A vindication of the Animadversions on Fiat lux wherein the principles of the Roman church, as to moderation, unity and truth are examined and sundry important controversies concerning the rule of faith, papal supremacy, the mass, images, &c. discussed / by John Owen.

CHAP. 21.

Images. Doctrine of the Council of Trent. Of the second Nicene. The Arguments for the Adoration of Images. Doctrine of the antient Church. Of the chief Doctrine of the Roman Church. Practice of the whole. Vain foundations of the pretences for Image Worship examined and disproved.

YOur next procedure is to your Discourse of Figures or Images, and my Animadversions up∣on it. And here you say, you will come up close un∣to me; you mean in replying unto what I delive∣red about it; But Sir, I thought this had been con∣trary to your design; You professed at the be∣ginning of your Epistle that it was so, and have made good use of that declaration of your self, by avoiding every thing in my discourse that you found your self pressed with, and too difficult a task for you to deal withal. Why do you now begin to forget your self and to cast off the pre∣tence you have hitherto shaddowed your self under, and excused your self by from tergiversation? Surely you think you are upon this head able to say somewhat to the purpose, which you despaired of doing upon others of as great importance, and therefore now you may argue and dispute, which before the design of your Fiat would not permit you to do. As far as I can observe, you speak nothing at any time but what you think is at pre∣sent for your turn. But whether it have any con∣sistency with that which elsewhere you have deli∣vered, you make it not much your concernment to enquire. But we shall quickly see whether you had

any just ground of encouragement to harness your self, and to come up, as you speak, close to me in this business or no. It may be before the close of our Discourse you will begin to think it had been as well for you to have persisted in your former avoidance, as to make this profession of a close di∣spute; and whatever you pretend to the contrary, really you have done so. You hide the opinion and practice of your Church about the Worship of Ima∣ges which you seem to be ashamed of, instead of defending them; and except against some passages in my Animadversions instead of answering the whole, which you seem to pretend unto. I shall therefore declare what is the true judgement of your Church in this matter, and then vindicate the passages of my Discourse which you take notice of in your ex∣ceptions, and under both heads declare the abomina∣tion of your faith and practice in your Doctrine about Images and Worship of them.

The Doctrine of your Church in this matter I sup∣pose we may be acquainted with from the Determi∣nations of your Councils, the explication of your most famous Doctors, the Practice of your people, and the distinctions used by you to quit your selves from Idolatry in your Doctrine and Practice. And you will thereby learn, or may at lest to what pur∣pose it is for you to seek to palliate and hide the deformity of that which your Mother and her wise men have made naked to all the world.

Your Council of Trent is very wary in this matter, as it was in most of its other affairs: and indeed seeing it was resolved not to give place to the Truth, it became it so to be, that it might keep any footing in the minds of men, and not tumble headlong into contempt and reproach. Many difficulties it had to

wrestle withal. It saw the practice of their Church which was not totally to be deserted, least the great mysterie of its Infallibility should be impaired, and its nakedness laid open: the general complaint on the other side of learned and sober men, that under a pretence of Image Worship as horrible Idolatry was brought into the Church of God, as ever was practiced amongh the Heathen, did not a little per∣plex it. It had also the various and contradictory opinions of the great Doctors of your Church, and Masters of your Faith about the kind of Worship which is due to Images, all which had great follow∣ers ready to dispute endlesly in the maintenance of their several conceits. Amidst these rocks and op∣positions, the Fathers found no way to sail safely, but by the help of general and ambiguous words; a course which in the like difficulties had frequently before stood them in good stead. Wherefore they so expressed themselves, that no party at variance among them might think their opinions condemned, that the general practice of their Church might be countenanced, and yet no particular asserted that was most obnoxious to the exceptions of the Lu∣therans. Thus then they speak, Imagines porro Chri∣sti, Deiparae Virginis & aliorum Sanctorum in Tem∣plis praeertim habendas & retinendas; eis{que} debitum honorem & venerationem impertiendam, non quod credatur—quoniam honos qui eis exhibetur refertur ad Prototypa, quae illae representant; with much more to that purpose. And we may observe, That the Decree speaks only of the Images of Christ, the bles∣sed Virgin, and other Saints, not expresly mentioning the Images of God the Father, of the Trinity, and of the Holy Ghost, nor of Angels, which they knew to be made, and to be had in veneration in their

