to Scripture or Reason or the sense of the Primitive or our own Church it might have prevented my writing by changing my opinion for I was no stranger to his Writings or his Arguments But he that can think the Israelites believed the Golden Calf delivered their people out of Egypt before it was made may easily believe that Mr. Thorndikes Book of 1662. was a confutation of mine long before it was written and upon equal reason at least I may hope that this Answer will be a Prophetical Confutation of all that T. G. will ever be able to say upon this Subject 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 UNder these Heads I shall comprehend all that remains scattered in the several parts of his Book which seem to require any farther Answer The first thing I begin with is the Head of Contradictions for he makes in another Book the charge of Idolatry to be inconsistent with my own assertion Because I had said that Church doth not look on our negative articles against the Church of Rome as articles of Faith but as infriour Truths from whence he saith it follows that their Church doth not err against any article of Faith but Idolatry is an errour against the most Fundamental point of Faith and therefore for me to charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry must according to my own principles be the most groundless unreasonable and contradictory proceeding in the World Upon my word a very heavy charge And I must clear my self as I can from it Had not a man need to have a mighty care of dropping any kind words towards them who will be sure to make all possible advantages from them to overthrow the force of whatever can be said afterwards against them Thus have they dealt with me because I allowed the Church of Rome to be a true Church as holding all the essential points of Christian Faith therefore all the arguments I have used to prove them Idolaters are presently turned off with this That herein I contradict my self Thus I was served by that feat man at Controversie I. W. who thought it worth his while to write two Books such as they are chiefly upon this argument and he makes me to pile Contradictions on Contradictions as Children do Cards one upon another and then he comes and cunningly steals away one of the supporters and down all the rest fall in great disorder and confusion And herein he is much applauded for an excellent Artist by that mighty man at Ecclesiastical Fencing E. W. the renowned Champion of our Lady of Loreto and the miraculous translation of her Chappel about which he hath published a Defiance to the World and offers to prove it against all Comers but especially my inconsiderable self to be an undeniable Verity I must have great leisure and little care of my self if I ever more come near the Clutches of such a Giant who seems to write with a Beetle instead of a Pen and I desire him to set his heart at rest and not to trouble himself about the waies of my attacking him for he may lie quietly in his shades and snore on to Dooms-day for me unless I see farther reason of disturbing his repose than at present I do But this charge being resumed by so considerable an Adversary as T. G. is in comparison with the rest I shall for his sake endeavour more fully to clear this whole matter When I. W. had objected the same thing in effect against me the substance of the Answer I made him was this 1. That it was a disingenuous way of proceeding to oppose a judgement of charity concerning their Church to a judgement of Reason concerning the nature of actions without at all examining the force of those Reasons which are produced for it This was the case of I. W. but ingenuity is a thing my Adversaries are very little acquainted with and therefore I said 2. There was no contradiction in it For the notion of Idolatry as applied to the Church of Rome is consistent with its owning the general principles of Faith as to the True God and Iesus Christ and giving Soveraign Worship to them when therefore we say that the Church of Rome doth not err in any Fundamental point of the Christian Faith I there at large shew the meaning to have been only this that in all those which are looked on by us as necessary Articles of Faith we have the Testimony and approbation of the whole Christian World of all Ages and are acknowledged to be such by Rome it self but the Church of Rome looks upon all her Doctrines which we reject as necessary Articles of Faith so that the force of the Argument comes only to this that no Church which doth own the ancient Creeds can be guilty of Idolatry And I farther add that when we enquire into the essentials of a Church we think it not necessary to go any farther than the doctrinal points of Faith because Baptism admits men into the Church upon the profession of the true Faith in the Father Son and Holy Ghost but if beyond the essentials we enquire into the moral integrity and soundness of a Church then we are bound to go farther than the bare profession of the essential points of Faith and if it be found that the same Church may debauch those very principles of Faith by damnable errours and corrupt the worship of God by vertue of them then the same Church which doth hold the Fundamentals of Faith may notwithstanding lead men to Idolatry without the shadow of a contradiction But T. G. saith That Idolatry is an Errour against the most Fundamental point of Faith What doth T. G. mean by this I suppose it is that Idolatry doth imply Polytheism or the belief of more Gods than one to whom Soveraign worship is due then I deny this to be the proper Definition of Idolatry for although where ever this is it hath in it the nature of that we call Idolatry yet himself confesses the true notion of it to be The giving the worship due to God to a Creature so that if I have proved that the worship of Images in the Roman Church is the giving the worship due only to God to a Creature then although the Church of Rome may hold all the essentials of Faith and be a true Church it may be guilty of Idolatry without contradiction But it may be I. W. in his Reply saith something more to purpose at least it will be thought so if I do not answer him I must therefore consider what he saith that is material if any thing be found so However he saith that if the Roman Church doth hold any kind of Idolatry to be lawful she must needs hold an Errour destructive to a Fundamental and essential point of Faith and by consequence a Fundamental errour
