he makes more of his own For he saith these were Samaritan Sectaries who were more precise than the rest of the Iews and were much troubled at the Cherubims in the Temple and more at the respect which the Christians tendered to the Images of Christ and his Saints I never saw a more pittiful pretender to History than this Author who if he offers to add to or vary from his Original he makes the matter worse than he found it For not one of his Authors in the Margin say they were Samaritans but only Hebrews as Zonaras and Cedrenus his other Authors Elmacinus and the Chronicon Orientale have not one word about it where they mention Iezid the Chaliph of Arabia And yet granting they were Samaritans there is not the least ground for his saying they were more precise in this matter of Images than the rest of the Iews for Epiphanius himself whom he quotes suspects them of secret Idolatry in Mount Gerizim and the Iews generally charge them with it for they say they worship the Image of a Dove on Mount Gerizim which Maimonides affirms of them with great confidence and Obadias Bartenora with several others It was therefore very unhappy for this Historian to pitch upon the Samaritan Sectaries of all others as the Beginners of the heresie of the Iconoclasts And was it not luckily done to begin a History with so palpable a falshood But this was a pretty artifice to possess his Reader at the entrance that none but Samaritan Sectaries could be enemies to the worship of Images which he knew to have been the method of the second Council of Nice only he pursued it with greater Ignorance than they 2. By fabulous stories and lying Miracles Of the former we have many instances in the Actions of that famous Council but I shall only mention that out of the Limonarion of the pretended Sophronius about the Spirit of Fornication haunting a Monk who had an Image of the Blessed Virgin to whom the Devil said If thou wilt not worship that Image I will trouble thee no more But the Devil would not tell him this great secret till he had solemnly promised him he would reveal it to no body The Monk next day told it to the Abbot Theodore who assured him he had better go into all the Stews in the City than leave off the worship of that Image with which the Monk went away much comforted But the Devil soon after charged him with perjury the Monk replyed he had forsworn to God and not to him Upon which Iohn Vicar of the Oriental Bishops said it was better to forswear ones self than to keep an oath for the destruction of Images And concerning miracles it is observable that Tarasius confesses that their Images did work none in their dayes because miracles were for unbelievers and yet Manzo a Bishop there present saith he was cured of a disease by laying an Image of Christ upon the part affected Bellarmin and Baronius say the miracle of the Image at Berytus was done in those times and yet after the reading the story which made the good Fathers weep Tharasius saith those words which make this story by comparing these circumstances together appear a meer Fabulous imposture For in the Council of Nice the story is reported as written by S. Athanasius near four hundred years before but not only those Authors but Sigebert saith it was done A. D. 765. and Lambecius undertakes to prove that this story was never written by S. Athanasius But most remarkable is the passage which Eutychius the Patriarch of Alexandria relates concerning the occasion of Theophilus the Emperours extirpating Images out of Churches One of the Courtiers had told him there was an Image of the Blessed Virgin from whose breasts there dropt Milk upon her day but search being made the Cheat was discovered the Church officers executed and all Images prohibited If all the Impostors of this kind were dealt with after the same manner there would be fewer pretences to miracles wrought by Images than there are 3. By crying up those for Martyrs who suffered for the worship of Images and opposing the Imperial Edicts for pulling them down Thus Pope Gregory 2. in his Epistle to Leo magnifies the zeal of the Women who killed the Emperours Officer who was sent to demolish the Image of Christ called Antiphoneta and afterwards suffered themselves for the tumult they raised in the City But this was not the only Act of Zeal in the Women in this good Cause for as Baronius relates it out of the Acts of Stephanus extant in Damascens Works when a new Patriarch was set up in the room of Germanus they shook off all Modesty and ran into the Church and threw stones at the Patriarch and called him Hireling Wolf and what not One need not wonder at the mighty zeal of the Women in this Cause for as Pope Gregory notably observes on behalf of Images the Women were wont to take the little Children in their arms and shew them this and the other Image which contributed mightily to the infallibility of Oral Tradition when the Women and Nurses could point with their Fingers to the Articles of Faith elegantly expressed in Pictures which the Children did delight to look upon The great number of Martyrs in this Cause of which Baronius glories consisted chiefly of Women and Monks who were the most zealous Champions in it And the late Historian can hardly abstain from making the Empress Irene a Martyr in this Cause for in his Epistle to the Queen a Lady of so incomparably greater Virtue and Goodness that it is an affront to her Majesty to commend such an one to her protection he had the boldness to tell her that the only imputation which assaults those Princesses repute viz. Irene and Theodora was their piety in restoring the Religious use and veneration of holy Images to the Eastern Empire What can be expected from such an Historian who durst in the face of the World tell her Majesty so impudent a falshood For Zonaras Cedrenus Glycas Theophanes Constantinus Manasses although Friends to the worship of Images yet all accuse Irene of Intolerable Ambition and Cruelty to her Son the Emperour Constantine and to all his Kindred Nay Baronius himself who minceth the matter as much as may be saith That if she used those cruelties to her Son out of a desire of Empire as the Greek Historians say she did she was worse than Agrippina but Const. Manasses as zealous as any for Images makes her worse than a Tigre or Lion or Bear or Dragon for her cruelty and he can think of no Parallel for her among women but Medea And was not this an excellent Confessour at least if not a Martyr in this Cause a Person fit to be commended to her Majesties protection as one that suffered only under the imputation of her zeal for Images But if any be given up to
