them, and burnt Incense to them; they set them in their Temples, Market-places, and High-ways; and they had them in their Houses: They set them off with much Pomp, and had many Processions to their Honour. But in all this, though it is like the Vulgar among them might have gross Thoughts of those Images, yet the Philosophers not only after the Christian Religion had obliged them, to consider well of that Matter, and to express themselves cautiously about it; but even while they were in the peaceable Possession of the World, did believe that the Deity was not in the Image, but was only represented by it: That the Deity was Worshipped in the Image, so that the Honour done the Image did belong to the Deity it self. Here then were two false Opinions: The one was concerning those Deities themselves; the other was concerning this way of Worshipping them; and both were blamed: Not only the Worshipping a false God, but the Worshipping that God by an Image. If Idolatry had only consisted in the acknowledging a false God, and if the Worshipping the true God in an Image, had not been Idolatry, then all the Fault of the Heathenish Idolatries, should have consisted in this, that they Worshipped a false God, but their Worshipping Images should not of it self have been an additional Fault. But in opposition to this, what can we think of those full and copious Words, in which God did not only forbid the having of false Gods, but the making of a graven Image, ²⁶ or the likeness of any thing in heaven, in earth or under the earth: The bowing down to it, and the worshipping it are also forbid. Where besides the copiousness of these Words we are to consider, that Moses in the rehearsal of that Law in Deuteronomy, does over and over again add and insist on this, that they saw no manner of similitude, when God spoke of them, lest they should corrupt themselves and make to them a graven Image; an enumeration is made of many different likenesses; and after that comes another species of Idolatry; their worshipping the host of heaven; and therefore Moses charges them in that Chapter again and again, to take heed, ²⁷ to take good heed to themselves, lest they should forget the covenant of the Lord their God, and make them a graven Image: And he lays the same charge a third time upon them in the same Chapter. A special Law is also given against the most Innocent of all the Images that could be made: They were required not only not to have Idols, nor graven Images, but not to rear up a standing image or pillar; nor to set up any image of stone, or any carved stone; such were the Baitulia; the least tempting or ensnaring of all Idols: They were not to bow down before it; and the reason given is, For I am the Lord your God. The importance of those Laws will appear clearer if they are compared with the practice of those times, and particularly in those symbolical Images, which were sacred Emblems and Hieroglyphicks, that were not meant to be a true representation of the Divine being, but were a combination of many Symbols, intended to represent at once to the thoughts of the Worshipper, many of the Perfections of God: These were most particularly practised in Egypt, and to them the copiousness of the Second Commandment seems to have a particular respect, such having been the Images which they have lately seen, and which seem the most excusable of all others; when, I say, all this is laid together, with the Commandment it self, and with those other Laws that accompany and explain it, nothing seems more evident, than that God intended to forbid all outward Representations, that should be set up as the Objects of Worship. It is also very plain, That the Prophets expostulated with the People of Israel for their carved and molten Images, as well as for their false Gods: And among the Reasons given against Images, one is often repeated, To whom will ye liken me? Which seems to import, that by these Images they represented the Living God. And Isaias often,²⁸ as also both Ieremiah and Habakkuk, when they set forth the folly of making an Image; of praying to it, and trusting in it, bring in the Greatness and Glory of the Living God, in opposition to these Images. Now, though it is possible enough to apprehend, how that the Iews might make Images in imitation of the Heathens, to represent that God whom they served; yet it is no way credible, that they could have fallen into such a degree of Stupidity, as to fancy that a piece of Wood which they had carved into such a Figure was a real Deity. They might think it a God by Representation, as the Heathens thought their Idols were; but more than this cannot be easily apprehended. So that it is most reasonable to think, that they knew the God they had thus made, and prayed to, was only a piece of Wood; but they might well fall into that Corruption of many of the Heathen, of thinking that they honoured God by serving him in such an Image. If the Sin of the Iews was only their having other Gods; and if the worshipping an Image was only Evil, because a false Deity was honoured by it, Why is Image-worship condemn’d, with Reasons that will hold full as strong against the Images of the True God, as of false Gods, if it had not been intended to condemn simply all Image-worship? Certainly, if the Prophets had intended to have done it, they could not have expressed themselves more clearly and more fully than they did.

To this it is to be added, That it seems very clear from the History of the Golden Calf,²⁹ that the Israelites did not intend by setting it up, to cast off the true Iehovah, that had brought them out of Egypt. They plainly said the contrary, and appointed a Feast to Iehovah. It is probable they thought Moses was either burnt or starv’d on Mount Sinai, so they desired some visible Representation of the Deity to go before them; they intended still to serve him, but since they thought they had lost their Prophet and Guide, they hoped that this should have been perhaps as a Teraphim to them; yet for all this,³⁰ the Calf is called an Idol; and they are said to have changed their glory into the similitude of an ox that eateth grass. So that here an Emblem of the Deity is called an Idol. They could take the Calf for no other, but as a visible Sign or Simbol in which they intended to Worship their God or Elohim,³¹ and the Lord or Iehovah. Such very probably were also the Calves of Dan and Bethel, set up by Ieroboam, who seemed to have no design to change the Object of their Worship, or the Nature of their Religion; but only to divert them from going up to Ierusalem, ³² and to furnish them with Conveniences to Worship the Living God nearer home. His design was only to establish the Kingdom to himself; and in order to that, we must think that he would venture on no more than was necessary for his purpose. Besides we do clearly see an opposition made between the Calves set up by Ieroboam, and the Worship of Baal brought from Tyrus by Ahab. Those who hated that Idolatry, such as Iehu and his Family, yet continued in the Sin of Ieroboam; and they are represented as zealous for Iehovah, though they Worshipped the Calves at Dan and Bethel. These are called Idols by Hosea. ³³ From all which it seems to be very evident that the Ten Tribes still feared and worshipped the true Iehovah. This appears yet more clear from the sequel of their History when they were carried away by the Kings of Assyria; and new Inhabitants were sent to People the Country, who brought their Idols along with them, and did not acknowledge Iehovah the true God; but upon their being plagued with Lions, to prevent this,³⁴ the King of Assyria sent one of the Priests, that had been carried out of the Country, who taught them how they should fear the Lord: out of which that mixture arose, that they feared the Lord, and served their own Images. This proves beyond all contradiction, that the Ten Tribes did still Worship Iehovah in those Calves that they had at Dan and Bethel: And thus it appears very clear that through the whole Old Testament, the use of all Images in Worship was expresly forbid; and that the Worshipping them, even when the true God was worshipped by them, was called Idolatry. The words in which this matter is expressed are copious and full, and the reasons given for the Precept, are taken from the Nature of God, who could be likened to nothing, and who had shewed no similitude of himself when he appeared to their Fathers and delivered the Law to them.

The New Dispensation does in all respects carry the Ideas of God and of true Religion, much higher, and raises them much above those compliances that were in the Old, to Mens Senses, and to sensitive natures; and it would seem to contradict the whole design of it, if we could imagine that such things were allowed in it, which were so expresly forbid in the Old. Upon this occasion it is remarkable, that the two fullest passages in the New Testament concerning Images, are written upon the occasion of the most refined Idolatry that was then in the World, which was at Athens. When St. Paul was there his Spirit was moved within him, when he saw that City full of Idols: He upon that charges them for thinking that the Godhead was like unto gold or silver, or stone graven by art or man’s device: ³⁵ He argues from the Majesty of God, who made the World and all things therein, and was the Lord of Heaven and Earth, and therefore was not to be Worshipped by mens hands (that is, Images made by them) who needed nothing since he gives us life, breath (or the continuance of Life) and all things. He therefore condemns that way of Worship as an effect of Ignorance, and tells them of a day in which God will judge the World. It is certain that the Athenians at that time did not think their Images were the proper resemblances of the Divinity. Tully, ³⁶ who knew their Theology well, gives us a very different account of the notion that they had of their Images: Some Images were of no Figure at all, but were only Stones and Pillars that had no particular shape; others were Hieroglyphicks made up of many several Emblems, of which some signified one perfection of the Deity, and some another; and others were indeed the Figures of Men and Women; but even in these the Wiser among them said, they Worshipped One Eternal Mind, and under him some Inferior Beings, Demons, and Men; who they believed were subordinate to God, and governed this World. So it could not be said of such Worshippers, that they thought that the Godhead was like unto their Images; since the best Writers among them tell us plainly, that they thought no such thing. St. Paul therefore only argues in this against Image-Worship in it self, which does naturally lead Men to these low thoughts of God; and which is a very unreasonable thing in all those who do not think so of him. It is contrary to the Nature and Perfections of God: Few men can think God is like to those Images, therefore that is a very good Argument against all Worshipping of them. And we may upon very sure grounds say, that the Athenians had such elevated Notions both of God and of their Images, that whatsoever was a good Argument against Image-Worship among them, will hold good against all Image-Worship whatsoever.

