Newly Translated
First Thesis: Invocation of the Saints
Second Thesis: Worship of Images and Relics
Third Thesis: Adoration of Creatures
[N. B. Bossuet’s book is entitled, Exposition de la doctrine de l’Église catholique sur les matières de controverse: Exposition of the doctrine of the Catholic Church on controversial matters, 1671. Although he was once the Bishop of Condom, he is better known as the Bishop of Meaux.]
First Thesis: Invocation of the Saints
X. Nor only this; but furthermore, the opposite, for the Gospel teaches that it is evil and harmful to pray to anyone other than God, (Matthew 4:10, Galatians 4:8). It explains that a significant divide [χάσμα] separates those in heaven from those on earth, so though we support our earthly brothers out of love and order, we cannot seek refuge or offer help across this divide, (Luke 16:26, Isaiah 63:16). It teaches that the religiously pleaded intercession of the saints detracts greatly from Christ’s mediatorial axiom, by which through Him alone we come to the Father, (John 14:4, 6). He alone is our Advocate with the Father, (1 John 2:1). He is our only Mediator, (1 Timothy 2:5). It teaches that in heaven Christ alone is our only intercessor, through whom we have access (προσαγωγών) to the Father, (Romans 5:2, Ephesians 2:18). Romans 8:34 says Christ prays for us. It teaches that any benefits are obtained from God by Christ alone intervening, in whom all promises are yes and amen (ναι καὶ ἀμὴν), (2 Corinthians 1:20). It teaches that sacrifices are to be offered to God so that we may worship His glory and obtain benefits from Him, (Psalm 50:23, 91:14-16 & 116:17-18). It teaches that the holy dwellers of heaven completely ignore the singular vows and desires of those dwelling on earth, (Isaiah 63:16). Therefore, these Principal Heads of the Pontifical Gospel are not only unknown to the Gospel of the Prophets and Apostles but are also plainly contradictory. That we may with all right secede from the Romanists, nor with these things as they stand can we return except with immense violation of God’s glory and likewise of our own conscience.
XI. However, relying solely on these names is insufficient, as significant issues raised by the Papists persist and hinder our communion. But what are these significant issues? First, the dignity of the Mediator, which belongs by Scripture solely to Christ, is diminished by the invocation of the holy inhabitants of heaven, according to the testimonies of Scripture which we have produced in the preceding §. For if it belongs solely to Him, what is left to be arrogated to the Saints?
XII. I hear what is argued on the contrary by the Bishop of Condom (1) that it is good and useful to invoke the Saints through the Church for intercession. My response: Whatever it may be, whether this is done out of necessity or mere utility, so long as intercession is attributed to them, which by Scripture belongs solely to Christ, His office of Mediator is diminished. (2) Indeed, it is even done out of necessity, according to the Council’s judgment, when it is good and useful: also, it is necessary and those who refuse to invoke the saints for intercession are not tolerated to be in communion with the Roman Church; and they are not even permitted to be present at their sacred rites, particularly after invocations of this sort have been performed. Therefore, the Council also condemns those who maintain the contrary.
XIII. Then, in volume 2, it is argued that the invocation by which we seek the intercession of the saints is done by the same spirit of charity and fraternal order of society by which we are induced to seek help for brothers living on earth. My response: (1) Let it be indeed by whatever spirit and order; provided that you construct the intercessors in heaven with the One Mediator, you undoubtedly detract from His mediatorial dignity. (2) Moreover, that the invocation of the saints is done by the same spirit of charity and fraternal order of society by which we seek the help of the living: neither Scripture teaches this; nor reason bears it; nor does the Roman Church believe it: since it does not demand a civil conversation with the heavenly saints, which relies on such a spirit and order of fraternal charity; but a religious invocation, as the Bishop of Condom himself admits, in the preceding section. Therefore (3) there is absolutely no consequence by the intercession of living faithful for the dignity of Christ’s mediation is not diminished by the invocation and intercession of the heavenly saints: since (1) God commanded the former, but forbade the latter; (2) by the former we exhort living brothers; by the latter, the Papists invoke the dead. (3) By the former, we do not place intercessors in heaven who stand before the face of the Father for us, in whom lies Christ’s prerogative (Hebrews 7:25; Romans 8:34); but only exhort brothers who join their prayers to ours, so that united strength may be made stronger, to the greater glory of God, mutual edification, and easier obtaining of requested things.
XIV. This veneration of the Saints is also unfair and harmful to the divine majesty in several respects. Initially, it shifts the glory of worship—something Scripture consistently declares belongs solely to God throughout both the Old and New Testaments—to created beings, as we explain in the third discourse. The Bishop objects: (1) There is a vast difference between the way we implore God’s help and the way we implore the help of the Saints. My response: It matters not if there is a great difference in the manner of imploring in kind and degree because in the very act of imploring or adoration, and in the help sought in both cases, what is proper to God is constantly attributed to creatures. But where exactly lies this [alleged] vast difference? The Bishop answers: (2) from the Catechism of Trent; we pray to God that He may either do good or deliver us from evils; but to the Saints, because they are gracious before God, that they may take up our patronage and obtain from God what we need. Hence, two formulas of prayer are used, differing only in mode; for to God properly we say: HAVE MERCY ON US, HEAR US; to a Saint: PRAY FOR US. My response: (1) You correctly employ different forms of prayer when you share the very substance itself, which is unique to God, between God and the Saints. Then (2) Nor do you always discriminate by these formulas or the movement: for you may hear, as we have said, in the public Litany to the Virgin, it is cried out: “Spare us, Lady; Lady of the world, with your most holy Son, HAVE MERCY ON US.” Compare the Litany of Mary; where occurs: “Holy Mary who enlightens the whole world, you exalt your servants, enlightener of hearts, Fountain of Mercy,” etc.
