make so many addresses to the petty and Inferiour Deities This indeed was a thing to be wondred at and yet no doubt they thought they had as good reasons for it as T. G. gives why incontinent persons should rather make their addresses to S. Mary Magdalen in Heaven than to her Sister Martha or to God himself So the Roman women thought Lucina and Opis better for a good hour than Ceres or Minerva and Levana and Cunina for new born Children than Vulcan or Apollo and yet S. Augustin tells us many of them did not esteem these as any distinct Deities but only as representations of the several powers of the same God suitable to the conditions of persons but T. G. will not say that by S. Mary Magdalen he only understood the power of Gods Grace in converting incontinent persons but if he had he had given a much better reason of their praying to her yet even in such a case S. Austin thinks it were better to pray directly to God himself And the old Roman Matrons would have thought they could have directed such persons to Temples proper for them viz. those of Virtue and Chastity the one of which stood ad Portam Capenam the other in vico longo But I need not give such particular directions for I am afraid their Ruines are scarce left in Rome for neither Marlianus nor Alexander Donatus in their accurate descriptions of Rome can tell where to find them For our better understanding the controversie about Idolatry as it is represented by S. Augustin we are to consider that not only Scaevola and Balbus in Cicero but Varro and Seneca and the rest of their wiser men did with great indignation reject the Poetical Theology as they called it and wished several things reformed in the popular Religion and thought themselves as unjustly charged with the practises of the People as T. G. doth for their Church to be charged with all the ridiculous addresses that some make to Saints among them for Varro confesses that the People were too apt to follow the Poets as in the Church of Rome they are to pray by their Legends but they thought the people were better let alone in their fopperies than to be suffered to break loose from that subjection which their Superstition kept them in and with these S. Austin reckons the Philosophers with whom he saith the Question to be debated was this whether we are bound only to worship one Supreme God the Maker of all things or whether it be not lawful to worship many Gods who are supposed to be made by him And after he hath discoursed against Varro and those of his opinion who reduced all their Theology to Nature and made God to be the Soul of the World and the several parts of the world capable of divine Worship on that account in his eighth Book he undertakes those who asserted one Supreme Deity above Nature and the Cause of all things and yet pleaded for the worship of inferiour Deities he confesses that they had the knowledge of the true God and brings the several places of S. Paul mentioned in the entrance of this discourse to prove it and enquiring how the Philosophers came to such knowledge of him he first propounds the common opinion of the Fathers that they learnt it in Egypt meeting with the Books of Scripture there but he rather and with good reason resolves it into the natural knowledge of God for saith he that which was known of God was manifest to them for God had revealed it to them But it seems by S. Augustin that there were two opinions among them at that time about divine worship for some of whom he reckons Apuleius the chief were for the worship of Daemons although they acknowledged them to be subject to evil passions yet they looked on them as intercessors between men and the Gods and therefore to be worshipped but others who kept closer to the doctrine of Plato believed none to be Gods but such as were certainly good but were shy of declaring their opinion against the worship of Daemons for fear of displeasing the people by it and with these S. Augustin declares he would have no controversie about the name of Gods as long as they believed them to be created immortal good and happy not by themselves but by adhering to God which he saith was the opinion either of all or at least the best of the Platonists And now we are come to the true state of the Controversie as it is managed by S. Augustin in his tenth Book which is whether those rites of Religious worship which are used in the service of the Supreme God may be likewise used toward any created Being though supposed to be of the highest excellency and as near to God as we can suppose any creature to be And that this and this only is the state of the Controversie I appeal to his own words which I shall set down in the language he writ them that I be not blamed with artificial turning them to my own sense Hoc est ut apertius dicam utrum etiam sibi an tantum Deo suo qui etiam noster est placeat eis ut sacra faciamus sacrificemus vel aliqua nostra seu nos ipsos Religionis ritibus consecremus i. e. That I may speak plainly whether it be pleasing to them viz. good spirits that we offer divine worship and sacrifice to them or that we consecrate our selves or any thing of ours to them by Religious rites And this saith he is that worship which is due to the Deity which because we cannot find one convenient word in Latin to express it by I would call Latria