Imprimatur G. Iane R. P. D. Henr. Episc. Lond. Ã sac domesticis June 3. 1676. A DEFENCE OF THE DISCOURSE Concerning the IDOLATRY Practised in the CHURCH OF ROME In ANSWER to a BOOK Entituled Catholicks no Idolaters By ED. STILLINGFLEET D. D. Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majesty The two First Parts London Printed by Robert White for Henry Mortlock at the Sign of the Phoenix in St. Pauls Church-yard and at the White-Hart in Westminster-Hall 1676. TO THE RIGHT REVEREND FATHER in GOD HENRY Lord Bishop of LONDON One of the Lords of His Majesties Most Honourable Privy Council My Lord I Have heard that in some famous Prophetick Pictures pretending to represent the Fate of England the chief thing observable in several of them was a Mole a creature blind and busie smooth and deceitful continually working under Ground but now and then to be discerned by the disturbance it makes in the Surface of the earth which is so natural a description of a restless party among us that we need no Iudge of Controversies to interpret the meaning of it Our Forefathers had sufficient Testimony of their working under Ground but in our Age they act more visibly and with that indefatigable industry that they threaten without great care to prevent them the undermining of our Church and the Ruine of our established Religion Which since they cannot hope so easily to compass alone they endeavour to draw in to their Assistance all such discontented parties who are so weak if any can be so to be prevailed on to be instruments to serve them in pulling down a Church which can never fall but they must be stifled in its Ruins One would think it were hardly possible for any to run into a snare which lies so open to their view or to flatter themselves with the vain hopes of escaping better than the Church they design to destroy But such is the admirable Wisdom of Divine Providence to order things so above all humane Discretion that when the Sins of a Nation have provoked God to forsake it he suffers those to concurr in the most pernicious Counsels for enslaving Conscience who pretend to the greatest zeal for the Liberty of it So that our Church of England in its present condition seems to stand as the Church of Corinth did of old between two unquiet and boisterous Seas and there are some very busie in cutting through the Isthmus between them to let in both at once upon it supposing that no strength will be able to withstand the force of so terrible an inundation It is a consideration that might dishearten those who are engaged in the Defence of our Religion against the common Adversaries to see that they promise themselves as much from the folly of some of their most seeming Enemies as from the interest and Power of their Friends thus like S. Paul in Macedonia we are troubled on every side without are fightings and within are fears If men did but once understand the things which belong to our Peace we might yet hope to weather out the storms that threaten us and to live as the Church hath frequently done in a tossing condition with waves beating on every side But if through Weakness or Wilfulness those things should be hid from our eyes the prospect of our future condition is much more dreadful and amazing than the present can be If it were reasonable to hope that all men would lay aside prejudice and passion and have greater regard to the Common Good than to the interests of their several parties they could not but see where our main strength lies by what our enemies are most concerned to destroy And that no men of common understanding would make use of disunited Parties to destroy one Great Body unless they were sure to master them when they had done with them And therefore the best way for their own security were to unite themselves with the Church of England That were a Blessing too great for such a People to expect whose sins have made our Breaches so wide that we have too great reason to fear the common enemy may enter through them if there be not some way found out to repair those Breaches and to build up the places which are broken down For my own part I cannot see how those who could have joyned in Communion with the Christian Church in the time of Theodosius the Great can justly refuse to do it in ours For that is the Age of the Church which our Church of England since the Reformation comes the nearest to Idolatry being then suppressed by the Imperial Edicts the Churches settled by Law under the Government of Bishops Publick Liturgies appointed Antiquity Reverenced Schism discountenanced Learning encouraged and some few Ceremonies used but without any of those corrupt mixtures which afterwards prevailed in the Roman Church And whatever men of ill minds may suggest to the disparagement of those times it is really an Honour to our Church to suffer together with that Age when the Christian Church began to be firmly settled by the Countenance of the Civil Power and did enjoy its Primitive Purity without the Poverty and Hardships it endured before And the Bishops of that time were men of that exemplary Piety of those great Abilities of that excellent Conduct and Magnanimity as set them above the contempt or reproach of any but Infidels and Apostates For then lived the Gregories the Basils the Chrysostoms in the Eastern Church the Ambroses and Augustins in the Western and they who can suspect these to have been Enemies to the Power of Godliness did never understand what it meant It were no doubt the most desirable thing in our State and Condition to see the Piety the Zeal the Courage the Wisdom of those holy Bishops revived among us in such an Age which needs the conjunction of all these together For such is the insolency and number of the open contemners of our Church and Religion such is the activity of those who oppose it and the subtilty of those who undermine it as requires all the Devotion and Abilities of those great Persons to defend it And I hope that Divine Spirit which inflamed and acted them hath not forsaken that Sacred Order among us but that it will daily raise up more who shall be able to convince Dissenters that there may be true and hearty zeal for Religion among our Prelates and those of the Church of Rome that Good Works are most agreeable to the Principles of the Reformation Nay even in this Age as bad as it is there may be as great Instances produced of real Charity and of Works of Publick and pious uses as when men thought to get Souls out of Purgatory or themselves into Heaven by what they did And if it were possible exactly to compare all Acts of this nature which have been done ever since the Reformation with what there was done of the same kind for a much longer time immediately before
citations I there produced out of Origen wherein he saith the Christians durst have no Images of the Deity because of this Commandment and that they would rather dye than defile themselves with such an impiety And even Theodoret himself saith they were forbidden to make any Image of God because they saw no similitude of him and which is more to T. G. even the Nicene Council and the great Patrons of Images for a long time after did yield that the second Commandment did forbid the making or worshipping any representation of God as I have already at large proved If I might advise T. G. I would never have him venture at the Fathers again but be contented to bear his own burdens and out of meer pity to them not to load them with the imputation of his own infirmities if not wilful mistakes To make it appear that the intention of the Law was not meerly against the Idols of the Heathens I added these words If this had been the meaning of the Law why was it not more plainly expressed why were none of the words elsewhere used by way of contempt of the Heathen Idols here mentioned as being less liable to ambiguity why in so short a comprehension of Laws is this Law so much enlarged above what it might have been if nothing but what he saith were to be meant by it For then the meaning of the two first precepts might have been summed up in very few words Thou shalt have no other Gods but me and Thou shalt worship the Images of no other Gods but me To all this which is surely something more than saying that it is ridiculous to imagine the Law means any thing else T. G. answers not one word but instead of that he spends some pages about two similitudes one of mine and another quainter of his own which must stand or fall according to the Reason given for the sense of the Law and therefore I shall pass them over Only for his desiring me to make my similitude run on all four as the Beasts mentioned in it it is such a piece of Wit that I desire he may enjoy the comfort of it But he hath not yet done with the word Pesel which he saith the LXX would never have rendred it here contrary to their custome Idol without some particular Reason for it What particular Reason was there here more than in the repetition of the Commandment Deut. 5.8 where they translate it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Alex. M S. and in other Copies of the LXX Deut. 4.16 Was there not as much reason to have used the