greatest occasion to do it in the matter of Images But when the worship of Images began to be opposed here in England by Wickliffe the defenders of it finding themselves concerned to find out every thing that made for their advantage Waldensis having heard of some such thing as a Council against Iconoclasts by Thomas and Iohn two Dominicans of his time from a certain Book he adventures to set it down upon their report but so faintly with ut fertur as if he had been telling the story of Pope Ioan and he saith it was called under the pious Emperour Constantius the second and Pascasius by which we may see what an excellent account they had of this General Council but in the last Century Pet. Crabb a Franciscan with indefatigable diligence searching five hundred Libraries for any thing pertaining to Councils lights upon the old Latin Edition of this Council and published it A. D. 1551. From that time this was looked on and magnified as the seventh General Council in these Western parts and its Authority set up by the Council of Trent and the generality of Divines finding it in the Volums of General Councils and there joyned with them search'd no farther but imagined it was alwaies so esteemed But it may be some will become confident of it when they see so good an Author as T. G. speaking with so much assurance That it hath been received for many hundred years as a lawful General Council If he speaks from the time of its being published he might as well have said for many thousand years For 1. In the Age wherein it was first sent abroad it was utterly rejected by the Council of Francford as not only appears by the Canon it self but by the confession of some of the most learned and judicious persons of the Roman Church such as Sirmondus and Petrus de Marcâ were and Petavius confesses That the Council meant by the Council of Francford was the Nicene Council and not the former of Constantinople as Surius Cope or Harpsfield Sanders Suarez and others were of opinion nay Labbé and Cossart in their late Edition of the Councils have most impudently set down this in the very Title of the Council of Francford That the Acts of the Nicene Council in the matter of Images were confirmed therein whereas Sirmondus adds this to the Title of his Admonition about the second Canon of that Council Quo rejecta est Synodus Nicaena all which Advertisement they have very honestly left out although they pretend to give all Sirmondus his Notes But the main pretence for this was because the words of the Canon do mention the Council of Constantinople which Petavius thinks was called so because Constantinople was the Head of the Eastern Empire but the plain reason is because the Nicene Council was begun at Constantinople upon the 17 of August but the Emperours Guards would not endure their sitting there as Theophanes relates upon which they were forced to rise and the Empress found out a trick to disband the suspected Officers and Souldiers and brought in new ones however it was thought convenient the Council should sit no longer there but remove unto Nice And what a mighty absurdity was this to call a Council which was begun at Constantinople the Constantinopolitan Council And it is observable that Gabriel Biel who lived in the latter end of the fifteenth Century quotes the Decree of this Council of Nice under the name of a Decree of the Council of Constantinople And the learned P. Pithaeus speaking of Anastasius his Translation calls it the Council of Constantinople The new French Annalist is satisfied with neither opinion but he thinks That another Council of Constantinople was called between the Nicene Council and that of Francford which did in express words determine that the same worship was to be given to Images which is due to the B. Trinity and that this was the Council condemned at Francford but this New Council is a meer invention of his own there being no colour for it either from the Greek or Latin Historians and in truth he pretends only to these reasons 1. Because it was a Council of Constantinople which was condemned 2. Because it is not to be supposed that the Council of Francford should condemn the Council of Nice For he saith it is not to be believed that so many Bishops the Popes Legates being present should misunderstand the doctrine of that Council yet this is all the refuge T. G. hath in this matter and he offers from Petr. de Marca to give a particular account of it To which I answer That the Author of the Caroline Book as I have already observed takes notice of this passage of the Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus and although there were a mistake in the Translation of it yet it ought to be observed that he saith the whole Council meant the same which Constantine spake out although in words they denied it and he there quotes the very words of their denying it Non adoramus Imagines ut Deum nec illis Divini servitii cultum impendimus c. From whence it is plain that the Western Church understood well enough what they said and what they denied but they judged notwithstanding all their words to the contrary that they did really give that worship to Images which was due only to God and no man that reads the Caroline Book can be of another opinion And T. G. is content to yield it of the Author of that Book from the Testimonies I brought out of him but he saith That Author was not contented with what the Council of Francford had condemned Which is a lamentable answer since Hincmarus saith That this very Volume was it which was sent from the Emperour to Rome by some Bishops against the Greek Synod and he quotes the very place out of it which is still extant in that Book And is it credible that the Emperour should publish a Book in his own name as a Capitular as Pope Hadrian calls it that was different from the sense of the Council of Francford which was called on purpose to resolve this Question about Images as well as to condemn the Heresie of Felix and Elipandus Petavius indeed would have the main Book to have been written some years before the Council as soon as the Acts of the Nicene Synod were known in these parts and Cassander probably supposes Alcuinus to have been the Author of it but when the Council of Francford had condemned the Nicene Synod only some excerpta were taken out of it and sent to the Pope I am not satisfied with Petavius his Reason Because the Pope doth not answer all of it a better cause may be assigned for that but in the Preface of the Book the Author declares that it was done with the Advice of the Council Quod opus aggressi sumus cum conhibentiâ sacerdotum
