bowing down to and worshipping that similitude is the Worshipping that Similitude as God i. e. taking the Likeness to be the Thing it self I cannot blame T. G. for making the thing forbidden in the Commandment if it be possible more absurd than their practice in the worship of Images is but whether he hath made the sense of the Law or himself more ridiculous let the Reader judge By similitude he saith is here to be understood only the Similitude of False Gods as the Sun Moon and Stars and other like things which they worshipped as Gods this I confess is intelligible and true although not the full meaning of the Commandment but what then is bowing down to and worshipping this similitude that is saith he to worship this similitude as God How is that Is it by believing the Similitude to be the Thing as the Image of the Sun to be really the Sun this is absurd enough of all Conscience and they were sottish Idolaters indeed that did so Or is it that they thought there was no other God besides that similitude That were strange indeed they should think the similitude to be God and not the thing represented by it But so the wise Pope Gregory 2. interpreted this Commandment in his incomparable Epistle to Leo Isaurus The Emperour tells the Pope he durst not allow the Worship of Images because of this severe Prohibition of any kind of similitude and he desires him to shew who it was that since had made it lawful to worship the work of mens Hands The Pope for this calls him an Ignoramus a dull and insolent Fool and bids him lay aside his pride and haughtiness and come and learn of him the meaning of the Commandment And now we expect something becoming an Infallible Head of the Church This Commandment saith the Pope was made for the sake of the Idolaters who lived in the Land of Promise that worshipped living Creatures of Gold and Silver and Wood and all sorts of Creatures and Fowls of the Aire and said These are our Gods and there is no God besides them and for the sake of this workmanship of the Devil God said that we should not worship them but there is other Workmanship for the Honour of God and this men may worship Exceedingly well spoken The mischief is Maimonides saith there never were such Fools in the world to believe there was no other God but their Idols but what is Maimonides his saying to the Head of the Church I am not yet satisfied about T. G's worshipping a similitude as God and so making it an Idol If it be a God how is it the similitude of a God If it be not how comes it to be worshipped as God What is it the similitude of of God yes But it is God it self to him that worships it as God and so it is the similitude of it self So that the similitude here forbidden to be worshipped is a Thing that is like its own self T. G. in another place saith the thing forbidden in the Commandment is bowing our selves down to the Images themselves and this by the Concession of all is worshipping them instead of God What is this bowing down to the Images themselves Is it supposing them to be really Gods then they are not worshipped as similitudes and this seems to be his meaning when he saith To bow down our selves to the Images themselves without any Relation to God is to worship them instead of God But I am still to seek for his meaning is it bowing down to Images themselves without relation to any other God that must suppose that those who do so worship them believe there is no God besides the Images and that were to make God to forbid a thing that we never read to be practised in the World Or is it to suppose those Images themselves to be Objects of Worship if it be then all those stand condemned for Idolaters who assert that Images themselves are to be worshipped Which I have shewed to be the common opinion of their Divines and by them thought to be the Decree of the Councils for the worship of Images Or lastly is the worshipping Images themselves without relation to the True God the worshipping them instead of God but this is both false and impertinent It is false because they who worship Images without relation to the true God may yet worship them barely as they represent a false God as the wisest of the Heathens did and therefore not as God and Eusebius saith in general of the Heathens that they did not look on their Images as Gods it is impertinent because by the confession of their own Writers as I have shewed an Image that hath relation to the True God may be worshipped as God when divine worship is given to an Image of God or Christ. And therefore all this adoe is to no purpose for this Commandment must then be so understood as to exclude the worship of the True God by an Image Otherwise it cannot be unlawful to give any kind of worship to an Image of the True God and so the Gnosticks were not to blame in the worship they gave to the Image of Christ although they stand condemned in all Ages of the Church for it If this were unlawful as they all say it is unlawful to Sacrifice to an Image then some kind of worshipping the True God by an Image is forbidden by the second Commandment And now let the Reader judge how well T.G. hath acquitted himself in his admirable undertakings when he saith with so much confidence that the second Commandment speaks not one Word against the worshipping God himself by an Image which is to charge the whole Christian Church with Folly and Ignorance in condemning the Carpocratians for worshipping the Image of Christ with divine worship who saith Bellarmin sine dubio Imaginem ejus propter ipsum colebant without all doubt worshipped the Image of Christ with relation to him But still when T. G. is miserably mistaken the Fathers must bear the blame of it Alas poor Fathers Must you bear the load of all his miscarriages It is but doing you justice to vindicate your innocency in this righteous Cause He tells me that I must prove against these Fathers viz. Origen and Theodoret and the general sense of the Church of Christ for so many hundred years that the word similitude is to be taken in the second Commandment for any Image made with respect to the worship of God A very easie undertaking in it self but by no means either against those Fathers or the sense of the Christian Church for many hundred years which is as plainly on my side in this case as it is in the Articles of the Creed as may be seen in the foregoing Chapters But T. G. is again unlucky when he pretends to the Fathers for those two Fathers he mentions are point-blank against him in this matter witness the many
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
Ancestors to whom we give 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the second Honours next to the Gods as Celsus calls those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the due honours that belong to the lower Daemons which he contends ought to be given to them From which we take notice that the Heathens did not confound all degrees of divine worship giving to the lowest object the same which they supposed to be due to the Coelestial Deities or the supreme God So that if the distinction of divine worship will excuse from Idolatry the Heathens were not to blame for it 2. If this pretence doth excuse from Idolatry the Carpocratian Hereticks were unjustly charged by Irenaeus Epiphanius and S. Augustin for they are said To worship the Images of Christ together with the Philosophers Pythagoras Plato and Aristotle Wherein lay the fault of these Hereticks was it only in joyning the Philosophers together with Christ If that had been all it had been easie to have said That they worshipped the Philosophers together with Christ but they take particular notice of it as a thing unusual and blame-worthy that they worshipped the Images of Christ which they pretended to have had from Pilat which had been no wonder if there had been as many Images of Christ then extant as Feuardentius pretends viz. the Image of Christ taken by Nicodemus not I suppose when he came by night to our Saviour that at Edessa besides those which S. Luke drew of Him if there had been so many Images abroad of Him in veneration among Christians why should this be pitched upon as a peculiar thing of these Gnosticks That they had some Images painted others made of other matters which they crowned and set forth or worshipped as the Heathens did among which was an Image of Christ as Irenaeus reports it And supposing they had worshipped the Images of Christ as the Gentiles did worship their Images wherein were they to blame if the honour given to the Image be not the honour of the Image but of that which is represented by it And since Christ deserves our highest worship on this pretence they deserved no blame at all in giving divine worship of the highest degree to the Image of Christ. 3. The Primitive Christians did utterly refuse to worship the Images of Emperors although they were acknowledged to be Gods Creatures therefore I say according to their sense acknowledging the Saints to be Gods Creatures is not a sufficient ground to excuse the worship of the Images of Saints from Idolatry As in Pliny's Epistle to Trajan mentioned before one of the tryals of Christians was whether they would Imagini tuae thure ac vino supplicare use the Religious rites that were then customary of Incense Libation and Supplication before the Emperours Image this Minucius calls ad Imagines supplicare to pray before their Images which Pliny saith No true Christian could ever be brought to but would rather suffer Martyrdom than do it S. Hierome speaking of Nebuchadnezzars Image saith Statuam seu Imaginem cultores Dei adorare non debent the worshippers of God ought not to worship an Image Let saith he the Iudges and Magistrates take notice of this that worship the Emperours Statues that they do that which the three Children pleased God by not doing By which we see it was not only the Statues of Heathen Emperours which the Christians refused to give Religious worship to but of the most pious and Christian which out of the flattery of Princes those who expected or received Honours were willing to continue under Christian Emperours but it was at last absolutely forbidden by a Constitution of Theodosius of which I have spoken already in the Discourse about the Nature of divine worship But upon what reason came this to be accounted unlawful among Christians if it were lawful to worship the Images of Saints supposing them to be Gods Creatures Is it possible they should think the Emperours to be otherwise I do not think that the Souldiers who were trepann'd by Iulian to offer Incense to his Image at the receiving the Donative and after they understood what they did were ready to run mad with indignation at themselves crying out in the Streets We are Christians and ran to the Emperour desiring they might suffer Martyrdom for the Christian faith which they were supposed to deny by that act of theirs as Gregory Nazianzen and Theodoret relate the story did imagine that Iulian was any other than one of Gods Creatures or that they had any belief of his being a God but the Christians looked on the act it self of offering incense as unlawful to be done to the Image of any Creature or to the Image it self because it was a Creature and that of the meanest sort viz. the Work of mens hands 4. It is not enough for any of Gods Creatures to be worshipped under the Notion of Saints if any worship be given to them which is above the rank of Creatures i. e. any of that worship which belongs to God For none can have greater confidence of the Saintship of any Persons whose Images they worshipped those excepted which are revealed in Scripture than many of the Heathens had of the goodness of the Deities which they worshipped And if we observe the method which Origen S. Cyril S. Augustin and other Christian Writers took to prove them to be evil Spirits which they worshipped we shall find the great argument was from the Nature of the worship given to them For say they we find in Scripture that good Angels have refused that worship which they seem so desirous of and therefore there is just reason to suspect that these are not good Angels although they firmly believed them to be so and Hierocles saith God forbid we should worship any other And the Heathens in S. Augustin say peremptorily they did not worship Devils but Angels and the servants of the Great God So say I as to those who are worshipped under the name of Saints or Angels if in or at their Images such things are spoken or done which tend to the encouraging that worship which the Primitive Christians refused as Idolatry there is the same reason still to suspect those are not good but evil Spirits under whose name or representation soever they appear For it is as easie for them to play the same tricks among Christians which they did among Heathens for then they pretended to be Good Spirits and why may they not do the same still If we have a fuller discovery of their design to impose upon the world the folly of men is so much the greater to be abused by them and the Gentiles were in that respect far more excuseable than Christians because God had not discovered the Cheat and artifices of Evil Spirits to them so as he hath done to us by the Christian Religion Whatever pretence of miracles or visions or appearances there be if the design of them be to advance a way of
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
this conclusion of his was condemned as scandalous and against the Custom of the Universal Church Yet he concludes his Apology with saying That if he had universally condemned the worship of Images his proposition had been Heretical From whence it appears that these persons who did agree in the practice yet because they said the Images were to be worshipped only improperly and abusively were not thought to believe or do what the Church required Therefore Suarez saith 1. That it is defide or an article of Faith imagines esse adorandas that Images are to be worshipped and that to be owned not in any limited and improper sense but absolutely and simply which article he saith is founded in the Tradition and Definitions of the Church and he proves it by the constant practice of the Church 2. That Images are to be worshipped not abusively and improperly but verè propriè truly and properly and that the contrary opinion of Durandus is dangerous rash and savouring of Heresie So he saith Medina determines it who reports that Victoria said it was Heretical and this conclusion he saith is commonly received among the modern Divines and he proves it from the Definitions of Councils especially the second Council of Nice which hath defined it under an Anathema But he adds if Images were only to be worshipped abusively and improperly the worship of them was rather simply to be denied than affirmed for an improper and abusive worship is no worship at all and they were not to be condemned for Hereticks who allow the use of Images for memory and only deny their worship To which he subjoyns this Reason either the Image truly and in it self is at least the material object of worship total or partial or it is not if it be the thing is granted if not then in plain terms the Image is not worshipped For it is neither the formal nor the material object of worship but only the occasion or sign exciting men to worship the thing represented And according to this opinion the Hereticks would speak more properly than the Catholicks For he that at the sight of a beautiful creature is excited to praise or love the Creator cannot be said to praise or love the creature although the presence of the Creature did raise that devotion Therefore saith he the Nicene Council did condemn this opinion when it condemned those who said that Images did only serve for memory which in truth is all the use that opinion allows them and when the Nicene Council declares the worship given to Images not to be Latria for if no more worship be allowed but only worshipping the object in presence of the Image then the most perfect Latria may be given to Christ before the Image and consequently the worship in that abusive and improper sense may be Latria which the Council denies and farther the same Council saith that not only the exemplar may be worshipped in the Image but that the Image is to be worshipped for the sake of the exemplar by which it determines the Image to be the object of worship although the Reason of it be the thing represented 3. Suarez saith That not only the external acts of adoration are to be performed towards Images but the very intention of worship to be directed towards them For even Durandus himself did allow the external acts to be done towards them and because the inward intention he said was directed to the exemplar therefore he said the Images were only said abusively to be worshipped For which assertion Suarez gives these reasons 1. The external act without the intention of the mind is no proper worship but only counterfeit And Leontius quoted in the Council of Nice saith In all worship the inward intention is required 2. From many passages in that Council implying that the intention of worship ought to be about the Images because they are said to deserve worship and from the sayings of Epiphanius Basilius Adrianus Tarasius there extant and Elias Cretensis who saith he did perfectly worship them which could not be without the inward intention And from the Council of Trent which calls it due honour and worship but it cannot be any true honour without the inward intention 3. To perform the external acts of worship before an Image is either to worship it or not if it be then the inward intention is granted but since there may be a distinction between the intention of worship and the intention of performing the external acts of worship in order to worship it is not only necessary to perform the material acts but to do them with the intention of giving worship by them Neither is it enough to say that there is an inward intention but the outward acts are towards the Image and the inward intention to the exemplar For saith Suarez as true worship doth essentially require the intention of worship so the worship of this or that particular thing doth require a proportionable intention towards that thing and the worship of one thing cannot be said to be the worship of another thing distinct from it unless it be some way participated by it but the Image is a distinct thing from the exemplar therefore the worship of the exemplar cannot be said to be the worship of the Image unless the Image do partake of the worship and consequently there must be an intention of giving worship to the Image This saith he may be illustrated by an example If a man kiss the ground out of a meer intention of giving worship to God thereby he cannot truly and properly be said to worship the ground about which the material action is conversant but only God to whom he directed his worship And all this he confirms by more passages out of the Nicene Council which he saith was not so regardless about the manner and names of worship as Vasquez imagined but took great care to express it self so that true and proper worship be given to Images which it defines under an Anathema and although it useth other words of salutation honour c. yet it makes these aequivalent to that real worship which it doth expresly require Ambros Catharinus saith that the opinion of those who say Images are not truly and properly to be worshipped but God to be worshipped before an Image differs very little from those who deny any worship of Images and is repugnant to the practice of the Church because we direct our gestures our words and signs of adoration to the Images to which likewise we burn incense And we worship the Cross saying O Crux ave spes unica c. And he proves at large by the second Council of Nice that true and real worship was required to be given to Images and concludes that Images are not meerly for instruction or memory or exciting devotion but that they are set up properly for worship Therefore if any man asks another Súntne adorandae Imagines intrepidè respondeat adorandae
no Image is to be worshipped for any sanctity or vertue in it self but only for the sake of the object represented otherwise it would be Idolatry Gabriel Biel likewise agrees that the Images of Christ which represent him are to be worshipped with Latria but he found out the distinction of a twofold Latria 1. Proper Latria which is the worship given to Christ as the object represented upon the sight of an Image of him and this is not terminated on the Image but the exemplar 2. Improper or analogical Latria which is the worship of the Image as it represents so that to the same external act of worship he makes two internal acts whereof one is terminated on the Image the other on the Prototype Thomas Waldensis saith that the Images considered in themselves deserve no worship at all but considered in relation to a higher Being and in regard of their representation so they deserve to be worshipped and if the mind passes from the Image to the thing represented then he saith the Image and the Prototype are worshipped with the same act which must be Latria as to the Image of Christ but the Latria condemned by the Nicene Council he would have to be the worshipping the Images themselves for Gods which the Heathens themselves as appears by the Acts of that Synod utterly denyed that they did in the discourse of Iohn of Thessalonica We worship not saith the Heathen the Images but through them the Spiritual Powers Angelus de Clavasio declares that the Image of Christ is to be worshipped with Latria as well as himself and that the Cross whereon Christ was Crucified was to be worshipped with Latria both on the account of representation and contact therefore saith he we speak and pray to the Cross as to Christ himself The same is said by Bartholomaus Fumus who was a Dominican as the other a Franciscan whereby we see it was no opinion peculiar to the Dominican order on the account of the authority of Thomas and by Dionysius the Carthusian as well as Antoninus the Dominican Franciscus Ferrariensis saith that when Latria is appropriated to God it is be understood primò per se primarily and for its own sake but if it be understood only secondarily and for anothers sakes then saith he Latria may be given to an Image of Christ for considering the Image as an Image it is worshipped with the same act by which the Person represented is and therefore since Latria is due to Christ it must be so to the Image of Christ and he answers all the arguments of Durandus Holcot and Mirandula by the help of the former distinction as he might have done a hundred more and he asserts that the Image and the object represented make together one total object of adoration whereof one part is the Reason why the worship is terminated on the other and that the act of adoration whereby God and the Image are worshipped together cannot be Latria in respect of one and an inferiour worship in respect of the other because both the internal and external acts are such wherein the worship of Latria doth properly consist and to shew this to be the Catholick doctrine he proves it from the practice of the Catholick Church which makes genuflections prostrations supplications and other acts of Latria to the Cross. Which was the true Reason of introducing this doctrine of Latria to Images contrary to the Definition of the Nicene Council because they saw the constant practice of the Church in the Worship of the Cross could not be justified upon other grounds The Church never owning any Prosopopoeia but expressing its devotions to the Cross as really distinct from although representing the Person of Christ. Card. Cajetan saith that the act of worship towards the Image of Christ is truly and properly terminated on the Image not in regard either of its matter or Form but as it performs the Office of an Image So that Christ himself is the Reason of the worship of the Image and his being in the Image is the condition by which the Reason of worship doth excite men to worship and terminate it But since Christ is not asserted to be really and Personally in the Image but only by representation Cajetan ought to have shewn that an union by meer Imagination between Christ and the Image is a sufficient condition for performing those acts of worship to the Image which properly belong to God alone which he hath not undertaken but he shews against Durandus that if the Image of Christ were only worshipped as it puts us in mind of Christ then any other thing which puts us in mind of him might be worshipped as well as an Image And the Practice of the Church shews that it doth not worship the Cross as a memorative sign but because the Image of Christ is to be worshipped with Latria therefore it worships it Thus we see what the judgement of the most eminent and learned Divines of the Roman Church was concerning giving the worship of Latria to Images before the Council of Trent and upon what that judgement was founded viz. the practice of the Roman Church in the worship of the Cross. Let us now see whether this matter hath been otherwise determined by the Council of Trent and whether the contrary opinion hath obtained since That wary Council knowing very well the practice of their Church and the opinion of Divines only determines due honour and veneration to be given to Images not for the sake of any Divinity or power inherent in them for which they are to be worshipped or that any thing is to be asked of them or that Trust is to be put in the Images as it was of old by the Heathens who placed their hope in Idols but because the honour which is done to them is referred to the Prototypes which they represent so that by the Images which we kiss and before which we uncover our heads and fall down we adore Christ and worship the Saints which they represent Which hath been already decreed by Councils against the opposers of Images especially the second Nicene Synod Where we observe these things 1. That all external Acts of Adoration are allowed to be done to Images even the very same which were to be done to the Person of Christ if he were actually present are to be done to his Image to adore him thereby 2. That there is not the least intimation against giving the same kind and degree of worship to the Image which is given to Christ himself And since the Council allows no proper vertue in the Image for which it should be worshipped but takes all from the representation and supposes the honour to pass to the Prototype Vasquez thinks it is very evident that the sense of the Council was that the Image and the Exemplar were to be worshipped with the same Act of adoration which as to the
herein did forbid himself to be worshipped by a Crucifix or such like sacred Image and he asserts that the design of the Law is only to forbid the Worship of Idols The first part he saith toucheth not the worship of Images nor of God himself by them but only the making them the second forbids indeed in express terms to bow our selves down to the Images themselves but speaks not one word of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of worshipping God himself by them To bow our selves down to the Images themselves without any relation to God is by the concession of all to worship them instead of God The Iews we know did worship God by bowing down before the Ark and the Cherubims and yet they did not worship them instead of God therefore he asserts that by Image an Idol is to be understood and that by Idol such an Image as is made to represent for worship a figment that hath no real Being and by similitude an Image or resemblance of some real thing but falsely imagined to be a God This is the sense which T. G. gives of the second Commandment But if I can make it appear 1. That there is no reason to take the word he translates Idol here for the representation of a meer figment set up for worship and that if it were so taken it would not excuse them 2. That the worship of God before the Ark and the Cherubims was of a different nature from the Worship of Images here forbidden and that the sense of the Law doth exclude all worship of Images then this interpretation of T. G. will appear to be very false and groundless 1. That there is no reason to understand what we render Image of such an Idol as represents a meer figment set up for worship If there were any colour of Reason for such an acception of the word Idol here it must either be 1. From the natural importance of the word or 2. From the use of it in Scripture or 3. From the consent of the Fathers or 4. From some Definition of the Church But I shall shew that there is no ground for affixing this sense to the Commandment from any one of these 1. Not from the natural importance of the word He that reads such an express prohibition in a divine Law of something so displeasing to God that he annexes a very severe sanction to it had need be very well satisfied about the sense he gives to the words of it lest he incurr the wrath of God and be found a perverter of his Law If a man should reject all humane Authority because the First Commandment saith Thou shalt have no other Elohim besides me but in Scripture Magistrates and Iudges are called Elohim therefore it is unlawful to own any civil Magistrates he would have much more to say than T. G. and his Brethren have in restraining the sense of the Law about Images to such Idols as are only representations of Imaginary Beings For the Original word hath no manner of tendency that way it signifying any thing that is carved or cut out of wood or stone and as I told T. G. before it is no less than forty several times rendred by the LXX by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and but thrice by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and which is very observable although Exod. 20.4 they render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet in the repetition of the Law Deut. 5.8 the Alexandrian MS. hath it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Deut. 4.16 in some copies of the LXX the same word is translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Isaiah 40.18 they translate it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is properly an Image and the Vulgar Latin it self useth Idolum Sculptile and Imago Isa. 44.9 10 13. all to express the same thing To this T. G. replyes that the LXX generally translating it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had some particular reason to render it Idol here and because this is a word of stricter signification it ought to regulate the larger and in the other places he saith there is still some term or clause restraining the words to such a graven thing or Image as is made to be compared with God or to be the object of divine worship that is to be an Idol Then it seems a graven Image when it is made the object of Divine worship becomes an Idol in T. G's sense and yet an Idol in the Commandment is the representation of a meer Figment but might not that be the sense of an Idol in this place which he grants is meant in another where the words are express concerning the representation of God as in Isaiah 40.18 And if he allows this to be the meaning of an Idol in the Commandment I will grant that the LXX had a particular reason to render Pesel by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here For Aquinas well observes that this Commandment doth not forbid the making any sculpture or similitude sed facere adorandam to make it for worship because it follows thou shalt not fall down to them and worship them And Montanus expresses the sense of the Commandment after this manner simulathrum divinum nullo pacto conflato Signa cultûs causa ne facito and Nicolaus Faber both learned men of the Roman Church Sculptilibus nè flecte genu pictaeve tabellae and again Non pictum sculptúmve puta venerabile quidquam If this be T. G's sense of an Idol I freely yield to him that the LXX had very good reason so to render Pesel in this place where it is supposed to be an object of divine worship But how can this agree with what T. G. saith that the Law speaks not one word of the unlawfulness of worshipping God himself by an Image For doth not the Law condemn the worship of an Idol And doth not T. G. say that an Image when it is made an object of Divine worship becomes an Idol And doth it not then follow that the Law in express terms doth condemn the Worship of God by such an Image Nay is it not the self-same T. G. that saith that the making such Images as are conceived to be proper Likenesses or representations of the Divinity is against the Nature and unalterable Law of God But what Law of God is there that doth forbid such Images if it be not this And if this Law doth forbid such Images then the signification of an Idol is not here to be taken for the representation of a Figment but of the greatest and most real Being in the World Have not I now far better reason to return his own words upon him such frequent self contradictions are the natural consequences of a Discourse not grounded upon Truth and although the Reader may think I take delight to discover them in my Adversary yet I can assure him it is a much greater grief to me to see so subtle a Wit so often intangled in them