as that service which is due to men is called by another name viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he gives this reason why he made choice of Latria to signifie divine worship in the Latine Tongue because the Latine word colere is so very ambiguous it being applied to the tilling of land inhabiting of places and therefore cultus could not so properly be applied only to divine worship nor yet ReligioÌ„ because that according to the custom of the Latins is applyed to other senses and the same reason he gives as to other names For my part I quarrel not at all with S. Augustins use of the word and think it proper enough to apply it in his sense which comprehends in it not meerly sacrifice but all those Religious Rites whereby we give Worship to God And nothing can to me appear more senseless than to imagine that S. Augustiâ—â— should here speak only of Soveraigâ— Worship proper to God in regard of his Supreme Excellency distinguishing that from an inferior kind of Religious Worship due tâ— created Excellency when it was agreed on both sides that there was one Supremâ— Excellency which was incommunicable to any creatures so that the dispute abouâ— Worship must suppose those
misinterpretations of it by an Atheistical Sect among them they were satisfied by plain and perspicuous testimonies out of their Books that they could mean no other than the true God and that he to whom the King every year offers sacrifice is a pure Mind free from all mixture governing all things and therefore to him all the acts of soveraign worship are performed such as Sacrifices Vows Prayers and thanksgivings Therefore the worship they give to the Tutelar Spirits or Guardian Angels as they suppose them must be of an inferiour nature and yet the Congregation of the Cardinals by the direction of the Pope condemn this for Idolatry That giving an Inferiour Worship on the account of created excellency when it appears to be Religious is utterly unlawful among Christians For this is the only imaginable reason why the Congregation did so absolutely condemn the worship of Confutius and their Ancestors and Hurtado in the explication of this decree confesses that the Chineses did not esteem Confutius as a God but only looked on him as a holy and vertuous Philosopher yet saith he because they did those acts to him which are only proper to God they commit manifest Idolatry in it For saith he they who give to a creature the worship due only to God do commit Idolatry and from hence the Gentiles who acknowledged one God were Idolaters because they gave to the creatures the honour due to him in the doing of which they made an acknowledgement of divine excellency in the things they gave it to By which it appears that there are some external acts of worship so proper to God that although a man hath never so clear apprehension in his mind of the Supreme excellency of God above the creatures he worships yet the giving that worship to them makes his act Idolatry The Iesuits to excuse these things speak very high things of Confutius and of his admirable Life and doctrine and surely not without great reason if their relations hold true as I see no reason to suspect them but the more Confutius is extolled the worse they make their own case for all these acts of external worship towards him are condemned for Idolatry and how then comes the worship of Ignatius Loyola to be otherwise who I dare say never was so great a Philosopher nor did so much good in the world as the Iesuits say Confutius did But at last they would have all these honours to Confutius to be only civil honours although Trigautius confesses that he hath a Temple in every City that his Image with that of his Disciples is set up in it that these Disciples are looked on as a sort of Divi i. e. as Canonized Saints that bere they make use of all the rites of adoration genuflections wax-candles incense oblations prayers only excepted but we see notwithstanding all their pretences the Pope and Congregation of Cardinals have condemned them as guilty of Idolatry That the Pope and Congregation of Cardinals were not of T. G 's mind that acts do certainly go whither they are intended For all these acts of worship were directed by the intention of the persons to the secret Crucifix which lay among the flowers upon the Altar but notwithstanding this in their opinion were a fit object of worship yet other circumstances did so much alter the nature of it that they declare these acts to be in themselves unlawful By actions going whither they are intended I do not mean as T. G. suggests that the Physical act of the mind doth not pass to the object whither the act is directed i. e. that I do not think of that which I do think of but my meaning is that such a directing the intention of the mind doth not give a moral denomination to the nature of the action viz. that it becomes lawful or unlawful by vertue of such an intention of the mind but that the Law of God may so determine the nature of our acts of worship as to make them unlawful whatever the intention of the mind be And thus the Congregation of Cardinals here resolves the case the Persons used only those acts of adoration that may be directed to God by a secret intention of the mind they suppose a Crucifix a fit object for divine worship and going together