God-head which was to be seen by the things that were made so as to leave them without excuse Was this their knowing of God and that incorruptible God whose glory they turned into the Image of a corruptible man c Was all this nothing but Iupiter of Crete and the Arch-Devil under his name But what will not men say rather than confess themselves Idolaters Although these Testimonies of Scriture be never so evident yet I am not sure but T. G. may be the Polus mentioned in Erasmus now whom he mentions for my sake more than once and may espy a red fiery Dragon even the old Serpent there where I can see nothing but the discovery of the True God Therefore supposing that the Testimony of Heathens or the Scriptures may not weigh much with him methinks he might have considered what the Learned men of their own Church have said to this purpose Th. Aquinas confesseth that the most of the Gentiles did acknowledge one Supreme God from whom they said all those others whom they called Gods did receive their being and that they ascribed the name of Divinity to all immortal substances chiefly by reason of their wisdom happiness and Government Which custom of speaking saith he is likewise found in Scripture where either the holy Angels or Men and Iudges are called Gods I have said Ye are Gods and many other places Franciscus Ferrariensis in his Commentaries on that place saith that Aquinas his meaning was that the Scripture only agreed with the Heathens as to the name but that they called their Gods properly so whereas the Scripture speaks of them only by way of participation And did Aquinas mean any otherwise of the Heathens when he saith that all their inferiour Gods derived their very being from the Supreme The same Aquinas in his Book purposely written against the Gentiles gives this account of their Principles of Religion that some of them held one God the first and universal principle of all things but withall all they gave Divine Worship Latriam next to the Supreme God to intellectual substances of a heavenly nature which they call Gods whether they were substances separated from bodies or the Souls of the heavenly Orbs and Stars in the next place to intellectual substances united to aerial bodies which they called Daemons whom they made Gods in respect of men and thought they deserved divine worship from men as being Mediatours between the Gods and them and in the last place to the Souls of good men as being raised to a higher state than that of this present life Others of them suppossing God to be the Soul of the World did believe that divine worship was to be given to the whole world and the several parts of it not for the sake of the Body but the Soul which they said was God as a wise man hath honour given him not for the sake of his Body but of his mind Others again asserted that things below men as Images might have divine worship given to them in as much as they did participate of a Superiour nature either from the influence of heavenly bodies or the presence of some Spirits which Images they called Gods and from thence they were called Idolaters And so he proves that they were who acknowledging one first principle did give divine worship to any other being because it weakens the notion and esteem we ought to have of the Supreme Being to give divine worship to any other besides him as it would lessen the honour of a King for any other Person to have the same kind of respect shewed to him which we express to the King and because this divine worship is due to God on the account of Creation which is proper only to him and because he is properly Lord over us and none else besides him and he is our great and last end which are all of them great and weighty reasons why divine worship should be appropriated to God alone But saith he although this opinion which makes God a separate Being and the first Cause of all intellectual Beings be true yet that which makes God the Soul of the World though it be farther from truth gives a better account of giving divine worship to created Beings For then they give that divine worship to God himself for according to this principle the several parts of the world in respect of God are but as the several members of a mans body in respect of his Soul But the most unreasonable opinion he saith is that of animated Images because those cannot deserve more worship than either the Spirits that animate them or the makers of them which ought not to have divine worship given them besides that by lying Oracles and wicked Counsels these appear to have been Evil Spirits and therefore deserve no worship of us From hence he saith it appears that because divine worship is proper only to God as the first principle and none but an ill disposed rational Being can excite men to the doing such unlawful things as giving the worship proper to God to any other Being that men were drawn to Idolatry by the instigation of evil Spirits which coveted divine honours to themselves and therefore the Scripture saith they worshipped Devils and not God From which remarkable Testimony we may take notice of these things 1. That he confesseth many of the Gentiles whom he charges with Idolatry did believe and worship the Supreme God as Creator and Governour of the world 2. That divine worship is so proper to the true God that whosoever gives it to any created being though in it self of real excellency and considered as deriving that excellency from God is yet guilty of Idolatry 3. That relative Latria being given to a creature is Idolatry for so he makes it to be in those who supposed God to be the Soul of the world And I desire T. G. or any other cunning Sophister among them to shew me why a man may not as lawfully worship any part of the world with a relative Latria supposing God to be the Soul of the world as any Image or Crucifix whatsoever For if union contact or relation be a sufficient ground for relative Latria in one case it will be in the other also and I cannot but wonder so great a judgement as Aquinas had should not either have made him justifie the Heathens on this supposition or condemn the Christians in giving Latria i. e. proper divine worship to the Cross. For there is not any shadow of reason produced by him for the one which would not held have much more for the other For if the honour of the Image is carried to the Prototype is not the honour of the members of the Body to the mind that animates them If the Image deserve the same worship with the person represented by it is not much more any part of the body capable of receiving the honour due to the Person as the