about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that when he gives an account of this Law in his Books against Celsus he never mentions it but useth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and saith the meaning of the Law was to forbid any kind of Images Tertullian saith that God hereby did forbid all kind of similitude quanto magis Imaginis suae how much more any Image of himself and elsewhere he makes an Idol and an Image the same thing and in another place that God did prohibit all similitudes to prevent any occasion of Idolatry for he adds thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them Therefore saith he the brazen Serpent was not against the Law being not for worship but for a Remedy nor the Cherubim being meerly Ornaments and therefore not falling under the Reason of the Law and afterwards he reckons up the several terms of the Law by Images Statues and Similitudes S. Cyprian interprets the meaning of the word Idols in the Commandment when he saith they are such as the Psalmist speaks of that have mouths and speak not c. which is certainly meant of Images of humane shape and in another place he saith the Heathen Idols were made ad defunctorum vultus per imaginem detinendos to preserve the countenances of the dead by Images which are almost the same words with those of Minucius Felix speaking of the same subject while they desired saith he defunctos Reges in imaginibus videre to see their Princes Images and to retain their memories in their Statues that which at first was intended for their comfort became an object of worship So Lactantius saith that their Simulachra their Idols in T. G's sense were either the monuments of the dead or of the absent and he makes the sense of the Law to be nihil colendum esse quod oculis mortalibus cernitur nothing to be worshipped that can be seen S. Augustin giving the sense of this commandment saith that therein any similitude of God is forbidden to be worshipped and therefore surely not the meer figments of mens brains or representations of Sphinxes and Tritons and Centaurs 3. That those very persons who put that sense upon the word Idol do yet make the sense of the Commandment to be against the practice of the Roman Church For both Origen and Theodoret make it unlawful by the force of this commandment to perform any external act of worship towards any representation whatsoever and the difference they both put between worship and service is that the latter is that of the mind and the former of the body but both they say are here forbidden and therefore I cannot imagine what comfort T. G. can have in supposing their Images are not forbidden under the name of Idols if they be forbidden under the name of similitudes and it be as unlawful to worship them under one name as under the other Our quarrel is not with them meerly on the account of the word Idolatry but it is on the account of their worships being contrary to the express Law of God and whether it be forbidden under the name of Idol or similitude it is all one to us as long as the worship they practise is as plainly against the sense of this Commandment as Perjury Adultery or Theft is against the other Commandments and that even in the opinion of Origen and Theodoret themselves Besides if we look into the sense of these two Authors we shall find their meaning was not as T. G. imagines to make those only Idols that were made to represent fictions of the brain but to shew that God had forbidden all sorts of Images Symbolical as well as others For saith Origen Moses being skilled in all the Wisdom of the Aegyptians did forbid those things which are used in their secret and hidden Mysteries i. e. their Symbolical and Hieroglyphical representations and Theodoret particularly mentions the Aegyptian Images with the face of a Dog and the Head of an Ox whereby it is plain that they thought Moses by this Law intended to forbid all manner of representations of things in order to worship whether it were by Hieroglyphicks or by proper similitudes So that neither Origen nor Theodoret by this interpretation do give the least countenance to the practice of the Roman Church 4. I shall in the last place shew that this interpretation of the term Idol is overthrown by the most learned persons of the Roman Church who do confess that the Images of real Beings may become Idols And that in these following cases 1. When proper Latria is given to an Image that is truly Idolatry saith Bellarmin when proper Latria is given to any thing besides God and it is not only Idolatry when an Idol is worshipped without God but when an Idol is worshipped together with God and from hence he concludes that no Image ought to be worshipped with proper Latria which conclusion cannot be of any force unless such an Image becomes an Idol but he goes farther and saith that those who worshipped an Image of Christ with divine honours although it be for the sake of Christ and not of the Image did commit Idolatry for saith he although a man pretends to give these honours for the sake of God or Christ yet in as much as he gives divine honours to them he doth really give it for themselves although he denies it in words which is a very fair confession and from hence those were condemned as hereticks who gave divine worship to the Image of Christ as appears by Irenaeus Epiphanius S. Augustin and Damascen According to which concession the dispute cannot any longer be whether the Images of Christ or the Saints be Idols or no if we can prove that divine honours are given to them by the doctrine and practice of the Roman Church And even T. G. himself saith Is not the giving Divine Worship to a Creature the same as to make it a false God And is it not Heathen Idolatry to worship a false God From whence it follows that it is the Worship makes any thing an Idol and not the representation of an Imaginary Being 2. When Images are worshipped as true representations of the Divine Nature So Sanders expresly He that goes about to represent the invisible Nature of God by an Image sins grievously and makes an Idol and he that proposes such an Image for worship commits Idolatry but such an Image is no representation of a meer figment of mens brains but a vain endeavour to set forth the most perfect Being If he had only said it had been a foolish and vain attempt he had only expressed the impossibility of the thing but when he makes such an Image an Idol when it is proposed for worship he doth imply that an imperfect representation of an infinite Nature when it is worshipped becomes an Idol This is not to be avoided by saying that such an Image is a
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
meet with either ancient or modern when I had done this I compared those observations I had made with the Sense of the Scriptures and of the Fathers of the several Ages of the Christian Church who had managed the Charge of Idolatry against Heathens or Hereticks From hence I framed the First Part of the following Book wherein I have not only examined and confuted T. G.'s false notion of it but endeavoured to settle the True one in its place Which being dispatched and the main principles of his whole Book thereby weakned and overthrown I betook my self to the particular Defence of the Charge of Idolatry practised in the Roman Church in the Worship of Images and I apprehended nothing of greater consequence in this Debate than to give a true Account of the state of the Controversie between us which T. G endeavoured with all his art to blind and confound After which I have given a distinct Answer to every thing material or plausible in that part of his Book Which swelling this Discourse beyond my expectation I must respite the other part to a farther opportunity which I may the better do because the Remainder of T. G's Book hath already received a sufficient Answer from a learned and worthy Person THE CONTENTS PART I. A General Discourse concerning the Nature of Idolatry CHAP. I. T. G's notion of Idolatry examined and confuted page 1 CHAP. II. Of the Nature of Divine Worship p. 184 PART II. Being a particular Defence of the Charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome in the Worship of Images CHAP. I. The State of the Controversie about the Worship of Images between Christians and Heathens p. 349 CHAP. II. The State of the Controversie about Images in the Christian Church p. 487 CHAP. III. Of the Sense of the second Commandment p. 670 CHAP. IV. An Answer to T. G 's charge of Contradictions Paradoxes Reproach of the second Council of Nice School disputes and to his parallel Instances p. 784 PART I. A General Discourse concerning the Nature of Idolatry CHAP. I. T. G's notion of Idolatry examined and confuted TO make good the Charge of Idolatry against the Roman Church which is my present business there are two things necessary to be done 1. To lay down the right notion of Idolatry 2. To examine what T. G. and others have said to justifie themselves from the particulars of this Charge I begin with the consideration of the Nature of Idolatry not only because my Adversary calls me to it in these words Here the Ax is laid to the root and if ever the Dr. will speak home to the purpose it must be upon this point He must speak to the Nature of the thing c. But because the weight of the whole matter in debate depends upon it and whosoever reads through T. G 's answer to me will find the only strength of it to lie in a very different notion of Idolatry which he sets up which if it prove true the main of my charge must fall to the ground although however by his way of writing he can hardly answer the character I had given him either of a Learned or ingenuous Adversary The notion of Idolatry which T. G. lays down may be gathered from these assertions of his That God being the only supreme and superexcellent Being above all and over all to him therefore Sovereign honour is only to be given and to none beside him That as no command of God can make that to be not Idolatry which is so in the nature of the thing so no prohibition if there were any could make that to be Idolatry which hath not in it the true and real nature of Idolatry That the worship of Images forbidden in the Commandment is the worshipping Images instead of God and the reason of the Law was to keep the people in their duty of giving Sovereign worship to God alone by restraining them from Idolatry That this Law was made particularly to forbid Sovereign worship to be given as he saith it was at that time given by the Heathen to graven Images i. e. representations of imaginary Beings or to any similitude i. e. the likeness of any thing which although it had a real being yet was not God That the Image-worship condemned by S. Paul was the worshipping Images for Gods or as the Images of false Gods That evil Spirits or false Gods did reside in their Images by Magical incantation That the supreme God of the Heathens was not the true God but a Devil and that the Poets who call him the Father of Gods and men were those whom Horace confesseth that they took the priviledge to dare to feign and say thing From these assertions it is no hard matter to form T. G 's notion of Idolatry viz. That it is The giving the Soveraign worship of God to a creature and among the Heathens to the Devil And now who dares charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry I do not wonder that he calls this so foul so extravagant so unjust a charge and parallels me with no meaner a person than Iulian the Apostate saying That surely a more injurious Calumny scarce ever dropt from the pen of the greatest enemy of Christianity except that of Julian the Apostate But I am so used to their hard words that I can easily pass them over and immediately apply my self to the debate of these things which will tend very much to the clearing the true notion of Idolatry 1. Whether Idolatry be not consistent with the acknowledgement of one Supreme Being 2. Wherein the Nature of that Divine Worship lies which being given to a Creature makes it Idolatry For if those who acknowledge one Supreme Being the Creator and Governour of the world were notwithstanding this guilty of Idolatry and that Idolatry be as T. G. confesseth the giving the worship due to God to a creature then if we can prove that the Church of Rome doth give any part of that worship which is due to God to any thing besides him we may still justly charge them with Idolatry although they believe one Supreme God and reserve some worship which he calls Sovereign to him 1. Whether Idolatry be not consistent with the acknowledgement of one Supreme Being Creator and Governour of the world Whom I suppose T. G. will not deny to be the true God It is agreed by him that the whole Heathen world was guilty of Idolatry without excepting the more intelligent and wiser persons among them therefore our only business as to them is to enquire whether they did acknowledge this Supreme Being and it is without dispute that all Christians do acknowledge the True God if I can then prove that such have notwithstanding been charged with Idolatry by those whose judgement T. G. dares not refuse I hope these two things being made out will be sufficient to prove that those may be guilty of Idolatry
or these are not faithful servants to him by bringing in visible objects of worship by setting up Images and perswading men to make oblations and offer sacrifices to them And because it was so hard a matter to choke those natural motions of mens minds towards the Supreme God and Father of all therefore they endeavour'd to draw men farther from him by tempting them to all manner of impiety Whereas the good Angels we read of in Scripture always directed men to pay their honours and adoration not to themselves but only to the Supreme God and teach men that it is not fit to give them to any of his Ministers and Servants but these Deities of Iulian are willing to receive worship from men and their prayers and acknowledgements and praises and gifts and sacrifices where we see he joyns them all together as parts of that divine worship which is proper only to God But Iulian is very much displeased at the Second Commandment and would have been glad to have seen it struck out of the number of ten as some in the World have done because God therein expresses so much jealousie for his own honour Cyril in answer to him shews that this is no way unbecoming God to be so much concerned for his honour because mens greatest happiness as Alexander Aphrodisiensis said in his Book of Providence lies in the due apprehension and service of God By which we see that the controversie about Idolatry as it was hitherto managed between Christians and Heathens did suppose the belief of one Supreme God in those who were charged with the practise of it After these it may not be amiss to consider what the ancient Author of the Recognitions under Clemens his name saith upon this subject of the Heathen Idolatry he lived saith Cotelerius in the Second Century if that be true his Authority is the more considerable however it is certain Ruffinus translated this Book and thâ—â— makes it ancient enough to our purpose He brings in the Heathen Idolaters pleading thus for themselves We likewise acknowledge one God who is Lord over all but yet the other are Gods too as there is but one Caesar who hath many Officers under him as Praefects Consuls Tribunes and other Magistrates after the same manner we suppose when there is but one Supreme God he hath many other inferiour Gods as so many Officers under him who are all subject to him but yet over us To this he brings in S. Peter answering that he desires them to keep to their own similitude for as they who attribute the name of Caesar to any inferiour Officers deserve to be punished so will those more severely who give the name of God to any of his Creatures Where the name is not to be taken alone but as it implies the dignity and Authority going along with it and the professing of that subjection which is only due to that Authority for what injury were it to Caesar for a man only to have the name of Caesar but the injury lies in usurping the Authority under that name so the nature of Idolatry could not lie in giving the name of Gods to any Creatures but in giving that worship which that name calls for and yet this worship here is supposed to be consistent with the acknowledgement of the supreme excellency of God If we now look into the sense of the Writers of the Latine Church against the Heathen Idolaters we shall find them agreeing with the other Tertullian appeals to the consciences of men for the clearest evidence of one true and Supreme God for in the midst of all their Idolatries they are apt upon any great occasion to lift up their hands and eyes to Heaven where the only true and great and good God is and he mentions their common phrases God gives and God sees and I commend you to God and God will restore all which do shew the natural Testimony of conscience as to the unity and supreme excellency of God and in his Book ad Scapulam God shewed himself to be the powerful God by what he did upon their supplications to him under the name of Iove Minucius Felix makes use of the same arguments and saith they were clear arguments of their consent with the Christians in the belief of one God and makes it no great matter what name they called him by as I have observed already and afterwards produces many Testimonies of the Philosophers almost all he saith that they acknowledged one God although under several names Arnobius takes it for granted that on both sides they were agreed that there was one Supreme God eternal and invisible and Father of all things from whom all the Heathen Deities had their beginning but all the dispute was about giving divine worship to any else besides him Lactantius saith there was no wise man ever questioned the being of one God who made and governed all things yet because he knew the World was full of Fools he goes about to prove it at large from the testimonies of Poets and Philosophers as so many had done before him and for T. G 's satisfaction he saith that Orpheus although as good at feigning as any of the Poets could not by the Father of the Gods mean Jupiter the Son of Saturn yet who can tell but such a Magician as Orpheus is said to have been might mean an Arch-Devil by him But I am sure neither Lactantius nor any of the Fathers ever thought so for if they had they would not so often have produced his Testimony to so little purpose And to the Greek Testimonies mentioned before by others Lactantius adds those of Cicero and Seneca who calls the infeririour Gods the children of the Supreme and the Ministers of his Kingdom Thus far we have the unanimous consent of all the Writers of the Christian Church against the Heathen Idolatry that the Heathens did acknowledge one Supreme God S. Augustin tells us that Varro thought that those who worshipped one God without images did mean the same by him that they did by their Jove but only called him by another name by those S. Austin saith Varro meant the Iews and he thought it no matter what name God is called by so the same thing be meant It is true S. Augustin argues against it from the Poetical Fables about Saturn and Iuno but withal he confesses that they thought it very unreasonable for their Religion to be charged with those Fables which themselves disowned and therefore at last he could not deny that they believed themselves that by the Jove in the Capitol they understood and worshipped the Spirit that quickens and fills the world of which Virgil spake in those words Iovis omnia plena But he wonders that since they acknowledged this to be the Supreme if not only Deity the Romans did not rather content themselves with the worship of him alone than run about and
make so many addresses to the petty and Inferiour Deities This indeed was a thing to be wondred at and yet no doubt they thought they had as good reasons for it as T. G. gives why incontinent persons should rather make their addresses to S. Mary Magdalen in Heaven than to her Sister Martha or to God himself So the Roman women thought Lucina and Opis better for a good hour than Ceres or Minerva and Levana and Cunina for new born Children than Vulcan or Apollo and yet S. Augustin tells us many of them did not esteem these as any distinct Deities but only as representations of the several powers of the same God suitable to the conditions of persons but T. G. will not say that by S. Mary Magdalen he only understood the power of Gods Grace in converting incontinent persons but if he had he had given a much better reason of their praying to her yet even in such a case S. Austin thinks it were better to pray directly to God himself And the old Roman Matrons would have thought they could have directed such persons to Temples proper for them viz. those of Virtue and Chastity the one of which stood ad Portam Capenam the other in vico longo But I need not give such particular directions for I am afraid their Ruines are scarce left in Rome for neither Marlianus nor Alexander Donatus in their accurate descriptions of Rome can tell where to find them For our better understanding the controversie about Idolatry as it is represented by S. Augustin we are to consider that not only Scaevola and Balbus in Cicero but Varro and Seneca and the rest of their wiser men did with great indignation reject the Poetical Theology as they called it and wished several things reformed in the popular Religion and thought themselves as unjustly charged with the practises of the People as T. G. doth for their Church to be charged with all the ridiculous addresses that some make to Saints among them for Varro confesses that the People were too apt to follow the Poets as in the Church of Rome they are to pray by their Legends but they thought the people were better let alone in their fopperies than to be suffered to break loose from that subjection which their Superstition kept them in and with these S. Austin reckons the Philosophers with whom he saith the Question to be debated was this whether we are bound only to worship one Supreme God the Maker of all things or whether it be not lawful to worship many Gods who are supposed to be made by him And after he hath discoursed against Varro and those of his opinion who reduced all their Theology to Nature and made God to be the Soul of the World and the several parts of the world capable of divine Worship on that account in his eighth Book he undertakes those who asserted one Supreme Deity above Nature and the Cause of all things and yet pleaded for the worship of inferiour Deities he confesses that they had the knowledge of the true God and brings the several places of S. Paul mentioned in the entrance of this discourse to prove it and enquiring how the Philosophers came to such knowledge of him he first propounds the common opinion of the Fathers that they learnt it in Egypt meeting with the Books of Scripture there but he rather and with good reason resolves it into the natural knowledge of God for saith he that which was known of God was manifest to them for God had revealed it to them But it seems by S. Augustin that there were two opinions among them at that time about divine worship for some of whom he reckons Apuleius the chief were for the worship of Daemons although they acknowledged them to be subject to evil passions yet they looked on them as intercessors between men and the Gods and therefore to be worshipped but others who kept closer to the doctrine of Plato believed none to be Gods but such as were certainly good but were shy of declaring their opinion against the worship of Daemons for fear of displeasing the people by it and with these S. Augustin declares he would have no controversie about the name of Gods as long as they believed them to be created immortal good and happy not by themselves but by adhering to God which he saith was the opinion either of all or at least the best of the Platonists And now we are come to the true state of the Controversie as it is managed by S. Augustin in his tenth Book which is whether those rites of Religious worship which are used in the service of the Supreme God may be likewise used toward any created Being though supposed to be of the highest excellency and as near to God as we can suppose any creature to be And that this and this only is the state of the Controversie I appeal to his own words which I shall set down in the language he writ them that I be not blamed with artificial turning them to my own sense Hoc est ut apertius dicam utrum etiam sibi an tantum Deo suo qui etiam noster est placeat eis ut sacra faciamus sacrificemus vel aliqua nostra seu nos ipsos Religionis ritibus consecremus i. e. That I may speak plainly whether it be pleasing to them viz. good spirits that we offer divine worship and sacrifice to them or that we consecrate our selves or any thing of ours to them by Religious rites And this saith he is that worship which is due to the Deity which because we cannot find one convenient word in Latin to express it by I would call Latria as that service which is due to men is called by another name viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he gives this reason why he made choice of Latria to signifie divine worship in the Latine Tongue because the Latine word colere is so very ambiguous it being applied to the tilling of land inhabiting of places and therefore cultus could not so properly be applied only to divine worship nor yet ReligioÌ„ because that according to the custom of the Latins is applyed to other senses and the same reason he gives as to other names For my part I quarrel not at all with S. Augustins use of the word and think it proper enough to apply it in his sense which comprehends in it not meerly sacrifice but all those Religious Rites whereby we give Worship to God And nothing can to me appear more senseless than to imagine that S. Augustiâ—â— should here speak only of Soveraigâ— Worship proper to God in regard of his Supreme Excellency distinguishing that from an inferior kind of Religious Worship due tâ— created Excellency when it was agreed on both sides that there was one Supremâ— Excellency which was incommunicable to any creatures so that the dispute abouâ— Worship must suppose those
subjection to a superiour but withal he makes the meer apprehension of excellencie to include the formal reason of it whereas meer excellencie without Superiority doth not require any subjection but only estimation For let us apprehend never so great excellencie in a Person that hath no Authority over us the only effect of it in us is only a mighty estimation whereas the apprehension of Power and Authority in a Person where there is not that opinion of excellencie doth naturally incline men to submission to him Nay although we apprehend a conjunction of Excellencie and Power together if that power doth not respect us we find no inclination in our selves by any acts to testifie our subjection to it As if we apprehend the greatest things in the world of the Emperor of China or Iapan how doth that apprehension move us to express any acts of subjection to either of them we are well enough contented for all that to let them govern at home and think it more our own interest and duty to submit to those who have the Power over our Selves Nay yet farther if according to the Epicurean Hypothesis we could suppose God himself to be a most excellent being but to exercise no power or Authority over the world there would be still reason for a great esteem left but not for the subjection of our selves to him and we might express that esteem by praises and other testimonies of his honour but there would be no ground for any proper service or worship of him either in prayers or thanksgivings or any rites of Religious worship which imply any dependence upon him or subjection to him So that the notion of Honour and Worship are in themselves distinct things the one arising from the apprehension of excellencie and the formal reason of the other being Superiority and a Power over us 2. For the nature of Divine Worship it must consist in such a subjection of our selves to God as is most suitable to the apprehensions we ought to have of his infinite Power and Soveraignty over us And because his Soveraignty is supreme absolute and peculiar to himself therefore our worship of him must approach as near to the expression of this as it is possible for us to come i. e. it must be of the highest nature with the greatest submission of our souls to him it must be entire not divided between him and others and it must have such a peculiarity in it as may not be given to any besides himself For whatever worship is common to him and others doth not serve to express the sense of our minds as to his peculiar Soveraignty over us and this is one of the inviolable Rights of Soveraignty to have such acts of Worship appropriated to it that the giving of these to any other is a violation of the Royal Dignity and this hath been looked on as a crimen Laesae Majestatis and to deserve as high a punishment as any other whatsoever because it is an immediate attempt upon the Soveraign Power and whatever lessens it tends to overthrow it If then God be acknowledged by all to have the only Supreme Power over us nothing can be more unreasonable in it self nor a greater affront to his Majesty than to make all outward expressions of our duty to him common to himself and his Creatures I know it is not denied by T. G. or his Brethren that there is a Soveraign Worship which belongs to God but we are to consider that withal they tell us 1. That the external acts of adoration or worship are equivocal and sometimes may signifie the honour which belongs to God and sometimes that which belongs to the Creature 2. That even sacrifice it self which they look on as most peculiar to God and an acknowledgement of the absolute worship due to him doth receive the formality of such an act from an intention to profess a total submission of our selves to God as the Supreme Author of life and death otherwise T. G. saith the material action of sacrifice may be done for several ends and intentions By which it appears that upon the whole matter the nature of divine worship is not according to them to be taken from any external acts but from the inward intention of the mind But that there are some peculiar external acts of Divine Worship which ought to be attributed to none but to God himself I prove 1. From the nature and design of Religious worship 2. From the Law of God appropriating some acts only to God 3. From the practise of the Christian Church condemning those for Idolatry who have given them to any creature 1. From the nature and design of Religious worship which is to put a difference between the worship we give to God and to his Creatures For since God hath appointed Government among men it is plain that his intention was that some kind of worship should be given from some of his creatures to others although of the same nature with themselves for where there is a power to punish and to reward there is the foundation of worship in those who are under that power which worship lies in expressing a due regard to that power by a care not to provoke it and an endeavour to obtain the favour of it which being among mankind living in Society with each other is therefore called civil worship Which denomination it doth not lose although we give that worship to Superiours upon a Religious account i. e. though I give worship to my Soveraign with a respect to God because he hath commanded it and I intend to honour him by it yet the worship doth not take its denomination from my intention but from the nature of the Act which being civil the worship continues to bear that name By which we see that the external circumstances which do accompany mens acts are those which do so circumscribe and limit them that from thence they become either civil or Religious I cannot therefore but extremely wonder to see men of understanding so much to seek in this matter because the same external acts are common to divine and civil worship but what then doth it therefore follow that there is no certain way to discriminate these one from the other I grant the same external act of adoration may be used to men which is used to God as Abraham bowed to the Children of Heth in token of civil respect as well as when he worshipped God but could not any one that considered the circumstances make a plain difference between these two sorts of adoration When the Roman Emperours would have divine honours given to them were any of the people of Rome so senseless to say they knew no difference between them and the worship given them before because they might use the same external acts of adoration in both cases Suppose the Pope one day to sit on a throne as a temporal Prince and on that account summoning his