same word in those places as in this since the Commandment is the very same And for the other places he mentions as Isaiah 40.18 44.9 10 13. I dare leave it to the examination of any man whether they do not far better prove that an Idol in Scripture is an Image set up for worship than that by graven Image is meant an Heathen Idol This I am certain of that Pet. Picherellus an excellent Critick and learned Divine in the Roman Church was convinced by comparing of these places that the signification of an Idol in the second Commandment is the same with that of a graven Image and that the using any outward sign of worship before any Image is the thing forbidden in this Commandment and that the doing so is that Idolatry which God hath threatned so severely to punish which I beseeth T. G. and those of his Church to consider and repent The second way I proposed to find out the sense of the Commandment was from the Reason of it which I said the Scripture tells us was derived from Gods infinite and incomprehensible nature which could not be represented to men but in a way that must be an infinite disparagement to it For which I produced Isaiah 40.19 20 21 22. To whom will ye liken God or what likeness will ye compare to him The workman melteth a graven Image and the Goldsmith spreadeth it over with gold c. Have ye not known have ye not heard hath it not been told you from the beginning Have ye not understood from the foundation of the earth It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth c. Whence I desired to know whether this reason be given against Heathen Idols or those Images which were worshipped for Gods or no or whether by this reason God doth not declare that all worship given to him by any visible representation of him is extremely dishonourable to him And to this purpose when this precept is enforced on the people of Israel by a very particular caution Take ye therefore good heed to your selves lest ye corrupt your selves and make you a graven Image the similitude of any figure c. the ground of that Caution is expressed in these words For ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you If the whole intention of the Law had been only to keep them from worshipping the Heathen Idols or Images for Gods to what purpose is it here mentioned that they saw no similitude of God when he spake to them For although God appeared with a similitude then yet there might have been great Reason against worshipping the Heathen Idols or fixing the intention of their worship on the bare Image But this was a very great Reason why they ought not to think of honouring God by an Image for if he had judged that a suitable way of Worship to his Nature and Excellency he would not have left the choice of the similitude to themselves but would have appeared himself in such a similitude as had best pleased him This Discourse T.G. saith is apt enough to delude a vulgar Auditory out of the Pulpit I with their Pulpits had never any worse before not vulgar Auditories but altogether empty and insignificant when brought to the Test of Reason That is to be tried whether my Reason or his Answer will be found so However he saith this doth not prove it Idolatry No! that is very strange for if the Image of God when worshipped be an Idol and forbidden as such in the Commandment then I suppose the worship of it is Idolatry But none so blind as they that will not see Now for the terrible Test of Reason He saith 1. That all representations of God are not dishonourable to him and for that he produces a Hieroglyphical Picture of a three corner'd light within a Cloud and the name Iehovah in the midst of it in the Frontispiece of a Book of Common Prayer by Rob. Barker 1642. from whence he inferrs that the Church of England doth not look on all visible representations as an infinite disparagement to God As though the Church of England were concerned in all the Fancies of Engravers in the Frontispieces of Books publickly allowed He might better have proved that we worship Iupiter Ammon in our Churches
because in some he may see Moses painted with Horns on his Forehead I do not think our Church ever determined that Moses should have horns any more than it appointed such an Hieroglyphical Representation of God Is our Church the only place in the World where the Painters have lost their old priviledge quidlibet audendi There needs no great atonement to be made between the Church of England and me in this matter for the Church of England declares in the Book of Homilies that the Images of God the Father Son and Holy Ghost are expresly forbidden and condemned by these very Scriptures I mentioned For how can God a most pure Spirit whom man never saw be expressed by a gross body or visible similitude or how can the infinite Majesty and Greatness of God incomprehensible to mans mind much more not able to be compassed with the sense be expressed in an Image With more to the same purpose by which our Church declares as plainly as possible that all Images of God are a disparagement to the Divine Nature therefore let T. G. make amends to our Church of England for this and other affronts he hath put upon her Here is nothing of the Test of Reason or Honesty in all this let us see whether it lies in what follows 2. He saith That Images of God may be considered two waies either as made to represent the Divinity it self or Analogically this distinction I have already fully examined and shewed it to be neither fit for Pulpit nor Schools and that all Images of God are condemned by the Nicene Fathers themselves as dishonourable to Him 3. He saith That the Reason of the Law was to keep them in their duty of giving Soveraign Worship to God alone by restraining them from Idolatry This is now the Severe Test that my Reason cannot stand before And was it indeed only Soveraign worship to God that was required by the Law to restrain them from Idolatry Doth this appear to return his own words in the Law it self or in the Preface or in the Commination against the transgressors of it if in none of these places nor any where else in Scripture methinks it is somewhat hard venturing upon this distinction of Soveraign and inferiour worship when the words are so general Thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them And if God be so jealous a God in this matter of worship he will not be put off with idle distinctions of vain men that have no colour or pretence from the Law for whether the worship be supreme or inferiour it is worship and whether it be one or the other do they not bow down to Images and what can be forbidden in more express words than these are But T. G. proves his assertion 1. From the Preface of the Law because the Reason there assigned is I am the Lord thy God therefore Soveraign honour is only to be given to me and to none besides me Or as I think it is better expressed in the following words Thou shalt have no other Gods but me and who denies or doubts of this but what is this to the Second Commandment Yes saith T. G. The same reason is enforced from Gods jealousie of his honor very well of His Soveraign Honour but provided that supreme worship be reserved to Him He doth not regard an inferiour worship being given to Images Might not T. G. as well have explained the First Commandment after the same manner Thou shalt have no other Soveraign Gods besides me but inferiour and subordinate Deities you may have as many as you please notwithstanding the Reason of the Law which T. G. thus paraphrases I am the only supreme and super-excellent Being above all and over all to whom therefore Soveraign Honour is only to be given and to none besides me Very true say the Heathen Idolaters we yield you every word of this and why then do you charge us with Idolatry Thus by the admirable Test of T. G's reason the Heathen Idolaters are excused from the breach of the First Commandment as well as the Papists from the breach of the Second 2. He proves it from the necessary connexion between the prohibition of the Law on the one side and the supreme excellency of the Divine Nature on the other For from the supreme excellency of God it necessarily follows that Soveraign Worship is due only to it and not to be given to any other Image or thing but if we consider Him as invisible only and irrepresentable it doth not follow on that account precisely that Soveraign worship or indeed any worship at all is due unto it Which is just like this manner of Reasoning The Supreme Authority of a Husband is the Reason why the Wife is to obey him but if she consider her Husband as his name is Iohn or Thomas or as he hath such features in his face it doth not follow on that account precisely that she is bound to obey him and none else for her Husband And what of all this for the love of School Divinity May not the reason of obedience be taken from one particular thing in a Person and yet there be a general obligation of obedience to that Person and to none else besides him Although the features of his countenance be no Reason of obedience yet they may serve to discriminate him from any other Person whom she is not to love and obey And in case he forbids