and the figure of their Images did shew that they did apprehend something more than meer signs in them whatever they pretended I do not deny that there were pictures abroad in S. Augustins time of Christ and Peter and Paul for himself doth mention them but he declares so little reverence for them that he saith they deserved to be deceived who looked on them as Books to be instructed by and it was no wonder to see feigners of false doctrines to be led aside by painters By which it is plain S. Augustin did not think Pictures and Images to be such good helps for the Ignorant as was afterwards pretended And for those who worshipped Pictures S. Augustin doth not deny that there were such in his time but he reckons them among the ignorant and superstitious who by their practises did dishonour their profession of Christianity So that although we grant in the time of S. Augustin there were several pictures of Holy men mentioned in Scripture in several places yet there is no clear evidence that they were then brought into the African Churches any more than into those of Cyprus or Palestine but they were in the latter end of the fourth Century in some of the more Eastern Churches as appears by the Testimonies of Gregory Nyssen and Asterius produced by Petavius and others And it is a very probable conjecture of Daillè that in those parts of Pontus and Cappadocia they were first introduced out of a complyance with Gentilism and in imitation of the practice of Gregory Thaumaturgus whom Nyssen commends for changing the Heathen Festivals into Christian the better to draw the Heathens to Christianity which seemed a very plausible pretence but was attended with very bad success when Christianity came to be by this means but Reformed Paganism as to the matter of divine worship This same principle in all probability brought the Pictures of Martyrs and others into the Churches of Italy of which Prudentius and Paulinus speak and this latter confesseth it was a rare custome in his time to have Pictures in Churches pingere sanctas Raro more domos and thought it necessary to make an Apology for it which he doth by saying he looked on this as a good means to draw the rude and barbarous people from their Heathen Customes changing the pleasure of pictures for that of drinking at the Sepulchres of Martyrs but there is not the least intimation of any worship then given to them 3. After that the Use of Images had prevailed both in the Eastern and Western parts men came by degrees to the worship of them which is the third Period observable in this Controversie As to which there are these things remarkable 1. That it began first among the ignorant and superstitious people of whom S. Augustin speaks in his time that they were the worshippers of pictures and afterwards in the Epistle of Gregorius M. to Serenus Bishop of Marseilles it is observable that the people began to worship the Images in Churches in perfect opposition to Serenus their Bishop who was so much displeased at it that he demolished them and brake them in pieces which act of his so exasperated them that they separated from his Communion The news of this coming to Rome probably from some of these Schismaticks who alwayes loved to take Sanctuary in Rome and appeal thither against their Bishops the Pope writes to the Bishop about it by one Cyriacus he slights the Popes Letters as if he could not believe they were written by him Gregory being nettled at this writes again to him and reproves him for breaking down the Images but commends him for not allowing the worship of them So that we find the first beginning of the worship of Images in these Western parts to have been by the folly and superstition of the People expresly against the Will of their own Bishop and the Bishop of Rome Bellarmin saith that Gregory only reproved the Superstitious worship of Images i. e. that by which they are worshipped as Gods Which is a desperate shift in a bad Cause For if Gregory had intended any kind of worship to be given to Images could he not have expressed it himself He speaks plain enough about this matter in all other things why did he not in distinguishing what worship was to be given to Images and what not We praised you saith he that you forbad the worship of Images so adorari must be rendred and not according to the modern sense of Romish Authors who would against all sense and reason appropriate that word to Soveraign Worship but we reprehended you for breaking them It is one thing to worship an Image and another thing to learn by it what is to be worshipped That ought not to be broken down which was set up in Churches not to be worshipped but Only to instruct the minds of the Ignorant Would any man of common sense have said this that did allow any worship of Images Would Bellarmin or T.G. or any that embrace the second Nicene and Tridentine Council have said that Images are set up in Churches ad instruendas solummodo mentes nescientium only to instruct the ignorant Nay Gregory goes yet farther and tells Serenus he ought to call his People together and shew them from Scripture that it is not lawful to worship the Work of mens hands because it is written Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve Which very place Anastasius Bishop of Theopolis in his Epistle produced in the second Nicene Council thus expounds Mark saith he only is joyned to serve and not to worship adorare quidem licet servire nequaquam saith the Latin Translation there worship of other things is lawful but not the service which is directly contrary to what Gregory saith who makes the worship of any other thing unlawful from these words and to conclude all Gregory saith forbid not those who would make Images adorare verò Imagines modis omnibus devita but by all means avoid the worship of them What! no kind of worship to be allowed them no distinction of an inferiour honorary relative worship no not the least tittle tending that way But our Adversaries run from this Epistle to another to Secundinus to help them out where they say Gregory approves the worship of Images to which no other answer is needful than that all that passage is wanting in the Ancient M S. as Dr. Iames hath attested upon a diligent examination of them and however ought to be interpreted according to his deliberate sentence in the Epistle to Serenus where he not only delivers his judgement but backs it with the strongest Reason 2. That the worship of Images no sooner prevailed but it was objected against the Christians by the Iews and Gentiles Thus it appears in the Apology of Leontius Bishop of Neapolis in Cyprus written against the Iews and read in the second Nicene Council
respect to those whom he utterly disowned Nay the Prophet Hosea saith that God was still the Holy one in the midst of Ephraim and How shall I give thee up Ephraim how shall I deliver thee Israel Which shews God had not yet discarded them and afterwards he saith to Israel Return unto the Lord thy God and Amos saith prepare to meet thy God O Israel and both he and Micah call them still Gods people From whence it is evident that they were still a true Church notwithstanding the Idolatry of Ieroboam 2. Supposing a Church to continue a True Church what reason can there be to question the Authority of that Church as to the consecration of Bishops or the ordination of Priests I have formerly shewed that no Act of Ordination is invalid in case of any heresie or Crime of the Giver and that the contrary doctrine is condemned for heresie by the Church I now shall particularly shew that the Power of giving Orders is not taken away by the guilt of Idolatry which I prove from the case of the Arian Bishops I have at large made it manifest that the Arians were condemned for Idolatry by the consent of the Fathers of greatest reputation S. Athanasius S. Basil S. Gregory Nazianzen Nyssen Epiphanius S. Chrysostom S. Ambrose S. Augustin c. And the second Nicene Council saith that the Catholick Church looked on them as Idolaters Now if I can make it appear that the Arian Ordinations were allowed I shall put this matter past dispute that the charge of Idolatry doth not null the Ordinations of our Church as being derived from those who were guilty of Idolatry For this purpose the second Nicene Council affords us plentiful assistance in the First Session wherein Peter the Popes Vicar declares that Meletius was ordained by Arian Bishops and yet his Ordination was never questioned and this was received by the Council as true Epiphanius Socrates and Sozomon all agree that Meletius received his Consecration from the Arian Faction and Epiphanius saith he had it from the hands of Acacius Bishop of Caesarea the worst of all the Arians saith Baronius Socrates and Sozomen do seem to imply that the followers of Eustathius at Antioch would not joyn with Meletius and his party though both consenting in the Nicene Creed because of his ordination by the Arian faction and the peoples being baptized by Arian Priests but Theodoret mentions no such thing and saith the first breach began there when Meletius was banished by the Arian party and Euzoius the Arian was made Bishop of Antioch and Baronius makes the Schism to begin from the ordination of Paulinus by Lucifer Caralitanus however this were we never find the Ordination of Meletius disputed by the Catholick Bishops and when S. Athanasius writes a Synodical Epistle to those of Antioch to compose the differences among them upon the ordination of Paulinus he gives this direction to the other Catholick Christians concerning Meletius his party who met 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so the place of their meeting was called being in the old City which the interpreter of Athanasius renders in veteris Ecclesiae communione that they should receive those who came to them from the Arians without requiring any more from them than the renouncing