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
worship the same Gods with them nor offer up libations and the smoak of sacrifices to dead men Nor crown and worship Images that they agreed with Menander who said we ought not to worship the work of mens hands not because Devils dwelt in them but because men were the makers of them And he wondered they could call them Gods which they knew to be without soul and dead and to have no likeness to God it was not then upon the account of their being animated by evil Spirits that the Christians rejected this worship for then these reasons would not have held All the resemblance they had was to those evil Spirits that had appeared among men for that was Iustins opinion of the beginning of Idolatry that God had committed the Government of all things under the heavens to particular Angels but these Angels prevaricating by the love of Women did upon them beget Daemons that these Daemons were the great corrupters of mankind and partly by frightful apparitions and by instructing men in Idolatrous rites did by degrees draw men to give them divine worship the people not imagining them to be evil Spirits and so were called by such names as they liked best themselves as Neptune Pluto c. But the true God had no certain name given to him for saith he Father and God and Creator and Lord and Master are not names but titles arising from his works and good deeds and God is not a name but a notion engrafted in humane nature of an unexpressible Being But that God alone is to be worshipped appears by this which is the great command given to Christians Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve with all thy heart and with all thy strength even the Lord God that made thee Where we see the force of the argument used by Iustin in behalf of the Christians lay in Gods peremptory prohibition of giving divine worship to any thing but himself and that founded upon Gods right of dominion over us by vertue of creation In his Book of the Divine Monarchy he shews that although the Heathens did make great use of the Poets to justifie their Polytheism yet they did give clear testimony of one Supreme Deity who was the Maker and Governour of all things for which end he produces the sayings of Aeschylus Sophocles Orpheus Pythagoras Philemon Menander and Euripides all very considerable to this purpose In his works there is extant the resolution of several Questions by a Greek Philosopher and the Christians reply in which nothing can be more evident than that it was agreed on both sides that there was one Supreme God infinitely good powerful and wise Nay the Greek Philosopher looks upon the ignorance of God as a thing impossible because all men naturally agree in the knowledge of God But there are plain evidences in that Book that it is of later date than Iustins time therefore instead of insisting any more on that I shall give a farther proof that in his time it could be no part of the dispute between the Christians and Heathens whether there were one Supreme God that ought to be worshipped by men and that shall be from that very Emperour to whom Eusebius saith Iustin Martyr did make his second Apology viz. M. Aurelius Antoninus It is particularly observed of him by the Roman Historians that he had a great zeal for preserving the Old Roman Religion and Iul. Capitolinus saith that he was so skilful in all the practices of it that he needed not as it was common for one to prompt him because he could say the prayers by heart and he was so confident of the protection of the Gods that he bids Faustina not punish those who had conspired against him for the Gods would defend him his zeal being pleasing to them and therefore Baronius doth not wonder that Iustin and other Christians suffered Martyrdom under him But in the Books which are left of his writing we may easily discover that he firmly believed an eternal Wisdom and Providence which managed the World and that the Gods whose veneration he commends were looked on by him as the subservient Ministers of the Divine Wisdom Reverence the Gods saith he but withal he saith honour that which is most excellent in the world that which disposeth and Governs all which sometimes he calls the all-commanding reason sometimes the Mind and Soul of the World which he expresly saith is but one And in one place he saith that there is but one World and one God and one substance and one Law and one common reason of intelligent beings and one Truth But the great objection against such Testimonies of Antoninus and others lies in this that these only shew the particular opinions of some few men of Philosophical minds but they do not reach to the publick and established Religion among them which seemed to make no difference between the Supreme God and other Deities from whence it follows that they did not give to him any such worship a◠belonged to him Which being the most considerable objection against the design of this present discourse I shall here endeavour to remove it