But as St. Paul staid long enough at Athens to understand their Opinions well, and that no doubt he learned their Doctrine very particularly from his Convert Dionysius, so at his coming to Corinth from thence, when he had learned from Aquila and Priscilla the state of the Church in Rome, and no doubt had learned among other things that the Romans admired the Greeks, and made them their Patterns; he in the beginning of his Epistle to them, having still deep impressions upon his Spirit of what he had seen and known at Athens, arraigns the whole Greek Philosophy;³⁷ and specially those among them who professed themselves wise, but became fools; who though they knew God, yet glorified him not as God, nor were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, so that their foolish heart was darkened. They had high speculations of the Unity and Simplicity of the Divine Essence; but they set themselves to find such excuses for the Idolatry of the Vulgar, that they not only continued to comply with them in the grossest of all their practices, but they studied more laboured Defences for them, than the ruder multitudes could ever have fallen upon. They knew the true God, for God had shewed to them, that which might be known of him; but they held the truth in unrighteousness, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God, into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds and fourfooted beasts, and to creeping things: Which seems to be a description of Hieroglyphick Figures, the most excusable of all those Images by which they represented the Deity. This St. Paul makes to be the original of all the Corruption and Immorality that was spread over the Gentile World, which came in, partly as the natural consequence of Idolatry, of its debasing the Ideas of God, and wounding true Religion and Virtue in its source and first seeds, and partly as an effect of the just Judgments of God upon those who thus dishonoured him, That was to a very monstrous degree spread over both Greece and Rome. Of these St. Paul gives us some very enormous Instances, with a Catalogue of the Vices that sprang from those vitiated Principles. These two passages, the one of St. Paul’s Preaching, and the other of his Writing, being both applied to those who had the finest Speculations among the Heathen, do evidently demonstrate how contrary the Christian Doctrine, is to the Worshipping of Images of all sorts, how speciously soever that may be disguised.

If these things wanted an Explanation, we find it given us very fully in all the Writings of the Fathers during their Disputes with the Heathens; They do not only charge them with the false Notions that they had of God, the many Deities they Worshipped, the absurd Legends that they had concerning them; but in particular they dwell long upon this of the Worshipping God in or by an Image, with Arguments taken both from the pure and spiritual Nature of God, and from the plain Revelation he made of his Will in this matter. Upon this Argument many long Citations might be gathered from Iustin Martyr, ³⁸ from Clemens of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, Minutius Felix, Lactantius, Eusebius, Ambrose, and St. Austin. Their Reasonings are so clear and so full, that nothing can be more evident, than that they condemned all the use of Images in the Worship of God: And yet both Celsus, Porphiry, Maximus Tyrius, and Iulian, told them very plainly, that they did not believe that the Godhead was like their Images, or was shut up within them; they only used them as helps to their Imagination and Apprehension, that from thence they might form suitable thoughts of the Deity. This did not satisfy the Fathers, who insisted on it to the last, that all such Images as were made the objects of Worship, were Idols; so that if in any one thing we have a very full account of the sense of the whole Church for the first Four Centuries, it is in this matter. They do not speak of it now and then only by the way, as in a Digression; in which the heat of Argument, or of Rhetorick may be apt to carry men too far; they set themselves to treat of this Argument very nicely; and they were engaged in it with Philosophers, who were as good at Subtleties and Distinctions as other Men. This was one of the main parts of the Controversy; so if in any Head whatsoever, they writ exactly upon those Subjects. They attack’d the established Religion of the Roman Empire; and this was not to be done with Clamour, nor could they offer at it in a plain contradiction to such Principles as are consistent with the Christian Religion, if the Doctrine of the Roman Church is true. Here then we have not only the Scripture but Tradition fully of our side.

Some pretended Christians, it is true, did very early Worship Images; but those were the Gnosticks, held in detestation by all the Orthodox. Irenaeus, Epiphanius, and St. Austin tell us,³⁹ that they Worshipped the Images of Christ, together with Pythagoras, Plato and Aristotle: Nor are they only blamed for Worshipping the Images of Christ, together with these of the Philosophers, but they are particularly blamed for having several sorts of Images, and Worshipping these as the Heathens did; and that among these there was an Image of Christ, which they pretended to have had from Pilate. Besides these Corrupters of Christianity, there were no others among the Christians of the first Ages that Worshipped Images. This was so well known to the Heathens, that they bring this, among other things, as a reproach against the Christians, that they had no Images: Which the first Apologists are so far from denying, that they answered them, That it was impossible for him who knew God, to Worship Images. But as human Nature is inclined to visible Objects of Worship, so it seems some began to Paint the Walls of their Churches with Pictures, or at least moved for it. In the beginning of the Fourth Century this was condemned by the Council of Eliberis, Can. 36. It pleases us to have no Pictures in Churches, lest that which is Worshipped should be Painted upon the Walls. Towards the end of that Century, we have an account given us by Epiphanius, ⁴⁰ of his Indignation occasioned by a Picture that he saw upon a Veil at Anablatha. He did not much consider whose Picture it was, whether a Picture of Christ, or of some Saint; he positively affirms it was against the Authority of the Scriptures, and the Christian Religion, and therefore he tore it, but supplied that Church with another Veil. It seems private Persons had Statues of Christ and the Apostles;⁴¹ which Eusebius censures where he reports it, as a remnant of Heathenism. It is plain enough from some passages in St. Austin, that he knew of no Images in Churches in the beginning of the Fifth Century. It is true they began to be brought before that time into some of the Churches of Pontus and Cappadocia, which was done very probably to draw the Heathens, by this piece of conformity to them, to like the Christian Worship the better. For that humour began to work, and appeared in many Instances of other kinds as well as in this.

It was not possible that People could see Pictures in their Churches long without paying some marks of respect to them, which grew in a little time to the downright worship of them. A famous instance we have of this in the Sixth Century; Serenus, Bishop of Marseilles, finding that he could not restrain his People from the Worship of Images, broke them in pieces; upon which Pope Gregory writ to him, blaming him indeed for breaking the Images,⁴² but commending him for not allowing them to be worshipped: This he prosecutes in a variety of very plain Expressions; It is one thing to worship an Image, and another thing to learn by it, what is to be worshipped: He says they were set up not to be worshipped, but to instruct the Ignorant, and cites our Saviour’s Words, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve, to prove that it was not lawful to worship the work of mens hands. We see by a fragment cited in the Second Nicene Council, that both Iews and Gentiles took advantages from the Worship of Images, to reproach the Christians soon after that time. The Iews were scandalized at their Worshipping Images, as being expresly against the Command of God. The Gentiles had also by it great advantages of turning back upon the Christians all that had been written against their Images in the former Ages.

At last in the beginning of the Eighth Century, the famous Controversy about the having or breaking of Images grew hot. The Churches of Italy were so set on the worshipping of them,⁴³ that Pope Gregory the Second gives this for the reason of their Rebelling against the Emperor, because of his opposition to Images. And here in little more than an Hundred Years, the See of Rome changed its Doctrine, Pope Gregory the Second being as positive for the worshipping them, as the first of that Name had been against it. Violent Contentions arose upon this Head. The breakers of Images were charged with Iudaism, Samaritanism, and Manicheism; and the worshippers of them were charged with Gentilism and Idolatry. One General Council at Constantinople consisting of about Three hundred and thirty eight Bishops, condemned the Worshipping them as Idolatrous; but another at Nice of Three hundred and fifty Bishops, though others say they were only Three hundred, asserted the Worship of them. Yet as soon as this was known in the West, how active soever the See of Rome was for establishing their Worship, a Council of about Three hundred Bishops met at Francfort, under Charles the Great, which condemned the Nicene Council, together with the Worship of Images. The Gallican Church insisted long upon this matter; Books were published in the Name of Charles the Great against them. A Council held at Paris under his Son did also condemn Image-worship as contrary to the Honour that is due to God only, and to the Commands that he has given us in Scripture. The Nicene Council was rejected here in England, as our Historians tell us, because it asserted the Adoration of Images, which the Church of God abhors. Agobard Bishop of Lions, and Claud of Turin, writ against it; the former writ with great vehemence: The Learned Men of that Communion do now acknowledge, that what he writ was according to the sense of the Gallican Church in that Age: And even Ionas of Orleans, who studied to moderate the matter, and to reconcile the Gallican Bishops to the See of Rome, yet does himself declare against the Worship of Images.

We are not concerned to examine how it came that all this vigorous opposition to Image-worship, went off so soon. It is enough to us that it was once made so resolutely; let those who think it so incredible a thing, that Churches should depart from the received Traditions, answer this as they can. As for the Methods then used, and the Arguments that were then brought to infuse this Doctrine into the World,⁴⁴ he who will read the History and Acts of the Nicene Council, will find enough to incline him to a very bad Opinion, both of the Men and of their Doctrine; though he were ever so much inclined to think well of them.⁴⁵ After all, though that Council laid the Foundation of Image-worship, yet the Church of Rome has made great Improvements in it since. Those of Nice expressed a detestation of an Image made to represent the Deity; they go no higher than the Images of Christ and the Saints; whereas since that time the Deity and the Trinity have been represented by Images and Pictures; and that not only by connivance, but by Authority in the Church of Rome. Bellarmine, Suarez, and others,⁴⁶ prove the Lawfulness of such Images from the general practice of the Church. Others go further, and from the caution given in the Decree of the Council of Trent, concerning the Images of God, do infer that they are allowed by that Council, provided they be decently made. Directions are also given concerning the use of the Image of the Trinity in Publick Offices among them. In a word, all their late Doctors agree, That they are lawful, and reckon the calling that in question to be not only rashness, but an error; and such as have held it unlawful to make such Images, were especially condemned at Rome, December 17. 1690. The varieties of those Images, and the boldness of them are things apt to give horror to modest Minds, not accustomed to such Attempts. It must be acknowledged, that the Old Emblematical Images of the Egyptians, and the grosser ones now used by the Chineses, are much more instructing, and much less scandalous Figures.

