wayes as worship may become due Idolatry may be committed Cannot God make any of the former appropriate acts of worship to become due only to himself cannot he tye us to perform them to him and then they become due to him and cannot he restrain us from doing them to any other and then they become due only to him and is not then the doing of any of these prohibited acts to a creature the giving to them the worship due only to God Is the outward act of sacrifice due only to God antecedently to a prohibition or no If it be due only to God antecedently to his will it is alwayes and necessarily due to him and to him alone and let T. G. at his leisure prove that antecedently to any Law of God it was necessary to worship God by sacrifice and unlawful so to worship any else besides him If it depends on the will of God then either it is no Idolatry to offer sacrifice to a creature and then the Sacrifice of the Mass may be offered to Saints or Images or if it be then real Idolatry may be consequent to a prohibition But he thinks he hath a greater advantage against me by my saying that any Image being made so far the object of divine worship that men do bow down before it doth thereby become an Idol and on that account is forbidden in the second Commandment This is downright trifling for if I should say that taking away a mans goods against his consent is Theft and on that account is forbidden in the eighth Commandment would any man imagine that I must speak of Theft antecedent to the Command for it implyes no more than that it is contrary to the Command But as it is in the case of Theft that is alwayes a sin although the particular species of it and the denomination of particular acts doth suppose positive Laws about Dominion and Property so it is in the case of Idolatry the general nature of it is alwayes the same viz. the giving the worship to a creature which is due only to God although the denomination of particular acts may depend upon positive Laws because God may appropriate peculiar acts of worship to himself which being done by him those acts being given to a creature receive the denomination of Idolatry which without those Laws they would not have done So that still the general notion of Idolatry is antecedent to positive Laws but yet the determination of particular acts whether they are Idolatry or no do depend on the positive Laws which God hath given about his worship And if T. G. had understood the nature of humane acts as he pretends he would never have made such trifling objections as these For is it not thus in the nature of the other sins forbidden in the Commandments as well as Idolatry that are supposed to be the most morally evil antecedent to any prohibition Suppose it be murder adultery or disobedience to Parents although I grant these things to have a general notion antecedently to any Laws yet when we come to enquire into particular acts whether they do receive those denominations or no we must then judge by particular Laws which determine what acts are to be accounted Murder Adultery or Disobedience as whether execution of malefactors be prohibited Murder whether marrying many Wives be Adultery whether not complying with the Religion of ones Parents be disobedience These things I mention to make T. G. understand a little better the nature of Moral Acts and that a general notion of Idolatry being antecedent to a prohibition is very consistent with the determining any particular acts as the worship of Images to be Idolatry to be consequent to that prohibition But I perceive a particular pleasure these men take to make me seem to contradict my self and here T. G. is at it as wisely as the rest thus blind men apprehend nothing but contradictions in the diversity of colours by the different reflections of light but the comfort is that others know that it is only their want of sight that makes them cry out contradictions But wherein lyes this horrible self-contradiction Why truly it seems I had said that an Image being made so far the object of divine worship that men do bow down before it doth thereby become an Idol and on that account is forbidden in the second Commandment Well! and what then where lyes the contradiction Hold a little it will come presently in the mean time mark those words on that Account but I say that the worship which God denyes to receive cannot be terminated on him but on the Image Is this the contradiction then No not yet neither The conceit had need be good it is so long in delivering but at last it comes like a thunder-showre full of sulphur and darkness with a terrible crack either I mean that this worship cannot be terminated on God antecedently to the Prohibition because on that account the worship of an Image is forbidden in the second Commandment or if it cannot be terminated on the account of the Prohibition then it is not on that account forbidden What a needless invention was that of Gunpowder T. G. can blow a man up with a train of consequences from his own words let him but have the laying of it Could I ever have thought that such innocent words as on that account should have had so much Nitre and Sulphur in them For let any man read over those words and see if he can find any thing antecedent to the prohibition in them For having in that place shewed that the words Idolum sculptile imago are promiscuously used in Scripture I presently add By which it appears that any Image being made so far the object of divine worship that men do bow down before it doth thereby become an Idol and on that account is forbidden in this Commandment By which it appears mark that this T. G. pares off as not fit for his purpose i. e. from the sense of the word