such an answer for then all the folly and madness in making the grossest Images of God doth not lye in the Images themselves but in the imagination of the Persons that make them Is it not as great in those that worship them with such an imagination if it be then whatever the Design of the makers was if they be apt to beget such imaginations in those who see and worship them they are in that respect as unlawful as T. G. supposes any Images of God among the Heathens to have been 4. What doth T. G. mean when he makes those Images unlawful which represent the Divinity in it self and not those which represent God as he appeared Can the meer essence of any thing be represented by an Image Is it possible to represent any being otherwise than as it appears But it may be T. G. hath found out the way of painting Essences if he hath he deserves to have the Patent for it not only for himself but for his Heirs and Executors For he allows it to be the peculiar priviledge of an infinite Being that it cannot be represented as it is in it self then all other things may be represented as they are in themselves in opposition to the manner of their appearance or else the distinction signifies nothing Petrus Thyraeus a man highly commended by Possevin for for his explication of this matter saith the meaning is that an Image doth not represent the Nature but the Person that is visible for saith he when we see the Image of a man we do not say we see a Reasonable Creature but a Man Very well and so in the Image of the Deity we do not see the Divine Nature but the Divine Person or in such a way as he became visible The Invisible Nature of God cannot be represented in an Image and can the invisible Nature of Man Therefore saith he it is no injury to God to be painted by an Image no more upon these principles than to a man Bellarmin proves the lawfulness of making Images of God because man is said to be the Image of God and he may be painted therefore the Image of God may be too for that which is the Image of the Image is likewise the Image of the Exemplar those which agree in a third agreeing among themselves To this some answer'd that man was not the Image of God as to his body but as to his soul which could not be painted but Bellarmin takes off this answer by saying that then a man could not not be painted for he is not a man in regard of his outward lineaments but in regard of his substance and especially his Soul but notwithstanding the soul cannot be painted yet a man may truly and properly be said to be painted because the Figure and colours of an Image do represent the whole man otherwise saith he a thing painted could never seem to be the true Thing as Zeuxis his grapes did which deceived the birds Therefore according to Bellarmines reasoning that which represents a Being according to outward appearance although it have an invisible Nature yet is a true and real representation and represents it as it is in it self and as far as it is possible for an Image to represent any thing Wherein then lyes the difference between making the Picture of a man and the Image of God If it be said that the Image of God is very short imperfect and obscure is not the same thing to be said of the Picture of a man which can only represent his outward Features without any description of his inward substance or soul If it be farther said that there is a real resemblance between a Picture of a man and his outward lineaments but there is none between God and the Image of a man then I ask what Bellarmins argument doth signifie towards the proving the lawfulness of making an Image of God For if God may be painted because man may who is the Image of God for the Image of the Image is the Image of the Exemplar then it follows that Man is the Image of God as he may be painted and so God and man must agree in that common thing which is a capacity of being represented which cannot be supposed without as real a resemblance between God and his Image as between a Man and his Picture But T. G. tells us that they abhorr the very thoughts of making any such likeness of God and all that the Council of Trent allows is only making representations of some apparition or action of God in a way proportionable to our Humane Conception I answer 1. It is no great sign of their abhorring the thoughts of any such likeness of God to see such arguments made use of to prove the lawfulness of making Images of God which do imply it 2. Those Images of God which are the most used and allowed in the Roman Church have been thought by Wise men of their own Church to imply such a Likeness Molanus and Thyraeus mention four sorts of Images of the Trinity that have been used in the Roman Church 1. That of an old man for God the Father and of Christ in humane nature and of the Holy Ghost in the Form of a Dove 2. That of three Persons of equal Age and Stature 3. That of an Image of the Bl. Virgin in the belly of which was represented the Holy Trinity this Ioh. Gerson saith he saw in the Carmelites Church and saith there were others like it and Molanus saith he had seen such a one himself among the Carthusians 4. That of one Head with three faces or one body and three Heads which Molanus saith is much more common than the other and is wont to be set before the Office of the Holy Trinity these two latter those Authors do not allow because the former of them tends to a dangerous errour viz. that the whole Trinity was incarnate of the B. Virgin and the latter Molanus saith was an invention of the Devil it seems then there was one invention of the Devil at least to be seen in the masse-Masse-Book for saith he the Devil once appeared with three Heads to a Monk telling him he was the Trinity But the two former they allow and defend Waldensis saith Molanus with a great deal of learning defends that of the three Persons from the appearance of the Three to Abraham and Thyraeus justifieth the first and the most common from the Authority of the Church the Consent of Fathers and the H. Scriptures And yet Pope Iohn 22. as Aventinus relates it condemned some to the Fire as Anthropomorphites and enemies to Religion for making the very same representation of the Trinity which he defends being only of God as an old man and of the Son as a young man and of the Holy Ghost under the picture of a Dove Ysambertus takes notice of this story but he saith they were such Images as were according to
it if the Protestant Charity should seem to fall short in outward Pomp and Magnificence it would be found much more to exceed it in number and usefulness Which makes me so much the more wonder to hear and see the ill effects of the Reformation in this kind so much insisted on of late to disprove the Goodness of it If some Great men had sinister ends in it when was there any great Action of that nature wherein some Persons did not aim at their own advantage by it Who can excuse all the Courtiers in the time of Constantine or all the Actions of that Great Emperour himself Must Christianity therefore be thought the worse because it did prevail in his time and very much by his means And there were some partial Historians in those dayes that impute the demolishing of Heathen Temples and the suppressing of Idolatry to the Rapine and Sacriledge of the Times For even those Heathen Temples were richly endowed and it is not to be supposed that when such a Tree was shaking there would be no scrambling for the Fruit of it However we are not concerned to justifie the Actions or Designs of any particular Persons how Great soever but that which we plead for is that the Reformation it self was a just pious prudent and necessary thing and had both sufficient Authority to warrant it and sufficient Reason to justifie it We read in the Spanish History a remarkable Precedent which vindicates the proceeding of our Reformation in England The Gotthick Nation had been infected with Arianism two hundred and thirteen years when by the means of Leander Bishop of Sevil the King Reccaredus being duly informed in the Orthodox Faith called a Council at Toledo wherein Arianism was renounced by the declaration and subscription of the King himself being present in Council and afterwards by the Bishops who joyned with him and the Great men which being done the Council proceeded to make new Canons and Constitutions which the King confirmed by his Edict declaring that if any Bishop Priest or Deacon refused to observe them he was sentenced by the Council to excommunication if any of the higher rank of the Laity the penalty was paying half their estates to the Exchequer if others confiscation and banishment All which is extant in the Records of that Council The Arian Bishops as Mariana relates such as Athalocus and Sunna with others having the old Queen Goswinda and several of the Nobility to joyn with them made all the disturbance they could to hinder the Reformation But God not only carried it through but wonderfully preserved the Life of the King notwithstanding many conspiracies against him after whose death the Arian faction was very busie and made several Attempts by Treason and Rebellion to be restored again and they once thought themselves sure when they had gotten Wittericus of their party to the Throne but his short Reign put an end to all their Hopes I find some of the latter Spanish Historians much troubled to see all done in this Reformation by the King and the Bishops and Great men without the least mention of the Popes Authority Lucas Tudensis therefore saith that Leander was the Popes Legat but Mariana confesses that the very Acts of the Council contradict it He would have it believed that they sent Legats to the Pope afterwards to have the Council confirmed by him but he acknowledgeth that nothing appears in History to that purpose and if any such thing had been it would not have been omitted in the Epistles of Gregory who writ to Leander a Letter of congratulation for the conversion of Reccaredus But then National Churches were supposed to have Power enough to Reform themselves provided that they proceeded according to the Decrees of the Four General Councils And this is that we maintain in behalf of the Church of England that it receives all the Creeds which were then received and hath reformed those Abuses only which have crept into the Church since that Time This My Lord is the Cause which by Command of my Superiours I was first engaged to defend among whom Your Lordships Predecessour whose constant Friendship and Kindness I must never forget was one of the Chief Since that time I have had but little respite from these not so pleasing to me as sometimes necessary Polemical Exercises and notwithstanding all the Rage and Malice of the Adversaries of our Church against me I sit down with that contentment that I have defended a Righteous Cause and with an honest Mind and therefore I little regard their bitterest Censures and Reproaches In the midst of such a Croud of Adversaries it was no unpleasant entertainment to me to see the various methods with which they have attacked me some with piteous moans and outcries others grinning and only shewing their teeth others ranting and Hectoring others scolding and reviling but I must needs say the Adversary I now answer hath shewed more art and cunning than all the rest put together and hath said as much in Defence of their Cause as Wit and Subtilty could invent I wish I could speak as freely of his Fair dealing and Ingenuity Him therefore I reserved to be answered by himself after I had shaken off the lesser and more barking Creatures What I have now done I humbly present to Your Lordships hands and I am very glad of this opportunity to declare what satisfaction the Members of Your own Church and the Clergy of this great City have to see a Person of so Noble Birth so much Temper and Prudence so firm an Assertor of the Protestant Religion and Church of England appointed by his Majesty to have the Conduct and Government of them That God Almighty would assist and direct Your Lordship in those things which tend to the Peace and Welfare of this Church is the hearty Prayer of My Lord Your Lordships most dutiful and obedient Servant ED. STILLINGFLEET May 30. 