Also:
Be gracious, spare us, Lady.
Be gracious, deliver us, Lady;
From all evil, deliver us, Lady.
From every evil temptation, deliver us, Lady.
From the wrath and indignation of God, deliver us,
Lady.
From danger and despair, deliver us, Lady.
For the sake of brevity, I will not mention other examples: not the Psalter of the Blessed Virgin attributed to Bonaventure which petitions the Blessed Virgin with the same formulas of prayer by which David invoked Jehovah, and even the same benefits; nor the Little Hours of the Virgin Mary, according to the Ordinary of the Church of Hildesheim where this formula is found: “Give me strength against heresies, Holy Mary, help the miserable, assist the faint-hearted, restore the weeping: let all feel your relief, whoever celebrates your name, prepare to assist those who call upon you.”
[……………………]
XV. The Bishop applies a double remedy to countless other examples of this kind. (1) “From which,” he says, “we must understand that whatever words the prayers directed to the Saints are conceived with, they must always be brought back to the form of the Church and the faithful, as the same Catechism confirms in the following passages.” Response: (1) We cannot understand this from the statement that whatever words, etc. Nor (2) can the words of prayer, cited in the preceding paragraph as an example, admit this form or this meaning. Nor (3) does the Church command that prayers to the Saints always have this form. For the Council of Trent says in the cited Session 25 that although it is also permitted to ask the Saints to have mercy on us in some other manner, it also approves by the words cited by the Bishop that it is good and useful not only to resort to the prayers of the Saints, i.e., their intercessions, but also to their help and assistance.
XVI. Then secondly, he applies another remedy: “In fact,” he says, “through Christ alone, and in His name, we obtain whatever we obtain, since the Saints themselves pray only through Christ, nor are they heard except in His name.” My response: (1) The practice presented by Thesis XIII openly protests: for if we obtain by the merits of the Blessed Virgin, or by the merits of the Saints, then certainly not through Christ alone. And if through Christ alone both we and the Saints obtain what is asked, why then do we not strive straight to Christ? Why use so many circumlocutions?
XVII. Thirdly, the invocation of the Saints is unjust towards the divine Majesty insofar as a sacrifice is offered, if not to the Saints themselves, at least in honor of the memory of the Saints. What is this but to offer Jesus Christ as a sacrifice in honor and memory of the Saints? Did the Church of the Old Testament ever offer its sacrifices in honor or memory of Abraham, Isaac, etc.? Did the Church of the New Testament ever do so? But the Bishop says, “the honor lies in this, that we name their names as faithful servants of God in the prayers offered to Him, so that we may give thanks to Him for the victories gained through them and beseech Him to be moved by their intercession.” This refuge (κρησφύγετον) was unknown to the Israelite Church, unknown to the Apostolic Church, unknown to the early Christian Church, unknown even to Augustine himself, though presented with such great splendor by the Bishop: for he denies everywhere in his book, The City of God, that sacrifices are to be offered to the Saints, and if anyone knows anything, it is he who knows from Psalm 50:14-15 and Hebrews 13:15 that among the sacrifices of the New Testament are prayers [of thanksgiving]. Nor does he prove that the sacrifice of the Mass is made either in memory or honor or upon the bodies of the Saints; much less is it true that this rite was then received throughout the universal Church. Indeed, if one did not intend more by this sacrifice than religious veneration, he would commit idolatry, according to our and the Scripture’s judgment; but the Council of Trent intends more, Session 22 [chapter 3: On Masses in honor of Saints] which the Bishop cautiously suppresses; for with the sacrifice offered, the patronage of the Saints is implored, in which open idolatry is manifest.
XVIII. And fourthly, it is derogatory to the divine majesty when a certain immensity of knowledge of hidden thoughts which Scripture testifies God reserves to Himself is attributed to creatures. Jeremiah 17:9-10; Psalm 7:10; 1 Chronicles 29:17. I hear what the Bishop of Condom objects, that they do not know from themselves, but through communication or ministry and strengthening of Angels, or God reveals our desires to them by a special revelation, or finally that He discloses to them that secret in His infinite essence, in which whatever is true is contained: therefore, this does not detract more from the divine Majesty than when the Prophets knew future things. My response: It presupposes that the basis of adoration is that all those whom the Roman Church prays to are Saints and exist in heaven; for unless you know this for certain, on what basis will you adore them? Now by what proof is this established and certain, either to me or to those praying? (2) It presupposes that those who are truly heavenly Saints have, in some manner, a certain knowledge of secret thoughts. But with what great judgment (κρινόμενον) will he prove this? Since they do not have this inherently of themselves, nor does Scripture remain silent but explicitly declares the contrary, Isaiah 63:16? (3) Whether they [are claimed to] have it from themselves or from any communication; they are said to have it, which is manifestly a sacrilege, for God so often asserts this [power] as His own. [………]
Although angels are said to serve those destined for salvation, they do not automatically know hidden thoughts or always convey them to the Saints. If they act without being asked, why should invoking the Saints be necessary? This raises the question of whether such an invocation is redundant. I will add that on this account one would resort to sacrilege insofar as this knowledge, which God appropriates to Himself, is attributed to Angels, as well as idolatry by invoking Angels. Indeed, on that account, do Angels intercede with the Saints, so that the Saints intercede with God? Shall we be so far removed from God? Nor do they know by a special revelation of God. For where does God say that He reveals this to the Saints? And if He revealed it, how could they appropriate that knowledge to themselves? Indeed, if that were the case, would God first intercede with the Saints so that they in turn could intercede with Him, a foolish circle? Moreover, would God be invoked by this name first? And through what mediator would this be done? Alternatively, if this benefit is granted directly to the devout without mediation, should it not also be available to others, with individual prayers receiving prompt attention? Finally, nor do they perceive hidden earthly thoughts in the infinite essence of God, or as others say, in the mirror of the Trinity. Since Scripture teaches this nowhere, nor can it be established otherwise. And if they understood these things in the infinite essence of God; certainly, they would understand through divine ideas, which themselves are the intellect of God; and thus, they would understand through the divine intellect. And what indeed is it if not this, to give creatures what belongs to God? Indeed, when all things lie exposed in that infinite essence of God; will those contemplating that infinite essence of God have knowledge of all things, and thus be omniscient? Therefore, the way for the Saints to know hidden thoughts is not evident except from themselves. Nor is the [attempted] escape by the example the Prophets valid: for besides God explicitly saying that He reveals some future things to them (Amos 3:7), nowhere does He say this about the Saints in general. Besides, nowhere is knowledge of hidden thoughts attributed to the Prophets, much less that the dead Saints have been or are to be invoked.