before I produce any farther testimonies of the Fathers For which we must consider wherei◠the Romans did suppose the solemn and outward acts of their Religion to consist viz. in the worship appropriated 〈◊〉 their Temples or in occasional prayers and vows or in some parts of divination whereby they supposed God did make known his mind to them If I can therefore prove that the Romans did in an extraordinary manner make use of all these acts of Religious worship to the Supreme God it will then necessarily follow that the controversie between the Fathers and them about Idolatry could not be about the worship of one Supreme God but about giving Religious worship to any else besides him The Worship performed in their Temples was the most solemn and frequent among them in so much that Tully saith therein the people of Rome exceeded all Nations in the world but the most solemn part of that Worship was that which was performed in the Capitol at Rome and in the Temple of Iupiter Latialis in Alba and both these I shall prove were dedicated to the Supreme God The first Capitol was built at Rome by Numa Pompilius and called by Varro the old Capitol which stood at a good distance from the place where the foundations of the great Temple were laid by Tarquinius Priscus the one being about the Cirque of Flora the other upon the Tarpeian Mountain There is so little left of the memory of the former that for the design of it we are to judge by the general intention of Numa as to the worship of the Deity of which Plutarch gives this account That he forbad the Romans making any Image of God either like to men or beast because the First Being is
among them their very rites and customs are like ours they have Images in their Temples and their very habits agree with ours I desire T. G. once more to make use of his Friends kindness for Trigautius that he may see whether I have translated him right or no. In all this he mentions nothing of the Christian Religion but only the rewards and punishments of another world which most Nations of the world have believed and for their other resemblances much good may they do themselves with such parts of Christianity To these Bartoli adds the worshipping the Mother of God with a Child in her Arms their Penances Monasteries Nunneries nay their very Beads and Indulgencies And Semedo saith of their Priests that they wear their Head and Beards shaved they worship Idols they marry not they live in Convents 4 or 500 together they beg mutter prayers they sing they have several offices and prayers against fire tempests misfortunes and especially for the dead in which functions they use sacerdotal garments their Caps are like ours and their sprinkling brushes without any difference at all they eat neither flesh nor fish nor eggs neither do they drink wine But for this last cause of Fish and Wine I might have imagined he had been describing a sort of men much nearer home The same resemblances Bartoli finds and stands amazed at in Iapan here again he finds one Image with three Heads for the Trinity and forty hands to denote his power which they call Denix but he saith their Philosophers interpret it of the Sun Moon Elements and first Matter here they cross themselves but with a S. Andrewes cross and say their prayers exactly with their Beads of which they have 180 on a string and which is yet more observable they understand not one word of their prayers and yet they hope for forgiveness of their sins for saying them They have a kind of Ave-Mary Bell for the times of their prayers have pilgrimages to certain places and have great indulgences promised them for visiting them every year they have a Tribunal of general confession and Troops of persons who carry their Images in procession and have great honour to Reliques especially to a Tooth of Xaca at Meaco which they look upon as of mighty vertue being brought forth either to obtain Rain or Fair weather and which adds yet more cause of admiration they have a Pope too the Dairo whom he calls Zazzus who hath the chief care of Religion and of Canonizing whom he thinks fit and thence have the honour of Cami's or Saints he consecrates Patriarchs and Prelates who make Priests with a power of sacrificing with odors and of disposing the merits of Xaca and Amida for the benefit of the living and the dead Besides saith he they have multitudes of Religious Orders Black and Grey Eremitical and Coenobitical and Nuns which are very serviceable and kind to the Bonzii who shave their Heads profess coelibate abstain from flesh and fish and observe their hours of devotion to Xaca These things Bartoli saith he had from those who were eye-witnesses and had been long conversant among them But to increase the admiration yet more Greuber in his late account of his return from China A. D. 1661. by the way of Lassa or Barantola as Kircher calls it but Greuber himself Baranateka where he saith no Christian had ever been yet there he found Extreme Unction Solemn Processions worshipping of Reliques