her familiarity with one of his servants because this would be a great disparagement to him doth it follow that because his Superiority is the general Reason of obedience he may not give a particular Reason for a special Command This is the case here Gods Supreme Excellency is granted to be the general Reason of obedience to all Gods Commands but in case he gives some particular precept as not to worship any Image may not he assign a Reason proper to it And what can be a more proper reason against making or worshipping any representation of God than to say He cannot be represented Meer invisibility I grant is no general reason of obedience but invisibility may be a very proper reason for not painting what is invisible There is no worship due to a sound because it cannot be painted but it is the most proper reason why a sound cannot be painted because it is not visible And if God himself gives this reason why they should make no graven Image because they saw no similitude on that day c. is it not madness and folly in men to say this is no Reason But T. G. still takes it for granted That all that is meant by this Commandment is that Soveraign worship is not to be given to Graven Images or similitudes and of the Soveraign worship he saith Gods excellency precisely is the formal and immediate Reason why it is to be given to none but him But we are not such Sots say the
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
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
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
yet none of them do worship or adoration and elsewhere that only the Maker of all things ought to be worshipped admired and adored by us that neither the work of mens hands nor those assumed to the honour of Gods can be decently worshipped by us either without the Supreme God â—r together with him where the Latine Interpreter hath apparently shuffled rendring that place only thus nihilque praeter eum aut pari honore cum eo as though all that Origen condemned were only giving equal divine worship to other things besides God Whereas Celsus never pleaded for that but that men should give 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. in the very terms of the Council of Trent due veneration To which Origen answers we desire only to be followers of Christ who hath said Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve It is true saith he several Nations have avoided the worship of Images some for one reason and some for another but the Christians and Iews do it because of that Law Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve and several places to the same purpose so that we ought rather to die than to defile our selves with these impieties And they who did forbear Images did worship the Sun or Gods Creatures which we are forbidden to do This he so frequently insists upon throughout his Books that it would be to no purpose to bring all the places these being sufficient to shew that the state of the Controversie abouâ— Idolatry did not depend upon their giving soveraign worship to any thing besides God but any divine worship although they did acknowledge the Supreme God As Origen himself doth very often declare that the Heathens did S. Paul he saith spake truly of some of the Wise-men of Greece that they knew God and that God was manifested to them and elsewhere we testifie truly concerning them that they knew God but their fault was that after their grave disputations they worshipped Idols and Daemons as the rest did We cannot but assent saith he to what Plato hath said concerning the chief Good for God hath manifested this to them and whatever else they have said well but therefore they deserved punishment because when they had a right apprehension of God they did not give him the worship which was worthy of him and he quotes a little after Plato 's epistle to Hermias and Coriscus wherein he appeals to God as the Lord of all things and several other passages wherein his Government and Power and Iustice and Excellency are truly set forth and after several other passages of Plato and Celsus about the ways of knowing God which he allows he concludes with this that God is so great a lover of mankind that he made known his Truth and the knowledge of himself not only to his own people but to those who were strangers to the sincere worship and service of him Judge now Reader whether Origen himself T. G. 's single witness doth make the Supreme God of the Heathens an Arch-Devil and what reason he had upon so slender a Testimony to cry out The Fathers the Fathers But I have not yet done with him for if we come down lower into the times of the Christian Church when this controversie of Idolatry was again revived in the days of Iulian the Apostate we shall find the very same acknowledgements made by the most learned and judicious Fathers of the Christian Church S. Cyril of Alexandria who undertook to answer the three Books of Iulian againsâ— Christianity saith that the Greeks diâ— speak admirable things concerning God and that they did exceed themselves in those discourses and that they could not have attained to such a knowledge of God without some particular manifestation of himself unto them And afterwards hâ— produces the Testimonies of Orpheus and Homer and Sophocles concerning him Thales he saith made God the Soul of the World Democritus an active mind within a sphere of fire Aristotle a separate form resting upon the sphere of the World the Stoicks an active fire passing through the parts of the world Of these things he saith Plutarch and Porphyrius speak but above all he commends what Pythagoras and Plato and Hermes have said of God with several of the Testimonies before mentioned some of which are repeated by Theodoret to the same purpose But these things will be made more clear by considering the state of the Controversie between Iulian and S. Cyrill about Idolatry Iulian confesseth that there is a natural knowledge of God in the minds of men from whence comes that common inclination of all mankind towards a Deity and that supposition among all men that he who is the King over all hath his Throne in Heaven He acknowledgeth with Plato that God is the maker of all things that he is the Father of the Gods too and S. Cyril never quarrels with him for giving the title of Gods to those Superiour and Intelligent Beings for saith he we grant that there are some in Heaven that are called both Gods and Lords nay men are called Gods in Scripture Of these Gods ' according to Plato Iulian saith some are visible as the Sun and Moon and Stars and the Heavens but these are only images of the invisible and therefore Plato calls these later 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being invisible Deities represented by visible but one God is the Maker of them all But Iulian utterly rejected the Poetical Fables concerning the Gods and that for T. G 's reason because the Poets took the liberty to feign and say any thing nay he calls them incredible and monstrous Fables and this was the Scheme of his Theology That there was one Supreme God the common Father and Lord over all who had distributed the several Nations and Cities of the World to particular Gods as Governours over them but although all perfections were in the Supreme God yet they were scattered and divided among the inferiour Deities and so Mars had the care of Wars and Minerva of Counsels and Mercury of things that required cunning more than courage and every particular Nation followed the humour of the Gods that were set over them as he goes about to prove by the different tempers of Nations To which Cyril answers That great Princes do choose some of the Wisest of their Subjects to be Governours of Provinces but they who are so imployed do not Govern them by their own Laws but by their Princes and on all occasions set forth their greatness and pay all duties to them but these Deities assume those honours to themselves which are due only to God and by bringing in Images into Temples of several forms and figures they endeavour to cast dishonour upon God and by degrees draw men to the neglect of him Either then God despises the service of men
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