XIX. Fifthly, the invocation and intercession of the Saints detracts from the glory of God, insofar as, through so many detours and windings a man approaches God, and, while detained by the invocation of the Saints as if on the way, is drawn away from God; while at the same time God is deprived of the glory of being invoked as long as that is bestowed upon the Saints. Bernardino de Bustis depicts this circle knowingly in his Mariale [1502]: “You have a safe battle line between God and man, where the Mother stands before the Son, the Son before the Father: the Mother shows her breast and bosom to the Son; the Son shows his side and wounds to the Father.”
XX. Therefore, to conclude, the invocation of the Saints not only infringes upon the foundation of our faith and contains a different Gospel, entirely different from the Gospel of the Prophets and Apostles throughout Heaven; but also constitutes a violation of so many divine statements, idolatry, sacrileges, a diminution of mediatorial dignity, and a distancing from God and the Mediator. Each of these matters is so serious that we were perfectly right to withdraw from communion with Rome, and — given this whole accumulation of wickedness — we are unable to go back to her.
ADDITIONS TO THE DEFENSES
I. Just as there is a certain order in the subsistence within the most simple divine essence, so there is also an order in the divine operations: namely, that the principle of actions is attributed to the Father, the dispensation / execution to the Son, and the application to the Holy Spirit — all while fully preserving the coequal perfections of the three Persons. These truths must be firmly held against the sophistries of the Socinians and against all the ancient Pneumatomachi (‘fighters against the Spirit’).
II. From this marvelous economy of the Trinity, sanctification is attributed to the Holy Spirit (Romans 1:4), which consists in restoring man to the image of God — an image that is presupposed to have been corrupted and impaired. Hence, the Pelagians, by denying this very corruption, sufficiently corrupt / invalidate regeneration itself.
III. This work of the Holy Spirit affects the whole person, but primarily the mind, where the understanding — whose mindset is foolishness in God’s sight — is illuminated with the saving light of knowledge. The heart of flesh — that is, the will turned toward saving good — is given to him according to the promise of the covenant of grace, and all its unruly affections are directed to good objects. As a result, all the members of the body become instruments of righteousness. All these doctrines shine clearer than the noonday sun from Scripture. We will uphold the accompanying truths of this doctrine against the Socinians and the Papists, in accordance with the judgment of the Reformers.
END
Second Thesis: Worship of Images and Relics
First, therefore, the Papist Gospel is injurious to the divine Majesty insofar as it first claims the legislative power (νομοθετικήν) by which God so often and with such zeal forbade the making of images, to have them for worship according to their prototypes, to adore them, to bow down before them, as we have shown above in § VI. and that it holds to this. The Bishop seems to rely on the argument that pagan images and the pagan worship of images are prohibited if one believes that some divinity dwells in images, etc. My response: (1) Certainly, He prohibits pagan images, but not only those for He expressly forbids Himself, or the true God’s images in the places cited above. Since therefore neither the law nor the Legislator makes exceptions to this law in the entire sacred Scripture: is it lawful to confine God’s legislative power and His commandments, which so generally and zealously forbid images, to this or that kind of image, [while allowing others]? Secondly, the Papists’ images are unjust to the Majesty because they embrace His invisible, incorruptible, and infinite excellence in the form of a mortal man or even a brute (dove), and in the hearts of the spectators generate crude and indecent concepts unworthy of divine majesty. This is what the Apostle means when he says it is to change the glory of the incorruptible God into the form of a mortal man and birds. Likewise, to change the truth of God into a lie, on account of which God delivered the Gentile philosophers over to their lusts for impurity, (Romans 1:23-25). Nor does the Bishop of Condom have anything to bring against this.
IX. Secondly, papal idolatry is guilty not only in the worship of creatures and the invocation of Saints, about which we have explicitly spoken in preceding sections; nor only in the worship of the Eucharistic bread, about which in its proper place; but also insofar as it generally renders honor and veneration to images and relics (whether that worship be called latria, dulia, or hyperdulia), not a civil kind of honor but a religious one which God reserved solely to Himself, (Matthew 4:10). Insofar as it particularly renders latria worship, or in its proper judgment, worship peculiar to God, to the sign and wood of the cross, to images of God, the Trinity, and Christ, at least according to the judgment of Aquinas, Summa Theologica part 3, Question 25, Article 3, and others, and according to the hypotheses of Trent. Also, insofar as it imagines God to be such who delights in such worship through the religious veneration of any images and relics, whereas the true God has declared that He abhors such worship. By which name the Israelite worship, aimed at through the golden calf, is designated idolatry, (Acts 7:41).