Church, nor do they anywhere reject the use, make∣ing, or worshipping of them. Yea in their follow∣ing words they do plainly allow of the figuring of the Deity. Quod, say they, si aliquando historias & narrationes 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Scripturae cum id indoctae plebi ex∣pediet exprimi & figurari contigerit, doceatur popu∣lus, non 〈◊〉〈◊〉 divinitatem figurari quasi corporeis oculis consp••i, vel coloribus aut figuris exprimi pos∣sit. The words are as most of the rest in this par∣ticu••ar, as an big••ous as the Oracles of Delphos. This cannot be denyed to be in them however, That the unlearned people are to be taught, that the Deity is not painted or figured, as though it could be seen or ex∣pressed by colours, but for some other end, as it seems for their instruction; which indeed is honest and fair dealing; for they plainly tell them that by their pictures they teach them lyes; the language of the Picture being, that God may be so pictured, where∣by all your pictures and Images of God the Father as an old man, of the Trinity as one person with three faces, and the Holy Ghost as a Dove, are approved. 2. Religious Worship of Images is confirmed, due honour and veneration or worship is to be given unto them, saith the Council. Now it is not mutual com∣plement they are discoursing about. There is no such intercourse between their Images and them or∣dinarily, though sometimes civil salutations have passed between them; Nor is it any token of Civil Subjection, for Images have no eminency or autho∣rity of that kind; but it is divine or religious vene∣ration, and worship which they affirm is to be assigned unto them. 3. They say that due honour and vene∣ration that is religious, is to be assigned unto them; but what in especial that honour and worship is, they do not determine; whither it be the same that is

due to the s••mplar as some, the most of your Di∣vines think, or whether it be an honour of some inferiour nature as others contend, pugnant ipsi ne po∣tesq, the Synod leaves them where it found them, sufficiently at variance among themselves. 4. They further assert the worship that is given by them to Images to be religious or divine; in that they affirm the honour done to the Image, is refer••ed un•••• ••he Prototype which it doth represent. Now suppose this be Jesus Christ himself; I suppose that they will grant that all the honour we yield to him by any way or means is divine or religious, and therefore so con∣sequently that which they would have to be given unto his Image, (that is a stock or stone which they fancy so to be) must be so a••so. Now Sir, you may see from hence, what it is that you are to speak unto and to defend, or else to hold your peace in this matter. And I shall yet make it a little more plain unto you. Your Trent Council approves and commends the second Council of Nice as that which taught and confirmed that Doctrine and practice about Images, and their Worship which your Church allows. I shall therefore briefly let you know what was the judgement of that Council, and what was the Do∣ctrine and Practice confirmed in it, under many dreadful Anathematisms.

This Second of Nice, or Pseudo-Synod of the Greeks, as it is called by the Council of Frankford, whereunto we are sent by the Tridentine Fathers to be instructed in the due Worship of Images, was assembled by the Au∣thority of Irene the Empress, a proud imperious wo∣man, & her Son Constantine, whose eys she afterwards put out, and thrust him into a Monastery in the year, 490. Tharasius was then Patriarch of Constantinoples and Hadrian the first Bishop or Pope of Rome. This

man most zealously or superstitiously addicted unto the worship of Images, and that contrary to the judgement of most of the Western Churches, as soon afterwards appeared in the Council holden at Frank∣ford, by the Authority of Charls the Great, had a particular advantage both over the Empress and the Patriarch of Constantinople. The Eastern Empire being then greatly weakened by its own intestine divisions, and pressed on all sides by the Saracens, the Empress began to entertain some hopes of re∣lies from the French in the West, whose power was then grown very great: and to that end sollicited a marriage for her Son with the daughter of Charls the great; and supposed that she might be helped therein by the mediation of Hadrian: the Bishops of Rome having no small hand in the promotion of the attempt of Pipin and Charls the Great for the Crown of France, and afterwards for the conquest of Italy and Germany. And besides, she was a wo∣man her self zealously addicted to that kind of su∣perstition which Hadrian had espoused, as having in the time of Leo her Husband kept her Images in private, contrary unto what she had solemnly sworn unto her Father, as Credenus relates in his Annals. As for Tarasius, he was contrary to all Ecclesiastical Canons, of a meer Lay-man at once per saltum made Patriarch of Constantinople, which Hadrian upon his first hearing of, greatly exclaimed against, and re∣fused to receive him into the society of Patriarchs upon his sending of his significatory Epistle. This is fully declared in the Epistle of Hadrian extant in the Acts of the Council. But yet afterwards bethink∣ing himself how usefull this man might be unto his design in getting the worship of Images established in the East, he declares that if he will use means to

