to make use of such arguments against Image-worship which do not suppose any opinion of similitude between God and the Image as the incongruity of Images to the Divine Power Perfection and Presence 3. Why doth he call upon them so earnestly to repent was it only of an erroneus conceit and that of such a nature that the argument made use of by him to move them to repentance was rather apt to confirm them in that opinion viz. that God would judge the world by that Man whom he hath appointed If a Man be appointed to judge the world the management of which must imply infinite Wisdom and Power what absurdity might they say is it in us to suppose the Images of men to represent God as he is the object of worship For if the humane nature be capable of union to the Divinity why might it not be so united alwayes as well as at the end of the world and if it be united then that humane nature might be represented in an Image and the Divine Nature honoured by worshipping that representation Which being supposed to be lawful the Apostles argument loses its force for the subtile Athenians might easily have answered S. Paul that there was no more repugnancy in supposing God to have assumed a humane body from eternity than that he should do it so lately in Iudea which being supposed their defence naturally follows for they could not be so foolish to imagine their Images to be like the Divine Nature in it self but to that humane body which was assumed by the Divine Nature And that this is no extravagant supposition will appear by this that several of the antient Christian Writers had an opinion very like this viz. that when God is said to have made man after his own Image it is to be understood of that humane figure and shape which God had then assumed which was the exemplar according to which man was created thus Prudentius and the Audiani are understood by Petavius and some passages of Tertullian look much this way and Augustinus Steuchus Eugubinus a learned but zealous Papist contends for the necessity of this opinion because man saw God walking and heard him speaking in Paradise and because of the frequent appearances of God in humane shape mentioned in the old Testament And to confirm this he brings that Verse of Ovid Et Deus humana lustro sub imagine terras and those of Catullus Praesentes namque ante domos invisere castas Saepius sese mortali ostendere coetu Coelicolae nondum spreta pietate solebant and he shews that the Fictions of Homer and the rest of the Poets as to the Appearances of the Gods in humane shape had their true Original from hence that God did at first assume the Nature of Man according to which man was said to be framed after the Image and Similitude of God But S. Paul although he asserts the Incarnation of Christ yet deriving the argument against the worship of God by Images from the consideration proper to the Divinity we ought not to think that the Godhead is like to gold c. doth thereby teach us that that which is disagreeing to the divine nature which is the proper object of worship cannot be a proper means for us to worship God by so that although the Images made by men only represent the humane nature assumed by the Divine yet because the Godhead is not like unto them we ought not to worship God by them For otherwise the Athenians were meer Blockheads if it were lawful to worship the divine nature of Christ before an Image of his humane and to give the same worship to one which belongs to the other that they did not deny S. Pauls consequence For what if the Godhead be not like to our Images it doth not follow that we may not give them divine worship as long as God hath often appeared in humane shape among us and we may give worship to the representation of that Nature wherein he appeared and the same that belongs to the Divine Nature which did assume it And I confess I cannot see how T. G. could have defended S. Paul upon his supposition for according to T. G.'s principles although before the Incarnation of Christ the worship which people gave to the Images of Gold was incongruous to the Divine Nature and a Disparagement to the Deity yet to those to whom the Mysterie of God made man is revealed it is no disparagement to him to be represented in the likeness of man and to be worshipped by such an Image Very well say the Athenians and so say we too To worship God by any Image as representing his infinite and invisible Nature is folly and madness but to make Images of him according to his several appearances for the good of mankind in the likeness of men is no disparagement to the Deity nor to be worshipped by such an Image Let T.G. therefore either say that S. Paul argues inconsequently or acknowledge that the force of his argument doth hold against the worship of any representations of God For it is plain to any man that hath any use of his senses that S. Paul doth not argue against any meer erroneous conceit of the Athenians but against their Idolatrous worship which he first shews to be unreasonable by many arguments and then tells them God now commanded them to repent and adds the most forcible motive to perswade them to it from the proceedings of the future judgement But I have not yet done with T.G. about this place Is it not T. G. that when he fixed his foot as he saith and deliberately enquired what the Supream God of the Heathens was tells us in plain terms it was the Devil and an Arch-Devil and this he doth he saith for Gods sake saith he so indeed And was this unknown God at Athens whom they ignorantly worshipped and S. Paul declared the Devil and an Arch-Devil No for here he grants that the Athenians thought the Divinity to be like their Images what Divinity doth he mean Surely not the Divinity of an Arch-Devil But I see those that believe Transubstantiation are capable of speaking as well as believing contradictions Yet it is possible T. G. may imagine that the Athenians meant one Divinity and S. Paul another So some say S. Paul plaid the Sophister with the Athenians and when the true inscription was to the Unknown Gods he because it served better to his purpose reads it in the singular number to the Unknown God But as Cajetan wisely answers the Authority of S. Paul affirming there was such an Inscription ought to be valued above those who deny it and saith he if there had not been any such the Athenians who were by might presently have charged S. Paul with falshood in saying he met with an Inscription to the Unknown God when there was none such among them Lorinus shews from several Testimonies of S. Austin
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