in Scripture that any Image being made so far the object of divine worship that men do bow down before it i. e. if men do perform that act of worship to an Image which God hath forbidden the doing towards it what then then say I it becomes an Idol for whatever hath divine worship given to it is so and on that account i. e. of its having that act of divine worship done to it by bowing before it it is forbidden in this Commandment i. e. it comes within the reach of that prohibition the meaning of all which is no more than to shew that adoration of Images is Idolatry by vertue of that Commandment But thus are we put to construe and paraphrase our own words to free our selves either from the ignorance or malice of our Adversaries But with this fetch T.G. stands and laughs through his fingers at the trick he hath plaid me and bids me with a secret pleasure at his notable
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
worship the same Gods with them nor offer up libations and the smoak of sacrifices to dead men Nor crown and worship Images that they agreed with Menander who said we ought not to worship the work of mens hands not because Devils dwelt in them but because men were the makers of them And he wondered they could call them Gods which they knew to be without soul and dead and to have no likeness to God it was not then upon the account of their being animated by evil Spirits that the Christians rejected this worship for then these reasons would not have held All the resemblance they had was to those evil Spirits that had appeared among men for that was Iustins opinion of the beginning of Idolatry that God had committed the Government of all things under the heavens to particular Angels but these Angels prevaricating by the love of Women did upon them beget Daemons that these Daemons were the great corrupters of mankind and partly by frightful apparitions and by instructing men in Idolatrous rites did by degrees draw men to give them divine worship the people not imagining them to be evil Spirits and so were called by such names as they liked best themselves as Neptune Pluto c. But the true God had no certain name given to him for saith he Father and God and Creator and Lord and Master are not names but titles arising from his works and good deeds and God is not a name but a notion engrafted in humane nature of an unexpressible Being But that God alone is to be worshipped appears by this which is the great command given to Christians Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve with all thy heart and with all thy strength even the Lord God that made thee Where we see the force of the argument used by Iustin in behalf of the Christians lay in Gods peremptory prohibition of giving divine worship to any thing but himself and that founded upon Gods right of dominion over us by vertue of creation In his Book of the Divine Monarchy he shews that although the Heathens did make great use of the Poets to justifie their Polytheism yet they did give clear testimony of one Supreme Deity who was the Maker and Governour of all things for which end he produces the sayings of Aeschylus Sophocles Orpheus Pythagoras Philemon Menander and Euripides all very considerable to this purpose In his works there is extant the resolution of several Questions by a Greek Philosopher and the Christians reply in which nothing can be more evident than that it was agreed on both sides that there was one Supreme God infinitely good powerful and wise Nay the Greek Philosopher looks upon the ignorance of God as a thing impossible because all men naturally agree in the knowledge of God But there are plain evidences in that Book that it is of later date than Iustins time therefore instead of insisting any more on that I shall give a farther proof that in his time it could be no part of the dispute between the Christians and Heathens whether there were one Supreme God that ought to be worshipped by men and that shall be from that very Emperour to whom Eusebius saith Iustin Martyr did make his second Apology viz. M. Aurelius Antoninus It is particularly observed of him by the Roman Historians that he had a great zeal for preserving the Old Roman Religion and Iul. Capitolinus saith that he was so skilful in all the practices of it that he needed not as it was common for one to prompt him because he could say the prayers by heart and he was so confident of the protection of the Gods that he bids Faustina not punish those who had conspired against him for the Gods would defend him his zeal being pleasing to them and therefore Baronius doth not wonder that Iustin and other Christians suffered Martyrdom under him But in the Books which are left of his writing we may easily discover that he firmly believed an eternal Wisdom and Providence which managed the World and that the Gods whose veneration he commends were looked on by him as the subservient Ministers of the Divine Wisdom Reverence the Gods saith he but withal he saith honour that which is most excellent in the world that which disposeth and Governs all which sometimes he calls the all-commanding reason sometimes the Mind and Soul of the World which he expresly saith is but one And in one place he saith that there is but one World and one God and one substance and one Law and one common reason of intelligent beings and one Truth But the great objection against such Testimonies of Antoninus and others lies in this that these only shew the particular opinions of some few men of Philosophical minds but they do not reach to the publick and established Religion among them which seemed to make no difference between the Supreme God and other Deities from whence