together and consequently have freed themselves from the force of the Laws which required no more but giving divine worship to the Deities publickly worshipped without any declaration of their minds concerning them For they might understand them as they pleased as we see the wise men among them did without any censure or reproach from others If it were lawful then for Christians to give a relative Latria to any creatures with an intention to honour God thereby I cannot see how the Christians were excusable in their sufferings for all that was required from them was only to obey their Laws and offer incense to their Gods Nothing being expressed by the Laws as to the disowning the true God nor as to declaring in what sense they did intend to worship them the Emperour declared he was for the Laws being observed and himself in his own writings had expressed his mind as to one God what was it then made the Christians refuse obeying the Laws when so many Philosophers had said that these Gods were only parts of the Universe and deserved divine worship because of Gods presence in them If they had not thought it Idolatry to give divine worship to any creature it is very hard to make out their title to Martyrdom For if we look over the Acts of the Martyrs we shall find it came to this pinch with them will you obey the Laws in offering incense or will you not When Iustin Martyr was summoned before Rusticus the Praefect of the City after some previous discourses Let us come saith he to the business in hand Come you Christians hither and sacrifice with one consent to the Gods Iustin answers No true Christian will forsake his Religion and return to errors and impiety and the rest agreeing with him the Judge pronounced their sentence that because they would not sacrifice to the Gods and obey the Emperours Edict they should be scourged and have the punishment of death inflicted upon them which was accordingly executed When Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria was summoned before Aemilianus he gives this account himself of the passages between them that he told Aemilianus plainly that he would worship none but the true God and that he would never depart from this resolution the Governour dismisses him for that time the next time he lets him know the Emperour had so great a regard to their safety that if they would but act according to reason and worship the Gods that preserved the Empire they might be safe Dionysius answers We saith he worship the one true God the Maker of all things who hath bestowed the Empire on Valerianus and Gallienus and to him we pray continually for the safety of the Empire But saith Aemilianus again who forbids you to worship that God you speak of and the other Gods too Dionysius then gave that as his final answer we worship none else besides him I might bring multitudes of instances to the same purpose but I instance in these two because they were men of eminency for their learning as well as piety Now I appeal to the conscience of T. G. whether upon the principles of worship which he delivers these men could have suffered for conscience sake any otherwise than as weak Brethren that wanted good information For they might have reserved the Sovereign worship due only to God on the account of his Supreme excellency and have given only a Relative Latria to those whom they called Gods but in truth were only Gods creatures and Subjects and what harm was there in all this O but saith T. G. they were called Gods but in truth were Devils whom they were to worship how doth that appear to have been the cause when they say no such thing and give no such reason of their refusals besides they might make them Gods by giving them absolute Latria for that is due only to God himself but no more was required of them than to sacrifice to them and they never debarred them of the freedom of directing their intention to the Supreme God and T. G. knows acts go whither they are intended and those whom they called Gods they might understand them only by way of participation or as some Analogical representations of the true God O but sacrifice was required of them and that is the worship peculiar to God but how comes sacrifice alone to belong to God and what sacrifice burning of Incense and that T. G. knows is allowed to be done to creatures with a respect to God by the Rules of their Church So that for all that I can see if relative Latria may be allowed to creatures the Primitive Christians were not so wise as they might have been and the Modern doctrines of worship in the Roman Church would have saved the lives of thousands of the Primitive Martyrs and not only of the common sort but of the best and wisest of them Who sacrificed their lives on this principle that Divine worship and not meerly Sovereign worship is to be given to none but to the Supreme God But if that pass for good Divinity that they who believe one Supreme God cannot possibly give the honour due to him to any creature I do not see why the Christians needed to have been so afraid of giving divine worship to any thing besides God for upon this principle they were afraid of impossibilities For as long as they preserved in their minds a just esteem of the incomparable excellency of God above his creatures they were uncapable of any real Idolatry But I think it is hard to pitch upon a principle more repugnant to the sense of the Primitive Church than this is as I hope to make it clear before I have done with this argument Athenagoras proceeds to dispute against the worshipping any of the parts of the Universe how beautiful or useful soever they be for why should we seek that from matter which it self hath not and can do nothing but in obedience to a higher Cause And let the things be never so beautiful yet they retain the nature of matter still for Plato confesses that the heavens and the Frame of the world are corporeal and therefore subject to mutability But saith he if I refuse to worship the Heavens and Elements as Gods whose workmanship I so much admire because I know them to be corruptible how can I be perswaded to do it to those things which I know to be made by men and thence shews not only the novelty of the Poetical Gods but of the art of framing Images which was so late he saith that they were able yet to name the first makers of them But Because it was pleaded by some among them that all the worship they gave to their Images was only a relative worship and that they looked on them only as representations of their Deities therefore he begs leave of the Emperours to search into the Nature of their Poetick Theology which he derives from Orpheus as the rest do