X. Now then, let us see what the most learned Prelate alleges in these matters. First, it is argued that by the Council of Trent they do not believe any divinity or virtue resides in the images which they worship, nor is anything sought from them, nor is any trust placed in them; therefore, they must be distinguished from idolaters who attribute some divine presence or virtue to images, like the Pagans. The response: From this (1) they cannot at all succeed unless they exempt themselves from that idolatry which attributes some divinity to images, i.e., from Gentile idolatry; is it therefore on that account that they are free from all idolatry? This is a fallacy from the particular to the universal [‘secundum quid’ = assuming a general rule from a particular case]. What if it is the [same as] Israelite idolatry, in which it is simply forbidden to depict the true God? [Exodus 20:4-5; Deut. 5:8-9, 6:15.] Indeed, what if it is the [same as] Gentile idolatry which represented the glory of the incorruptible God by any image? (Rom. 1:23). Then (2) will not the papist idolatry be all the more unanswerable and detestable because it offers religious worship to those things which they confess have no divinity or virtue in them, though they are to be worshiped religiously, nor for which anything is sought from them, etc., i.e., to which no foundation of worship and veneration is present? Then (3) while they are religiously worshiped and invoked, is it really declared that there is anything in them, if not of deity, at least of virtue for which they are religiously to be worshiped? But (4) not even the Pagans themselves, at least their more prudent ones—Philosophers and Priests—considered the images themselves to be gods, or that divinity was in them; but that the gods dwelt in the heavens, Dan. 2:11. Nor did they descend to men except perhaps by natural necessity. See Augustine on Psalm 86, Athenagoras Apology, p. 17. At least they did not worship wood or stones except insofar as they represented their prototypes; indeed, in worship both of gods and images, degrees were admitted among gods superior and inferior, just as the Romanists established degrees of worship: latria, hyperdulia, and dulia. And if anything further is reproached against them, then from Scripture; then from the Fathers, this must altogether be referred to the unlearned common people. Just as the same common papists can justly and reasonably be reproached, since they do not attain the distinctions, nuances, and colors of their own Doctors. Meanwhile (5) we do not deny that the Gentiles believed that some power resided in their images for preserving or delivering; power derived from their prototypes themselves, as the Greeks conferred on Pallas the power to defend Troy. Indeed, they even believed the gods manifested their presence around images in an extraordinary manner from time to time, as attested by Arnobius, Against the Gentiles, book 6, and Maximus of Tyre, Sermon 38. But that such power is present in their relics, images, and the cross is more clearly believed by the Roman Catholics, both from the Council of Trent, which teaches that many benefits are granted to men through the bodies of saints (Session 25, On Relics), and also from the Roman Pontifical, whose authority the Bishop of Condom himself receives, from whose rubric the wood of the cross is blessed with these words among others: “We ask you, eternal God, to deign to bless this wood of the cross, that all who kneel here and supplicate your Majesty may be granted contrition of heart and forgiveness of sins.” Also: “May that wood be sanctified so that those praying and bowing themselves before this cross for God’s sake may find health of body and soul.” Also: “Deign to bless this wood of the cross so that it may be a salutary remedy for humanity, a strengthening of faith, progressing in good works, a redemption of souls, and a protection against the savage darts of demons.” And when passing by images of the Cross in [the Liturgy of] the Hours, they are instructed to say: “Save us, O Christ, by the power of your Holy Cross.” Also: “Deign to enlighten our hearts and bodies by the power of your Holy Cross.”
And what they understand, learn from this prayer of the Antidoron at the Cross: “May the sign of the Holy Cross defend me from all evils.” Therefore, do they attribute no power to the Cross? And is it sufficiently true what the Bishop argues for escaping [the accusation of idolatry]: for do all not perceive before the cross Him who bore our sins on the wood? Nor is this done only to the cross, but also to images. For from the same Roman Pontifical [Pontificale Romanum] the consecration of the image of the Blessed Virgin is as follows: “Sanctify, O God, this image of the Blessed Virgin, that it may bring help of saving aid to all faithful, and that thunder or lightning, if harmful, be driven away; also inundations of rains, or commotions of civil wars, or devastation by Pagans be restrained by her presence,” etc. Also, the blessing of the image of John the Evangelist: “May this image be a holy expulsion of demons, an invocation of angels, a protection of the faithful, and may his powerful intercession prevail in this place.” I would gather many more of this sort in great number, were it not that both the reader’s weariness and the purpose of brevity would prevent it. I will add only one thing: if among the Romans no power is believed to be in images for which they are to be worshiped or from which anything is sought, etc., why then do they make vows and undertake pilgrimages (approved by Tridentine authority) to a certain image of a saint with this promise: if anyone vows themselves to such an image, they will be healed or obtain what is desired? Is it [true] that we are to attribute no virtue to images except to awaken in us a recollection of the prototypes? Is this not to make petitions directly to images? Is this not to place trust in images?
XI. Then secondly, in order to avert the mark of idolatry (ειδολολατρείας) from images, both the Bishop of Condom and more openly the Council seem to only grant that honor and veneration be imparted to images; but Christ alone should be adored [worshiped]. My response: (1) We grant this; but the honor and religious affection, as the Bishop confesses, which God claims for Himself alone (Exod. xx. 4, 5, 6) and the Savior God peculiarly receives (Matt. 4:10). Then 2. Such honor, and all parts of that honor by which the Romans are accustomed to represent religious affection towards God and the Mediator, by kissing, uncovering their heads before them, prostrating themselves (as the Council’s words have it), making vows to them, undertaking pilgrimages, burning incense to them, greeting them, directing conceived prayers to them, so much so that scarcely any external sign remains by which they show their affection peculiarly to God, which they also lavish upon images. Therefore (if from the sentence of the Bishop in Section 3) it is permitted to pronounce from signs the latent affection; it must be said altogether that they lavish religious affection, which belongs only to God, also upon images. We will not repeat (3) that they lavish the worship of latria upon images of God, the Trinity, Christ, and the cross, according to the opinion of their most eminent Doctors, and (from the hypotheses of the Council itself) must lavish it, since they determine that honor which approaches the image closely passes on to the prototype, which without doubt according to their mind is latria. Indeed (4) From the style received by the chief Papist Doctors, any images are also adored by them. Thus, not only do they say in the margin to the Tridentine text that the oldest use in the Church of God and confirmed by the holy Fathers is of Holy Images and their adoration [worship] is proven by many testimonies; but even the Council itself when it bases its worship on the authority of the Second Nicene Synod expressly wishes images to be prayed to.