⁴⁷As the Roman Church has gone beyond the Nicene Council in the Images, that they allow of, so they have also gone beyond them in the degrees of the Worship that they offer to them. At Nice the Worship of Images was very positively decreed, with Anathema’s against those who did it not: A bare Honour they reckoned was not enough. They thought it was a very valuable Argument, that was brought from those words of Christ to the Devil,⁴⁸ Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve; that here Service is only appropriated to God, but not Worship. Among the Acts of Worship they reckon the Oblation of Incense and Lights; and the reason given by them for all this, is, because the Honour of the Image or Type, passes to the Original or Prototype: So that plain and direct Worship was to terminate on the Image it self:⁴⁹ And Durandus passed for little less than a Heretick, because he thought that Images were worshipped only improperly and abusively, because, at their presence we call to mind the Object represented by them, which we worship before the Image, as if the Object it self were before us.

The Council of Nice did plainly assert the direct Worship of Images, but they did as positively declare, That they meant only that it should be an honorary Adoration, and not the true Latria, which was only due to God. And whatever some Modern Representers and Expositors of the Roman Doctrine may say, to soften the harshness of the Worship of Images, it is very copiously proved, both from the Words of the Council of Nice, ⁵⁰ and from all the Eminent Writers in that Communion, ever from the time of Aquinas, ⁵¹ and of the Modern Schoolmen, and Writers of Controversy, that direct Worship ought to be offered to the Image it self. This reserve of the Latria to God, being an evident proof, that all inferior Acts of Worship were allowed them. But this reserve does no way please the later Writers; for Aquinas, and many from him, do teach, that the same Acts and Degrees of Worship which are due to the Original, are also due to the Image; they think an Image has such a relation to the Original, that both ought to be worshipped in the same Act, and that to Worship the Image with any other sort of Acts, is to Worship it on its own account, which they think is Idolatry. Whereas others adhering to the Nicene Doctrine, think that the Image is to be worshipped with an inferior Degree, that otherwise Idolatry must follow. So here the danger of Idolatry is threatned of both sides; and since one of them must be chosen, thus it will follow, that let a Man do what he can he must commit Idolatry, according to the Opinion of some very Subtile and Learned Men among them.

The Council of Trent did indeed decline to give a clear Decision in this Matter,⁵² and only decreed, that due Worship should be given to Images; but did not determine what that due Worship was. And though it appears by the Decree, that there were Abuses committed among them in that Matter, yet they only appoint some Regulations, concerning such Images as were to be suffered, and that others were to be removed; but they left the Divines to fight out the Matter concerning the due Worship that ought to be given to Images. They were then in hast, and intended to offend no Party; and as they would not justifie all that had been said or done concerning the Worship of Images, so they would condemn no part of it;⁵³ yet they confirmed the Nicene Council, and in particular made use of that Maxim of theirs, that the Honour of the Type goes to the Prototype;⁵⁴ and thus they left it as they found it. So that the Dispute goes on still as hot as ever. The Practice of the Roman Church is express for the Latria to be given to Images; and therefore all that write for it, do frequently cite that Hymn, Crux Ave spes unica, auge piis justitiam, ⁵⁵ reisque dona veniam. It is expresly said in the Pontifical, Cruci debetur Latria, and the Prayers used in the Consecration of a Cross; it is prayed, That the Blessing of that Cross on which Christ hung, may be in it, that it may be a healthful Remedy to Mankind, a Strengthner of Faith, an Increaser of Good Works, the Redemption of Souls, and a Comfort, Protection, and Defence against the Cruelty of our Enemies. These with all the other Acts of Adoration used among them, seem to favour those who are for a Latria to be given to all those Images, to the Originals of which it is due; and in like the Proportion for Dulia and Hyperdulia to other Images. It is needless to prosecute this Matter further.

It seemed necessary to say so much, to justify our Church which has in her Homilies laid this Charge of Idolatry, very severely on the Church of Rome; and this is so high an Imputation, that those who think it false, as they cannot without a good Conscience, Subscribe, or require others to Subscribe the Article, concerning the Homilies, so they ought to retract their own Subscriptions, and to make Solemn Reparations in Justice and Honour, for laying so heavy an Imputation unjustly upon that whole Communion.

There is nothing that can be brought from Scripture, that has a shew of an Argument for supporting Image-Worship, unless it be that of the Cherubims that were in the holiest of all; and that as is supposed were worshipped, at least by the High Priest when he went thither, once a Year, if not by the whole People. But first there is a great difference to be made, between a Form of Worship immediately prescribed by God, and another Form that not only has no warrant for it, but seems to be very expresly forbidden. It is plain, the Cherubims were not seen by the People, and so they could be no visible Object of Worship to them.⁵⁶ They were scarce seen by the High Priest himself, for the Holiest of all was quite dark; no light coming into it, but what came through the Veil from the Holy Place, and even that had very little Light. Nor is there a word concerning the High Priests Worshipping, either the Ark, or the Cherubim. It is true, there is a place in the Psalms that seems to favour this; as it is rendred by the Vulgar, worship his footstool, ⁵⁷ for it is holy; but both the Hebrew, and the Septuagint have it, as it is in our Translation, worship at his footstool, for he is holy; and all the Greek Fathers cite these Words so. Many of the Latin Fathers do also cite them according to the Greek; and the last Words of the Psalm, in which the same words are repeated, make the Sense of it evident: For there it is thus varied, Exalt ye the Lord our God, and worship at his holy hill, for the Lord our God is holy. These words coming so soon after the former, are a Paraphrase to them, and determine their Sense. No doubt the High Priest worshipped God, who dwelt between the Cherubims, in that Cloud of Glory in which he shewed himself visibly present in his Temple; but there is no sort of reason to think, that in so Majestick a Presence, Adoration could be offered to any thing else; or that after the High Priest had adored the Divine Essence so manifested, he would have fallen to Worship the Ark, and the Cherubims. This agrees ill with the Figure that is so much used in this Matter of a King, and his Chair of State; for in the Presence of the King, all Respects terminate in his Person, whatsoever may be done in his Absence.

And thus, this being not so much as a Precedent, much less an Argument for the use of Images; and there being nothing else brought from Scripture, that with any sort of wresting can be urged for it, and the Sense and Practice of the whole Church being so express against it, the Progress of it having been so long, and so much disputed, the tendency of it to Superstition and Abuse, being by their own Confession so visible; the Scandal that it gives to Iews and Mahometans being so apparent, and it carrying in its outward appearances such a Conformity (to say at present no more) to Heathenish Idolatry, we think we have all possible advantages in this Argument. We adhere to that Purity of Worship which is in both Testaments so much insisted on, we avoid all Scandal, and make no Approaches to Heathenism, and follow the Pattern set us by the Primitive Church. And as our simplicity of Worship needs not be defended, since it proves it self; so no proofs are brought for the other side, but only a pretended usefulness in outward Figures, to raise the Mind by the Senses to just Apprehensions of Spiritual Objects; which allowing it true, will only conclude for the Historical Use of Images, but not for the directing our Worship towards them. But the effect is quite contrary to the pretence, for instead of raising the Mind by the Senses, the Mind is rather sunk by them into gross Ideas.

The Bias of Human Nature lies to Sense, and to form gross Imaginations of Incorporeal Objects; and therefore instead of gratifying these, we ought to wean our Minds from them, and to raise them above them all we can. Even Men of Speculation and Abstraction feel Nature in this grows too hard for them; but the Vulgar is apt to fall so headlong into these Conceits, that it looks like the laying of Snares for them, to furnish them with such methods and helps for their having gross Thoughts of Spiritual Objects. The fondness that the People have for Images, their readiness to believe the most incredible Stories concerning them, the expence they are at to Enrich and Adorn them, their Prostrations before them, their Confidence in them, their humble and tender Embracing and Kissing of them, their pompous and heathenish Processions to do them Honour, the Fraternities erected for particular Images, not to mention the more universal and established Practices of directing their Prayers to them, of setting Lights before them, and of Incensing them; these, I say, are things too well known, to such as have seen the way of that Religion, that they should need to be much enlarged on; and yet they are not only allowed of, but encouraged. Those among them who have too much good sense that they should sink into those foolish apprehensions themselves, yet must not only bear with them, but often comply with them to avoid the giving of Scandal, as they call it; not considering the much greater Scandal that they give, when they encourage others by their practice to go on in these Follies. The enlarging into all the corruptions occasioned by this way of Worship would carry me far, but it seems not necessary, the thing is so plain in it self.