Martyrs But S. Austin saith afterwards we worship therefore the Saints with that worship of love and society c. What means this c. here let us have all or nothing with which holy men in this life are worshipped whose heart is prepared to suffer as much for the truth of the Gospel he that hath but an eye open saith T. G. must see that S. Austin speaks here of the worship which the Christians of his time gave to the Martyrs themselves And he that hath but one corner open cannot but see that he doth not speak of Religious worship which Faustus objected but having denyed that to be given to Martyrs he now shews what they did give them viz. such a kind of worship as we give to holy men alive and is that the Religious worship either Faustus or S. Austin meant S. Austin calls it worship but he means no more by it than when he said before that they are to be loved for their goodness and honoured for their examples but what is all this to Religious worship or Invocation of them when S. Austin in another place expresly denyes that the Saints are invocated by him that offers the sacrifices at the Altar nay although that Altar were in the place of their sufferings And here saith T. G. I think I have done their work for them and he is not mistaken whatever he cites from Bishop Forbs that S. Austin was only to be understood of Invocation at the Altar I shall make it appear that the argument holds good and that those who speak against it it is because they do not understand the strength of it Bishop Forbs in this place and several others takes occasion without reason to find fault with Bishop Andrews a man of far greater Learning than himself and of better judgement in these matters and it is he and not Bishop Montague as T.G. mistakes whom Bishop Forbs introduces Iohn Barclay charging with leading King James aside But I still say the argument clearly proves that S. Austin denyed Invocation of Saints and I am sorry to see Bishop Forbs so weakly led aside by Bellarmin and others upon this ground because in the Canon of the Mass the Saints are not directly prayed to in the Roman Church but they are in the Missa Catechumenorum and in the Litanies therefore thus it was in the African Church in S. Austins time Who knows not what great alterations have been in the Liturgies of the Church since that time Yet thus wisely doth T. G. speak upon this subject if I speak of that part of the Mass which was antiently called the Mass of the Catechumeni the Priest indeed before he ascends to the Altar desires the Blessed Virgin and the rest of the Saints c. to pray for him but in the Missa Fidelium there is no Invocation of them If there had been none any where else there had been a far greater conformity between the Church of Rome and the Church in S. Austins time we plainly prove there was no Invocation at the Altar let T. G. shew any other part of publick worship at that time wherein they were invocated But all these mistakes arise from not considering the mighty difference of the Liturgy in S. Austins time in the African Church from what hath since obtained in the Roman Church But to give T. G. some better light in this matter and withal to shew the invincible strength of this argument I shall prove these two things 1. That the Prayers of the Church did not begin in S. Austins time till the Catechumens were dismissed 2. That the prayers after their dismission were performed at the Altar 1. That the prayers of the Church in S. Austins time did not begin till the Catechumens were dismissed For which we have a plain Testimony from S. Austin Ecce post sermonem fit Missa Catechumenis manebunt fideles venietur ad locum orationis whereby he shews not only that prayers did not begin till the dismission of the Catechumens but that the Altar was then accounted the proper place of prayer and elsewhere he saith that Invocation did begin after the Creed ideo non accepistis prius orationem postea symbolum sed prius symbolum ubi sciretis quid crederetis postea orationem ubi nossetis quem invocaretis which words could have no sense if any solemn invocation were then made before the Creed So S. Ambrose describes the service of the Church of Millan in his time Post lectiones atque tractatum dimissis Catechumenis Symbolum aliquibus Competentibus in baptisteriis tradebam Basilicae by which it seems the Service began with the Lessons then followed the Sermon after that the Creed and then when the Catechumens were dismissed the prayers of the Church begun so S. Ambrose presently after saith when he had instructed the Competentes Missam facere coepi i. e. the Missa Fidelium or the Prayers of the Church when the Missa Catechumenorum was dispatched or they sent out of the Congregation So Iustin Martyr describes the Service of the first Christians that it began with the Lessons of the Prophets and Apostles then followed the Sermon and after that the Prayers began and then followed the Eucharist which was then constantly received in the publick Service The Council of Laodicea mentions prayers beginning after the Sermon i. e. the publick prayers of the Church of which that Council mentions the prayers for the Catechumens before their dismission which in the Greek Church were performed by the Deacon in the Ambo making the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the people to which they joyned their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after these followed the prayers for the Penitents and then the Prayers of the Faithful or the proper Liturgy of the Church began The Author of the Constitutions called Apostolical appoints the Service to begin with the Lessons of the Old Testament the Psalms the Epistles and Gospel after which the Sermon was to follow then the Catechumens and Penitents being dismissed they must all rise and go to their prayers for the Catholick Church as it is there described in the eighth Book he mentions the occasional prayers that were made for the Catechumens and Penitents before their dismission and then follow the forms of Solemn Invocation which were not to be used till the other were dismissed the Assembly To the same purpose the counterfeit Dionysius describes the practice of the Church that the Catechumens and Penitents were admitted to the Lessons and Psalms and then were excluded the Congregation And none were allowed to be present at the Prayers of the Faithful but such as were allowed to be present at the Eucharist as the fourth degree of Penitents which is called communicating in Prayers by the Council of Nice by which we may see T. G.'s skill in Antiquity when he puts the forms of invocation used by those who were to
And so the primitive Christians thought who very honestly and sincerely declared as much in their words and actions witness not only the opinions of all the Writers in behalf of Christianity not one excepted that ever had occasion to mention this matter but the Decree of as good a Council as was to be had at that time I mean the Eliberitan in the famous Canon to that purpose Can. 36. It pleaseth us to have no pictures in Churches lest that which is worshipped be painted upon walls It is a pleasant thing to see what work our Adversaries make with this innocent Canon sometimes it is a meer forgery of hereticks I wonder such men do not say the same of the second Commandment sometimes the Bishops that met there were not so wise as they should have been no nor Moses and the Prophets nor Christ and the primitive Christians in this matter sometimes that they spake only against pictures upon walls because the Salt-Peter of the walls would be apt to deface them or because in case of persecution they could not do as Rachel did carry their Teraphim along with them but that which Petavius sticks to is that the Memory of Heathen Idolatry was yet fresh and therefore it was not thought expedient to have Images in the Oratories or Temples of Christians So that after all the tricks and shifts of our Adversaries the thing it self is yielded to us viz. that this Canon is against such Images as are now used and worshipped in the Roman Church But saith he the reason doth not hold still for then the memory of Heathen Idolatry was not out of mens minds It is a wonderful thing to me that these Spanish Bishops should be able to tell their own reason no better than so You say you will have no Images in Churches why so I beseech you Lest that say they which is worshipped be painted upon walls worshipped by whom do you mean by Heathens no we speak of the Churches of Christians But why may not that which is worshipped be painted We think that reason enough to any man that considers the Being worshipped and that which is painted and the mighty disparagement to an infinite invisible Being to be drawn in lines and colours with a design to honour him thereby This to me seems a reason that holds equally at all times For was the Being worshipped more unfit to be drawn so soon after Heathen Idolatry than he would be afterwards methinks it had been much better done then while the skilful Artificers were living But those were Heathen Idolaters suppose they were you must make use of them or none if that which Tertullian and others say hold true that it is forbidden to Christians to make Images which surely they would never have said if they had thought the time would come when the Heathen Idolatry should be forgotten and then the Christians might worship Images Well but all this is only against Pictures upon walls but for all that saith Bellarmin they might have Images in Frames or upon Veils It seems then that which is adored might be painted well enough provided it be not upon a wall but methinks it is more repugnant to an infinite Being to be confined within a Frame than to be drawn upon a wall and the Decree is to have no pictures in Churches but if they were in Frames or upon Veils would they not be in Churches still What made Epiphanius then so angry at seeing an Image upon a Veil at Anablatha Was not Heathen Idolatry forgotten enough yet It seems not for it was coming in again under other pretences