Arianism and subscribing or owning the Nicene Creed Whereby the Arian Baptism and Orders were allowed But we have a fuller Testimony of the general sense of the Church of that Age as to this matter of the Arian Ordinations Ruffinus saith that when the Catholick Bishops were returned from banishment several of them met together at Alexandria to consult what was to be done with those who had received Orders from the Arian Bishops and after consultation about it it was decreed in Council that only the Heads of the party should be rejected but others received to the exercise of their Priestly Office upon which Asterius was dispatched into the Eastern parts to settle the Churches there and Eusebius into the Western but he returning to Antioch found that Lucifer in the mean time had broken his promise in the Consecration of Paulinus and Eusebius therefore would not own him as Bishop which so enraged Lucifer that he quarrelled with the decree of the Alexandrian Council about receiving the Arian Bishops and Priests upon disowning their Heresie And so the Luciferian Schism began for the followers of Lucifer charged the Catholick Church with being the Synagogue of Antichrist for receiving the Arian Bishops as appears by S. Hierom for they yielded to the receiving the penitent Laity but not the Clergy allowing the Arian Baptism but not their Ordinations upon which S. Hierom triumphs over them And he saith that eight Arian Bishops were received in the Council of Nice although their Arianism were declared before and that the decree of the Alexandrian Council was universally received by the Church which is as ample a Testimony to our purpose as can be desired Next to contradictions T. G. charges me with maintaining strange Paradoxes which he puts into the Title of one of his Chapters in these words A strange Paradox advanced by Dr. St. What can an Image do to the heightning of Devotion or raising affections Not finding my self to be any great lover of Paradoxes but of plain and useful Truths I was the more curious to find out what Paradox it was I had broached And searching for the place I found these words And can any one imagine there should be greater irreverence of God shewn in calling him to witness upon every slight occasion than there is in bowing down before a block or a hewen stone representing God to my mind by it What can SUCH an Image do to the heightening of devotion or raising affections This is the monstrous Paradox advanced by me viz. that such a gross representation of God by an Image doth tend more to abate than raise our estimation of him which is so far from being a Paradox that I have herein the consent not only of the ancient Fathers but of the greatest Patrons of Images in the Eastern and Western Churches till the latter times as I have shewed already But T. G. sets himself very industriously to prove that Pictures have an advantage in representation above living Creatures which he doth with great force of wit and strength of Reason because Ladies sit sometimes to make Madonna 's by for their Pictures and Authors Pictures are set before their Books it is pitty we want our Authors on so just an occasion and men keep the Pictures of their Friends and Sign-posts are very useful in London streets and may suggest many good meditations to men as the three Nuns or the like but to hold the contrary opinion is the way to undo the company of Picture-drawers which would be a great unkindness to all ingenious Artists but the most dismal consequence of my doctrine is that the Ladies
in regno à Deo nobis concesso Catholicis gregibus praelatorum and Bellarmin and Baronius both grant That this Book contains the Acts of the Council of Francford However if the Book were extant before under the name of Charles it is so much the more improbable that if the Council differed in opinion from it the Excerpta out of this Book should be sent as the Reasons of rejecting the Nicene Synod And that passage which Hincmarus cites out of this Book is very considerable to our purpose for the design of it is to shew That the Greek Synod could have no pretence to be esteemed a lawful General Council because the doctrine of it was not Catholick neither were the Acts of it done by the universal Church and in another place That Synod is charged with folly and presumption in that being but one part of the Church it should dare to impose its Decrees upon the Church without advising and consulting with the other parts of it debuerat enim ad circumjacentium provinciarum Ecclesias legationem sciscitativam facere utrum imagines adorari aut non adorari deberent For what Rage and Madness is this for the Church of one part to go about to determine that which was never determined by the Apostles or their Successors and to endeavour to Anathematize the Churches of the whole World But this is cursing without reason anger without Power damning without Authority and therefore they are charged with no less than Luciferian pride for taking upon them to pronounce Anathema's against those who dissented from them Petavius saith That when Pope Hadrian sent the Acts of the Council to Charles the Great and would have a Council called to advise about it the Pope had not yet declared it for an Oecumenical Council but if it were not then declared to be a General Council it is very unlikely he should do it afterwards when he found that three hundred Bishops of Germany France and Italy saith Surius did so stiffly and resolutely oppose the definition of it in spight of the Popes Legats who were present there Which contradiction of theirs shews how very far this Council was from being received by the Church as a lawful General Council and from the Answer of Hadrian it appears that it was not then solemnly confirmed by the Pope nor ever after that we can find till the Council of Trent 2. We have the Testimony of the best Historians of that and several Ages after that the Nicene Synod was not received as a lawful General Council In the Annals of Eginhardus who was Secretary to Charles the Great we have this Account that not many years before the Council of Francford there was a Synod at Constantinople which was called by themselves not only the seventh but a General Council but Charles having summoned together a Council of Bishops out of all parts of his dominions it was there utterly rejected so as not to be called or thought to be either the seventh or a General Council The Annales Tiliani Loiseliani Bertiniani Fuldenses Metenses Laurishamenses Massianenses Egraismenses being the best Records of that Age all agree with Eginhardus in the rejecting of the Greek Synod and most of them call it the false Synod others say that which would be called the seventh and a General Council and with these agree Ado Viennensis Rhegino Hermannus Contratus and Urspergensis in their several Chronicles wherein we have a plainer Testimony that this Council was rejected than we have that any General Council was ever received 3. That this was not barely the sense of that Age but continued to be so of succeeding Ages appears from the Testimony I gave of the Gallican Church in the time of Ludovicus Pius and the Synod of Paris A. D. 824. wherein they persisted in condemning the Nicene Synod and the doctrine therein asserted which shews evidently that it was no mistake of the Words of the Council which caused the Council of Francford to condemn the Nicene for Pope Hadrian had now written in Vindication of it and endeavoured to clear the sense of the Council and yet after all this the Gallican Bishops adhered to the sentence of the Council of Francford To this T. G. returns only this answer that although they were of this opinion at that time yet afterwards the doctrine of the Nicene Council was received in the Gallican Church I proceed therefore to shew that in the time of the Controversie between Ionas Aurelianensis and Claudius Taurinensis the Gallican Church had not changed its opinion Ionas lived saith Labbé to A. D. 842. For Bellarmin yields that Jonas denied that any worship was to be given to Images although he disputed against Claudius Taurinensis who followed the opinion of Serenus and would have them all destroyed Marg. de la Bigne saith that Jonas was one of the Heads of those who opposed the Pope and the Orientals i. e. the Nicene Synod in this point of the worship of Images and he calls it a superstitious and pernicious practice from which the Gallican Church was free and a detestable and most wicked errour notwithstanding the Orientals pretended that they did not worship the Images but the exemplars by them and he prays God they may be at last delivered out of that superstition with so much more to that purpose that it were endless to repeat it Walafridus Strabo who lived some years after Ionas and mentions the death of Ludovicus Pius is yielded by Baronius to have been of the same opinion with Jonas in this matter and he saith all the honour due to Images is barely negative not to misuse or destroy them In the same time with Ionas lived Agobardus Archbishop of Lions and is at this day reckoned among the Saints and Confessours of that City of whose doctrine I had given before an account from the abstract of Papirius Massonus and from thence I shewed how zealous he was against all worship of Images and I produced the Testimony of Baluzius to shew that he said no more than the whole Gallican Church in that Age believed T. G. gives up Agobardus but he will not yield that Baluzius saith any such thing for the French Bishops allowed Images to be kept saith Baluzius that the faithful seeing them might be excited to the imitation of those holy persons whom they represented whereas Agobardus went so far as to affirm that they were kept for ornaments to delight the eyes but not for the instruction of the People nay that they were not to be painted upon Church walls The words of Baluzius are Ego crediderim Agobardum scripsisse quod omnes tum in Galliâ sentiebant and what sense can any man make of these words if he did not believe that what Agobardus wrote was the sense of the Gallican Church I cannot but pity T. G. in these straights he runs himself into he can creep in at a