it follows that they did not give to him any such worship a◠belonged to him Which being the most considerable objection against the design of this present discourse I shall here endeavour to remove it before I produce any farther testimonies of the Fathers For which we must consider wherei◠the Romans did suppose the solemn and outward acts of their Religion to consist viz. in the worship appropriated 〈◊〉 their Temples or in occasional prayers and vows or in some parts of divination whereby they supposed God did make known his mind to them If I can therefore prove that the Romans did in an extraordinary manner make use of all these acts of Religious worship to the Supreme God it will then necessarily follow that the controversie between the Fathers and them about Idolatry could not be about the worship of one Supreme God but about giving Religious worship to any else besides him The Worship performed in their Temples was the most solemn and frequent among them in so much that Tully saith therein the people of Rome exceeded all Nations in the world but the most solemn part of that Worship was that which was performed in the Capitol at Rome and in the Temple of Iupiter Latialis in Alba and both these I shall prove were dedicated to the Supreme God The first Capitol was built at Rome by Numa Pompilius and called by Varro the old Capitol which stood at a good distance from the place where the foundations of the great Temple were laid by Tarquinius Priscus the one being about the Cirque of Flora the other upon the Tarpeian Mountain There is so little left of the memory of the former that for the design of it we are to judge by the general intention of Numa as to the worship of the Deity of which Plutarch gives this account That he forbad the Romans making any Image of God either like to men or beast because the First Being is
peculiar to God to consist chiefly in the internal acts of the mind which only in themselves and of their own nature are such as do belong to the worship of God but external acts are not so determined of themselves but they may be given either to God or to the creature however he grants that although outward acts be in themselves indifferent yet when sufficient Authority hath apprepriated some acts as peculiar to divine worship they ought to be used for no other purpose and that if these acts of worship be applied to a creature it makes that worship at least external Idolatry if it be not done ex animo and out of a false opinion In this point of the external acts of divine worship these two things may be observed of the Divines of the Roman Church 1. That in the general they confess that there ought to be some peculiar external acts of divine worship as most agreeable to Gods incommunicable excellencie and in particular when they are pressed with any difficulties from Scripture or Fathers about not giving divine worship to a creature then they are sure to tell us those places are to be understood of the worship that is proper only to God Thus they think to escape the force of that place which is so evident that it blinds them with the light of it Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve which was certainly understood of an external act of worship for the Devil said to Christ Fall down and worship me Yes say they that is very true of the adoration proper to God but what is that for they say there is no outward act of adoration but is common to God and his Creatures Tannerus excepts no creature inanimate or animate but only the Devil yet lest he should have gone too far in this he saith afterwards that physically speaking God may be worshipped in any creature but then men must have a care that they do not truely and properly worship the thing it self but only use the external signs of divine honour before it applying them to what is represented I confess this gives a very slender account of our Saviours answer for it seems he might physically speaking have worshipped God by falling down before the Devil all the danger was in the scandal and indecencie of it but being done in a Wilderness the scandal of it as to men at least had not been great Vasquez resolves the case that if the Devil appear to a man he may do all the external acts of adoration before him provided he be not well assured it is the Devil and that he direct his worship to God and that he proves by this demonstrative argument because all external acts of adoration are to be directed by the inward intention of the mind but he confesses many of their Divines allow only a conditional adoration in this case however it seems our Saviour spake a little too peremptorily in utterly refusing it upon any terms But then they tell us the Devil was too fancy and demanded the absolute worship proper only to God i. e. saith Vasquez not meerly the external act of adoration but that inward submission of mind which is only due to God which is more than appears by the words Bellarmine and the rest of them say that our Saviour refused to give the worship of Latria to the Devil by which it seems our Saviour did not answer to the purpose for the Devil expressed no more than falling down and worshipping him which according to them might be done without Latria by the same external act but not the same intention of mind which not being in the power of him that demands but only of him that gives nothing had been more necessary than to have expresly required the intention of the mind otherwise the Devil might have been easily cheated by directing the intention of the external act quite another way but for all that we can see the Devil was then to learn these subtilties However this now serves to turn off the plainest