But that good mans spirit was stirred within him at the apprehension of it and could not be quiet till he had rent asunder the Veil and written to the Bishop of Hierusalem to prevent the like enormity One would have thought by this time the jealousie of Offence might have been worn out the Heathen Idolatry being suppressed but yet it seems Epiphanius did not understand his Christian Liberty in this matter Nay so far from it that he plainly and positively affirms that such an Image though upon a Veil and not the Walls was contra autoritatem Scripturarum contra Religionem nostram against the Law of God and the Christian Religion But it may be this was some Heathen Idol or Image of a False God no so far from it that Epiphanius could not tell whether it was an Image of Christ or of some Saint but this he could tell that he was sure it was against the Authority of the Scriptures And was Epiphanius so great a Dunce to imagine a thing indifferent in it self and applyed to a due object of worship should be directly opposite to the Law of God Men may talk of the Fathers and magnifie the Fathers and seem to make the Authority of the Fathers next to infallible and yet there are none who expose them more to contempt than they who give such answers as these so directly against the plainest sense and meaning of their words I confess those speak more consonantly to their principles who reject the Authority of this Epistle at least of this part of it but there is not the least colour or pretence for it from any M S. and Petavius ingenuously confesseth that he sees no ground to believe this part added to the former epistle God be thanked there is some little ingenuity yet left in the World and which is the greater wonder among the Iesuits too for not only Petavius but Sirmondus owns the Epistle of Epiphanius to be genuine quoting it to prove the Antiquity of Veils at the entrance of the Church If it be good for that purpose it is I am sure as good for ours and so it was thought to be by those who were no Iconoclasts I mean the Author of the Caroline Books and the Gallican Bishops who made use of this Testimony although themselves were against rending of painted Veils But commend me to the plain honesty of Iohn Damascen who saith one Swallow makes no Summer and of Alphonsus à Castro who tells us that Epiphanius was an Iconoclast i. e. a terrible heretick with a hard name materially so but not formally because the Church had not determined the contrary It seems it was no matter what the Law or Christian Religion had determined for those were the things Epiphanius took for his grounds But he good man was a little too hot in this matter and did not consider that when the Pagan Idolatry was sufficiently out of mens minds then it would be very lawful to have Christ or Saints not only drawn upon Veils or Screens but to have just such Statues as the Pagans had and to give them the very same worship which the Prototypes deserve provided that the people have forgotten Mercury Apollo and Hercules and put S. Francis or S. Ignatius or S. Christopher or S. Thomas Beckett instead of them O the Divine power of names
although this Image were believed to represent Christ after his Incarnation What shall be said to such an Author who not only omits so considerable a passage but puts in words of his own directly contrary to his meaning The Author of the Caroline Book saith that allowing this story to be true which by comparing the relation of Asterius in Photius with what Eusebius Sozomen and the rest say there seems to be some reason to suspect yet it signifies nothing to the worship of Images such a Statue being erected by a weak ignorant Woman to express her gratitude after the best fashion among the Gentiles and what doth this signifie to the Church of God and supposing the miraculous cures to be wrought by the Herb that grew at the foot of the Statue yet that doth not prove any worship of Images but that men ought to leave their former Idols and embrace the true Faith for saith he according to the Apostle signs are not for Believers but for Unbelievers But if we allow the story as it is reported by Sozomen That the Christians gathered up the broken fragments of the Statue and laid them up in the Church I grant it proves that those Christians did not abhor the use of Images although there be no proof of any worship they gave to them and this seems to be as much as Petavius thinks can be made of this story But Baronius is not content with the Syrophoenician Womans example in this matter of Images but he produces the Apostles Council at Antioch and a venerable decree made by them there which commands Christians to make Images of Christ instead of Heathen Idols but our comfort is that Petavius discards this as a meer forgery as most of the things of the latter Greeks he saith are and yet Baronius saith this Canon is made use of by the second Nicene Council which shews what excellent Authorities that Council relyed upon Nicolas de Clemangis is so far from thinking there was any Apostolical decree in this matter that he saith the Universal Church did decree for the sake of the Gentile Converts that there should be no Images at all in Churches which decree he saith was afterwards repealed I would he had told us by what Authority and why other Commandments and Decrees might not be repealed as well as that The first authentick Testimony of any thing like Images among Christians is that of the painted Chalices in Tertullian wherein Christ was represented under the Embleme of a Shepherd with a sheep on his back as it was very usual among the Romans to have Emblematical Figures on their Cups but was ever any man so weak among them not to distinguish between the ornaments of their Cups and Glasses and their Sacred Images How ridiculous would that man have been that should have proved at that time that Christians worshipped Images because they made use of painted Glasses If this signifies any thing why do they quarrel with us that have painted glass Windows in our Churches All that can be inferred from hence is that the Church at that time did not think Emblematical figures unlawful Ornaments of Cups or Chalices and do we think otherwise This I confess doth sufficiently prove that the Roman Church did think Ornamental Images lawful but it doth no more prove the worship of Images than the very same Emblem often used before Protestant Books doth prove that those Books are worshipped by us I cannot find any thing more that looks like any evidence for Images for the first three hundred years afterwards there began to be some appearances of some in some places but they met with different entertainment according to the several apprehensions of men For although the whole Christian Church agreed in refusing to worship Images yet they were of several opinions as to the Use of them Some followed the strict opinion of Tertullian Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen who thought the very making of Images unlawful others thought it not unlawful to make them but to use them in Churches as the Eliberitan Bishops and Epiphanius others thought it not unlawful to have Images there provided no worship were given to them It is ridiculous to bring S. Hierom's Saucomariae for any other purpose than to prove that the Apostles Images were then seen upon their common drinking cups of which he speaks as any one may easily see that reads the passage and the sport he makes with Canthelius about it which will prove as much towards the worship of Images as having the Apostles pictures on a pack of Cards would do Whatever the custome was in Tertullians time if at least he speaks of the Sacred Chalices we are sure in S. Augustines time there were no Images of mankind on the Sacred Vessels For although these saith he are consecrated to a sacred use and are the work of mens hands yet they have not a mouth and speak not nor eyes and see not as the Heathen Images had and afterwards saith that the humane figure doth more to deceive mankind as to their worship than the want of sense doth to correct their errour and the great cause of the madness of Idolatry is that the likeness to a living Being prevails more on the affections of miserable men to worship them than their knowledge that they are not living doth to the contempt of them Is it possible such a man as S. Austin was could use such expressions as these if in his time there had been any Images then used or worshipped in Christian Churches What need he have so much as mentioned the Sacred Utensils if there had been Sacred Images and how could he have urged those things against Heathen Images which would altogether have held as well against Christian For it was not the opinion of the Heathens he disputed against so much as the proneness of men to be seduced to worship such representations which they find to be like themselves To this Bellarmin answers that S. Augustin doth not say there were no Images in Churches but only that the humane shape of Images did tend much to increase their errour who worshipped them for Gods But would any man of common sense have used those arguments against Images which do not suppose them already worshipped for Gods but imply the danger of being seduced to that worship where ever they are in case there were such Images in Christian Churches The Worship S. Augustin speaks against is adoring or praying looking on an Image Quis autem ador at vel orat intuens simulachrum which whosoever doth saith he is so affected as to think he is heard by that he prays before and may receive help by it and yet these persons S. Augustin disputes against declare that they did not worship their Images for Gods but only as the signs or representations of that Being which they worshipped Which S. Augustin shews to be a most unlikely thing because the manner of address