Mouse-hole but he soon grows too big ever to get out again For Baluzius saith what I affirmed and Agobardus saith no such thing as he affirms of him and in that very Synopsis of his doctrine by Massonus to which he referrs we have just the contrary Picturae aspectandae causâ historiae memoriae non Religionis Images are to be looked on for history and memory sake but not for Religion and what is this but for instruction of the people Whosoever it was that helped T. G. to this citation I desire him as a Friend that he will never trust him more for I would think better of T. G. himself than that he would wilfully prevaricare But if this were Agobardus his opinion why have we it not in his own words rather than those of Pap. Massonus who talks so ignorantly and inconsistently in that very place where those words are but are not set down by him as the judgement of Agobardus If T. G. would have taken no great pains to have read over Agobardus his discourse of Images he would have saved me the labour of confuting him about his opinion for he delivers it plainly enough against all worship of Images though for the sake of the Exemplar but he expresly allows them for instruction I am sorry T. G. makes it so necessary for me to give him such home-thrusts for he lays himself so open and uses so little art to avoid them that I must either do nothing or expose his weakness and want of skill But all this while we are got no farther than towards the middle of the ninth Century the Church of France might change its opinion after this time and assert the Council of Nice to have been a General Council and submit to the Decrees of it I grant all this to be possible but we are looking for certainties and not bare possibilities Hincmarus of Rhemes a stout and understanding Bishop of the Gallican Church died saith Bellarmin A. D. 882. and he not only calls the Nicene Synod a false General Council but he makes that at Francford to be truly so And these latter words of his are cited with approbation by Card. Cusanus and he condemns both Factions among the Greeks of the Iconoclasts and of the Nicene Fathers In the same Age lived Anastasius Bibliothecarius who made it his business to recommend all the Greek Canons and Councils to the Latin Church he was alive saith Baronius A. D. 886. He first translated the eighth General Council at which himself was present and when this was abroad he tells the Pope what a soloecism it would be to have the eighth without a seventh ubi septima non habetur are his very words from whence it appears in how very little Regard that Council was in the Western Church It is true he saith it was translated before but it was almost by all so much contemned that it was so far from being transcribed that it was not thought worth reading This he would have to be laid upon the badness of the translation he hath mended the matter much when in his Lives of the Popes he saith it was done by the particular Command of Pope Hadrian and laid up in his Sacred Library But when he hath said his utmost for the Catholick doctrine of Image-worship as he would have it believed he cannot deny that the admirable usefulness of this doctrine was not yet revealed to some of the Gallican Church because they said it was not lawful to worship the Work of mens Hands After this time came on the Midnight of the Church wherein the very names of Councils were forgotten and men did only dream of what had past but all things were judged good that were got into any vogue in the practice of the Church yet even in that time we meet with some glitterings of light enough to let us see the Council of Nice had not prevailed over the Western Church Leo Tuscus who was a Secretary to the Greek Emperour and lived saith Gesner A. D. 1170. giving an account of the Schism between the Greek and Latin Churches hath these words saith Cassander that among the Causes of the Breach that Synod was to be assigned which was called by Constantine and Irene and which they would have called the seventh and a General Council and he adds moreover that it was not received even by the Church of Rome About the year 1189. was the Expedition into Palestine by Fredericus Aenobarbus and Nicetas Acominatus who was a great Officer under the Greek Emperour Isacius Angelus and present in the Army saith Baronius gives this account of the Germans opinion in those times about the worship of Images When saith he all the Greeks had deserted Philippopolis the Armenians staid behind for they looked on the Germans as their Friends and agreeing with them in Religion for the worship of Images is forbidden among both of them Which being a Testimony of so considerable a Person and not barely concerning the opinion of some Divines but the general practice of the people doth shew that in the twelfth Century the Necene Council had not prevailed all over the Western Church when T. G. affirms it did for many hundreds of years before the Reformation Especially if we consider what the judgement and practice of the Armenians was as it is delivered by Nicon who is supposed to have been a Saint and Martyr in Armenia who saith that they do not worship Images and their Catholick Bishop or Patriarch excommunicates those that do Which is confirmed by what is said to the same purpose by Isaac an Armenian Bishop who lived in the same Century viz. that they do not Worship the Images either of Christ the B. Virgin or the Saints And Pet. Pithaeus a learned and ingenuous Papist confesses that it was but very lately that those of the Gallican Church began to be fond of Images and he writ that Epistle wherein those words are extant A. D. 1568. Surely he did not think the doctrine of the Nicene Council had been received in the Gallican Church for many hundred years But suppose the Nicene Synod were not owned for a General Council yet it might be very wise and judicious Assembly to say that is to reflect on the Emperour Charles the Great and all the Western Bishops in his Dominions And I am sure their expressions would justifie me if I had spoken sharper without an Irony for in the Caroline Book we frequently meet with such expressions as these concerning those grave Fathers ut illi stultissimè irrationabilitèr putant indoctè inordinatè dicunt quam absurdè agant quod magnae sit temeritatis dicere quod non minus omnibus sed pene plus cunctis Tharasius delirasse dignoscitur Deliramento plena dictio Leonis Ut illi delirant ut illi garriunt Ridiculosè pueriliter dictum infaustè praecipitantèr sive insipienter dementia
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
For saith he if all the dispute had been only about a condition exciting men to adoration it could not have come into mens heads to have said that because Images were dead and inanimate things they could not be a meer Physical condition of adoration which is all that Durandus allows them Is any man so sensless to say that because words are inanimate things therefore they ought not to be excited to the worship of God at the hearing of them and the case is the same of the representation made by the eye or by the ear But when they denyed the lawfulness of the worship of them they spake of true and real worship which is immediately carried to the Images themselves and for this they made use of an argument which hath an appearance of Truth viz. that Images being dead things have no excellency to deserve any real worship from us From whence it follows that when the Fathers condemned these hereticks they did not determine that they might be used as a condition of worship but that true and real worship was to be given to them Cardinal Lugo saith that to the worship of Images it is not only necessary that the external act be performed to the Image of kissing or bowing c. but there must be an inward affection too which implyes submission For saith he worship as all agree is an expression of submission to the thing worshipped and it would be ridiculous to say that Peter is worshipped by that token of submission which I shew to Paul therefore to the worship of the Image the outward act must express the inward submission of the mind to it or else we must deny the common definition of adoration and make a new one And this he afterwards proves to have been the definition of the second Council of Nice who did decree that true and real worship is to be given to Images as they are distinct from the exemplar according to every thing that is required to the Nature of Worship Thus I have fully proved from the Acts of the Council and the judgement of so many of the most learned and eminent Divines of the Roman Church that by the Decree of the Nicene Council such true and real worship is to be given to Images as is terminated upon the Images themselves 2. We are now to equire what kind of worship that was which the second Council of Nice did give to Images which will appear by shewing these two things 1. That the worship required was higher than meer reverence 2. That it was lower than Latria 1. That it was higher than meer reverence T. G. would insinuate that all the worship required by the Nicene Council was no more than the Reverence shewed to the Books of the Holy Gospels or the sacred Utensils of the Altar for which he quotes the definition of the Council wherein those things are joyned together And so they are in Hadrians epistle extant in the Council in the Latin translation for the Greek hath another sense and in Damascens oration but to clear yet farther the State of the Question I shall shew 1. The difference between the Reverence of these things and the Worship of Images 2. That