places that would seem to prove that all external acts of Religious worship are to be given only to God The Hereticks saith Arriaga object many things out of Scriptures and Fathers and Councils in which it is said that God only is to be worshipped but to all these we answer in one word that they only speak of the worship of Latria which is proper to God and so they would have answered thousands of places more as well as those that are urged against them so that the reserving this worship as peculiar to God serves them to very good purpose viz. to turn off as with a wet finger whatever is urged against them So Bernardus Pujol without more ado sends away all the Testimonies of the Fathers Ad loca sanctorum Patrum respondemus illa intelligenda esse de adoratione Latriae quae soli Deo tribuitur and so fare them well without any farther examination And yet some of these men upon better thoughts have concluded that some of the places of Scripture cannot be understood of the worship of Latria For although Aquinas Tannerus and several others answer the instance of Mordecai refusing to worship Aman with the common shift that he would not give Latria to him yet Cajetan Suarez Vasquez Pujol and Arriaga all conclude that this is not to be understood of the worship of Latria but that Mordecai refused to use the same external act of adoration which among the Iews they were wont to give to God wherein Cajetan thinks he was not so wise as he might have been because Jacob worshipped his Brother Esau Arriaga that he did well though he followed an erring conscience Suarez Vasquez and Pujol that he did prudently because the constant using of that act of adoration to Aman which among them did belong to the worship of God would have tended to the dishonour of God and Religion and have been a great scandal to the Iews Neither is Cajetan satisfied with the same answer to the instance of St. Iohn's offering to worship the Angel for this were saith he to charge St. John with committing a very great sin which the Angel hindred him from the consummation of but saith he St. John intended no more than the greatest external act of Reverence but because so great reverence ought to be reserved only to God that some outward reverence might be appropriated to Him therefore the Angel forbad him giving it to him Suarez confesses that it cannot be understood of Latria but that the Angel put it off with a complement as St. Peter did to Cornelius and with him the rest agree either as a complement to his Person or to humane nature since the Incarnation but Aquinas pertinently saith it was to avoid the occasion of Idolatry because the Angel immediately adds Worship God Thus far we find they go in the avoiding of
that only reads T. G. and doth not understand the practice of the Roman Church would imagine all the dispute between him and me were whether the Saints in Heaven be capable of receiving any honour from men and whether that honour being given upon the account of Religion might be called Religious Honour or no This were indeed to wrangle about words which I perfectly hate I will therefore freely tell him how far I yield in this matter that he may better understand where the difficulty lyes 1. I yield that the Saints in Heaven do deserve real honour and esteem from us and I do agree with Mr. Thorndike whose words he cites therein that to dispute whether we are bound to honour the Saints were to dispute whether we are to be Christians or whether we believe them to be Saints in Heaven For on supposition that we believe that the greatest excellencies of mens minds come from the Grace of God communicated to men through Iesus Christ and we are assured that such persons now in Heaven were possessed of those excellencies it is impossible we should do otherwise than esteem and honour them For honour in this sense is nothing else but the due apprehension of anothers excellency and therefore it must be greater or lesser according to the nature and degree of those excellencies Since therefore we believe the Saints in Heaven are possessed of them in a higher degree than they were on earth our esteem of them must increase according to the measure of their perfections 2. That the honour we have for them may be called Religious honour because it is upon the account of those we may call Religious excellencies as they are distinguished from meer natural endowments and civil accomplishments On which account I will grant that is not properly civil honour because the motive or reason of the one is really different from the other And although the whole Church of Christ in Heaven and Earth make up one Body yet the nature of that Society is so different from a Civil Society that a different title and denomination ought to be given to the honour which belongs to either of them and the honour of those of the triumphant Church may the better be called Religious because it is an honour which particularly descends from the object of Religion viz. God himself as the fountain of it as civil honour doth from the Head of a Civil Society 3. That this honour may be expressed in such outward acts as are most agreeable to the nature of it And herein lyes a considerable difference between the honour of men for natural and acquired excellencies and divine graces that those having more of humane nature in them the honour doth more directly redound to the possessor of them but in Divine Graces which are more immediately conveyed into the souls of men through a supernatural assistance the Honour doth properly belong to the Giver of them Therefore the most agreeable expression of the honour of Saints is solemn Thanksgiving to God for them for thereby we acknowledge