Monasteries of men and women bare-footed Missionaries and several other things which caused amazement in him but above all he wondred at their Pope to whom they give divine honours and worship his very excrements and put them up in Golden boxes as a most excellent Remedy against all mischiefs and to him all the Kings of Tartary make their solemn addresses and receive their Crowns from him and those that come near him kiss his Toe as Kircher saith and give the same adoration that they do to the Pope at Rome and saith he is only due to him which he looks on as a notable trick of the Devil to steal these customs from Rome and to carry them into such a remote part of the world where he little dreamed of being found out in his villany had not Greuber chanced to have passed that way from China I find these Authours very much puzzled what account to give of all these customs and ceremonies of theirs among Infidels and Idolaters Kircher runs back to Presbyter Iohn others to S. Thomas when alas they all came from the very same fountain from whence they came into the Roman Church viz. folly and Superstition And they do not want wit to defend themselves upon the very same grounds that they do as for instance in their worship of Images and Saints as they esteem them as most proper to our purpose Nicolaus Pimenta in his epistle to Claudius Aquaviva General of the Iesuits from God A. D. 1600. saith that when they disputed with the Brachmans about their worship they told them And we likewise worship one God as well as you and refer all the honour to him which we give to other things I would he had told us what answer he gave them but I find not a word of that neither can I see what it was capable of unless he told them that they lied And we have a considerable Testimony of an understanding Gentleman of Rome who had the curiosity to enquire strictly into the worship the Gentiles in India gave to their Deities that they have no other name to express their Deity but Deu or Deurù which are likewise given to Princes from whence he infers that the Gods of the Gentiles although adored and worshipped both in ancient and modern times were never looked on in the same degree with God the Creator of the Universe and wherein almost all Nations of the World have and do hold him some calling him the First Cause others the Soul of the World others Perabrahmi as the Gentiles at this day in India but the other Gods are and were always with them as Saints are with us of the truth whereof I have great arguments at least among the Indian Gentiles or at the highest they esteemed them only as men Deified by the Favour of God as Hercules Romulus Augustus c. Mons. Bernier when he was at the University of the Brachmans in Benares upon Ganges discoursing with one of the most learned men among them he proposed to him the Question about the adoration of their Idols and reproaching them with it as a thing very unreasonable they gave him this remarkable answer We have indeed in our Temples store of divers Statues as those of Brahma Mahadeu Genich and Gavani who are some of the chief and most perfect Deutas and we have also many others of less perfection to whom we pay great honour prostrating our selves before them and presenting them Flowers Rice Oyles Saffron and such
to their Gods but they have Temples for Heaven and Earth in Nankin and Pekim in which the King himself offers the sacrifice and in the Cities they have Temples for Tutelar Spirits to which the Mandarins do sacrifice as to the Spirits of the Rivers Mountains and four parts of the World c. and there are Temples to the honour of great Benefactors to the publick and therein are placed their Images Trigautius saith that he finds in their ancient Books that the Chineses did of old time worship one Supreme God whom they called King of Heaven or by another name Heaven and Earth and besides him they worshipped Tutelar Spirits to the same purpose with Semedo and the same he saith continues still in the learned Sect among them whose first Author was their famous Confutius to him they have a Temple erected in every City with his Image or his name in golden letters whither all the Magistrates every new or full Moon do resort to give honour to Confutius with bowings and Wax-candles and incense the same they do on his birth-day and other set times there to express their gratitude for the mighty advantages they have had by his Doctrine but they make no prayers to him and neither seek nor hope for any thing from him They have likewise Temples to Tutelar Spirits for every City and Tribunal where they make oblations and burn perfumes acknowledging these to have power to reward and punish Bartoli saith it is not out of any contempt of Religion but out of reverence to the Deity because of the excellency of his Majesty that they suffer none but the King to offer Sacrifice to him and accordingly the larger Power the Tutelar Spirits are supposed to have the greater Magistrates are to attend their service and the lesser