into an Idolatrous Temple and using all the external equivocal acts as T. G. calls them which the rest did they direct their acts by vertue of this intention to the Crucifix yet although the Congregation thought this intention rightly directed they condemn the acts as in themselves unlawful But of these things hereafter the first observation being sufficient to my present purpose viz. to shew that according to the present sense of the Roman Church the practice of Idolatry is consistent with the acknowledgement of one Supreme God From the Idolatry of the East-Indies I proceed to that of the Tartars whose Dominion hath extended it self over that vast Continent from the utmost North-East parts to the borders of Europe that way and this acount I shall give from the least suspected witnesses in this matter viz. the Emissaries of the Roman Church who had conversed most among them and made it their design to understand their Religion In A. D. 1246. after the horrible devastations made by the Tartars in Poland and Hungary Pope Innocent 4. sent Iohannes de Plano Carpini as his Legat or Nuncio to them and after a year and four months stay among them he gives this account of their Religion unum Deum credunt quem credunt esse factorem omnium visibilium invisibilium credunt eum tam bonorum in hoc mundo quam poenarum esse factorem non tamen orationibus vel laudibus aut ritu aliquo ipsum colunt They believe one God whom they believe to be the maker of all things visible and invisible and to be the Author of all worldly goods and punishments and yet he saith they had no manner of worhip of him but their worship they gave to Images which he there at large decribes But there is an inferior Deity whom he calls Itoga Paulus Venetus Natagay which they believe to be the God of the earth and him they worship with great superstition and besides they worship the Sun Moon and Fire and make oblations to the Image of their first Emperour and the same thing is affirmed by Vincentius Bellovacensis After him Lewis the ninth of France sent William de Rubruquis a Franciscan A. D. 1253. who passed through the several Courts of the Tartarian Princes and gave an exact account to his Prince of the Religion he found among them In the conference he had with Mangu-Chan who was then Emperour about Religion the Emperour told him We Moals which is the name they call themselves by that being the name of the Tribe from whence Iingiz-chan came the Tartars being another Tribe but better known to the Europeans We saith he believe that
or these are not faithful servants to him by bringing in visible objects of worship by setting up Images and perswading men to make oblations and offer sacrifices to them And because it was so hard a matter to choke those natural motions of mens minds towards the Supreme God and Father of all therefore they endeavour'd to draw men farther from him by tempting them to all manner of impiety Whereas the good Angels we read of in Scripture always directed men to pay their honours and adoration not to themselves but only to the Supreme God and teach men that it is not fit to give them to any of his Ministers and Servants but these Deities of Iulian are willing to receive worship from men and their prayers and acknowledgements and praises and gifts and sacrifices where we see he joyns them all together as parts of that divine worship which is proper only to God But Iulian is very much displeased at the Second Commandment and would have been glad to have seen it struck out of the number of ten as some in the World have done because God therein expresses so much jealousie for his own honour Cyril in answer to him shews that this is no way unbecoming God to be so much concerned for his honour because mens greatest happiness as Alexander Aphrodisiensis said in his Book of Providence lies in the due apprehension and service of God By which we see that the controversie about Idolatry as it was hitherto managed between Christians and Heathens did suppose the belief of one Supreme God in those who were charged with the practise of it After these it may not be amiss to consider what the ancient Author of the Recognitions under Clemens his name saith upon this subject of the Heathen Idolatry he lived saith Cotelerius in the Second Century if that be true his Authority is the more considerable however it is certain Ruffinus translated this Book and thâ—â— makes it ancient enough to our purpose He brings in the Heathen Idolaters pleading thus for themselves We likewise acknowledge one God who is Lord over all but yet the other are Gods too as there is but one Caesar who hath many Officers under him as Praefects Consuls Tribunes and other Magistrates after the same manner we suppose when there is but one Supreme God he hath many other inferiour Gods as so many Officers under him who are all subject to him but yet over us To this he brings in S. Peter answering that he desires them to keep to their own similitude for as they who attribute the name of Caesar to any inferiour Officers deserve to be punished so will those more severely who give the name of God to any of his Creatures Where the name is not to be taken alone but as it implies the dignity and Authority going along with it and the professing of that subjection which is only due to that Authority for