the Council of Nice did put a difference between them 1. For the difference between the Reverence of these things and the worship of Images Although no irrational or inanimate being be capable of that real excellency to deserve any honour from us for its own sake as Aquinas determines yet such things may have a relation to matters of so high a nature as to deserve a different usage and regard from other things as the Vessels of the Church or the Chalices are not to be used for common drinking which peculiarity of the use of such things is that degree of honour which belongs to them on the account of their being dedicated to sacred purposes So S. Augustin saith of the sacred Vessels that they are consecrated and do become holy by their Use being separated from common service and devoted to the ministry of holy things but he doth plainly distinguish the respect shewn to them from the worship of Images for a little before he speaks of such who did worship or pray looking upon an Image and that those who did so did behave themselves as if they expected to be heard by the Image but do we pray to the sacred Utensils because we make use of them in our prayers to God Little did S. Austin think that praying looking upon Images and the Reverence shewed to sacred Vessels on the account of their use should have been ranked together He that prays looking upon an Image doth either direct his adoration to the Image or to the Person represented by the Image as if he were actually present and this is the true reason of the worship of Images but no man can pretend this as to the Reverence of Holy things because all their holiness consists in a bare extrinsecal denomination which affords no reason for any more than such an esteem as belongs to sacred Things and not for any act of worship to be done to them They who make the Images themselves to be the material object or term of adoration do yet say that the formal reason of that worship is to be taken from the object represented others say that the thing represented and the Image are worshipped with the same act of adoration but both sorts do make the representation in an Image to be the ground and reason of the worship given to it Why then should those things which do not represent be worshipped as those that do Are not Images appointed by the Definition of the Nicene Council to be set up in Churches and in High wayes on purpose for worship Are they not formed and set forth with all advantages to allure men to the worship of them And after all this is no more meant by their worship than by the Reverence of Holy things which are designed for a peculiar use and serve for other ends than to be worshipped by us If Images were set up in Churches only for memory and instruction and were as much appointed by God to inform us of his Will as the Holy Scriptures are there were some colour of shewing a like regard to them as to the Holy Bible but it is quite otherwise they were never appointed for that purpose they are uncapable of doing it and are set up for adoration and yet can the same men who commanded their worship have any pretence for making the Reverence to the Bible and the worship of Images to be alike Besides all this is there no difference between a Religious respect if I may so call it to sacred places and things and all the most solemn Acts of adoration which were ever given to Images by the greatest Idolaters such as kneelings before them prostrations praying with their eyes fixed upon them as though they were speaking to them
no Image is to be worshipped for any sanctity or vertue in it self but only for the sake of the object represented otherwise it would be Idolatry Gabriel Biel likewise agrees that the Images of Christ which represent him are to be worshipped with Latria but he found out the distinction of a twofold Latria 1. Proper Latria which is the worship given to Christ as the object represented upon the sight of an Image of him and this is not terminated on the Image but the exemplar 2. Improper or analogical Latria which is the worship of the Image as it represents so that to the same external act of worship he makes two internal acts whereof one is terminated on the Image the other on the Prototype Thomas Waldensis saith that the Images considered in themselves deserve no worship at all but considered in relation to a higher Being and in regard of their representation so they deserve to be worshipped and if the mind passes from the Image to the thing represented then he saith the Image and the Prototype are worshipped with the same act which must be Latria as to the Image of Christ but the Latria condemned by the Nicene Council he would have to be the worshipping the Images themselves for Gods which the Heathens themselves as appears by the Acts of that Synod utterly denyed that they did in the discourse of Iohn of Thessalonica We worship not saith the Heathen the Images but through them the Spiritual Powers Angelus de Clavasio declares that the Image of Christ is to be worshipped with Latria as well as himself and that the Cross whereon Christ was Crucified was to be worshipped with Latria both on the account of representation and contact therefore saith he we speak and pray to the Cross as to Christ himself The same is said by Bartholomaus Fumus who was a Dominican as the other a Franciscan whereby we see it was no opinion peculiar to the Dominican order on the account of the authority of Thomas and by Dionysius the Carthusian as well as Antoninus the Dominican Franciscus Ferrariensis saith that when Latria is appropriated to God it is be understood primò per se primarily and for its own sake but if it be understood only secondarily and for anothers sakes then saith he Latria may be given to an Image of Christ for considering the Image as an Image it is worshipped with the same act by which the Person represented is and therefore since Latria is due to Christ it must be so to the Image of Christ and he answers all the arguments of Durandus Holcot and Mirandula by the help of the former distinction as he might have done a hundred more and he asserts that the Image and the object represented make together one total object of adoration whereof one part is the Reason why the worship is terminated on the other and that the act of adoration whereby God and the Image are worshipped together cannot be Latria in respect of one and an inferiour worship in respect of the other because both the internal and external acts are such wherein the worship of Latria doth properly consist and to shew this to be the Catholick doctrine he proves it from the practice of the Catholick Church which makes genuflections prostrations supplications and other acts of Latria to the Cross. Which was the true Reason of introducing this doctrine of Latria to Images contrary to the Definition of the Nicene Council because they saw the constant practice of the Church in the Worship of the Cross could not be justified upon other grounds The Church never owning any Prosopopoeia but expressing its devotions to the Cross as really distinct from although representing the Person of Christ. Card. Cajetan saith that the act of worship towards the Image of Christ is truly and properly terminated on the Image not in regard either of its matter or Form but as it performs the Office of an Image So that Christ himself is the Reason of the worship of the Image and his being in the Image is the condition by which the Reason of worship doth excite men to worship and terminate it But since Christ is not asserted to be really and Personally in the Image but only by representation Cajetan ought to have shewn that an union by meer Imagination between Christ and the Image is a sufficient condition for performing those acts of worship to the Image which properly belong to God alone which he hath not undertaken but he shews against Durandus that if the Image of Christ were only worshipped as it puts us in mind of Christ then any other thing which puts us in mind of him might be worshipped as well as an Image And the Practice of the Church shews that it doth not worship the Cross as a memorative sign but because the Image of Christ is to be worshipped with Latria therefore it worships it Thus we see what the judgement of the most eminent and learned Divines of the Roman Church was concerning giving the worship of Latria to Images before the Council of Trent and upon what that judgement was founded viz. the practice of the Roman Church in the worship of the Cross. Let us now see whether this matter hath been otherwise determined by the Council of Trent and whether the contrary opinion hath obtained since That wary Council knowing very well the practice of their Church and the opinion of Divines only determines due honour and veneration to be given to Images not for the sake of any Divinity or power inherent in them for which they are to be worshipped or that any thing is to be asked of them or that Trust is to be put in the Images as it was of old by the Heathens who placed their hope in Idols but because the honour which is done to them is referred to the Prototypes which they represent so that by the Images which we kiss and before which we uncover our heads and fall down we adore Christ and worship the Saints which they represent Which hath been already decreed by Councils against the opposers of Images especially the second Nicene Synod Where we observe these things 1. That all external Acts of Adoration are allowed to be done to Images even the very same which were to be done to the Person of Christ if he were actually present are to be done to his Image to adore him thereby 2. That there is not the least intimation against giving the same kind and degree of worship to the Image which is given to Christ himself And since the Council allows no proper vertue in the Image for which it should be worshipped but takes all from the representation and supposes the honour to pass to the Prototype Vasquez thinks it is very evident that the sense of the Council was that the Image and the Exemplar were to be worshipped with the same Act of adoration which as to the