who acknowledge one Supreme God As to the Heathens who are confessed to be Idolaters I have such plenty and choice of evidence in this matter that it is not easie to know which to leave out for if either the Testimony of the Heathens themselves may be taken or the Testimony of the Writers of the Roman Church concerning them or the Testimonie of the Scriptures or of those Fathers who disputed against their Idolatry or of the Roman Church it self I do not doubt to make it evident that those Heathens who are charged with Idolatry did acknowledge one Supreme God In so great store I have reason to consider the temper of the person I have to deal with For if I produce the Testimony of the Heathen Writers themselves it may be he may suspect that the Devil dwelt in their Books as well as in their Images and being a very cunning Sophister that he might perswade their Philosophers to write for one God that he might have the worship belonging to him as O. C 's Instruments were for a single Person that the Government might be put into his hands But I have a better reason than this viz. that this Work is already undertaken by a very learned Person of our Church The Testimony of Scripture is plain enough in this matter to any unbyassed mind as appears by S. Pauls saying to the men of Athens when he saw the Altar to the unknown God Whom ye ignorantly worship him I declare unto you Did S. Paul mean the Devil by this Did he in good earnest go abroad to preach the Devil to the world yet he preached him whom they ignorantly worshipped i. e. the Devil saith T. G. Although S. Paul immediately saith it was the God that made the World and all things in it and afterwards quotes one of their Poets for saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For we are his offspring and it is observable that the words immediately going before in Aratus are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he useth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 twice more in the verses before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the very word that T.G. saith doth signifie an Arch-Devil Doth S. Paul then say we are all the Devils off-spring and not an ordinary one neither but the very Arch-Devils Was this his way of perswading the Athenians to leave the worship of Devils to tell them that they were all the Devils off-spring No it was far enough from him for he infers from that saying of Aratus that they were the offspring of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that if Saint Paul may be credited rather than T. G. their Iupiter was so far from being the Arch-Devil that he was the true God blessed for evermore And it is observable that S. Paul quotes one of their Poets for this saying notwithstanding T. G 's sharp censure of them out of Horace with which the force of S. Pauls testimony is overthrown But he was not alone in making this to be the Poets sense for Aristobulus the Iewish Philosopher produces it to the same purpose and adds that although he used the name of Jove yet his design was to express the true God Minucius Felix saith wisely in this case They who make Jove the chief God are only deceived in the name but agree in the Power so far was he from thinking their Iupiter Father of Gods and men which he applauds the Poets for saying to have been the Arch-Devil But T. G. quotes Origen for saying that the Christians would undergo any Torments rather than confess Jupiter to be God for they did not believe Jupiter and Sabaoth to be the same neither indeed to be any God at all but a Devil who is delighted with the name of Jupiter an enemy to men and God I grant Origen doth say so but suppose St. Paul and Origen contradict one another I desire to know whom we are to follow Yet if T. G. had considered Origen as he ought to have done he would have seen how little had been gained by this saying of his For when Celsus had said it was no great matter whether they called the Supreme God Jupiter or Adonai or Sabaoth or Ammon as the Aegyptians did or Pappai as the Scythians Origen answers 1. That he had spoken already upon this subject which he desires may be remembered now in that place he saith that by reason of the abundance of filthy and obscene fables which went of their Jupiter the Christians would by no means endure to have the true God called by his name having learnt from Plato to be scrupulous about the very names of their Gods 2. Origen hath a particular conceit about the power of the Hebrew names and hath a very odd discourse unbecoming a Philosopher and a Christian about the power of words in enchantments and that the same words had great force in their Originals which they lost being translated into other Languages and if it be thus saith he in other names how much more ought we to think it so in the names of God And therefore he would by no means have those powerful names of Adonai and Sabaoth to be changed for any other By which for all that I can see Origen would as much have scrupled calling the Divine Being God as Iove If Vossius his conjecture be true that God is the same with the old German Gode or Godan and according to the common permutation of those letters Wodan who was the chief God among the Germans 3. He saith that it was no fault at all for any persons to call the Supreme God by the names used in their own language as the Aegyptians might call him Ammon and the Scythians Pappai and then why not the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and I do not see he finds much fault with them for it but he would not have those names brought into the Christian Religion which had been defiled by such impure stories and representations among the Heathens which is the best thing that he saith to this purpose But we see that Origen himself doth not deny that either the Greeks or Aegyptians or Scythians did own a Supreme God or that they had proper names to express him by but he would not have the Christians bring those names into their Religion And that Origen grants that the Heathens did acknowledge the Supreme God will be proved afterwards But whatever his opinion was we are sure S. Paul by the God that was known among the Heathens did not mean the Devil For was the believing the Devil to be the Supreme God that holding the truth in unrighteousness which S. Paul charges the Heathens with Was this indeed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which is known of God which he saith not only was manifest in them but that God himself had revealed it to them Was this that eternal Power and
