burning incense and lights before them which are as great Testimonies of Worship as were ever used by the grossest and most sottish Idolaters I may rather say there is no great difference between them and their Images that can see no difference between such worship and the Reverence of Holy things 2. That the Council of Nice did put a difference between these things For however to blind the business as much as might be they put them together in the Definition yet if we observe the ground on which it established the worship of Images was such as referred to the things represented by them and not any sacred use of them and those expressed in the very same Definition For say they they honour of the Image passes to the Prototype and he that worships the Image doth in that worship the thing represented By which they lay the foundation of the worship of Images upon a thing peculiar to them and that doth not hold for the other things And this reason here assigned runs through all the several discourses in that Synod of Hadrian Theodorus Tarasius Germanus Leontius and Epiphanius and the very same reason is assigned by the Council of Trent It is observed out of S. Augustin that the most sacred things are only capable of honour honorem tanquam Religiosa possunt habere where he speaks of the elements of the Eucharist but Tarasius in this Council of Nice pronounces them all guilty of hypocrisie who would only give honour and not Worship to Images by which it appears that the Council determined more than meer Reverence to be given to Images 2. That this worship which the Council of Nice determined was lower than Latria For so it follows in the definition of the Council that they only meant an honorary adoration and not true Latria which is only due to God Tarasius upon reading Pope Hadrians Epistle declares his consent to the worship of Images asserted in it reserving Latria and Faith to God alone To the same purpose speaks Constantinus Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus upon reading the Epistle of Theodorus whose words I grant were mistaken by the translatour of the Council into Latin as appears by what he is charged with in the Caroline Book and his words in the Acts of the Council but it doth not therefore follow as T. G. would have it that the Council of Francford did mistake the meaning of the Nicene Synod For the Author of the Caroline Book particularly observes that in those words as translated He did contradict the sayings of the rest but that unawares he had betrayed that which the rest endeavoured to conceal viz. that they gave the worship proper to God to Images for however they denyed it in words they did it in their actions So Epiphanius the Deacon saith that they often declared that they did not give Latria to Images Thus we see what the sense of the second Council of Nice was as to the worship of Images 2. I now come to the additions which have been made to this doctrine in the Roman Church when it was delivered as good Catholick doctrine that the worship of Latria was to be given to the Images of Christ. So Thomas Aquinas determines in several places which are collected by Simon Majolus and he goes upon these grounds 1. Because no irrational creature is capable of worship but with a respect to a rational Being 2. Because Images are worshipped on the account of their representation therefore saith he they are to be worshipped with the same worship with the thing represented 3. Because the motion of the mind towards an Image as an Image is the same with the motion towards the thing represented 4. Because the Church in praying to the Cross speaks to it as if it were Christ himself O Crux ave spes unica But how can this doctrine be reconciled to the definition of the Council of Nice which determines expresly contrary Estius saith that S. Thomas never saw this definition of the Council the same is said by Catharinus and Sylvius for saith Catharinus if he had seen it he would have endeavoured to have reconciled his opinion with the decree of the Council which shews that he thought it inconsistent with it From whence I argue that the Council of Nice was not then received in the Western Church for if it had been is it conceivable that so great a Doctor of the Church as Aquinas should either not have seen it or if he had seen it should have contradicted the Definition of it But Aquinas was not the first who asserted this doctrine in the Latin Church for Alex. Hales who was his Master saith as much in effect although he doth not so openly apply the term of Latria to it yet putting this question whether greater worship doth belong to the Cross than to any man he determines it affirmatively and distinguishes between the dignity of a thing and the dignity of an Image and an Image having all its excellency from the object represented all the worship given to it is to be referred to the Prototype now saith he man having a proper excellency can deserve no more than Dulia and therefore the Cross as it represents Christ must have the worship of Latria And it is considerable that Alex. Hales as Pitts saith writ his Summ by the Command of Pope Innocent 4. and in the time of Alex 4. it was examined by seventy Divines and approved and recommended to be taught in all Universities Card. Bonaventure determines it roundly that as Christ himself from his union to the Divinity is worshipped with Latria so is the Image of Christ as it represents him and concludes thus proptereà Imagini Christi debet cultus Latriae exhiberi Rich. de Media Villa who lived in the same Century asserted