subjects to give homage to him and another day to be placed upon the Altar as he is after his election by the Orders of the Roman Church there to receive adoration from the Cardinals as the Vicar of Christ would any man say he could see no difference in these because the same postures may be used in both Although then the outward acts may be the same yet the signification of those acts may be far from equivocal because determined by the circumstances which do accompany them I grant then that the meer external act of adoration in bowing or kneeling may be given both on the account of honour and worship i. e. upon the account of excellencie and superiority as some of the Patriarchs bowed to Angels as a token of honour of their excellencies and not out of Religious worship and men may bow and kneel to their Soveraign Princes on the account of civil worship and Children to their Parents in token of their subjection to them as well as creatures to their Creator in their solemn acts of devotion but I say in all these cases the different signification of these acts is to be gathered from the circumstances of them And that acts of Religious and civil worship might be distinguished from each other came the appointment of set times and places and solemn rites for the performance of Religious worship From hence Cicero gives that definition of Religion Religio est quae superioris cujusdam naturae quam divinam vocant curam ceremoniamque affert therefore they thought the solemn rites and circumstances of Religious worship were sufficient to discriminate the nature of that worship from any other and these they thought so peculiar to the divine nature that whatever Being they gave this solemn worship to they thought to deserve the name of a Deity although inferiour and subordinate because these acts of worship were appropriated to a Divine Being Aquinas cannot deny that there are some external acts of Religion so peculiar to God that they ought not to be given to any other and on this account he makes Religion a moral vertue and a part of justice because it is its office reddere cultum debitum Deo to give God the worship which belongs to him now saith he because the excellencie of God is peculiar to himself being infinitely above all others therefore the worship which belongs to him ought to be peculiar Ad Religionem pertinet saith Cajetan exhibere reverentiam uni Deo secundum unam rationem in quantum sc. est primum principium creationis gubernationis rerum But since this reason of Religious worship from the creation and government of the world is so peculiar to God as to be incommunicable to any else besides him is there not all the reason in the world that the Acts of this worship should be peculiar to him too And upon this ground Aquinas doth grant it in the case of sacrifice hoc etiam videmus in omni Republica observari quod summum Rectorem aliquo signo singulari honorant quod cuicunque alteri deferretur esset crimen laesae Majestatis ideo in lege divina statuitur poena mortis iis qui divinum honorem aliis exhibent From whence we infer not only that there ought to be peculiar external acts of Religious worship appropriated to God but that the giving the worship done by those acts to any creature is a crime of the highest nature The same Aquinas disputing against the Heathens saith that it is an unreasonable thing to those that hold one first principle to give divine worship to any other besides him and we give worship to God not that he needs it but that hereby the belief of one God may be confirmed in us by external and sensible acts which cannot be done saith he unless there be some peculiar acts of his worship and this we call divine worship Besides this external worship is necessary to men to raise in their minds a spiritual reverence of God and we find that custom hath a great influence on mens minds but it is a custom among men that the honour or worship given to the Supreme Governour should be given to none else therefore it ought to be much more so towards God because if a liberty be allowed of giving this worship to others of a higher rank and not only to the supreme then men and Angels might give divine worship to one another To which he adds that the benefits we receive from God are peculiar to him as that of creation and preservation and that he is our Lord by a proper title and Angels and the best of creatures are but his servants therefore we ought not to give the same worship to them that we do to God as our Lord. In his disputation about Idolatry he shews that the command Exod. 20. doth reach to external as well as internal worship and he argues against those who pleaded that all visible and external worship ought to be given to other Gods and only internal to the supreme God as being much better upon this principle that the external belongs only to him to whom the internal belongs and he disputes against those Hereticks who thought it lawful in time of persecution to give external worship to Idols as long as they preserved the true faith in their minds for saith he the external worship is a profession or sign of the internal but as it is a pernicious thing for a man to speak contrary to his mind so it is to act contrary to it and therefore S. Augustin condemned Seneca as so much the more culpable in the worship of Idols because he acted against the sense of his own mind In the next article he shews that Idolatry is a sin of the highest nature for saith he as in a commonwealth it is the greatest crime to give the honour due to the Soveraign to any other for this is as much as lies in a man to put all things into disorder and confusion so among the sins that are committed against God that seems to be the greatest whereby a man gives divine worship to a creature and saith that it includes blasphemy in it because it takes away from God the peculiarity of his dominion Cajetan there saith that the Idolater as much as in him lies tollit à Deo suam singularem excellentiam qua solus est Deus robs God of that peculiar excellencie whereby he is God alone Thus we see the necessity of some peculiar external acts of divine worship is asserted by these men in order to the preserving the belief and worship of one God in the world Suarez grants that as the excellency of God is singular and above all creatures so he ought to have a singular and incommunicable worship as is plain from those words of Scripture Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve but then he makes this worship
Thus far we go and if those beings are such as we suppose them they would not have us to go farther but as the Angel said to St. Iohn they would bid us Worship God But we dare not use the same solemn Acts of Religious worship in places and at times set apart for the service of the Great God to any of his Creatures how excellent soever they be for this is an encroachment upon the Divine Majesty and as Cajetan expresses it A taking away from him as much as in us lies that peculiar excellency whereby he is God over all Blessed for evermore We dare not apply those things to the worship of his creatures which God hath ever appropriated to His own worship as the proper acts of it such as Sacrifice Incense c. we dare not give that honour to his servants which God hath forbidden to be given to any creature such as incurvation to Images Invocation of Persons c. we dare not express our adoration of any created being in such a way as doth suppose those perfections which can be only in an uncreated being as knowing the desires of our hearts help in trouble pardon of sin strength in Grace and receiving to Glory we dare not make the outward acts of Religious worship common to God and his creatures for that would be repugnant to the nature and design of Religious worship which was intended for a publique manifestation of the peculiar service we owe to the Creator and Governour of the World And herein those of the Church of Rome fall short of the Heathens themselves who had so great an apprehension of the necessity of some appropriate acts of divine worship that some of them have chosen to die rather than to give them to what they did not believe to be God We have a remarkable story to this purpose in Arrian and Curtius concerning Callisthenes Alexander arriving at that degree of vanity as to desire to have divine worship given him and the matter being started out of design among the Courtiers either by Anaxarchus as Arrian or Cleo the Sicilian as Curtius saith and the way of doing it proposed viz. by incense and prostration Callisthenes vehemently opposed it as that which would confound the difference of humane and divine worship which had been preserved inviolable among them The worship of the Gods had been kept up in Temples with Altars and Images and Sacrifices and Hymns and Prostrations and such like but it is by no means fitting saith he for us to confound these things either by lifting up men to the honours of the gods or depressing the gods to the honours of men For neither would Alexander suffer any man to usurp his Royal dignity by the votes of men how much more justly may the gods disdain for any man to take their honours to himself Which freedom of speech cost Callisthenes his life a little after And it appears by Plutarch That the Greeks thought it a mean and base thing for any of them when sent on an Embassy to the Kings of Persia to prostrate themselves before them because this was only allowed among them in divine adoration therefore saith he when Pelopidas and Ismenias were sent to Artaxerxes Pelopidas did nothing unworthy but Ismenias let fall his Ring to the ground and stooping for that was thought to make his adoration which was altogether as good a shift as the Iesuits advising the Crucifix to be held in the Mandarins hands while they made their adorations in the Heathen Temples in China Conon refused to make his adoration as a disgrace to his City and Isocrates accuseth the Persians for doing it because herein they shewed that they despised the gods rather than men by prostituting their honours to their Princes Herodotus mentions Sperchies and Bulis who could not with the greatest violence be brought to give adoration to Xerxes because it was against the Law of their Country to give divine honour to men Valerius Maximus saith the Athenians put Timagoras to death for doing it so strong an apprehension had possessed them that the manner of worship which they used to their gods should be preserved sacred and inviolable And yet Artabanus in Plutarch when he was perswading Themistocles to do it made use of the very argument of a relative Latria viz. that he was to do it to the King as the Image of God that preserves all things which according to T. G. and his Brethren was a sufficient salvo for it For why may not a Prince have this relative Latria given him with far better reason than a senseless Image in as much as he represents God with much more Authority and Majesty than any Image can do I confess Cajetan hath in some measure proposed this objection but he only puts it as to man in general as made after the Image of God viz. Why God may not be worshipped in that Image as well as in an inanimate one And the answer he gives shews how much he was troubled with it for he distinguishes of a twofold Image viz. one that is capable of no honour for it self and another that is viz. a rational Image such as man is now saith he we may give a relative Latria where the Image is not capable of honour for it self but not where it is For what reason I beseech him I had thought the more lively the representation had been and the more excellent the Image it had been the greater Motive to worship what was represented by it Otherwise the more deformed and unlike the Image is the fitter it were for worship and I should think there were no comparison between the representation of God in the perfections of mens minds and their dominion over the inferiour creatures and that which is made of dull and senseless matter and among men no Image so fit to represent God as that of a mighty Prince sitting upon his Throne of Majesty which strikes more awe and terrour into mens minds than the picture of an old man upon a Church wall and notwithstanding what T. G. hath admirably said on behalf of pictures which I shall consider in its due place I am still apt to think that the nearer any being approaches to God in Majesty and Wisdom it doth give more lively and powerful representation of him as an object of worship why then may not we worship God in the Person of a great Prince better than in a curious Image or Picture All the sense that I can find by way of answer in Cajetan is this That we ought not to worship God in a man although he be the Image of God to avoid the danger of giving divine worship to a Creature very well but is it not a greater fault to give divine worship to mans creature than to Gods for a picture at the best is but the work of mens hands But he cannot deny that in such a case the Latria passes to
such an act of adoration as is peculiar to God 4. The burning of Incense as a token of Religious worship For otherwise it is of the nature of the outward act of adoration and may be done on meerly civil accounts and so far T. G. was in the right when he said that burning incense is a ceremony of the like nature with bowing i. e. it may be accommodated to several uses but as I have proved that Religious adoration is a peculiar act of divine worship so I shall now do concerning the burning of incense when it is used as a token of Religious worship If there were any difference under the Law between the Altar of burnt offerings and the Altar of incense this latter seems to be more particularly appropriated to the worship of God For the High Priest is not only commanded to burn upon it perpetual incense before the Lord but it is said to be most holy to the Lord and it stood in a more holy place And we see by our Saviours interpretation of the precept of worship although the restrictive particle were not in the words of the Law yet he shews us that it was in the sense of it and that certainly is to be understood where a thing is said to be most holy to God i. e. appropriated to himself after a peculiar manner and we have seen by Maimonides that incense is joyned with sacrifice so that a person is made by their Law as guilty of Idolatry if he burns incense to an Idol as if he offered Sacrifice But we need not depend on the Iews testimony in this matter for the Scripture is express in it where it speaks of Hezekiah's breaking in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made for in those days the Children of Israel did burn incense to it Bellarmine cannot deny that burning of incense was a sacrifice among the Iews and that was the reason that Hezekiah brake the brazen Serpent in pieces but he saith it is not a sacrifice now But how comes it to change its nature hath it lost any part of its definition if not hath the Church power to make that which was a sacrifice to become none i. e. to take away an appropriate sign of Gods absolute worship for so they acknowledge sacrifice to be Paulus Maria Quarti in his late Commentaries on the Rubricks of the Missal confesses that all the material parts of the definition of a sacrifice agree to the burning of Incense in the Roman Church for it is an oblation made to God for his honour by the change of a sensible thing but he saith from Suarez that it is not a sacrifice among them but only an accidental appendix to a sacrifice and might not the same have been said among the Iews and yet himself afterwards grants that it is a part of Religious worship as honour is thereby given to those that are incensed and is to be determined according to the nature of the object if it be given to God it is Latria if to Saints it is Dulia c. It seems now it is become more than an appendix being a proper act of worship but all their care is to avoid its being a sacrifice because they give it to Saints and Images and when they are off from that difficulty they think they can dispose of it as they please Catharinus grants that burning of incense had the proper nature of a sacrifice among the Iews and that the reason why Hezekiah brake in pieces the brazen Serpent was because they did not direct their incense to the thing represented by it but terminated their worship on the sign but 1. it seems then the Scripture gives a very lame account of the reason of it for that mentions no more but their burning incense before it which was no fault of it self but only that they did not direct their intention far enough 2. It seems that sacrifice it self may be offered to an Image for Catharinus grants that this had the nature of sacrifice and there was no harm in the meer oblation but only in the shortness of the intention Sanders saith that God commanded the Iews to give Religious worship to the brazen Serpent for he saith their very looking upon it was such and from thence he proves it lawful to worship Images but Cope or rather Harpsfield will not allow it to be of the same nature with Images easily discerning that the breaking of it down would make more against the worship of Images than the setting of it up ever made for them For Vasquez saith the peoples looking upon it in order to their being healed was no part of worship being no token of submission and that God intended no worship should be given to it And he ingenuously confesses that when Hezekiah brake it in pieces it was not because it was worshipped for a God among them or had the worship terminated upon it but because the people gave the same kind of worship to it which in the Roman Church they give to their Images but he thinks that worship was unlawful to the Iews which is lawful to Christians And then why not the offering sacrifice to Images as well as burning of Incense But T. G. thinks that perhaps the smoke of the incense when used as a sign of Religious worship troubles my eyes so that I cannot distinguish between the use of it as applied to God and as applied to his servants or other things relating to him It is pity T. G. had not been Hezekiahs Confessor to have better informed him about the Iews burning of Incense before the brazen Serpent for he would in all probability have done his endeavour to have preserved it and if Hezekiah had pleaded the Law that appropriated incense to the worship of God he would have desired him to clear his eyes a little better for then he might discern that burning incense was an indifferent ceremony and may be applied either to God or the creature and that the difference of these depends on the intention of the persons who do them now how could any man tell by the outward act what the intention of these persons was For all that appeared they intended only to honour God by it in memory of the great miracles he had wrought by means of it and then it was so far from being evil that it was an act of Latria to God And why should Hezekiah destroy the brazen Serpent for being an occasion of Gods honour This were fitter for Senacherib or Rabshakeh to do than one that professed to worship the true God Is not incense used daily in the Temple are not the Altar and the vessels of the Temple perfumed by it Why then should the brazen Serpent be profaned by that which sanctifies other things Therefore only advise them to direct their intention aright and there can be no harm in the use of such an indifferent ceremony and let
could be no created Wisdom So that neither Iews nor Christians did believe the Invocation of Angels to have been practised in the Church of Israel 3. In this case it is reasonable to appeal to the sense of Iewish Writers who must be presumed to understand their own customs best especially in respect to Idolatry which they have suffered so much for and they unanimously declare it to be against the sense of the Law to make Saints or Angels to be Mediators between God and them Maimonides makes this to be consequent upon the precept against Idolatry and makes it the fifth Fundamental of the Law That we ought to worship God alone and to make no Mediators between God and us neither Angels nor Stars nor Elements nor any such things because we ought to direct all our thoughts to God alone And Abravanel in his Commentary upon the Fundamentals of the Law saith their wise men interpreted that verse the Lord our God is nigh unto us in all that we call upon him for that they should only invocate God and not Michael or Gabriel c. and saith presently after That this sort of worship belongs only to God and to none else according to the sense of their Wise-men Maimonides saith That none of the Idolaters were ever so mad to think there was no God besides the Idol they worshipped or that the Figure they worshipped made and governed the World but they worship them as Mediators between the great God and them and so he interprets that place Mal. 1.11 Incense shall be offered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not Nomini meo but propter me as though the Incense they offered to their Idols were for his sake and so it is a meer relative Latria and he adds That the Idolaters did believe one God but offended against the precept which commands Him alone to be worshipped The Paraphrase of Ionathan upon 1 Kings 18.21 If the Lord be God follow Him renders it thus Is not God thy Lord therefore serve Him alone and why do ye wander after Baalim in which there is no profit But I need mention no more since a Learned person of our Church hath proved in a set Discourse from the several Testimonies of Aben-Ezra Kimchi Iarchi Moses bar-Nachman R. Bechai Alschech and others of greatest reputation among the Iews that they were guilty of Idolatry by their Law who believed one true God but gave Religious worship to other things as Mediators between God and them 6. The last I shall mention as an appropriate act of divine worship is making Vows to God which the Scripture hath so fully declared to belong to God as a part of divine worship that our Adversaries do not offer to deny it For Vows are not only said to be made to God Numb 30.2 Deut. 23.21 23. but they are joyned with Sacrifice and Oblations Isa. 19.21 And therefore Aquinas makes vowing one of the proper acts of Latria and Bellarmin confesses That it is an act of Religion due only to God Who could now have imagined after such confessions to have found them in the Church of Rome making vows to Saints as solemnly as to God himself so that if ever men did condemn themselves for Idolatry they seem to do it by such plain confessions of both parts viz. that Vows are a part of the worship due only to God and that they give this worship to Creatures Here one would think we had them fast yet if we do not look to our selves they will slip through our fingers and escape Is not say I a Vow a part of Latria that is due only to God Yes say our Adversaries it is so Do not you make Vows to Saints as formally and solemnly as to God himself as the Dominicans Vow at entrance into their Order as Cajetan saith is made Deo Beatae Mariae Beato Dominico omnibus sanctis True say they this cannot be denied Do not you then give to the creature the worship proper to God which you confess to be Idolatry Hold say they we distinguish but about what about making Vows to Saints together with God for may not we make a Vow to men and to God too and who will say that is Idolatry as for instance may not a man Vow to A. and B. that he will give a hundred pound to an Hospital here the Vow is made both to God and to A. and B. But here A. and B. are only witnesses to the Vow but the formality of the Vow lies in the promise made to God to do such things for his service and honour and A. and B. have no concernment in this But may not men Vow obedience to Superiours and that is more than making them witnesses Very true but then this obedience is the matter of the Vow or the thing that is vowed and in all Vows of obedience there are many limitations implyed but there are none in the Vows made to God or the Saints but withal they Vow to God and the Saints that they will obey their Superiours So that their obedience to Superiours is but the matter of the Vow made to God and the Saints Well then say they suppose we do make the Saints the object of our Vows as well as God yet we do not consider the Saints as rational creatures but as they are Dii participativè as Cajetan and Bellarmin both say And is not this the very answer of the Heathens that they gave divine worship to creatures not as creatures but as Gods by way of participation Is it indeed come out at last that we are to look on the Saints as inferiour Deities and on that account may give to them the worship proper to God Votum non convenit sanctis saith Bellarmin nisi quatenus sunt Dii per participationem I see truth may be smothered a long time and kept under by violence but it will break out at last one way or other I began to suspect something when I found the Master of Controversies speak of the Saints being praepositi Ecclesiae set over the Church but I could hardly have expected to have found them owned for inferiour Deities for what are Gods by participation but such as derive their power from God and are employed by Him to take care of these lower things So he saith the Saints do curam gerere rerum nostrarum take care of our affairs and now I do not wonder to see them make Vows to them or perform any other act of Religious worship to them as well as to God But after all this ado may we not Vow to God upon a higher account and to the Saints upon a lower Yes no doubt just as a man may swear Allegiance to his Prince upon the account of his Soveraign Authority and to one of his Subjects as a less soveraign For if Allegiance be peculiar to Soveraign Authority how can it be given to any one that hath it not And in this case
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
Aquinas quote these passages with approbation Did they know the intention of Seneca or the Philosophers Why doth Cajetan say that a man that commits only the external act of Idolatry is as guilty as he that commits the external act of theft To both which he sayes no more is necessary than a voluntary inclination to do that act not any apprehension in the mind that what he worships is God nor any intention to direct that act only to the Image Nay why doth Gregory de Valentia himself say that outward acts of worship may be so proper to God either from their own nature or the consent of mankind that whosoever doth them whatever his inward intention be ought to be understood to give the honour proper to God to that for whose sake he doth them And this he calls an implicit Tannerus an indirect intention but neither of them suppose it to be either an actual or virtual intention of the mind but only that which may be gathered from the outward acts Nay T. G. himself saith that on supposition the Philosophers did believe one God and yet joyned with the people in the practice of their Idolatry they were worthily condemned by the Apostle though but for the external profession of praying and offering sacrifice to their Images Say you so and yet do outward acts certainly go whither they are intended Suppose then these Philosophers intended to worship the true God by those Images where this Idolatry or no if not why were they so much to blame for giving worship to the true God by an Image which T. G. commends as a very good thing Was it the figure of their Images displeased him that could not be for the Statue of Iupiter Capitolinus might as fitly represent God to them as that of an old man in their Churches and young Iupiter in the lap of Fortune an Image Cicero mentions might put him in mind of one of the most common Images in their Church and by the help of a good intention might be carryed to a right object And why might not intention do that which their Church afterwards did when it changed the Temple of Hercules to S. Alexius because he was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that of the two Brothers Romulus and Remus or as Bellarmin saith Castor and Pollux to Cosmas and Damianus and the Pantheon to Omnium Sanctorum If there be no harm in the thing there could be none in the intention Or was it the scandal of their practice but to whom was the scandal given it would have been rather scandal among them not to have done it So that if a secret Intention doth carry that act whither it is intended and it be lawful to worship God by Images I do not see wherein the Philosophers were to blame in complying with those outward acts whose good or evil according to T. G. depends upon the intention of the doers of them But if they were really to blame it was for doing those external acts of worship to creatures which belong only to the worship of God and so the Apostle by condemning them doth prove that which I intended viz. that there are such peculiar external acts of divine worship that the doing of them for the worship of a Creature is Idolatry But my Adversary thinks to clear the Church of Rome from the charge of Idolatry by two general answers which serve him and his Brethren on all occasions viz. 1. That there are two sorts of worship one called Latria or Soveraign worship which is proper to God and another called Dulia or inferiour worship that may be given to creatures on the account of excellencies communicated to them from God 2. That the worship they give to any inanimate creatures that have no proper excellencies of their own is not absolute but a relative Latria they intending thereby only to worship God In the examining of these two I shall clear the last part of this Discourse viz. 3. How the applying the acts of Religious worship to a creature doth make that worship Idolatry 1. I shall consider the different sorts of worship which T. G. insists upon to clear the Church of Rome from the practice of Idolatry The Question at present saith T. G. between Dr. St. and the Church of Rome is not whether Divine worship be to be given to Saints for this is abhorred of all faithful Christians but whether an inferiour worship of like kind with that which is given to Holy men upon earth for their Holiness and near relation to God may not be lawfully given to them now they are in Heaven Again he saith if by Religious worship I mean that honour which is due to God alone it is true what the Fathers say that it is not to be given to the most excellent created Beings but nothing at all to the point in debate between us if I mean that honour of which a creature is capable for Religions sake and that relation which it setleth he will he saith shew it to be false that the Fathers deny any such honour to be given to the Holy Angels or Saints and if I prove that this worship ought not to be called Religious he tells me from S. Austin that it is but a meer wrangling about words because Religion may be used in other senses besides that of the worship due to God And by the help of this distinction between the Religious worship due to God and that of which a creature is capable for Religions sake he saith he can clearly dispell the mist I have raised from the Testimony of the Fathers and let the Reader see that I have perverted their meaning and yet said nothing to the purpose Thus he answers the testimonies of Iustin Martyr Theophilus Origen S. Ambrose or the Writer under his name Theodoret S. Austin and if they had been a hundred more it had been all one they had been all sent packing with the same answer let them say what they would they must be all understood of Divine worship proper to God and not of the inferiour worship which creatures are capable of which from S. Austin he calls Dulia as the former Latria The whole strength of T. G's defence as to the Worship of Saints and Angels lyes in this single distinction which I shall therefore the more carefully consider because it tends to clear the nature of Divine worship which is my present subject To proceed with all possible clearness in this debate which T. G. hath endeavoured to perplex I shall 1. Give a true account of the State of the Controversie 2. Enquire into the sense of the Fathers about this distinction about Soveraign and inferiour worship whether those acts of worship which are practised in the Roman Church he only such as the Fathers allowed 1. For the true state of the controversie which was never more necessary to be given than in this place For any one
