Catholicks no idolaters, or, A full refutation of Doctor Stillingfleet's unjust charge of idolatry against the Church of Rome.

CHAP. V.

Worship unlawful by the Light of Nature, equally unlawful to Jews and Christians. A strange Paradox advanced by Dr. Stil∣lingfleet, viz. What can an Image do to the heightning of Devotion, or raising Affe∣ctions? How far his Devotion to the Sun may be allowed in the Judgment of St. Leo.

§. 1. FRom the Notions of the Wiser Heathens concerning the Wor∣ship of Images, he passes to the Clearer Discoveries of the Gospel, S. 7. and wonders as at a thing of all things the most strange to him, that any Persons should think this Precept onely respected the Jewish Oecono∣my; and he repeats his wonder in a higher strain, p. 67. when he asks, How any men in their Sense•• can imagine that Worship to be law∣ful among Christians, which was unlawful to the Jews? It seems he wanted an Adver∣sary to combate, and rather than lay down his Weapons, he was resolved to make one, though of empty Air: For there is not one word in the Reply (which he pretends to answer) to signifie that the Author of it

ever look'd upon this Precept as a meer po∣sitive Law; (which by his wondering he would make his Reader believe) but the quite contrary. For the meaning of the Law there given, is this, That what God forbids in it, is, to give his Worship to Idols; which Prohibition being but an Explication of the Law of Nature, must equally oblige both Jews and Christians. Yet to speak to a Point, the occasion of so much wonder. What Worship is it he means was unlawful to the Jews, and is lawful to Christians? Was it to worship God by some Symboli∣cal Figures instituted to raise their Minds to a more lively apprehension of Gods Ma∣jesty and Glory? No; for this the Jews did by bowing down before the Ark and the Cherubins; and very lawfully they did it, as appears by David's exhorting them to bow or fall down before the footstool of God, Psal. 98. Or was it to worship God by some Corporeal Representation conceiv'd as Proper to his Nature? This he hath been told before, is no less unlawful to Christians now, than it was formerly to the Jews, but rather more, by reason of the clearer know∣ledge they have of the Nature of God. What Worship then does he mean? Pray take it in his own words, and make the best on't you can. God's being a Spirit, is given, saith he, as a particular Reason why we ought

to worship him after a spiritual manner, and not by any Corporeal Representation, as the Jews said the Samaritans worshipped God in the form of a Dove. This is what he saith; and if his words be to be taken with rela∣tion to what the Samaritans did, he ought first to have told us what that was; For as it appears from Scripture, 4 Kings 17. 33. they made an erroneous Conceit of God, because they worshipped him together with the Gods of the Assyrians, and as One of Many, though the Best of the Company; which neither the Jews did, nor Christians (I hope) do, but as the onely true God. But if his words must be taken without that respect, as they make up an Antecedent and Conse∣quence, viz. God is a Spirit, therefore we ought to worship him after a spiritual manner, and not by any Corporeal Representation what∣soever: As the Consequence will hold as well against worshipping God by any Corporeal Gesture or Ceremony, as by an Image; So the giving him Worship by any Corporeal Re∣presentation (supposing the Law not to be meerly Positive, but Natural, and the Con∣sequence good) was, and is alike unlawful both to Jews and Christians. But in case there were a particular Prohibition given to the Jews (by reason of their proneness to Idolatry) of not making any Image or likeness for Worship, though of

God himself, the Law as to that part is evin••'d to be only Ceremonial, from their be∣ing dispens'd with, in the making and use of the Ark and Cherubins, and so not obliging Christians, but manifestly inferring, that the use of Images (abstracting from such a posi∣tive Prohibition) is not unlawful. From hence it appears how incongruous his com∣parison is between the use of Images and Com∣mon Swearing: This being of its own nature evil, and always dangerous; That not such; nor dangerous in Christians, who are imbued from their Infancy, with a more clea•• and perfect knowledge of the Nature of God, than ever the Wiser Heathens attained to by the Light of Reason, or the Jews by the Law of Moses. Yet is not their state so spiri∣tual as to put them quite out of their Sen∣ses. The Maxim of the Philosopher holds still good with them, That nothing enters into their Understanding, but what passes first by the Gates of their Senses, and no Operation of the Sight (the quickest of them) is performed without an Image.

