such an answer for then all the folly and madness in making the grossest Images of God doth not lye in the Images themselves but in the imagination of the Persons that make them Is it not as great in those that worship them with such an imagination if it be then whatever the Design of the makers was if they be apt to beget such imaginations in those who see and worship them they are in that respect as unlawful as T. G. supposes any Images of God among the Heathens to have been 4. What doth T. G. mean when he makes those Images unlawful which represent the Divinity in it self and not those which represent God as he appeared Can the meer essence of any thing be represented by an Image Is it possible to represent any being otherwise than as it appears But it may be T. G. hath found out the way of painting Essences if he hath he deserves to have the Patent for it not only for himself but for his Heirs and Executors For he allows it to be the peculiar priviledge of an infinite Being that it cannot be represented as it is in it self then all other things may be represented as they are in themselves in opposition to the manner of their appearance or else the distinction signifies nothing Petrus Thyraeus a man highly commended by Possevin for for his explication of this matter saith the meaning is that an Image doth not represent the Nature but the Person that is visible for saith he when we see the Image of a man we do not say we see a Reasonable Creature but a Man Very well and so in the Image of the Deity we do not see the Divine Nature but the Divine Person or in such a way as he became visible The Invisible Nature of God cannot be represented in an Image and can the invisible Nature of Man Therefore saith he it is no injury to God to be painted by an Image no more upon these principles than to a man Bellarmin proves the lawfulness of making Images of God because man is said to be the Image of God and he may be painted therefore the Image of God may be too for that which is the Image of the Image is likewise the Image of the Exemplar those which agree in a third agreeing among themselves To this some answer'd that man was not the Image of God as to his body but as to his soul which could not be painted but Bellarmin takes off this answer by saying that then a man could not not be painted for he is not a man in regard of his outward lineaments but in regard of his substance and especially his Soul but notwithstanding the soul cannot be painted yet a man may truly and properly be said to be painted because the Figure and colours of an Image do represent the whole man otherwise saith he a thing painted could never seem to be the true Thing as Zeuxis his grapes did which deceived the birds Therefore according to Bellarmines reasoning that which represents a Being according to outward appearance although it have an invisible Nature yet is a true and real representation and represents it as it is in it self and as far as it is possible for an Image to represent any thing Wherein then lyes the difference between making the Picture of a man and the Image of God If it be said that the Image of God is very short imperfect and obscure is not the same thing to be said of the Picture of a man which can only represent his outward Features without any description of his inward substance or soul If it be farther said that there is a real resemblance between a Picture of a man and his outward lineaments but there is none between God and the Image of a man then I ask what Bellarmins argument doth signifie towards the proving the lawfulness of making an Image of God For if God may be painted because man may who is the Image of God for the Image of the Image is the Image of the Exemplar then it follows that Man is the Image of God as he may be painted and so God and man must agree in that common thing which is a capacity of being represented which cannot be supposed without as real a resemblance between God and his Image as between a Man and his Picture But T. G. tells us that they abhorr the very thoughts of making any such likeness of God and all that the Council of Trent allows is only making representations of some apparition or action of God in a way proportionable to our Humane Conception I answer 1. It is no great sign of their abhorring the thoughts of any such likeness of God to see such arguments made use of to prove the lawfulness of making Images of God which do imply it 2. Those Images of God which are the most used and allowed in the Roman Church have been thought by Wise men of their own Church to imply such a Likeness Molanus and Thyraeus mention four sorts of Images of the Trinity that have been used in the Roman Church 1. That of an old man for God the Father and of Christ in humane nature and of the Holy Ghost in the Form of a Dove 2. That of three Persons of equal Age and Stature 3. That of an Image of the Bl. Virgin in the belly of which was represented the Holy Trinity this Ioh. Gerson saith he saw in the Carmelites Church and saith there were others like it and Molanus saith he had seen such a one himself among the Carthusians 4. That of one Head with three faces or one body and three Heads which Molanus saith is much more common than the other and is wont to be set before the Office of the Holy Trinity these two latter those Authors do not allow because the former of them tends to a dangerous errour viz. that the whole Trinity was incarnate of the B. Virgin and the latter Molanus saith was an invention of the Devil it seems then there was one invention of the Devil at least to be seen in the Masse-Book for saith he the Devil once appeared with three Heads to a Monk telling him he was the Trinity But the two former they allow and defend Waldensis saith Molanus with a great deal of learning defends that of the three Persons from the appearance of the Three to Abraham and Thyraeus justifieth the first and the most common from the Authority of the Church the Consent of Fathers and the H. Scriptures And yet Pope Iohn 22. as Aventinus relates it condemned some to the Fire as Anthropomorphites and enemies to Religion for making the very same representation of the Trinity which he defends being only of God as an old man and of the Son as a young man and of the Holy Ghost under the picture of a Dove Ysambertus takes notice of this story but he saith they were such Images as were according to
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
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