my works may be directed and disposed according to thine and thy Sons Will. Amen I confess intercession is here mentioned but withal it is plain that is not the only thing relyed upon for her merits are immediately added and whatever ground it be upon it seems it is not only lawful but a devout thing to commit Soul and Body to her trust and custody both in Life and death What could have been said more to the Eternal Son of God than is contained in this Commendation to the Blessed Virgin in all the expressions of it In another prayer to her which is not only in the Manual but in the Primer or Office of the Blessed Virgin and is too long to repeat we have this beginning I beseech thee O holy Lady Mary Mother of God most full of pity the daughter of the Highest King Mother most glorious Mother of Orphans the Consolation of the Desolate the way of them that go astray the safety of all that trust in thee a Virgin before Child-bearing a Virgin in Child-bearing and a Virgin after Child-bearing the fountain of mercy the fountain of health and Grace the fountain of consolation and pardon the fountain of piety and gladness the fountain of life and forgiveness I am now got from Lilly's Grammar to Aristotles Threshold and I desire to know of T. G. whether these expressions are true or false Is the Blessed Virgin all these things or not If they be not true they are horrible blasphemies if they be true to what purpose is it to talk of praying to her to pray for us for why may not I go directly to the Fountain of Mercy Grace and Pardon what needless trouble were it to pray her to pray for that which is in her on hands to bestow In another prayer following that are these expressions to the Blessed Virgin Bow down thine ears O Mother of pity and mercy unto my poor prayers and be to me wretched sinner a pitious helper in all things And presently after to our Lady and S. Iohn together O ye two Heavenly Gemms Mary and John O two divine Lamps ever shining before God! drive away with your blessed beams the dark clouds of my sins To you I most wretched sinner commend this day my Body and Soul that in every hour and moment inwardly and outwardly ye would vouchsafe to be my sure keepers and pitiful Intercessors to God for me Here we have intercession again but that is not all nor the main thing for Custody is more than intercession and that is first begged and then intercession So that if ever any prayers were made to creatures for those things which God alone can give these were and so as to imply our dependence on them for the obtaining of them These may suffice for a taste of their present and allowed devotions among them here at home in Books of daily use And now I beseech T. G. to tell me what there is in the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which makes it necessary for me to put so forced a sense upon all these expressions that they do mean no more than praying to the Blessed Virgin to pray for them As Lilly's Grammar will not explain the sense so no Rhetorick I ever saw will make me understand the Figure How often have we been railed at for understanding words in a figurative sense which cannot be literally understood without overthrowing the plainest evidence of sense and reason and which by the customary modes of speaking among all Nations attributing the thing signified to the sign and by other places of Scripture and Fathers we prove ought to be no otherwise understood But here is a strange figure invented against the plain and natural sense of the words for by praying to bestow must be understood only praying to pray and that when those titles are at the same time given which suppose it in their power to give and when there is no imaginable necessity from any doctrine of their Church to put this sense upon those words For what article of their Creed what decree of their Church what doctrine of their Divines doth it contradict for any man to pray directly to the Virgin Mary for the destruction of heresies support under troubles Grace to withstand temptations and reception to Glory And what can we beg for more from God himself Yet I challenge T. G. to shew which of all these such prayers are repugnant to and if to none of them why should not the words be understood as they properly signifie nay it were easie to shew that such prayers are very agreeable not only to the doctrine of the Council of Trent but of their most eminent Divines both before and after it But this were to go beyond the bounds of this general Discourse which is designed only to state the Nature of Divine Worship between us and them Yet I cannot but take notice of the way T. G. saith the people are instructed by to make this to be the sense of praying to give i. e. praying to pray 1. He saith the common doctrine of Christianity by which they are taught that God alone is the giver of all good things and doth not the same common doctrine of Christianity teach men to pray to him alone for what he only can give and not to use such bold and absurd figures in prayer whose plain sense is contrary to this common doctrine of Christianity But I wonder that T. G. should think this an effectual way to make them understand the prayers in this sense when himself hath shewed them the way to reconcile this common doctrine to their practice and the form of the words For may not giving be distinguished as well as worship It is true God alone is the Original Giver of all good things and this is a Soveraign way of giving peculiar to God but there is an inferiour and subordinate way of giving by a power derived from God and this is all say they we attribute to the Saints and how now doth the common doctrine of Christianity teach people more effectually that God alone is the Giver of all things than that God alone is to be worshipped I am sure the Scripture saith one as often and in as plain terms as it can do the other But 2. He saith their Sermons Catechisms and Explications both by word and writing do it suppose some persons do it I ask by what Authority their Church having never declared against an inferiour way of giving in the Saints and having expresly owned the making recourse to them for their help and assistance as well as their prayers I desire T. G. in good earnest to tell me what makes him so concerned to have all the prayers understood in that sense of praying to the Saints to pray for them against the express sense of the words Is there any harm in the other sense or not if there be no harm why may they not be so understood without so much
lives on the account of their intercession for them and that they trusted more to them especially to the Blessed Virgin than to Christ himself And that what interpretations soever some men put upon those titles of the Queen of Heaven Mother of Mercy c. the common people did not understand them according to their sense of them Nay Erasmus goes farther saying that their very Preachers worshipped the Blessed Virgin with more Religion or devotion than they did Christ himself or his Holy Spirit calling her the Mother of Grace By all which we see that the doctrine of Divine worship is not so clearly stated by them but that the more ingenuous men who have lived and dyed in the communion of that Church have thought not only the people but the Teachers very much to blame in it 2. My business now is to give an account of the sense of the Fathers in this dispute about the notion of divine worship not to handle particularly the Testimonies of the Fathers in dispute between us which belongs to the Question of Invocation of Saints but to shew that they went upon the same principles I have here laid down in the distinction between the Honour and the Worship of them and while they speak most for the Honour of the Saints they deny any Religious worship to be performed to them Origen in the beginning of his Book against Celsus makes that to be the property of the doctrine of Christ that God only was to be worshipped but that other might be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worthy of honour but not of worship And in another place he speaks as plainly as words can express his meaning although saith he we should believe that Angels were set over these things below yet we only praise and magnifie them but all our prayers are only to be made to God and not to any Angel and only Iesus Christ is to offer up our prayers to God and lest any should imagine he meant only some kind of prayers he saith expresly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all prayer and supplication and intercession and saith that we ought not to pray to them who pray for us But now what saith T. G. to these places which excepting the first I had objected against the practice of invocation of Saints and Angels in my former discourse Why truly he saith that Origens meaning is partly that we are not to pray to them in the same manner that we do to God but we may pray to them after another manner But is that inferiour sort of prayer prayer or not when we desire them to pray for us is not that desiring their intercession for us but Origen denyes that any prayer is to be made to them or any one to be prayed to although it be only to intercede with God for us but only the Son of God I remember an answer of a devout servant of the Blessed Virgin much like this of T. G. For when it was objected that she could not be the Mother of Redemption for mankind because it is said Isa. 63.3 I have trodden the wine-press alone and of the people there was no man with me True saith he there is no man with thee but there might be a woman for all that So doth T. G. deal with the testimonies of the Fathers let them be never so express against all sorts of prayers and Invocations they hold only of such a sort of prayer but there may be another and inferiour sort notwithstanding But is there any sort that is not comprehended under all And that Origen cannot be understood in these passages of such prayer only as supposeth the supream excellency in God most evidently appears by the dispute between Celsus and him which was not about the worship of the Supream God but of Inferiour Spirits and Ministers to him as hath been fully proved already The Church of Philomelium in that noble Testimony concerning the Martyrdom of Polycarp makes the same distinction between honour and worship for they utterly deny giving any worship to a creature as inconsistent with Christianity but at the same time they confess the honour and esteem they had for the Martyrs which they expressed by meeting at the places of their Martyrdom keeping their Anniversary dayes and recommending their examples to the imitation of others In the former Discourse I produced the Testimonies of Iustin Martyr Theophilus Antiochenus and mentioned many others to the same purpose viz. that all Religious worship was due only to God and with this double caution to prevent cavils 1. That it was without making any distinctions of absolute and relative worship which they must have been driven to in case they had given Religious worship to any besides 2. That when the Christians refused to give adoration to the Emperour it could not be understood of the adoration proper to the Supream God for none can be so sensless to imagine they required that but such kind of Religious worship as they gave to the Images of their Gods To all this T. G. replyes I. That these Testimonies are impertinent because they are to be understood only of that divine worship which is due to God alone and not of the Inferiour worship which belongs to Saints or Angels Might he not as well have said that they prove that no man might be worshipped but a woman might For the force of the Testimonies did not lye meerly in this that they attributed divine worship only to God but that they made use of the most general terms which signified worship without any distinction of the nature and kind of that worship supposing it to be on a Religious account For no men of common sense would have written as they did if they had believed that some sort of Religious worship were lawful to be given and another not Doth T. G. think that he should ever escape censure in his Church if he should say peremptorily that it is unlawful to give any kind of Religious worship to a creature when the very Indices of the Fathers cannot escape the Index Expurgatorius for blabbing so great a Truth No we should have T. G. presently out with his distinctions worship is of two sorts Supream called Latria inferiour called Dulia Religious may be taken in two senses 1. That which proceeds from the vertue of Religion and that is proper to God 2. That which tends to the honour of Religion and that may be given to creatures And thus would the Fathers have written if they had ever looked over Aristotles threshold and been of T. G's mind and therefore my argument which proceeded upon the general terms of the Fathers without intimating any such distinction doth hold good that either they did not write like understanding men or they knew no such distinctions as these 2. That although Justin Martyr and Theophilus deny divine worship to be given to Emperours yet they both imply that lawful worship
and honour is to be given to them and therefore he cannot but wonder what I meant by alledging those Testimonies unless I intend not any worship at all to be due to any besides God or that I think it not possible to worship a good man And afterwards he saith he would willingly understand yet farther whether I allow any honour at all to be due to Princes as Gods Vicegerents for he doth not remember hitherto any passage in my Book from whence he could gather that I hold it lawful to give any worship either to Princes Statues or to themselves Which words have such a venemous insinuation in them that I could hardly believe they could come from a man of the least common ingenuity Because I deny Religious worship to be given to any besides God himself must I therefore be represented as a man that denyes Civil worship to be given to Princes I cannot tell whether the folly or malice of such an insinuation be the greater I pray God help his understanding and forgive his ill will I hope all acts do not go whither they are intended but that which he designs for my dishonour may notwithstanding his intention terminate in his own I do assure him I am so much for the utmost civil worship to be given to Princes as Gods Vicegerents as not to think it in the power of any Bishop in the World to depose them or absolve their subjects from obedience to them and I hope T. G. thinks so too although he may not think it so fit to declare his mind But what is all this to our present business The force of my argument lay in this the Christians denyed giving Religious worship to Princes although it were an inferiour kind of Religious worship therefore they did not think an inferiour kind of Religious worship lawful Was this argument too hot for his fingers so that assoon as he touched it he runs away and frets and fumes and vents his spight against me for it However I will urge it again and again till I receive a better answer T. G. saith the Fathers speak only of the Soveraign worship that is due only to God and that is the worship they think unlawful to give to any creature I say it is impossible that should be their sense for they deny it to be lawful to give Religious worship to Princes when they were required to do it but no men ever took Princes for the Supream God T. G. tells me that Tertullian explains Theophilus and Justin saying that the King is then to be honoured when he keeps himself within his own Sphere and abstains from divine honours Very well this is that I aim at and he need not wonder what I brought these testimonies for for it was for this very thing which Tertullian saith that the Christians did refuse to give divine honours to Princes and therefore they thought divine worship comprehended under it all sorts of Religious worship But saith T. G. it is a thing notoriously known that many of the Heathen Emperours exacted to be worshipped as Gods that is with divine worship I grant all this and say that it still proves what I intend For did they mean by worshipping them as Gods that they would have the people believe them to be the Supream God that is madness and folly to suppose for the utmost they required was to be worshipped with the same worship that Deified men were or to have the same worship living which the Senate was wont to decree to them when they were dead And can T. G. possibly believe that this was to suppose them to be the sole Authors of all good to mankind which is that kind of divine worship he saith the Fathers only condemned I desire T. G. to think again of this matter and I dare say he will see more cause to wonder at his own answer than at my argument which so evidently overthrows all that he brings to evade the Testimonies of the Fathers But saith T. G. if Kings may be honoured as Gods Vicegerents why may not Saints as the adopted Children of God Who denyes this for Gods sake but I deny that either Kings or Saints are to have divine worship given to them And since T. G. is in the humour of asking me Questions let me propose one to him if Kings may be honoured as Gods Vicegerents why not with divine honour upon his principles i. e. with a relative Latria though not absolute And if that be lawful what he thinks of the primitive Christians who chose to dye rather than to give divine worship to them upon any account By this time I hope T. G. is ashamed of what he adds that on the same principles that I deny any worship to be due to Saints a Quaker would prove that it must be denyed to Princes The worship I deny to Saints is that which God hath denyed to them viz. Divine worship the worship I say is due to Princes is that which God hath required to be given them viz. civil worship And they that cannot find out a difference between these two are a fit match for the Quakers I know not what a Quaker might do in this matter I am sure T. G. doth nothing but trifle in it Was there ever a meaner argument came out of the mouth of a Quaker that what he urges against me viz. that in such a Book printed in such a place and just in such a page I call a Divine of our Nation Reverend and Learned and what then therefore Saints are to be worshipped very extraordinary I confess and one of T. G's nostrum's if he please let it be writ upon his Monument Hic jacet auctor hujus Argumenti for I dare say no body ever used it before him If we give men titles of respect according to their Age and Calling or real worth therefore we are to give Religious worship to Saints and why not as well to Princes because we call the Iudges appointed by them the Reverend Iudges but surely this will prove not only a dulia but an hyperdulia because we not only call the Clergy Reverend but the Bishops Right Reverend and Archbishops Most Reverend I am sorry T. G. did not so well consider the force of his argument to have pressed it home upon me for he now sees how much more advantage might have been made by it but it is an easie thing to add to rare inventions But certainly T. G. to use his own words must believe his Readers to be all stark blind who cannot distinguish titles of respect from Religious worship But is there not a Reverence due to Persons for their Piety as well as for their Age and Dignity who doubts it but that Reverence lyes in the due expressions of honour and esteem towards them which I hope may be done without encroaching upon the Acts of Religious worship and I think I have told him plainly enough what I mean by them in the
foregoing Discourse But T. G. seems to understand no difference between titles of respect and acts of worship between expressions of esteem and devotion between Religious and Civil worship for he blunders and confounds all these together and whatever proves one he thinks proves all the rest these are not the best wayes of reasoning but they are the best the cause would bear Well but yet the matter seems not altogether so clear for the worship we are to give to Princes is as they are Gods Vicegerents and this is given on a Religious account because God commands us to give honour to whom honour is due the place urged by T. G. Rom. 13.7 To this a very easie answer will serve Worship may be said to be Religious two wayes 1. As it is required by the Rule of Religion and so the worship given to Magistrates is Religious 2. In its nature and circumstances as it consists of those acts which God hath appropriated to his worship or is attended with those circumstances which make it a Religious performance and then it is not to be given to Princes or any Creatures but only to God himself This will be made plain by a remarkable instance among the antient Christians While Divine honours were challenged by the Emperours to themselves i. e. the honours belonging to consecrated men for they meant no other the Christians refused giving to them those external acts of Reverence which might be supposed to have any Religious worship in them although they expressed the greatest readiness at the same time to obey their Laws that did not require any thing against Christianity and to pray for their safety and prosperity This being known to be the general practice of Christians Pliny in his Epistle to Trajan mentions this as one of the wayes of trying Christians viz. whether they would Imagini Caesaris thure vino supplicare give Religious worship to Caesars Image by burning incense and pouring out wine before it which were the Divine honours required This Pliny saith all that were true Christians refused to do and those who did it presently renounced Christ. Thus this matter stood as long as the Emperours continued Gentiles who were presumed to affect Divine honours but when Constantine had owned Christianity and thereby declared that no Religious worship was to be given to him the Christians not only erected publick Statues to Emperours but were ready to express before them the highest degrees of Civil worship and respect This Iulian thought to make his advantage of and therefore placed the Images of the Gods among those of the Emperours that either they might worship the Gods or by denying Civil Worship to the Emperours Statues which the custom then was to give they might be proceeded against as disaffected to the Emperour And when he sate on the Throne distributing New-years-gifts he had his Altar of Incense by him that before they received gifts they might cast a little incense into the fire which all good Christians refused to do because as Gothofred observes the burning of incense was the same tryal of Christians that eating of Swines flesh was of Iews But after the suspicion of Religious worship was removed in the succeeding Emperors the former customs of Civil worship obtained again till Theodosius observing how these customs of Civil adoration began to extend too far and border too much upon Divine honours did wholly forbid it in a Constitution extant to that purpose and that for this reason that all worship which did exceed the dignity of men should be entirely reserved to God By this true account of the behaviour of Christians in this matter T. G. may a little better understand what that worship was which the primitive Christians refused to give to Emperours and what difference they made between the same external acts when they were to be done on a Civil and on a Religious account which are easily discerned either by the nature of the acts themselves as the burning incense or the circumstances that attend them as in adoration It were needless to produce any more Testimonies of Antiquity to prove that Divine worship is proper only to God since T. G. confesses it but gives quite another sense of Divine worship than they did for under this they comprehended all acts of Religious worship as appears by the worship they denyed to Emperours It remains therefore to shew that those who spake most for the honour of the Saints did not by that mean any Religious acts of worship but expressions barely of honour and esteem Iulian objected this against the Christians as it was common with the Heathens to object many false and unreasonable things that instead of the Heathen Gods they worshipped not one but many miserable men To this S. Cyrill answers that as to Christ he confesses they worshipped him but they did not make a God of a man in him but he was essentially God and therefore fit to be worshipped but for the Martyrs they neither believed them to be Gods nor gave them the worship which belongs to Gods Which is unquestionably S. Cyrill's meaning or he doth not answer to the purpose For Iulian never charged the Christians with giving that worship to Martyrs which is proper to the Supream God considered as such but that they gave to them that Religious worship which Iulian pleaded to be due to the inferiour Gods as appears by the State of the Question between them This therefore S. Cyrill denyes that they gave to Saints and Martyrs which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. to give them the worship which the Heathens gave to their inferiour Deities what they gave to the Martyrs was upon another account it was only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 respectively and by way of honour And lest any should suspect he meant any kind of Religious worship by this he presently explains himself that what he said was only to be understood of those honours they gave to them for their generous suffering for the faith despising all dangers and thereby making themselves great examples to other Christians and after he let us understand what these honours were when he brings the instance of the Athenians meeting together at the sepulchres of those who were slain at the Battel of Marathon for the liberty of Greece and there making Panegyricks upon them and therefore he wonders why Julian should exclaim so much against these honours done to the Martyrs since this was all the reward they could give them And elsewhere he saith these honours consisted in preserving their Memories and praising their vertues and brings the very same instance of the Athenians again but for any matter of worship towards them he utterly denyes it because they were bound to give it to none but God And that we might fully understand what he means when he saith that Christians do not give to Saints the worship the Heathens gave to their inferiour Gods
Scholiast saith that it is plain S. Paul strikes at the Wise men among the Greeks and those who were like them Origen saith he speaks of some of the Wise men of Greece By these and many more Testimonies if it were needful to heap them in so clear a case it appears sufficiently that this was no evasion of mine but the natural sense which their own Commentators and the Fathers agree in 2. As to what the Apostle affirms of them viz. that they held the truth in unrighteousness v. 18. i. e. saith the Greek Scholiast that they gave the worship of God to Idols for the knowledge of God is truth and the deceitfulness of Idols is unrighteousness Hear saith Theophylact what it is to detain the truth in unrighteousness The Truth or the Knowledge of God is naturally put into all mens minds from the beginning this knowledge or truth the Greeks held in unrighteousness i. e. they did all the injury to it they could by giving the glory of God to Idols and both herein follow S. Chrysostom who saith they did it by giving the glory of God to Wood and Stone This the Apostle afterwards inlarges upon when he saith that knowing God they did not glorifie him as God neither were thankful but became vain in their imagination and their foolish heart was darkned Professing themselves to be wise they became Fools and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an Image made like to corruptible man and to Birds and fourfooted Beasts and creeping things And for the sense of this charge I am content to appeal to the judgements of the most allowed Interpreters on both sides that hat have not been parties in the quarrel They thought themselves wise saith S. Hierom or the Author of the Commentaries under his name as those that had found out quomodo invisibilis Deus per simulachrum visibile coleretur how an invisible God might be worshipped by a visible representation which is the sense of simulachrum there for he supposes the worship to be directed to the invisible God through the Image and therefore the Image could not be taken either for God or a representation of a false God so that nothing can be more clear to use T. G's words according to S. Hierom than that T. G. professing to be wise doth thereby discover his folly when he saith that S. Paul speaks of those who took the Images themselves for Gods or worshipped the Images of false Gods And the Philosophers professing to be Wise did become Fools because saith S. Hierom they did not understand that what is mortal and corruptible could have no resemblance to what is immortal and eternal The Greek Scholiast saith they became vain in their imaginations when they would represent him in a Figure that had none and comprehend him in corporeal Images that was wholly spiritual not as though they were such Fools to think to shut up Infinity within the bounds of an Image but to comprehend there is taken with relation to that representation which conveys a thing to the mind and so he useth it a little after they thought themselves wise because they thought they could comprehend every thing and so the Image was supposed to be such a species as did convey an intellectual Being to the mind The same words are used by Theophylact which they both borrowed from S. Chrysostom who condemns the Greeks for their folly not for comprehending but for seeking a spiritual and incorporeal Being in corporeal Images And what can be more foolish saith the Scholiast and Theophylact than to fall down before Stocks and Stones And Origen doth express the meaning of the Apostle in this place as fully as I can desire when he applyes all these expressions to those that had a right notion and conception of God in their minds but gave divine worship to all sorts of Images as well of beasts as of men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the honour of the Deity And in truth the Apostles supposition being allowed that these Philosophers did know the true God and his Eternal Power and Godhead we must suppose them to be turned stark staring Fools that should take the Images either of men or beasts to be Gods but it is very agreeable to the Philosophers practice and opinions to give external worship to these Images when they in the mean time did direct that external worship to the honour of the invisible Deity But the sense of this and the former place will be made more evident by a diligent enquiry into the State of the Controversie about the worship of Images between the Christians and Heathens 1. Whether it was that the Heathens took their Images for proper likenesses of the Deity Or 2. That they worshipped only the Images of false Gods or that they took their Images themselves for Gods And if the Controversie did not wholly relate to these things then it will follow that it was of the same nature with that between us and the Church of Rome I shall therefore shew 1. That the Wiser Heathens concerning whom the dispute is did not suppose their Images to be proper likenesses of their Gods Which I prove 1. From the nature and kinds of their Images 2. From the notions they had of their Gods 1. From the nature and kinds of their Images There are three sorts of Images which were worshipped among the Heathens 1. Such as had no artificial shape or figure 2. Such as had an artificial shape but it was of no real being 3. Such as had the shape either of men or beasts Of the two first and those of Beasts I suppose no man professing himself to be wise will shew himself such a Fool to say that the Heathens thought their Gods to be like them My business therefore as to them is to shew that there were such among them to which they did give divine worship 1. For Images without any artificial shape or figure By Images here I mean some external visible things which are designed to represent some other thing to our minds So Tully calls characters verborum Imagines and the countenance Imaginem animi in which no exact resemblance can be understood but some thing which is intended to represent another thing to us which doth not depend on the nature of things but the arbitrary institution of men as may be seen by the notes and characters of Tyro and Seneca of which no account can be given why they represent one thing rather than another but only the Will of the Maker of them Thus if men agreed that a Spear a Cymiter a Trunk a Mountain a rude Stone or a Pyramid should be set up to represent the Deity to them which they worshipped every one of these did thereby become the Image of that Deity Herodotus Solinus Clemens Alexandrinus Arnobius and Ammianus Marcellinus all agree that the antient Scythians had no other Image of a Deity among them but only a Scythian Sword