those of Cities and Mountains and Rivers But that which is more material to our present business is to consider the Resolution of a case of Conscience not long since given at Rome by the Congregation of Cardinals de propagandâ fide after advising with and the full consent of the Pope obtained 12 Sept. 1645. Which resolution and decree was Printed in the Press of the Congregation the same year with the Popes Decree annexed to it and his peremptory command for the observation of it by all Missionaries and that Copy of the Resolution I have seen was attested by a publick Notary to agree with the Original Decree which case will help us very much to the right understanding the Notion of Idolatry according to the sense of the Church of Rome The case was this The Missionaries of the Society of Iesuits having had a plentiful harvest in China and many of the Great men embracing the Christian Religion by their means the Missionaries of other Orders especially the Franciscans had a great curiosity to understand the arts which the Iesuits used in prevailing with so many Great persons to become Christians and upon full enquiry they found they gave them great liberty as to the five Precepts of the Church as they call them viz. hearing Mass annual Confession receiving the Sacrament at Easter Fasting at the solemn times and Tenths and First-fruits besides they did forbear their Ceremonies of baptism their oyl and spittle in the ears and salt in the mouth when they baptized Women and giving extreme Unction to them because the jealousie of their Husbands would not permit them to use them but that which is most to our purpose is the liberty they gave the Mandarins in two things 1. To go to the Temple of the Tutelar Spirit in every City as they are bound by vertue of their office to do twice a month or else they forfeit their places and there to prostrate themselves before the Idol with all the external acts of adoration that others used and swearing before it when they enter into their office so they did secretly convey a Crucifix among the flowers that lay upon the altar or hold it cunningly in their hands and direct all their adorations to the Crucifix by the inward intention of their minds 2. To go to the Temple of Keum-Fucu or Confucius twice a year and to perform all the solemnities there that the rest did and the same as to the Temples of their Ancestors which are erected to their honour according to the precepts of Confucius because the Chineses declared that they intended only to give the same reverence to the memory of their Ancestors which they would do to themselves if they were still living and what they offer to them is nothing but what they would give them if they were alive without any intention to beg any thing from them when they know them to be dead and the same allowance they gave as to the Images of their Ancestors about which many Ceremonies were used by them The Missionaries of S. Francis order being well informed of the Truth of these things from the Philippines they send a Memorial to the King of Spain concerning them who by his Ambassador represents it to the Pope whereupon the Congregation of Cardinals was called and after great deliberation and advising with the Pope about it they made their Decree wherein they by several resolutions declare it unlawful upon any of those pretences to use acts in themselves unlawful and superstitious although directed by their intention to the worship of the true God And lest any should imagine it was only matter of scandal which they stood upon as T. G. doth about worshipping towards the Sun they make use of several expressions on purpose to exclude this for so they resolve the seventh Quere nullatenus licere it is by no means lawful and the eighth nullo praetextu under no pretence whatsoever and to the ninth expresly that it could not be salved propter absentiam gentilium if there were no gentiles present from this Resolution we may observe several things to our purpose That Idolatry is consistent with the belief of the Supreme God and reserving soveraign worship as due only to him For the Congregation calls the Image of the Tutelar Spirit an Idol and consequently the act of adoration must be Idolatry yet it is very clear that the Chineses especially the Christians did never intend to give to the Tutelar Spirit the honour proper to the Supreme Deity And Bartoli hath at large proved that the Chineses did of old acknowledge the true God and his Providence over the World and that their Princes do worship the same God still to whom they offer Sacrifice and they call him by two names Scianti which signifies supreme Monarch and Tienciù Lord of Heaven and as he tells us they put an apparent difference between Tienciù and Tienscin i. e. between God and Angels and say that the power of forgiving sins belongs only to God and not to them that upon a debate among the Missionaries about the use of these words for the true God and some scruples raised from some