this first principle yet they all agreed in this that it was immortal and not only good in it self but the fountain of all good Which surely was no description of an Arch-Devil But what need I farther insist on those Authours of his own Church who have yielded this when there are several who with approbation have undertaken the proof of this in Books written purposely on this subject such as Raim Breganius Mutius Pansa Livius Galantes Paulus Benius Eugubinus but above all Augustinus Steuchus Eugubinus who have made it their business to prove that not only the Being of the Deity but the unity as a first principle the Wisdom Goodness Power and Providence of God were acknowledged not meerly by the Philosophers as Plato and Aristotle and their followers but by the generality of mankind But I am afraid these Books may be as hard for him to find as Trigautius was and it were well if his Principles were as hard to find too if they discover no more learning or judgement than this that the Supreme God of the Heathens was an Arch-Devil But T. G. saith that the Father of Gods and men among the Heathens was according to the Fathers an Arch-Devil Is it not possible for you to entertain wild and absurd opinions your selves but upon all occasions you must lay them at the doors of the Fathers I have heard of a place where the people were hard put to it to provide God-fathers for their Children at last they resolved to choose two men that were to stand as God-fathers for all the Children that were to be born in the Parish just such a use you make of the Fathers they must Christen all your Brats and how foolish soever an opinion be if it comes from you it must presently pass under the name of the Fathers But I shall do my endeavour to break this bad custome of yours and since T. G. thinks me a scarce-revolted Presbyterian I shall make the right Father stand for his own Children And because this is very material toward the true understanding the Nature of Idolatry I shall give a full account of the sense of the Fathers in this point and not as T. G. hath done from one single passage of a learned but by their own Church thought heretical Father viz. Origen presently cry out the Fathers the Fathers Which is like a Country Fellow that came to a Gentleman and told him he had found out a brave Covie of Partridges lying in such a Field the Gentleman was very much pleased with the news and presently asked him how many there were what half a score No. eight No. Six No. Four No. But how many then are there Sir saith the Country Fellow it is a Covie of one I am afraid T. G 's Covie of Fathers will hardly come to one at last Iustin Martyr is the eldest genuine Father extant who undertook to reprove the Gentiles for their Idolatry and to defend the Christian worship In his Paraenesis to the Greeks he takes notice how hardly the wiser Gentiles thought themselves dealt with when all the Poetical Fables about their Gods were objected against them just as some of the Church of Rome do when we tell them of the Legends of their Saints which the more ingenuous confess to be made by men who took a priviledge of feigning and saying any thing as well as the Heathen Poets but they appealed for the principles of their Religion to Plato and Aristotle both whom he confesses to have asserted one Supreme God although they differed in their opinions about the manner of the formation of things by him Afterwards he saith That the first Authour of Polytheism among them viz. Orpheus did plainly assert one Supreme God and the making of all things by him for which he produces many verses of his and to the same purpose an excellent testimony of Sophocles viz. that in truth there is but one God who made Heaven and Earth and Sea and Winds but the folly and madness of mankind brought in the Images of Gods and when they had offered sacrifices and kept solemnities to these they thought themselves Religious He farther shews that Pythagoras delivered to his disciples the unity of God and his being the cause of all things and the fountain of all good that Plato being warned by Socrates his death durst not oppose the Gods commonly worshipped but one may guess by his Writings that his meaning as to the inferiour Deities was that they who would have them might and they who would not might let them alone but that himself had a right opinion concerning the true God That Homer by his golden chain did attribute to the Supreme God a Power over all the rest and that the rest of the Deities were near as far distant from the Supreme as men were and that the Supreme was he whom Homer calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God himself which signifies saith Iustin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the truely existent Deity and that in Achilles his Shield he makes Vulcan represent the Creation of the world From these arguments he perswades the Greeks to hearken to the Revelation which the true and Supreme God had made of himself to the world and to worship him according to his own Will In his Apologies to the Roman Emperours Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius and the Roman Senate and People for so Baronius shews that which is now called the first was truely the second and that not only written to the Senate but to the Emperour too who at that time was Marcus Aurelius as Eusebius saith and Photius after him he gives this account of the State of the Controversie then so warmly managed about Idolatry that it was not whether there were one Supreme God or no or whether he ought to have divine worship given to him but whether those whom the Gentiles called Gods were so or no and whether they or dead men did deserve any divine honour to be given to them and lastly that being supposed whether this honour ought to be given to Images or no For every one of these Iustin speaks distinctly to As to their Gods he denies that they deserved any divine worship because they desired it and were delighted with it From whence as well as from other arguments he proves that they could not be true Gods but evil Daemons that those who were Christians did only worship the true God the Father of all vertue and goodness and his Son who hath instructed both men and Angels for it is ridiculous to think that in this place Iustin should assert the worship of Angels equal with the Father and Son and before the Holy Ghost as some great men of the Church of Rome have done and the Prophetick Spirit in Spirit and truth In another place he saith that they had no other crime to object against the Christians but that they did not