the same doctrine And when Durandus opposed the doctrine of Thomas on this ground because the Image and Prototype were two distinct things and therefore what belonged to the exemplar could not be attributed to the Image however considered as an Image and so the worship are to the exemplar could not be given to the Image yet he confesses the other was the common and received opinion which was defended against Durandus by Paludanus and Capreolus Marsilius ab Ingen speaks his mind freely in this matter saying that the Cross as a sign representing the object of worship and as a medium of it is to be adored with Latria and for this he appeals to the practice of the Church O Crux ave spes unica Auge piis justitiam reisque dona veniam which three things he saith do properly belong to God and therefore saith he it is properly the worship of Latria which the Church doth give to the Cross as a sign Iacobus Almain declares that Images are to be worshipped with the same kind of worship that the things represented are because
Mouse-hole but he soon grows too big ever to get out again For Baluzius saith what I affirmed and Agobardus saith no such thing as he affirms of him and in that very Synopsis of his doctrine by Massonus to which he referrs we have just the contrary Picturae aspectandae causâ historiae memoriae non Religionis Images are to be looked on for history and memory sake but not for Religion and what is this but for instruction of the people Whosoever it was that helped T. G. to this citation I desire him as a Friend that he will never trust him more for I would think better of T. G. himself than that he would wilfully prevaricare But if this were Agobardus his opinion why have we it not in his own words rather than those of Pap. Massonus who talks so ignorantly and inconsistently in that very place where those words are but are not set down by him as the judgement of Agobardus If T. G. would have taken no great pains to have read over Agobardus his discourse of Images he would have saved me the labour of confuting him about his opinion for he delivers it plainly enough against all worship of Images though for the sake of the Exemplar but he expresly allows them for instruction I am sorry T. G. makes it so necessary for me to give him such home-thrusts for he lays himself so open and uses so little art to avoid them that I must either do nothing or expose his weakness and want of skill But all this while we are got no farther than towards the middle of the ninth Century the Church of France might change its opinion after this time and assert the Council of Nice to have been a General Council and submit to the Decrees of it I grant all this to be possible but we are looking for certainties and not bare possibilities Hincmarus of Rhemes a stout and understanding Bishop of the Gallican Church died saith Bellarmin A. D. 882. and he not only calls the Nicene Synod a false General Council but he makes that at Francford to be truly so And these latter words of his are cited with approbation by Card. Cusanus and he condemns both Factions among the Greeks of the Iconoclasts and of the Nicene Fathers In the same Age lived Anastasius Bibliothecarius who made it his business to recommend all the Greek Canons and Councils to the Latin Church he was alive saith Baronius A. D. 886. He first translated the eighth General Council at which himself was present and when this was abroad he tells the Pope what a soloecism it would be to have the eighth without a seventh ubi septima non habetur are his very words from whence it appears in how very little Regard that Council was in the Western Church It is true he saith it was translated before but it was almost by all so much contemned that it was so far from being transcribed that it was not thought worth reading This he would have to be laid upon the badness of the translation he hath mended the matter much when in his Lives of the Popes he saith it was done by the particular Command of Pope Hadrian and laid up in his Sacred Library But when he hath said his utmost for the Catholick doctrine of Image-worship as he would have it believed he cannot deny that the admirable usefulness of this doctrine was not yet revealed to some of the Gallican Church because they said it was not lawful to worship the Work of mens Hands After this time came on the Midnight of the Church wherein the very names of Councils were forgotten and men did only dream of what had past but all things were judged good that were got into any vogue in the practice of the Church yet even in that time we meet with some glitterings of light enough to let us see the Council of Nice had not prevailed over the Western Church Leo Tuscus who was a Secretary to the Greek Emperour and lived saith Gesner A. D. 1170. giving an account of the Schism between the Greek and Latin Churches hath these words saith Cassander that among the Causes of the Breach that Synod was to be assigned which was called by Constantine and Irene and which they would have called the seventh and a General Council and he adds moreover that it was not received even by the Church of Rome About the year 1189. was the Expedition into Palestine by Fredericus Aenobarbus and Nicetas Acominatus who was a great Officer under the Greek Emperour Isacius Angelus and present in the Army saith Baronius gives this account of the Germans opinion in those times about the worship of Images When saith he all the Greeks had deserted Philippopolis the Armenians staid behind for they looked on the Germans as their Friends and agreeing