believe lies some must be first given up to tell them And if this doughty Historian hath any honour or Conscience left he ought to beg her Majesties pardon for offering such an affront to her But what had Queen Mary deserved at his hands that in his Key to his History he should compare her to the Empress Irene 4. By pretending to Antiquity This might justly be wondred at in so clear evidence to the contrary as I have made to appear in this matter but however among the ignorant and superstitious multitude the very pretending to it goes a great way Thus the Patriarch Germanus boasted of Fathers and Councils for Image-worship to the Emperour Leo but what Fathers or Councils did the aged Patriarch mean why did he not name and produce them to stop the Emperours proceedings against Images Baronius confesseth there were no Councils which had approved the worship of Images by any Canon but because they never condemned it being constantly practised it was sufficient All the mischief is this constant practice is as far from being proved as the definition of Councils If the picture Christ sent to Abgarus King of Edessa or those drawn by S. Luke or the forged Canon of the Council of Antioch or the counterfeit Authority of S. Athanasius about the Image at Berytus if such evidences as these will do the business they have abundance of Autiquity on their side but if we be not satisfied with these they will call us Hereticks or it may be Samaritan Sectaries and that is all we are to expect in this matter 5. The Council of Nice had a trick beyond this viz. burning or suppressing all the Writings that were against them The Popes Deputies in the fifth Action made the motion which was received and consented to by the Council and they made a Canon to that purpose That all Writings against Images should be brought into the Patriarch of Constantinople under pain of Anathema if a Laick or Deposition if in Orders and this without any limitation as to Authors or Time and there to be disposed of among heretical Books So that it is to be wondred so much evidence should yet be left in the Monuments of Antiquity against the worship of Images As to what concerns the matter of Argument for the worship of Images produced in this Age I must leave that to its proper place and proceed to the last Period as to this Controversie which is necessary for discerning the History and the State of it viz. 4. When the Doctrine and Practice of Image-worship was settled upon the principles allowed and defended in the Roman Church Wherein I shall do these 2 things 1. I shall shew what additions have been to this doctrine and practice since the Nicene Council 2. Wherein the present practice of Image-worship in the Roman Church doth consist and upon what principles it is defended 1. For the additions that have been made in this matter since the Nicene Council And those lie especially in two things 1. In making Images of God the Father and the Holy Trinity 2. In the manner of worship given to Images 1. In making Images of God the Father and the Trinity It is easie to observe how much the most earnest pleaders for Images did then abhor the making of any Image of God So Gregory 2. in his Epistle to Leo saith expresly They made no Images of God because it is impossible to paint or describe him but if we had seen or known him as we have done his Son we might have painted and represented him too as well as his Son We make no Image or Likeness of the invisible Deity saith the Patriarch Germanus whom the highest Orders of Angels are not able to comprehend If we cannot paint the Soul saith Damascen how much less can we represent God by an Image who gave that Being to the soul which cannot be painted What Image can be made of him who is invisible incorporeal without quantity magnitude or form We should err indeed saith he if we should make an Image of God who cannot be seen and the same he repeats in other places Who is there in his senses saith Stephanus Junior that would go about to paint the Divine Nature which is immaterial and incomprehensible For if we cannot represent him in our minds how much less can we paint him in colours Now these four Gregory Germanus Damascen and Stephanus were the most renowed Champions for the Defence of Images and did certainly speak the sense of the Church at that time To the same purpose speak Ioh. Thessalonicensis Leontius and others in the Nicene Council The Greek Author of the Book of the use of Images according to the sense of the second Council of Nice published by Morellius and Fronto Ducaeus goes farther for he saith That no Images are to be made of God and if any man go about it he is to suffer death as a Pagan By which it appears that according to the sense of this Council the making any Images of God was looked on as a part of Heathen Idolatry But when a breach is once made the waters do not stop just at the mark which the first makers of the breach designed Other men thought they had as much reason to go a little farther as they had to go thus far Thence by degrees the Images of God the Father and the Holy Trinity came into the Roman Church and the making of these Images defended upon reasons which seemed to them as plausible as those for the Images of Christ upon his appearing in our Nature for so God the Father might be represented not in his nature but as he is said to have appeared in the Scriptures Baronius in his Marginal Notes on the Epistle of Gregory saith Afterwards it came into use to make Images of God the Father and of the Trinity not that they fall under our view but as they appeared in holy Writ for what can be described may be painted to the same purpose he speaks in another place It seems then by the confession of Baronius no Images of God the Father were in use then because they did not think them lawful when they first came into use Christianus Lupus professes that he knows not but he saith there were none such in the Roman Church in the time of Nicolaus 1. But Bellarmin Suarez and others produce an argument for the lawfulness of them from the general practice of their Church which they say would not have suffered such an universal custom if such Images had been unlawful Bernardus Pujol Professour of Divinity in Perpignan saith not only that the Images of the Trinity are universally received among Catholicks but that they are allowed by the Council of Trent and doth suppose the use of them as a thing certain and undoubted and saith that such Images are to be worshipped For saith he as the mind is
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
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
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
the sense of the Christian Church that even an Image of Christ becomes a Rival when it hath Divine Honour given to it and T. G. himself will not allow Sacrifice to be offered to an Image and he denies from the Catholick Catechism although contrary to the Catholick Practice that they do pray to Images let us then suppose that men do pray and Sacrifice to the Image of Christ. Is all this only like the Wifes kissing the Picture for the Husbands sake If it be no more it is lawful and commendable to do them according to T. G's principles if it be more then an Image of Christ may have such honour done to it as makes it an Idol and consequently a Rival with God for His Honour And so the dispute comes to this whether the practices of the Roman Church in the worship of Images do not imply giving Divine Honours to them of which I have treated at large already 2. By this distinction men might say the Lords Prayer to Saints or offer up the Host to an Image so they were done absolutely to God and only Relatively to the Saints or Images T. G. being nettled with this tells me in some passion That I can no where contain my self within bounds of Mediocrity he shall see I can by not following his Extravagancy but he lets me know that the Church of God hath no such custom I do not ask whether the Church of Rome have any such Custom the Church of God I know hath not but whether it may not have that as well as some others and upon the same grounds of Relative Worship But if I must not understand this till I become a Proselyte I hope I shall be alwaies cntented with my Ignorance if I can be no otherwise informed I am not sorry to see such evidence of their inability to answer who make such put-offs Having thus passed through the several Charges drawn up against