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
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
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
respect to those whom he utterly disowned Nay the Prophet Hosea saith that God was still the Holy one in the midst of Ephraim and How shall I give thee up Ephraim how shall I deliver thee Israel Which shews God had not yet discarded them and afterwards he saith to Israel Return unto the Lord thy God and Amos saith prepare to meet thy God O Israel and both he and Micah call them still Gods people From whence it is evident that they were still a true Church notwithstanding the Idolatry of Ieroboam 2. Supposing a Church to continue a True Church what reason can there be to question the Authority of that Church as to the consecration of Bishops or the ordination of Priests I have formerly shewed that no Act of Ordination is invalid in case of any heresie or Crime of the Giver and that the contrary doctrine is condemned for heresie by the Church I now shall particularly shew that the Power of giving Orders is not taken away by the guilt of Idolatry which I prove from the case of the Arian Bishops I have at large made it manifest that the Arians were condemned for Idolatry by the consent of the Fathers of greatest reputation S. Athanasius S. Basil S. Gregory Nazianzen Nyssen Epiphanius S. Chrysostom S. Ambrose S. Augustin c. And the second Nicene Council saith that the Catholick Church looked on them as Idolaters Now if I can make it appear that the Arian Ordinations were allowed I shall put this matter past dispute that the charge of Idolatry doth not null the Ordinations of our Church as being derived from those who were guilty of Idolatry For this purpose the second Nicene Council affords us plentiful assistance in the First Session wherein Peter the Popes Vicar declares that Meletius was ordained by Arian Bishops and yet his Ordination was never questioned and this was received by the Council as true Epiphanius Socrates and Sozomon all agree that Meletius received his Consecration from the Arian Faction and Epiphanius saith he had it from the hands of Acacius Bishop of Caesarea the worst of all the Arians saith Baronius Socrates and Sozomen do seem to imply that the followers of Eustathius at Antioch would not joyn with Meletius and his party though both consenting in the Nicene Creed because of his ordination by the Arian faction and the peoples being baptized by Arian Priests but Theodoret mentions no such thing and saith the first breach began there when Meletius was banished by the Arian party and Euzoius the Arian was made Bishop of Antioch and Baronius makes the Schism to begin from the ordination of Paulinus by Lucifer Caralitanus however this were we never find the Ordination of Meletius disputed by the Catholick Bishops and when S. Athanasius writes a Synodical Epistle to those of Antioch to compose the differences among them upon the ordination of Paulinus he gives this direction to the other Catholick Christians concerning Meletius his party who met 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so the place of their meeting was called being in the old City which the interpreter of Athanasius renders in veteris Ecclesiae communione that they should receive those who came to them from the Arians without requiring any more from them than the renouncing Arianism and subscribing or owning the Nicene Creed Whereby the Arian Baptism and Orders were allowed But we have a fuller Testimony of the general sense of the Church of that Age as to this matter of the Arian Ordinations Ruffinus saith that when the Catholick Bishops were returned from banishment several of them met together at Alexandria to consult what was to be done with those who had received Orders from the Arian Bishops and after consultation about it it was decreed in Council that only the Heads of the party should be rejected but others received to the exercise of their Priestly Office upon which Asterius was dispatched into the Eastern parts to settle the Churches there and Eusebius into the Western but he returning to Antioch found that Lucifer in the mean time had broken his promise in the Consecration of Paulinus and Eusebius therefore would not own him as Bishop which so enraged Lucifer that he quarrelled with the decree of the Alexandrian Council about receiving the Arian Bishops and Priests upon disowning their Heresie And so the Luciferian Schism began for the followers of Lucifer charged the Catholick Church with being the Synagogue of Antichrist for receiving the Arian Bishops as appears by S. Hierom for they yielded to the receiving the penitent Laity but not the Clergy allowing the Arian Baptism but not their Ordinations upon which S. Hierom triumphs over them And he saith that eight Arian Bishops were received in the Council of Nice although their Arianism were declared before and that the decree of the Alexandrian Council was universally received by the Church which is as ample a Testimony to our purpose