§. 2. Hitherto the Doctor hath been very careful to make his Reader believe him seri∣ous; but who can imagine him to be so, when he advances that strange Paradox, p. 68. What can such an Image, (that is, to use his own phrase, a Block or a ••ewn∣stone, representing God to his mind) What can

such an Image, saith he, do to the heightning of Devotion, or raising Affections? And he means not onely an Image of the Deity by way of Likeness, or Analogy, or Union; eve∣ry one of which, he saith, tends highly to the dishonour of the Deity, and suggests mean thoughts to us of the God we are to worship, but also of the Images of Christ our Lord, made to represent his Humane Nature with respect to his Worship; as is evident by his applau∣ding the Constantinopolitan Fathers for con∣demning it as a great Absurdity, (p. 79.) the reason whereof he seems to give in this place, when he immediately addes, And is there no danger among Christians, that they should entertain too low and unworthy thoughts of God? And can any thing tend to it more effectually, than the bringing down the Repre∣sentations of him to the Figure and Lineaments of a Man, drawn upon a Table, or carved in an Image? Thus He; And if he be seri∣ous, what can I do but admire the thrice-happy state of these men, who living in the Body as out of the Body, (it is so spiritua∣liz'd by continual Praying, Fasting, and other Macerations) can mount at pleasure into the Third Heaven, and need not the as∣sistance of any visible Representations to raise them to the knowledge of the Invisible and Incomprehensible Deity? This, I confess, is a state more to be admired, than ever to be

hoped for) in this life, by the greater part of the Children of Adam. And therefore God, to lead man to the knowledge of Him, by means proportionable to his Nature; (which, as I said, is to derive its knowledge from the Senses) created the stately Machin of this visible World, to serve as a Hierogly∣phick of his Greatness and Power. Next, ha∣ving chosen a peculiar People to his Service, although he forbad them to make the like∣ness of any of those things he had created, to worship them for Gods; yet he comman∣ded Moses (Exod. 25. 10, 17, 18.) to place in the Temple where they were to worship him, a representation of his Footstool and Throne (the Ark and the Propitiatory) with two Cherubins of beaten Gold attending on each side of the Seat, to raise their thoughts to a more venerable apprehension of his Majesty and Greatness. Lastly, the fulness of time being come, in which he would shew the excess of his mercy towards Man∣kind, he was pleased (as S. Paul saith, Phil. 2. 7.) to take upon him the form of a Servant, and be made in the likeness of Man, that is, to become indeed true Man, not onely to work our Redemption by shedding his most precious Blood, but also by that visible form (as the Church sings upon the day of his Nativity) to carry, or rather ravish our hearts to the contemplation of his Invisible Deity, Ut

dum visibiliter Deum cognoscimus, per hunc ad invisibilia rapiamur. And if this were the means made choice of by God himself, as most efficacious (because most connatural) to conduct us to the knowledge and love of Him; then certainly the Pictures or Images of his Nativity, Passion, Resurrection, &c. which serve to put us in mind of what he did and suffered for us in that form of a Ser∣vant, cannot but conduce very much to work the like effects in us. And after all this, can any man (not to use his own phrase, in his Senses, but) who is serious, ask, What can such an Image do to the heightning of Devo∣tion, or raising Affections? S. Gregory Nis∣sen says of himself, (Orat. de Deitate Filii & Spiritus Sancti) That he often beheld, but never without Tears, the Picture of Abra∣ham ready to sacrifice his Son Isaac; though but a rep••esentation onely of a Type of the Son of God upon the Altar of the Cross: And can any man, whose heart is not of Stone, behold attentively the Image of his dying Saviour himself with his Hands and Feet Nailed to the Cross, and not be touched with a sense of Devotion towards Him? Sure∣ly he must have lost the notion of Humane Nature who can soberly affirm, that the ma∣king such an Image with respect to His Wor∣ship, tends highly to the dishonour of the Deity, and suggests mean thoughts to us of the God we

