So little Devotion serves their Mass, their Divine service requires no more. (h)Devotion there, saith he, is not ⟨p. 26⟩commanded. Others amongst which the same Author names Hostiensis, Antoninus, and Summa Rosellae, hold, that in the Orders for Divine service (i)the bare saying of it, is commanded: but all that consists in Devotion, is no more than Counsel. (Which by their principles may be neglected without sin.) The ground of their persuasion is considerable: to enjoin Devotion (say they) (k)had been to lay a snare for men, and impose intolerable burdens on them. So that it seems the Church had been wicked, and unmerciful; if she had but obliged their Clergy and Religious, to be Devout in their worship. And by this reason, neither God nor Man can make Devotion a Duty, to any sort of Roman-Catholics. Hereafter we must not wonder if they neither enjoin, nor observe it. And though their reason may be singular, yet the opinion is the common Doctrine, since all are discharged from Devotion, or Reverence, who are not obliged to Attention. Such therefore, and no other is the worship which the Church of Rome makes needful for the Clergy and Religious. Such as it can be, without Attention, without holy fear or affection: it is not the thing they call it, it deserves not the Name of worship, or the Title of Holy or Religious: it must be a profane and irreligious exercise, it can be no better without Reverence, and without Devotion; it cannot but be without these, whilst it is without Attention, which they oblige all to neglect, by declaring it needless. Durandus maintained that Images are (l)not to be worshipped properly, but only Abusively, that is, as they explain it, though worship be exhibited before, or about the Image, yet the mind of the worshipper is far from it. This his opinion is now damned, as little less than Heretical; being in their account, no less than a denial, that, any worship is to be given to an Image. Yet this Abusive worship is all that they make necessary for the God of ⟨p. 27⟩Heaven: for requiring no Attention of Mind, no Devotion of Soul in their service, they allow both mind and heart to be far from him, while they do something before or about him, which they call worship. So that what worship they count intolerably too little for a senseless Image (not to say a detestable Idol); they think enough in conscience for the true and living God.
So little Devotion serves their Masse, their Divine service requires no more. (h)Devotion there, saith he, is not ⟨p. 26⟩commanded. Others amongst which the same Authour names Hostiensis, Antoninus, and Summa Rosellae, hold, that in the Orders for Divine service (i)the bare saying of it, is commanded: but all that consists in Devotion, is no more than Counsel. (Which by their principles may be neglected without sin.) The ground of their perswasion is considerable: to injoyn Devotion (say they) (k)had been to lay a snare for men, and impose intolerable burthens on them. So that it seems the Church had been wicked, and unmerciful; if she had but obliged their Clergy and Religious, to be Devout in their worship. And by this reason, neither God nor Man can make Devotion a Duty, to any sort of Roman-Catholicks. Hereafter we must not wonder if they neither injoyn, nor observe it. And though their reason may be singular, yet the opinion is the common Doctrine, since all are discharged from Devotion, or Reverence, who are not obliged to Attention. Such therefore, and no other is the worship which the Church of Rome makes needful for the Clergy and Religious. Such as it can be, without Attention, without holy fear or affection: it is not the thing they call it, it deserves not the Name of worship, or the Title of Holy or Religious: it must be a prophane and irreligious exercise, it can be no better without Reverence, and without Devotion; it cannot but be without these, whilest it is without Attention, which they oblige all to neglect, by declaring it needless. Durandus maintained that Images are (l)not to be worshipped properly, but only Abusively, that is, as they explain it, though worship be exhibited before, or about the Image, yet the mind of the worshipper is far from it. This his opinion is now damned, as little less than Heretical; being in their account, no less than a denyal, that, any worship is to be given to an Image. Yet this Abusive worship is all that they make necessary for the God of ⟨p. 27⟩Heaven: for requiring no Attention of Mind, no Devotion of Soul in their service, they allow both mind and heart to be far from him, while they do something before or about him, which they call worship. So that what worship they count intolerably too little for a senseless Image (not to say a detestable Idol); they think enough in conscience for the true and living God.
- (h)Ibid. v. neglegentia. Si ista negligentia esset circa omissionem horarum, esset mortalis: secus, si circa omissionem devotionis in dicendis horis, quia illa devotio non est sub praecepto.
- (i)Alij dicunt quod sub praecepto ibi cadit horas dicere: caetera vero, quae in devotione consistunt, suadendo dicuntur. ibid. v. hora. n. 13.
- (k)Quem sensum primo videtur habuisse Host. & sequitur eum tanquam benigniorem Archi. & sum. Rosel. quia Ecclesia non inijcit laqueum, nec homines alligare debet oneribus importabilibus.
- (l)Quod est incidere in opinionem Durandi ab omnibus damnatum, dicentis, imaginem non proprie, sed abusive adorari, non enim alia ratione illam vocavit abusivam adorationem imaginis nisi quia licet fiat coram ipsa vel juxta ipsam, tamen animus adorantis, ut sic, longe est ab ipsa Suar. Tom. 3. disp. 81. sect. 8. p. 1075.