be none to understanding men but only to the rude and ignorant people that cannot so easily apprehend God in His Creatures as in an Image and withall it would savour of Heathen superstition But it were well they would consider the Answer they give us in this case when we urge the same argument against the worship of Images Hold say they a meer scandal is no reason to take away the use of a thing if it be such as doth not arise from the nature of the thing but only by accident through the malice or ignorance of the Persons So that in this case nothing is wanting but well instructing the People and upon their principles of worship they may revive the worship of the Host of Heaven the Fire and Water and Trees and the Earth it self and it is but conquering a little squeamishness of stomach at first the very Tail of the Ass on which our Savioâ—r rode will go down with them And now I leave the Reader to judge which of us two is guilty of the greater Paradoxes I now come to the great rock of offence the second Council of Nice which he saith I most irreverently call that wise Synod upon which he falls into a very Tragical exclamation that I should dare to reflect so much dishonour on a Council wherein there were 350. Fathers with the Popes Legats and the Vicars of the Oriental Patriarchal Sees and yet himself calls the Council of Constantinople a Conventicle wherein there were 338. Bishops and doth he think the number of twelve more in one than in the other makes such a huge difference in point of Wisdom But the Author of the Caroline Book saith That by their own confession they were but 306. And the Council of Francford which opposed this and of which T. G. speaks not very honourably as I shall make appear consisted of about â—00 Bishops by the confessions of their own Writers so that if number carries it I have above 600. Bishops of my side and if they were wise the Nicene Council was not so It is therefore in T. G's choice to call 300. or 600. Bishops Fools But if he be guilty of the same fault that doth not excuse me for speaking so Ironically of so lawful so general so judicious a Council as that at Nice was and therefore he adviseth me to recant and to follow the example of Gregory of Neocaelarea I hope he doth not mean in the way of S. German although one of that name was a great Patron of Images about that time But if this Council were neither so lawful so general nor so judicious as T. G. pretends for all that I know the Rector of a Parochial Church never to be found in the list of any General Council which is a shrewd aggravation of my fault may have leave to call the Second Council of Nice a wise Synod 1. I shall enquire whether this were a lawful General Council and so received by the Church There are three things T. G. insists on to make this out 1. That it was called by the Popes Authority which he knows we deny to be sufficient to make a lawful General Council for then every Assembly of Bishops at Rome called by the Pope would be a General Council 2. The consent and presence of the Patriarchs 3. That it hath been received as such by the Church But I shall make it appear that it was just such another General Council as that of Trent was and managed with as much fraud and collusion and that it was not received by the Church as a General Council 1. As to the presence and consent of the Patriarchs this Council in their Synodical Epistle boast that they had the concurrence of East West North and South Which is such an extravagance that no sober men would have been guilty of that had any regard to Truth or Honesty or did in the least consider the State of the World at that time The Western Bishops were never so much as summon'd the Patriarch of Ierusalem was dead the Eastern Patriarch and the Patriarch of Alexandria were neither in condition to appear themselves nor to send Legats thither which Baronius ingenuously confesseth Because Aaron who was then Chaliph of the Saracens was a great enemy to the Christians under whose dominion at that time they were Although Christianus Lupus a Professor of Divinity at Lovain makes him a great Friend to the Christians in Egypt which is not only contrary to Baronius but to the Synodical Epistle the two Monks carried to the Council from the Monks of Palestine and was read and approved by the Council Theophanes saith That the Empress and Patriarch both sent to the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch while the Peace continued but soon after upon Aaron 's being made Chaliph the peace was broke and there was no liberty for the Patriarchs either to go or send But do we not read in the Acts of the Council that John appeared and subscribed as Vicar of the Oriental Patriarchs and Thomas as Vicar of the Patriarch of Alexandria Very true but Baronius gives an excellent account of this notorious cheat The Legats that were sent to the Patriarchs did never arrive at Antioch or Alexandria but coming into Palestine they there understood what a grievous persecution the Christians suffered under the new Chaliph and that if it should be discovered what errand they went upon it would not only hazzard their own lives but of all the Christians of those parts therefore they forbore going any farther and acquainted the Monks of Palestine with their design who met together and took upon them to send these two John and Thomas as the Legats of the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria For Theodorus Patriarch of Ierusalem was lately dead And these two were the goodly Vicars of the Patriarchal See 's which sate and subscribed in their names in this most Oecumenical Council and passed in all the Acts of it for the Legats of the Oriental Patriarchs For they subscribe themselves Legats of the three Apostolical Sees Alexandria Antioch and Jerusalem and yet the summons never came to either of the Patriarchs but they were in truth only the Plenipotentiary Monks of the Patriarchal Monks of Palestine So both Baronius and Binius confess they were only the Monks that sent them and they call themselves Eremites in the beginning of their Epistle and yet in the Acts of that Council they pass for very great men of the East and Euthymius Bishop of Sardis calls them the Patriarchs of the East and Epiphanius takes it for granted that the Letters were sent by the very same to whom Tarasius directed his when the very Letters themselves which were read in the Council shew that the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria were never consulted with And yet Christianus Lupus in his late Notes on the Canons of the General Councils very fairly tells a formal story of
Politian Patriarch of Alexandria and Theodoret of Antioch and Elias of Ierusalem sending these for their Legats to this Council I had thought it had been only the Popes Prerogative to make titular Patriarchs and he gravely magnifies the zeal and courage both of the Patriarchs and Legats for venturing so much in such a time of Persecution and then falls into a mighty Encomium of the two Legats that Tarasius sent for venturing through a thousand deaths to get to the Patriarchs when God knows they never came near them But which is far more to be wondred at Pope Adrian in his Answer to Charles the Great about the Nicene Synod had the face to say That the Synodical Epistle of the three Patriarchs of Cosmus of Alexandria and of Theodore of Antioch it seems Elias is turned to Theodore again and Theodore of Ierusalem was read and approved in this Council of Nice than which with his Holiness's leave there never was a more notorious falshood unless it were that of Tarasius who upon the approbation of these Letters of the Monks cry'd out That the East and the West the North and the South were all agreed and the whole Council followed this with an acclamation of Glory be to God that hath united us when the Eastern Patriarchs knew nothing of the Council the Western Bishops opposed it as soon as ever they knew it And was not this a very hopeful General Council having as T. G. saith The Popes Legats for Presidents and the Vicars of the Oriental Patriarchal Sees assisting in it 2. That it was not received for a General Council by the Church For even in the Greek Church it self Theophanes only saith That the Emperour called together all the Bishops within his own Dominions which is said likewise by Landulphus Sagax only Theophanes would have it believed that the Oriental Patriarchs sent their Legats which was very false as not only appears from the very Acts of the Council wherein the Monks Letter is inserted but because this Council was not received many years after in those Patriarchal Sees which is evident from Photius his Encyclical Epistle to the Patriarch of Alexandria and others not long since published in Greek from a Ms. brought out of the East wherein Photius expostulates the case why the Nicene Council was not received among them as the six General Councils were In that Copy which is extant in Baronius translated by Metius and with great diligence compared with two Mss. whereof one was a very ancient one it is said expresly That it was reported among them that none of the Churches under the Apostolical See of Alexandria did own the Nicene Synod for a General Council which in B. Montagues Copy is mitigated into some but by the tenour of his Discourse it appears it was not published in their Churches nor received among them as a General Council and he useth many arguments to perswade them to it among the rest he saith That Thomas was present in it from his See and others with him but he doth not say he came as Legate And he hath found out Companions for him too which