detests that opinion and calls the Gods 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any corporeal figure or shape and therefore he proposes the objection of a Christian against him how it could then be proper to make any corporeal Images of them Why to that saith Iulian I answer the Images of the Gods are placed by our Ancestors as Signs and Symbols of their presence not that we should believe them to be Gods but that we should worship the Gods by giving Reverence to them For we living in the body ought to give them a worship suitable to our corporeal state 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but they are incorporeal So that Iulian did not look on Images as the proper likenesses of the Gods but as ancient and venerable Symbols of their presence in which he saith all Nations of the world were agreed and in all Ages Wherein he lashes too far but that is at least but a venial sin to stretch a little for the sake of so good a Cause And Iulian was not singular in this opinion of his of the fitness of corporeal Images although the Gods were not like them for Varro was of the same mind who gives this account of the first design of making the Images of the Gods like to men Quorum qui simulachra specie hominis fecerunt hoc videri secutos quod mortalium animus qui est in corpore humano simillimus est immortalis animi c. that the soul of man was most like the Deity and men made Images like to their Bodies just as if a Wine-vessel were put in the Temple of Bacchus to represent him intending thereby to represent first the Wine which should be in the Vessel and by the Wine him that is the God of Wine so saith he by Images of mens shape they signified the Soul contained within the body and by the Soul they represented God as of the same nature viz. the Soul of the World Porphyrie such another good Catholick as Iulian was in this point of the worship of Images doth not in the least suppose any similitude between the Shape of a Man and the Nature of God but he gives this account of representing the Gods in Figures like to men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They made the Gods like to men because the Divinity is a rational Being and withall he saith that many were wont to represent him by a black stone to shew that he is invisible Dio Chrysostome at large debates the case about Images in his Olympick Oration wherein he first shews that all men have a natural apprehension of one supreme God the Father of all things that this God was represented by the Statue made by Phidias of Jupiter Olympius for so he said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before whom we now are and then describes him to be the King Ruler and Father of all both Gods and men this Image he calls the most blessed the most excellent the most beautiful the most beloved Image of God He saith there are four wayes of coming to the knowledge of God By nature by the instructions of the Poets by the Laws and by Images but neither Poets nor Law-givers nor Artificers were the best Interpreters of the Deity but only the Philosophers who both understood and explained the Divine Nature most truly and perfectly After this he supposes Phidias to be called to account for making such an Image of God as unworthy of him when Iphitus Lycurgus and the old Eleans made none at all of him as being out of the power of man to express his nature to this Phidias replies that no man can express mind and understanding by figures or colours and therefore they are forced to fly to that in which the soul inhabits and from thence they attribute the seat of Wisdom and Reason to God having nothing better to represent him by and by that means joyning power and art together they endeavour by something which may be seen and painted to represent that which is invisible and inexpressible But it may be said we had better then have no Image or representation of him at all no saith he for mankind doth not love to worship God at a distance but to come near and feel him and with assurance to sacrifice to him and crown him Like Children newly weaned from their Parents who put out their hands towards them in their dreams as if they were still present so do men out of the sense of Gods goodness and their relation to him love to have him represented as present with them and so to converse with him thence have come all the representations of God among the barbarous Nations in Mountains and Trees and Stones But if the quarrel be that I have given a humane shape to him for that saith he the Poets are much more to blame who began those things especially Homer who compared Agamemnon to God in his head and eyes but for my statue no man that is not mad would compare it to a mortal man much less to the perfection of the Deity and so Dio proceeds with a great deal of eloquence to shew how the representation of God by his Image was more decent and becoming God than that which the Poets had made of him and how he had endeavoured by the utmost of his skill to represent the perfections of the Divine Nature in the admirable workmanship of his Statue as to his power Greatness and Good Will to Mankind and concludes all with saying that as to his workmanship he thinks he hath gone beyond all others but yet no workmanship can be compared to the God that made the whole World Thus we see from the Testimony of these very considerable Authors the Wiser Heathens had no such foolish Imagination as T. G. supposes them to be possessed with viz. that the Images of the Deity which they worshipped were the proper likenesses of him and if T. G's Light of Nature and Common sense do sufficiently decide this Controversie it is very plain on which side the ballance inclines viz. towards Paganism against Christianity Macrobius saith that anciently they made no Image at all of the Supreme God as being above any representation but they made Images of the inferiour Gods although they were formarum talium prorsus alieni in nothing like to them The former Clause in Macrobius must be understood of the most ancient times before the Age of Phidias as appears by the foregoing passages and yet Porphyrie saith that the Aegyptians were wont to represent the Creator whom they called Cneph in the figure of a man of a dark blew Colour holding a girdle and a Scepter in his hand out of whole mouth came an Egg by which they represented the world as his production Not much unlike to this is the Image of the Creator in the Temple of Meaco in Iapan which is all over black with a Scepter in his hand and they likewise represent the world
avoid being mistaken In what in thinking they did not worship Images after as well as before their conversion no but in supposing that they made use of the same Images afterwards which they did before and what if they did what harm was there in it on T. G's principles supposing the intention be directed aright Nay T. G. after all his clamour yields the thing for saith he St. Gregory turned the Pagan Festivals into Christian Assemblies and Heathen Temples to Christian Churches without ever pulling them down to build them up again and supposing the worship of Images lawful why not those to be used as well as Temples And yet I no where say that they made use of the very same but they melted them down and made new ones of them which is plainly to say that though they did not allow those particular Images yet they did not condemn the Use of Images for divine worship but of the materials of the former Images they made new ones to be used by them as Christians after that manner of worship which the Iesuits delivered to them which was all that was necessary to my purpose And now I leave the Reader to Judge whether in all this charge about these citations T. G. hath not shewed himself to be a man of admirable ingenuity and whether he be not well accomplished in the most laudable vertue of a Writer of Controversies viz. sincerity and fair dealing CHAP. II. The State of the Controversie about Images in the Christian Church HAving thus far endeavoured to State the Dispute about Image-worship as it was managed between Christians and Heathens I now come to the Rise and Progress of this Controversie in the Christian Church Wherein I shall proceed according to these following Periods 1. When Images were not used or allowed in the Christian Church 2. When they were used but no worship allowed to be given to them 3. When inferiour worship was given to them and that worship publickly defended 4. When the doctrine and practice of Image-worship was settled upon the principles allowed and defended in the Roman Church and from thence to shew wherein lie the main points of difference between us and the Church of Rome as to this Controversie about the Worship of Images 1. As to the First Period I had said in my former Discourse That the Primitive Christians were declared enemies to all worship of God by Images but I need the less to go about to prove it now since it is at last confessed by one of the most learned Iesuits they ever had that for the four first Centuries and farther there was little or no use of Images in the Temples or Oratories of Christians but we need not their favour in so plain a Cause as this as shall be evidently proved if occasion be farther given This T. G. had no mind to and therefore saith Not to Dispute the matter of fact of which he confesses there was some little use much as if I should say that T. G. hath shewn little or no ingenuity in his Book and he to his great comfort should infer there was some little ingenuity in it but Petavius his words are supprimi omittique satius visum est it was thought better to suppress them and let them alone was it all one in T. G's sense to use them and to omit the use of them And for the little reason he saith he had to doubt my sincerity in relating Petavius his words from what I did with Trigautius in truth there was as little as might be but I have great reason to believe from his usage of me about other citations that if he could have found any words before or after that he could have interpreted to another sense he would have made little or no conscience of saying those were the words I translated thus and thus But instead of debating the matter of fact as to the Primitive Church he saith he will give me the answer of Mr. Thorndike that at that time there might be jealousie of Offence in having Images in Churches before Idolatry was quite rooted out of which afterwards there might be no appearance and therefore they were afterwards admitted all over for it is manifest the Church is tyed no farther than there can appear danger of Idolatry This he calls Mr. Thorndikes answer but it is truly the answer of Petavius from whose words it seems to be translated dum periculum erat saith Petavius ne offensionis aliquid traheret externa quorundam rituum species cum iis que ab Ethnicis celebrabantur similitudine ipsa congruens c. Therefore I shall consider it as the answer of Petavius and here examine whether this were the ground on which the Primitive Church did forbear the use and worship of Images I shall prove that it was not from these two Arguments 1. Because the Reasons given by them against the worship of Images will equally hold against the worship of Images among Christians 2. Because the notion of Idolatry which they charged the Heathens with may be common to Christians with them 1. This supposes the Primitive Christians to look on the worship of Images as in it self indifferent and to be made good or evil according to the nature of the object represented by them which is a supposition as remote from the sense of the Primitive Church as any thing we can easily imagine For then all the arguments used by them against the worship of Images must have been deduced only from the objects represented or the nature of the worship given to them whereas they frequently argue from the unsuitableness of Images as a Means of worship and the prohibition of the Divine Law Would any man of common sense that had thought the worship of Images in it self indifferent have said as Origen doth that the Christians as well as the Iews abstain from the worship of Images for the sake of the Law of God which requires rather that we should dye than defile our selves with such impieties Yes it may be said this is acknowledged that the Law of God did forbid the worship of the Heathen Images but they who make this answer never looked into Origen or have forgotten what they read there for Origen doth not there give an account why the Christians did not comply with the Heathen Idolatry but why the Christians had no Images in their own worship For Celsus charges this upon the Christians that they thought it such a mighty matter that they had no Images whereas herein saith he they were but like the barbarous Scythians Numidians and Seres and other Nations that had neither Religion nor civility To this Origen answers that we are not only to look at the bare action but at the reason and ground of it for those that agree in the same thing may yet have very different principles and they that do it on a good principle do well and not otherwise as for instance the
although this Image were believed to represent Christ after his Incarnation What shall be said to such an Author who not only omits so considerable a passage but puts in words of his own directly contrary to his meaning The Author of the Caroline Book saith that allowing this story to be true which by comparing the relation of Asterius in Photius with what Eusebius Sozomen and the rest say there seems to be some reason to suspect yet it signifies nothing to the worship of Images such a Statue being erected by a weak ignorant Woman to express her gratitude after the best fashion among the Gentiles and what doth this signifie to the Church of God and supposing the miraculous cures to be wrought by the Herb that grew at the foot of the Statue yet that doth not prove any worship of Images but that men ought to leave their former Idols and embrace the true Faith for saith he according to the Apostle signs are not for Believers but for Unbelievers But if we allow the story as it is reported by Sozomen That the Christians gathered up the broken fragments of the Statue and laid them up in the Church I grant it proves that those Christians did not abhor the use of Images although there be no proof of any worship they gave to them and this seems to be as much as Petavius thinks can be made of this story But Baronius is not content with the Syrophoenician Womans example in this matter of Images but he produces the Apostles Council at Antioch and a venerable decree made by them there which commands Christians to make Images of Christ instead of Heathen Idols but our comfort is that Petavius discards this as a meer forgery as most of the things of the latter Greeks he saith are and yet Baronius saith this Canon is made use of by the second Nicene Council which shews what excellent Authorities that Council relyed upon Nicolas de Clemangis is so far from thinking there was any Apostolical decree in this matter that he saith the Universal Church did decree for the sake of the Gentile Converts that there should be no Images at all in Churches which decree he saith was afterwards repealed I would he had told us by what Authority and why other Commandments and Decrees might not be repealed as well as that The first authentick Testimony of any thing like Images among Christians is that of the painted Chalices in Tertullian wherein Christ was represented under the Embleme of a Shepherd with a sheep on his back as it was very usual among the Romans to have Emblematical Figures on their Cups but was ever any man so weak among them not to distinguish between the ornaments of their Cups and Glasses and their Sacred Images How ridiculous would that man have been that should have proved at that time that Christians worshipped Images because they made use of painted Glasses If this signifies any thing why do they quarrel with us that have painted glass Windows in our Churches All that can be inferred from hence is that the Church at that time did not think Emblematical figures unlawful Ornaments of Cups or Chalices and do we think otherwise This I confess doth sufficiently prove that the Roman Church did think Ornamental Images lawful but it doth no more prove the worship of Images than the very same Emblem often used before Protestant Books doth prove that those Books are worshipped by us I cannot find any thing more that looks like any evidence for Images for the first three hundred years afterwards there began to be some appearances of some in some places but they met with different entertainment according to the several apprehensions of men For although the whole Christian Church agreed in refusing to worship Images yet they were of several opinions as to the Use of them Some followed the strict opinion of Tertullian Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen who thought the very making of Images unlawful others thought it not unlawful to make them but to use them in Churches as the Eliberitan Bishops and Epiphanius others thought it not unlawful to have Images there provided no worship were given to them It is ridiculous to bring S. Hierom's Saucomariae for any other purpose than to prove that the Apostles Images were then seen upon their common drinking cups of which he speaks as any one may easily see that reads the passage and the sport he makes with Canthelius about it which will prove as much towards the worship of Images as having the Apostles pictures on a pack of Cards would do Whatever the custome was in Tertullians time if at least he speaks of the Sacred Chalices we are sure in S. Augustines time there were no Images of mankind on the Sacred Vessels For although these saith he are consecrated to a sacred use and are the work of mens hands yet they have not a mouth and speak not nor eyes and see not as the Heathen Images had and afterwards saith that the humane figure doth more to deceive mankind as to their worship than the want of sense doth to correct their errour and the great cause of the madness of Idolatry is that the likeness to a living Being prevails more on the affections of miserable men to worship them than their knowledge that they are not living doth to the contempt of them Is it possible such a man as S. Austin was could use such expressions as these if in his time there had been any Images then used or worshipped in Christian Churches What need he have so much as mentioned the Sacred Utensils if there had been Sacred Images and how could he have urged those things against Heathen Images which would altogether have held as well against Christian For it was not the opinion of the Heathens he disputed against so much as the proneness of men to be seduced to worship such representations which they find to be like themselves To this Bellarmin answers that S. Augustin doth not say there were no Images in Churches but only that the humane shape of Images did tend much to increase their errour who worshipped them for Gods But would any man of common sense have used those arguments against Images which do not suppose them already worshipped for Gods but imply the danger of being seduced to that worship where ever they are in case there were such Images in Christian Churches The Worship S. Augustin speaks against is adoring or praying looking on an Image Quis autem ador at vel orat intuens simulachrum which whosoever doth saith he is so affected as to think he is heard by that he prays before and may receive help by it and yet these persons S. Augustin disputes against declare that they did not worship their Images for Gods but only as the signs or representations of that Being which they worshipped Which S. Augustin shews to be a most unlikely thing because the manner of address
and the figure of their Images did shew that they did apprehend something more than meer signs in them whatever they pretended I do not deny that there were pictures abroad in S. Augustins time of Christ and Peter and Paul for himself doth mention them but he declares so little reverence for them that he saith they deserved to be deceived who looked on them as Books to be instructed by and it was no wonder to see feigners of false doctrines to be led aside by painters By which it is plain S. Augustin did not think Pictures and Images to be such good helps for the Ignorant as was afterwards pretended And for those who worshipped Pictures S. Augustin doth not deny that there were such in his time but he reckons them among the ignorant and superstitious who by their practises did dishonour their profession of Christianity So that although we grant in the time of S. Augustin there were several pictures of Holy men mentioned in Scripture in several places yet there is no clear evidence that they were then brought into the African Churches any more than into those of Cyprus or Palestine but they were in the latter end of the fourth Century in some of the more Eastern Churches as appears by the Testimonies of Gregory Nyssen and Asterius produced by Petavius and others And it is a very probable conjecture of Daillè that in those parts of Pontus and Cappadocia they were first introduced out of a complyance with Gentilism and in imitation of the practice of Gregory Thaumaturgus whom Nyssen commends for changing the Heathen Festivals into Christian the better to draw the Heathens to Christianity which seemed a very plausible pretence but was attended with very bad success when Christianity came to be by this means but Reformed Paganism as to the matter of divine worship This same principle in all probability brought the Pictures of Martyrs and others into the Churches of Italy of which Prudentius and Paulinus speak and this latter confesseth it was a rare custome in his time to have Pictures in Churches pingere sanctas Raro more domos and thought it necessary to make an Apology for it which he doth by saying he looked on this as a good means to draw the rude and barbarous people from their Heathen Customes changing the pleasure of pictures for that of drinking at the Sepulchres of Martyrs but there is not the least intimation of any worship then given to them 3. After that the Use of Images had prevailed both in the Eastern and Western parts men came by degrees to the worship of them which is the third Period observable in this Controversie As to which there are these things remarkable 1. That it began first among the ignorant and superstitious people of whom S. Augustin speaks in his time that they were the worshippers of pictures and afterwards in the Epistle of Gregorius M. to Serenus Bishop of Marseilles it is observable that the people began to worship the Images in Churches in perfect opposition to Serenus their Bishop who was so much displeased at it that he demolished them and brake them in pieces which act of his so exasperated them that they separated from his Communion The news of this coming to Rome probably from some of these Schismaticks who alwayes loved to take Sanctuary in Rome and appeal thither against their Bishops the Pope writes to the Bishop about it by one Cyriacus he slights the Popes Letters as if he could not believe they were written by him Gregory being nettled at this writes again to him and reproves him for breaking down the Images but commends him for not allowing the worship of them So that we find the first beginning of the worship of Images in these Western parts to have been by the folly and superstition of the People expresly against the Will of their own Bishop and the Bishop of Rome Bellarmin saith that Gregory only reproved the Superstitious worship of Images i. e. that by which they are worshipped as Gods Which is a desperate shift in a bad Cause For if Gregory had intended any kind of worship to be given to Images could he not have expressed it himself He speaks plain enough about this matter in all other things why did he not in distinguishing what worship was to be given to Images and what not We praised you saith he that you forbad the worship of Images so adorari must be rendred and not according to the modern sense of Romish Authors who would against all sense and reason appropriate that word to Soveraign Worship but we reprehended you for breaking them It is one thing to worship an Image and another thing to learn by it what is to be worshipped That ought not to be broken down which was set up in Churches not to be worshipped but Only to instruct the minds of the Ignorant Would any man of common sense have said this that did allow any worship of Images Would Bellarmin or T.G. or any that embrace the second Nicene and Tridentine Council have said that Images are set up in Churches ad instruendas solummodo mentes nescientium only to instruct the ignorant Nay Gregory goes yet farther and tells Serenus he ought to call his People together and shew them from Scripture that it is not lawful to worship the Work of mens hands because it is written Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve Which very place Anastasius Bishop of Theopolis in his Epistle produced in the second Nicene Council thus expounds Mark saith he only is joyned to serve and not to worship adorare quidem licet servire nequaquam saith the Latin Translation there worship of other things is lawful but not the service which is directly contrary to what Gregory saith who makes the worship of any other thing unlawful from these words and to conclude all Gregory saith forbid not those who would make Images adorare verò Imagines modis omnibus devita but by all means avoid the worship of them What! no kind of worship to be allowed them no distinction of an inferiour honorary relative worship no not the least tittle tending that way But our Adversaries run from this Epistle to another to Secundinus to help them out where they say Gregory approves the worship of Images to which no other answer is needful than that all that passage is wanting in the Ancient M S. as Dr. Iames hath attested upon a diligent examination of them and however ought to be interpreted according to his deliberate sentence in the Epistle to Serenus where he not only delivers his judgement but backs it with the strongest Reason 2. That the worship of Images no sooner prevailed but it was objected against the Christians by the Iews and Gentiles Thus it appears in the Apology of Leontius Bishop of Neapolis in Cyprus written against the Iews and read in the second Nicene Council
Are Images to be worshipped let him answer without fear they are Because saith he Images being set apart by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost for such a sacred use do obtain such a degree of Sanctification that whoever violates them is guilty of Sacriledge and Treason against the Divine Majesty For saith he God himself is most truly believed to be present in them after a particular manner and he shews his power and presence by them using them often for Oracles that after this manner our Saviours saying is fulfilled I am with you to the end of the World And for the sake of this peculiar presence of God which we sensibly perceive and if I should deny that I had done it my self I should be a lyar and ungrateful Images do deserve a peculiar adoration but short of Latria because they are sanctified for such spiritual offices Naclantus another Italian Bishop and an eminent Divine in the Council of Trent as well as Catharinus saith That it is needless caution for any to say that they worship before the Image sed adorare imaginem sine quo volueris scrupulo but they may say it roundly and without the least scruple that they worship the Image Bellarmine saith That the Images of Christ and the Saints are to be worshipped not only by accident and improperly but by themselves and properly so that they terminate the worship as they are considered in themselves and not barely as they represent the exemplar which he proves from the definition of the Council of Nice and the same reasons which are mentioned from Suarez before Dominicus Soto another great Divine of the Council of Trent determines positively That Images are not intended by the Church only for helps to memory for we do not worship the Scriptures or names of Saints which call them to our minds but as to Images we ought to think otherwise for they do not only raise our minds to worship those who are represented by them sed easdem ipsas debemus adorare we ought to worship the Images themselves for saith he the Church doth not say We worship thee O Christ but thy Cross and O Crux ave spes unica c. whose words are repeated and approved by Ferd. Velosillus Bernardus Pujol laies down this assertion The Image truly and properly is the matter of adoration and the worship truly and properly is terminated upon it which he saith is plain from the seventh Council and from several others and those are Anathematized who deny it And the definitions of Councils being absolutely put are properly to be understood therefore the worship is truly and properly to be terminated on the Image and not only the external but the internal worship is he saith to be terminated on the Image which he proves likewise from the second Nicene Council wherein it is not only required that men do the outward acts of worship but that they do them with love and affection And when saith he the Council of Trent mentions the external acts it implies that the internal worship is terminated upon the Images for the external acts have not the nature of worship but as they are signs of internal worship And to say that the worship is terminated improperly and abusively on the Image is to make the Councils to speak improperly and abusively and those who say that Images are improperly worshipped do not only err in the manner of speaking but in the thing it self Tannerus saith Absque haesitatione satendum imagines non solum venerandas colendas sed etiam adorandas esse that we should say it without hesitation that Images are not barely to be honoured or reverenced but to be adored which he likewise proves from several passages of the Nicene synod Ysambertus delivers his sense in these particulars 1. That the worship of the thing represented before the Image is not properly worship of the Image nor agreeable to the Definitions of Councils For that saith he is only properly worshipped which terminates the worship and the Councils define such a worship of Images which is terminated upon the Images which he proves from the Council of Trent as well as Nice because it requires such acts of worship which are terminated on the Images 2. Adoration may be directed to the Image as to the thing which terminates it and to the exemplar as the reason of it for which besides the reasons given by others he gives this viz. when there are two things good and lawful and there is no positive Precept to do them together then it is lawful to do one without the other but in the act of worshipping the Image with the exemplar there are two good acts viz. the worship of the Image and of the exemplar and there is no precept of the Church to joyn those together therefore it is lawful to do one without the other Eligius Bassaeus desires it may be observed That in the worship of the Image not only the object is worshipped which is represented by it but also the Image it self seeing that is properly worshipped which is the term of adoration or the matter to which it is directed This is the Catholick verity saith Sylvius that Images are truly and properly to be worshipped so that the honour is given not only to the exemplar but for the sake of that to the Image and this is defined he saith by the second Council of Nice Arriaga laies down this as a certain principle among Catholicks That Images are to be truly worshipped which all the Definitions of Councils do clearly manifest which being in a dogmatical point and against Hereticks cannot without danger of errour be explained in an abusive and improper sense and he adds afterwards that the opinion of Durandus seems manifestly condemned by all those definitions of Councils which require true worship to be given to Images and he produces several passages of the seventh Synod to that purpose And it signifies nothing to their excuse that they perform the outward signs of worship to Images for saith he since they allow no proper worship to them the Images do only serve to excite the memory which he thus farther confirms It is not credible that any hereticks supposing the object represented to deserve worship should imagine it lawful to worship that object without an Image and unlawful to do it when the memory of that object is excited upon the view of an Image upon supposition that no worship is intended to be given to the Image thereby And it is not credible that if this had been all the Councils had determined that they should never think of such an easie way of satisfying dissenters as the declaring this to have been their sense would have been But the controversie lay in another point viz. that Images did not deserve any immediate worship so as to have any honour done to them although considered only as the material objects