I see T. G. is resolved to make just such another Test of Scripture as he did of Reason Could it ever enter into a mans head waking that these words are a general reason of the Whole Law and not a particular Reason of that Command which immediately follows it and by the very words relates to it Ye saw no similitude therefore make no similitude this is proper and natural and easie to all capacities but ye saw no similitude therefore obey my Law Hold there saith T. G. himself if he be not in a dream and hath forgotten himself to be supremely excellent is the proper reason of Obedience and not the seeing no similitude therefore this is no proper Motive to obedience whatever the Contents of Chapters or tops of the Pages of our Bibles say which are the pitiful refuges T. G. betakes himself to to escape down-right sinking But some men would rather give all for lost than think to save themselves by such a mean defence Well but T. G. hath something yet to say which is That supposing all this to be true which I have said as to the Reason of the Law yet this doth not reach home to them for it doth not follow from hence that Christ according to his humanity cannot be represented but with great disparagement to him or that to put off our hats when we behold the figure of his sacred body with intent to worship him must be extremely dishonourable to him This argument therefore doth not concern Catholicks in making the Image of Christ and his Saints with respect to their honour This is the last effort of T. G. on this argument and as weak as any of the rest For 1. it is a false and most disingenuous representation of their practises as may appear to any one that will but look back on what I have said upon that Subject One would think by T. G'S words they had never used or allowed or worshipped any Images of God or the Trinity in the Church of Rome which he knows to be otherwise and I have abundantly proved it already 2. The force of the second Command extending to Christians doth equally hold against the worship of Christ by an Image as it did under the Law against worshipping God by an Image For if the Law be perpetual as the Christian Church alwaies believed and Christ be only the object of worship as He is God we are as much forbidden to worship Christ by an Image as the Iews were to worship God by one I do not say there is as great an incongruity in representing the humane nature of Christ as there was in representing the infinite nature of God but I say there is as great an incongruity still in supposing an Image of whatsoever it be can be the proper object of divine worship For the humanity of Christ is only capable of receiving adoration from us as it is hypostatically united to the divine nature and S. Austin saith Being considered as separated from it is no more to be worshipped than the Robe or Diadem of a Prince when it lies on the Ground and if the humane nature of Christ be not what then is the Image of it What union is there between the Divine Nature and a Crucifix All that can be said is that imagination supplies the union and Christ is supposed to be present by representation but this overthrows all measures and bounds of worship and makes it lawful to worship any Creature with respect to God it contradicts the argument of S. Paul For then God may be worshipped with the Work of mens hands it is contrary to the sense and practice of the Primitive Church which interpreted this Commandment to hold against all Images set up for worship as well those proper to Christians as others among Iews or Gentiles 3. The last way I proposed to find out the sense of the Law was from the Iudgement of the Law-giver which was fully manifested in the case of the Golden Calf and the two Calves of Ieroboam This he calls a solid principle indeed to work upon I am glad to see that we Protestants can fall into the way of Principles and more glad that Gods judgement recorded in Scripture is acknowledged for such a Principle but after all he calls this meer imagination and it must undergo the Test of his Reason The force of my argument as he laies it down is this That the Israelites were condemned by God of Idolatry for worshipping the Golden Calf and yet they did not fall into the Heathen Idolatry by so doing but only worshipped the true God under that Symbol of His presence To this T. G. opposes his Opinion That the Israelites herein fell back to the Egyptian Idolatry Here then is the state of the Question between us to resolve which and to bring it home to our business I shall propose these two things 1. Whether the Israelites did in worshipping the golden Calf fall back to the Egyptian Idolatry 2. Whether it be sufficient to T. G's purpose to prove that they did so for in case the Egyptians themselves did worship the true God under Symbols T. G. falls short of his design if he could prove that the Israelites did relapse to the Egyptian Idolatry for it would then appear however to be Idolatry to worship the True God by an Image 1. I shall examine the evidence on both sides whether the Israelites did fall back to the Egyptian Idolatry I offered several reasons to prove that the Israelites had no intention to quit the worship of that God who had so lately given them the Law on Mount Sinai 1. From the occasion of this Idolatry which was not any pretence of infidelity as to the true God or that they had now better reasons given them for the worship of other Gods besides him but all that they say is that Moses had been so long absent that they desired Aaron to make them Gods to go before them To this T. G. answers that the very text I mention shews their infidelity viz. in their despair of Moses returning But if their infidelity had been with a respect to God it had been far more pertinent to have said Up make us Gods to go before us for as for this God who gave us the Law we know not what is become of him but they only speak of Moses and not of God and the reason was because immediately before Moses his going up into the Mount the last promise God made to the People was of an Angel going before them and they understood that there was to be an extraordinary Symbol of his Presence among them but what it was they could not tell and Moses being so long absent as the text saith they grew impatient of having this Symbol and so put Aaron upon making the golden Calf T. G. saith they had forgotten this promise or thought that God was not able to perform it for
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