as can be desired Next to contradictions T. G. charges me with maintaining strange Paradoxes which he puts into the Title of one of his Chapters in these words A strange Paradox advanced by Dr. St. What can an Image do to the heightning of Devotion or raising affections Not finding my self to be any great lover of Paradoxes but of plain and useful Truths I was the more curious to find out what Paradox it was I had broached And searching for the place I found these words And can any one imagine there should be greater irreverence of God shewn in calling him to witness upon every slight occasion than there is in bowing down before a block or a hewen stone representing God to my mind by it What can SUCH an Image do to the heightening of devotion or raising affections This is the monstrous Paradox advanced by me viz. that such a gross representation of God by an Image doth tend more to abate than raise our estimation of him which is so far from being a Paradox that I have herein the consent not only of the ancient Fathers but of the greatest Patrons of Images in the Eastern and Western Churches till the latter times as I have shewed already But T. G. sets himself very industriously to prove that Pictures have an advantage in representation above living Creatures which he doth with great force of wit and strength of Reason because Ladies sit sometimes to make Madonna 's by for their Pictures and Authors Pictures are set before their Books it is pitty we want our Authors on so just an occasion and men keep the Pictures of their Friends and Sign-posts are very useful in London streets and may suggest many good meditations to men as the three Nuns or the like but to hold the contrary opinion is the way to undo the company of Picture-drawers which would be a great unkindness to all ingenious Artists but the most dismal consequence of my doctrine is that the Ladies
instead of the Pictures of their Friends should wear Ants and Flies in Crystal cases and instead of their own pictures the Apes and Asses should be sent them which I brought in so lamely and the Tygers too if they can catch them as greater resemblances of their Perfections These passages I hope were intended for sallies of Wit which do become T. G. as well in this argument as dancing upon the Ropes would do a Capucin Frier in his habit But whence comes all this Rage of Wit this arming all the Pencils and brushes of the Town against me this Appeal to the Ladies against the pernicious consequences of my opinion this hurrying of me from the Playhouse and the Scenes there to the Bear-garden to the Apes and Asses and Tygers All this ariseth only from this innocent saying that it seems more reasonable to me to Worship God by prostrating my self to the Sun nay to an Ant or a Fly than to a picture or an Image for in the other I see great evidences of the Power and Wisdom and Goodness of God which may suggest venerable apprehensions of God to my mind whereas these can have nothing worthy admiration unless it be the skill of the Painter or Artificer Hinc illae lachrymae Could I ever have imagined that these words being spoken meerly with a respect to the representation of God in order to Worship should have raised the Arriereban of all the Ladies and Painters against me If nothing will satisfie T. G. but having it under my hand that I had no malicious intention against the ingenious art of Painting nor any design to ruine the company of picture-drawers I do hereby give it him and with this humble acknowledgement I hope the parties concerned will rest satisfied It is not in the point of bare representation I compare pictures and Gods Creatures but it is in representing those perfections which are the ground and Reason of Worship and here I stand to it that the least living Creature is a far better Image of God than an old Man in Pontifical habits or the best Crucifix in the world can be i.e. it represents more those perfections for the sake of which I give divine Worship to God But T. G. saith that Atheists will deny the perfections of the Creatures to be any evidence at all of the being we call God but cannot deny a Crucifix to represent to their own thoughts that Person whom we believe to be God This is very ill put for he should have parallel'd blind men and Atheists together and I dare say no blind man discerns more of the excellency or likeness of a Picture than Atheists do of the perfections of God by his Creatures If men will shut their eyes what can a Crucifix do to raise affections and if their eyes be never so open it can only represent that which falls infinitely short of being a Reason for Divine Worship For as to the meer representation of Christs humanity by an Image whoever disputed with T. G. about the lawfulness of it but if he goes no farther than representation or a help to memory or apprehension T. G. knows well enough he falls short of what is required of him by the Decrees of their Councils and the constant practice of their Church about which our