with them in Religion for the worship of Images is forbidden among both of them Which being a Testimony of so considerable a Person and not barely concerning the opinion of some Divines but the general practice of the people doth shew that in the twelfth Century the Necene Council had not prevailed all over the Western Church when T. G. affirms it did for many hundreds of years before the Reformation Especially if we consider what the judgement and practice of the Armenians was as it is delivered by Nicon who is supposed to have been a Saint and Martyr in Armenia who saith that they do not worship Images and their Catholick Bishop or Patriarch excommunicates those that do Which is confirmed by what is said to the same purpose by Isaac an Armenian Bishop who lived in the same Century viz. that they do not Worship the Images either of Christ the B. Virgin or the Saints And Pet. Pithaeus a learned and ingenuous Papist confesses that it was but very lately that those of the Gallican Church began to be fond of Images and he writ that Epistle wherein those words are extant A. D. 1568. Surely he did not think the doctrine of the Nicene Council had been received in the Gallican Church for many hundred years But suppose the Nicene Synod were not owned for a General Council yet it might be very wise and judicious Assembly to say that is to reflect on the Emperour Charles the Great and all the Western Bishops in his Dominions And I am sure their expressions would justifie me if I had spoken sharper without an Irony for in the Caroline Book we frequently meet with such expressions as these concerning those grave Fathers ut illi stultissimè irrationabilitèr putant indoctè inordinatè dicunt quam absurdè agant quod magnae sit temeritatis dicere quod non minus omnibus sed pene plus cunctis Tharasius delirasse dignoscitur Deliramento plena dictio Leonis Ut illi delirant ut illi garriunt Ridiculosè pueriliter dictum infaustè praecipitantèr sive insipienter dementia
altitonantis and from thence it was applyed to any place consecrated by the Augurs and so by degrees was taken for any sacred place that was set apart for divine worship for that was it which made them sacred sacra sunt loca saith Isidore divinis cultibus instituta Either therefore they must say there is no proper worship of God but Sacrifice or the notion of a Temple cannot be said only to refer to Sacrifice And among the Iews our B. Saviour hath told us that the Temple had relation to prayer as well as Sacrifice My House shall be called a House of Prayer Would it not have been a pleasant distinction among the Iews if any of them had dedicated a Temple to Abraham with a design to invocate him there and make him the Patron of it for them to have said they built it as a Temple to God but as a Basilica to Abraham for they sacrificed there only to God or to God for the honour of Abraham but they invocated Abraham as the particular Patron of it This is that therefore we charge them with upon their own principles that when they dedicate Churches to particular Saints as the Patrons of them and in order to the solemn invocation of them there they do apply that which themselves confess to be an appropriate sign of divine worship to Creatures and consequently by their own confession are guilty of Idolatry Neither can it be pleaded by them that their Churches and Altars are only dedicated to the honour of God for the memory of a particular Saint for they confess that it is for the solemn invocation of that Saint And with all in the Form of dedication in the Pontifical there is more implied as appears by these two prayers at the Consecration of the Altar The first when the Bishop stands before the Altar in these words Deus Omnipotens in cujus honorem ac Beatissimae Virginis Mariae omnium Sanctorum ac nomen memoriam Sancti tui N. nos indigni altare hoc consecramus c. The other after the Bishop hath with his right thumb dipped in the Chrism made the sign of a Cross upon the Front of the Altar Majestatem tuam Domine humiliter imploramus ut altare hoc sacrae unctionis libamine ad suscipienda populi tui munera inunctam potenter bene dicere sanctificare digneris ut quod nunc à nobis sub tui nominis invocatione in honorem Beatissimae Virginis Mariae omnium Sanctorum atque in memoriam sancti tui N. c. Where we see besides the memory of the particular Saint to whom the Altar is dedicated the honour of the B. Virgin and the Saints are joyned together with the Honour of God in the general dedication of it By the Pontifical no Altar is to be consecrated without Reliques which the night before the Bishop is to put into a clean vessel for that purpose with three grains of Frankincense and then to seal it up which being conveniently placed before the Church door the Vigils are to be celebrated that night before them and the Nocturn and the Mattins for the honour of the Saints whose the Reliques are and when the Reliques are brought into the Church this is one of the Antiphona's Surgite Sancti Dei de mansionibus vestris loca sanctificate plebem benedicite nos homines peccatores in pace custodite The form of consecration of the Altar it self is this Sanctificetur hoc Altare in honorem Dei omnipotentis gloriosae Virginis Mariae atque omnium sanctorum ad nomen ac memoriam Sancti N. In China Trigautius saith in the Chappel they had there they had two Altars one to our Saviour the other dedicated to the B. Virgin without any distinction at all In the speech the Bishop makes to the people he utterly overthrows Bellarmins distinction of Templum and Basilica for he