me I come in the last Place to consider his parallel Instances by which he hopes to clear and vindicate their Worship of Images To his first about the Chair of State and the third about the Iews worshipping towards the Ark and Cherubims I have answered already the fifth belongs to the Adoration of the Host. There remain only three to be examined 1. The Reverence shewed to the Ground by Moses and Ioshua 2. The bowing at the name of Iesus 3. The bowing towards the Altar If I can clear these from being of the same Nature with the worship of Images as allowed and practised in the Roman Church I know no shadow of difficulty which remains throughout his Book 1. To the Reverence shewed to the Holy Ground where God himself appeared by Moses and Joshua being commanded to pull off their Shoos I answered That whatever T. G. thinks of it there is some difference to be made between what God hath commanded and what he hath forbidden for in the case of Moses and Ioshua there was an express Command but in the case of Image-worship there is as plain a prohibition The former part he calls a short Descant on the former erroneous Ground and the latter a note above Ela. I am glad to see the second Commandment set to Musical Notes among them for I was afraid it had been quite cast out of their Churches 2. That the special presence and appearance of God doth sanctifie a place to so high a degree that we may lawfully testifie our Reverence towards it but this will not hold for Images unless God be proved present in them in the same manner as he appeared to Moses and Ioshua and yet even then the Reverence he required was not kissing it or bowing to it much less praying to it but only putting off their shooes Upon this T. G. being in a Musical vein sings his Io Paean and cryes out of the wonderful force of Truth that after long standing out makes all her Adversaries submit to her Power I wish we could see such effects of the Power of Truth for it would soon rid us of many Fears and Iealousies But what is it I have said so much amiss to gain T. G's good word Enough as he thinks to ruin our own Cause and establish theirs That were indeed confuting him with a Vengeance But what 's the matter wherein have I given up the Cause I yield that the special Presence and appearance of God doth sanctifie a place to so high a degree that we may lawfully testifie our Reverence towards it And what then Why then saith T. G. all my darts which I have so spitefully thrown in the face of the Images of Christ or the Holy Trinity and the Saints recoil with double force on my own Head How with double force nay how doth it appear that they recoil at all for to the best of my sight they stick fast where they did and I do not by my feeling perceive they recoil upon my Head Well but a subtle Logician would ask me whether this Reverence be absolute or Relative and he doth not question my answer would be that it was not to the Ground for it self but meerly out of a Respect to God Is this indeed the fatal blow I have given the Cause of our Church when I expresly mention a Command of God going before it and who doubts but we may give a Reverence to places with respect to God especially when God requires it as he did in this case And when T. G. hath made the most of this Ceremony of pulling off the Shooes he will find that it was of no other signification in the Eastern parts than having our heads uncovered is with us which is the lowest testimony of Respect that may be Yet this was all which God himself required when he was present after a signal and extraordinary manner and what is all this to the consecrating bowing kneeling praying to Images as they do in the Roman Church and this I say and have proved against an express Command of God and that not upon any real but Imaginary presence of the true object of worship He that cannot see the difference of these things hath some Cataracts before his Eyes which need couching But still T. G. demands is this the same Reverence that is due to God or distinct from it I say it is distinct from it then saith he Vasquez comes upon you wish his artillery for then you express your submission to an inanimate thing that hath no kind of excellency to deserve it from you Alas poor T. G how doth he argue like a man spent and quite gone That which Vasquez saith is that for a man to use all the acts of adoration to Images which are performed in the Roman Church without respect to the exemplar were to express our submission to an inanimate thing which is Idolatry Where it is to be observed that he speaks of all the Acts of Worship which in the Church of Rome they
But it may be T. G. thinks to escape by saying that when he saith an Image being made the object of divine worship is an Idol he doth not understand it of an Image of God but when the Image it self is taken for God which evasion can do him no service for 1. He grants that Images which are made for Likenesses of God are condemned by the Law of God and that they are an infinite disparagement to the Divine Nature 2. I have at large shewed that in the Roman Church Images of God and Christ are made the objects of Divine worship And 3. That the very Heathens did not take the Images themselves for Gods 4. The place he answers Isa. 40.18 doth imply that the Images of the Divinity are therefore condemned because nothing can be made like unto God But of that afterwards Let us then suppose that the LXX had particular reason to render Pesel by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Commandment yet what is this to the representation of a meer figment for worship Doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so properly so naturally so necessarily signifie a figment that it cannot be taken in any other sense I see T. G. makes only use of good Catholick Lexicons such a one as that called Catholicon which Erasmus is so pleasant with that assure him what the sense of a word must be in spight of all use of it by prophane and heretical Authors thus simulachrum must signifie only Heathen Images and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Sphinx a Triton or Centaure and why so did it alwaies signifie so did all Greek Authors use it only in that sense Doth the Etymology of it imply it no none of all these what then is the reason that a word should be so restrained against the former and common acception of it The reason is very plain for if it be taken for the representation of real Beings then for all that we know the Image of the Trinity or of the B. Virgin or of any other worshipped in the Roman Church may prove Idols and therefore this must be the sense because the Church of Rome cannot be guilty of Idolatry This is the real Truth of the case but it is too great Truth to be owned Only Bellarmin who often speaks freelier than the rest confesses their design herein is to shew that the Images worshipped in the Church of Rome cannot be Idols because they are representations of real Beings A very miserable shift as will appear by the examination of it Let us therefore see whether there be any pretence from the use and importance of the Word for restraining the sense of an Idol to an imaginary representation And I am so far from T. G's opinion that by the best enquiry I can make the proper signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a representation of something that really is So Hesychius interprets it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the old Greek and Latin Glossaries render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and simulachrum by each other and notwithstanding T. G's severity against me for translating simulachra Images I can make it appear from some of the most authentick Writers of the Roman Church that they do not scruple calling such Images as they worship simulacra I leave T. G. then to judge whether they be not Idols too Isidore makes Idolum to be properly Simulachrum quod humana effigie factum consecratum est an Image made and consecrated in the figure of a man as Plutarch calls the Image of Sylla 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Porphyrie in the beginning of the Life of Plotinus when Amelius desired a Picture of him he answered Is it not enough to carry such an Idolum about me but I must leave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Image of an Image So we find Idolum used in the Chaldaick Oracles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where Psellus observes That according to the Platonists the mind is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Image of God and the rational soul the Image of the mind and the irrational the Image of the rational and nature of the irrational soul and the body of the Image of Nature and Matter of the Body But Isidore applying Idolum to an Ecclesiastical sense supposeth not only representation but consecration to be necessary to it wherein he follows Tertullian who speaking of the created Beings that were worshipped saith Eorum Imagines Idola imaginum consecratio Idololatria Their Images were Idols and the consecration of them is Idolatry and a little before he saith That all service of an Idol is