1676. TO THE READER IT hath been long expected that I should have published an Answer to T. G. as the most considerable Adversary that appeared against me but it is very well known that before his Book came out I had undertaken the Answer of several others which when I had set forth a Person of Honour who had been pleased to defend me against one of my keenest Antagonists was assaulted by him whom I was in the first place obliged in gratitude to ease of any farther trouble Since that time I have applyed my self to the consideration of T. G.'s Book as much as health and other business would permit And finding such confusion in most Discourses about Idolatry and that till the Nature of it were fully and clearly Stated men would still dispute in the dark about these matters in my last Summers retirement I set my self to the strict examination of it by searching with my utmost diligence into the Idolatries practised in all parts of the world by the help of the best Authors I could
meet with either ancient or modern when I had done this I compared those observations I had made with the Sense of the Scriptures and of the Fathers of the several Ages of the Christian Church who had managed the Charge of Idolatry against Heathens or Hereticks From hence I framed the First Part of the following Book wherein I have not only examined and confuted T. G.'s false notion of it but endeavoured to settle the True one in its place Which being dispatched and the main principles of his whole Book thereby weakned and overthrown I betook my self to the particular Defence of the Charge of Idolatry practised in the Roman Church in the Worship of Images and I apprehended nothing of greater consequence in this Debate than to give a true Account of the state of the Controversie between us which T. G endeavoured with all his art to blind and confound After which I have given a distinct Answer to every thing material or plausible in that part of his Book Which swelling this Discourse beyond my expectation I must respite the other part to a farther opportunity which I may the better do because the Remainder of T. G's Book hath already received a sufficient Answer from a learned and worthy Person THE CONTENTS PART I. A General Discourse concerning the Nature of Idolatry CHAP. I. T. G's notion of Idolatry examined and confuted page 1 CHAP. II. Of the Nature of Divine Worship p. 184 PART II. Being a particular Defence of the Charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome in the Worship of Images CHAP. I. The State of the Controversie about the Worship of Images between Christians and Heathens p. 349 CHAP. II. The State of the Controversie about Images in the Christian Church p. 487 CHAP. III. Of the Sense of the second Commandment p. 670 CHAP. IV. An Answer to T. G 's charge of Contradictions Paradoxes Reproach of the second Council of Nice School disputes and to his parallel Instances p. 784 PART I. A General Discourse concerning the Nature of Idolatry CHAP. I. T. G's notion of Idolatry examined and confuted TO make good the Charge of Idolatry against the Roman Church which is my present business there are two things necessary to be done 1. To lay down the right notion of Idolatry 2. To examine what T. G. and others have said to justifie themselves from the particulars of this Charge I begin with the consideration of the Nature of Idolatry not only because my Adversary calls me to it in these words Here the Ax is laid to the root and if ever the Dr. will speak home to the purpose it must be upon this point He must speak to the Nature of the thing c. But because the weight of the whole matter in debate depends upon it and whosoever reads through T. G 's answer to me will find the only strength of it to lie in a very different notion of Idolatry which he sets up which if it prove true the main of my charge must fall to the ground although however by his way of writing he can hardly answer the character I had given him either of a Learned or ingenuous Adversary The notion of Idolatry which T. G. lays down may be gathered from these assertions of his That God being the only supreme and superexcellent Being above all and over all to him therefore Sovereign honour is only to be given and to none beside him That as no command of God can make that to be not Idolatry which is so in the nature of the thing so no prohibition if there were any could make that to be Idolatry which hath not in it the true and real nature of Idolatry That the worship of Images forbidden in the Commandment is the worshipping Images instead of God and the reason of the Law was to keep the people in their duty of giving Sovereign worship to God alone by restraining them from Idolatry That this Law was made particularly to forbid Sovereign worship to be given as he saith it was at that time given by the Heathen to graven Images i. e. representations of imaginary Beings or to any similitude i. e. the likeness of any thing which although it had a real being yet was not God That the Image-worship condemned by S. Paul was the worshipping Images for Gods or as the Images of false Gods That evil Spirits or false Gods did reside in their Images by Magical incantation That the supreme God of the Heathens was not the true God but a Devil and that the Poets who call him the Father of Gods and men were those whom Horace confesseth that they took the priviledge to dare to feign and say thing From these assertions it is no hard matter to form T. G 's notion of Idolatry viz. That it is The giving the Soveraign worship of God to a creature and among the Heathens to the Devil And now who dares charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry I do not wonder that he calls this so foul so extravagant so unjust a charge and parallels me with no meaner a person than Iulian the Apostate saying That surely a more injurious Calumny scarce ever dropt from the pen of the greatest enemy of Christianity except that of Julian the Apostate But I am so used to their hard words that I can easily pass them over and immediately apply my self to the debate of these things which will tend very much to the clearing the true notion of Idolatry 1. Whether Idolatry be not consistent with the acknowledgement of one Supreme Being 2. Wherein the Nature of that Divine Worship lies which being given to a Creature makes it Idolatry For if those who acknowledge one Supreme Being the Creator and Governour of the world were notwithstanding this guilty of Idolatry and that Idolatry be as T. G. confesseth the giving the worship due to God to a creature then if we can prove that the Church of Rome doth give any part of that worship which is due to God to any thing besides him we may still justly charge them with Idolatry although they believe one Supreme God and reserve some worship which he calls Sovereign to him 1. Whether Idolatry be not consistent with the acknowledgement of one Supreme Being Creator and Governour of the world Whom I suppose T. G. will not deny to be the true God It is agreed by him that the whole Heathen world was guilty of Idolatry without excepting the more intelligent and wiser persons among them therefore our only business as to them is to enquire whether they did acknowledge this Supreme Being and it is without dispute that all Christians do acknowledge the True God if I can then prove that such have notwithstanding been charged with Idolatry by those whose judgement T. G. dares not refuse I hope these two things being made out will be sufficient to prove that those may be guilty of Idolatry
worship the same Gods with them nor offer up libations and the smoak of sacrifices to dead men Nor crown and worship Images that they agreed with Menander who said we ought not to worship the work of mens hands not because Devils dwelt in them but because men were the makers of them And he wondered they could call them Gods which they knew to be without soul and dead and to have no likeness to God it was not then upon the account of their being animated by evil Spirits that the Christians rejected this worship for then these reasons would not have held All the resemblance they had was to those evil Spirits that had appeared among men for that was Iustins opinion of the beginning of Idolatry that God had committed the Government of all things under the heavens to particular Angels but these Angels prevaricating by the love of Women did upon them beget Daemons that these Daemons were the great corrupters of mankind and partly by frightful apparitions and by instructing men in Idolatrous rites did by degrees draw men to give them divine worship the people not imagining them to be evil Spirits and so were called by such names as they liked best themselves as Neptune Pluto c. But the true God had no certain name given to him for saith he Father and God and Creator and Lord and Master are not names but titles arising from his works and good deeds and God is not a name but a notion engrafted in humane nature of an unexpressible Being But that God alone is to be worshipped appears by this which is the great command given to Christians Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve with all thy heart and with all thy strength even the Lord God