saith nullibi enim quam in sacris Basilicis Domino offerri sacrificium debet It seems then Basilica is taken with a respect to sacrifice as well as Templum and then he declares that he hath dedicated this Basilica in honorem omnipotentis Dei Beatae Mariae semper virginis omnium Sanctorum ac memoriam Sancti N. So that Basilica is here taken with a respect to God and not meerly to the Saints although they joyn them together with God in the honour of dedication Let us now compare the practice of the Roman Church in this matter with the argument which the Fathers made use of to prove the Divinity of the Holy Ghost because we are said to be his Temple If we are said saith S. Basil to be his Temple because he is worshipped by us and dwells in us then it follows that he is God for we are commanded to worship and serve God alone Where it is plain S. Basil takes a Temple with a respect to worship and not meerly to sacrifice A Temple belongs only to God and not to a creature saith S. Ambrose therefore the Holy Ghost is God because we are his Temple This is peculiar to the Divine nature saith S. Cyril to have a Temple to dwell in If we were to build a Temple saith S. Augustin to the Holy Ghost in so doing we should give him the worship proper to God and he must be God to whom we give divine worship for we must worship the Lord our God and him only must we serve the same argument he urges in several other places a Temple saith he was never erected but either to the true God as Solomon did or to false Gods as the Heathens and this argument from our being said to be the Temple of the Holy Ghost he thinks is stronger than if adoration had been said to be given to it for this is so proper an act of divine worship to erect a Temple that if we should do it to the most excellent Angel we should be anathematized from the Church of God Hoc nunc sit quibuslibet Divis saith Erasmus there in the Margin This is every where now done to Saints at which Petavius is very angry and saith they do it not to the Saints per se praecipué But what becomes then of the argument of the Fathers which supposes the erecting a Temple to be such a peculiar act of adoration that it cannot be applied to any creature no not secondarily For then the opposers of the Divinity of the Holy Ghost might have easily answered S. Augustins argument after the same fashion viz. that we were said to be the Temple of the Holy Ghost not per se praecipuè but only secondarily as it was the divine instrument of purifying the Souls of men From hence we see how unanimously the Fathers looked on the dedication of Temples and Altars as an appropriate sign of that absolute worship we owe to God and that not meerly as an Appendix to sacrifice but as it contains in it
the Sacramental species and the manner of his being represented in the Image would take no more off from the nature of the worship than the Princes Robe doth from the worship due to his Person And Bernardus Pujol from thence proves that it is lawful to worship the Image and exemplar with the same act of adoration as one complex object because the Church doth worship the Sacrament of the Eucharist with Latria as it is one complex object made up of the Species and Christ himself as there present The same Author proves against Bellarmin that the proper worship given to Images is not meerly analogically and reductively Latria but properly although more imperfect like that which is given to the humanity of Christ and therefore he saith the meaning of the Council was only to exclude absolute Latria and not relative with whom Ysambertus agrees who likewise saith that when the Image and Prototype are worshipped with Latria the Image is a terminative object of that adoration at least as a part to make one entire object of the exemplar and the Image Card. Lugo saith that Vasquez hath not spoken clearly to this point about the aggregate object made up of the Image and the exemplar for saith he if internal adoration were allowed to the Image as a partial object it would go a great way to the proving that the Image it self may be so worshipped in recto i. e. without the worship of the exemplar and he thinks that the same act of adoration may be terminated in recto both on the Image and the exemplar and that this aggregate object hath a sufficient excellency to terminate inward worship upon the Image as a part of that object Arriaga disputes at large against the opinion of Vasquez but after all he concludes that we may say absolutely that Latria is due to the Image of Christ and he makes it the same case as to Images and the humanity of Christ and to the Nicene Council he saith that they spake not of the Images of God but of Angels and Saints to which no doubt Latria is not due and he stretches the words of Epiphanius the Deacon to this sense that no Images of Creatures are to be worshipped with Latria therefore saith he they did worship the Image of God with Latria Very subtle I confess and like Epiphanius his own self who argues in that Council much after that rate and with equal probability Petavius concludes with the generality of their Divines that the design of the Council of Nice was only to exclude absolute Latria and not relative for which he quotes the Greek excerpta wherein it is said that the Image doth not differ in Hypostasis from the Prototype but only in nature from whence he inferrs that it is the same act of adoration to the Image and the thing represented But if all the danger lay in supposing Images to be distinct hypostates the Heathens in that Council declared that they did