get the Heresie as he called it of the Image-opposers ex∣tirpated, and their veneration established, he would consent to his Election and Consecration, or else not. Finding how the matter was like to go with him, this Lay-Patriarch undertakes the work and effectually prosecutes it in this Synod assembled at Nice by the Authority of Irence the Empress and her Son Constantine. But by the way, when the Coun∣cil was assembled, he omitted not the opportunity of improving his own interest, getting himself stiled Oecumenical, or Vniversal Patriarch, which Anastasius Bibliothecarius in his dedication of his Translation of the Acts of this Convention unto John the eighth, bewayles, and ascribes it unto the flattery of the Greeks. The frauds, forgeries and follies of this Council, and ignorance and dotage of the Fathers of it, have been sufficiently by others discovered. Our present concernment is only to enquire, First, What they taught concerning Image Worship: and Secondly, How they proved what they taught, seeing unto them we are sent by the Tridentine Decree to be instructed in your faith in this mat∣ter.

First, They make the having and use of Images in the Worship of God of indispensible necessity, so that they anathematize and cast out of the Commu∣nion of the Church, all that refuse to receive and use them according to their prescript. Yea, they proceed so far as in their approbation of the Con∣fession of Theodosius the Bishop of Ammoria, as to denounce an Anathema against them that do but doubt of their reception: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: so he closeth his Confession which they all approve as Orthodox, Anathema to them

that are ambiguous or doubtful in their minds, and do not confess with their hearts (ex animo) that Sacred Images are to be worshipped; wherein they and and you with them add Schism to their Idolatry, casting out of the Churches those who offend nei∣ther against the Gospel, nor the determination of any General Council of old; making the Rule of your Communion to consist in a sorry piece of Will-worship of your own invention; which dou∣bles the crime of your Superstition, and layes an in∣tolerable intanglement upon the Consciences of men, which are perswaded from the Scripture, that they shall be accursed of God if they do re∣ceive Images into his Worship, after the manner of your prescription.

Secondly, They affirm an hundred times over, that Images are religiously to be adored and worship∣ped, that is, with Divine Worship. So in the Con∣fession of the same Theodosius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and so of the rest: I confess, con∣sent unto, receive, embrace or salute, I wor∣ship or adore the Image of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Blessed Virgin, and of the Apostles and Mar∣tyres. The same is affirmed in the Epistle of Hadrian recited in the second Act of the Synod, which they all approve; and afresh curse all them that dogmatize or teach any thing against that worship of Images. And Gregory the Monk no small man amongst them, affirms that he hoped by his Confession of this Do∣ctrine he believed, he should obtain the forgiveness of his sins, Act. 2. And John who falsly pretended himself to be delegated from the Oriental Patriarchs, when he was sent only by a few ignorant Monks of Palestine, prefers Images above the Word its

self, Act. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; an Image is greater then the word; and again 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, honourable Images are equivalent to the Gospel. And they prove the wor∣ship they intend to be divine by their wise explica∣tion of that Text, The Lord thy God shalt thou wor∣ship, and him only shalt thou serve, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Vnto the Word Thou shalt serve, only is subjoyned, but not un∣to the word Worship; so that it is lawfull to worship (Images) but not to serve them. A wise business! but it discovers sufficiently what is the worship which they ascribe unto Images, even the same that is given unto God; for if we may believe them, other things are not excluded from Communion with God in this matter of worship and adoration. Whence the Council of Frankeford doth expresly charge them, that they taught that Images were to be adored with the honour due to God, Act. 4. And so much weight do they lay upon this devotion that they approve the Councel given by Theodorus the Abbot unto the Monk whom the Devil vexed with temptations for worshipping the Image of Christ, who told him that he had better resort to all the Stews in the Town, then cease worshipping of Christ in his Image; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: it seems it was uncleaness that the Devil tempted him unto, as well knowing that Spiritual and Corporal fornication commonly go together.