prolatum risu dignum Inutile mendacio plenum Dementissimum ratione carens Deliramentum errore plenum Falsissimum risu dignum Ridiculosissimum Dictum Superciliosè indoctè dixerunt When T. G. hath considered these expressions and the force and pungency of them being all applyed to the Fathers of that Nicene Synod by the Western Bishops under the name of Charles the Great he may possibly cool and abate his rage towards me for using only that Ironical expression of That Wise Synod And there is nothing considerable said by the Nicene Fathers which is not answered in that Book to whom I may therefore better referr him than he doth me to the Answers of Epiphanius in the Nicene Council for satisfaction of no less than eight arguments as himself numbers them of the Constantinopolitan Fathers against the Worship of Images But that he may not think the greatest weight lies in any thing that is passed by I shall briefly consider the Defence he makes for the Nicene Synod in the particulars mentioned by him 1. He saith That the Nicene Fathers did justly plead the continuance of Christ Kingdom against the Idolatry of Christians because God hath promised that he will take away Idols from the earth not for four or five hundred years but to the end of the world I desire T. G. to consider whether this argument would not have held as well against the Catholick Bishops who charged the Arrians with Idolatry and what answer he gives himself about that will shew the feebleness of his answer in this case And the prophecies of the Old Testament relating to Events under the New supposing that doth so which is far from being clear do certainly shew what the design and tendency of the Christian doctrine is and what would be if men did observe it As it is in all the prophecies of the Peace and tranquillity of the World notwithstanding which we find the World at the old Rate of quarrelling and Fighting under new pretences Just so it is with Idolatry no doctrine in the world would preserve men more effectually from it if they would observe it but if under the colour of Christianity they bring in only a new scheme of it it is still the same kind of thing although it appears in a fresher dress But then saith T. G. the Gates of Hell would prevail against the Church Against what Church The whole Christian Church whoever said they could or how doth that follow The Church of Constantinople or the Church of Ierusalem Have not the Gates of the Turk been too strong for them The Church of Rome The Gates of Hell do certainly prevail against that if it doth Unchurch all other Christians that are not of its communion And why may not Idolatry prevail where Luciferian Pride and Hellish Cruelty and desperate Wickedness have long since prevailed Hath Christ made promises to secure that Church from errour which hath been over-run with all sorts of Wickedness by the confession of her own members and Friends These are gobbets fit only to be cramm'd down the throats of very implicite believers 2. He undertakes to shew that the saying of the Fathers against the Arrians cannot reach to those that worship Images because Epiphanius saith the Arrians trusted in Christ and gave properly Divine Honour to Christ which they do not to the Images of Christ. To answer this I shewed that Aquinas and his followers did declare that Latria was to be given to the Images of Christ therefore this could not at least excuse them from being parallel to the Arrians and if their arguments hold good then all that worship Images fall under the like condemnation This he bestows the name of many fallacies upon and runs on so briskly with shewing the inconsequence of it as though he did in earnest believe it were an impertinent answer by which he would insinuate that I had made use of Aquinas his opinion to prove those guilty of Idolatry which were of another opinion No such matter For the question was whether the saying of the Fathers concerning the Arrian Idolatry can be justly applyed to those that worship Images Yes say I upon Epiphanius his own ground they may if they who worship Images give divine Honour to them but Aquinas and his Followers contend that Divine Honour is to be given to them and therefore they fall under the like censure And by their argument all that worship Images must come under it For either they worship Images for themselves and then they all acknowledge it is Idolatry or for the sake of the exemplar which if it be the reason and object of worship as represented by the Image it must have the same worship which the thing considered in its own being deserves which being divine honour that must be given to the Image But T. G. supposes the force of all this to depend upon their being of this opinion and because the Nicene Fathers are not mentioned by me as agreeing with Aquinas therefore he represents this arguing as ridiculous Whereas my design was to shew that since divine honour being given to Images was confessed to make the case alike that it was confessed by the most prevalent party in the Church of Rome that such honour was to be given to them and that others did it although they would not own the doing it And whether men acknowledge it or no if they give that which is really Divine Worship they become guilty of Idolatry as well as the Arrians and let men call it by what names they will of Relative or absolute Soveraign or inferiour Worship if it be that which God hath forbidden to be given to any Creature it becomes Idolatry 3. T. G. saith that the argument doth not hold that if the union of the Divine and humane nature be the reason of the worship given to the Person of Christ then there must be an equal presence or union between Christ and the Image to make that an object of Worship for saith he not only union but representation may occasion worship Who doubts of that but may it not as well occasion people to commit Idolatry But the question is not whether representation may occasion the worship of God or no for so an Ant or a Fly or any Creature may occasion it But this is notorious shuffling to talk of Images being only an Occasion of Worship whereas I have at large shewed that the doctrine and Practice of their Church makes them Objects of Worship And since the Christian Church acknowledged the humanity of Christ to be capable of worship only on the account of an Hypostatical Union with the Divine Nature I desired to know how a meer Image of that Humane Nature can be an object of lawful worship If T. G. saith That the Image is a fit object of worship and representation the reason of it let him shew how Representation comes to be an equal reason with personal