is more than the Nicene Council discovered and yet he acknowledges that by reason of the persecution of the Saracens the Acts of that Council never came to them which would be very strange if the Patriarch of Alexandria sent a Legate thither Baronius ingenuously confesses that this Nicene Council was not received as an Occumenical Council in any of the Eastern Patriarchates excepting only that of Constantinople and he is very hard put to it to prove that it was owned as such even at Rome it self because Nicholaus 1. in a Council at Rome in the cause of Photius reckons up but six General Councils which Photius upbraids him with and it is but a pitiful pretence which Baronius hath for it viz. that they had only a bad Translation of it such a one as it was it was of Hadrians procuring as Anastasius saith If they had received it as a General Council where were the Authentick Acts of it or if they did not understand Greek could they not have procured a better Latine Translation before the time of Anastasius But the plain Truth was although Pope Hadrian joined with it and would not allow Tarasius his being Patriarch till he undertook to get the worship of Images confirmed yet the Nicene Council was so very ill received in the Western Church that the following Popes were ashamed to call it an Oecumenical Council as Binius confesses in the very words of Baronius according to his custom And long after their times it was so little known or esteemed in the Western parts that Aquinas and the ancient Schoolmen never mention it in the matter of Images but determine expresly against it Which either shews it was not known or had not any value put upon it For if Baronius his reason hold good as soon as Anastasius had finished his Translation this Council would have been as much known here as any other and so much the more because so many Schoolmen were concerned to justifie the worship of Images and they were so much to seek for arguments to defend it that they would have leaped for joy to have had a Decree of an allowed General Council on their side or if they had found it against them they would some way or other have answered it But the greatest Testimony against it is the Council of Francford which expresly condemned it and as Sirmondus confesses Did not look upon it as an Oecumenial Council because none but Greeks met in it and other Churches were not asked their opinion nay he saith that Pope Hadrian himself did not give it the title of a General Council To this T. G. answers That what weight soever that Exception carried at that time yet it is certain now it hath no force at all since the Council it self hath for many hundreds of years been accepted as a true and lawful General Council and its doctrine as Catholick by all the Provinces of Christendom and the contrary to it condemned for Heresie This latter is evidently false as I have shewed before and there is no reason for the other for by the confession of their own Writers the Copies of this Nicene Council lay buried in these Western parts for many Ages which is the reason they give why the Schoolmen take no notice of it and in the former Century the Copies of it were first published from some Mss. that were very little known The account whereof was that this Council meeting with so brisk an opposition from the Council of Francford and afterwards from the Gallican Bishops and being rejected here in England by the consent of our Historians the very name of it was almost quite forgotten thence it never was once cited either by Ionas Aurelianensis or Walafridus Strabo as Spalatensis observes when they had 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
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
altitonantis and from thence it was applyed to any place consecrated by the Augurs and so by degrees was taken for any sacred place that was set apart for divine worship for that was it which made them sacred sacra sunt loca saith Isidore divinis cultibus instituta Either therefore they must say there is no proper worship of God but Sacrifice or the notion of a Temple cannot be said only to refer to Sacrifice And among the Iews our B. Saviour hath told us that the Temple had relation to prayer as well as Sacrifice My House shall be called a House of Prayer Would it not have been a pleasant distinction among the Iews if any of them had dedicated a Temple to Abraham with a design to invocate him there and make him the Patron of it for them to have said they built it as a Temple to God but as a Basilica to Abraham for they sacrificed there only to God or to God for the honour of Abraham but they invocated Abraham as the particular Patron of it This is that therefore we charge them with upon their own principles that when they dedicate Churches to particular Saints as the Patrons of them and in order to the solemn invocation of them there they do apply that which themselves confess to be an appropriate sign of divine worship to Creatures and consequently by their own confession are guilty of Idolatry Neither can it be pleaded by them that their Churches and Altars are only dedicated to the honour of God for the memory of a particular Saint for they confess that it is for the solemn invocation of that Saint And with all in the Form of dedication in the Pontifical there is more implied as appears by these two prayers at the Consecration of the Altar The first when the Bishop stands before the Altar in these words Deus Omnipotens in cujus honorem ac Beatissimae Virginis Mariae omnium Sanctorum ac nomen memoriam Sancti tui N. nos indigni altare hoc consecramus c. The other after the Bishop hath with his right thumb dipped in the Chrism made the sign of a Cross upon the Front of the Altar Majestatem tuam Domine humiliter imploramus ut altare hoc sacrae unctionis libamine ad suscipienda populi tui munera inunctam potenter bene dicere sanctificare digneris ut quod nunc à nobis sub tui nominis invocatione in honorem Beatissimae Virginis Mariae omnium Sanctorum atque in memoriam sancti tui N. c. Where we see besides the memory of the particular Saint to whom the Altar is dedicated the honour of the B. Virgin and the Saints are joyned together with the Honour of God in the general dedication of it By the Pontifical no Altar is to be consecrated without Reliques which the night before the Bishop is to put into a clean vessel for that purpose with three grains of Frankincense and then to seal it up which being conveniently placed before the Church door the Vigils are to be celebrated that night before them and the Nocturn and the Mattins for the honour of the Saints whose the Reliques are and when the Reliques are brought into the Church this is one of the Antiphona's Surgite Sancti Dei de mansionibus vestris loca sanctificate plebem benedicite nos homines peccatores in pace custodite The form of consecration of the Altar it self is this Sanctificetur hoc Altare in honorem Dei omnipotentis gloriosae Virginis Mariae atque omnium sanctorum ad nomen ac memoriam Sancti N. In China Trigautius saith in the Chappel they had there they had two Altars one to our Saviour the other dedicated to the B. Virgin without any distinction at all In the speech the Bishop makes to the people he utterly overthrows Bellarmins distinction of Templum and Basilica for he saith nullibi enim quam in sacris Basilicis Domino offerri sacrificium debet It seems then Basilica is taken with a respect to sacrifice as well as Templum and then he declares that he hath dedicated this Basilica in honorem omnipotentis Dei Beatae Mariae semper virginis omnium Sanctorum ac memoriam Sancti N. So that Basilica is here taken with a respect to God and not meerly to the Saints although they joyn them together with God in the honour of dedication Let us now compare the practice of the Roman Church in this matter with the argument which the Fathers made use of to prove the Divinity of the Holy Ghost because we are said to be his Temple If we are said saith S. Basil to be his Temple because he is worshipped by us and dwells in us then it follows that he is God for we are commanded to worship and serve God alone Where it is plain S. Basil takes a Temple with a respect to worship and not meerly to sacrifice A Temple belongs only to God and not to a creature saith S. Ambrose therefore the Holy Ghost is God because we are his Temple This is peculiar to the Divine nature saith S. Cyril to have a Temple to dwell in If we were to build a Temple saith S. Augustin to the Holy Ghost in so doing we should give him the worship proper to God and he must be God to whom we give divine worship for we must worship the Lord our God and him only must we serve the same argument he urges in several other places a Temple saith he was never erected but either to the true God as Solomon did or to false Gods as the Heathens and this argument from our being said to be the Temple of the Holy Ghost he thinks is stronger than if adoration had been said to be given to it for this is so proper an act of divine worship to erect a Temple that if we should do it to the most excellent Angel we should be anathematized from the Church of God Hoc nunc sit quibuslibet Divis saith Erasmus there in the Margin This is every where now done to Saints at which Petavius is very angry and saith they do it not to the Saints per se praecipué But what becomes then of the argument of the Fathers which supposes the erecting a Temple to be such a peculiar act of adoration that it cannot be applied to any creature no not secondarily For then the opposers of the Divinity of the Holy Ghost might have easily answered S. Augustins argument after the same fashion viz. that we were said to be the Temple of the Holy Ghost not per se praecipuè but only secondarily as it was the divine instrument of purifying the Souls of men From hence we see how unanimously the Fathers looked on the dedication of Temples and Altars as an appropriate sign of that absolute worship we owe to God and that not meerly as an Appendix to sacrifice but as it contains in it