Thirdly, In every Session they instance in some particulars wherein the Adoration of Images which they professed did consist; as in particular in reli∣gious saluting of them, kissing of them, bowing be∣fore

them, and so adoring of them. To this pur∣pose their words are very express. Now all these were ever esteemed tokens, pledges and expressions of Religious or Divine Worship, and were the very wayes whereby the Heathen of old expressed their veneration of their Images and Idols. Job intimating the way whereby they worshipped the Sun, Moon, and host of Heaven, which crimes he denyes himself to be guilty of, tells us, that when he considered the Sun and the Moon, his heart did not seduce him that he should put his hand to his mouth, that is to salute them; for this, saith he, had been to deny God above, Job 31. 26, 27. As Catullus,

Constiteram Solem exorientem sorte salutans, Cum subito à laeva Roscius exoritur.

He stood saluting, or worshipping the rising Sun. And that also was their meaning in kissing of them, or kissing their hands in saluting of them, Hos. 13. 2. Let them kiss the Calves, that is worship them; ex∣press their religious adoration of them by that outward sign. As Cicero in Ver. 4. Herculis simulacrum non solum venerari, sed etiam osculari soliti fuerunt. So Minutius Felix tells us, that his companion Caecilius coming where the Image of Serapis was set up, admovit manum ori & osculum labris pressit, put his hand to his mouth and kissed it, as worship∣ping of it. And for creeping, kneeling, or bowing, it is so certain an evidence of Divine Worship, that all Worship both false and Idolatrous or true, is oftentimes expressed thereby. So the worship∣ping of Baal, is called bowing the knee to Baal. They that bowed the knee unto him or his Image, in their so doing worshipped him, 1 Kings 19. 18. Rom. 11. 4. And where God promiseth to bring all Nations to

the worship of himself he sayes, they shall bow the knee to him, Rom. 14. 11. So that these are all ex∣pressions of Religious worship, and they are all ac∣cursed over and over by the Council, who do not by these means express their worship of Images. This is the Doctrine, this is the practice which the Tri∣dentine decree aprroves of, and sends us to learn of the second Synod of Nice. And this they express in most places, in those very termes, that were used by the Pagans in the worship of their Idols, making in∣deed no distinction, but that whereas the Pagans worshipped the images of Jupiter and Minerva and the like, they in the like manner worshipped the Images of Christ and his Apostles. And therefore in the Indies, the Catholick Spaniards took away the Zemes or Images of their Idols, that the poor natives had before, and gave them the Images of Christ and his Mother in their stead.

This being the Doctrine of the Council it may not be amiss to consider a little how they proved and con∣firmed it. Two things they principally insisted on. 1. Testimonies of Scripture. 2. Miracles. Some sayings also they produced out of some antient wri∣ters of the Church, but all of them either perverted or forged. The Scriptures they insisted on were all of them gathered togethered in the Epistle of Pope Hadrian, which was solemnly assented unto by the whole Council. And they were they these. God made man of the dust of the Earth after his own Image, Gen. 1. Abel by his own choise offered a Sacrifice unto God of the first lings of his flock, Gen. 4. Adam of his own mind called all the beasts of the field by their proper names, Gen. 2. Noah of his own accord built an altar unto the Lord, Gen. 8. Abraham of his own free will erected an altar to the Glory of God, Gen. 11. Jacob