what injury were it to Caesar for a man only to have the name of Caesar but the injury lies in usurping the Authority under that name so the nature of Idolatry could not lie in giving the name of Gods to any Creatures but in giving that worship which that name calls for and yet this worship here is supposed to be consistent with the acknowledgement of the supreme excellency of God If we now look into the sense of the Writers of the Latine Church against the Heathen Idolaters we shall find them agreeing with the other Tertullian appeals to the consciences of men for the clearest evidence of one true and Supreme God for in the midst of all their Idolatries they are apt upon any great occasion to lift up their hands and eyes to Heaven where the only true and great and good God is and he mentions their common phrases God gives and God sees and I commend you to God and God will restore all which do shew the natural Testimony of conscience as to the unity and supreme excellency of God and in his Book ad Scapulam God shewed himself to be the powerful God by what he did upon their supplications to him under the name of Iove Minucius Felix makes use of the same arguments and saith they were clear arguments of their consent with the Christians in the belief of one God and makes it no great matter what name they called him by as I have observed already and afterwards produces many Testimonies of the Philosophers almost all he saith that they acknowledged one God although under several names Arnobius takes it for granted that on both sides they were agreed that there was one Supreme God eternal and invisible and Father of all things from whom all the Heathen Deities had their beginning but all the dispute was about giving divine worship to any else besides him Lactantius saith there was no wise man ever questioned the being of one God who made and governed all things yet because he knew the World was full of Fools he goes about to prove it at large from the testimonies of Poets and Philosophers as so many had done before him and for T. G 's satisfaction he saith that Orpheus although as good at feigning as any of the Poets could not by the Father of the Gods mean Jupiter the Son of Saturn yet who can tell but such a Magician as Orpheus is said to have been might mean an Arch-Devil by him But I am sure neither Lactantius nor any of the Fathers ever thought so for if they had they would not so often have produced his Testimony to so little purpose And to the Greek Testimonies mentioned before by others Lactantius adds those of Cicero and Seneca who calls the infeririour Gods the children of the Supreme and the Ministers of his Kingdom Thus far we have the unanimous consent of all the Writers of the Christian Church against the Heathen Idolatry that the Heathens did acknowledge one Supreme God S. Augustin tells us that Varro thought that those who worshipped one God without images did mean the same by him that they did by their Jove but only called him by another name by those S. Austin saith Varro meant the Iews and he thought it no matter what name God is called by so the same thing be meant It is true S. Augustin argues against it from the Poetical Fables about Saturn and Iuno but withal he confesses that they thought it very unreasonable for their Religion to be charged with those Fables which themselves disowned and therefore at last he could not deny that they believed themselves that by the Jove in the Capitol they understood and worshipped the Spirit that quickens and fills the world of which Virgil spake in those words Iovis omnia plena But he wonders that since they acknowledged this to be the Supreme if not only Deity the Romans did not rather content themselves with the worship of him alone than run about and
to their Gods but they have Temples for Heaven and Earth in Nankin and Pekim in which the King himself offers the sacrifice and in the Cities they have Temples for Tutelar Spirits to which the Mandarins do sacrifice as to the Spirits of the Rivers Mountains and four parts of the World c. and there are Temples to the honour of great Benefactors to the publick and therein are placed their Images Trigautius saith that he finds in their ancient Books that the Chineses did of old time worship one Supreme God whom they called King of Heaven or by another name Heaven and Earth and besides him they worshipped Tutelar Spirits to the same purpose with Semedo and the same he saith continues still in the learned Sect among them whose first Author was their famous Confutius to him they have a Temple erected in every City with his Image or his name in golden letters whither all the Magistrates every new or full Moon do resort to give honour to Confutius with bowings and Wax-candles and incense the same they do on his birth-day and other set times there to express their gratitude for the mighty advantages they have had by his Doctrine but they make no prayers to him and neither seek nor hope for any thing from him They have likewise Temples to Tutelar Spirits for every City and Tribunal where they make oblations and burn perfumes acknowledging these to have power to reward and punish Bartoli saith it is not out of any contempt of Religion but out of reverence to the Deity because of the excellency of his Majesty that they suffer none