that made thee Where we see the force of the argument used by Iustin in behalf of the Christians lay in Gods peremptory prohibition of giving divine worship to any thing but himself and that founded upon Gods right of dominion over us by vertue of creation In his Book of the Divine Monarchy he shews that although the Heathens did make great use of the Poets to justifie their Polytheism yet they did give clear testimony of one Supreme Deity who was the Maker and Governour of all things for which end he produces the sayings of Aeschylus Sophocles Orpheus Pythagoras Philemon Menander and Euripides all very considerable to this purpose In his works there is extant the resolution of several Questions by a Greek Philosopher and the Christians reply in which nothing can be more evident than that it was agreed on both sides that there was one Supreme God infinitely good powerful and wise Nay the Greek Philosopher looks upon the ignorance of God as a thing impossible because all men naturally agree in the knowledge of God But there are plain evidences in that Book that it is of later date than Iustins time therefore instead of insisting any more on that I shall give a farther proof that in his time it could be no part of the dispute between the Christians and Heathens whether there were one Supreme God that ought to be worshipped by men and that shall be from that very Emperour to whom Eusebius saith Iustin Martyr did make his second Apology viz. M. Aurelius Antoninus It is particularly observed of him by the Roman Historians that he had a great zeal for preserving the Old Roman Religion and Iul. Capitolinus saith that he was so skilful in all the practices of it that he needed not as it was common for one to prompt him because he could say the prayers by heart and he was so confident of the protection of the Gods that he bids Faustina not punish those who had conspired against him for the Gods would defend him his zeal being pleasing to them and therefore Baronius doth not wonder that Iustin and other Christians suffered Martyrdom under him But in the Books which are left of his writing we may easily discover that he firmly believed an eternal Wisdom and Providence which managed the World and that the Gods whose veneration he commends were looked on by him as the subservient Ministers of the Divine Wisdom Reverence the Gods saith he but withal he saith honour that which is most excellent in the world that which disposeth and Governs all which sometimes he calls the all-commanding reason sometimes the Mind and Soul of the World which he expresly saith is but one And in one place he saith that there is but one World and one God and one substance and one Law and one common reason of intelligent beings and one Truth But the great objection against such Testimonies of Antoninus and others lies in this that these only shew the particular opinions of some few men of Philosophical minds but they do not reach to the publick and established Religion among them which seemed to make no difference between the Supreme God and other Deities from whence it follows that they did not give to him any such worship a◠belonged to him Which being the most considerable objection against the design of this present discourse I shall here endeavour to remove it before I produce any farther testimonies of the Fathers For which we must consider wherei◠the Romans did suppose the solemn and outward acts of their Religion to consist viz. in the worship appropriated 〈◊〉 their Temples or in occasional prayers and vows or in some parts of divination whereby they supposed God did make known his mind to them If I can therefore prove that the Romans did in an extraordinary manner make use of all these acts of Religious worship to the Supreme God it will then necessarily follow that the controversie between the Fathers and them about Idolatry could not be about the worship of one Supreme God but about giving Religious worship to any else besides him The Worship performed in their Temples was the most solemn and frequent among them in so much that Tully saith therein the people of Rome exceeded all Nations in the world but the most solemn part of that Worship was that which was performed in the Capitol at Rome and in the Temple of Iupiter Latialis in Alba and both these I shall prove were dedicated to the Supreme God The first Capitol was built at Rome by Numa Pompilius and called by Varro the old Capitol which stood at a good distance from the place where the foundations of the great Temple were laid by Tarquinius Priscus the one being about the Cirque of Flora the other upon the Tarpeian Mountain There is so little left of the memory of the former that for the design of it we are to judge by the general intention of Numa as to the worship of the Deity of which Plutarch gives this account That he forbad the Romans making any Image of God either like to men or beast because the First Being is
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 giving the worship of Dulia to a creature as well as to the Creator not as though he looked on the worship of Dulia as distinct from Latria but by using these words promiscuously he shews that he understood by both of them that divine worship which is alone proper to God and which being given to a creature makes it Idolatry He farther saith that supposing what excellencies we please in Christ although derived from God yet if we withal suppose him to be a mere man if we give divine worship to him we shall be found 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worshippers of man i. e. such kind of Idolaters as the Heathen were in the worship of Deified men from which nothing can be more evident than that the supposing the most real excellencies in a creature to have been by participation from God doth not take off from the guilt of Idolatry when that worship is given to the creature which belongs only to God S. Athanasius farther argues that nothing but the divine nature is capable of adoration and not any created excellency how great soever it be For saith he if the height of glory did deserve adoration then every inferiour creature ought to worship the Superior but it is no such matter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for one creature is not to worship another but a servant his Lord and the creature God From hence Peter forbad Cornelius who would have worshipped him saying For I also am a Man And the Angel S. John saying See thou do it not for I am also thy fellow servant worship God Whence he infers nor that the Angel complemented S. Iohn not that S. Peter only did it to shew his humility but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is proper only to God to be worshipped without any distinction of the nature kinds or degrees of worship But how many distinctions would T. G. and his Brethren make before they would grant that proposition It is true say they of Latria soveraign and absolute worship which is proper only to God but not of an inferiour kind of divine worship which may be given to a creature on the account of divine excellencies communicated to it by God This we may suppose was the Answer of the Arians but S. Athanasius was not certainly so weak a man to argue at this rate if he had supposed this a sufficient answer for he could not but foresee it and a man of so much understanding as it is evident he was would have prevented this answer if he had thought it to the purpose but instead of that he sets himself to prove that the Angels knowing themselves to be creatures have on that account rejected all divine worship on the other side the Angels are commanded to worship Christ and Christ did receive divine worship therefore saith he let the Arians burst themselves they can never make it appear that Christ would have been worshipped if he had been a creature And to prevent all subterfuges in this matter in his fourth Oration he argues against joyning Christ together with God in our prayers to him if he were a creature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 No man would ever pray to receive any thing from God and Angels or from God and any creature Little did Athanasius think of mens joyning God and the Saints or God and the B. Virgin in their prayers or praises little did he imagine that ever it would have been received in the Christian Church to conclude their Books with a Doxology to God and the B. Virgin Laus Deo B. Virgini as many of the greatest reputation in the Church of Rome have done and as Baronius hath done it very solemnly at the end of every Tome of his Annals as at the conclusion of the First after the mention of the Father Son and Holy Ghost he adds Nec non sanctissimae virgini Dei Genitrici Mariae ut conciliatrici Divini Numinis ipsi namque sicut haec omnia nostra accepta ferimus ita pariter offerimus ut ipsa eadem qualiacunque sint dilecto filio suo porrigut c. And in the end of the second he hath these words Et beneficii memor actura gratias oratio ex more ad sanctissimae Dei Genitricis Mariae pedes prona se sternat ut Cui accepta fert Omnia dono offerat quicquid à Deo se ejus precìbus intelligit consecutam Is not this joyning God and the creature together which Athanasius supposes no Christian would ever do but supposing they did it he doth not at all suppose them to be excused from Idolatry in so doing But Athanasius goes on shewing that if the Arians confess Christ to be God and to be of a distinct substance from his Father they must bring in Polytheism or at least worship two Gods the one uncreated and unbegotten the other created and begotten and in so doing they must oppose one to the other For saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we cannot see one in the other because of their different natures and operations Which is an argument I desire T. G. to consider the weight of He is proving that supposing Christ to be of a different nature from God although he had all imaginable excellencies in him communicated from the Father yet God could not be worshipped in the worshipping of the Son but these two worships must be opposite to each other because the one is the worship of a created the other of an increated Being How far was Athanasius then from supposing that the worship given to any created Being on the account of communicated excellencies is at last carried to the Supreme and terminated only upon him For he saith that these two worships do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fight one against the other and therefore who ever do give such different worships they must bring in more Gods than one which is an Apostasie from one God where we still observe that Polytheism is consistent as well as Idolatry with the acknowledgement of one Supreme Being and that they are said to worship other Gods who do believe the true but give divine worship to a Creature And therefore he would have the Arians to reckon themselves together with the Gentiles and although they shun the reproach of the name yet they hold the same opinion with them And it is to no purpose for them to say that they do not worship Two uncreated Beings for this is only to deceive the simple for although they do not worship two uncreated yet they worship Two Gods of a different nature the one created the other uncreated For saith he in these remarkable words if the Heathens worshipped one uncreated and many created and they worship one uncreated and one created what difference is there between them and the Gentiles for that one whom they worship is but as the many which the Gentiles being of the same created nature together with