and honour is to be given to them and therefore he cannot but wonder what I meant by alledging those Testimonies unless I intend not any worship at all to be due to any besides God or that I think it not possible to worship a good man And afterwards he saith he would willingly understand yet farther whether I allow any honour at all to be due to Princes as Gods Vicegerents for he doth not remember hitherto any passage in my Book from whence he could gather that I hold it lawful to give any worship either to Princes Statues or to themselves Which words have such a venemous insinuation in them that I could hardly believe they could come from a man of the least common ingenuity Because I deny Religious worship to be given to any besides God himself must I therefore be represented as a man that denyes Civil worship to be given to Princes I cannot tell whether the folly or malice of such an insinuation be the greater I pray God help his understanding and forgive his ill will I hope all acts do not go whither they are intended but that which he designs for my dishonour may notwithstanding his intention terminate in his own I do assure him I am so much for the utmost civil worship to be given to Princes as Gods Vicegerents as not to think it in the power of any Bishop in the World to depose them or absolve their subjects from obedience to them and I hope T. G. thinks so too although he may not think it so fit to declare his mind But what is all this to our present business The force of my argument lay in this the Christians denyed giving Religious worship to Princes although it were an inferiour kind of Religious worship therefore they did not think an inferiour kind of Religious worship lawful Was this argument too hot for his fingers so that assoon as he touched it he runs away and frets and fumes and vents his spight against me for it However I will urge it again and again till I receive a better answer T. G. saith the Fathers speak only of the Soveraign worship that is due only to God and that is the worship they think unlawful to give to any creature I say it is impossible that should be their sense for they deny it to be lawful to give Religious worship to Princes when they were required to do it but no men ever took Princes for the Supream God T. G. tells me that Tertullian explains Theophilus and Justin saying that the King is then to be honoured when he keeps himself within his own Sphere and abstains from divine honours Very well this is that I aim at and he need not wonder what I brought these testimonies for for it was for this very thing which Tertullian saith that the Christians did refuse to give divine honours to Princes and therefore they thought divine worship comprehended under it all sorts of Religious worship But saith T. G. it is a thing notoriously known that many of the Heathen Emperours exacted to be worshipped as Gods that is with divine worship I grant all this and say that it still proves what I intend For did they mean by worshipping them as Gods that they would have the people believe them to be the Supream God that is madness and folly to suppose for the utmost they required was to be worshipped with the same worship that Deified men were or to have the same worship living which the Senate was wont to decree to them when they were dead And can T. G. possibly believe that this was to suppose them to be the sole Authors of all good to mankind which is that kind of divine worship he saith the Fathers only condemned I desire T. G. to think again of this matter and I dare say he will see more cause to wonder at his own answer than at my argument which so evidently overthrows all that he brings to evade the Testimonies of the Fathers But saith T. G. if Kings may be honoured as Gods Vicegerents why may not Saints as the adopted Children of God Who denyes this for Gods sake but I deny that either Kings or Saints are to have divine worship given to them And since T. G. is in the humour of asking me Questions let me propose one to him if Kings may be honoured as Gods Vicegerents why not with divine honour upon his principles i. e. with a relative Latria though not absolute And if that be lawful what he thinks of the primitive Christians who chose to dye rather than to give divine worship to them upon any account By this time I hope T. G. is ashamed of what he adds that on the same principles that I deny any worship to be due to Saints a Quaker would prove that it must be denyed to Princes The worship I deny to Saints is that which God hath denyed to them viz. Divine worship the worship I say is due to Princes is that which God hath required to be given them viz. civil worship And they that cannot find out a difference between these two are a fit match for the Quakers I know not what a Quaker might do in this matter I am sure T. G. doth nothing but trifle in it Was there ever a meaner argument came out of the mouth of a Quaker that what he urges against me viz. that in such a Book printed in such a place and just in such a page I call a Divine of our Nation Reverend and Learned and what then therefore Saints are to be worshipped very extraordinary I confess and one of T. G's nostrum's if he please let it be writ upon his Monument Hic jacet auctor hujus Argumenti for I dare say no body ever used it before him If we give men titles of respect according to their Age and Calling or real worth therefore we are to give Religious worship to Saints and why not as well to Princes because we call the Iudges appointed by them the Reverend Iudges but surely this will prove not only a dulia but an hyperdulia because we not only call the Clergy Reverend but the Bishops Right Reverend and Archbishops Most Reverend I am sorry T. G. did not so well consider the force of his argument to have pressed it home upon me for he now sees how much more advantage might have been made by it but it is an easie thing to add to rare inventions But certainly T. G. to use his own words must believe his Readers to be all stark blind who cannot distinguish titles of respect from Religious worship But is there not a Reverence due to Persons for their Piety as well as for their Age and Dignity who doubts it but that Reverence lyes in the due expressions of honour and esteem towards them which I hope may be done without encroaching upon the Acts of Religious worship and I think I have told him plainly enough what I mean by them in the
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