XII. Furthermore, thirdly, idolatry in images is by no means committed, as the Bishop wishes with the Council, precisely because that honor which is shown to images is intended to be referred to the prototypes which they represent. My response: Let it be so; meanwhile that honor which is directed through images to the prototypes, to God, to the Trinity, to Christ, truly first touches the image itself, and thus, at the least remains in the image and attributes to the idolatry itself, which is plainly ἀντικατάκριτος (indisputable), according to what we warned concerning the third Diatribe.
XIII. Therefore, as the fourth point: the Bishop of Condom offers no kind of excuse to disguise or cover up the idolatry involved in images. He claims that when we render honor to the image of an Apostle or Martyr (or even of Christ), we do NOT intend to honor the image itself so much as to honor the Apostle or Martyr in the presence of the image. My response: (1) The author’s hesitation and equivocation — saying ‘not so much [the image], as [the person represented by the image] — if it doesn’t outright disprove his honesty in presenting the Catholic view, at the very least it shows nothing more than a determined attempt to gloss over and conceal papist idolatry. Does he not, by using this ‘not so much…. as……’ openly admit that honor is indeed being rendered to the image? And indeed, in distinction from the prototype? And if the honor that belongs to the prototype — say, God or Christ — is attributed to their image precisely insofar as it is an image, is idolatry not thereby committed? What then does this ‘not so much… as…’ prove, except that they commit less idolatry than if they directed honor to the image itself as the end? Therefore (2) honoring images and honoring the prototypes in the presence of images are not contradictory — especially since prayers, according to the formulas long ago produced as examples, are directed to the images. Nor (3) does the honor shown to the Gospel book in the presence of truth, as is claimed, remove or lessen idolatry. For if that honor — which is without doubt religious — by which the head is bowed, one rises when it is publicly presented, and reverent kisses are given — if, I say, the book itself, however it may be touched, remains stuck in the same mire of idolatry as the honor given to images; if it is understood not to touch it, then the reasoning is not the same, and therefore it adds nothing here.
[N. B. I.e., Catholics claim bowing to or kissing the Gospel book honors the truth contained in it (not the book itself). The critic replies: If touching or honoring the physical book is still idolatrous (because it’s a creature), the same logic applies to images. If it’s not idolatrous for the book, then the distinction collapses — but either way, Catholic practice remains inconsistent.]
With so many and such skillful disguises, the worship of images cannot be so covered over that its idolatry does not shine forth most clearly everywhere.
XIV. But not only idolatry; but also superstition, by which we understand worship that is not owed, whereby we worship God in a manner different from that which He Himself prescribed, namely through images: which God forbids in the second commandment of the Decalogue, and the Savior, Matthew 15:9, and Paul, Colossians 2:23, and even the Council of Trent, Session 25, in its very superstitious wording is plainly contrary. The Roman Synagogue commits superstition insofar as it uses images in divine worship, nowhere prescribed but everywhere forbidden by God. Insofar as (2) in public worship and in places designated for it, it assigns use to images for exciting memory, veneration, and religious affection of prototypes, a use utterly unknown to the Holy Spirit in Scripture; nay, whom He reproves when the memory of the true and incorruptible God is so fatally obliterated, substituting in the mind such a [false] God as these images represent. Likewise, instead of veneration and consequently, instead of religious affection for His glory, gross contempt and base notions are brought to the mind, as testified in Romans 1:23. And also insofar as (3) the Council of Trent assigns them power to instruct and confirm the people in the articles of faith to be remembered and diligently recalled. [On the contrary] this power the Holy Spirit hides in Scripture and is not only hidden in it, but also condemned by it, Habakkuk 2:18-19; Romans 1:23. These kinds of superstitious worship of images are completely ignored by the Bishop of Condom.
XV. By these crimes, then — with the divine Majesty violated in more ways than one, and with manifold idolatry and superstition committed together — the papist Gospel provokes God to that just but terrible jealousy which is expressed in the second commandment: “For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.” That it stirs God to this jealousy, I say, can be hidden from no one. Nevertheless, the Bishop tries to deflect this charge from his own side with a threefold excuse:
First, that our love for someone extends undivided to his books and friends, likewise to his image, and finally to any of his monuments, without any rivalry toward him.
But who cannot see that the reasoning here is utterly different between love and civil honor, which can be given to many people freely, equally or unequally, without guilt or jealousy; and love and religious worship, which belongs undivided to God alone, and which God commands with such intense zeal to be reserved for Him alone? Therefore, when it [religious worship] is in any way directed to another, it cannot fail to provoke God’s jealousy and anger.
Secondly, they claim that this external worship which the Catholic Church gives to creatures, to the saints, to images and relics, originates from God and returns to God.
But this is claimed without proof: for anything that is contrary to God and forbidden by Him with such great zeal cannot originate from God or return to Him; instead, it comes from self-made religion and superstition, which God has so often and so sternly condemned.