Idolatry and every representation is an Idol Omnis forma vel formula Idolum se dici exposcit For saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies a form or representation of a thing Or as the Greek Etymologist thinks it comes immediately from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to resemble Among the Philosophers it was taken for the Image of things conveyed to our sight so Diogenes Laertius saith That Democritus held Vision to be performed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the incursion of Images 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Plutarch Empedocles saith he joyned raies to the Images 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Democritus and Epicurus said that reflection in a glass was performed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the subsistence of the Images Cicero Lucretius and S. Augustin render these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Imagines Catius the Epicurean called them Spectra Macrobius Simulacra but all of them understood the most proper representations of things to our sight which Epicurus was so far from thinking that they represented things that were not that he made them infallible criteria of the truth of things The Poets and some other Authors made use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie Spectres and Apparitions but still they supposed these to be the representations of some real Beings So Homer calls the soul of Elpenor that appeared to Ulysses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but Eustathius there observes That these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were exactly like the Persons they represented as to Age Stature Habit and every thing and so Homer himself expresses it saying that Apollo made an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a representation of Aeneas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So in another place speaking of Minerva's making a representation of Iphthima 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By which we see that the very Poetical use of the word for a Spectre doth imply an exact resemblance to some real Being which it represents from whence then hath this signification of an Idol come into the Roman Church that it must signifie a representation of something that is not but from whenceoever it comes we are sure it is neither from the natural importance nor the use of the word among Greek Authors 2. Not from the use of it in Scripture
The Author of the Book of wisdom gives this account of the beginning of the worship of Idols viz. That Fathers having lost their Children made Images of them and appointed solemnities to be kept before them as if they were Gods then by degrees Princes passed these things into Laws and made men to worship graven Images and thus either out of affection or flattery the worship of Idols began where it is observable that he makes the representation of Persons that were really in Being to have been the first Idols and he distinguishes the bringing in of Idols from the worship of the Elements or heavenly bodies and he thinks these much more excusable than those who worship the Work of mens hands the folly of which he there elegantly describes but he still supposes these Idols to have the resemblance either of man or some living creature To the same purpose Diophantus the Lacedemonian in Fulgentius saith That Syrophanes the Egyptian being greatly afflicted for the loss of his son made an Image of him and all his servants to please him did what they could to adorn this Image and some when they had offended ran to it as a Sanctuary from hence saith he came the worship of Idols And Eutychius gives the like account of the Original of Idols That when a great man was dead they set up his Image on his Sepulchre from whence the World was filled with Idols i.e. with Images of Men Women and Children this he thinks began among the Chaldeans and Egyptians but Herodotus saies the Egyptians were the first who made Images of their Gods Lucian that they borrowed this custom from the Assyrians Epiphanius makes the beginning of Idolatry to be in the time of Seruch but he saith that it went no farther than to Pictures in his time and came to Images and Statues in the time of Nahor Cedrenus saith That Seruch and his Companions made Statues for the honour of those who had done any famous action which their posterity misunderstanding worshipped them as Gods Thus far we find that the first Idols that are supposed to have been in the world were the representations of things that had real Beings The only people that could be suspected to be meant in Scripture as those who had such Idols as were representations of what had no real Beings must be the Phoenicians and Egyptians who besides the worship of Beasts and the Images of them had many extravagant Images Sanchoniathon saith Taautus made the Images in Phoenicia with Wings Saturn with four and the rest of the Gods with two And Dagon and Atergatis or Derceto is supposed to be an Image whereof the upper part is of humane shape and the lower of a Fish among the Egyptians one of their Images had the face of a Ram and another of a Dog c. If these be the Idols T.G. thinks are prohibited in the Second Commandment I desire him to consider 1. Whether the Images of humane shape were not prohibited by the Law equally with these or whether it were lawful to worship such Images as did represent real beings in that manner that it was unlawful to worship those Images that were only Chimaera's and fancies of mens brains If not this distinction serves to no purpose at all To make this more plain I ask T. G. whether it were unlawful to worship God among the Egyptians under the representation of an Image with the body of a man and the Head of a Hawk which was a representation of something that had no real Being just like it but it was lawful to worship Him with the Image of a man as Eusebius saith that Oneph or the Creator of the world was worshipped under such a representation among them It is certain that both these sorts of Images were among the Egyptians and according to T. G.'s notion one of these was an Idol and the other not But is it possible for men of common understandings to suppose that God by the words of the Law hath forbidden the one and not the other when both were intended to represent the same Being But according to this sense the Inhabitants of Thebais of whom Plutarch saith That they only worshipped Oneph the immortal God or the Creator under the Image of a man were altogether as innocent as those in the Roman Church who worship God under a like representation And can it enter into T. G.'s head that God should notwithstanding all the words of this Commandment allow such a kind of worship of Images as was received among the Egyptians But if this were condemned in them then if the Second Commandment be in force the like worship must be condemned in the Church of Rome 2. That there is a distinction to be made between such Images as have no real resemblance in nature and such Images which represent that which hath no real Being for although the Phoenician and Egyptian Images had nothing in nature which answered to their figure yet there might be something which answered their representation i. e. they were only Symbolical Images and the Nature of those Symbols being understood there was no difference as to matter of worship between these and other Images As for instance a Sphinx is one of those Images which T. G. would have to be understood for an Idol in the Second Commandment supposing then that I allow him as a Sphinx was painted among the Egyptians with wings and the face a man and the body of a Lion that it was the representation of something that had no real Being agreeable to it yet Clemens Alexandrinus saith That their design was to represent hereby that God was both to be loved and feared now this Image did Symbolically represent a real object of worship and therefore could be no Idol even in T. G.'s sense So Kircher saith one of the chief and most common Images of the Egyptians was a winged Globe with a Serpent passing through the middle of it by the Globe saith he they represented the Divine nature by the Serpent the spreading of life and by the wings the Spirit of the World Here is an Image that hath no real Being correspondent to it and yet it represents the infinite nature and power and goodness of God Sometimes saith he they represented Providence by a Scepter with a Dogs head within a Semicircle by which and innumerable other waies they represented the hidden Mysteries of the Divine Being and they thought this Symbolical way most pleasing to God and was certainly farthest from that danger which T. G. thinks to be most considerable in Images viz. making men Anthropomorphites To avoid which the Egyptians generally mixed the figures of men and beasts together not so much to shew the communion of nature as Porphyrie imagines as that these were meer Symbolical Images and not intended for any proper Likenesses and therefore according to T. G.'s principles those which he calls Idols were