burning incense and lights before them which are as great Testimonies of Worship as were ever used by the grossest and most sottish Idolaters I may rather say there is no great difference between them and their Images that can see no difference between such worship and the Reverence of Holy things 2. That the Council of Nice did put a difference between these things For however to blind the business as much as might be they put them together in the Definition yet if we observe the ground on which it established the worship of Images was such as referred to the things represented by them and not any sacred use of them and those expressed in the very same Definition For say they they honour of the Image passes to the Prototype and he that worships the Image doth in that worship the thing represented By which they lay the foundation of the worship of Images upon a thing peculiar to them and that doth not hold for the other things And this reason here assigned runs through all the several discourses in that Synod of Hadrian Theodorus Tarasius Germanus Leontius and Epiphanius and the very same reason is assigned by the Council of Trent It is observed out of S. Augustin that the most sacred things are only capable of honour honorem tanquam Religiosa possunt habere where he speaks of the elements of the Eucharist but Tarasius in this Council of Nice pronounces them all guilty of hypocrisie who would only give honour and not Worship to Images by which it appears that the Council determined more than meer Reverence to be given to Images 2. That this worship which the Council of Nice determined was lower than Latria For so it follows in the definition of the Council that they only meant an honorary adoration and not true Latria which is only due to God Tarasius upon reading Pope Hadrians Epistle declares his consent to the worship of Images asserted in it reserving Latria and Faith to God alone To the same purpose speaks Constantinus Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus upon reading the Epistle of Theodorus whose words I grant were mistaken by the translatour of the Council into Latin as appears by what he is charged with in the Caroline Book and his words in the Acts of the Council but it doth not therefore follow as T. G. would have it that the Council of Francford did mistake the meaning of the Nicene Synod For the Author of the Caroline Book particularly observes that in those words as translated He did contradict the sayings of the rest but that unawares he had betrayed that which the rest endeavoured to conceal viz. that they gave the worship proper to God to Images for however they denyed it in words they did it in their actions So Epiphanius the Deacon saith that they often declared that they did not give Latria to Images Thus we see what the sense of the second Council of Nice was as to the worship of Images 2. I now come to the additions which have been made to this doctrine in the Roman Church when it was delivered as good Catholick doctrine that the worship of Latria was to be given to the Images of Christ. So Thomas Aquinas determines in several places which are collected by Simon Majolus and he goes upon these grounds 1. Because no irrational creature is capable of worship but with a respect to a rational Being 2. Because Images are worshipped on the account of their representation therefore saith he they are to be worshipped with the same worship with the thing represented 3. Because the motion of the mind towards an Image as an Image is the same with the motion towards the thing represented 4. Because the Church in praying to the Cross speaks to it as if it were Christ himself O Crux ave spes unica But how can this doctrine be reconciled to the definition of the Council of Nice which determines expresly contrary Estius saith that S. Thomas never saw this definition of the Council the same is said by Catharinus and Sylvius for saith Catharinus if he had seen it he would have endeavoured to have reconciled his opinion with the decree of the Council which shews that he thought it inconsistent with it From whence I argue that the Council of Nice was not then received in the Western Church for if it had been is it conceivable that so great a Doctor of the Church as Aquinas should either not have seen it or if he had seen it should have contradicted the Definition of it But Aquinas was not the first who asserted this doctrine in the Latin Church for Alex. Hales who was his Master saith as much in effect although he doth not so openly apply the term of Latria to it yet putting this question whether greater worship doth belong to the Cross than to any man he determines it affirmatively and distinguishes between the dignity of a thing and the dignity of an Image and an Image having all its excellency from the object represented all the worship given to it is to be referred to the Prototype now saith he man having a proper excellency can deserve no more than Dulia and therefore the Cross as it represents Christ must have the worship of Latria And it is considerable that Alex. Hales as Pitts saith writ his Summ by the Command of Pope Innocent 4. and in the time of Alex 4. it was examined by seventy Divines and approved and recommended to be taught in all Universities Card. Bonaventure determines it roundly that as Christ himself from his union to the Divinity is worshipped with Latria so is the Image of Christ as it represents him and concludes thus proptereà Imagini Christi debet cultus Latriae exhiberi Rich. de Media Villa who lived in the same Century asserted the same doctrine And when Durandus opposed the doctrine of Thomas on this ground because the Image and Prototype were two distinct things and therefore what belonged to the exemplar could not be attributed to the Image however considered as an Image and so the worship are to the exemplar could not be given to the Image yet he confesses the other was the common and received opinion which was defended against Durandus by Paludanus and Capreolus Marsilius ab Ingen speaks his mind freely in this matter saying that the Cross as a sign representing the object of worship and as a medium of it is to be adored with Latria and for this he appeals to the practice of the Church O Crux ave spes unica Auge piis justitiam reisque dona veniam which three things he saith do properly belong to God and therefore saith he it is properly the worship of Latria which the Church doth give to the Cross as a sign Iacobus Almain declares that Images are to be worshipped with the same kind of worship that the things represented are because
and the very way was sprinkled with blood after these the Magistrates of the City followed and the Consuls and Senatours all bearing torches before the Host which was carried under a silken Canopy with a most profound Reverence then came in the last place the Governour the Nobility and a vast multitude of all sorts of people and for eight dayes together many people walked the same round out of great devotion I do not think this Procession can be matched by the supplications and the Pompa Circensis of old Rome or by any of the Processions with their Idols which Peter della Valle describes among the Heathen Indians which he confesses to be very like those used among Christians when the Images of Saints are carried in procession when any Body or Fraternity go in Pilgrimage to Loreto or Rome in the Holy Year The Iesuits boast very much of their zeal in setting up the worship of the Images of the B. Virgin in Flanders and especially of these solemn processions with her Images particularly at Courtray for nine dayes together wherein there have been nine thousand persons In the year 1636. the plague raging there a solemn supplication was appointed with a Procession of the Image through the City with wonderful devotion and at Bruges A. D. 1633. with an incredible number of people and a thousand torches of Virgin wax and the like solemnities were set up by their means at Brussels Antwerp Mechlin and other places Otho Zylius a Iesuite sets down the order of the Procession wherein the Image of the B. Virgin that was before worshipped at Boisleduc was carried to Brussels upon the shoulders of four Capucins the Infanta Isabella following it with all the Nobility and infinite number of people with the highest expressions of Pomp and Devotion and at last it was placed in the middle of a Chappel just over the Altar where it hath solemn worship given to it and wonderful cures are said to be wrought by it I cannot conclude this Discourse without giving some account of another notable Procession at Brussels of an Image of the B. Virgin the occasion whereof was this a new confraternity was instituted in Spain of the Slaves of the B. Virgin by one Simon Rojas whose custome was to salute one another with those words Ave Maria instead of Your humble Servant and this Sodality was established with large Indulgences by Paul 5. and afterwards was begun in Bruges A. D. 1626. having fetters as the badge of this Slavery and new Indulgences from Urban 8. for the establishing this Society it happened luckily that an officer of the King of Spain 's Fleet being sick at Dunkirk pretended to discover a great Secret to Barth de los Rios then Preacher to Isabella Clara Eugenia viz. that he had a most admirable Image of the B. Virgin which had been worshipped for 600 years in the Cathedral Church of Aberdene and had spoken to the last Catholick Bishop and had miraculously escaped the Hereticks hands and was designed for a present to Isabella but he wretch that he was upon a promise made by the Franciscans of his own Countrey in Spain of praying for his Soul and his Families had intended to have carried it thither which he found was displeasing to the B. Virgin by his dangerous sickness and he hoped upon this confession she would have mercy upon him and therefore he desired him to present this Image to her Highness in the name of the Catholicks of Aberdene which was received by her with wonderful devotion and she said her prayers before it morning and evening but this did not satisfie her for she resolved to have this Image carried to Brussels with a solemn procession and for that purpose obtained an Indulgence from Urban 8. for all those who should attend it and a rich and magnificent Altar was erected over which the Image was to be placed and banners were made with this inscription In Nomine Mariae omne genu flectatur c. after which on May 3. the Procession was performed with all imaginable Pomp and kept for eight dayes together and yet after all this one Maxwel a learned Scotchman shewed in a Discourse presented to Isabella that upon the best enquiry he could make this famous Image was a meer imposture and a trick of a crafty merchant to procure some advantage to himself by it but the poor man was imprisoned for this discovery and forced to make a publick Recantation and the Worship of this Image was advanced and a solemn supplication and procession with it observed every year as the same Author informs us and the Confraternity of the slaves of the B. Virgin highly promoted by it Several other solemn processions are related by him as of B. Maria de Remediis B. Maria de Victoriâ with the Popes Bulls for establishing the Society of slaves of the B. Virgin but these are enough to shew that the Roman Church in its constant and allowed practises doth not come behind old Heathen Rome in this part of the Worship given to Images CHAP. III. Of the Sense of the second Commandment HAving endeavoured with so much care to give a just and true account of the Controversie between us as to the Worship of Images and therein shewed from the Doctrine and Practice of the Roman Church 1. That they set up Images in Churches over Altars purposely for worship 2. That they consecrate those Images with solemn prayers for that purpose 3. That they use all the Rites of Worship to them which the Heathen Idolaters used to their Images such as bowings prostrations Lights Incense and praying 4. That they make solemn Processions in honour of Images carrying them with as much Pomp and Ceremony as ever the Heathens did their Idols The Question now is whether these Acts of Worship towards Images were unlawful only to Heathens and Iews but are become lawful to Christians But if these Acts of Worship be now equally unlawful to us as to them then Christians performing them are liable to the same charge that the Iews and Heathens were and if the Scripture calls that Idolatry in them it must be so in Christians too as much as Murder or Theft or Adultery is the same in all for the words of the Law of God makes no more difference as to one than as to the other We are therefore to enquire on what account the Sense of this Law is supposed to be consistent with the practice of the same things among Christians which were utterly forbidden by it to Iews and Heathens The words of the Law are these Thou shalt not make to thy self any Graven Image nor the Likeness of any Thing which is in Heaven above or in the Earth beneath or in the Waters under the Earth Thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them for I the Lord thy God am a Iealous God c. My Adversary T. G. denies that God
But it may be T. G. thinks to escape by saying that when he saith an Image being made the object of divine worship is an Idol he doth not understand it of an Image of God but when the Image it self is taken for God which evasion can do him no service for 1. He grants that Images which are made for Likenesses of God are condemned by the Law of God and that they are an infinite disparagement to the Divine Nature 2. I have at large shewed that in the Roman Church Images of God and Christ are made the objects of Divine worship And 3. That the very Heathens did not take the Images themselves for Gods 4. The place he answers Isa. 40.18 doth imply that the Images of the Divinity are therefore condemned because nothing can be made like unto God But of that afterwards Let us then suppose that the LXX had particular reason to render Pesel by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Commandment yet what is this to the representation of a meer figment for worship Doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so properly so naturally so necessarily signifie a figment that it cannot be taken in any other sense I see T. G. makes only use of good Catholick Lexicons such a one as that called Catholicon which Erasmus is so pleasant with that assure him what the sense of a word must be in spight of all use of it by prophane and heretical Authors thus simulachrum must signifie only Heathen Images and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Sphinx a Triton or Centaure and why so did it alwaies signifie so did all Greek Authors use it only in that sense Doth the Etymology of it imply it no none of all these what then is the reason that a word should be so restrained against the former and common acception of it The reason is very plain for if it be taken for the representation of real Beings then for all that we know the Image of the Trinity or of the B. Virgin or of any other worshipped in the Roman Church may prove Idols and therefore this must be the sense because the Church of Rome cannot be guilty of Idolatry This is the real Truth of the case but it is too great Truth to be owned Only Bellarmin who often speaks freelier than the rest confesses their design herein is to shew that the Images worshipped in the Church of Rome cannot be Idols because they are representations of real Beings A very miserable shift as will appear by the examination of it Let us therefore see whether there be any pretence from the use and importance of the Word for restraining the sense of an Idol to an imaginary representation And I am so far from T. G's opinion that by the best enquiry I can make the proper signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a representation of something that really is So Hesychius interprets it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the old Greek and Latin Glossaries render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and simulachrum by each other and notwithstanding T. G's severity against me for translating simulachra Images I can make it appear from some of the most authentick Writers of the Roman Church that they do not scruple calling such Images as they worship simulacra I leave T. G. then to judge whether they be not Idols too Isidore makes Idolum to be properly Simulachrum quod humana effigie factum consecratum est an Image made and consecrated in the figure of a man as Plutarch calls the Image of Sylla 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Porphyrie in the beginning of the Life of Plotinus when Amelius desired a Picture of him he answered Is it not enough to carry such an Idolum about me but I must leave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Image of an Image So we find Idolum used in the Chaldaick Oracles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where Psellus observes That according to the Platonists the mind is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Image of God and the rational soul the Image of the mind and the irrational the Image of the rational and nature of the irrational soul and the body of the Image of Nature and Matter of the Body But Isidore applying Idolum to an Ecclesiastical sense supposeth not only representation but consecration to be necessary to it wherein he follows Tertullian who speaking of the created Beings that were worshipped saith Eorum Imagines Idola imaginum consecratio Idololatria Their Images were Idols and the consecration of them is Idolatry and a little before he saith That all service of an Idol is Idolatry and every representation is an Idol Omnis forma vel formula Idolum se dici exposcit For saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies a form or representation of a thing Or as the Greek Etymologist thinks it comes immediately from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to resemble Among the Philosophers it was taken for the Image of things conveyed to our sight so Diogenes Laertius saith That Democritus held Vision to be performed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the incursion of Images 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Plutarch Empedocles saith he joyned raies to the Images 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Democritus and Epicurus said that reflection in a glass was performed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the subsistence of the Images Cicero Lucretius and S. Augustin render these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Imagines Catius the Epicurean called them Spectra Macrobius Simulacra but all of them understood the most proper representations of things to our sight which Epicurus was so far from thinking that they represented things that were not that he made them infallible criteria of the truth of things The Poets and some other Authors made use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie Spectres and Apparitions but still they supposed these to be the representations of some real Beings So Homer calls the soul of Elpenor that appeared to Ulysses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but Eustathius there observes That these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were exactly like the Persons they represented as to Age Stature Habit and every thing and so Homer himself expresses it saying that Apollo made an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a representation of Aeneas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So in another place speaking of Minerva's making a representation of Iphthima 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By which we see that the very Poetical use of the word for a Spectre doth imply an exact resemblance to some real Being which it represents from whence then hath this signification of an Idol come into the Roman Church that it must signifie a representation of something that is not but from whenceoever it comes we are sure it is neither from the natural importance nor the use of the word among Greek Authors 2. Not from the use of it in Scripture
The Author of the Book of wisdom gives this account of the beginning of the worship of Idols viz. That Fathers having lost their Children made Images of them and appointed solemnities to be kept before them as if they were Gods then by degrees Princes passed these things into Laws and made men to worship graven Images and thus either out of affection or flattery the worship of Idols began where it is observable that he makes the representation of Persons that were really in Being to have been the first Idols and he distinguishes the bringing in of Idols from the worship of the Elements or heavenly bodies and he thinks these much more excusable than those who worship the Work of mens hands the folly of which he there elegantly describes but he still supposes these Idols to have the resemblance either of man or some living creature To the same purpose Diophantus the Lacedemonian in Fulgentius saith That Syrophanes the Egyptian being greatly afflicted for the loss of his son made an Image of him and all his servants to please him did what they could to adorn this Image and some when they had offended ran to it as a Sanctuary from hence saith he came the worship of Idols And Eutychius gives the like account of the Original of Idols That when a great man was dead they set up his Image on his Sepulchre from whence the World was filled with Idols i.e. with Images of Men Women and Children this he thinks began among the Chaldeans and Egyptians but Herodotus saies the Egyptians were the first who made Images of their Gods Lucian that they borrowed this custom from the Assyrians Epiphanius makes the beginning of Idolatry to be in the time of Seruch but he saith that it went no farther than to Pictures in his time and came to Images and Statues in the time of Nahor Cedrenus saith That Seruch and his Companions made Statues for the honour of those who had done any famous action which their posterity misunderstanding worshipped them as Gods Thus far we find that the first Idols that are supposed to have been in the world were the representations of things that had real Beings The only people that could be suspected to be meant in Scripture as those who had such Idols as were representations of what had no real Beings must be the Phoenicians and Egyptians who besides the worship of Beasts and the Images of them had many extravagant Images Sanchoniathon saith Taautus made the Images in Phoenicia with Wings Saturn with four and the rest of the Gods with two And Dagon and Atergatis or Derceto is supposed to be an Image whereof the upper part is of humane shape and the lower of a Fish among the Egyptians one of their Images had the face of a Ram and another of a Dog c. If these be the Idols T.G. thinks are prohibited in the Second Commandment I desire him to consider 1. Whether the Images of humane shape were not prohibited by the Law equally with these or whether it were lawful to worship such Images as did represent real beings in that manner that it was unlawful to worship those Images that were only Chimaera's and fancies of mens brains If not this distinction serves to no purpose at all To make this more plain I ask T. G. whether it were unlawful to worship God among the Egyptians under the representation of an Image with the body of a man and the Head of a Hawk which was a representation of something that had no real Being just like it but it was lawful to worship Him with the Image of a man as Eusebius saith that Oneph or the Creator of the world was worshipped under such a representation among them It is certain that both these sorts of Images were among the Egyptians and according to T. G.'s notion one of these was an Idol and the other not But is it possible for men of common understandings to suppose that God by the words of the Law hath forbidden the one and not the other when both were intended to represent the same Being But according to this sense the Inhabitants of Thebais of whom Plutarch saith That they only worshipped Oneph the immortal God or the Creator under the Image of a man were altogether as innocent as those in the Roman Church who worship God under a like representation And can it enter into T. G.'s head that God should notwithstanding all the words of this Commandment allow such a kind of worship of Images as was received among the Egyptians But if this were condemned in them then if the Second Commandment be in force the like worship must be condemned in the Church of Rome 2. That there is a distinction to be made between such Images as have no real resemblance in nature and such Images which represent that which hath no real Being for although the Phoenician and Egyptian Images had nothing in nature which answered to their figure yet there might be something which answered their representation i. e. they were only Symbolical Images and the Nature of those Symbols being understood there was no difference as to matter of worship between these and other Images As for instance a Sphinx is one of those Images which T. G. would have to be understood for an Idol in the Second Commandment supposing then that I allow him as a Sphinx was painted among the Egyptians with wings and the face a man and the body of a Lion that it was the representation of something that had no real Being agreeable to it yet Clemens Alexandrinus saith That their design was to represent hereby that God was both to be loved and feared now this Image did Symbolically represent a real object of worship and therefore could be no Idol even in T. G.'s sense So Kircher saith one of the chief and most common Images of the Egyptians was a winged Globe with a Serpent passing through the middle of it by the Globe saith he they represented the Divine nature by the Serpent the spreading of life and by the wings the Spirit of the World Here is an Image that hath no real Being correspondent to it and yet it represents the infinite nature and power and goodness of God Sometimes saith he they represented Providence by a Scepter with a Dogs head within a Semicircle by which and innumerable other waies they represented the hidden Mysteries of the Divine Being and they thought this Symbolical way most pleasing to God and was certainly farthest from that danger which T. G. thinks to be most considerable in Images viz. making men Anthropomorphites To avoid which the Egyptians generally mixed the figures of men and beasts together not so much to shew the communion of nature as Porphyrie imagines as that these were meer Symbolical Images and not intended for any proper Likenesses and therefore according to T. G.'s principles those which he calls Idols were
more innocent than those which he calls Images for the one might bring men to erroneous conceits of the Deity but the other being Symbolical were not apt to do it Plutarch saith That when they represented Mercury by the Image of a man with the head of a Dog they only intended thereby to represent Care Watchfulness and Wisdom and that they represented Osiris by a Scepter with an eye in it by a Hawk and by the figure of a man now by Osiris he tells us They meant the most powerful God and so doth Apuleius and Tacitus saith The same God which was called Jove among others was called Osiris by them These Images and many other of very strange shapes with a mixture of very different forms are supposed in the Mensa Isiaca and the Egyptian Obelisks to represent the most true and perfect Being in regard of his nature and production of things as Athanas. Kircher hath endeavoured at large to shew If therefore the Egyptians did make such Symbolical figures with respect to the most real Being and yet these Images were Idols properly so called then it follows that some representations of the true God are Idols and condemned in the Second Commandment 3. The Scripture uses the word Idol for the representation of all sorts of things which are made the objects of worship Thus in the first place the LXX makes use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is taken for the Teraphim of Laban Gen. 31.19 34 35. which are supposed to be of humane shape not only from the general opinion of Jewish Writers but because of the mistake of the Teraphim for David 1 Sam. 19.13 The Images of Baal are called Idols 2 Chron. 17.3 Jer. 9 13. and what the LXX render 2 Kings 11.18 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Images of Baal in the parallel place 2 Chron. 23.17 they express by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Idols of Baal Whether by Baal be understood the Assyrian Belus or the Phoenician Beel Samen i. e. whether a representation of a man or of the Sun we are sure this was an Image of a real Being and yet the LXX call it an Idol Idols are joyned with Molten Gods by the LXX Levit. 19.4 i. e. what ever Images are set up for Divine worship And all the Gods of the Heathen are said to be Idols 1 Chron. 16.26 but they were not all meer figments of mens brains being either dead men that were worshipped as S. Hierome saith by the Idols of the Heathens we understand imagines Mortuorum the representations of dead men or the works of the Creation especially the heavenly bodies which was the most early and the most common Idolatry of the Eastern parts and most frequently condemned in Scripture If it be said That although they had real Beings yet their Deities were fictitious I answer 1. That is not to the purpose for the question is whether the proper signification of an Idol be the representation of meer imaginary Beings Sphinxes Tritons Centaures but what a ridiculous answer is this to that question to say that although their being real yet their Deity is fictitious for this is to grant that Idols are not representations of imaginary Beings but of imaginary Deities which I readily grant 2. This will equally hold against all representations of created Beings that have divine worship given to them for by giving them any part of divine worship they are so far made Gods but since they are not truly so they are still but the representations of imaginary Deities although they be of real Saints or Angels In which sense the Scripture calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothings and vanities and S. Paul saith That an Idol is nothing in the world not because it represented that which was not but because neither the Image nor the thing represented were any real Deity 4. The far greatest part of the Idols expressly mentioned in Scripture were the representations of real Beings not only that the things had Subsistence which were represented by them but that the very Images were of some creatures existing in the world Lyra saith That Moloch was in the fashion of a man and so Benjamin Tudelensis supposes when he saith That two femal Images stood of either side of him Kircher shews from Baal Aruch that Asima was worshipped in the form of a Goat and from other Jewish Authors That Nibcas had the figure of a Dog Thartak of an Ass Adramelech of a Mule and Anamelech of a Horse Bel and Nebo of Serpents and Beasts Succoth Benoth of a Hen and Chickens Astaroth of Sheep Will T. G. say that these were not Idols because they were Images of real Beings If he doth he must excuse the grossest Idolatry condemned in Scripture if he doth not he must then confess that this is not the notion of an Idol in the sense of Scripture viz. a representation of what hath no existence but in the imagination as Sphinxes Tritons Centaures and the like 3. But T. G. would have us believe that this is the sense of the Fathers for he quotes Origen and Theodoret for this interpretation of the second Commandment It is well known that Origen had a great many of T. G.'s Idols in his head viz. imaginations of things that were not and therefore it is ill fixing upon an interpretation of Scripture of which he was the first Author But I have proved at large from the unanimous consent of the Fathers in charging the Arians with Idolatry and the Gnosticks in worshipping the Images of Christ with divine honours that this could not be their sense For if this were the notion of an Idol to represent what hath no existence neither the Arians nor the Gnosticks could be accused of worshipping an Idol but the Fathers do in express terms call Christ an Idol if he had divine worship given him and yet were not God And it is farther observable 1. That the second Council of Nice confesses that the Arrians were justly condemned for Idolatry not only by one or two Fathers but by the Catholick Church from whence it is evident that the Catholick Church did declare that T. G.'s sense of an Idol is false 2. That when the Fathers repeat the second Commandment instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they use other words which they would never have done if they had thought there had been any peculiar importance of the word Idol in that place different from Image Iustin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho the Iew repeats the words of the Law thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou shalt not make any Image or similitude Clemens Alex. makes the thing forbidden to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to worship graven Images and the thing required to be not to make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either a graven or a molten Image And even Origen himself layes so little weight on his observation