not look on them as such but only as representations and therefore in that respect they were no more to blame than the Nicene Fathers in the Worship of them From all this discourse we see 1. That some great Divines in the Roman Church do assert proper and absolute Latria to be given to the Images of Christ as those who assert the Image and Christ to make up one entire object of adoration 2. That the doctrine of a Relative Latria to be given to Images and such as is given to the humanity of Christ hath almost universally obtained in the Roman Church 3. That they all agree in this that the external acts of adoration are to be performed to Images such as genuflections prostrations burning of Lights and Incense c. 4. That those who assert an inferiour adoration to be given to Images do suppose that adoration to terminate in the Images themselves although it be given on the account of the thing represented 5. That those who differ from each other in this matter do in effect charge one another with Idolatry but of that afterwards Nothing now remains to the full stating of this Controversie but to consider the practice of the Roman Church in the worship of Images which may be gathered very much from the former discourse but will receive somewhat more light by these observations 1. That the Church of Rome hath determined in her publick Offices that Latria is due to the Cross of Christ viz. in the Pontificale where the Rubrick determines the manner of procession at the reception of the Emperour and there it is said that the Cross of the Legat ought to have the right hand quia debetur ei Latria because Latria is due to it not only that it may lawfully be given to it but that it is due to it without any mention of the exemplar or any distinctions or limitations about the nature of this Latria 2. That solemn prayers are made for the consecration of the Images set up for worship and for virtue to be given to them In the Office of benediction of a new Cross there is this prayer Rogamus te Domine Sancte Pater omnipotens sempiterne Deus ut digneris bene ✚ dicere hoc lignum Crucis tue ut sit remedium Salutare generi humano sit soliditas fidei profectus honorum operum redemptio animarum sit solamen protectio ac tutela contra seba jacula inimicorum Per Dominum Nostrum c. Is this prayer made in faith or no whereby they pray for such mighty benefits by a new Cross and to take away any suspicions of Metonymies and Prosopopoeia's it is said expresly hoc lignum Crucis tuae this Wood of thy Cross may be a wholsome remedy to mankind a strengthener of faith an increaser of good works the redemption of Souls a Comfort protection and Defence against the cruelty of our enemies And after such prayers allowed and used by publick Authority in the Roman Church with what conscience could the Council of Trent say that they believed no vertue in Images nor hoped for any thing from them After this the Bishop consecrates the incense and prays for many good things to come by that too then the Cross is sprinkled with Holy Water and then he incenseth it saying Sanctificetur lignum istud in nomine Pa ✚ tris Fi ✚ lii Spiritus ✚ Sancti benedictio illius ligni in quo membra sancta salvatoris suspensa sunt sit in isto ligno ut orantes inclinanresque se propter Deum ante istam cruâ—em inveniant corporis anime sanitatem Per eundem c. Then the Bishop kneels before the Cross and devoutly adores and kisses it and as many besides as please after this follows a long prayer for the sanctification of that new sign of the Cross then the Bishop kneels adores and kisses again and as many as will Then follow particular Offices for the
greatest occasion to do it in the matter of Images But when the worship of Images began to be opposed here in England by Wickliffe the defenders of it finding themselves concerned to find out every thing that made for their advantage Waldensis having heard of some such thing as a Council against Iconoclasts by Thomas and Iohn two Dominicans of his time from a certain Book he adventures to set it down upon their report but so faintly with ut fertur as if he had been telling the story of Pope Ioan and he saith it was called under the pious Emperour Constantius the second and Pascasius by which we may see what an excellent account they had of this General Council but in the last Century Pet. Crabb a Franciscan with indefatigable diligence searching five hundred Libraries for any thing pertaining to Councils lights upon the old Latin Edition of this Council and published it A. D. 1551. From that time this was looked on and magnified as the seventh General Council in these Western parts and its Authority set up by the Council of Trent and the generality of Divines finding it in the Volums of General Councils and there joyned with them search'd no farther but imagined it was alwaies so esteemed But it may be some will become confident of it when they see so good an Author as T. G. speaking with so much assurance That it hath been received for many hundred years as a lawful General Council If he speaks from the time of its being published he might as well have said for many thousand years For 1. In the Age wherein it was first sent abroad it was utterly rejected by the Council of Francford as not only appears by the Canon it self but by the confession of some of the most learned and judicious persons of the Roman Church such as Sirmondus and Petrus de Marcâ were and Petavius confesses That the Council meant by the Council of Francford was the Nicene Council and not the former of Constantinople as Surius Cope