Thirdly, [the Bishop claims] that the love of neighbor commanded by God does not provoke God’s jealousy. But who cannot see that there is a vast difference — as wide as the sky — between the love and honor commanded by God (the kind that ought to be shown to one’s neighbor) and the kind that is forbidden, the kind bestowed on images and relics? That is, the difference between civil love and honor which God wills to be shown to one’s neighbor, and religious [honor] which He commands to be kept peculiarly for Himself alone.
XVI. So much for the worship of images; a few words now with the Bishop of Condom on the subject of relics: “The honor,” he says, “which we show to sacred relics — following the example of the early Church — must be understood in the same sense. For if our opponents would only weigh the matter properly, they would see that we view the bodies of the saints as victims once consecrated to God through martyrdom or penance — and they would not think that by showing honor to them with this intention we are diverted from the honor we render to God Himself.” Here, almost every word is an equivocation, every word a dodge. First of all, the Bishop appears to limit relics strictly to the actual bodies of the saints, even though the Council associates other sacred monuments with them. And others [extend the term] not only to the bodies themselves, but also to parts of the bodies — hairs, bones, flesh, teeth, ashes, dust — as well as clothing and other items the saints used; likewise veils, cloths, and everything else that was placed near their bodies or bones, or that touched them, or that belonged to them, (Spanish Jesuit Juan Azor, Moral Institutions, book 9, chapter 8). Are all these things — viewed as victims once consecrated to God through martyrdom or penance — to be regarded and honored with this intention?
Then secondly, he calls it merely ‘honor,’ but what kind of honor does he mean? Is it the civil honor which we ourselves do not refuse — to be shown by honorable burial and other such duties — or the religious honor which the deceitful Church undoubtedly intends? The Bishop passes over this in silence, satisfied to have generally granted them ‘honor,’ even though religious honor is steeped in every poison of idolatry and superstition.
Furthermore, thirdly, it seems emphatic that he speaks of the honor that is shown, not the honor that ought to be shown or is prescribed by his Church. But what is that honor? (1) To exhume bodies, ashes, and bones from graves; to place them in an elevated spot, above the high altar or in some other conspicuous place; to adorn them with gold, silver, gems, and silk. (2) To carry around in public processions, to offer to the people to touch, kiss, or at least to look at. (3) Canonization by the Pope — which, according to Dominican Antoninus of Florence in his Summa Theologica, Part 5, Title 12, Chapter 8, it is not [just a neutral declaration of heroic virtue] — but consists of presenting a saint as an example of faith and a holy life, and as someone who is to be adored by all and invoked in times of need. (4) To place in this a singular and meritorious worship of God. (5) To attribute to them the grace and power of God, so that those who touch, kiss, or gaze upon the relics become partakers of it. (6) To offer them precious gifts of any kind. (7) To promise many indulgences for sins to those who touch, kiss, or gaze upon the relics. (8) To make those prayers offered in the presence of relics more worthy and pleasing to God. Therefore, (9) to make vows to them in times of necessity; to undertake pilgrimages to those places where the relics are believed to be kept, so that it is there they may be invoked as a means of obtaining help. (10) To place them on the altar so that they may increase the sanctity of the Eucharist. (11) To hang them around the neck out of devotion and trust toward God and the Saints. (12) To swear oaths by touching the relics, etc. Here indeed is the honor which the papists show to relics. And in this fourth point, the Bishop says he imitates the earliest times of the Church. But was it also the Israelite? Or the Apostolic? Or the primitive Christian Church within the first two centuries? We certainly grant that the veneration of relics began in the early third century; yet without any adoration or kneeling. For they placed them under the altar, as Ambrose bears witness in book 10, Epistle 85, and as Durandus [states] in his Rationale; indeed, even in the ground and in hidden locations, according to Cyril in his work, Against Julian, book 10, and Prudentius in Peristephanon, Hymn 4 on Eulalia:
“The reverend earth holds the relics and sacred ashes in its embrace.”
And Victor of Vita, in book 3 of On the Vandal Persecution, says: “The multitude present rejoiced and carefully committed the bodies of the holy martyrs to burial.” And that remained the practice for nearly the entire century. Cf. Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, Part 4, on Relics.
As for how the early Church venerated relics — was it with religious worship? Or was it the kind we have just described? Nor should we pass over the fifth point: the Bishop claims to show honor to relics in the same sense as to images, even though — in agreement with his Council — he has completely stripped images of any power for which they should be venerated, or from which anything should be requested, or in which trust should be placed. Yet the Council openly attributes this very power to relics, declaring that through them many benefits are granted by God to men, and that sacred monuments are honored for the purpose of obtaining help. To this Bellarmine and others add a great many miracles, on account of which power relics can therefore rightly be venerated, benefits sought from them, and trust placed in them to that extent.
Therefore, if the cult of images is not guilty of idolatry because it attributes no such power to images for which they should be venerated, then — by its own judgment — the cult of relics will be guilty of idolatry, because it does attribute that power to them.
END
Third Thesis: Adoration of Creatures
Mastricht’s Observations
I. It seems to us our task here is to more clearly represent the mind of the author hiding in obscurity, rather than to compare the author with the decrees of Trent, as well as that with the Gospel of the Prophets and Apostles, so that it may appear that Papists do not profess another Gospel in this chapter; but notwithstanding any colors and evasions, they remain guilty of idolatry, and therefore justly deservedly abandoned.