of Divine worship and see upon what grounds they become guilty of Idolatry which will not reach home to themselves Card. Bessarion hath written an elaborate vindication of Plato against Trapezuntius wherein he shews that Plato did assert the Unity Power and Goodness of God and the Creation of all things by him and that he doth this frequently and constantly in his Parmenides Phaedrus Phaedo Philebus Timaeus Sophista Laws Politicks Epistles every where But Trapezuntius charges Plato that although he did acknowledge God he did not worship him and that he sacrificed only to the inferiour Gods to this Bessarion answers that in his Books of Laws which were made for the People he doth not expresly prescribe any worship to God under the name of One or First or Ineffable which were the Titles he had given him in his Dialogues and were not known to the People but in his eighth book of Laws he appoints twelve solemn Feasts to the twelve Gods of whom Iupiter was chief under which name the Supream God was known among the People than which name in the proper importance of it none could have been more significant of the Nature of the Supreme God and that he retained the other common names of the Gods worshipped among them that he might not seem to innovate any thing in Religion although the Philosophers understood them in another sense than the common people did by Iove they meant the First Being or Supreme Deity by Minerva Wisdom by Mercury Reason by Saturn Eternity by Neptune Form by Iuno Matter by Venus Nature by Apollo the Sun by Pan the Universe but when they spake to the People about the worship of them they did not mention Wisdom or Reason or Eternity but Minerva Mercury Saturn and he saith it would have been folly in them to have done otherwise the People being accustomed to worship the Gods under these names and nothing more was requisite but to make them understand them aright But for Plato himself he saith he worshipped the Supreme God after the best manner i. e. with inward Reverence and adoration in Plato's own expressions by thinking the best and most worthy things of him which Bessarion interprets in Spirit and in Truth and he adds that Plato looked on Sacrifices and Images as unworthy of him who was a pure mind and could not be represented by any Image to men But Plato's Adversary charges him with giving the worship of Latria to inferiour Gods and Creatures to which Bessarion saith that Latria among the Heathens signified only a stricter kind of service which some men paid to others that were above them and that the worship by sacrifice by a long custome from the time of Zamolxis and Orpheus was looked on as common to all things worshipped by them but saith he he referred all that worship which others gave to many and different Gods to the First and Chief Principle of all things and again mentions that saying in his Epinomis that the most suitable worship of God is to think honourably of him Which I suppose Plato would have said was the same thing which those of the Church of Rome call Latria and that he could by no means understand how sacrifices come to be appropriated to it and to this purpose Bessarion quotes the saying of Porphyrius that God is to be worshipped in Silence and with a pure mind and with the sacrifice of a good life And as to other Deities which Plato allowed to be worshipped he saith that he supposed them to be inferiour and subordinate to the Supreme and dependent upon him and that he did not worship empty Statues but one God the principle of all Which being compared with Plato's Law and practice about worshipping according to the Custome of the Countrey doth imply that he worshipped Images with a respect to the True God Let now the Reader judge whether according to the judgement of this learned Cardinal Plato was guilty of worshipping only the Images of false Gods But Trapezuntius still urges hard upon Plato that if he allowed the worship of a second and third Order of Gods which were but creatures he might on the same ground worship any creatures because all creatures are infinitely distant from the Creator Bessarion like an understanding man tells him that this argument would hold as well against the Church of Rome as against Plato which worships Angels although they be Creatures but yet he doth not think the argument will reach to the worship of all creatures because though all creatures be equally distant as to existence yet some come nearer than others as to perfection This Trapezuntius takes off by saying that Plato worshipped Daemons which Bessarion grants but by Daemons he saith Plato and Aristotle and other Philosophers did not understand such evil Spirits as we do but certain aereal Beings lower than Gods and above men whom they looked on as Mediators and intercessours between God and men but for evil Spirits he saith they were not received into their Religion and that Lucifer was looked on as accursed by them under the name of Ate. And he shews farther from S. Augustin that all the Poetical Theology was rejected by Plato So that the whole dispute with Plato about worship must come to these two points 1. Whether it be lawful to worship the Supreme God by external and visible representations supposing that a man direct his intention aright towards the honour of God by them 2. Whether it be lawful to give an inferiour worship to any Created Beings whose excellencies are supposed to be far above mens in order to their intercession between God and Us And now let T. G. judge whether I have not brought my Discourse home to their own doors I omit Marsilius Ficinus as a man that may be supposed too partial to Plato but I hope Augustinus Steuchus Eugubinus may pass for a sound Catholick being an Italian Bishop and a Roman Courtier that had so much zeal as to vindicate Constantines Donation against Valla and therefore his Testimony cannot be rejected He undertakes at large to prove that Plato acknowledged one True and Supreme God and that all other Beings are created by him and when he seems to attribute Divinity to other things it is only a Divinity by way of gift and participation such as Angels and holy men are said to have which doth not hinder our believing them to be all at first created by one God There were three sorts of inferiour Deities he saith asserted by the Philosophers viz. Daemons or Gods with aërial bodies who have a particular care of humane affairs Intelligences or the Spirits which animate and move the Stars and Coelestial Deities who converse with the Supreme God now all these he makes appear from many passages in Plato especially the famous one in his Timaeus to have been made by God And that when in his Books of Laws and the Epinomis or Appendix to
all the external profession of Idolatry that may be for I can see no difference in any outward act between what he doth to the Image and what he would do to the Person of Christ if he appeared to him If this be Idolatry Wo be to us all if it be not Idolatry in us how came it to be so in the Philosophers who I have heard owned the same true God and had the same distinctions of the degrees of worship that we have But these were false Gods that they worshipped I hope the true God is not a false God but I said they worshipped the true God Suppose that yet they joyned false Gods with him Not in the same degree with him for they supposed him to be far above them all which were created by him and dependent upon him and do not we do the very same in the worship of Angels and Saints True but theirs were false Gods and ours are Saints and Angels Upon the whole matter then I find the fault of the Wiser Heathens did not lie either in the general principles or practises of Divine Worship but only that they called these Gods whom we call Angels which I have heard S. Cyrill and S. Augustin thought not worth disputing and that they did not worship such good Saints as we do and of whom we have so good assurance that they were as S. Christopher Longinus the eleven thousand Virgins the seven Sleepers whereas the poor Heathens were bred up with Fables and we have such eminent proofs of their Sanctity as S. Dominick's butchering Hereticks and S. Ignatius Loyola's founding the Order of Iesuites I am now very well satisfied how justly the Philosophers were condemned and how innocently we give the same kind of worship to those that far better deserve it Yet saith T. G. there is another thing behind which makes the difference so apparent that nothing but malice and blindness can hinder men from seeing it What is that good Sir for hitherto I have been forced to use my Spectacles the difference was so fine and subtle Why saith T. G. the Heathens took their Images themselves for Gods which you know we do not This I confess is a very notable thing but I pray Sir tell me how they did it and how we do it not Did they really believe that the Wood and Stone of their Images did make and Govern the World Or that a man by Houghs and an Axe could cut a God out of a Tree That were as great a Miracle as our Priests turning a Wafer into God by saying five words but I hope such Miracles are peculiar to the Roman Catholick Church What was it then they meant when they took their Images for Gods I suppose it was only that they believed a more special presence of their Gods in them and that by their means Miracles were wrought at them and that they sometimes spake and sometimes bowed and moved themselves But do not all good Catholicks believe the very same things of our Images Do not we know that our Lady is more present in one Image than in another and that she works Miracles at some Images more than at others and that she moves and speaks and travels too Witness the Holy House of Loretto and the Madonna there where was there ever such a thing done in Old Rome The bringing the Stone from