Controversie with them is To the former paradox I added these words that I cannot for my heart understand why I may not as well nay better burn incense and say my Prayers to the Sun having an intention only to honour God by it as to do both those to an Image Here T. G. gives me warning not to say my Prayers to the Sun no more than they do to Images he needs not give me that warning for I never intend to do it so much for although he would insinuate that I know they do not I hope he will change his mind when he reads the account I have given of their practises in that particular but I only pretended to pray to the Sun having an intention to honour God by it and in this sense I am sure T. G. cannot deny that they pray to their Images But if I do not say my prayers to the Sun but only bow down to it so it be not out of ignorance or Heathenism or to give scandal to weak Brethren he gives as much liberty as I could wish and he quotes S. Leo for it too in that very place where he condemns it as appears by the last words he cites out of him let the Faithful therefore abstain from so perverse and worthy to be condemned a Custome nor let the honour due to God alone be mixed with their rites who serve the Creatures for the Holy Scripture saith Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve Where the reason he gives against it is not as T. G. insinuates because there were some Reliques of Paganism remaining but because it was giving the Creature part of that Honour which is due to God alone But T. G. offers to give me a clear solution to my scruple which he does in two particulars 1. That although the Creatures do represent God after their manner yet it is so rudely remotely darkly and imperfectly that there is need of a great deal of discourse to discover the analogy or proportion to their Creator and they are called the footsteps of God whereas an Image for example of Christ is so apparently representative of him that upon sight thereof our thoughts fly presently unto him By which argument S. Paul was strangely mistaken when he talked of the Eternal Power of God being so known or manifest by the things that are seen that even the Heathens were left without excuse no such matter saith T. G. the Creatures represent God rudely remotely darkly and imperfectly which make an excellent paraphrase on the words of the Psalmist The Heavens declare the glory of God and the Firmament shews his handy-work Mens handy-work by Images will do it rarely presently effectually inflamingly but Gods Work doth it dully remotely rudely and imperfectly O how much the skill of a painter exceeds the Power of God! Whereas in truth the least work of Nature infinitely exceeds the greatest art of man in curiosity beauty strength proportion and every thing that can discover Wisdom or Power But saith T. G. they are called Gods footsteps and to gather the height and bigness of Hercules from his footstep was not the Work of every vulgar capacity which is a very Childish way of reasoning and taken only from such a Metaphorical expression that Vasquez calls it a frivolous argument that is taken from it I but the pretty story of Hercules and that put together make a pleasant jingling and looks like Reason to those that know not what it means Must men take the measure of God just by the same Geometrical proportions that he did that gathered the height and bigness of Hercules by
be none to understanding men but only to the rude and ignorant people that cannot so easily apprehend God in His Creatures as in an Image and withall it would savour of Heathen superstition But it were well they would consider the Answer they give us in this case when we urge the same argument against the worship of Images Hold say they a meer scandal is no reason to take away the use of a thing if it be such as doth not arise from the nature of the thing but only by accident through the malice or ignorance of the Persons So that in this case nothing is wanting but well instructing the People and upon their principles of worship they may revive the worship of the Host of Heaven the Fire and Water and Trees and the Earth it self and it is but conquering a little squeamishness of stomach at first the very Tail of the Ass on which our Savioâ—r rode will go down with them And now I leave the Reader to judge which of us two is guilty of the greater Paradoxes I now come to the great rock of offence the second Council of Nice which he saith I most irreverently call that wise Synod upon which he falls into a very Tragical exclamation that I should dare to reflect so much dishonour on a Council wherein there were 350. Fathers with the Popes Legats and the Vicars of the Oriental Patriarchal Sees and yet himself calls the Council of Constantinople a Conventicle wherein there were 338. Bishops and doth he think the number of twelve more in one than in the other makes such a huge difference in point of Wisdom But the Author of the Caroline Book saith That by their own confession they were but 306. And