II. At first the Author speaks rather obscurely about adoration. He seems to take a twofold adoration, that due to God, and that with which we pray to the Saints, so as to deceive with the religious distinction received by the Papists between Latria and Dulia. Then he wants adoration due to God to be partly internal, by which through faith, hope, and charity we believe God to be Creator and Lord of all; and partly external, by which that internal adoration proves itself by certain external signs, of which the chief kind is sacrifice itself, which is permitted to offer to God alone. Meanwhile, however, all religious worship, whether due to God or also fitting to the saints, must be referred absolutely to God alone as to the necessary end in whom it rests. This would seem to presuppose that the religious worship which the Catholic Church shows to the Virgin and Saints does truly touch them, yet does not subsist or rest in them, but passes on to God so that it rests in Him. But why does he speak so hesitantly regarding whether or not the honor shown to the Virgin and Saints can be called religious? If it cannot be called religious, how does it rest in God as the ultimate end? And if it thus rests in God, how will it not be religious? The only explanation given by the Bishop: “Since the Roman Church does not transfer the adoration due to God to the Virgin or Saints, and that which she assigns to the Virgin and Saints rests in God, she cannot be charged with any idolatry.” We will briefly delay examining this argument.
III. Now this opinion of the author must be compared word for word with the decrees of Trent, since not only does the Catholic Church so boldly attribute it, but also in the previous section he magnificently affirmed that it is established by the very decrees of the Council of Trent. Where then is [this written in] the Council of Trent, so that we may be persuaded that this is not the private opinion of the Author? Where, I ask, does Trent teach a twofold adoration, one due to God and one by which we pray to the saints? Where does it say that sacrifice is the chief among the external signs of adoration? Where does it decree that all religious worship thus rests in God, so that that which is offered to the Virgin and Saints rests in God? We will not compare private opinions, not only for brevity’s sake, but because the Author has so sufficiently separated himself from them; otherwise, we could show how these differ and are at variance with one another, even among the Romanists themselves.
IV. Therefore, rather than show their variance we will presuppose that the Author’s opinion is that of his Catholic Church, as well as that of the decrees of Trent. Now let us compare the same with the Gospel of the Prophets and Apostles in Scripture. The division, therefore, into adoration due to God and that by which we pray to the saints is entirely unknown to the Gospel of Scripture. Among the external signs of adoration, it ignores that chief one: sacrifice – which fulfills adoration. It ignores that adoration is to be directed to the Virgin and Saints. Finally, it ignores that adoration directed to the Virgin and Saints rests in God as its end. Therefore, here the Gospel of the Prophets and Apostles is different from the Papist Gospel. But it not only ignores these assumptions; it openly contradicts them when it constantly mentions only one kind of religious adoration, which it attributes to God alone. Deut. 6:13: “You shall fear the LORD your God, and you shall serve him, and by his name you shall swear.” And Deut. 10:20, which Christ cites as a paraphrase, and not without weight and emphasis, Matt. 4:10: “It is written, You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.” Moreover, it abolishes worship to angels and to those most holy, Rev. 19:10: “I fell at his feet to worship him; but he said to me, See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus; worship God.” Nearly the same happens and is said in Rev. 22:8-9; Acts 10:25-26: “And as Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet to worship him; but Peter lifted him up saying, I myself am also a man.” And likewise, to the Virgin, John 11:4 is sufficient to reprove the claim that such adoration is directed to God when they are creatures who are worshipped. It contradicts the allegation that sacrifice is the chief sign of internal worship when it proclaims it must be abolished under the New Testament, Dan. 9:27: “And he, (namely, the Messiah), shall make a cessation of sacrifice and offering”; and is abolished here and there in the Epistle to the Hebrews. It contradicts the claim that worship given to angels and Saints rests in God as its end because from their hypothesis where does Scripture allow the worship of angels and Peter? From which it clearly appears that what is in this chapter of Bossuet’s is one Gospel of the Prophets and Apostles, another of those who call themselves Catholics, and therefore a just and necessary cause for which they ought to be denounced.
V. Indeed, whatever they may boast, they are held guilty of idolatry by the judgment of Scripture. For he who is constantly called an idolater is one who extends that worship which God has reserved only for Himself to others in any way whatsoever. Furthermore, this is condemned as idolatry in Romans 1:25: “They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator.” This commandment first tends to forbid others being made gods before Him, even by those who confess Him, including the Papists themselves; but now he turns to the worship reserved for God alone to that of the worship of Catholic practices through his preceding paragraph.
VI. But meanwhile, that adoration due to God alone, which others call latria, is referred to no one but God alone. (1) The Gospel does not know the distinction between latria and dulia. (2) They also give latria to the Eucharistic bread. (3) Finally, certainly that worship which rests in God as an end is undoubtedly due to God, which, nevertheless, they posit to the Virgin and Saints.
VII. But the internal adoration, whereby we [Protestants] believe Him to be the Creator and Lord of all, and adhere to Him with all the strength of our soul through faith, hope, and charity, by which He alone can make us happy, etc., according to the Papists they do not attribute these qualities to the Virgin, nor to the Saints, nor to anyone else. My response: They do, indeed, attribute it to the bread in the Eucharist, which they cannot prove to be the eternal Creator. And if it is, then the Creator will have been created by the sacrificing priest. The Psalter of the Blessed Virgin, the work of Bonaventure, certainly attributes these qualities to her. Perhaps we should disregard this idolatry, whereby they consider the Virgin, Saints, or angels as [gods, and as such] creators of all things, as guilty of nothing? Yet nevertheless, while that external sign — which by its nature and divine appointment is meant to refer such internal worship — they divert from God to others; and virtually also, as they say, they are considered to transfer that honor to others. Not to mention that this religious worship, which, according to the Author, passes as it were from the Virgin and the Saints to God and rests in Him as its end, is therefore the same internal worship by which we believe Him to be the Creator of all things, etc., and is identical with that which belongs to God alone; for no worship can truly rest in God unless it is of this kind.