Phrygia of the Mater Deorum or the Serpent from Epidaurus or the tattling of the Image of Iuno Moneta at Veii were not to be compared to this Therefore Sir give me leave to advise you in this point have a care of disparaging our wonder-working Images while you would charge the Heathens with Idolatry and free our Church from the guilt of it I had thought I had said enough in my former Discourse to make it appear That the Wiser Heathens did not look on their Images as Gods but as Symbols and Representations of that Being to which they did give Divine Worship For I shewed that Celsus said none but Fools think otherwise of them that Porphyrie and the Heathens in Athanasius said they were only Books for the Ignorant that in Arnobius thy denied that they ever thought their Images to be Gods or to have any Divinity in them but what only comes from their consecration to such an Use and in S. Augustin that they worshipped not the Images themselves but through them they worshipped the Deity that Maximus Tyrius at large proves that Images were but signs of Divine honour and helps to remembrance that Julian saith they do not think their Images to be Gods but that through them they may worship the Deity and that Eusebius in general testifies of the Heathens that they did not look on their Images as Gods All this put together I thought had signified something to the proving that the Heathen Idolatry did not lie in taking their Images to be Gods and so it seems it did For T. G. runs quite off from the business saying That all these quotations do only prove what I brought them for that they did not look on their Images as Gods but he saith it appears from some of them that they looked on them nevertheless as Images or Symbols of false Gods And did not I say that I would prove by them that they looked on them as Symbols or representations of that Being to which they gave Divine worship I never said or thought that the Heathens looked on all their Images as representations of the supreme God For I very well considered that they worshipped inferiour Gods by Images made for them And therefore after the producing these Testimonies I state the Question thus I desire to know whether these men who worshipped Images upon those grounds did amiss or no in it I do not ask whether they were mistaken as to the objects of their Worship but on supposition they were not whether they were to blame in the manner of serving God by Images in such a way as they describe And to this T. G. saith not one wise word but only talks of scandal and compliance with exteriour practice of Idolatry and what I have already answered but he charges me with misrepresenting the Testimonies because forsooth Celsus adds that they were Statues erected to the Gods and Divinity and Deity are not in the Testimonies of Arnobius and S. Augustin and then bids the Reader learn what credit he is to give hereafter to my citing of Authors and at the same time receive a farther Testimony of his kindness to me in taking the rest upon my word Very artificially done I confess to pass those by to which no answer was to be returned and to spend some Pages in most disingenuous cavils about the two Testimonies he insists upon I desire only the Reader to consider what I was proving viz. That the Heathens did not take their Images themselves for Gods which he yet asserts several times in that Chapter after I had produced these Testimonies
avoid being mistaken In what in thinking they did not worship Images after as well as before their conversion no but in supposing that they made use of the same Images afterwards which they did before and what if they did what harm was there in it on T. G's principles supposing the intention be directed aright Nay T. G. after all his clamour yields the thing for saith he St. Gregory turned the Pagan Festivals into Christian Assemblies and Heathen Temples to Christian Churches without ever pulling them down to build them up again and supposing the worship of Images lawful why not those to be used as well as Temples And yet I no where say that they made use of the very same but they melted them down and made new ones of them which is plainly to say that though they did not allow those particular Images yet they did not condemn the Use of Images for divine worship but of the materials of the former Images they made new ones to be used by them as Christians after that manner of worship which the Iesuits delivered to them which was all that was necessary to my purpose And now I leave the Reader to Judge whether in all this charge about these citations T. G. hath not shewed himself to be a man of admirable ingenuity and whether he be not well accomplished in the most laudable vertue of a Writer of Controversies viz. sincerity and fair dealing CHAP. II. The State of the Controversie about Images in the Christian Church HAving thus far endeavoured to State the Dispute about Image-worship as it was managed between Christians and Heathens I now come to the Rise and Progress of this Controversie in the Christian Church Wherein I shall proceed according to these following Periods 1. When Images were not used or allowed in the Christian Church 2. When they were used but no worship allowed to be given to them 3. When inferiour worship was given to them and that worship publickly defended 4. When the doctrine and practice of Image-worship was settled upon the principles allowed and defended in the Roman Church and from thence to shew wherein lie the main points of difference between us and the Church of Rome as to this Controversie about the Worship of Images 1. As to the First Period I had said in my former Discourse That the Primitive Christians were declared enemies to all worship of God by Images but I need the less to go about to prove it now since it is at last confessed by one of the most learned Iesuits they ever had that for the four first Centuries and farther there was little or no use of Images in the Temples or Oratories of Christians but we need not their favour in so plain a Cause as this as shall be evidently proved if occasion be farther given This T. G. had no mind to and therefore saith Not to Dispute the matter of fact of which he confesses there was some little use much as if I should say that T. G. hath shewn little or no ingenuity in his Book and he to his great comfort should infer there was some little ingenuity in it but Petavius his words are supprimi omittique satius visum est it was thought better to suppress them and let them alone was it all one in T. G's sense to use them and to omit the use of them And for the little reason he saith he had to doubt my sincerity in relating Petavius his words from what I did with Trigautius in truth there was as little as might be but I have great reason to believe from his usage of me about other citations that if he could have found any words before or after that he could have interpreted to another sense he would have made little or no conscience of saying those were the words I translated thus and thus But instead of debating the matter of fact as to the Primitive Church he saith he will give me the answer of Mr. Thorndike that at that time there might be jealousie of Offence in having Images in Churches before Idolatry was quite rooted out of which afterwards there might be no appearance and therefore they were afterwards admitted all over for it is manifest the Church is tyed no farther than there can appear danger of Idolatry This he calls Mr. Thorndikes answer but it is truly the answer of Petavius from whose words it seems to be translated dum periculum erat saith Petavius ne offensionis aliquid traheret externa quorundam rituum species cum iis que ab Ethnicis celebrabantur similitudine ipsa congruens c. Therefore I shall consider it as the answer of Petavius and here examine whether this were the ground on which the Primitive Church did forbear the use and worship of Images I shall prove that it was not from these two Arguments 1. Because the Reasons given by them against the worship of Images will equally hold against the worship of Images among Christians 2. Because the notion of Idolatry which they charged the Heathens with may be common to Christians with them 1. This supposes the Primitive Christians to look on the worship of Images as in it self indifferent and to be made good or evil according to the nature of the object represented by them which is a supposition as remote from the sense of the Primitive Church as any thing we can easily imagine For then all the arguments used by them against the worship of Images must have been deduced only from the objects represented or the nature of the worship given to them whereas they frequently argue from the unsuitableness of Images as a Means of worship and the prohibition of the Divine Law Would any man of common sense that had thought the worship of Images in it self indifferent have said as Origen doth that the Christians as well as the Iews abstain from the worship of Images for the sake of the Law of God which requires rather that we should dye than defile our selves with such impieties Yes it may be said this is acknowledged that the Law of God did forbid the worship of the Heathen Images but they who make this answer never looked into Origen or have forgotten what they read there for Origen doth not there give an account why the Christians did not comply with the Heathen Idolatry but why the Christians had no Images in their own worship For Celsus charges this upon the Christians that they thought it such a mighty matter that they had no Images whereas herein saith he they were but like the barbarous Scythians Numidians and Seres and other Nations that had neither Religion nor civility To this Origen answers that we are not only to look at the bare action but at the reason and ground of it for those that agree in the same thing may yet have very different principles and they that do it on a good principle do well and not otherwise as for instance the