The next Head in this Article is a full instance of it, which is the Worship of Relicks. It is no wonder that great care was taken in the beginnings of Christianity, to shew all possible respect and tenderness even to the Bodies of the Martyrs. There is something of this planted so deep in Human Nature, that though the Philosophy of it cannot be so well made out, yet it seems to be somewhat more than an universal Custom; Humanity is of its side, and is apt to carry Men to the profusions of Pomp and Cost; all Religions do agree in this, so that we need not wonder if Christians in the first fervour of their Religion, believing the Resurrection so firmly as they did, and having a high sense of the Honour done to Christ and his Religion by the sufferings of the Martyrs; if, I say,⁵⁸ they studied to gather their Bones and Ashes together, and Bury them decently. They thought it a sign of their being joined with them in one Body, to hold their Assemblies at the places where they were buried:⁵⁹ This might be also considered as a motive to encourage others to follow the example that they had given them, even to Martyrdom: And therefore all the marks of Honour were put even upon their Bodies that could be thought on, except Worship. After the Ages of Persecution were over, a fondness of having and keeping their Relicks, began to spread it self in many places. Monks fed that humour by carrying them about. We find in St. Austin’s Works that Superstition was making a great progress in Africk upon these heads, of which he complains frequently.⁶⁰ Vigilantius had done it more to purpose in Spain; and did not only complain of the excesses, but of the thing in it self.⁶¹ St. Ierom fell unmercifully upon him for it, and sets a high value upon Relicks, yet he does not speak one word of worshipping them; he denies and disclaims it, and seems only to allow of a great fondness for them; and with most of that Age, he was very apt to believe, that Miracles were oft wrought by them. When Superstition is once suffered to mix with Religion, it will be still gaining ground, and it admits of no bounds: So this matter went on, and new Legends were invented; but when the Controversy of Image-worship began, it followed that as an accessary. The Enshrining of Relicks occasioned the most excellent sort of Images; and they were thought the best preservatives possible both for Soul and Body; no Presents grew to be more valued than Relicks; and it was an easy thing for the Popes to furnish the World plentifully that way, but chiefly since the discovery of the Catacombs, which has furnished them with Stores not to be exhausted. The Council of Trent did in this, as in the point of Images: it appointed Relicks to be Venerated, but did not determine the degree; so it left the World in possession of a most excessive dotage upon them. They are used every where by them as sacred Charms, Kissed and Worshipped, they are served with Lights and Incense.

In opposition to all this we think, that all decent Honours are indeed due to the Bodies of the Saints, which were once the Temples of the Holy Ghost: ⁶² But since it is said, that God took that care of the Body of Moses, so as to Bury it in such a manner that no Man knew of his Sepulchre, there seems to have been in this a peculiar caution guarding against that Superstition, which the Iews might very probably have fallen into with relation to his Body. And this seems so clear an indication of the Will of God in this matter, that we reckon we are very safe when we do no further honour to the Body of a Saint, than to Bury it. And though that Saint had been ever so Eminent, not only for his Holiness, but even for Miracles wrought by him, by his shadow, or even by looking upon him; yet the History of the Brazen Serpent shews us, that a fondness even on the Instruments, that God made use of to work Miracles by,⁶³ degenerates easily to the superstition of burning Incense to them; but when that appears it is to be check’d, even by breaking that which was so abused. Hezekiah is commended for breaking in pieces that noble Remain of Moses’s time till then preserved; neither its Antiquity, nor the signal Miracles once wrought by it, could balance the ill use that was then made of it: That good King broke it, for which he might have had a worse Name than an Iconoclast, if he had lived in some Ages. It is true Miracles were of old wrought by Aaron’s Rod, by Elisha’s Bones after his death, and the one was preserved but not worshipped;⁶⁴ nor was there any Superstition that followed on the other. Not a word of this fondness appears in the beginnings of Christianity; though it had been an easy thing at that time to have furnished the World with pieces of our Saviour’s Garments, Hair, or Nails; and great store might have been had of the Virgin’s and the Apostle’s Relicks: St. Stephen’s and St. Iames’s Bones might have been then parcelled about: And if that Spirit had then reigned in the Church, which has been in the Roman Church now above a Thousand Years, we should have heard of the Relicks that were sent about from Ierusalem to all the Churches. But when such things might have been had in great abundance, and have been known not to be Counterfeits, we hear not a word of them. If a fondness for Relicks had been in the Church upon Christ’s Ascension, what care would have been taken to have made great Collections of them!

Then we see no other care about the Body of St. Stephen but to Bury it; and not long after that time upon St. Polycarp’s Martyrdom, when the Iews who had set on the Prosecution against him, suggested, that if the Christians could gain his Body, they would perhaps forsake Christ and worship him; they rejected the accusation with horror, for in the Epistle which the Church of Smirna writ upon his Martyrdom, after they mention this Insinuation, they have those remarkable words, which belong both to this head and to that which follows it of the Invocation and Worship of Saints.⁶⁵ These Men know not that we can neither forsake Christ, who suffered for the salvation of all that are saved, the Innocent for the Guilty, nor worship any other; Him truly being the Son of God we adore: But the Martyrs, and Disciples, and Followers of the Lord, we justly love, for that extraordinary good mind, which they have expressed toward their King and Master, of whose happiness God grant that we may partake, and that we may learn by their Examples. The Iews had so persuaded the Gentiles of Smirna of this matter, that they burnt St. Polycarp’s Body; but the Christians gathered up his Bones with much respect, so that it appeared how they honoured them, though they could not worship them; and they buried them in a convenient place, which they intended to make the place where they should hold by the Blessing of God, the Yearly Commemoration of that Birth-day of his Martyrdom, with much Ioy and Gladness, both to Honour the Memory of those who had overcome in that Glorious Engagement, and to Instruct and Confirm all others by their Example. This is one of the most valuable Pieces of true and genuine Antiquity; and it shews us very fully the Sense of that Age both concerning the Relicks, and the Worship of the Saints. In the following Ages, we find no Characters of any other regard to the Bones or Bodies of the Saints, but that they buried them very decently, and did annually commemorate their Death, calling it their Birth-day. And it may incline Men strongly to suspect the many Miracles that were published in the Fourth Century, as wrought at the Tombs, or Memories of the Martyrs, or by their Relicks, that we hear of none of those in the former Three Centuries; for it seems there was more occasion for them during the Persecution, than after it was over; it being much more necessary than to furnish Christians with so strong a Motive as this must have been, to resist even to Blood, when God was pleased to Glorify himself so signally in his Saints. This, I say, forces us to fear, that Credulity and Imagination, or somewhat worse than both these, might have had a large share in those extraordinary things that are related to us by great Men in the Fourth Century. He must have a great Disposition to believe wonderful things, that can digest the extraordinary Relations that are even in St. Basile, St. Ambrose, and St. Austin; and most signally in St. Ierom, ⁶⁶ for instance, That after one had stolen Hilarion’s Body out of Cyprus, and brought it to Palestine, upon which Constantia that went formerly constantly to his Tomb, was ready to have broke her heart; God took such pity on her, that as the true Body wrought great Miracles in Palestine, so likewise very great Miracles continued still to be wrought at the Tomb, where it was at first laid. One in respect to those Great Men is tempted to suspect that many things might have been foisted into their Writings in the following Ages. A great many Practices of this kind have been made manifest beyond Contradiction. Whole Books have been made to pass for the Writings of Fathers, that do evidently bear the Marks of a much later date, where the Fraud was carried too far not to be discovered. At other times parcels have been laid in among their genuine Productions, which cannot be so easily distinguished; they not being liable to so many Critical Enquiries, as may be made on a larger Work. It is a little unaccountable how so many marvellous things should be published in that Age; and yet that St. Chrysostom, who spent his whole Life between two of the publickest Scenes of the World,⁶⁷ Antioch and Constantinople, and was an active and inquisitive Man, should not so much as have heard of any such wonderful Stories; but should have taken pains to remove a prejudice out of the Minds of his Hearers, that might arise from this, that whereas they heard of many Miracles that were wrought in the times of the Apostles, none were wrought at that time; upon which he gives very good reasons why it was so. His saying so positively, That none were wrought at that time, without so much as a Salvo for what he might have heard from other Parts, shews plainly, that he had not heard of any at all. For he was Orator enough to have made even looser Reports look probable. This does very much shake the Credit of those amazing Relations that we find in St. Ierom, St. Ambrose, and St. Austin. It is true, there seems to have been an Opinion very generally received both in the East and the West, at that time, which must have very much heightned the growing Superstition for Relicks. It was a Remnant both of Iudaism and Gentilism, that the Souls of the Martyrs hovered about their Tombs, called their Memories; and that therefore they might be called upon, and spoke to there. This appears even in the Council of Elliberis, where the Superstition of lighting Candles about their Tombs in Day-light is forbidden; the reason given, is, because the Spirits were not to be disquieted. St. Basil, and the other Fathers, that do so often mention the going to their Memories,⁶⁸ do very plainly insinuate their being present at them, and hearing themselves called upon. This may be the reason why among all the Saints that are so much magnified in that Age, we never find the Blessed Virgin so much as once mentioned. They knew not where her Body was laid, they had no Tomb for her, no nor any of her Relicks or Utensils. But upon the occasion of Nestorius’s denying her to be the Mother of God; and by carrying the Opposition to that too far, a Superstition for her was set on foot, it made a progress sufficient to ballance the slowness of its beginning; the whole World was then filled with very extravagant Devotions for her.