VIII. But, they say, no sacrifice permitted to be offered to God alone is offered by the Romanists to the Virgin or Saints or anyone other than God; therefore, they are not guilty of idolatrous latria. My response: As it happens, through this [explanation] they are not guilty of this idolatry; however, to say they are not guilty of any idolatry, the Romans themselves will not bear it. For neither is it presently offered to God under the New Testament because it is abrogated. But what if adoration is a universal and perpetual worship? Are they by that very fact not guilty of any idolatry? And why, then, do they not offer it to the Virgin and Saints, since prayer may just as well pass over to God and rest in Him? At least the reasoning of the Bishop of Condom by which sacrifice was [allegedly] instituted so that God may be acknowledged above all things and so that we may openly and solemnly proclaim that we depend entirely on Him, equally squares with adoration and sacrifice.
VIII-A. But [he replies] religious honor which is offered to the Virgin and Saints does not rest in them as an end. My response: Meanwhile that same worship which rests in God as an end is also offered to them, in which there cannot fail to be manifest idolatry. For whoever attributes the same worship, albeit not in the same manner, to the Creator and creatures, he certainly cannot but be guilty of idolatry. And μοσχολατρέια [‘calf-worship’] did not rest in the calf; but passed on to God, for they proclaimed, “The Feast of Jehovah is tomorrow.” Exod. 32:5. Meanwhile, it is called an idol: Acts 7:42 [sic: 7:41]. Nor did the Manichaeans, even though they worshiped the Trinity as well, [worship] the Sun and Moon because they believed the power of the Son dwelt in the light of the Sun and His wisdom dwelt in the Moon. They did not subsist in the Sun and Moon themselves, but in the power and wisdom of the Son — yet Augustine still calls them idolaters. Indeed, even if something isn’t outright idolatry or pagan worship, you can still hide and disguise it with this verbal evasion or distinction (latria vs. dulia), for religious pagan worship which regards the image of Jupiter, from their mind does not end in the image, but in Jupiter himself, whom they themselves believe to be the supreme God. Your honors to saints/images/Eucharist are directed to creatures — therefore they are idolatrous, regardless of your verbal distinctions about ultimate ends.
IX. We hold that in any religious adoration given to creatures, not only is it a different Gospel; but also idolatry. Yet the Author clamors, not from Scripture, from which no precept or fitting example can ever be brought by them; nor from the early antiquity of the first three centuries, either does he bring or cite anything from later centuries; nor does he directly attempt to prove the invocation of the Saints from the fourth century, but rather, as it were indirectly, appeals to antiquity (which I would not expect in so brief a discourse, unless perhaps because they lacked other support), and the testimony of one Dalleus [Jean Daillé, French Protestant minister; d. 1670], whom he urges against the Calvinists; who has [allegedly] confessed that already in the fourth century Basil, Ambrose, Jerome, Chrysostom, Augustine, and many other lights of the ancient Church, especially Gregory Nazianzen, had received that custom by which we pray to the Saints and venerate their relics, and in this had renewed the doctrine of the preceding centuries. Yet they are not even charged with idolatry by the Reformed themselves, nor is it believable that they intended to alter the practice of their predecessors in this respect. Consequently, the Roman Catholics cannot fairly be accused of idolatry on this ground, nor is it likely that the practice of earlier centuries was any different. My response: We assume from the foregoing that praying to the saints was not a practice in the Apostolic Church. The same holds for the early primitive Church that came after it — or at least this is evident because no evidence can be produced from those centuries that would establish the contrary. Then from Origen [d. c. 253] up to the fourth century it was disputed whether Saints who are in Christ do anything for us and intercede — nor should the mysteries be entrusted to a scrap of paper. And Augustine in De Spiritu et Anima, c. 29, says: “The spirits of the dead are where they neither see nor hear what happens in this life to men. Yet they care for the living, although they do not know what they do, just as we care for the dead although we certainly do not know what they do.” Although secondly, and most certainly, it was commonly believed among the ancients that all faithful deceased remain outside Heaven in certain secret receptacles without the vision of God until the final Judgment, which even the Romanists I know do not deny: so how then could they intercede for us before God, or be called upon by prayers under this name, by men? Then thirdly, invocation of the Saints began to be used in the Church around the year 350 but according to popular custom and private superstition; for the Fathers of that century narrated that Saints were invoked but do not teach that they should be invoked. Indeed, in serious investigations they reject the invocation of Saints. For example, Jerome, in a letter to Riparius, Against Vigilantius: “We do not worship, I say, not even relics of Martyrs; nor the Sun or Moon: we do not cultivate or adore Angels, nor serve creatures rather than the Creator.” Then fourthly, perhaps the invocation of Saints used in that century was not properly invocation, but rather conversation and speaking as if with those present through some rhetorical representation? As Nazianzen says at Easter: “O great and sacred Easter, and atonement of the whole world, with you I speak as if with some living being.” Finally, invocation which in earlier centuries was private devotion became public around the year 500 when Peter the Fuller [Patriarch of Antioch] mixed invocation of Saints with public prayers of the Church. For it is said he invented that in every prayer the Mother of God should be named, and her divine name invoked, (Nicephorus, book 15. chapter 28). And around the year 600 Gregory the Great ordered the Litany of Saints be publicly sung as an invocation. Therefore, from commemoration of Saints came invocation. From which it is evident, without difficulty, that Dalleus attributes the rite of invoking Saints to the fourth century.
X. Nevertheless, we are not compelled to charge the Fathers cited by Dalleus with idolatry, who are otherwise approved in life and doctrine, since neither Dalleus nor any of us say these Fathers invoked the Saints or taught that they should be invoked; but only opposed the rite of invocation, then more privately than publicly, and less fervently……..
END
Be First to Comment