the Council of Francford which opposed this and of which T. G. speaks not very honourably as I shall make appear consisted of about â—00 Bishops by the confessions of their own Writers so that if number carries it I have above 600. Bishops of my side and if they were wise the Nicene Council was not so It is therefore in T. G's choice to call 300. or 600. Bishops Fools But if he be guilty of the same fault that doth not excuse me for speaking so Ironically of so lawful so general so judicious a Council as that at Nice was and therefore he adviseth me to recant and to follow the example of Gregory of Neocaelarea I hope he doth not mean in the way of S. German although one of that name was a great Patron of Images about that time But if this Council were neither so lawful so general nor so judicious as T. G. pretends for all that I know the Rector of a Parochial Church never to be found in the list of any General Council which is a shrewd aggravation of my fault may have leave to call the Second Council of Nice a wise Synod 1. I shall enquire whether this were a lawful General Council and so received by the Church There are three things T. G. insists on to make this out 1. That it was called by the Popes Authority which he knows we deny to be sufficient to make a lawful General Council for then every Assembly of Bishops at Rome called by the Pope would be a General Council 2. The consent and presence of the Patriarchs 3. That it hath been received as such by the Church But I shall make it appear that it was just such another General Council as that of Trent was and managed with as much fraud and collusion and that it was not received by the Church as a General Council 1. As to the presence and consent of the Patriarchs this Council in their Synodical Epistle boast that they had the concurrence of East West North and South Which is such an extravagance that no sober men would have been guilty of that had any regard to Truth or Honesty or did in the least consider the State of the World at that time The Western Bishops were never so much as summon'd the Patriarch of Ierusalem was dead the Eastern Patriarch and the Patriarch of Alexandria were neither in condition to appear themselves nor to send Legats thither which Baronius ingenuously confesseth Because Aaron who was then Chaliph of the Saracens was a great enemy to the Christians under whose dominion at that time they were Although Christianus Lupus a Professor of Divinity at Lovain makes him a great Friend to the Christians in Egypt which is not only contrary to Baronius but to the Synodical Epistle the two Monks carried to the Council from the Monks of Palestine and was read and approved by the Council Theophanes saith That the Empress and Patriarch both sent to the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch while the Peace continued but soon after upon Aaron 's being made Chaliph the peace was broke and there was no liberty for the Patriarchs either to go or send But do we not read in the Acts of the Council that John appeared and subscribed as Vicar of the Oriental Patriarchs and Thomas as Vicar of the Patriarch of Alexandria Very true but Baronius gives an excellent account of this notorious cheat The Legats that were sent to the Patriarchs did never arrive at Antioch or Alexandria but coming into Palestine they there understood what a grievous persecution the Christians suffered under the new Chaliph and that if it should be discovered what errand they went upon it would not only hazzard their own lives but of all the Christians of those parts therefore they forbore going any farther and acquainted the Monks of Palestine with their design who met together and took upon them to send these two John and Thomas as the Legats of the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria For Theodorus Patriarch of Ierusalem was lately dead And these two were the goodly Vicars of the Patriarchal See 's which sate and subscribed in their names in this most Oecumenical Council and passed in all the Acts of it for the Legats of the Oriental Patriarchs For they subscribe themselves Legats of the three Apostolical Sees Alexandria Antioch and Jerusalem and yet the summons never came to either of the Patriarchs but they were in truth only the Plenipotentiary Monks of the Patriarchal Monks of Palestine So both Baronius and Binius confess they were only the Monks that sent them and they call themselves Eremites in the beginning of their Epistle and yet in the Acts of that Council they pass for very great men of the East and Euthymius Bishop of Sardis calls them the Patriarchs of the East and Epiphanius takes it for granted that the Letters were sent by the very same to whom Tarasius directed his when the very Letters themselves which were read in the Council shew that the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria were never consulted with And yet Christianus Lupus in his late Notes on the Canons of the General Councils very fairly tells a formal story of