the true fountain of all the good they did or received However for the incouragement of men to follow their examples and to perpetuate their memories the primitive Christians thought it very fitting to meet at the places of their Martyrdom there to praise God for them and to perform other offices of Religious worship to God and to observe the Anniversary of their sufferings and to have Panegyricks made to set forth their vertues to excite others the more to their imitation Thus far I freely yield to T. G. to let him see what pittiful cavils those are that if men deserve honour for natural or supernatural endowments surely the Saints in Heaven much more do so Who denyes it We give the Saints in Heaven the utmost honour we dare give without robbing God of that which belongs only to him Which is that of Religious worship and consists in the acknowledgements we make of Gods supream excellency together with his Power and Dominion over us and so Religious worship consists in two things 1. Such external acts of Religion which God hath appropriated to himself 2. Such an inward submission of our souls as implyes his Superiority over them and that lyes as to worship 1. In prayer to him for what we want 2. In dependence upon him for help and assistance 3. In Thankfulness to him for what we receive Prayer is a signification of want and the expression of our desire of obtaining that which we need and whosoever beggs any thing of another doth in so doing not only acknowledge his own indigency but the others power to supply him therefore Suarez truly observes from Aquinas that as command is towards inferiours so is prayer towards Superiours now to this saith he two things are requisite 1. That a man apprehends it is in the power of the Superiour to give what we ask 2. That he is willing to give it if it be asked of him The expectation of the performance of our desire is that we call dependence upon him for help and assistance and our acknowledgement of his doing it is Thankfulness Now if we consider Prayer as a part of Religious worship we are to enquire on what account it comes to be so not as though thereby we did discover any thing to God which he did not know before nor as though we hoped to change his will upon our prayer but that thereby we profess our subjection to him and our dependence on him for the supply of our necessities For although prayer be looked on by us as the means to obtain our requests yet the consideration upon which that becomes a means is that thereby we express our most humble dependence upon God It being the difference observed by Gul. Parisiensis between humane and divine prayer that prayer among men is supposed a means to change the Person to whom we pray but prayer to God doth not change him but fits us for receiving the things prayed for This one consideration is of greater importance towards the resolution of our present question than hath been hitherto imagined for the Question of invocation doth not depend so much upon the manner of obtaining the thing we desire i. e. whether we pray to the Saints to obtain things by their merits and intercessions which is allowed and contended for by all in the Roman Church or whether it be that they do bestow the things themselves upon us which they deny but the true State of the Question is this whether by the manner of Invocation of Saints which is allowed and practised in the Roman Church they do not give that worship to Saints which is only peculiar to God Now we are farther to consider wherein that act of worship towards God doth lye which is not in an act of the mind whereby we apprehend God to be the first and independent cause of all good but in an act of dependence upon him for the
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
by an Image since Images are intended to represent the absent but God is every where present But if there ought to be any Image of God which he calls simulachrum Dei and surely doth not signifie an Idol in T. G's sense and I hope here he will not charge me with want of fidelity in translating it Image it ought to be living and sensible because God lives for ever therefore that cannot be the Image of God that is made by the Work of mens hands but Man himself who gives all the art and beauty to them which they have but poor silly men as they are they do not consider that if their Images had sense and motion they would worship the Men that made them and brought them into such a curious figure out of rude and unpolished matter Who can be so foolish to imagine there can be any thing of God in that Image in which there is nothing of man but the meer shadow But their minds have the deepest tincture of folly for those who have sense worship things that have none they who think themselves wise things that are uncapable of Reason they that live things that cannot stir and they that came from heaven things that are made of earth What is this saith he but to invert the order of Nature to adore that which we tread upon Worship him that lives if ye would live for he must dye that gives up his Soul to things that are dead And after he hath fully shewn his Rhetorick in exposing the folly of worshipping Images he concludes very severely quare nonest dubium quin Religio nulla sit ubicunque simulachrum est Wherefore there can be no true Religion where there is the worship of Images no although it be simulachrum Dei the worship of God by an Image for his reason holds against all Religion saith he is a divine thing and whatever is divine is heavenly but whatever is in Images is earthy and therefore there can be no Religion in the worship of Images What sport do Tertullian Minucius and Arnobius make with the