excited by the Image of Christ or the Saints so may devotion be raised by such an Image of the Deity Ysambertus saith that they who give caution concerning the doing of a thing as the Council of Trent doth about the Images of God are to be understood to approve the thing it self and he saith the opinion about the lawfulness of such Images is so certain that to say otherwise is rashness and the common practice of the Church for a long time hath been to have such Images in Churches and they were never reproved either by the Pope or so much as a Provincial Synod Vasquez goes farther saying That the lawfulness of Images of the Trinity is proved by the most frequent practice of the Church which commonly at Rome and other places doth set forth the Image of the Trinity to be worshipped by the People Arriaga saith That it is so certain that these Images are lawful that to say the contrary is not only rashness but a plain errour for God cannot be supposed to suffer his universal Church to err in a matter of such moment Tannerus asserts That it is not only lawful to make Images of God and the Trinity but to propose them as objects of Worship which he saith is the common opinion of their Divines and he proves it as the rest do from the practice of their Church and the Council of Trent Neither are such Images saith Cajetan only for shew as the Cherubims were in the Temple but they are set up that they may be worshipped as the practice of the Church shews In the processionale of Sarum I find a Rubrick for the incensing the Image of the Holy Trinity which clearly manifests the practice of worshipping the Image of the Trinity Now in this matter I say there is a plain innovation since the second Nicene Council which thought such Images utterly unlawful as Petavius proves from the Testimonies before mentioned But T. G. saith That Germanus and Damascen and consequently the rest only spake against such Images as are supposed to represent the Divinity in it self with whom they fully agree in this matter and think all such Images of the Divinity unlawful To which I answer 1. This is plainly contrary to their meaning for they shew that it was unlawful to make any Image of God till the Incarnation of Christ as might be at large proved from all their Testimonies Now this assertion would signifie nothing if they thought it lawful to make any Image of God from the manner of his appearances For then it was as lawful to make Images of God before as after the Incarnation of Christ. And one of the arguments of Damascen and the rest for the Images of Christ although he were God was to shew the reality of his humane nature against those who said he took only the appearance of it But if an appearance of God were sufficient ground for an Image then this argument did prove nothing at all And yet the Council of Nice laies so great weight upon it as to conclude those who reject Images to deny the reality of Christs humane nature They went therefore upon this principle that no meer appearance is a sufficient ground for the Image of a Person for in case it be a meer appearance the representation that is made is only of the appearance it self and not of the Person who never assumed that likeness which he appeared in to any Personal union but say they when the humane nature was personally united to the God head then it was lawful to make a representation of that Person by an Image of his humane nature How far this will hold at to an object of divine worship must be discussed afterwards but from hence it appears that they did not speak only against such Images which represent the Divinity in it self but against such as were made of any appearance of him And it is observable that the ancient Schoolmen such as Alexander Hales Aquinas Bonaventure and Marsilius do all agree that any representation of God was forbidden before the Incarnation of Christ from whence it follows that they could not think any representation of God from his appearances to have been lawful under the Law And there can be no reason given why the representation of God from an appearance should have been more unlawful then than under the Gospel 2. This would only hold then against Anthropomorphites or those who supposed the Divinity to be really like their Images of which sort I have shewn how very few there were among the Heathens themselves and if this had been their meaning they should not have made all Images of God unlawful but have given them cautions not to think the Divinity to be like them But whatever the conceptions of men were they declare in general all Images of God to be unlawful which the Church of Rome is so far from doing that the Council of Trent allows some kind of representations of God from his appearances and the constant practice of that Church shews that they picture God the Father as an Old Man not only in their Books but in places of worship and with a design to worship Him under that representation which was a thing the great Patrons of Images in the time of the second Council of Nice professed to abhor 3. Those Images of God which are allowed in the Roman Church are confessed by their own Authors to be apt to induce men to think God to be like to them Ioh. Hesselius a Divine of great reputation in the Council of Trent confesses That from the Images of God in humane shape men may easily fall into the errour of the Anthropomorphites especially the more ignorant for whose sake especially those Images are made It being not so easie for them to understand Metaphorical and Analogical representations but it being very natural for them to judge of things according to the most common and sensible representations of them And if they were all Anthropomorphites in the Roman Church I wonder what other representation they could make of God the Father than that which is used and allowed and worshipped among them If there be then so much danger in that opinion as T. G. intimates how can that Church possibly be excused that gives such occasions to the People to fall into it He that goes about to express the invisible nature of God by an artificial Image sins grievously and makes an Idol saith Sanders but how is it possible for a man to express the invisible nature of God by an Image otherwise than it is done in the Church of Rome How did the Heathens do it otherwise according to T. G. than by making the Image of God in the Likeness of Man But T. G. saith men may conceive the Deity otherwise than it is and so go about to make an Image to represent it which is folly and madness and so it is to make
burning incense and lights before them which are as great Testimonies of Worship as were ever used by the grossest and most sottish Idolaters I may rather say there is no great difference between them and their Images that can see no difference between such worship and the Reverence of Holy things 2. That the Council of Nice did put a difference between these things For however to blind the business as much as might be they put them together in the Definition yet if we observe the ground on which it established the worship of Images was such as referred to the things represented by them and not any sacred use of them and those expressed in the very same Definition For say they they honour of the Image passes to the Prototype and he that worships the Image doth in that worship the thing represented By which they lay the foundation of the worship of Images upon a thing peculiar to them and that doth not hold for the other things And this reason here assigned runs through all the several discourses in that Synod of Hadrian Theodorus Tarasius Germanus Leontius and Epiphanius and the very same reason is assigned by the Council of Trent It is observed out of S. Augustin that the most sacred things are only capable of honour honorem tanquam Religiosa possunt habere where he speaks of the elements of the Eucharist but Tarasius in this Council of Nice pronounces them all guilty of hypocrisie who would only give honour and not Worship to Images by which it appears that the Council determined more than meer Reverence to be given to Images 2. That this worship which the Council of Nice determined was lower than Latria For so it follows in the definition of the Council that they only meant an honorary adoration and not true Latria which is only due to God Tarasius upon reading Pope Hadrians Epistle declares his consent to the worship of Images asserted in it reserving Latria and Faith to God alone To the same purpose speaks Constantinus Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus upon reading the Epistle of Theodorus whose words I grant were mistaken by the translatour of the Council into Latin as appears by what he is charged with in the Caroline Book and his words in the Acts of the Council but it doth not therefore follow as T. G. would have it that the Council of Francford did mistake the meaning of the Nicene Synod For the Author of the Caroline Book particularly observes that in those words as translated He did contradict the sayings of the rest but that unawares he had betrayed that which the rest endeavoured to conceal viz. that they gave the worship proper to God to Images for however they denyed it in words they did it in their actions So Epiphanius the Deacon saith that they often declared that they did not give Latria to Images Thus we see what the sense of the second Council of Nice was as to the worship of Images 2. I now come to the additions which have been made to this doctrine in the Roman Church when it was delivered as good Catholick doctrine that the worship of Latria was to be given to the Images of Christ. So Thomas Aquinas determines in several places which are collected by Simon Majolus and he goes upon these grounds 1. Because no irrational creature is capable of worship but with a respect to a rational Being 2. Because Images are worshipped on the account of their representation therefore saith he they are to be worshipped with the same worship with the thing represented 3. Because the motion of the mind towards an Image as an Image is the same with the motion towards the thing represented 4. Because the Church in praying to the Cross speaks to it as if it were Christ himself O Crux ave spes unica But how can this doctrine be reconciled to the definition of the Council of Nice which determines expresly contrary Estius saith that S. Thomas never saw this definition of the Council the same is said by Catharinus and Sylvius for saith Catharinus if he had seen it he would have endeavoured to have reconciled his opinion with the decree of the Council which shews that he thought it inconsistent with it From whence I argue that the Council of Nice was not then received in the Western Church for if it had been is it conceivable that so great a Doctor of the Church as Aquinas should either not have seen it or if he had seen it should have contradicted the Definition of it But Aquinas was not the first who asserted this doctrine in the Latin Church for Alex. Hales who was his Master saith as much in effect although he doth not so openly apply the term of Latria to it yet putting this question whether greater worship doth belong to the Cross than to any man he determines it affirmatively and distinguishes between the dignity of a thing and the dignity of an Image and an Image having all its excellency from the object represented all the worship given