or Harpsfield Sanders Suarez and others were of opinion nay Labbé and Cossart in their late Edition of the Councils have most impudently set down this in the very Title of the Council of Francford That the Acts of the Nicene Council in the matter of Images were confirmed therein whereas Sirmondus adds this to the Title of his Admonition about the second Canon of that Council Quo rejecta est Synodus Nicaena all which Advertisement they have very honestly left out although they pretend to give all Sirmondus his Notes But the main pretence for this was because the words of the Canon do mention the Council of Constantinople which Petavius thinks was called so because Constantinople was the Head of the Eastern Empire but the plain reason is because the Nicene Council was begun at Constantinople upon the 17 of August but the Emperours Guards would not endure their sitting there as Theophanes relates upon which they were forced to rise and the Empress found out a trick to disband the suspected Officers and Souldiers and brought in new ones however it was thought convenient the Council should sit no longer there but remove unto Nice And what a mighty absurdity was this to call a Council which was begun at Constantinople the Constantinopolitan Council And it is observable that Gabriel Biel who lived in the latter end of the fifteenth Century quotes the Decree of this Council of Nice under the name of a Decree of the Council of Constantinople And the learned P. Pithaeus speaking of Anastasius his Translation calls it the Council of Constantinople The new French Annalist is satisfied with neither opinion but he thinks That another Council of Constantinople was called between the Nicene Council and that of Francford which did in express words determine that the same worship was to be given to Images which is due to the B. Trinity and that this was the Council condemned at Francford but this New Council is a meer invention of his own there being no colour for it either from the Greek or Latin Historians and in truth he pretends only to these reasons 1. Because it was a Council of Constantinople which was condemned 2. Because it is not to be supposed that the Council of Francford should condemn the Council of Nice For he saith it is not to be believed that so many Bishops the Popes Legates being present should misunderstand the doctrine of that Council yet this is all the refuge T. G. hath in this matter and he offers from Petr. de Marca to give a particular account of it To which I answer That the Author of the Caroline Book as I have already observed takes notice of this passage of the Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus and although there were a mistake in the Translation of it yet it ought to be observed that he saith the whole Council meant the same which Constantine spake out although in words they denied it and he there quotes the very words of their denying it Non adoramus Imagines ut Deum nec illis Divini servitii cultum impendimus c. From whence it is plain that the Western Church understood well enough what they said and what they denied but they judged notwithstanding all their words to the contrary that they did really give that worship to Images which was due only to God and no man that reads the Caroline Book can be of another opinion And T. G. is content to yield it of the Author of that Book from the Testimonies I brought out of him but he saith That Author was not contented with what the Council of Francford had condemned Which is a lamentable answer since Hincmarus saith That this very Volume was it which was sent from the Emperour to Rome by some Bishops against the Greek Synod and he quotes the very place out of it which is still extant in that Book And is it credible that the Emperour should publish a Book in his own name as a Capitular as Pope Hadrian calls it that was different from the sense of the Council of Francford which was called on purpose to resolve this Question about Images as well as to condemn the Heresie of Felix and Elipandus Petavius indeed would have the main Book to have been written some years before the Council as soon as the Acts of the Nicene Synod were known in these parts and Cassander probably supposes Alcuinus to have been the Author of it but when the Council of Francford had condemned the Nicene Synod only some excerpta were taken out of it and sent to the Pope I am not satisfied with Petavius his Reason Because the Pope doth not answer all of it a better cause may be assigned for that but in the Preface of the Book the Author declares that it was done with the Advice of the Council Quod opus aggressi sumus cum conhibentiâ sacerdotum
give to Images and which being given to an Image makes it Idolatry because those Acts are such which do imply a submission to the thing i. e. they are the highest expressions of adoration and those who assert that inferiour worship do hold it to be internal as well as external and to be terminated on the Images themselves which is the Reason why Vasquez saith it were Idolatry But Vasquez was not a man of so shallow an understanding to charge this upon those who declare they put off their shooes or hats out of no intention or design to worship the Ground or Place but meerly to express some outward Reverence to a Place on the account of its being Sacred to God Those who contended for that worship which Vasquez charges with Idolatry did agree with him in all external acts of adoration to Images and went farther than Vasquez thought fit as to the internal for they said both ought to concurr in