us that they hardly worship Images in the Roman Church but praying to them they abhorr and detest What conscientious men were those then who made the poor Lollards swear to do that which they forbid them to do But surely the Bishops and Clergy then understood the doctrine and practice of the Roman Church as well as T. G. and his Brethren do at this day and having Authority in their hands were not so cautious and reserved in this matter as some think it for their interest to be at present And it is observable that those learned men in the Roman Church who have been most nice and scrupulous in this matter of the worship of Images have yet agreed with the rest in the practice of the outward acts of worship towards them So Vasquez observes concerning Durandus Holcot and Picus Mirandula who speak the most suspiciously among them about the Worship of Images that they agreed with the Catholick Church in performing all external acts of adoration to Images and that they differed only in the manner of speaking from the rest and that the main thing the Council of Nice determined was the real acts of worship to be performed to Images leaving the several ways of explaining the manner of giving them and the names of this worship at greater liberty The same Card. Lugo saith that these men differed from Hereticks because these utterly refuse giving external acts of adoration to Images which they allowed Suarez confesses that some of the Hereticks condemned by the Council of Nice did maintain the Use of Images for Memory which he saith appears by the Acts of the Council and that all Catholicks agree in this proposition Imagines esse adorandas that Imagines are to be worshipped although some he saith do so explain that worship as to differ little or nothing from hereticks So Durandus saith he openly teacheth that Images are not to be worshipped but only impropriè abusivè improperly and abusively because at their presence we call to mind those objects represented by them which are worshipped before the Images as if they were present and on this account the Images are said to be worshipped It will contribute much to the understanding the State of this Controversie to shew a little more particularly what the opinion of these men was and how it is condemned by the rest as savouring of Heresie and repugnant to the Council of Nice and the sense of the Catholick Church Durandus goes upon these grounds 1. That worship properly belongs to him in whom the cause of that worship is and by accident may be given to that which hath only a relation to that which is the cause 2. In him to whom proper worship is given we are to consider both the Person to whom it is given and the Cause for which worship is only properly given to the Person and not to any part of him the Cause is that from whence the excellency of the Person arises 3. That Supreme worship or Latria is due only to God for it self by reason of his Deity because the cause of this honour is only in God but by accident the honour of Latria may belong to other things Now saith he a thing may have relation to God two waies 1. When it goes to make up the same Person as the Humanity of Christ. 2. When it hath only an extrinsecal relation to Him as Christs Mother or His Image 4. That the humane nature of Christ hath only by accident the honour of Latria given to it as being part of that Person who is worshipped who is the Son of God but the Humanity it self is not properly that which is worshipped nor is the Cause or reason of that worship but only of an inferiour 5. Of those things which have only an extrinsecal relation to God this is to be held in general that either they deserve no worship at all of themselves as the Cross and Images or other inanimate things or if they do as the B. Virgin it is an inferiour worship of the first he determines that no manner of worship doth belong to them no not to the Cross it self upon the account of any excellency or contact of Christ for which he gives this reason That which is no subject capable of holiness or vertue cannot in it self be the term of adoration but the Cross on which Christ did hang was not a subject capable of holiness c. Nunquam ergo cruci Christi debetur aliquis honor nisi in quantum reducit in rememorationem Christi no kind of honour is due to the Cross but as it calls Christ to our remembrance 6. That although the conception of the mind be of the thing represented upon sight of an Image there is still a real difference in the thing and in the conception between the Image and the thing represented and therefore properly speaking the same worship is never due to the Image that is to the object represented by it But saith he because we must speak as the most do the Image may be said to be worshipped with the same worship with the thing represented because at the presence of the Image we worship the object represented by it as if he were actually present Holkot in his Lectures on the Book of Wisdom saith That in a large sense we may be said to worship the Image because by the Image we call Christ to mind and worship him before the Image and therefore saith he I think it fitter to say that I do not worship the Image of Christ because it is Wood nor because it is the Image of Christ but that I worship Christ before his Image but he by no means alloweth that Latria in any sense be given to an Image of Christ. 1. Because Latria is the worship due only to God but no Image is God and therefore it is a contradiction to say that Latria is due only to God and yet that it is due to the Image of Christ and to Christ. 2. Then the same worship would be due to Christ and to a Stone or to Christ and to a creature 3. He that gives to any thing the worship of Latria confesseth that to be God therefore a man may as lawfully say the Image is God as that it may be worshipped with Latria and consequently that something which is not God is God Ioh. Picus Mirandula gave this for one of his conclusions That neither the Cross nor any other Image is to be worshipped with Latria after the way of Thomas this conclusion was condemned and he forced to write an Apology for it where he saith That the way of Thomas is dangerous for the Image as an Image is distinct from the thing represented therefore if as such it terminates the worship of Latria it seems to follow that something which is not God is worshipped with Latria and he declares that he agrees with Durandus and Holcot but withal he saith that