The great noise we find concerning Relicks in the end of the Fourth Century, has all the Characters of Novelty possible in it; for those who speak of it, do not derive it from former times. One circumstance in this is very remarkable, that neither Trypho, Celsus, Lucian, nor Cecilius, do object to the Christians of their time, their fondness for dead Bodies, or praying about their Tombs, which they might well have alledged in opposition to what the Christians charged them with, if there had been any occasion for it. Whereas this Custom was no sooner begun, than both Iulian and Eunapius reproach the Christians for it. Iulian, it is true,⁶⁹ speaks only of their calling on God over Sepulchres: Eunapius writ after him, and it seems in his time, that which Iulian sets forth as a calling upon God, was advanced to an Invocation of them. He says, They heaped together the Bones and Sculls of Men, that had been punished for many Crimes, (it was natural enough for a spiteful Heathen, to give this Representation of their Martyrdom) holding them for Gods: And after some scurrilous Invectives against them, he adds, they are called Martyrs, and made the Ministers. and Messengers of Prayer to the Gods. This seems to be a very evident proof of the Novelty of this matter. As for the adoring them, when Vigilantius asked, Why dost thou Kiss and Adore a little Dust put up in fine Linnen? St. Ierom, though excessively fond of them, denies this very positively, and that in very injurious Terms, being offended at the injustice of the Reproach. Yet as long as the Bodies of the Martyrs were let lie quietly in their Memories, the fond Opinion of their being present and hearing what was said to them, made the Invocating them look like one Mans desiring the Assistance of another good Man’s Prayers; so that this Step seemed to have a fair colour: But when their Bodies were pulled asunder and carried up and down; so that it was believed Miracles abounded every where about them; and when their Bones and Relicks grew to encrease and multiply, so that they had more Bones and Limbs than God and Nature had given them; then new Hypotheses were to be found out to justify the calling upon them every where, as their Relicks were spread. St. Ierom in his careless way says,⁷⁰ they followed the lamb whithersoever he went, and seems to make no doubt of their being, if not every where, yet in several places at once.⁷¹ But St. Austin who could follow a consequence much further in his Thoughts, though he doubted not but that Men were much the better for the Prayers of the Martyrs, yet he confesses that it passed the strength of his Understanding to determine, whether they heard those who called upon them at their Memories, or wheresoever else they were believed to have appeared, or not? But the Devotions that are spoken of by all of that Age, are related, as having been offered at their Memories, so that this seems to have been the general Opinion, as well as it was the common Practice of that Age, though it is no wonder if this Conceit once giving some colour and credit, to the Invocating them, that did quickly encrease it self to a general Invocation of them every where. And thus a fondness for their Relicks, joined with the opinion of their Relation and nearness to them, did in a short time grow up to a direct worshipping of them: And by the fruitfulness that always follows Superstition, did spread it self further, to their Cloaths, Utensils, and every thing else that had any relation to them.

There was cause given in St. Austin’s time to suspect that many of the Bones which were carried about by Monks,⁷² were none of their Bones but Impostures: Which very much shakes the Credit of the Miracles wrought by them; since we have no reason to think that God would support such Impostures with Miracles: As on the other hand there is no reason to think that false Relicks would have passed upon the World, if Miracles had been believed to accompany true ones, unless they had their Miracles likewise, to attest their Value; so let this Matter be turned which way it may, the credit both of Relicks and of the Miracles wrought by them, is not a little shaken by it. But in the following Ages we have more than Presumptions, that there was much of this false Coin that went abroad in the World. It was not possible to distinguish the False from the True. The freshness of Colour and Smell so often boasted might have been easily managed by Art; the varieties of those Relicks, the different Methods of discovering them, the Shinings that were said to be about their Tombs, with the Smells that broke out of them, the many Apparitions that accompanied them, and the signal Cures that were wrought by them; as they grew to fill the World with many Volumes of Legends, many more lying yet in the Manuscripts in many Churches, than have been published; all these I say carry in them such Characters of Fraud and Imposture, on the one hand, and of Cruelty and Superstition on the other, so much Craft and so much Folly, that they had their full Effect upon the World; even in contradiction to the clearest Evidence possible: The same Saints having more Bodies and Heads than one, in different Places; and yet all equally celebrated with Miracles. A great profusion of Wealth and Pomp was laid out in honouring them; new Devotions were still invented for them: And though these things are too palpably False to be put upon us now, in Ages of more Light, where every thing will not go down because it is confidently affirmed; yet as we know how great a Part of the Devotion of the Latin Church, this continued to be for many Ages before the Reformation, so the same Trade is still carried on, where the same Ignorance and the same Superstition does still continue.

I come now to consider the last Head of this Article, which is the Invocation of Saints; of which much has been already said by an Anticipation: For there is that Connection between the Worship of Relicks and the Invocation of Saints, that the treating of the one, does very naturally carry one to say somewhat of the other. It is very evident that Saints were not Invocated in the Old Testament. God being called so oft, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Iacob seems to give a much better warrant for it, than any thing that can be alledged from the New Testament. Moses was their Lawgiver and their Mediator and Intercessor with God; and his Intercession as it had been very effectual for them, so it had shewed it self in a very extraordinary Instance of his desiring that his Name might be blotted out of the Book which he had written rather than the People should perish;⁷³ when God had offered to him, that he would raise up a New Nation to himself, out of his Posterity. God had also made many Promises to that Nation by him: So that it might be natural enough considering the Genius of Superstition, for the Iews to have called to him in their Miseries, to obtain the Performance of those Promises made by him to them. We may upon this refer the Matter to every Mans judgment, whether Abraham and Moses might not have been much more reasonably Invocated by the Iews according to what we find in the Old Testament, than any Saint can be, under the New: Yet we are sure they were not prayed to. Elijah’s going up to Heaven in so miraculous a manner, might also have been thought a good Reason for any to have prayed to him: But nothing of that kind was then practised. They understood Prayer to be a Part of that Worship which they owed to God only: So that the praying to any other, had been to a certain Degree the having another God before, or besides the true Iehovah. They never prayed to any other, they called upon him and made mention of no other: The Rule was without exception, Call upon me in the time of trouble, ⁷⁴ I will hear thee and thou shalt glorify me. Upon this Point there is no dispute.

In the New Testament, we see the same method followed, with this only exception, that Jesus Christ is proposed as our Mediator: And that not only in the point of Redemption, which is not denied by those of the Church of Rome, but even in the point of Intercession; for when St. Paul is treating concerning the Prayers and Supplications that are to be offered for all Men, he concludes that Direction in these Words: For there is one God and one Mediator between God and Man, ⁷⁵ the Man Christ Iesus. We think the silence of the New Testament, might be a sufficient Argument for this: But these Words go farther, and imply a Prohibition to address our Prayers to God by any other Mediator. All the Directions that are given us of trusting in God and praying to him, are upon the matter Prohibitions of trusting to any other, or of calling on any other. Invocation and Faith are joyned together: How shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? ⁷⁶ So that we ought only to pray to God, and to Christ, according to those words, Ye believe in God, believe ye also in me. ⁷⁷ We do also know that it was a part of Heathenish Idolatry to Invocate either Demons, or departed Men, whom they considered as good Beings subordinate to the Divine Essence, and imployed by God in the Government of the World; and they had almost the same Speculations about them, that have been since introduced into the Church, concerning Angels and Saints. In the condemning all Idolatry, no reserve is made in Scripture for this, as being faulty, only because it was applied wrong; or that it might be set right when directed better. On the contrary, when some Men under the pretence of Humility and of Will-worship, ⁷⁸ did according to the Platonick Notions, offer to bring in the Worship of Angels into the Church of Colosse, pretending as is probable, that those Spirits who were imployed by God in the Ministry of the Gospel, ought in gratitude for that Service, and out of respect to their Dignity, to be worshipped: St. Paul condemns all this, without any reserves made for lower degrees of Worship; he charges the Christians to beware of that vain Philosophy, ⁷⁹ and not to be deceived by those shews of Humility, or the Speculations of Men, who pretended to explain that which they did not know, as intruding into things which they had not seen, vainly puffed up by their fleshly Mind. If any degrees of invocating Saints or Angels, had been consistent with the Christian Religion; this was the proper place of declaring them: But the condemning that matter so absolutely, looks as a very express Prohibition of all sort of Worship to Angels. And when St. Iohn fell down to Worship the Angel, that had made him such glorious Discoveries upon two several Occasions: The Answer he had, was, See thou do it not: ⁸⁰ worship God: I am thy fellow servant. It is probable enough, that St. Iohn might imagine, that the Angel who had made such Discoveries to him, was Iesus Christ; but the Answer plainly shews that no sort of Worship ought to be offered to Angels, nor to any but God. The reason given excludes all sort of Worship, for that cannot be among Fellow-Servants.