the worship of Images and that this inferiour worship was terminated on the Images themselves as I have shewed at large in the stare of the Controversie Now saith Vasquez to assert and practise worship of Images after this manner is Idolatry for it is expressing our submission to a meer inanimate thing But do we say that all acts of worship are to be performed to the Ground that is holy or that any one act of worship is to be terminated upon it or that any submission of our minds is to be used towards it All these we utterly disavow as to the Reverence of Sacred Places and these things being declared we yet say there is a Reverence left to be shewed them on the account of their discrimination from other places and separation for sacred uses which Reverence is best expressed in the way most common for men to shew Respect by which was putting off Shooes in the Eastern parts and of Hats here of the difference of Reverence and worship I have spoken before I hope by this time T. G. sees a little better the force of the argument of Vasquez and how very far it is from recoiling on my head because I assert a Reverence to sacred places to have been shewed by Moses and Ioshua on the account of Gods special presence and so all that insipid Discourse of Idolatry which follows sneaks away as being ashamed to be brought in to so little purpose here but hath been fully handled in the First part 2. To his Instance of Bowing at the name of Iesus I answered that he might as well have instanced in our going to Church at the tolling of a Bell for as the one only tells us the time when we ought to go to worship God so the mentioning the name of Iesus doth only put us in mind of him to whom we owe all manner of Reverence without dishonouring him as the Object of our worship by any Image of him which can only represent that which is neither the object nor reason of our worship At this Answer T. G. is inflamed and when he hath nothing else to say he endeavours to set me at variance with the Church of England This runs quite through his Book and he takes all occasions to set me forth as a close and secret enemy to it although I appear never so much in its Vindication If my Adversaries were to be believed as I see no great reason they should be I must be a very prodigious Author in one respect for they represent me as a Friend to that which I write against viz. Socinianism and an enemy to that which I have defended viz. the Church of England But wherein is it that T. G. thinks me such a back-friend to our Church in disavowing all Reverence to the Sacred Name of Iesus which he saith our Church hath enjoyned and hath been defended by Fulk Whitgift and B. Andrews I am glad I know my charge and I do not doubt to clear my self to hold nothing in this or any other matter but what the Church of England hath declared to be her sense Witness as to this point the Declaration of the Archbishops and Bishops in Convocation When in time of Divine Service the Lord Jesus shall be mentioned due and lowly Reverence shall be done by all Persons present as hath been accustomed testifying by these outward ceremonies and gestures their inward humility Christian Resolution and due acknowledgement that the Lord Iesus Christ the true and Eternal Son of God is the only Saviour of the World Is this bowing to the very name of Iesus and worshipping that as they do Images when the Convocation declares that only a significant Ceremony is intended by it Arch-B Whitgift in the very place cited by him saith that the Christians used it to signifie their faith in Iesus and therefore they used bodily reverence at all times when they heard the name of Iesus but especially when the Gospel was read Dr. Fulk another of his Authors saith that the place alledged by T. G. to prove it pertains to the subjection of all Creatures to the Iudgement of Christ however he saith the ceremony of bowing may be used out of Reverence to his Majesty not to the bare name and that their Idolatrous worship is unfitly compared with the bowing at the name of Iesus Bishop Andrews saith we do not bow to the name but to the sense which answers and clears all the long allegation out of him Archbishop Laud calls it the Honour due to the Son of God at the mentioning of his Name which are almost the very words I used And Whittington and Meg of Westminster will altogether serve as well for his expression as that used by me But T. G. need not be so angry at my mentioning the tolling of a bell when he remembers the Christening of bells among them and what mighty Power they have after that and what Reverend God-fathers they have and what Saints names are given to them so that I should rather have thought he would have drawn an argument from the Bells than have been so disturbed at the naming of them For all this T. G. fancies a strange Analogy between Words and Pictures a picture being a word to the Eye and a word being a Picture to the Ear which sounds just like Whittington to my ears and I desire him to consider that Suarez tells us that some of their own Divines say no worship is due to any Name because they signifie only by imposition and do not supply the place of the thing represented as Images do of which opinion he saith Soto and Corduba are and Suarez himself grants that a name being a transient sound can hardly be apprehended as conjoyned with the Person or the Person in it so as to be worshipped together with it And one of their latest Ritualists saith that when the name of Iesus is mentioned they bow to the Crucifix which shews that even among them they do not