are to worship: unless to remember that he dyed for us, be to think meanly and dishonour∣ably of him. But whither will not a Reso∣lution to maintain an Errour once espoused, hurry the subtillest Wit? The Doctor's eager∣ness to make us Idolaters, had made him fancy that where God forbids to give his Wor∣ship to Idols, he forbad to make any Image with respect to his own Worship: and this forced him (for I cannot believe he did it without force to his own thoughts) to assert that an Image can do nothing to the heightning of Devotion, or raising Affections. If he think I strain his words too far, (though no farther than what his discourse gives me cause to do) let him vindicate himself by professing candidly, that the Images of Christ according to his Humane Nature, may serve to raise our Affections, and heighten our Devo∣tion to him as God. But then he must re∣nounce the patronage of his Constantinopoli∣tan Fathers, and retract or answer his own Reason, that if this be done by calling to our mind the Being we are to worship, there must be supposed some Likeness, or Analogy, or Union between the Object represented and the Image, every one of which tends highly to the disho∣nour of the Deity, and suggests mean thoughts to us of the God we are to worship: and parti∣cularly that among Christians nothing can tend more effectually to it, than the bringing down

the representations of him to the figure and li∣neaments of a man drawn upon a Table, or car∣ved upon an Image. But what ought we not to do to free our selves from Mistake, much more from Errour? The Mistake at present (if I may give it so gentle a name) lies in this, That he considers not, that if one thing hath connexion with, or analogy to another, although Invisible, when the former is represented to a Person that understands the analogy or connexion there is between them, it is apt to bring to his re∣membrance the later. Hence it is, that although the Soul of man cannot be drawn in colours, yet when the Body to which it is united, is represented in Picture, the Re∣presentation serves as a means to bring to our minds the Perfections or Graces of the Soul which informs it; and not to bring them down (as against Nature and Experience he a••firms) to the figure and lineaments of a Body drawn upon a Table, or carved in an Image. Had the rest of Mortals been imbued with this Principle, they had never caused either their Pictures or Images to be made, lest they might be occasion to their Friends, from whom they expected Love and Ho∣nour, to entertain too l••w and unworthy thoughts of them. Much less ought Princes to permit any Chair of State to be placed in the Presenc•• Chamber, for fear of bringing

down the representations of them to the un∣couth figure of four or five sticks put awk∣wardly together. But this is not all.

§. 3. On this account, he saith (p. 59.) it seems much more reasonable for him to worship God by prostrating himself before the Sun, or any of the Heavenly Bodies; nay to an Ant or a Fly, than to a Picture or an Image. And I have more kindness for him, if he should do it, than to suppose him therefore (as he supposes himself, p. 70.) to be a Heathen Idolater, unless he take the Sun for a God. Philosophy and Experience having given me so much insight into the nature of humane actions, as to know they go whither they are intended; and Religion so much Charity, as to believe his intent was onely to worship the true God by it. But why does it seem much more reasonable for him to worship God, by pro∣strating to the Sun, nay to an Ant, or a Fly, than to a Picture or an Image? The reason, he says, is, because in those he sees great evi∣dences of the Power, and Wisdom, and Good∣ness of God, which may suggest venerable ap∣prehensions of God to his mind, (so then now it seems that analogy doth not always tend highly to the dishonour of the Deity, nor suggest mean thoughts to us of the God we are to worship) whereas a Picture or an Image can have nothing worthy admiration, unless it be the Skill of the 〈…〉〈…〉.

If this be the reason, he ought in my Judgment to have given the precedence to the Ant and the Fly, (or to the Ape, the Ass, and the Tyger, brought in by him in a former comparison) for all these have two degrees of Perfection beyond the Sun, viz. Life and Sense. If the danger be, that he is more like to take an Ant o•• an Ape, by rea∣son of their greater Excellency, for God, than the Sun, (the reason suppos'd by him∣self why we chuse rather to worship God by an Image, than by the Sun) on that account (to let him feel the force of his own Argument, if it have any) that which deserves most ho∣nour should have least given it, and that which deserves least, should have most. For the dan∣ger is there still greater, where the Excellency is greater, and by that means we ought rather to worship (he says to us, a Beast than a Saint; I say to him) the Earth than the Sun; for there is less danger of believing one to be God, than the other. But to return to his former words.