be none to understanding men but only to the rude and ignorant people that cannot so easily apprehend God in His Creatures as in an Image and withall it would savour of Heathen superstition But it were well they would consider the Answer they give us in this case when we urge the same argument against the worship of Images Hold say they a meer scandal is no reason to take away the use of a thing if it be such as doth not arise from the nature of the thing but only by accident through the malice or ignorance of the Persons So that in this case nothing is wanting but well instructing the People and upon their principles of worship they may revive the worship of the Host of Heaven the Fire and Water and Trees and the Earth it self and it is but conquering a little squeamishness of stomach at first the very Tail of the Ass on which our Savioâ—r rode will go down with them And now I leave the Reader to judge which of us two is guilty of the greater Paradoxes I now come to the great rock of offence the second Council of Nice which he saith I most irreverently call that wise Synod upon which he falls into a very Tragical exclamation that I should dare to reflect so much dishonour on a Council wherein there were 350. Fathers with the Popes Legats and the Vicars of the Oriental Patriarchal Sees and yet himself calls the Council of Constantinople a Conventicle wherein there were 338. Bishops and doth he think the number of twelve more in one than in the other makes such a huge difference in point of Wisdom But the Author of the Caroline Book saith That by their own confession they were but 306. And the Council of Francford which opposed this and of which T. G. speaks not very honourably as I shall make appear consisted of about â—00 Bishops by the confessions of their own Writers so that if number carries it I have above 600. Bishops of my side and if they were wise the Nicene Council was not so It is therefore in T. G's choice to call 300. or 600. Bishops Fools But if he be guilty of the same fault that doth not excuse me for speaking so Ironically of so lawful so general so judicious a Council as that at Nice was and therefore he adviseth me to recant and to follow the example of Gregory of Neocaelarea I hope he doth not mean in the way of S. German although one of that name was a great Patron of Images about that time But if this Council were neither so lawful so general nor so judicious as T. G. pretends for all that I know the Rector of a Parochial Church never to be found in the list of any General Council which is a shrewd aggravation of my fault may have leave to call the Second Council of Nice a wise Synod 1. I shall enquire whether this were a lawful General Council and so received by the Church There are three things T. G. insists on to make this out 1. That it was called by the Popes Authority which he knows we deny to be sufficient to make a lawful General Council for then every Assembly of Bishops at Rome called by the Pope would be a General Council 2. The consent and presence of the Patriarchs 3. That it hath been received as such by the Church But I shall make it appear that it was just such another General Council as that of Trent was and managed with as much fraud and collusion and that it was not received by the Church as a General Council 1. As to the presence and consent of the Patriarchs this Council in their Synodical Epistle boast that they had the concurrence of East West North and South Which is such an extravagance that no sober men would have been guilty of that had any regard to Truth or Honesty or did in the least consider the State of the World at that time The Western Bishops were never so much as summon'd the Patriarch of Ierusalem was dead the Eastern Patriarch and the Patriarch of Alexandria were neither in condition to appear themselves nor to send Legats thither which Baronius ingenuously confesseth Because Aaron who was then Chaliph of the Saracens was a great enemy to the Christians under whose dominion at that time they were Although Christianus Lupus a Professor of Divinity at Lovain makes him a great Friend to the Christians in Egypt which is not only contrary to Baronius but to the Synodical Epistle the two Monks carried to the Council from the Monks of Palestine and was read and approved by the Council Theophanes saith That the Empress and Patriarch both sent to the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch while the Peace continued but soon after upon Aaron 's being made Chaliph the peace was broke and there was no liberty for the Patriarchs either to go or send But do we not read in the Acts of the Council that John appeared and subscribed as Vicar of the Oriental Patriarchs and Thomas as Vicar of the Patriarch of Alexandria Very true but Baronius gives an excellent account of this notorious cheat The Legats that were sent to the Patriarchs did never arrive at Antioch or Alexandria but coming into Palestine they there understood what a grievous persecution the Christians suffered under the new Chaliph and that if it should be discovered what errand they went upon it would not only hazzard their own lives but of all the Christians of those parts therefore they forbore going any farther and acquainted the Monks of Palestine with their design who met together and took upon them to send these two John and Thomas as the Legats of the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria For Theodorus Patriarch of Ierusalem was lately dead And these two were the goodly Vicars of the Patriarchal See 's which sate and subscribed in their names in this most Oecumenical Council and passed in all the Acts of it for the Legats of the Oriental Patriarchs For they subscribe themselves Legats of the three Apostolical Sees Alexandria Antioch and Jerusalem and yet the summons never came to either of the Patriarchs but they were in truth only the Plenipotentiary Monks of the Patriarchal Monks of Palestine So both Baronius and Binius confess they were only the Monks that sent them and they call themselves Eremites in the beginning of their Epistle and yet in the Acts of that Council they pass for very great men of the East and Euthymius Bishop of Sardis calls them the Patriarchs of the East and Epiphanius takes it for granted that the Letters were sent by the very same to whom Tarasius directed his when the very Letters themselves which were read in the Council shew that the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria were never consulted with And yet Christianus Lupus in his late Notes on the Canons of the General Councils very fairly tells a formal story of