inconsistent with the essence of a true Church And since no kind of Idolatry is lawful if the Roman Church hold it to be so she must needs hold an errour inconsistent with some Truth Most profoundly argued He only ought to have subsumed as I think such Logicians as I. W. call it but all Errour is Fundamental and inconsistent with the essence of a true Church or That Infallibility is necessary to the Being of a Church and when he proves that I promise to renounce the charge of Idolatry Now it is not possible saith I. W. that the Roman Church should bold any Idolatry lawful knowing it to be Idolatry unless she holds that some Honour which is due only to God may be given to a Creature I am afraid to be snapt by so cunning a Sophister and therefore I distinguish in time The Roman Church doth not hold any Idolatry lawful which it judges to be Idolatry or the Honour due only to God but the Roman Church may give the real parts of worship due only to God to a meer creature and yet at the same time tell men it is not a part of the Honour which is due to God To make this plain even to the understanding of I. W. The Church of Rome may entertain a false notion of Idolatry or of that worship which is due only to God which false notion being received men may really give the worship that only belongs to God to His Creatures and the utmost errour necessary in this case is no more than having a false notion of Idolatry as that there can be no Idolatry without giving Soveraign Worship to a Creature or that an Idol is the representation only of an Imaginary Being c. Now on these suppositions no more is necessary to the practice of Idolatry than being deceived in the notion of it If therefore T. G. or I.W. will prove that the Church of Rome can never be deceived in the notion of it or that it is repugnant to the essence of a Church to have a false notion of Idolatry they do something towards the proving me guilty of a contradiction in acknowledging the Church of Rome to be a true Church and yet charging it with Idolatry But I. W. saith That 't is impossible the Roman Church should teach or hold any kind of Idolatry whatsoever it be but she must hold expressly or implicitly that some Honour due only to God may be given to a meer Creature Such kind of stuff as this would make a man almost repent ever reading Logick which this man pretends so much to for surely Mother Wit is much better than Scholastick Fooling Such a Church which commits or by her doctrines and practises leads to Idolatry needs not to hold i. e. deliver as her judgment that some Honour due only to God may be given to a Creature it is sufficient if she commands or allows such things to be done which in their own nature or by the Law of God is really giving the worship of God to a Creature Yet upon this mistake as gross as it is the poor waspish Creature runs on for many leaves and thinks all that while he proves me guilty of a contradiction But the man hath something in his head which he means although he scarce knows how to express it viz. that in good Catholick Dictionaries a Fundamental errour and a damnable errour and an error inconsistent with the essence of a true Church are terms Synonymous Now I know what he would be at viz. that Infallibility is necessary to the Being of a Church therefore to suppose a Church to err is to suppose it not to be a Church But will he prove me guilty of contradiction by Catholick Dictionaries I beg his pardon for in them Transubstantiation implies none but whosoever writes against them must be guilty of many If he would prove me guilty of Contradiction let him prove it from my own sense and not from theirs Yet he would seem at last to prove that the practice of any kind of Idolatry especially being approved by the Church is destructive to the Being of a Church Which is the only thing he saith that deserves to be farther considered by enquiring into two things 1. Whether a Church allowing and countenancing the practice of Idolacry can be a true Church 2. Whether such a Church can have any power or Authority to consecrate Bishops or ordain Priests For this is a thing which T. G. likewise objects as consequent upon my assertion of their Idolatry that thereby I overthrow all Authority and Iurisdiction in the Church of England as being derived from an Idolatrous Church These are matters which deserve a farther handling and therefore I shall speak to them 1. Whether a Church may continue a true Church and yet allow and practise any kind of Idolatry And to resolve this I resort again to the ten Tribes Supposing what hath been said sufficient to prove them guilty of Idolatry my business is to enquire whether they were a true Church in that time This I. W. denies saying I ought to have proved and not barely supposed that the Idolatry introduced by Ieroboam was not destructive to the being of a True Church and several Protestants he saith produce the Church of Israel to shew that a true visible Church may cease Alas poor man he had heard something of this Nature but he could not tell what they had produced this as an instance against the perpetual Visibility of the Church and he brings it to prove that it ceased to be a true Church and the time they fix upon by his own Confession is when Elias complained that he was left alone in Israel which was not when the Idolatry of the Calves but when that of Baal prevailed among the people of Israel i. e. when they worshipped Beel-samen or the Sun instead of God Now that they were a true Church while they worshipped Ieroboams Calves I prove by these two things 1. That there was no time from Ieroboam to the Captivity of Israel wherein the worship of the Calves was not the established Religion of the ten Tribes this is evident from the expression before mentioned that the Children of Israel departed not from the sins of Jeroboam till God removed Israel out of his sight And it is observable of almost every one of the Kings of Israel that it is said particularly that he departed not from the sins of Jeroboam 2. That during that time God did own them for his People which is all one with making them a True Church Thus Iehu is said to be anointed King over the People of the Lord. And there is a remarkable expression in the time of Iehoahaz that the Lord was gracious unto them and had respect unto them because of his Covenant with Abraham Isaac and Jacob and would not destroy them neither cast he them from his presence as yet Would God have such