§ 4. Is there nothing then in a Picture worthy admiration, besides the Skill of the Painter or Ar∣tificer? I dare avouch for the greater part of Ladies, who sit for their Pictures, that they do it not purely to beget in the Behol∣ders an admiration of the Painter; and those who procure an Author's Picture to be set before his Book, intend, no doubt, that

those who fix their eyes upon it, should ad∣mire something besides the Skill of the En∣graver. I have my self a Picture of a Friend which gives me occasion frequently to admire the great Endowments of his Mind, but not at all the Hand that did it, it is so rudely done. Something then there is in Pictures besides the Skill of the Painter, which may make them worthy, if not of admiration for the excellency of the work; at least of use, for their quick suggesting to our Mind, not onely the outward Features, but also the in∣ward Graces of the Persons they represent. This virtue they have from their more ex∣press representation and likeness, even above other things, which have a greater resem∣blance in natural perfections; and this is one Reason why we make use of them so frequent∣ly since God was made Man, because they bring Him more immediately to our Mind, than either the Sun, or an Ant, or a Fly. And this may be the Reason (if I may have leave to suggest one) why Dr. St. Himself prefers the Sun for a Help to his Devotion, before an Ant or a Fly, though inferiour to them by two degrees in perfection; because amongst corporeal things, Light is the pu∣test, and conceived by us to be likest to a Spirit. But to prefer them all, and with them the Ape, the Ass, and the Tyger, before an Image, because they have greater natural

perfections than an Image hath, may (if it prevail in the World) quite undo the Com∣pany of Picture-drawers in a little time. For if it shall be made appear much more reasonable to make use of what approaches nearer in perfection, than likeness, the Ladies may come instead of the Pictures of their Friends, to wear Ants and Flies in Crystal Cases upon their Brests: and instead of their own Pictures to send them the Apes and As∣ses he brought in so lamely in his former Comparison, I and his Tygers too, when they can catch them, as greater resem∣blances of their Perfections. Perhaps he'll say, he speaks not of the Perfections of these Creatures, as barely such, but as great eviden∣ces to him of the Power and Wisdom and Good∣ness of God. But how many are there in the World not so Philosophical and Contempla∣tive as he is, who think more how to free themselves from the importunity of the Ants and Flies, and from the heat of the Sun, than to consider their perfections as great evidences of the Wisdom, &c. of God; and yet if they come into a place where a Crucifix is, are presently put in mind of God, and testifie the venerable apprehension they have of him, by bowing their Knee, or put∣ting off their Hats? If he find his Devotion more inflam'd by the light and heat of the Sun, and the motions of those little Beasts,

than by an Image, much good may it do him. But this ought not to prescribe to the Gene∣rality of Christians, who I believe experi∣ence more frequent and more venerable thoughts of God suggested to their Minds by the sight of a Crucifix, than by seeing the Sun, with all the Ants and Flies in the World. 'Tis not the nearer approach in perfection, even in the effect, that brings us always soonest and surest to the knowledge of the cause. We see many Fathers are not known by their Sons, who yet are pre∣sently known by their Pictures. And Athe∣ists deny the perfections of the Creatures to be any evidences at all of that Being we call God: but cannot deny a Crucifix to repre∣sent to their own thoughts, that Person whom we believe to be God. Pictures then we see have an advantage in represent∣ing, above the Creatures; though in natu∣ral perfections they be inferiour to them. But yet for all this,

§. 5. He says, He cannot for his Heart un∣derstand, why he may not as well, nay better burn Incense, and say his Prayers to the Sun, having an intention onely to honour the true God by it, as to do both these to an Image. And the reason is still the same, because he is sure the Sun hath far more advantages than any Ar∣tificial Image can have, and the beauty and in∣fluence of it may inflame and warm ones De∣votion

much more. I am sure too, the Sun hath far more advantages than any material word can have, even the Name of JESUS either written or spoken; and yet I do not find the beauty and influence of the Sun to in∣flame and warm ones Devotion so much as the hearing or reading of that Sacred Name. But I perceive he hath a particular Devotion to the Sun (though it have less advantages than an Ant or a Fly) and therefore must warn him in Charity, not to say his Prayers to it, no more than we do to Images, (as he very well knows, though he would make his Reader believe the contrary) for that were to terminate his Intention upon the Sun, to put his trust in it, and make it his God; but as for his bowing to it, with intent to wor∣ship the true God, (or burning Incense, using it, as it is used by the Church, for a Cere∣mony of like nature with bowing) he may have a Resolution of the Case, how far it may be allowed him, from the Pen of that Great and Learned Doctor S. Leo: and for his farther satisfaction I shall take the pains to transcribe his words.