false representation for it is no otherwise false than every Image of a man is so for no Image can represent the invisible Nature of a Man And it adds much force to this that the Author of the Greek Excerpta about the use of Images from the Nicene Council and the Writers of that time saith that the design of the second Commandment is against making any Images of God which he looks on not only as an absurd but a very wicked practice and which he saith was then common among the Aegyptians 3. When an Image is worshipped for the sake of any sanctity vertue or Divinity abiding in it Whosoever doth so saith Iacobus Almain is an Idolater and so much is implyed in the Council of Trent it self when it declares that no worship is to be given to an Image on any such account if so then the doing it is a thing forbidden and unlawful and not only so but they looked on this as the certain way of putting a difference between Idolatry and their worship but men may suppose sanctity vertue and Divinity to be in an Image of a real Being and therefore such an Image may be properly an Idol and so Vasquez confesses that this is Idolatry to give worship although it be inferiour to any inanimate being as an Image is for the sake of any thing belonging to it or inherent in it Thus I have shewed that there is no pretence to excuse the worship of Images from being Idolatry and a breach of the second Commandment because an Idol is only a representation of only imaginary beings as T. G. saith such as Sphinxes Tritons Centaurs or the like 2. I now come to shew more particularly what the sense of the Law is by considering what T. G. saith in answer to what I had formerly said about it the original Question between us was whether God by this Law hath forbidden the giving any worship to himself by an Image No saith T. G. he hath not but what he forbids there is only giving his worship to Idols To resolve this Question being about the sense of a Law I proposed three wayes 1. From the Terms in which the Law is expressed 2. From the Reason annexed to it 3. From the judgement of the Law-giver himself But before T. G. comes to the handling of these he lays down some arguments of his own to shew that God did not intend by this Law to forbid the worshipping of himself by an Image but only the worship of Idols 1. Because the Iews did worship God by bowing down before the Ark and the Cherubim 2. Because S. Austin makes this Commandment to be only an explication of the first To these I shall give a distinct answer 1. T. G. on all occasions lays great weight on the worshipping of God before the Ark and the Cherubims which he makes to be the parallel of their worshipping God by bowing or kneeling before a Crucifix to which instance I had given this Answer 1. That the Iews only directed their worship towards the place where God had promised to be signally present among them which signifies no more to the worship of Images than our lifting our eyes to heaven doth when we pray because God is more especially present there 2. That though the Cherubims were there yet they were alwayes hid from the sight of the people the High-Priest himself going into the Holy of Holies but once a year and that the Cherubims were no representations of God but his Throne was between them on the Mercy Seat but that they were Hieroglyphical Figures of Gods own appointing which the Iews know no more than we do which are plain arguments they were never intended for objects of worship for then they must not have been meer appendices to another thing but would have been publickly exposed as the Images are in the Roman Churches and their form as well known as any of the B. Virgin But T. G. still insists upon it that the Reverence which the Iews shewed to the Ark and Cherubims was of the same nature with the worship they give to Images and he thinks I have not answered the argument he brought for it Therefore to give him all reasonable satisfaction I shall 1. Compare their worship of Images and these together 2. Examine all the colour of argument he produces for the worship of these among the Iews 1. For comparing their worship of Images with the Iews worshipping God before the Ark and the Cherubims As to their worship of Images I need only repeat 1. That they are publickly set up and exposed for worship in their Churches and over their Altars 2. That they are consecrated for this end 3. That the people in their devotions bow to them kneel and pray before them with all expressions of Reverence 4. That the Councils of Nice and Trent have decreed that worship is to be given to them on the account of their representation because the honour given to them passes to the exemplar 5. That the Images themselves on the account of their representation are a proper object of inferiour worship and that considered together with the exemplar they make up one entire object of supreme worship in these their Divines generally agree and condemn the opinion of those who say That they are only to worship the exemplar before the Image as contrary to the Decrees of Councils But if the Ark and Cherubims were neither set up nor exposed nor consecrated as objects of worship if the People of the Iews never thought them to be so nor worshipped them as such if the utmost were only that which the Divines of the Roman Church condemn viz. making them only a circumstance and not an object of worship then I hope the difference will appear so great that T. G. himself may be ashamed of insisting so much on so weak a parallel In external Acts of worship these two things are to be distinguished 1. The Object of worship or the thing to which that worship is given 2. The local circumstance of expressing that worship towards that object That there is a real difference between the object and local circumstance of worship by our lifting up our hands and eyes towards heaven when we worship God but no man that understands our Religion can say that we worship the heavens but only God as present in them wherefore God is the object and looking up to heaven barely the circumstance When we praise any person for some excellency in him if he be present we naturally turn our face towards him to let others by that circumstance understand of whom we speak but which way soever we looked the same person would be the object of our praise when we do this at anothers mentioning his name no man of common understanding will say that the praise is directed to the very name of the Person and if a man makes a Panegyrick upon another and reads it out of
were expressly forbidden to worship them Thus I hope I have made it appear how very little the worshipping of God before the Ark and the Cherubims doth prove towards the lawfulness of the worship of Images in the Roman Church The second Argument of T. G. is From the judgement of S. Augustine who makes that which we call the Second Commandment to be only an explication of the First Which I thought so weak and trifling an Argument that I gave a short answer to it in these two particulars 1. That S. Augustine did not seem constant to that opinion 2. That supposing he were yet it doth not follow that according to his judgement these words are only against Heathen Idols and not against the worship of God by Images Here T. G. thinks he hath the bit fast between his teeth and away he runs raising a dust to blind the eyes of beholders but he must be stopt in his carier and brought to better Reason I asked T. G. how he was sure this was S. Austins constant judgement since in his latter Writings he reckons up the Commandments as others of the Fathers had done before him upon this he insults and calls it a new way of answering Fathers and the readiest he ever met with except it be that of denying them and if this be allowed when an express Testimony of a Father is alledged there is no more to do than to ask how he is sure that the Father did not afterwards change his mind but he saith he is sure he hath his judgement professedly for him in his former Writings and that I ought to bring better evidence of his being of another mind than I have done But if I do evidently prove that S. Augustine was of our mind in the main point as to the unlawfulness of the worship of God by Images then what matter is it whether it be the first or second or third or fourth Commandment so we are sure it is one of the Ten And I have already produced sufficient Testimonies from him to this purpose For doth not S. Augustine declare That it is unlawful to worship God by an Image when he saith it were impiety for a Christian to set up a corporeal Image of God in a Temple and that they who do it are guilty of the Sacriledge condemned by S. Paul of turning the glory of the incorruptible God into an Image made like to corruptible man Doth not St. Augustine commend Varro for speaking so reproachfully concerning the very manner of worshipping the Deity by an Image and he saith That if he durst have opposed so old a corruption he would have both owned the unity of the Godhead Et sine simulachro colendum esse censeret and have thought he ought to be worshipped without an Image Doth not S. Augustine when he purposely explains that which he accounts the First Commandment say That any similitude of God is thereby forbidden to be worshipped because no Image of God is to be worshipped but what is God himself i. e. his Son And can any one speak more expressly our sense than S. Augustine here doth Let not T.G. then boast of his possession of S. Augustine unless it be as he did lately of all the Fathers and in truth the reason is much alike for both But as to the division of the Commandments he is of T. G 's side and what is that to our business If S. Augustine be of our side as to the sense of the Commandment I can allow him to find out something of the Mysterie of the Trinity in having three Commandments of the First Table and I can be contented with this that the generality of the Fathers were for the other division and upon more considerable Reasons But T.G. saith That S. Augustine translates this Precept Thou shalt not make to thy self any Idol and the sense of the Law to be the forbidding the giving the worship of God to Idols One would think by this S. Augustine had no other word but Idolum here whereas he uses both figmentum and simulachrum both which words he elsewhere uses about the Images of the True God But this is their common method if they meet with a word in the Fathers that sounds their way they never stay to consider the sense of it but presently cry out Idolum Idolum and then with the Man at Athens take all that comes for their own So doth T. G. boast of the possession of the Fathers upon as slight grounds as he did and makes up by the strength of Imagination what is wanting in the goodness of his title if at least imagination can sway him so much against the plain evidence of Reason Having thus cleared the way by removing these mighty difficulties which T. G. had laid in it to obstruct our passage I now come to consider the several methods I proposed for finding out the sense of this Law The first whereof was from the general Terms wherein it is expressed which are of so large and comprehensive a sense as to take in all manner of representations in order to worship and I challenged him to shew where the word Temunah which they render similitude as well as we is ever used in Scripture to signifie such an Idol as he supposes this Law intends And to what purpose are words of the largest signification put into a Law if the sense be limitted according to the most narrow acceptation of one word mentioned therein for there is no kind of Image whether graven or painted whether of a real or imaginary Being but is comprehended under the signification of the words set down in the Law To this T. G. answers that how large soever the signification of this word Temunah or similitude be when taken by it self yet in our present case it is limited by the following words Thou shalt not bow down to them nor serve them to signifie something which is made to be worshipped as God that is to be an Idol And so by the word Idol in the Commandment he understands such an Image as is made to represent for worship a Figment that hath no real Being and by similitude an Image or resemblance of some real thing but falsely imagined to be God but he saith it was nothing to the purpose to put the word similitude in its largest meaning that is as signifying any Image whatsoever though made with respect to the worship of the true God when God himself commanded the Ark and the Cherubims to be made with that respect doth he mean to represent the true God or to be objects of worship which I have already shewed to be false That which I am to prove he saith is that the word Similitude is to be taken so here whereas he affirms that the word similitude is to be restrained to the similitude of false Gods And to make all sure he interprets similitude only of the representation of false Gods and
his foot This sort of Wit is a delicate thing and endures no rough handling But still I say it is not in the meer quickness of representation but in the perfections represented that natural things do so far exceed the most artificial Images and we are to consider that in all representations of objects of worship those are the most excellent which best set forth the Nature of that Being as it deserves our worship Now in this respect the works of Creation manifest Gods eternal Power and what is it the Image of an Old man represents So that comparing these two the Sun Moon and Stars do in regard of real representation of the Divine Being much more deserve to be worshipped than any Image whatsoever And Vasquez doth well prove that upon the principles of Worshipping Images one may lawfully Worship God in any Creature whatsoever For if the presence of God in the Image by a meer fiction of the mind be a sufficient Ground to worship that Image is not Gods real presence in every creature a far better ground and reason to worship it and all the distinctions and evasions which serve in one will equally serve in the other case How earnestly did T. G. contend for the Worship of Gods Footstool and why may not His Footsteps be worshipped as well as His Footstool I am sure T. G. himself could not have taken the height and bigness of Hercules from his Footstool which he saith was done from his Footsteps and therefore one comes nearer to the thing worshipped than the other Cardinal Lugo gives an excellent answer to this Metaphor of the Creatures being Gods Footsteps For saith he they may be worshipped for all that for do not we worship the Footsteps of Saints in many Churches how much more ought we to adore the Footsteps of God But T. G. gives another reason against worshipping the Creatures viz. That there is greater danger of terminating the worship upon them than upon an Image because they are Creatures subsisting of themselves and are the causes of real benefits to mankind If there be more danger in the one there is more folly in the other in the judgement of the Fathers who looked on the worship of Images as the most silly and childish thing in the world while they thought the worship of the heavens very excusable Upon this ground I had said before it follows that what deserves most honour should have the least given it and that which deserves least should have most for the danger is still greater where the excellency is greater and by this reason we ought rather to worship a Beast than a Saint for there is less danger of terminating the worship on one than on the other and so the Egyptians were more excusable than the Papists These words he returns upon me on a very slight occasion viz. setting the Sun before an Ant or a Fly as though they had been a Reason of my giving where as I only shew the ridiculousness of this which is the only pretence they have for not worshipping God by a living Old Man as well as by the Picture of one And if this be all T. G. hath to say I see still the distinctions of Soveraign and inferiour of absolute and relative worship will bear any man out in the worship of any Creature with a respect to God as well at least as it doth them in the worship of Images Vasquez saith there are these several grounds for the worship of a Creature among them 1. Representation which belongs to an Image 2. Contact although long since past thence they worship the Cross Nails Garments and other things that had touched the bodies of Christ or the Saints 3. Union thence they worship all Reliques which had been parts of the Saints 4. Presence thence God being more present in his Works than any Saint can be in a Garment he did once wear there is more Reason to worship God in His Works than any Saint in Reliques Cardinal Lugo assigns these several Reasons for the worship of God in any Creature 1. Because they worship the work of mens hands as the hand-writing of any Saint much more ought we to worship Gods Works with a Relative worship 2. Becaus they worship the very places where the Saints have been as a Stone on which they have sate for the sake of contact and propinquity much more ought we to worship Gods Creatures to whom He is far nearer than the Body of a Saint to a Stone 3. Because they receive gifts from Princes with great veneration although mean in themselves therefore since all the Creatures are Gods gifts we may worship them for His sake 4. Because a man is the living Image of God therefore as a Wooden Image may be worshipped for the sake of the exemplar much more saith he ought such a lively Image as man is Thus we see how men of the greatest understanding among them have discerned the necessary consequence of their own principles of worship and find there is no defending them without yielding the lawfulness of worshipping God through any of His Creatures and living men rather than dead Images on the account of a fuller representation of God and saith Lugo With the worship of Latria in respect of God and an inferiour worship on the account of His proper excellency If men had set themselves to oppose the doctrine of the Primitive Church about Divine Worship they could not have thought of a principle more directly opposite to the general sense of it than this is of the lawfulness of the worship of Creatures But there are two cases wherein they will not allow it 1. In the case of indecency although there have been a real contact thus the lips of Iudas are excepted although they touched Christ. And Cardinal Lugo with particular caution excepts the Tail of the Ass on which Christ rode to Jerusalem But saith Arriaga There was indignitas moralis that did hinder the worship of Judas his lips however he doth not understand how this can cut off the adorability of them on the principles of Vasquez and Lugo As to the Ass on which Christ rode there are some saith he do yield that it might be worshipped and the Mule and the Ass which stood by the Maunger as well as the Maunger is self but it may be it were better denied because there is saith he I know not what meanness in it which hinders adoration but he adds that in all these moral things very much depends on the apprehension of the persons and in case the intention be rightly directed he thinks it very hard upon their principles to prove that God cannot be worshipped in any Creature 2. In case of publick scandal they do not allow it Not from any real hurt in the thing but because the People have been only hitherto accustomed to worship Images and Reliques of Saints The danger saith Vasquez from Cajetan would
greatest occasion to do it in the matter of Images But when the worship of Images began to be opposed here in England by Wickliffe the defenders of it finding themselves concerned to find out every thing that made for their advantage Waldensis having heard of some such thing as a Council against Iconoclasts by Thomas and Iohn two Dominicans of his time from a certain Book he adventures to set it down upon their report but so faintly with ut fertur as if he had been telling the story of Pope Ioan and he saith it was called under the pious Emperour Constantius the second and Pascasius by which we may see what an excellent account they had of this General Council but in the last Century Pet. Crabb a Franciscan with indefatigable diligence searching five hundred Libraries for any thing pertaining to Councils lights upon the old Latin Edition of this Council and published it A. D. 1551. From that time this was looked on and magnified as the seventh General Council in these Western parts and its Authority set up by the Council of Trent and the generality of Divines finding it in the Volums of General Councils and there joyned with them search'd no farther but imagined it was alwaies so esteemed But it may be some will become confident of it when they see so good an Author as T. G. speaking with so much assurance That it hath been received for many hundred years as a lawful General Council If he speaks from the time of its being published he might as well have said for many thousand years For 1. In the Age wherein it was first sent abroad it was utterly rejected by the Council of Francford as not only appears by the Canon it self but by the confession of some of the most learned and judicious persons of the Roman Church such as Sirmondus and Petrus de Marcâ were and Petavius confesses That the Council meant by the Council of Francford was the Nicene Council and not the former of Constantinople as Surius Cope or Harpsfield Sanders Suarez and others were of opinion nay Labbé and Cossart in their late Edition of the Councils have most impudently set down this in the very Title of the Council of Francford That the Acts of the Nicene Council in the matter of Images were confirmed therein whereas Sirmondus adds this to the Title of his Admonition about the second Canon of that Council Quo rejecta est Synodus Nicaena all which Advertisement they have very honestly left out although they pretend to give all Sirmondus his Notes But the main pretence for this was because the words of the Canon do mention the Council of Constantinople which Petavius thinks was called so because Constantinople was the Head of the Eastern Empire but the plain reason is because the Nicene Council was begun at Constantinople upon the 17 of August but the Emperours Guards would not endure their sitting there as Theophanes relates upon which they were forced to rise and the Empress found out a trick to disband the suspected Officers and Souldiers and brought in new ones however it was thought convenient the Council should sit no longer there but remove unto Nice And what a mighty absurdity was this to call a Council which was begun at Constantinople the Constantinopolitan Council And it is observable that Gabriel Biel who lived in the latter end of the fifteenth Century quotes the Decree of this Council of Nice under the name of a Decree of the Council of Constantinople And the learned P. Pithaeus speaking of Anastasius his Translation calls it the Council of Constantinople The new French Annalist is satisfied with neither opinion but he thinks That another Council of Constantinople was called between the Nicene Council and that of Francford which did in express words determine that the same worship was to be given to Images which is due to the B. Trinity and that this was the Council condemned at Francford but this New Council is a meer invention of his own there being no colour for it either from the Greek or Latin Historians and in truth he pretends only to these reasons 1. Because it was a Council of Constantinople which was condemned 2. Because it is not to be supposed that the Council of Francford should condemn the Council of Nice For he saith it is not to be believed that so many Bishops the Popes Legates being present should misunderstand the doctrine of that Council yet this is all the refuge T. G. hath in this matter and he offers from Petr. de Marca to give a particular account of it To which I answer That the Author of the Caroline Book as I have already observed takes notice of this passage of the Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus and although there were a mistake in the Translation of it yet it ought to be observed that he saith the whole Council meant the same which Constantine spake out although in words they denied it and he there quotes the very words of their denying it Non adoramus Imagines ut Deum nec illis Divini servitii cultum impendimus c. From whence it is plain that the Western Church understood well enough what they said and what they denied but they judged notwithstanding all their words to the contrary that they did really give that worship to Images which was due only to God and no man that reads the Caroline Book can be of another opinion And T. G. is content to yield it of the Author of that Book from the Testimonies I brought out of him but he saith That Author was not contented with what the Council of Francford had condemned Which is a lamentable answer since Hincmarus saith That this very Volume was it which was sent from the Emperour to Rome by some Bishops against the Greek Synod and he quotes the very place out of it which is still extant in that Book And is it credible that the Emperour should publish a Book in his own name as a Capitular as Pope Hadrian calls it that was different from the sense of the Council of Francford which was called on purpose to resolve this Question about Images as well as to condemn the Heresie of Felix and Elipandus Petavius indeed would have the main Book to have been written some years before the Council as soon as the Acts of the Nicene Synod were known in these parts and Cassander probably supposes Alcuinus to have been the Author of it but when the Council of Francford had condemned the Nicene Synod only some excerpta were taken out of it and sent to the Pope I am not satisfied with Petavius his Reason Because the Pope doth not answer all of it a better cause may be assigned for that but in the Preface of the Book the Author declares that it was done with the Advice of the Council Quod opus aggressi sumus cum conhibentiâ sacerdotum
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
give to Images and which being given to an Image makes it Idolatry because those Acts are such which do imply a submission to the thing i. e. they are the highest expressions of adoration and those who assert that inferiour worship do hold it to be internal as well as external and to be terminated on the Images themselves which is the Reason why Vasquez saith it were Idolatry But Vasquez was not a man of so shallow an understanding to charge this upon those who declare they put off their shooes or hats out of no intention or design to worship the Ground or Place but meerly to express some outward Reverence to a Place on the account of its being Sacred to God Those who contended for that worship which Vasquez charges with Idolatry did agree with him in all external acts of adoration to Images and went farther than Vasquez thought fit as to the internal for they said both ought to concurr in the worship of Images and that this inferiour worship was terminated on the Images themselves as I have shewed at large in the stare of the Controversie Now saith Vasquez to assert and practise worship of Images after this manner is Idolatry for it is expressing our submission to a meer inanimate thing But do we say that all acts of worship are to be performed to the Ground that is holy or that any one act of worship is to be terminated upon it or that any submission of our minds is to be used towards it All these we utterly disavow as to the Reverence of Sacred Places and these things being declared we yet say there is a Reverence left to be shewed them on the account of their discrimination from other places and separation for sacred uses which Reverence is best expressed in the way most common for men to shew Respect by which was putting off Shooes in the Eastern parts and of Hats here of the difference of Reverence and worship I have spoken before I hope by this time T. G. sees a little better the force of the argument of Vasquez and how very far it is from recoiling on my head because I assert a Reverence to sacred places to have been shewed by Moses and Ioshua on the account of Gods special presence and so all that insipid Discourse of Idolatry which follows sneaks away as being ashamed to be brought in to so little purpose here but hath been fully handled in the First part 2. To his Instance of Bowing at the name of Iesus I answered that he might as well have instanced in our going to Church at the tolling of a Bell for as the one only tells us the time when we ought to go to worship God so the mentioning the name of Iesus doth only put us in mind of him to whom we owe all manner of Reverence without dishonouring him as the Object of our worship by any Image of him which can only represent that which is neither the object nor reason of our worship At this Answer T. G. is inflamed and when he hath nothing else to say he endeavours to set me at variance with the Church of England This runs quite through his Book and he takes all occasions to set me forth as a close and secret enemy to it although I appear never so much in its Vindication If my Adversaries were to be believed as I see no great reason they should be I must be a very prodigious Author in one respect for they represent me as a Friend to that which I write against viz. Socinianism and an enemy to that which I have defended viz. the Church of England But wherein is it that T. G. thinks me such a back-friend to our Church in disavowing all Reverence to the Sacred Name of Iesus which he saith our Church hath enjoyned and hath been defended by Fulk Whitgift and B. Andrews I am glad I know my charge and I do not doubt to clear my self to hold nothing in this or any other matter but what the Church of England hath declared to be her sense Witness as to this point the Declaration of the Archbishops and Bishops in Convocation When in time of Divine Service the Lord Jesus shall be mentioned due and lowly Reverence shall be done by all Persons present as hath been accustomed testifying by these outward ceremonies and gestures their inward humility Christian Resolution and due acknowledgement that the Lord Iesus Christ the true and Eternal Son of God is the only Saviour of the World Is this bowing to the very name of Iesus and worshipping that as they do Images when the Convocation declares that only a significant Ceremony is intended by it Arch-B Whitgift in the very place cited by him saith that the Christians used it to signifie their faith in Iesus and therefore they used bodily reverence at all times when they heard the name of Iesus but especially when the Gospel was read Dr. Fulk another of his Authors saith that the place alledged by T. G. to prove it pertains to the subjection of all Creatures to the Iudgement of Christ however he saith the ceremony of bowing may be used out of Reverence to his Majesty not to the bare name and that their Idolatrous worship is unfitly compared with the bowing at the name of Iesus Bishop Andrews saith we do not bow to the name but to the sense which answers and clears all the long allegation out of him Archbishop Laud calls it the Honour due to the Son of God at the mentioning of his Name which are almost the very words I used And Whittington and Meg of Westminster will altogether serve as well for his expression as that used by me But T. G. need not be so angry at my mentioning the tolling of a bell when he remembers the Christening of bells among them and what mighty Power they have after that and what Reverend God-fathers they have and what Saints names are given to them so that I should rather have thought he would have drawn an argument from the Bells than have been so disturbed at the naming of them For all this T. G. fancies a strange Analogy between Words and Pictures a picture being a word to the Eye and a word being a Picture to the Ear which sounds just like Whittington to my ears and I desire him to consider that Suarez tells us that some of their own Divines say no worship is due to any Name because they signifie only by imposition and do not supply the place of the thing represented as Images do of which opinion he saith Soto and Corduba are and Suarez himself grants that a name being a transient sound can hardly be apprehended as conjoyned with the Person or the Person in it so as to be worshipped together with it And one of their latest Ritualists saith that when the name of Iesus is mentioned they bow to the Crucifix which shews that even among them they do not