the mind of the Anthropomorphites whereas Aventinus saith expresly they were no other than such as are used and allowed in the Roman Church by which Ysambertus saith there is no more danger of mens being led into a false opinion of God than there is by the expressions of Scripture And upon this ground the danger doth not lye in making any representations of God but in entertaining a false opinion of those representations and the Scripture instead of forbidding men to make any similitude of God should only have forbidden men to entertain any erroneous conceit of any Image of him But if the Church take care to prevent such an opinion as he saith she doth the other Image with three faces and one Head or one body and three Heads might be justified on the same reason that the other is Whereas the Roman Catechism saith that Moses did therefore wisely say that they saw no similitude of God lest they should be led aside by errour and make an Image of the Divinity and give the honour due to God to a Creature From whence it follows that all Images that tend to such an errour are forbidden and all worship given to such Images is Idolatry And it is farther observable that the Image allowed in the Roman Church for God the Father is just such a one as S. Augustin saith it is wickedness for Christians to make for God and to place in a Temple and I would desire of T. G. to tell me what other Image of God the greatest Anthropomorphites would make than that which is most common among them And if there be such danger in mens conceptions of a Deity from any Images of God they give as much occasion for it as ever any people did So much that all men of any ingenuity have cryed shame upon them but to very little purpose Abulensis Durandus and Peresius are cited by Bellarmin himself as condemning any Images of God and which is observable they do not condemn such Images as represent God in himself as T. G. speaks but such as were in use in the Roman Church Durandus saith it is a foolish thing either to make or to worship such Images viz. of the Father Son and Holy Ghost after the former manner and which is yet more he quotes Damascen against this sort of Images saying that it was impiety and madness to make them and so doth Peresius too Thuanus mentions this passage relating to this matter that A. D. 1562. the Queen Mother of France by the advice of two Bishops and these three Divines Butillerius Espencaeus and Picherellus declared that all Images of the Trinity should be taken out of Churches and other places as forbidden by Scripture Councils and Fathers and yet these were such Images which T.G. pleads for but this soon came to nothing as all good purposes of Reformation among them have ever done If it be said as it is by Ysambertus that these are not properly Images of God but of his appearance in a visible form I answer 1. This doth not mend the matter for we are speaking of an Image of the Father as a Person in the Trinity and whatever represents him as such must represent him as he is in himself and not barely in regard of a temporary appearance and as to such an Image of God the Father T. G's distinction will by no means reach 2. It is the common opinion of the Divines in the Roman Church that all the appearances of God in the old Testament were not of God himself but of Angels in his stead And Clichtovaeus gives that as a Reason why all representations of God were unlawful in the old Testament because all appearances were by Angels and those Angels were no more united to the Forms they assumed than a mans body is to his Garments from whence it must follow that all representations of God by such appearances is still unlawful 3. Suppose this be a representation only of some appearance of God and so not of what God is but of what he did I ask then on what account such an effect of divine power is made the object of Divine adoration For we have seen already by the confession of their most eminent Divines that the Images of the Trinity are proposed among them as objects of adoration now say I how comes a meer creature such as that apparition was to become the object of Divine worship Durandus well saw the consequence of this assertion for when he had said that those corporeal Forms which are painted are no representations of the Divine Person which never assumed them but only of those very Forms themselves in which he appeared therefore saith he no more reverence is due to them than is due to the Forms themselves When God appeared in the burning bush that Fire was then an effect of Divine Power and deserved no worship of it self how then can the Image of the burning bush be an object of Divine worship If God did appear to Daniel as the Ancient of dayes it must be either by the impression of such an Idea upon his Imagination or by assuming the Form of an old man but either way this was but a meer Creature and had no such personal Union to the Godhead to deserve adoration how much less then doth the Image of this Appearance deserve it So that I cannot see how upon their own principles they can be excused from Idolatry who give proper Divine worship to such Images as these He commits Idolatry saith Sanders that proposes any Image to be worshipped as the true Image of the Divine Nature if this be Idolatry what is it then to give the highest sort of worship to the meer representation of a Creature for those Images which only set forth such appearances are but the Creatures of Creatures and so still farther off from being the object of adoration So that notwithstanding all T. G's evasions and distinctions we find that as to this matter of the Images of God and the Trinity the Church of Rome is not only gone off from Scripture Reason and Antiquity but from the doctrine and practice of the second Council of Nice too 2. I now come to the additions that have been made to the Council of Nice by the Church of Rome as to the manner of worship given to Images For which I must consider 1. What that worship was which the Council of Nice did give to Images 2. What additions have been made to it since that time 1. What that worship was which the Council of Nice did give to Images which will appear by these two things 1. That it defined true and real worship to be given to Images 2. That it was an inferiour worship and not Latria 1. That it defined true and real worship to be given to Images i. e. that Images were not only to be Signs and helps to memory to call to mind or represent to us