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
the mind of the Anthropomorphites whereas Aventinus saith expresly they were no other than such as are used and allowed in the Roman Church by which Ysambertus saith there is no more danger of mens being led into a false opinion of God than there is by the expressions of Scripture And upon this ground the danger doth not lye in making any representations of God but in entertaining a false opinion of those representations and the Scripture instead of forbidding men to make any similitude of God should only have forbidden men to entertain any erroneous conceit of any Image of him But if the Church take care to prevent such an opinion as he saith she doth the other Image with three faces and one Head or one body and three Heads might be justified on the same reason that the other is Whereas the Roman Catechism saith that Moses did therefore wisely say that they saw no similitude of God lest they should be led aside by errour and make an Image of the Divinity and give the honour due to God to a Creature From whence it follows that all Images that tend to such an errour are forbidden and all worship given to such Images is Idolatry And it is farther observable that the Image allowed in the Roman Church for God the Father is just such a one as S. Augustin saith it is wickedness for Christians to make for God and to place in a Temple and I would desire of T. G. to tell me what other Image of God the greatest Anthropomorphites would make than that which is most common among them And if there be such danger in mens conceptions of a Deity from any Images of God they give as much occasion for it as ever any people did So much that all men of any ingenuity have cryed shame upon them but to very little purpose Abulensis Durandus and Peresius are cited by Bellarmin himself as condemning any Images of God and which is observable they do not condemn such Images as represent God in himself as T. G. speaks but such as were in use in the Roman Church Durandus saith it is a foolish thing either to make or to worship such Images viz. of the Father Son and Holy Ghost after the former manner and which is yet more he quotes Damascen against this sort of Images saying that it was impiety and madness to make them and so doth Peresius too Thuanus mentions this passage relating to this matter that A. D. 1562. the Queen Mother of France by the advice of two Bishops and these three Divines Butillerius Espencaeus and Picherellus declared that all Images of the Trinity should be taken out of Churches and other places as forbidden by Scripture Councils and Fathers and yet these were such Images which T.G. pleads for but this soon came to nothing as all good purposes of Reformation among them have ever done If it be said as it is by Ysambertus that these are not properly Images of God but of his appearance in a visible form I answer 1. This doth not mend the matter for we are speaking of an Image of the Father as a Person in the Trinity and whatever represents him as such must represent him as he is in himself and not barely in regard of a temporary appearance and as to such an Image of God the Father T. G's distinction will by no means reach 2. It is the common opinion of the Divines in the Roman Church that all the appearances of God in the old Testament were not of God himself but of Angels in his stead And Clichtovaeus gives that as a Reason why all representations of God were unlawful in the old Testament because all appearances were by Angels and those Angels were no more united to the Forms they assumed than a mans body is to his Garments from whence it must follow that all representations of God by such appearances is still unlawful 3. Suppose this be a representation only of some appearance of God and so not of what God is but of what he did I ask then on what account such an effect of divine power is made the object of Divine adoration For we have seen already by the confession of their most eminent Divines that the Images of the Trinity are proposed among them as objects of adoration now say I how comes a meer creature such as that apparition was to become the object of Divine worship Durandus well saw the consequence of this assertion for when he had said that those corporeal Forms which are painted are no representations of the Divine Person which never assumed them but only of those very Forms themselves in which he appeared therefore saith he no more reverence is due to them than is due to the Forms themselves When God appeared in the burning bush that Fire was then an effect of Divine Power and deserved no worship of it self how then can the Image of the burning bush be an object of Divine worship If God did appear to Daniel as the Ancient of dayes it must be either by the impression of such an Idea upon his Imagination or by assuming the Form of an old man but either way this was but a meer Creature and had no such personal Union to the Godhead to deserve adoration how much less then doth the Image of this Appearance deserve it So that I cannot see how upon their own principles they can be excused from Idolatry who give proper Divine worship to such Images as these He commits Idolatry saith Sanders that proposes any Image to be worshipped as the true Image of the Divine Nature if this be Idolatry what is it then to give the highest sort of worship to the meer representation of a Creature for those Images which only set forth such appearances are but the Creatures of Creatures and so still farther off from being the object of adoration So that notwithstanding all T. G's evasions and distinctions we find that as to this matter of the Images of God and the Trinity the Church of Rome is not only gone off from Scripture Reason and Antiquity but from the doctrine and practice of the second Council of Nice too 2. I now come to the additions that have been made to the Council of Nice by the Church of Rome as to the manner of worship given to Images For which I must consider 1. What that worship was which the Council of Nice did give to Images 2. What additions have been made to it since that time 1. What that worship was which the Council of Nice did give to Images which will appear by these two things 1. That it defined true and real worship to be given to Images 2. That it was an inferiour worship and not Latria 1. That it defined true and real worship to be given to Images i. e. that Images were not only to be Signs and helps to memory to call to mind or represent to us
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
inconsistent with the essence of a true Church And since no kind of Idolatry is lawful if the Roman Church hold it to be so she must needs hold an errour inconsistent with some Truth Most profoundly argued He only ought to have subsumed as I think such Logicians as I. W. call it but all Errour is Fundamental and inconsistent with the essence of a true Church or That Infallibility is necessary to the Being of a Church and when he proves that I promise to renounce the charge of Idolatry Now it is not possible saith I. W. that the Roman Church should bold any Idolatry lawful knowing it to be Idolatry unless she holds that some Honour which is due only to God may be given to a Creature I am afraid to be snapt by so cunning a Sophister and therefore I distinguish in time The Roman Church doth not hold any Idolatry lawful which it judges to be Idolatry or the Honour due only to God but the Roman Church may give the real parts of worship due only to God to a meer creature and yet at the same time tell men it is not a part of the Honour which is due to God To make this plain even to the understanding of I. W. The Church of Rome may entertain a false notion of Idolatry or of that worship which is due only to God which false notion being received men may really give the worship that only belongs to God to His Creatures and the utmost errour necessary in this case is no more than having a false notion of Idolatry as that there can be no Idolatry without giving Soveraign Worship to a Creature or that an Idol is the representation only of an Imaginary Being c. Now on these suppositions no more is necessary to the practice of Idolatry than being deceived in the notion of it If therefore T. G. or I.W. will prove that the Church of Rome can never be deceived in the notion of it or that it is repugnant to the essence of a Church to have a false notion of Idolatry they do something towards the proving me guilty of a contradiction in acknowledging the Church of Rome to be a true Church and yet charging it with Idolatry But I. W. saith That 't is impossible the Roman Church should teach or hold any kind of Idolatry whatsoever it be but she must hold expressly or implicitly that some Honour due only to God may be given to a meer Creature Such kind of stuff as this would make a man almost repent ever reading Logick which this man pretends so much to for surely Mother Wit is much better than Scholastick Fooling Such a Church which commits or by her doctrines and practises leads to Idolatry needs not to hold i. e. deliver as her judgment that some Honour due only to God may be given to a Creature it is sufficient if she commands or allows such things to be done which in their own nature or by the Law of God is really giving the worship of God to a Creature Yet upon this mistake as gross as it is the poor waspish Creature runs on for many leaves and thinks all that while he proves me guilty of a contradiction But the man hath something in his head which he means although he scarce knows how to express it viz. that in good Catholick Dictionaries a Fundamental errour and a damnable errour and an error inconsistent