think the Name of Iesus equal to an Image of Christ. I am now come to his last Instance viz. bowing towards the Altar he would insinuate as though the Church of England were for giving some kind of worship to the Altar although under the degree of Divine Worship due to God alone and saith that as the allowing this would render me a true Son of the Church of England so the allowing the like to the sacred Images of Christ would make me in this point a perfect Proselyte of the Church of Rome Which is in effect to say that the Church of England in allowing bowing to the Altar doth give the very same worship to it which their Church requires to be given to Images and that they who do one and not the other do not attend to the Consequence of their own Actions I shall therefore shew 1. That the Church of England doth not allow any worship to be given to the Altar 2. That the adoration allowed and practised in the Church of England is of a very different Nature from the Worship of Images 1. That the Church of England doth not allow any Worship to be given to the Altar For this I appeal to that Canon wherein is contained the Explication of the sense of our Church in this particular Whereas the Church is the House of God dedicated to his holy Worship and therefore ought to mind us both of the Greatness and Goodness of his Divine Majesty certain it is that the acknowledgement thereof not only inwardly in our hearts but also outwardly with our bodies must needs be pious in it self profitable unto us and edifying unto others We therefore think it very meet and behooveful and heartily commend it to all good and well affected People members of this Church that they be ready to tender unto the Lord the said acknowledgement by doing Reverence and obeysance both at their coming in and going out of the said Churches Chancels or Chappels according to the most ancient Custome of the Primitive Church in the purest times and of this Church also for many years of the Reign of Q. Elizabeth The reviving therefore of this ancient and laudable custome we heartily commend to the serious consideration of all good People NOT WITH ANY INTENTION TO EXHIBITE ANY RELIGIOUS WORSHIP TO THE COMMUNION TABLE THE EAST OR THE CHURCH or any thing therein contained in so doing or to perform the said gesture in the Celebration of the Holy Eucharist upon any Opinion of the CORPORAL PRESENCE OF THE BODY OF JESUS CHRIST ON THE HOLY TABLE OR IN THE MYSTICAL ELEMENTS but ONLY for the advancement of Gods Majesty and to give him ALONE that honour and glory that is due unto him and NO OTHERWISE And in the practice or omission of this Rite we desire that the Rule of charity prescribed by the Apostle may be observed which is That they which use this Rite despise not them who use it not and they who use it not condemn not those that use it This is the full declaration of the sense of our Church about it made by those who met in Convocation and were most zealous for the practice of it Agreeably to this Archbishop Laud speaks when this was charged as an innovation To this I answer saith he First That God forbid that we should worship any thing but God himself 2. That if to worship God when we enter into his House or approach his Altar be an Innovation it was a very old one being practised by Jacob Moses Hezekiah c. And were this Kingdom such as would allow no holy Table standing in its proper place yet I would worship God when I came into his House And afterwards he calls it doing Reverence to Almighty God but towards his Altar and Idolatry it is not to worship God towards his holy Table Now with us the People did ever understand them fully and apply them to God and to none but God From whence it appears that God is looked on as the sole Object of this Act of Worship and that our Church declares that it allows no intention of exhibiting any Religious worship to the Communion Table or East or Church or any Corporal Presence of Christ. 2. That the adoration allowed and practised in the Church of England is of a very different nature from the worship of Images For as I have fully made it appear in the State of the Controversie the Church of Rome doth by the Decrees of Councils require Religious worship to be given to Images and that those who assert this inferiour worship do yet declare it to be truly Religious worship and that the Images themselves are the Object of it whereas our Church declares point-blank the contrary nay that those Persons are looked on by the Generality of Divines in the Roman Church as suspected at least if not condemned of Heresie who practise all the external acts of adoration to Images but yet do not in their minds look on them as Objects but only as Occasions of Worship which make the difference so plain in these two cases that T. G. himself could not but discern it But to remove all scruple from mens minds that suspect this practice to be too near the Idolatrous worship which we reject in the Roman Church I shall consider it not only as to its Object which is the main thing and which I have shewed to be the proper Object of worship viz. God himself and nothing else but as to the nature of the act and the local circumstance of doing it towards the Altar 1. As to the nature of the act so it is declared to be an act of external adoration of God which I shall prove from Scripture to be a lawful and proper act of Divine Worship I might prove it from the general consent of Mankind who have expressed their Reverence to the Deity by acts of external adoration from whence I called it a natural act of Reverence but I rather choose to do it from Scripture and that both before the Law had determined so punctually the matters of Divine Worship and under the Law by those who had the greatest regard to it and under the Gospel when the spiritual nature of its doctrine would seem to have superseded such external acts of worship 1. Before the Law I instance in Abraham's servant because Abraham is particularly commended for his care in instructing his Houshold to keep the way of the Lord in opposition to Heathen Idolatry and this was the Chief Servant of his House of whom it is said three times in one Chapter That he bowed his head worshipping the Lord the Hebrew words signifie and he inclined and bowed himself to the Lord for the word we translate worship doth properly signifie to bow and both the Iews and others say It relates to some external act of the body whereby we express our inward Reverence or Subjection to another
So it is said of the People of Israel when they heard that the Lord intended to deliver them out of Egypt They bowed their heads and worshipped when Moses declared the Institution of the Passeover to all the Elders of Israel it is said again The People bowed their heads and worshipped 2. Under the Law when they were so strictly forbidden in the same words to bow down or worship any Image or similitude yet the outward act of adoration towards God was allowed and practised So Moses commanded Aaron and the seventy Elders of Israel to bow themselves a far off the very same word which is used in the second Commandment And when God had so severely punished the Israelites for bowing to the Golden Calf yet when He appointed the Pillar of Fire for the Symbol of His own presence it is said That when all the People saw the Cloudy Pillar stand at the Tabernacle door they rose up and bowed themselves every man in his Tent-door When God appeared to Moses it is said That he made hast and bowed his head toward the earth and worshipped And when Moses and Aaron came to the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation they are said to fall upon their faces In the time of David upon his solemn thanksgiving to God it is said All the Congregation blessed the Lord God of their Fathers and bowed down their heads and worshipped the Lord and the King And in the time of Hezekiah When they had made an end of offering the King and all that were present with him bowed their heads and worshipped 3. Under the Gospel we are to observe the difference between the same external act of worship when it was used towards Christ and toward His Apostles When the Syrophoenician woman came to our Saviour in one place it is said She worshipped Him and in another That she fell at His feet but in no place is there the least mention of any check given to her or any others who after that manner worshipped Christ But when Cornelius came to S. Peter and fell down at his feet and worshipped him he would by no means permit it but said Stand up I my self also am a man And when S. Iohn fell down at the feet of the Angel he would not suffer it but bade him worship God That which I observe from hence is that even under the Gospel the external acts of Religious adoration are proper and peculiar to God so that men are to blame when they give them to any Creature but no Persons are condemned for giving them to God And I desire those who scruple the lawfulness of giving to God such external adoration under the Gospel how they can condemn those for Idolatry who give it to any Creature if it be not a thing which doth still belong to God But if all the scruple be about the directing this Adoration one way more than another I say still it is done in conformity with the Primitive Church as our Canon declares and which every one knows did worship towards the East and this at the most is but a local circumstance of an Act of Worship which I have already shewed to be very different from an Object of it when I discoursed of the Nature of the Israelites worshipping toward the Ark and the Cherubims Thus through the Assistance of God I have gone through all the material points of T. G's Book which relate to the General Nature of Idolatry and have diligently weighed and considered every thing that looketh like a difficulty in this Controversie about the Worship of Images and do here sincerely protest that I have not given any Answer or delivered any Opinion which is not agreeable not only to the inward sense of my Mind but to the best of my understanding to the sense of Scripture and the Primitive Church and the Church of England And if the subtilties of T. G. could have satisfied me or any other Argument I have met with I would as freely have retracted this Charge of Idolatry as I ever made it For I do not love to represent others worse than they are but I daily pray to God to make both my self and others better and therein I know I have the hearty concurrence of all who are truly Good FINIS 2 Cor. 7.5 Concil Tolet. 3. 〈…〉 Marian. de rebus Hisp. l. 5. c. 14 15. Marian. l. 6. c. 1. Greg. Registr l. 1. ep 41. §. 1. T. G. p. 203. p. 64. p. 203. P. 39 p. 63. p. 67. p. 99. p. 103. p. 349. p. 348. p. 350. p. 27. §. 2. Act. 17.23 v. 24. v. 28. p. 348.349.352 v. 29. Euseb. Praep. Evang. l. 13. c. 12. Minuc Felix in Octav. p. 19. Orig. c. Cels. l. 5. Orig. c. Cels. l. 4. p. 196. ed. Cant. Orig. c. Cels. l. 1. p. 19. c. Voss. de Idolol l. 1. c. 37. Rom. 1.18 v. 19. v. 20. v. 21. v. 23. §. 3. p. 37.203 Th. Aquin. c. Gent. l. 1. c. 42. in fin Id. l. 3. c. 120. Aquin. Sum. p. 3. q. 25. art 3. Possev Biblioth l. 9. c. 25. Thom. à Iesu de Convers gent. l. 11. c. 2. Cajet in Th. p. 3. q. 25. art 3. In Aq. 2.2 q. 94. art 4. Mart. Peres de divin trad part 3. p. 120. Ferus in Act. 17. Kirch Oedip Aegy. synt 3. c. 1. c. 2. Petav. dogm The. To. 1. c. 1. §. 9. Max. Tyr. dissert 1 Oros. l. 6. c. 1. Petav. l. 1. c. 3. §. 3. Aug. c. Faust. l. 20 c. 10. c. 9. Ph. Faber Faven advers Atheos disp 1. c. 2. n. 27. Raim Bregan Theolog Gentil Mutius Pansa de Osculo Ethnicae Christianae Philoso Liv. Galant Christianae philosoph cum Platon comparat Paul Benii Eugub Platon Aristot Theolog Aug. Steuch Eugub de perenni Philo. §. 4. T. G. p. 350. Iustin. Martyr paraen p. 4. ed. Paris p. 6. p. 16. p. 18. p. 19. p. 22. p. 27. Baron A. 164. n. 14. Euseb. hist. l. 4. c. 17 p. 44. p. 68. p. 66. p. 57. p. 44. p. 55. p. 44. p. 65. p. 160. §. 5. Iul. Capit. vit Anton. Baron A. 164. n. 7 8 9. Anton. l. 6. §. 30. l. 2 3. l. 5.33 l. 5.21 l. 6.5.42 l. 5.32 l. 4.40 l. 7.9 l. 9.4 §. 6. De Aruspic Resp. c. 9. Euseb. Chronic. p. 118. Varro de Ling. Lat. l. 4. Plutarch in Numa Dionys. Halicarn Antiq. Rom. l. 2. Liv. hist. l. 1. c. 19. Aug. de Civ Dei l. 4. c. 31. Dionys. l. 3. Tacit. hist. l. 3. c. 72. Liv. l. 1. c. 53. Varro de Ling. lat l. 5. Plaut Capt. Act. 3. sc. 4. Liv. l. 2. Senec. Consol ad Marciam Liv. l. 5. c. 50. Ovid. Fast. l. 2. Cic. in Verr. 4. c. 58. Tacit. hist. 3.72 Plin. Panegyr Liv. l. 4. c. 32. l. 21. c. 63. Plin. hist. l. 15.30 Sen. ad Helv. c. 10. A. Gel. l. 7. c. 1. Lactant.
by an Egg as Arnoldus Montanus observes In the Itinerary of Alexander Geraldinus to those parts of Africa under the Aequinoctial which was written by him to the Pope when he was Bishop of S. Domingo in the account he gives of the Religion of those parts which is far more particular than is to be met with elsewhere he describes several Images of the Great God which were in mighty veneration among them as in Bassiana the King with all his people do worship the God of Nature in an Image of Marble set upon a high Throne holding the Sun in his right hand and the Moon in his left and the other Stars on either side of him and wherever the King travels he carries such an Image along with him and prays five times a day prostrate before it In Demnasea upon the top of a wall is placed the Image of God holding all things before which the people are bound to pray every morning In Ammosenna they represent the God of Heaven by four Heads coming out of the body of a Lynx looking towards the four quarters of the world to represent his omnisciency and omnipresence whom they call Orissa In Logonsennea the God of Nature is painted in the Image of a man and all other Images of him condemned Now if T. G. were sent on a Mission into any of those parts where God was worshipped after such a manner I have a great desire to understand what his opinion would be concerning this kind of worship whether it were Idolatry or no If not they might still continue in it and be saved as far as men can be saved by the meer light of Nature which herein T. G. thinks they follow exactly for they honour God by worshipping his Image If it be Idolatry how comes it to be so for this is neither the representation of some Pigment but of a real Being nor is it of some real thing falsely taken to be God which is his larger notion of an Idol but it is looked on only as the Image of the True God and that not as a proper Likeness but by Analogical representation and consequently according to T. G. is no disparagement to the Deity But whatever T. G's opinion in this case is the Fathers when they discoursed against the Heathen Idolatry made use of such arguments which held against such Images and representations as these and that upon these two weighty considerations 1. Because such a representation of God was unsuitable to his Nature 2. Because it was repugnant to his Will 1. Because such a representation of God was unsuitable to his Nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Clemens Alexandrinus A visible representation of the Deity lessens his Majesty and it is a disparagement to an intellectual Being to worship him by sensible matter therefore saith he Moses forbad any Image to be made of God that we might ascend above sensible things and thereby declaring God to be invisible and incomprehensible And from hence Zeno the Stoick said no workmanship of man could be worthy of God And in another place he saith the reason why Numa forbad any Image of God like to man or any living creature was because the most excellent Being could be represented only to our Minds and that Antisthenes learnt that from Socrates that God was like to no representation we could make of him and therefore no man could learn any thing of him from an Image and Xenophon that it is apparent that God is great and powerful but we know not how to make any thing like him Is it possible then that such Athenians as these should look on any Images as the proper likenesses of God These wiser Heathens T. G. confesses did mean that the nature of God being spiritual and invisible it could not be represented by any thing like unto it and yet these were Athenian Philosophers as well as those whom he saith S. Paul condemned for supposing their Images to be proper Likenesses and representations of the Divinity But T. G. supposes that the reason why the worship of Images is a disparagement to the Deity and incongruous to the Divine Nature is because the people gave worship to them as Gods or like unto the Gods they worshipped whereas I have now plainly shewed that those who contended for the Worship of Images among them did neither look upon them as Gods nor like to their Gods but only as Symbolical representations of the Divine Nature And the Fathers make use of this acknowledgement of theirs of the incongruity of Images to the Deity from thence to prove the incongruity of the worship of them So that it is not the supposing the Images to be like God which they condemn in them for none of their wiser men were such Fools but the making of such Images and worshipping of them which in their own nature were so infinitely beneath the divine Being did tend to the begetting in mens minds mean and unworthy thoughts of God And therefore they frequently insist upon this that mens imaginations are easily tainted and corrupted by the daily representations of things especially when they are proposed as objects of worship and however the very manner of worshipping an infinite and immaterial Being by a gross and material representation is that which the Fathers condemn as most unsuitable to the Divine Nature For this Justin Martyr saith is not only unreasonable but it is done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the reproach of God whose glory and form is inexpressible Athenagoras saith if God and matter be all one it is then reasonable to worship God by giving worship to sensible matter but if there be an infinite distance between them why are we accused for not doing it And if we refuse to worship the workmanship of God viz. the Heaven and Elements why should we do it to the workmanship of men Origen looks on this as one of the most peculiar characters of the Christian doctrine that it raises mens minds above Images and all worship of Creatures to the Creator of all things and that it is one of the first things the Catechumens are instructed in to despise Idols and all Images He saith it is not only a foolish thing to pray to Images as Heraclitus said but to seem to do it as the Philosophers did If they are worshipped it must be either as Gods which Celsus denyed or as representations of God which cannot be because God is invisible and incorporeal and therefore he saith that the Christians would not endure the worship of God by Images and although other Nations did refuse the worship of Images with whom Celsus parallels the Christians yet it was not upon the same ground that the Christians did viz. because they would not debase and draw down the worship of God towards matter so fashioned and formed Lactantius shews how unreasonable it is to worship God
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
immediately to obey me methinks this would seem too harsh and unpolitick and too dangerous for so new a Government as his was a little Indulgence for tender consciences for a time with the sweetest words had better become such an Achitophel as T. G. calls Ieroboam This this had been the way to have wheadled and drawn in the silly and injudicious multitude By telling them what an oppression it was for them to be under the jurisdiction of the High Priest and his Brethren at Ierusalem and that there was no Reason such a vast number of lazy Priests and ignorant Levites should be maintained out of their labours by Tythes and Offerings that all the pretence of the true worship of God being confined to the Temple at Ierusalem was only out of a design to enrich the Priests and the City that it was only zeal for their own interest and revenues which made them so earnest for that particular way of worship which was so different from the rest of the World What! could they imagine that God had no other people in the World but such as went up to Ierusalem to worship what would become of the Catholick way of worship which was in all the Nations round about them Was it credible that God should suffer so great a part of mankind to run on in such Idolatry as a few Iews accounted it If it were so displeasing to God could it ever be thought that the Wisest King they ever had viz. Salomon should in the wisest time of his Life viz. in his old Age fall to the practice of it Besides all this they ought to consider how much the honour and safety of the Nation was concerned in embracing the same Catholick way of worship which prevailed round about them Their pretending to greater purity of worship than their Neighbours made them hated and scorned and reproached by their Neighbours of all sides viz. by Moab and Ammon and Amalek the Philistins and those of Tyre but if they returned to the worship of the Neighbour Nations they might be sure of the assistance of the King of Egypt with whom Ieroboam had lived many years who would be ready to help them on all occasions and their lesser enemies would then be afraid to disturb them Thus we see what plausible pretences there were to have drawn the people off from the Law of Moses to the Idolatries of Egypt but we read not the least intimation of this Nature in the whole History of this Revolt but Ieroboam only saith These are thy Gods which brought thee out of the Land of Egypt which was the most unpolitick way of perswading them to return to the Gods of Egypt Besides he not only appointed a Feast like unto that in Iudah but it is said That he offered upon the Altar and sacrificed unto the Calves which he had made i. e. according to the custom of the Iewish Sacrifices than which nothing could be more repugnant to the Egyptian Idolatry as I have already proved But T. G. saith The Text speaks but of one Feast it is very true it mentions but one but it is said afterwards in several places That they departed not from the way of Ieroboam and that very Feast being accompanied with so many Sacrifices was a plain evidence it was not the Egyptian Idolatry which he then set up And it is remarkable to this purpose that every one who was to be consecrated a Priest to the Golden Calves was to be consecrated with a Sacrifice of a young Bullock and of seven Rams which according to the Rites of the Egyptian Idolatry were enough to have profaned the most sacred Person And Iosephus who may be allowed to have understood the mind of Ieroboam as well as T. G. saith expressly That in the speech he made to the People he only pleaded that God being every where present he might be worshipped at Dan and Bethel as well as Jerusalem and that for their greater conveniency he had set up the Calves at Dan and Bethel that there they might worship God Thus we see that in this worship at Dan and Bethel Ieroboam intended no more than to worship the God of Israel there I will not deny that Ieroboam was for Liberty of Conscience and allowed the practice of Egyptian Idolatry and appointed Priests to serve at the several Altars as the People had a mind but the established worship at which himself was present was at the Calves of Dan and Bethel For it is said That he offered on the Altar there But we read that he appointed Priests not only for the Calves but 1. for the High places which were of two sorts 1. Some for the worship of false Gods as those which Salomon allowed to be built for Chemosh and Moloch on the Mount of Olives 2. Others were for the worship of the true God in the ten Tribes For there being some dissenting Brethren among the Israelites who would neither join with the House of Iudah in the worship at Hierusalem nor with Ieroboam in the worship of the Calves at Dan and Bethel to keep these secure to his interest he permits them to worship God on the High places i. e. Altars erected to that purpose upon an ascent of ground And this I prove from that passage of Elias They have thrown down thy Altars speaking of the Children of Israels demolishing them in the time of Ahab who was the eighth in succession from Ieroboam And in the Reformation of Iosiah he puts a difference between the Priests of the High places for some of them were permitted to eat unleavened bread among their Brethren and others he slew upon the Altars Which shews that both in Iudah and Israel there were some who did still worship the true God on the High places 2. Ieroboam appointed Priests 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pilosis to the hairy ones which I wonder how it come to be translated Devils both here and Levit. 17. since in above fifty places of Scripture it signifies Goats and but in one the LXX render it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and there Aquila hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Vulgar Latine Pilosi and our translation Satyrs and since the worship of Goats and other hairy animals was so frequent among the Egyptians as of Dogs Wolves Cats Ichneumons Apes c. but especially the Goats as Herodotus Strabo Diodorus Plutarch and others relate and the Pan and Faunus and Silenus and Silvanus and Satyri were but a sort of Goats for the Arabick word Satar is a Goat and the Egyptian name for Pan is Mendes which saith Bochartus signifies a Goat too And since this worship was so common in Egypt was there not reason to forbid it by a Law Levit. 17.7 and is there not cause where we meet with this word relating to an object of worship to understand it according to the common practice of Idolaters
and the common sense of the word Therefore I grant that Ieroboam did permit the Egyptian Idolatry but he established the Golden Calves as the Religion of the State 2. I shewed that the true God was worshipped by the Golden Calves because the sin of Ahab who worshipped Baal is said to be so much greater than the sin of Jeroboam And it came to pass as if it had been a light thing for him to walk in the sins of Ieroboam that he took to wife Iezabel daughter of Baal King of the Zidonians and went and served Baal and worshipped him and he reared up an Altar for Baal in the House of Baal which he had built in Samaria Yes saith T. G. Ahabs sin was greater because he added this Idolatry to the other Who denies that his sin might have been greater in that respect but that it was not so to be understood appears by the opposition between God and Baal in the words of Elijah How long halt ye saith he to all the People between two opinions if the Lord be God follow Him but if Baal then follow him Now there being three several waies of worship among the people if two of the three had not agreed in the same object of worship viz. the God of Israel Elijah could not have said that they halted only between two opinions of God and Baal if some were for the God of Israel others for the Gods of the Egyptians and others for Beel Samen or the God of the Zidonians But saith T. G. Elijah supposes a general Apostasie of the ten Tribes to Baal in the next Chapter And what then It was but very lately so and they were not yet so fixed but they might be put in mind that they were lately of another opinion and some render it How long will ye pass from one extreme to another how long will ye be so uncertain in Religion now for God and then for Baal So Vatablus renders it Quousque tandem alternis c. Now of one side then of the other or as some imagine they themselves worshipped the Calves and sometimes Baal So that notwithstanding what T. G saith the opposition is here plain between the God worshipped by the Calves which was the publick and established worship of the ten Tribes and the worship of Baal which was newly introduced and so the True God is supposed to be worshipped by those who did not worship Baal To confirm this I added that Iehu magnifies his zeal for Iehovah against Baal when it is said of him but a little after That he departed not from the Calves of Dan and Bethel which evidently shews the opposition between the God of Israel worshipped by the Calves and the worship of Baal No saith T. G. Iehu's zeal for the Lord doth not acquit him from Idolatry in following Jeroboam any more than the lawful act of Matrimony acquits a Husband from the Crime of Adultery who defiles his Neighbours Bed I perceive T. G. grew very sleepy when he wrote this and forgot what we were about for I never intended to clear Iehu from Idolatry by his zeal for Iehovah but from such an Idolatry as excludes the worship of the True God For that was my business to shew that he might be guilty of Idolatry and yet worship the true God by the Calves of Ieroboam as he not only shews by that expression to Ionaedab but by distinguishing between the Priests of the Lord and the Priests of Baal and yet soon after that character is twice given of Iehu That he departed not from that worship which Ieroboam had established To the last instance I brought of the Samaritans who sent to the King of Assyria for an Israelitish Priest to teach them the accustomed worship of the God of the Land who accordingly came and dwelt in Bethel and taught it them upon which it is said They feared the Lord T. G. returns a strange answer viz. That there is no mention at all made of his teaching them to worship him in the Calves as Symbols of his presence here T. G. nodded again For if he would but have held his eyes open so long as to have looked back on the 22 and 23 verses of the same Chapter he would have found these words For the Children of Israel walked in all the sins of Ieroboam which he did they departed not from them until the Lord removed Israel out of his sight as he had said by all his servants the Prophets So was Israel carried away out of his own Land to Assyria and then immediately follows this story of the Samaritans desiring to know the worship of the God of the Land what can this refer to but to the worship established by Ieroboam I leave this to be considered by T. G. when he is awake for he seems to have written these things in a Dream As to what he saith of his having confuted my conjectures or rather Monceius his when it is apparent I differ from Monceius in his main ground to any man that hath read him I leave it as a fresh token of his kindness when he will not so much as suffer me to be the Author of such weak conjectures which he hath so easily and so pleasantly confuted and for the phrase of my plowing with his Heifer I suppose it hath relation to the Calves of Dan and Bethel which I take notice of that he may not think his Wit is lost upon me To conclude this point of the meaning of the Second Commandment I said That since the Law giver hath thus interpreted his own Law we need not be solicitous about the sense of any others yet herein I say we have the concurrence of the Iewish and Christian Church The Iews have thought the prohibition to extend to all kinds of Images for worship and almost all for ornament and the Image worship of the Church of Rome is one of the great scandals to this day which hinder them from embracing Christianity All that T. G. answers to this is That he would gladly know whether we must stand or fall by the interpretation of the Iews Did I bring their Testimony for that purpose or intimate the least thing that way did I not use so much caution on purpose to prevent such a cavil I declared that I did not need their Testimony in so clear a case and yet it is no small advantage to our Cause that we have herein the concurrence of all that had any Reverence to this Law of God whether Iews or Mahumetans and not barely of them but of the whole Christian Church for so many Ages as I have fully proved in the precedent Chapters As to the Prophetical confutation of my opinion about Idolatry and the Second Commandment by Mr. Thorndike I do assure him if I could have thought what that learned Person had said in this matter to have been agreeable either