As Angels are thus forbid to be worshipped, so no mention is made of worshipping or invocating anySaints that had died for theFaith, such as St. Stephen and St. Iames. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, ⁸¹ they are required to Remember them which had the rule over them, and to follow their faith; but not a word of praying to them. So that if either the Silence of the Scriptures on this Head, or if plain Declarations to the contrary could decide this Matter, the Controversy would be soon at an end. Christ is always proposed to us as the only Person by whom we come unto God: And when St. Paul speaks against the worshipping of Angels, he sets Christ out in his Glory in Opposition to it. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily; and ye are compleat in him, which is the Head of all Principality and Power;⁸² pursuing that reason in a great many particulars.

From the Scriptures, if we go to the first Ages of Christianity, we find nothing that favours this, but a great deal to the contrary. Irenaeus disclaims the Invocation of Angels. The memorable Passage of the Church of Smirna, formerly cited, is a full Proof of their Sense in this matter. Clemens Alexandrinus and Tertullian do often mention the Worship that was given to God only,⁸³ by Prayer; and so far were they at that time from praying to Saints, that they prayed for them as was formerly explained: They thought they were not yet in the Presence of God, so they could not pray to them as long as that Opinion continued. That Form of praying for them is in the Apostolical Constitutions. In all that Collection, which seems to be a Work of the Fourth or Fifth Century, there is not a word that intimates their Praying to Saints. In the Council of Laodicea, there is an express Condemnation of those who invocated Angels;⁸⁴ this is called a Secret Idolatry, and a forsaking of our Lord Iesus Christ. The first Apologists for Christianity do arraign the Worship of Demons, and of such as had once lived on Earth, in a Stile that shewed they did not apprehend that the Argument could be turned against them, for their worshipping either Angels or departed Saints. When the Arian Controversy arose, the Invocation of Christ is urged by Athanasius, Basil, Cyril, and other Fathers, as an evident Argument that he was neither made nor created; since they did not pray to Angels, or any other Creatures, from whence they concluded that Christ was God. These are convincing Proofs of the Doctrine of the Three first, and of a good part of the Fourth Century.

It is true, as was confessed upon the former Head, they began with Martyrs in the end of the Fourth Century. They fancied they heard those that called to them; and upon that it was no wonder, if they invocated them, and so private Prayers to them began. But as appears both by the Constitutions, and several of the Writers of that time, the Publick Offices were yet preserved pure. St. Austin says plainly, The Gentiles built Temples, raised Altars, ordained Priests, and offered Sacrifices to their Gods; ⁸⁵ but we do not erect Temples to our Martyrs, as if they were Gods; but Memories as to dead Men, whose Spirits live with God; nor do we erect Altars, upon which we Sacrifice to Martyrs; but to one God only do we offer; to the God of Martyrs, and our God; at which Sacrifice they are named in their Place and Order, as Men of God, who in confessing Him have overcome the World, but they are not invocated by the Priest that Sacrifices. It seems [?]he Form of Praying for the Saints mentioned in the Constitutions, was not used in the Churches of Africk in St. Austin’s Time: He says very positively, That they did not pray for them, but did praise God for them: And he says in express words, Let not the Worship of dead Men be any part of our Religion, they ought so to be honoured, that we may imitate them, ⁸⁶ but not worshipped. God was indeed prayed to, in the Fifth Century, to hear the Intercession of the Saints and Martyrs; but there is a great difference between Praying to God to favour us on their account, and praying immediately to them to hear us.

The Praying to them imports either their being every where, or their knowing all things; and as it is a blasphemous Piece of Idolatry to ascribe that to them without a Divine Communication; so it is a great Presumption in any Man to fancy that they may be prayed to, and to build so many parts of Worship upon it, barely upon some probabilites and inferences, without an express Revelation about it. For the Saints may be perfectly happy in the enjoyment of God without seeing all things in him; nor have we any reason to carry that farther than the Scripture has done. But as the Invocating of Martyrs grew from a calling to them at their Memories, to a general calling to them in all places; so from the Invocating Martyrs, they went on to pray to other Saints; yet that was at first ventured on doubtfully, and only in Funeral Orations; where an address to the dead Person to pray for those that were then honouring his Memory, might perhaps, come in as a figure of pompous Eloquence; in which Nazianzen, one of the first that uses it, did often give himself a very great compass; yet he and others soften such Figures with this, If there is any sense or knowledge of what we do below.

From Prayers to God to receive the Intercessions of Martyrs and Saints, it came in later Ages to be usual to have Litanies to them, and to pray immediately to them; but at first this was only a desire to them to pray for those who did thus Invocate them, Ora pro nobis. But so impossible is it to restrain Superstition when it has once got head, and has prevailed, that in conclusion all things that were asked either of God or Christ, came to be asked from the Saints in the same humility both of Gesture and Expression; in which if there was any difference made, it seemed to be rather on the side of the B. Virgin and the Saints, as appears by the Ten Ave’s for one Pater, and that humble Prostration in which all fall down every day to worship her: The Prayer used constantly to her, Maria, Mater gratiae Mater miserecordiae, tu nos ab hoste protege, & hora mortis suscipe, is an immediate acknowledgment of her as the giver of these things; such are, Solve vincla reis, profer lumen caecis; with many others of that nature. The Collection of these swells to a huge bulk, Iure Matris impera Redemptori, is an allowed Address to her; not to mention an infinity of most scandalous ones, that are not only tolerated, but encouraged in that Church. Altars are consecrated to her honour, and to the honour of other Saints; but which is more, the Sacrifice of the Mass is offered up to her honour, and to the honour of the Saints: And in the Form of Absolution, the pardon of Sins, the increase of Grace, and eternal Life, are prayed for to the Penitent by the vertue of the Passion of Christ, and the Merits of the B. Virgin, and of all the Saints. The pardon of Sins and eternal Life, are also prayed for from Angels, Angelorum concio sacra, Archangelorum Turma inclyta, nostra diluant jam peccata, praestando supernam Coeli gloriam. Many strains of this kind are to be found in the Hymns and other publick Offices of that Church: And though in the late Corrections of their Offices, some of the more scandalous are left out, yet those here cited, with a great many more to the same purpose, are still preserved. And the Council of Trent did plainly intend to connive at all these things, for they did not restrain the Invocation of Saints, only to be an Address to them to pray for us, which is the common disguise with which they study to cover this matter: But by the Decree of the Council, the flying to their help and assistance as well as to their Intercession, is encouraged: Which shews that the Council would not limit this part of their Devotion to a bare Ora pro nobis; that might have seemed flat and low, and so it might have discouraged it; therefore they made use of words that will go as far as Superstition can carry them. So that if the Invocating them, if the making Vows to them, the Dedicating themselves to them; if the flying to them in all distresses, in the same acts and in the same words that the Scriptures teach us to fly to God with; and if all the studied honours of Processions, and other pompous Rites towards their Images, that are invented to do them honour; if, I say, all this does amount to Idolatry, then we are sure they are guilty of it; since they honour the creature not only besides (but in the full extent of that Phrase more than) the Creator. ⁸⁷

And now let us see what is the Foundation of all these Devotions, against which we bring Arguments, that to speak modestly of them, are certainly such that there should be matters of great weight in the other Scale to balance them. Nothing is pretended from Scripture, nor from any thing that is genuine, for above Three hundred and fifty years after Christ. In a word, the practice of the Church, since the end of the Fourth Century, and the Authority of Tradition, of Popes and Councils, must bear this Burden. These are Consequences that do not much affect us; for though we pay great respect to many great Men that flourished in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries, yet we cannot compare that Age with the Three that went before it. Those great Men give us a sad account of the Corruptions of that time, not only among the Laity, but the Clergy; and their being so flexible in matters of Faith, as they appeared to be in the whole course of the Arian Controversy, gives us very just reason to suspect the practices of that Age, in which the protection and encouragements that the Church received from the first Christian Emperors, were not improved to the best advantage.

The justest abatement that we can offer for thisCorruption, which is too manifest to be either denied or justified, is this, They were then engaged with the Heathens, and were much set on bringing them over to the Christian Religion. In order to that, it was very natural for them to think of all methods possible to accommodate Christianity to their taste. It was, perhaps, observed how far the Apostles complied with the Iews that they might gain them. St. Paul had said, that to the Iews he became a Iew; and to them that were without law, ⁸⁸ that is, the Gentiles, as one without law; that by all means he might gain some. They might think, that if the Iews, who had abused the light of a Revealed Religion, who had rejected and crucified the Messias, and persecuted his Followers, and had in all respects corrupted both their Doctrine and their Morals, were waited on and complied with, in the observance of that very Law which was abrogated by the Death of Christ, but was still insisted on by them as of perpetual Obligation; and yet that after the Apostles had made a solemn decision in the matter, they continued to conform themselves to that Law; all this might be applied with some advantages to this matter. The Gentiles had nothing but the Light of Nature to Govern them; they might seem willing to become Christians, but they still despised the nakedness and simplicity of that Religion. And it is reasonable enough to think that the Emperors and other great Men, might in a Political view, considering the vast strength of Heathenism, press the Bishops of those times to use all imaginable ways to adorn Christianity with such an exteriorForm ofWorship, as might be most acceptable to them, and might most probably bring them over to it.