the object of worship but that the acts of worship were to be performed to the Images themselves The former use of Images doth suppose them to be only of the nature of Books which represent things to our minds without any act of adoration performed to that which is only an instrument of intellection although the thing represented to the mind be a proper object of adoration As if by reading a Book an Idea of God is represented to my mind whom I ought to worship yet no man can imagine that from hence I should fall down upon my knees out of honour to the Book or with a design to worship it When a man reads his prayers out of a Book and makes use of that only as a means or instrument to help his understanding and direct his expressions no man can have any colour of Reason to say that he worships the Book which he uses for a quite different purpose It is the same case as to Images when they are used for no other end but barely to represent to the mind an object of worship as a Crucifix may do our Saviour then it is no more than an external Note or Character and hath the same use that words have But those who go no farther than thus stand condemned and Anathematized by the second Council of Nice For that not only determines with a great deal of assurance that Images are to be set up in Churches and houses and wayes in order to the worship of them but very freely Anathematizes all sorts of dissenters either in judgement or practice Anathema be to all those who do not Salute the Holy and Venerable Images Anathema to all hereticks Anathema to those that follow the Council against Images Anathema to them that do not salute the Images of Christ and his Saints Epiphanius in the sixth Session declares this to be the sense of the Council Those who say that Images are to be had only for memory and not for worship or salutation are half-wicked and partly true and partly false they are so far right as they are for Images but they are in the wrong as they are against the worship of them O the folly of these men saith Epiphanius But this is not all for as it was not sufficient to have Images for helps to memory so neither was it to give them some kind of honour or reverence nothing but worship would satisfie them So the Patriarch Tarasius saith in plain terms they who pretend to honour Images and not to worship them are guilty of Hypocrisie and self-contradiction For worship saith he is a Symbol and signification of Honour therefore they who deny to worship them do dishonour them This was the Patriarchal way of arguing in this famous Council And this he proves from the saying of Anastasius Bishop of Theopolis Let no man be offended with the name of adoration or worship for we worship men and Angels but do not serve them and worship is an expression of Honour And it would do one good at heart to see how all the Reverend Fathers clap their hands for joy at the subtle Criticism which it seems that Bishop had discovered viz. that when our saviour said Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him Only shalt thou serve that Only was not applyed to Worship but to Service Mark that cryes the Council Only belongs to Service and not to worship therefore although we may not serve Images yet we may Worship them If the Devil had been so subtle might not he have said to our Saviour Mark that you are forbidden Only to Serve any else but God but you may Worship me notwithstanding that command The Patriarch Tarasius in his Epistle to Constantine and Irene expresses this worship by the very same word which is used to God for when God saith Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve he restrains Service to himself but allows Worship to other things therefore saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the least doubt or dispute it is a thing acceptable and well pleasing to God for us to worship and salute the Images of Christ and the B. Virgin and of the Holy Angels and Saints If any man think otherwise and have any doubt in his mind or any wavering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about the Worship of the Venerable Images the Holy and Oecumenical Synod hath Anathematized him and what is an Anathema but a Separation from God And thus it becomes no less than damnation to doubt of the Worship of Images O blessed Change from what it was in the primitive times when it was damnation to worship them This worship he expresses in the same Epistle by Kissing by bowing by prostration all which he shews from the signification of the word and the use of it in Scripture And in the Definition of the Council among the Acts of worship are reckoned the oblation of Incense and Lights because the honour of the Image passes to the thing represented by it So that all external acts of adoration were by the Definition of this Council to be performed to Images and the same have been practised by the approbation of the Roman Church wherein this Council of Nice is received as a General Council and appealed to by the Council of Trent supposing the Decrees of that Council to be still in force In the Constitutions of Thomas Arundel Archbishop of Canterbury made in the Convocation of the Bishops and Clergy begun at S. Pauls 14 Ian. A. D. 1408. we have a particular enumeration of the several Acts of worship which were required to be performed to Images and the places and Reliques of the Saints viz. processions genuflections bowing of the body thurifications deosculations oblations burnings of Lights and Pilgrimages and all other forms and modes of worship which have been practised in the times of our predecessours or in our own and this not only the People were required to practise but the Clergy to teach and preach up the worship of the Cross and other Images with these acts of adoration And this Constitution is extant in Lyndwood as part of the Canon Law then in force who in his Notes upon it observes that offering incense was a sacrifice as it was burnt upon the Altar and a part of Latria and therefore he saith the same incense was not used to the Clergy and people with that burnt upon the Altar but of another sort which was not consecrated In the Records of the Tower is extant the Form of Renunciation imposed on the Lollards wherein are these words concerning the worship of Images I do swear to God and to all his Seynts upon this Holy Gospell that fro this day forward I shall Worship Images with praying and offering unto them in the worschop of the Seynts that they be made after And yet after all this plain evidence some have had the confidence to tell