to it is to be referred to the Prototype now saith he man having a proper excellency can deserve no more than Dulia and therefore the Cross as it represents Christ must have the worship of Latria And it is considerable that Alex. Hales as Pitts saith writ his Summ by the Command of Pope Innocent 4. and in the time of Alex 4. it was examined by seventy Divines and approved and recommended to be taught in all Universities Card. Bonaventure determines it roundly that as Christ himself from his union to the Divinity is worshipped with Latria so is the Image of Christ as it represents him and concludes thus proptereà Imagini Christi debet cultus Latriae exhiberi Rich. de Media Villa who lived in the same Century asserted the same doctrine And when Durandus opposed the doctrine of Thomas on this ground because the Image and Prototype were two distinct things and therefore what belonged to the exemplar could not be attributed to the Image however considered as an Image and so the worship are to the exemplar could not be given to the Image yet he confesses the other was the common and received opinion which was defended against Durandus by Paludanus and Capreolus Marsilius ab Ingen speaks his mind freely in this matter saying that the Cross as a sign representing the object of worship and as a medium of it is to be adored with Latria and for this he appeals to the practice of the Church O Crux ave spes unica Auge piis justitiam reisque dona veniam which three things he saith do properly belong to God and therefore saith he it is properly the worship of Latria which the Church doth give to the Cross as a sign Iacobus Almain declares that Images are to be worshipped with the same kind of worship that the things represented are because
to Scripture or Reason or the sense of the Primitive or our own Church it might have prevented my writing by changing my opinion for I was no stranger to his Writings or his Arguments But he that can think the Israelites believed the Golden Calf delivered their people out of Egypt before it was made may easily believe that Mr. Thorndikes Book of 1662. was a confutation of mine long before it was written and upon equal reason at least I may hope that this Answer will be a Prophetical Confutation of all that T. G. will ever be able to say upon this Subject CHAP. IV. An Answer to T. G's charge of Contradictions Paradoxes Reproach of the second Council of Nice School disputes and to his parallel Instances UNder these Heads I shall comprehend all that remains scattered in the several parts of his Book which seem to require any farther Answer The first thing I begin with is the Head of Contradictions for he makes in another Book the charge of Idolatry to be inconsistent with my own assertion Because I had said that Church doth not look on our negative articles against the Church of Rome as articles of Faith but as infriour Truths from whence he saith it follows that their Church doth not err against any article of Faith but Idolatry is an errour against the most Fundamental point of Faith and therefore for me to charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry must according to my own principles be the most groundless unreasonable and contradictory proceeding in the World Upon my word a very heavy charge And I must clear my self as I can from it Had not a man need to have a mighty care of dropping any kind words towards them who will be sure to make all possible advantages from them to overthrow the force of whatever can be said afterwards against them Thus have they dealt with me because I allowed the Church of Rome to be a true Church as holding all the essential points of Christian Faith therefore all the arguments I have used to prove them Idolaters are presently turned off with this That herein I contradict my self Thus I was served by that feat man at Controversie I. W. who thought it worth his while to write two Books such as they are chiefly upon this argument and he makes me to pile Contradictions on Contradictions as Children do Cards one upon another and then he comes and cunningly steals away one of the supporters and down all the rest fall in great disorder and confusion And herein he is much applauded for an excellent Artist by that mighty man at Ecclesiastical Fencing E. W. the renowned Champion of our Lady of Loreto and the miraculous translation of her Chappel about which he hath published a Defiance to the World and offers to prove it against all Comers but especially my inconsiderable self to be an undeniable Verity I must have great leisure and little care of my self if I ever more come near the Clutches of such a Giant who seems to write with a Beetle instead of a Pen and I desire him to set his heart at rest and not to trouble himself about the waies of my attacking him for he may lie quietly in his shades and snore on to Dooms-day for me unless I see farther reason of disturbing his repose than at present I do But this charge being resumed by so considerable an Adversary as T. G. is in comparison with the rest I shall for his sake endeavour more fully to clear this whole matter When I. W. had objected the same thing in effect against me the substance of the Answer I made him was this 1. That it was a disingenuous way of proceeding to oppose a judgement of charity concerning their Church to a judgement of Reason concerning the nature of actions without at all examining the force of those Reasons which are produced for it This was the case of I. W. but ingenuity is a thing my Adversaries are very little acquainted with and therefore I said 2. There was no contradiction in it For the notion of Idolatry as applied to the Church of Rome is consistent with its owning the general principles of Faith as to the True God and Iesus Christ and giving Soveraign Worship to them when therefore we say that the Church of Rome doth not err in any Fundamental point of the Christian Faith I there at large shew the meaning to have been only this that in all those which are looked on by us as necessary Articles of Faith we have the Testimony and approbation of the whole Christian World of all Ages and are acknowledged to be such by Rome it self but the Church of Rome looks upon all her Doctrines which we reject as necessary Articles of Faith so that the force of the Argument comes only to this that no Church which doth own the ancient Creeds can be guilty of Idolatry And I farther add that when we enquire into the essentials of a Church we think it not necessary to go any farther than the doctrinal points of Faith because Baptism admits men into the Church upon the profession of the true Faith in the Father Son and Holy Ghost but if beyond the essentials we enquire into the moral integrity and soundness of a Church then we are bound to go farther than the bare profession of the essential points of Faith and if it be found that the same Church may debauch those very principles of Faith by damnable errours and corrupt the worship of God by vertue of them then the same Church which doth hold the Fundamentals of Faith may notwithstanding lead men to Idolatry without the shadow of a contradiction But T. G. saith That Idolatry is an Errour against the most Fundamental point of Faith What doth T. G. mean by this I suppose it is that Idolatry doth imply Polytheism or the belief of more Gods than one to whom Soveraign worship is due then I deny this to be the proper Definition of Idolatry for although where ever this is it hath in it the nature of that we call Idolatry yet himself confesses the true notion of it to be The giving the worship due to God to a Creature so that if I have proved that the worship of Images in the Roman Church is the giving the worship due only to God to a Creature then although the Church of Rome may hold all the essentials of Faith and be a true Church it may be guilty of Idolatry without contradiction But it may be I. W. in his Reply saith something more to purpose at least it will be thought so if I do not answer him I must therefore consider what he saith that is material if any thing be found so However he saith that if the Roman Church doth hold any kind of Idolatry to be lawful she must needs hold an Errour destructive to a Fundamental and essential point of Faith and by consequence a Fundamental errour
prolatum risu dignum Inutile mendacio plenum Dementissimum ratione carens Deliramentum errore plenum Falsissimum risu dignum Ridiculosissimum Dictum Superciliosè indoctè dixerunt When T. G. hath considered these expressions and the force and pungency of them being all applyed to the Fathers of that Nicene Synod by the Western Bishops under the name of Charles the Great he may possibly cool and abate his rage towards me for using only that Ironical expression of That Wise Synod And there is nothing considerable said by the Nicene Fathers which is not answered in that Book to whom I may therefore better referr him than he doth me to the Answers of Epiphanius in the Nicene Council for satisfaction of no less than eight arguments as himself numbers them of the Constantinopolitan Fathers against the Worship of Images But that he may not think the greatest weight lies in any thing that is passed by I shall briefly consider the Defence he makes for the Nicene Synod in the particulars mentioned by him 1. He saith That the Nicene Fathers did justly plead the continuance of Christ Kingdom against the Idolatry of Christians because God hath promised that he will take away Idols from the earth not for four or five hundred years but to the end of the world I desire T. G. to consider whether this argument would not have held as well against the Catholick Bishops who charged the Arrians with Idolatry and what answer he gives himself about that will shew the feebleness of his answer in this case And the prophecies of the Old Testament relating to Events under the New supposing that doth so which is far from being clear do certainly shew what the design and tendency of the Christian doctrine is and what would be if men did observe it As it is in all the prophecies of the Peace and tranquillity of the World notwithstanding which we find the World at the old Rate of quarrelling and Fighting under new pretences Just so it is with Idolatry no doctrine in the world would preserve men more effectually from it if they would observe it but if under the colour of Christianity they bring in only a new scheme of it it is still the same kind of thing although it appears in a fresher dress But then saith T. G. the Gates of Hell would prevail against the Church Against what Church The whole Christian Church whoever said they could or how doth that follow The Church of Constantinople or the