The Christians had long felt the weight of Persecution from them. and were, no doubt, much frighted with the danger of a Relapse in Iulian’s time. It is natural to all Men to desire to be safe, and to weaken the numbers of their implacable Enemies. In that state of things we do plainly see they began to comply in lesser Matters: For whereas in the First Ages, the Christians were often reproached with this, that they had no Temples, Altars, Sacrifices, nor Priests, they changed their dialect in all those Points, so we have reason to believe that this was carried further. The Vulgar are more easily wrought upon in greater Points of Speculation, than in some small Ritual Matters: Because they do not understand the one, and so are not much concerned about it: But the other is more sensible and lies within their compass. We find some in Palestine kept Images in their Houses, as Eusebius tells us; others began in Spain to light Candles by Day-light, and to paint the Walls of their Churches: And though these things were condemned by the Council of Elliberis, yet we see by what St. Ierom has cited out of Vigilantius, that the Spirit of Superstition did work strongly among them: We hear of none that writ against those abuses besides Vigilantius; yet Ierom tells us, that many Bishops were of the same Mind with him, with whom he is so angry as to doubt, whether they deserved to be called Bishops. Most of these abuses had also specious beginnings; and went on insensibly: Where they made greater steps, we find an opposition to them.⁸⁹ Epiphanius is very severe upon the Collyridians, for their Worshipping the Blessed Virgin. And though they did it by Offering up a Cake to her, yet if any will read all that he says against that Superstition, they will clearly see, that no Prayers were then Offered up to her, by the Orthodox: And that he rejects the thought of it with Indignation. But the respect paid the Martyrs, and the opinion that they were still hovering about their Tombs, might make the calling to them for their Prayers, seem to be like one Mans desiring the Prayers of other Good Men; and when a thing of this kind is once begun, it naturally goes on. Of all this we see a particular Account in a Discourse writ on purpose on this Argument, of curing the Affections and Inclinations of the Greeks, by Theodoret, ⁹⁰ who may be justly reckoned among the greatest Men of Antiquity, and in it he insists upon this particular of proposing to them the Saints and Martyrs instead of their Gods. And there is no doubt to be made, but that they found the effects of this compliance; many Heathens were every day coming over to the Christian Religion: And it might then perhaps be intended, to lay all those aside, when the Heathens were once brought over.

To all which this must be added, that the good Men of that time had not the Spirit of Prophesy, and could not foresee what Progress this might make, and to what an Excess it might grow; they had nothing of that kind in their View: So that between Charity and Policy, between a desire to bring over Multitudes to their Faith, and an Inclination to secure themselves, it is not at all to be wondred at, by any who considers all the Circumstances of those Ages, that these Corruptions should have got into the Church, and much less having once got in, they should have gone on so fast, and be carried so far.

Thus I have offered all the Considerations that arise from the State of Things at that time, to shew how far we do still preserve the Respect due to the Fathers of those Ages, even when we confess that they were Men, and that something of human Nature appeared in this Piece of their Conduct. This can be made no Argument for later Ages, who having no Heathens among them, are under no Temptations to comply with any of the Parts of Heathenism, to gain them. And now that the abuse of these Matters, is become so scandalous, and has spread it self so far, how much soever we may excuse those Ages, in which we discern the first beginnings, and as it were the small Heads of that which has since overflow’d Christendom: Yet we can by no means bear even with those beginnings, which have had such dismal Effects; and therefore we have reduced the Worship of God, to the Simplicity of the Scripture Times, and of the First Three Centuries: And for the Fourth we reverence it so much on other Accounts, that for the Sake of these we are unwilling to Reflect too much on this.

Another Consideration urged for the Invocation of Saints, is, that they seeing God, we have reason to believe that they see in him, if not all things, yet at least all the Concerns of the Church, of which they are still Parts; and they being in a most perfect State of Charity, they must certainly love the Souls of their Brethren here below: So that if Saints on Earth whose Charity is not yet perfect, do pray for one another here on Earth, they in that State of Perfection do certainly pray most fervently for them. And as we here on Earth do desire the Prayers of others, it may be as reasonable and much more useful to have recourse to their Prayers, who are both in a higher State of Favour with God, and have a more exalted Charity: By which their Intercessions will be both more earnest, and more prevalent. They think also that this Honour paid the Saints, is an Honour done to God, who is glorified in them: And since he is the acknowledged Fountain of all, they think that all the Worship offered to them ends and terminates in God. They think as Princes are come at by the means of those that are in Favour with them; so we ought to come to God by the Intercession of the Saints: That all our Prayers to them are to be understood to amount to no more than a desire to them, to interceed for us; and finally that the Offering of Sacrifice is an Act of Worship, that can indeed be made only to God, but that all other Acts of Devotion and Respect, may be given to the Saints: And the sublimest Degrees of them, may be offered to the Blessed Virgin, as the Mother of Christ in a peculiar rank by her self. For they range the order of Worship into Latria, that is due only to God; Hyperdulia, that belongs to the Blessed Virgin, and Dulia, that belongs to the other Saints.

It were easy to retort all this, by putting it into the Mouth of a Heathen; and shewing how well it would fit all those Parts of Worship, that they offered to Demons or Intelligent Spirits, and to Deified Men among them. This is obvious enough to such as have read what the first Apologists for Christianity have writ upon those Heads. But to take this to pieces; we have no reason to believe that the Saints see all the Concerns of the Church. God can make them perfectly happy without this; and if we think, the seeing them is a necessary Ingredient of perfect Happiness, we must from thence conclude, that they do also see the whole Chain of Providence: Otherwise they may seem to be in some suspence, which according to our Notions, is not consistent with perfect Happiness. For if they see the Persecutions of the Church, and the Miseries of Christians, without seeing on to the end, in what all that will issue, this seems to be a stop to their entire joy. And if they see the final Issue, and know what God is to do, then we cannot imagine that they can interceed against it, or indeed for it. To us who know not the hidden Counsels of God, Prayer is necessary and commanded: But it seems inconsistent with a State in which all these Events are known. This which they lay for the Foundation of Prayers to Saints, is a thing concerning which God has revealed nothing to us; and in which we can have no certainty. God has commanded us to pray for one another, to join our Prayers together, and we have clear Warrants for desiring the Intercession of others. It is a high Act of Charity, and a great Instance of the mutual Love that ought to be among Christians: It is a part of the Communion of the Saints: And as they do certainly know, that those whose assistance they desire, understand their Wants when they signify them to them; so they are sure that God has commanded this mutual Praying one for another. It is a strange thing therefore to argue from what God has commanded, and which may have many good Effects, and can have no bad one, to that which he has not commanded; on the contrary, against which there are many plain Intimations in Scripture, and which may have many bad Effects, and we are not sure that it can have any one that is good. Beside, that the Solemnity of Devotion and Prayer, is a thing very different from our desiring the Prayers of such as are alive: The one is as visibly an Act of religious Worship, as the other is not. God has called himself a jealous God, that will not give his Glory to another. ⁹¹ And through the whole Scripture Prayer is represented as a main Part of the Service due to him; and as that in which he takes the most Pleasure. It is a Sacrifice, and is so called:⁹² And every other Sacrifice can only be accepted of God, as it is accompanied with the internal Acts of Prayers and Praises; which are the spiritual Sacrifices with which God is well pleased. The only thing which the Church of Rome reserves to God, proves to be the Sacrifice of the Mass: ⁹³ Which as shall appear upon another Article, is a Sacrifice that they have invented; but which is no where commanded by God: So that if this is well made out, there will be nothing reserved to God to be the act of their Latria: Though it is not to be forgotten, that even the Virgin and the Saints have a share in that Sacrifice.

The excusing this, from the Addresses made to Princes by those that are in Favour with them, is as bad as the thing it self; it gives us a low Idea of God, and of Christ, and of that Goodness and Mercy, that is so often declared to be Infinite, as if he were to be addressed to by those about him, and might not be come to without an Interposition: Whereas the Scriptures speak always of God, as a hearer of Prayer, and as ready to accept of and answer the Prayers of his People: To seek to other Assistances, looks as if the Mercies of God were not Infinite, or the Intercessions of Christ were not of infinite Efficacy. This is a Corrupting of the main Design of the Gospel, which is to draw our Affections wholly to God, to free us from all low Notions of him, and from every thing that may incline us to Idolatry or Superstition.