this first principle yet they all agreed in this that it was immortal and not only good in it self but the fountain of all good Which surely was no description of an Arch-Devil But what need I farther insist on those Authours of his own Church who have yielded this when there are several who with approbation have undertaken the proof of this in Books written purposely on this subject such as Raim Breganius Mutius Pansa Livius Galantes Paulus Benius Eugubinus but above all Augustinus Steuchus Eugubinus who have made it their business to prove that not only the Being of the Deity but the unity as a first principle the Wisdom Goodness Power and Providence of God were acknowledged not meerly by the Philosophers as Plato and Aristotle and their followers but by the generality of mankind But I am afraid these Books may be as hard for him to find as Trigautius was and it were well if his Principles were as hard to find too if they discover no more learning or judgement than this that the Supreme God of the Heathens was an Arch-Devil But T. G. saith that the Father of Gods and men among the Heathens was according to the Fathers an Arch-Devil Is it not possible for you to entertain wild and absurd opinions your selves but upon all occasions you must lay them at the doors of the Fathers I have heard of a place where the people were hard put to it to provide God-fathers for their Children at last they resolved to choose two men that were to stand as God-fathers for all the Children that were to be born in the Parish just such a use you make of the Fathers they must Christen all your Brats and how foolish soever an opinion be if it comes from you it must presently pass under the name of the Fathers But I shall do my endeavour to break this bad custome of yours and since T. G. thinks me a scarce-revolted Presbyterian I shall make the right Father stand for his own Children And because this is very material toward the true understanding the Nature of Idolatry I shall give a full account of the sense of the Fathers in this point and not as T. G. hath done from one single passage of a learned but by their own Church thought heretical Father viz. Origen presently cry out the Fathers the Fathers Which is like a Country Fellow that came to a Gentleman and told him he had found out a brave Covie of Partridges lying in such a Field the Gentleman was very much pleased with the news and presently asked him how many there were what half a score No. eight No. Six No. Four No. But how many then are there Sir saith the Country Fellow it is a Covie of one I am afraid T. G 's Covie of Fathers will hardly come to one at last Iustin Martyr is the eldest genuine Father extant who undertook to reprove the Gentiles for their Idolatry and to defend the Christian worship In his Paraenesis to the Greeks he takes notice how hardly the wiser Gentiles thought themselves dealt with when all the Poetical Fables about their Gods were objected against them just as some of the Church of Rome do when we tell them of the Legends of their Saints which the more ingenuous confess to be made by men who took a priviledge of feigning and saying any thing as well as the Heathen Poets but they appealed for the principles of their Religion to Plato and Aristotle both whom he confesses to have asserted one Supreme God although they differed in their opinions about the manner of the formation of things by him Afterwards he saith That the first Authour of Polytheism among them viz. Orpheus did plainly assert one Supreme God and the making of all things by him for which he produces many verses of his and to the same purpose an excellent testimony of Sophocles viz. that in truth there is but one God who made Heaven and Earth and Sea and Winds but the folly and madness of mankind brought in the Images of Gods and when they had offered sacrifices and kept solemnities to these they thought themselves Religious He farther shews that Pythagoras delivered to his disciples the unity of God and his being the cause of all things and the fountain of all good that Plato being warned by Socrates his death durst not oppose the Gods commonly worshipped but one may guess by his Writings that his meaning as to the inferiour Deities was that they who would have them might and they who would not might let them alone but that himself had a right opinion concerning the true God That Homer by his golden chain did attribute to the Supreme God a Power over all the rest and that the rest of the Deities were near as far distant from the Supreme as men were and that the Supreme was he whom Homer calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God himself which signifies saith Iustin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the truely existent Deity and that in Achilles his Shield he makes Vulcan represent the Creation of the world From these arguments he perswades the Greeks to hearken to the Revelation which the true and Supreme God had made of himself to the world and to worship him according to his own Will In his Apologies to the Roman Emperours Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius and the Roman Senate and People for so Baronius shews that which is now called the first was truely the second and that not only written to the Senate but to the Emperour too who at that time was Marcus Aurelius as Eusebius saith and Photius after him he gives this account of the State of the Controversie then so warmly managed about Idolatry that it was not whether there were one Supreme God or no or whether he ought to have divine worship given to him but whether those whom the Gentiles called Gods were so or no and whether they or dead men did deserve any divine honour to be given to them and lastly that being supposed whether this honour ought to be given to Images or no For every one of these Iustin speaks distinctly to As to their Gods he denies that they deserved any divine worship because they desired it and were delighted with it From whence as well as from other arguments he proves that they could not be true Gods but evil Daemons that those who were Christians did only worship the true God the Father of all vertue and goodness and his Son who hath instructed both men and Angels for it is ridiculous to think that in this place Iustin should assert the worship of Angels equal with the Father and Son and before the Holy Ghost as some great men of the Church of Rome have done and the Prophetick Spirit in Spirit and truth In another place he saith that they had no other crime to object against the Christians but that they did not
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
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