Church of Ierusalem Have not the Gates of the Turk been too strong for them The Church of Rome The Gates of Hell do certainly prevail against that if it doth Unchurch all other Christians that are not of its communion And why may not Idolatry prevail where Luciferian Pride and Hellish Cruelty and desperate Wickedness have long since prevailed Hath Christ made promises to secure that Church from errour which hath been over-run with all sorts of Wickedness by the confession of her own members and Friends These are gobbets fit only to be cramm'd down the throats of very implicite believers 2. He undertakes to shew that the saying of the Fathers against the Arrians cannot reach to those that worship Images because Epiphanius saith the Arrians trusted in Christ and gave properly Divine Honour to Christ which they do not to the Images of Christ. To answer this I shewed that Aquinas and his followers did declare that Latria was to be given to the Images of Christ therefore this could not at least excuse them from being parallel to the Arrians and if their arguments hold good then all that worship Images fall under the like condemnation This he bestows the name of many fallacies upon and runs on so briskly with shewing the inconsequence of it as though he did in earnest believe it were an impertinent answer by which he would insinuate that I had made use of Aquinas his opinion to prove those guilty of Idolatry which were of another opinion No such matter For the question was whether the saying of the Fathers concerning the Arrian Idolatry can be justly applyed to those that worship Images Yes say I upon Epiphanius his own ground they may if they who worship Images give divine Honour to them but Aquinas and his Followers contend that Divine Honour is to be given to them and therefore they fall under the like censure And by their argument all that worship Images must come under it For either they worship Images for themselves and then they all acknowledge it is Idolatry or for the sake of the exemplar which if it be the reason and object of worship as represented by the Image it must have the same worship which the thing considered in its own being deserves which being divine honour that must be given to the Image But T. G. supposes the force of all this to depend upon their being of this opinion and because the Nicene Fathers are not mentioned by me as agreeing with Aquinas therefore he represents this arguing as ridiculous Whereas my design was to shew that since divine honour being given to Images was confessed to make the case alike that it was confessed by the most prevalent party in the Church of Rome that such honour was to be given to them and that others did it although they would not own the doing it And whether men acknowledge it or no if they give that which is really Divine Worship they become guilty of Idolatry as well as the Arrians and let men call it by what names they will of Relative or absolute Soveraign or inferiour Worship if it be that which God hath forbidden to be given to any Creature it becomes Idolatry 3. T. G. saith that the argument doth not hold that if the union of the Divine and humane nature be the reason of the worship given to the Person of Christ then there must be an equal presence or union between Christ and the Image to make that an object of Worship for saith he not only union but representation may occasion worship Who doubts of that but may it not as well occasion people to commit Idolatry But the question is not whether representation may occasion the worship of God or no for so an Ant or a Fly or any Creature may occasion it But this is notorious shuffling to talk of Images being only an Occasion of Worship whereas I have at large shewed that the doctrine and Practice of their Church makes them Objects of Worship And since the Christian Church acknowledged the humanity of Christ to be capable of worship only on the account of an Hypostatical Union with the Divine Nature I desired to know how a meer Image of that Humane Nature can be an object of lawful worship If T. G. saith That the Image is a fit object of worship and representation the reason of it let him shew how Representation comes to be an equal reason with personal
give to Images and which being given to an Image makes it Idolatry because those Acts are such which do imply a submission to the thing i. e. they are the highest expressions of adoration and those who assert that inferiour worship do hold it to be internal as well as external and to be terminated on the Images themselves which is the Reason why Vasquez saith it were Idolatry But Vasquez was not a man of so shallow an understanding to charge this upon those who declare they put off their shooes or hats out of no intention or design to worship the Ground or Place but meerly to express some outward Reverence to a Place on the account of its being Sacred to God Those who contended for that worship which Vasquez charges with Idolatry did agree with him in all external acts of adoration to Images and went farther than Vasquez thought fit as to the internal for they said both ought to concurr in the worship of Images and that this inferiour worship was terminated on the Images themselves as I have shewed at large in the stare of the Controversie Now saith Vasquez to assert and practise worship of Images after this manner is Idolatry for it is expressing our submission to a meer inanimate thing But do we say that all acts of worship are to be performed to the Ground that is holy or that any one act of worship is to be terminated upon it or that any submission of our minds is to be used towards it All these we utterly disavow as to the Reverence of Sacred Places and these things being declared we yet say there is a Reverence left to be shewed them on the account of their discrimination from other places and separation for sacred uses which Reverence is best expressed in the way most common for men to shew Respect by which was putting off Shooes in the Eastern parts and of Hats here of the difference of Reverence and worship I have spoken before I hope by this time T. G. sees a little better the force of the argument of Vasquez and how very far it is from recoiling on my head because I assert a Reverence to sacred places to have been shewed by Moses and Ioshua on the account of Gods special presence and so all that insipid Discourse of Idolatry which follows sneaks away as being ashamed to be brought in to so little purpose here but hath been fully handled in the First part 2. To his Instance of Bowing at the name of Iesus I answered that he might as well have instanced in our going to Church at the tolling of a Bell for as the one only tells us the time when we ought to go to worship God so the mentioning the name of Iesus doth only put us in mind of him to whom we owe all manner of Reverence without dishonouring him as the Object of our worship by any Image of him which can only represent that which is neither the object nor reason of our worship At this Answer T. G. is inflamed and when he hath nothing else to say he endeavours to set me at variance with the Church of England This runs quite through his Book and he takes all occasions to set me forth as a close and secret enemy to it although I appear never so much in its Vindication If my Adversaries were to be believed as I see no great reason they should be I must be a very prodigious Author in one respect for they represent me as a Friend to that which I write against viz. Socinianism and an enemy to that which I have defended viz. the Church of England But wherein is it that T. G. thinks me such a back-friend to our Church in disavowing all Reverence to the Sacred Name of Iesus which he saith our Church hath enjoyned and hath been defended by Fulk Whitgift and B. Andrews I am glad I know my charge and I do not doubt to clear my self to hold nothing in this or any other matter but what the Church of England hath declared to be her sense Witness as to this point the Declaration of the Archbishops and Bishops in Convocation When in time of Divine Service the Lord Jesus shall be mentioned due and lowly Reverence shall be done by all Persons present as hath been accustomed testifying by these outward ceremonies and gestures their inward humility Christian Resolution and due acknowledgement that the Lord Iesus Christ the true and Eternal Son of God is the only Saviour of the World Is this bowing to the very name of Iesus and worshipping that as they do Images when the Convocation declares that only a significant Ceremony is intended by it Arch-B Whitgift in the very place cited by him saith that the Christians used it to signifie their faith in Iesus and therefore they used bodily reverence at all times when they heard the name of Iesus but especially when the Gospel was read Dr. Fulk another of his Authors saith that the place alledged by T. G. to prove it pertains to the subjection of all Creatures to the Iudgement of Christ however he saith the ceremony of bowing may be used out of Reverence to his Majesty not to the bare name and that their Idolatrous worship is unfitly compared with the bowing at the name of Iesus Bishop Andrews saith we do not bow to the name but to the sense which answers and clears all the long allegation out of him Archbishop Laud calls it the Honour due to the Son of God at the mentioning of his Name which are almost the very words I used And Whittington and Meg of Westminster will altogether serve as well for his expression as that used by me But T. G. need not be so angry at my mentioning the tolling of a bell when he remembers the Christening of bells among them and what mighty Power they have after that and what Reverend God-fathers they have and what Saints names are given to them so that I should rather have thought he would have drawn an argument from the Bells than have been so disturbed at the naming of them For all this T. G. fancies a strange Analogy between Words and Pictures a picture being a word to the Eye and a word being a Picture to the Ear which sounds just like Whittington to my ears and I desire him to consider that Suarez tells us that some of their own Divines say no worship is due to any Name because they signifie only by imposition and do not supply the place of the thing represented as Images do of which opinion he saith Soto and Corduba are and Suarez himself grants that a name being a transient sound can hardly be apprehended as conjoyned with the Person or the Person in it so as to be worshipped together with it And one of their latest Ritualists saith that when the name of Iesus is mentioned they bow to the Crucifix which shews that even among them they do not