but the King to offer Sacrifice to him and accordingly the larger Power the Tutelar Spirits are supposed to have the greater Magistrates are to attend their service and the lesser those of Cities and Mountains and Rivers But that which is more material to our present business is to consider the Resolution of a case of Conscience not long since given at Rome by the Congregation of Cardinals de propagandâ fide after advising with and the full consent of the Pope obtained 12 Sept. 1645. Which resolution and decree was Printed in the Press of the Congregation the same year with the Popes Decree annexed to it and his peremptory command for the observation of it by all Missionaries and that Copy of the Resolution I have seen was attested by a publick Notary to agree with the Original Decree which case will help us very much to the right understanding the Notion of Idolatry according to the sense of the Church of Rome The case was this The Missionaries of the Society of Iesuits having had a plentiful harvest in China and many of the Great men embracing the Christian Religion by their means the Missionaries of other Orders especially the Franciscans had a great curiosity to understand the arts which the Iesuits used in prevailing with so many Great persons to become Christians and upon full enquiry they found they gave them great liberty as to the five Precepts of the Church as they call them viz. hearing Mass annual Confession receiving the Sacrament at Easter Fasting at the solemn times and Tenths and First-fruits besides they did forbear their Ceremonies of baptism their oyl and spittle in the ears and salt in the mouth when they baptized Women and giving extreme Unction to them because the jealousie of their Husbands would not permit them to use them but that which is most to our purpose is the liberty they gave the Mandarins in two things 1. To go to the Temple of the Tutelar Spirit in every City as they are bound by vertue of their office to do twice a month or else they forfeit their places and there to prostrate themselves before the Idol with all the external acts of adoration that others used and swearing before it when they enter into their office so they did secretly convey a Crucifix among the flowers that lay upon the altar or hold it cunningly in their hands and direct all their adorations to the Crucifix by the inward intention of their minds 2. To go to the Temple of Keum-Fucu or Confucius twice a year and to perform all the solemnities there that the rest did and the same as to the Temples of their Ancestors which are erected to their honour according to the precepts of Confucius because the Chineses declared that they intended only to give the same reverence to the memory of their Ancestors which they would do to themselves if they were still living and what they offer to them is nothing but what they would give them if they were alive without any intention to beg any thing from them when they know them to be dead and the same allowance they gave as to the Images of their Ancestors about which many Ceremonies were used by them The Missionaries of S. Francis order being well informed of the Truth of these things from the Philippines they send a Memorial to the King of Spain concerning them who by his Ambassador represents it to the Pope whereupon the Congregation of Cardinals was called and after great deliberation and advising with the Pope about it they made their Decree wherein they by several resolutions declare it unlawful upon any of those pretences to use acts in themselves unlawful and superstitious although directed by their intention to the worship of the true God And lest any should imagine it was only matter of scandal which they stood upon as T. G. doth about worshipping towards the Sun they make use of several expressions on purpose to exclude this for so they resolve the seventh Quere nullatenus licere it is by no means lawful and the eighth nullo praetextu under no pretence whatsoever and to the ninth expresly that it could not be salved propter absentiam gentilium if there were no gentiles present from this Resolution we may observe several things to our purpose That Idolatry is consistent with the belief of the Supreme God and reserving soveraign worship as due only to him For the Congregation calls the Image of the Tutelar Spirit an Idol and consequently the act of adoration must be Idolatry yet it is very clear that the Chineses especially the Christians did never intend to give to the Tutelar Spirit the honour proper to the Supreme Deity And Bartoli hath at large proved that the Chineses did of old acknowledge the true God and his Providence over the World and that their Princes do worship the same God still to whom they offer Sacrifice and they call him by two names Scianti which signifies supreme Monarch and Tienciù Lord of Heaven and as he tells us they put an apparent difference between Tienciù and Tienscin i. e. between God and Angels and say that the power of forgiving sins belongs only to God and not to them that upon a debate among the Missionaries about the use of these words for the true God and some scruples raised from some
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
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
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