Thus I have gone through all the Heads contained in this Article. It seemed necessary to explain these with a due Copiousness; they being not only Points of Speculation, in which Errors are not always so dangerous, but practical Things; which enter into the Worship of God, and that run through it. And certainly it is the Will of God, that we should preserve it pure, from being corrupted with Heathenish or Idolatrous Practices. It seems to be the chief End of Revealed Religion to deliver the World from Idolatry: A great Part of the Mosaical Law did consist of Rites of which we can give no other account, that is so like to be true, as, that they were Fences and Hedges, that were intended to keep that Nation in the greatest Opposition, and at the utmost distance possible from Idolatry; we cannot therefore think that in the Christian Religion, in which we are carried to higher Notions of God, and to a more spiritual way of Worshipping him, that there should be such an approach to some of the worst Pieces of Gentilism; that it seems to be outdone by Christians, in some of its most scandalous Parts: Such as the Worship of subordinate Gods, and of Images. These are the chief Grounds upon which we separate from the Roman Communion: Since we cannot have fellowship with them, unless we will join in those Acts, which we look on as direct violations of the First and Second Commandment. God is a jealous God, and therefore we must rather venture on their Wrath, how burning soever it may be, than on his, who is a consuming Fire.

Footnotes

1. Rom. 5.1. ↩

2. Jer. 31.34 Heb. 8.12. ↩

3. Psal. 99.8. ↩

4. Matth. 5.26. ↩

5. Matth. 12.32. ↩

6. Heb. 2.5. ↩

7. [?]uk. 24.47. ↩

8. Acts 14.22. Rom. 8.18. ↩

9. 2 Cor. 4.17. ↩

10. […] 24.43. ↩

11. 2 Tim. 4.8. ↩

12. Phil. 1.2 3. 2 C[?]r. 5.6.8. v. 1, 2. Heb. 1.10. ↩

13. Rev. 14 13. ↩

14. 2 Ep. John v. 8. 1 Cor. 15.41. ↩

15. 2 Maccab. 12.40. ↩

16. […] ↩

17. 1 Cor. 3. from V. 10. to 16. ↩

18. Aug. de Civit. D[?]i. l. 21. c. 18. ad 22. En [?]r. c. 67, 68, 69. Ad Dulcid. […] prim[?]. ↩

19. Tertul. de. C[?]r. mil. c. [?]. de Ex. […] c. 13. [?]prian. […] 34.37. […] 75. l. 3.[?]3. ↩

20. Dion. de Eccl. Hierar. Cap. 7. ↩

21. Aug. Conf. l. 9. c. 19. ↩

22. Supra. ↩

23. Cypr. Epist. 1. O[?]on. ad [?]leb. Furer. ↩

24. Mark 11.17. ↩

25. Numb 16.38. ↩

26. Deut. 4.12, 15, 23. ↩

27. Verse 23. Deut. 12.30. Levit. 26.1. Deut. 16[?] 22. ↩

28. Isaiah 40.18. to 27.44.9. to 21. Jer. 10. to ver. 17. Hab. 2.18, 19, 20. ↩

29. Exod. 32 1, 4, 5. ↩

30. Acts 7.41. Psal. 106.19, 20. ↩

31. 1 King. 12.27, to the end. ↩

32. 1 King. 16.31. 2 King. 10.28, 29. ↩

33. Hosea 8.4, 5. ↩

34. 2 Kings 17.28, 32, 41. ↩

35. Acts 17.16, 25 to 29. ↩

36. Cic. de Nat. Deor. l. 1. cap. 27. ↩

37. Rom. 1.20. to the end. ↩

38. Just. Mart. Apol. 2. Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 1.5. Protr. Orig. Cont. Cels. l. 2.3.5.7. Tertull. Apol. Cypr. de Idol. Vanitate. Arnob. Lib. 5. Minut. Felix Oct. Euseb. praep. Evang. l. 3. Lactan. l. 2. c. 2. Ambros. Resp. ad Sym. August. de Civitate Dei. l. 7. c. 5. Orig. Con. Cels. l. 7. Euseb. Praep. Ev. l. 3. c. 7. Max. Tyr. diss. 38. Jul. Frag. Ep. Euseb. praep. Evan. l. 4. c. 1. ↩

39. Iren. l. 1. c. 24. Epiph. Haeres. 27. August. de Haeres. cap. 7. ↩

40. Epiph. ep. ad Joan. Hieros. ↩

41. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 7. c. 18. Aug. in Psal. 113. de Moribus Eccl. Cath. c. 34. ↩

42. Greg. Epist. l. 9. Ep. 9. ↩

43. This is owned by all the Historians of that Age, Anastasius, Zonaras, C[?]drenus, Glyc[?]s, Theophanes, Sigebert, Otho. Pris. Urspergensis, Sigonius, Rubens, and Cia[?]nius. ↩

44. Acta Con. Nic. 2. Action. 4, 5, 6, 7. ↩

45. Aquin. To. 1. quaest. 25. dispu[?]. 54. Sect. 2. ↩

46. Bellarm. de Imag. l. 2. c. 8. Suarez. M. 3. Ysambert de Mist. Incarn. ad quaest. 25. dis. 3. Vasquez. in 3 Aquin. disp. 103. c. 3. Cajetan. in 3. Aquin. quaest. 25. A. 3. ↩

47. Con. Nic. 2. Act. 7. Act. 6. ↩

48. C[?]n. N[?]c. Act. 5. ↩

49. Dur[?]n. in S[?]n[?]en. l. 3. […]. 9. qu. […]. 15. ↩

50. Con. Nic. Act. 2. ↩

51. Aquin. 3. p. q. 25. Art. 3. See to the same purpose, Alex. Hales, Bonaventure, Ricardus de Media villa palud Almans. B[?]el Summa Angelica, and m[?]ny more cited by Bishop Stilligfleet*‘s Defence of the Charge of Idolatry.* Part. 2. Chap. 2. ↩

52. Con. Trid. Sess. 25. ↩

53. See Bishop Stillingfleet, ut Supra. ↩

54. Pont. Rom. Ordo ad Recip. Imper. Rubri. ↩

55. In benedictione novae Crucis. Rogamus te Domine Sancte Pater Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, ut digneris benedicere hoc lignum Crucis tuae ut sit Remedium Salutare generi humano, sit Soliditas fidei, profectus bonorum operum, Redemptio animarum, sit Solamen & protectio ac tutela contra saeva jacula Inimicorum. Per Dom. Sanctificetur lignum istud in nomine Patris & Filii, & Spiritûs sancti, & benedictio illius ligni in quo membra sancta Salvatoris suspensa sunt sit in isto ligno ut orantes inclinantesque se propter Deum ante istam crucem inveniant corporis & animae sanitatem per eundem. ↩

56. Heb. 9.3, 7. ↩

57. Psal. 99.5, 9. ↩

58. Ep. Ecc. Smirn. apud Euseb. l. 4. c. 15. ↩

59. Jul. Ap. Cyril. lib. 6. lib. 10. Ennap. in vita Aedess. ↩

60. Aug. de opere monach. c. 28. ↩

61. Hieron. adv. Vigilant. To. 2. ↩

62. 1 Cor. 6.19. Deut. 34.6. ↩

63. 2 Kings 18.4. ↩

64. 2 Kings 13.21. ↩

65. Ep. Euseb. l. 4. c. 15. ↩

66. Basil. in 40 Martyr in Hom. 26. in Mamar. Paul. in vita Ambros. Aug. de Civit. Dei lib. 22. c. 8. ↩

67. Chrysost. Hom. 6. in 1 ad Cor. 2. ↩

68. Basil in 40 Martyr. ↩

69. Ap. Cyr. lib. 10. con. Julian. Ennap. in vita Aedess. ↩

70. Hieron. ad Vigil. ↩

71. Aug. cura pro mortuis. c. 16. ↩

72. Aug. de opere Monach. c. 28. ↩

73. Exod. 32.[?]2. ↩

74. […] 52.15. ↩

75. 1 Tim. 2. ↩

76. Rom. 10.14. ↩

77. John 14.1. ↩

78. Col. 2.18. ↩

79. Verse 8, 9, 10. ↩

80. Rev. 19.10. Rev. 22.9. ↩

81. Heb. 13.7. ↩

82. Col. 2.9, 10. ↩

83. Clem. Protrep. Tertul. Apol. c. 17. ↩

84. Con. Laod. c. 35. Just. Mart. Apol. 2. Iren. l. 2. c. 35. Orig. Con. Cels. l. 8. Tert. de Orat. c. 1. Athanas. cont. Arian. Orat. 1, 3, 4. Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 40. Greg. Niss. in Basil. cont. Eunap. Basil. Hom. 27. cont. Eunom. l. 4. Epiph. Haeres. 64, 69, 78, 79. Theod. de Haer. Fabul. l. 5. c. 3. Chrysost. de Trinit. ↩

85. Aug. con. Serm. Ar. c. 29. con. Max. l. 13. c. 4. Aug. de Civ. Dei. l. 22. c. 10. l. 8. c. 27. ↩

86. Aug. de vera Rel. c. 55. ↩

87. Rom. 1.25. ↩

88. 1 Cor. 9.19, 20. ↩

89. Epipli. Heres. 79: ↩

90. Theod. de cur. Gr. affect. l. 8. de Martyr. ↩

91. Is[?]. 42.8. ↩

92. Psal. 141.2. Hos. 14.2. ↩

93. Psal. 65.2. ↩