Images which were consecrated to divine worship from the meanness of the matter they are made of the pains and art that is used to bring them into their shape the casualties of fire and rottenness and defilements they are subject to and many other Topicks on purpose to represent the ridiculousness of worshipping such things or God by them O saith Arnobius that I could but enter into the bowels of an Image and lay before you all the worthy materials they are made up of that I could but dissect before you a Jupiter Olympius and Capitolinus Yet these were dedicated to the worship of the Supreme God Would men ever have been such Fools to have exposed themselves rather than such Images to laughter and scorn if they had used any such themselves or thought them capable of relative divine worship How easily would a Heathen of common understanding have stopt the mouths of these powerful Orators with saying but a few such words to any one of them Fair and soft good Sir while you declaim so much against our Images think of your own what if our Iupiter Olympius or Capitolinus be made of Ivory or Brass or Marble what if the Artificer hath taken so much pains about them what if they are exposed to Weather and Birds and Fire and a thousand casualties are not the Images of S. Peter and S. Paul or the several Madonna 's of such and such Oratories liable to the very same accusations If ours are unfit for worship are not yours so too if we be ridiculous are not you so and so much the more because you laugh at others for what you do your selves So that we must either think the first Christians prodigious Fools or they must utterly condemn all Images for Religious Worship and not meerly the Heathens on considerations peculiar to them And that we may not think this a meer heat of Eloquence in these men we find the same thing asserted by the most grave and sober Writers of the Christian Church when they had to deal not with the rabble but their most understanding Adversaries We have no material Images at all saith Clemens Alexandrinus we have only one intellectual Image who is the only true God We worship but one Image which is of the Invisible and Omnipotent God saith S. Hierome No Image of God ought to be worshipped but that which is what he is neither is that to be worshiped in his stead but together with him saith S. Augustin Where it is observable that the reason of worship given to this Eternal Image of God is not communicable to any Image made of him as to his humane Nature for it cannot be said of the humane nature it self that it is God much less of any Image or representation of it Therefore let T. G. judge whether the worshipping Christ by an Image be not equally condemned by the Fathers with the worship of God by an Image but of that hereafter Eusebius answering Porphyrie about the Image of God saith What agreement is there between the Image of a man and the Divine understanding I think it hath very little to a mans mind since that is incorporeal simple indivisible the other quite contrary and only a dull representation of a mans shape The only resemblance of God lies in the soul which cannot be expressed in Colours or Figures and if that cannot which is infinitely short of the Divine Nature what madness is it to make the Image of a man to represent the Figure and form of God For the Divine Nature must be conceived with a clear and pure understanding free from all corruptible matter but that Image of God in the likeness of man contains only the Image of a mortal man and that not of all of him but of the worst part only without the least shadow of Life or Soul How then can the God over all and the Mind which framed the World be the same that is represented in Brass or Ivory S. Augustin relating the saying of Varro about representing God by the Image of a mans body which contains his Soul which resembles God saith that herein he lost that prudence and sobriety he discovered in saying that those who first brought in Images among the Romans abated their Reverence to the Deity and added to their errour and that the Gods were more purely worshipped without Images wherein saith S. Augustin he came very near to the Truth And if he durst speak openly against so ancient an errour he would say that one God ought to be worshipped and that without an Image the folly of Images being apt to bring the Deity into contempt Is it possible to condemn the worship of God by an Image in more express words than S. Austin here does 2. Because the worship of God by Images is repugnant to his Will Clemens Alexandrinus mentions the
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
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
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
saith S. Augustine Quis sanctus est in cujus honore ador as scabellum pedum ejus Genebrard acknowledges likewise that S. Hierome translates it so and Suarez yields that not only the Greek but S. Augustine and S. Hierome read it For He is holy 2. Those words do not imply that the Iews did make the Ark the object of their worship for the Chaldee Paraphrast renders them Worship Him in His Sanctuary and the last verse of the Psalm where the same sense is repeated interprets this Worship at his holy hill for the Lord our God is holy where the holy Mountain is the same with the Foot stool before mentioned and so Muis confesses who saith withal That by the phrase of worshipping His Foot-stool no more is meant than worshipping God at His Foot-stool and the Sanctuary he saith is called Gods Foot-stool not only by the Chaldee Paraphrast and Kimchi but Lament 2.1 And so Lyra interprets it Ante scabellum pedum ejus worship before His Footstool or worship at His Footstool as it is Psalm 182.7 And it would be very strange if the Psalmist should here propose the footstool for an object of worship to them when the design of the whole Psalm is to call all Nations to the worship of God as sitting between the Cherubims Psal. 99.1 i. e. in His Throne which is surely different from His Footstool I will not contend with Suarez about the sense of the Footstool of God here mentioned although he confesses that Basil and Vatablus understand the Temple by it but I will yield him that the Ark is most probably understood by it because of his sitting between the Cherubims being mentioned before in which respect the Ark may properly be called his Footstool For the Cherubims were the Mercabah or the Divine Chariot and so called 1 Chron. 