with the essence of a true Church are terms Synonymous Now I know what he would be at viz. that Infallibility is necessary to the Being of a Church therefore to suppose a Church to err is to suppose it not to be a Church But will he prove me guilty of contradiction by Catholick Dictionaries I beg his pardon for in them Transubstantiation implies none but whosoever writes against them must be guilty of many If he would prove me guilty of Contradiction let him prove it from my own sense and not from theirs Yet he would seem at last to prove that the practice of any kind of Idolatry especially being approved by the Church is destructive to the Being of a Church Which is the only thing he saith that deserves to be farther considered by enquiring into two things 1. Whether a Church allowing and countenancing the practice of Idolacry can be a true Church 2. Whether such a Church can have any power or Authority to consecrate Bishops or ordain Priests For this is a thing which T. G. likewise objects as consequent upon my assertion of their Idolatry that thereby I overthrow all Authority and Iurisdiction in the Church of England as being derived from an Idolatrous Church These are matters which deserve a farther handling and therefore I shall speak to them 1. Whether a Church may continue a true Church and yet allow and practise any kind of Idolatry And to resolve this I resort again to the ten Tribes Supposing what hath been said sufficient to prove them guilty of Idolatry my business is to enquire whether they were a true Church in that time This I. W. denies saying I ought to have proved and not barely supposed that the Idolatry introduced by Ieroboam was not destructive to the being of a True Church and several Protestants he saith produce the Church of Israel to shew that a true visible Church may cease Alas poor man he had heard something of this Nature but he could not tell what they had produced this as an instance against the perpetual Visibility of the Church and he brings it to prove that it ceased to be a true Church and the time they fix upon by his own Confession is when Elias complained that he was left alone in Israel which was not when the Idolatry of the Calves but when that of Baal prevailed among the people of Israel i. e. when they worshipped Beel-samen or the Sun instead of God Now that they were a true Church while they worshipped Ieroboams Calves I prove by these two things 1. That there was no time from Ieroboam to the Captivity of Israel wherein the worship of the Calves was not the established Religion of the ten Tribes this is evident from the expression before mentioned that the Children of Israel departed not from the sins of Jeroboam till God removed Israel out of his sight And it is observable of almost every one of the Kings of Israel that it is said particularly that he departed not from the sins of Jeroboam 2. That during that time God did own them for his People which is all one with making them a True Church Thus Iehu is said to be anointed King over the People of the Lord. And there is a remarkable expression in the time of Iehoahaz that the Lord was gracious unto them and had respect unto them because of his Covenant with Abraham Isaac and Jacob and would not destroy them neither cast he them from his presence as yet Would God have such
union and at last this Representation is nothing but an act of Imagination which doth not make the object any more really present there than any where else against which Imagination we set the positive Law of God forbidding any such kind of worship as I have already proved 4. He saith in defence of his Nicene Fathers That although the Image of Christ can only represent the humane Nature as separate from the Divine yet the charge of Nestorianism doth not follow because the Object of their worship is that which is conceived in their minds and worship being an act of the Will it is carried to the Prototype as it is conceived in the understanding but their understandings being free from Nestorianism their Wills must be so too which is all the sense I can make of T. G's answer Who doth not seem at all to consider there are two things blamed by the Church in Nestorianism 1. The heretical opinion 2. The Idolatrous practice consequent upon that opinion of the separation of the two Natures in Christ. Now the argument of the Constantinopolitan Fathers proceeds not upon their opinion as though they really believed the principles of Nestorianism who worshipped Images but they were guilty of the same kind of worship for since an Image can only represent the humane nature of Christ if it were lawful to worship that Image on the account of Christ then upon the Nestorian principles it would be as lawful to worship the humane nature of Christ although it had no hypostatical union with the Divine For could not the Nestorians say that when they considered Christ as a humane Person yet that humane Person did represent to them the Divine Person who was the proper object of worship and although they were not really and hypostatically united yet by representation and an Act of the mind they directed their worship towards the Divine Person For if a bare Image of the humane Nature be a sufficient object of worship much more is the humane Nature it self and if on the account of such representation the worship of Christ may be directed to his Image with much greater Reason it might be towards Christ as Homo Deiferus in regard of that humane Nature which had the Divine Nature present although not united And upon this Ground the Constantinopolitan Fathers did justly charge the worshippers of Images with Nestorianism as to their worship and that they could not defend themselves but they must absolve the Nestorians whom the Christian Church and this Nicene Synod it self would seem to condemn For there is a greater separation between the Image of Christ and Christ than the Nestorians did suppose between the Divine and humane Nature for they did still suppose a real presence although not a real Union but in the case of Images there is not so much as a real presence but only by representation therefore if the Nestorians were to blame in their worship much more are those that worship Images As to the last Answer being only a desire that I would bear in mind against a fit season that the Eucharist is called by the Constantinopolitan Fathers an Honourable Image of Christ I shall do what he desires and I promise him farther to shew the Nicene Fathers Ignorance and Confidence when they said It was contrary to the Scriptures and Fathers to call the Eucharist an Image of Christ. All the other arguments of the Constantinopolitan Fathers to the number of eight T. G. passes over and so must I. From hence I proceed to the next Charge which is That I mix School disputes with matters of Faith For I desired seriously to know whether any worship doth belong to Images or no if there be any due whether is it the same that is given to the Prototype or distinct from it If it be the same then proper Divine Worship is given to the Image if distinct then the Image is worshipped with Divine Worship for it self and not relatively and subordinately as he speaks and which side soever is taken some or other of their Divines charge the worship with Idolatry so that it is in mens choice which sort of Idolatry they will commit when they worship Images but in neither way they can avoid it To this T. G. answers several waies 1. That this is a point belonging to the Schools and not at all to Faith which I said was their common Answer when any thing pincheth them but to shew the unreasonableness of that way of answering I added that both sides charge the other with Idolatry and that is a Matter of Conscience and not a Scholastick Nicety For if the worship of Images be so asserted in the Church of Rome that in what way soever it is practised there is by their own confession such danger of Idolatry the General Terms of Councils serve only to draw men into the snare and not to help them out of it 2. He answers this by a drolling comparison about the worship due to the Chair of State whether it be the same which is due to the King or no if the same then proper Regal worship would be given to something besides the King which were Treason if distinct then the Chair would be worshipped with Regal Honour for it self and not relatively which were for a man to submit himself to a piece of Wood. This he represents pleasantly and with advantage enough and supposing the Yeomen of the Guard to have done laughing I desire to have a difference put between the customes of Princes Courts and the worship of God and it is strange to me T. G. should not see the difference But whatever T. G. thinks we say that God by His Law having made some Acts of worship peculiar to himself by way of acknowledgement of His Soveraignty and Dominion over us we must not use those Acts to any Creature and therefore here the most material Question can be asked is whether the Acts of worship be the same which we are to use to God or no i. e. whether they are acts forbidden or lawful for if they are the same they are forbidden if not they may be lawful But in a Princes Court where all expressions of Respect depend on custom and the Princes Pleasure or Rules of the Court the only Question a man is to ask is whether it be the custom of the Court or the Will of the Prince to have men uncovered in some Rooms and not in others no man in his wits would ask whether that be the same Honour that is due to the King himself or who but T. G's Clown could suspect it to be Treason to put off his Hat in the Presence Chamber or to the Chair of State let it be done with what intention he pleases If the Yeomen of the Guard should see an old Courtier approach with many bowings to the Chair of State and there fall down upon his Knees and kiss the Arms of the Chair and deliver