From that Opinion (saith S. Leo, Serm. in Natal. Dom.) viz. That the life of Man is governed by the Stars, that Impiety also takes its rise, which is used by some who are less wise, to adore the Sun at his Rising from some eminent place. A thing which some Chri∣stians

think they do so religiously in the obser∣vance of it, that before they enter into the Church of S. Peter the Apostle, which is de∣dicated to the One true and living God, they go up to the top of the Church, and turning themselves to the rising Sun, with low obey∣sance bow down themselves in honour of that Illustrious Planet. Which we are exceeding∣ly grieved to see done, partly out of igno∣rance, and partly out of a Heathenish spirit. Because although some perchance do worship the Creator rather of that fair Light, than the Light it self which is a Creature; ne∣vertheless they ought to abstain from the very show of such a kind of Service, which when some new Convert, who hath forsaken the Worship of false Gods, shall find exhibited to the Sun by the more ancient Professors of Christianity, will be induced to retain that part of his old Opinion as probable or allowa∣ble, which he shall see to be common both to Christians and Heathens. Let the Faithful therefore abstain from so perverse and wor∣thy-to-be-condemned a Custom; nor let the honour due to God alone, be mixed with their Rites who serve the Creatures; for the H. Scripture saith, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him onely shalt thou serve, Matth. 4.

This is the Resolution of that Ancient and Learned Father, at a time, whenas yet there were some Re∣liques

of Paganism remaining in the World. And from it the Doctor may infer, That if he do not say his Prayers to the Sun, but onely bow down, or use some external signification of honour of the like nature, not out of ignorance, or a Paga∣nish spirit, but with intent to worship the True God, in such sort as not to give scandal to the weaker Brethren, it may pass for a piece of private Devotion in a Person so Philosophical and Contempla∣tive as I judge him to be. And this is all which Vasques (so much accused by him, p. 129.) doth teach; for as for pub∣lick and promiscuous adoring of Crea∣tures, he condemneth it as undecent and scandalous, say∣ing expresly, that Indiscrimi∣natim creaturas adorandas pro∣ponere, esset multis manifesta causa periculi. If he ask me yet again, Why he may not do this as well, nay better to the Sun, than to an Image, since he is sure the Sun hath far more advantages than any Artificial Image? I think I may ask him, why he may not as well, nay better put off his Hat to one of the Lyons in the Tower, with intent to honour the King, as do it to his Pi∣cture, or the Chair of State; since I am sure the Lyon in his Sense hath far more ad∣vantage than any Artificial Image or Fi∣gure

can have; the Majesty and Generosity of the King of Beasts, may suggest more venerable apprehensions to him of the King he is to honour. But, to answer what for his heart he says he cannot under∣stand, and give him a clear Solution of his Scruple, I must desire him to consi∣der, that although the Creatures do re∣present God after their manner, yet it is so rudely, remotely, darkly, and imper∣fectly, that there is need of a great deal of discourse to discover the Analogy or Proportion they bear to their Creator; They are called Gods Foot-steps, and to gather the height and bigness of Hercu∣cules from his Foot-step, was not the work of every Vulgar Capacity. Where∣as an Image (for example) of Christ, is so apparently representative of him, that upon sight thereof our thoughts fly pre∣sently unto him: and his Picture is no sooner in our Eyes, than his Person by imagination in our Mind: and conse∣quently the likeness it bears to Him, is much more apt to inflame and warm ones Devotion, than the beauty and influence of the Sun. Besides, that the Creatures being subsistent in themselves, and evidently the Causes of many great benefits to Mankind, the danger is greater of terminating Wor∣ship upon them, than upon an Image, whose

formal Being consisting in Representation onely, connaturally carries our Thoughts and Affections to the Person represented by it. By what hath been said, he may see how far the Defence he makes for himself (p. 70.) by his abusive application of the distinction of Dulia and Hyperdulia, and of Supream and Relative Worship, in case he should bow down to the Sun, with intent to worship the true God, will bear him out. If he go farther, and (as he states the case him∣self) pay his Devotions to the Sun as a subser∣vient and ministerial God, though with subor∣dination to the Supream Deity; at his peril be it: For that which possibly would justifie his worshipping of God by the Sun, will most certainly not justifie his worshipping the Sun for a God.

Notes

• Lib. 3. de adorat. c. 1.