28.18 where the Vulgar Latine renders it Quadriga Cherubim in such a Chariot Pyrrhus Ligorius the famous Italian Antiquary saith The Deities were wont to be drawn and Livy and Plutarch take notice of it in Camillus as an extraordinary thing that he made use of such a Triumphal Chariot which had been before looked on as proper to Iove the Father of Gods and Men. Such a Triumphal Chariot I suppose that to have been in the Holy of Holies but without any representation of the Divine Majesty and this Chariot is that we call the Cherubim and the Ark was a kind of Footstool to the invisible Majesty that sate between the Cherubims and there delivered his Oracles Now I appeal to the understanding of any reasonable man whether God being represented as sitting upon His Triumphal Chariot without any visible Image of Him the worship was there to be performed to the invisible Deity or to the visible Chariot and Footstool which is all one as to ask whether persons approaching to a Prince on his Throne are to worship the Prince or his Footstool or Chair of State But Lorinus and Suarez say The Hebrew particle being added to a word implying worship doth not denote the place but the object of worship which is sufficiently refuted by those two places before mentioned viz. the last verse of this Psalm and Psalm 132.7.3 Those of the Fathers who understood this expression of the object of worship do declare by their interpretation that it was not lawful to worship the Ark after that manner Therefore Lorinus saith most of the Fathers understood it of the humanity of Christ as S. Ambrose S. Hierome S. Augustine and others generally after him and among the Greeks he reckons S. Athanasius and S. Chrysostome But what need all this running so far from the literal sense in case they had thought the Ark a lawful object of worship Let S. Augustine speak for the rest The Scripture saith he elsewhere calls the Earth Gods Footstool and doth he bid us worship the Earth This puts me in a great perplexity I dare not worship the Earth lest He damn me who made the Heaven and the Earth and I dare not but worship His Footstool because He bids me do it In this doubt I turn my self to Christ and from Him find the resolution of it for His Flesh was Earth and so he runs into a discourse about the adoration due to the flesh of Christ and the sense in which it is to be understood And elsewhere saith That the humane nature of Christ is no otherwise to be adored than as it is united to the Divinity Which plainly shews that he did not think the Ark literally understood to be a proper object of worship But T. G. adds that S. Hierome saith That the Iews did worship or reverence the Holy of Holies because there were the Cherubims the Ark c. It is well he puts in Reverence as well as worship for Venerabantur signifies no more than that they had it in great veneration and that not only for the sake of the Ark and Cherubims but for the pot of Manna and Aarons Rod and doth T. G. think in his conscience that the Iews worshipped these too But S. Hierom explains himself when he saith immediately after That the Sepulchre of Christ is more venerable than that which he interprets by saying It was a place to be honoured by all And are these the doughty proofs which T. G. blames me for not vouchsafing an Answer to them I think he ought to have taken it as a kindness from me Let him now judge whether I have neither Scripture nor Father nor Reason to abet me in saying That the Iews only directed their worship towards the place where God had promised to be signally present among them As to the worship of the Cherubims all his attempts come only to this They might be worshipped although they were not seen and if it were lawful for the High Priest to worship them once a year it was alwaies lawful but I deny that the High Priest ever worshipped them for he only worshipped the God that sate upon His Triumphal Chariot and their being hid from the sight of the People was an argument they were not exposed as objects of worship as Images are in the Roman Church Their being Appendices to the Throne of God he saith was rather a means to increase than diminish the Peoples Reverence to them If by Reverence he means worship we may here see an instance of the variety of mens understandings For no less a man than Vasquez from hence argues That the Cherubims were never intended as an object of worship because they were only the Appendices to another thing but a thing is then proposed as an object of worship when it is set up by it self and not by way of addition or ornament to another thing with whom Lorinus Azorius and Visorius agree And even Aquinas himself grants That the Seraphim he means the Cherubim were not set up for worship but only for the sign of some Mysterie nay he saith the Iews
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
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