having seen in his sleep seen the Angels of God ascend∣ing and descending by the ladder, set up the stone on which his head lay for a pillar, Gen. 28. And again, he worshipped on the top of his staffe, Gen. 29. Moses made the brasen Serpent, and the Cherubims; Esaiah, saith in those dayes there shall be an Altar unto the Lord, and it shall be for a sign and a Testimony, Chap. 19. Da∣vid the Psalmist sayes, Confession and beauty are before him; and again, Lord I have loved the beauty of thine house. And again, Thy face Lord will I seek, Psal. 26, And again, The rich among the people shall bow them∣selves before thy face, Psal. 44. And again, The light of thy Countenance is signed or lifted up upon us, Psal. 4. Si hoc non sit testimoniorum satis, ego nescio quid sit satis: he must be very refractory, and de∣serve a world of Anathematismes that is not con∣vinced by all these testimonies, that Images ought to be worshiped. But, quod non dant proceres, dabit Histrio; if the Scripture will not do it, Miracles shall: Of these we have an endless number heaped up by the good fathers to prove their Doctrine, and justi∣fie their practice. The worst is that Tharasius almost spoiles the market, by acknowledging that the images in their dayes would work none of the miracles they talked of, so that they had them all upon hearesay, Act. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But if any should say, Why do our images work no mira∣cles? to them we answer, because as the Apostles saith Signes are for unbelievers, not for them that believe. And yet the misadventure of it is, that the most of the Miracles which they report and build their faith up∣on, were wrought as by so amongst their chiefest be∣lievers. And what were the Miracles themselves

they boasted of? such a heap of trash, such a fardle of lyes, as the like were scarce ever heaped together, unless it were in the Golden Legend. Hadrian insists on the leprosie and cure of Constantine, as loud a lye as any in the Talmud or Alcoran, Theodorus of Myra, tells us of a Deacon that dreamed he saw one in his sleep whom he took to be St. Nicholas, Ac. 4. Another tells us a tale of one that strock a nail in the forehead of an image, and was troubled with a pain in his head untill it was pulled out. Another dream∣ed, that the blessed Virgin, brought Cosma and Dami∣ana to him and commanded them to cure him of his distemper; One mans daughter, anothers wife, is helped by those images. And they all consent in the story of the image of Christ made without hands, or humane help by God alone, (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) that he sent to Abgarus King of the Edessenes; as bellowing a lye as any in the heard. So true was it, that the Council of Franckeford affirmed of this Ido∣latrous Conventicle, that they endeavoured to con∣firm their superstition by feigned wonders and old∣wives tales.

Sir, This is the Doctrine, this the Confirmation of it, which we are directed unto, and enjoyned to embrace by your Tridentine decree. This is that, yea and more also, as you will hear by and by, that you are bound to maintain and make good, if you intend to say any thing to the purpose about figures or Images; For you must not think by your sleight florishes to blind the eyes of men in these dayes as you have done formerly. Own your Doctrine and practice, or renounce it; This Tergiversation is shameful; and you will yet find your self farther pressed with the doctrine of Chiefest pallars of your Church, and the publick practice of it. For though

this superstitious Conventicle at Nice, departed from the faith of the antient Church, and was quickly re∣proved, and convinced of folly by persons of more learning, sobriety and modesty then themselves in the very age wherein they lived, yet it rose not up unto the half of the Abominations, in the filth and guilt whereof your Church hath since rolled it self. And yet because I presume you are well pleased with these Nicenians, who gave so great a list to the setting up of your Idols, I shall give you a brief account, both what was the judgement and practice of them that went be∣fore them in this matter, as also of some that followed after them, with joynt consent detesting your folly and superstition. You tell us somewhere in your Fiat, that the Primitive Christians had the picture or half portraiture of Christ upon their Altars. I sup∣pose you did not invent it your self; I wish you had told us of the Legend that suggested it unto you. For you seem in point of story to be conversant in such learned Authors, as few can trace you in. If you please to have a little patience, I shall mind you of some that give us another account of things in those dayes.

1. Some there are, of the first Christians, who give us an account of the whole worship of God with the manner and form of it, which was observed in their Assemblies in their dayes. So doth Justin Martyr in his Apologies, Tertullian in his, Origen against Celsus with some others. Now in none of these, is there any one word concerning Images, their use, or their worship in the service of God, al∣though they descend to describe very minute particu∣lars and circumstances of their way and proceeding.

2. Some there are, who give an account of the persecutious of several Churches, with the out-rages of

the Pagans against their Assemblies, the Scriptures, all the ordinances and worship, as do those golden fragments of the first and best Antiquity, the Epistles of the Churches of Vienna and Lions, to the parishes of Asia, of the Church of Smyrna about the Mar∣tyrdome of Polycarpus, preserved and recorded by Eusebius; and yet make no mention of any figures, pictures, or Images of Christ, the Blessed Virgin or his Apostles, or of any rage of their adversaries against them, or of any spite done unto them, which they would not have omitted, had there been any such in use amongst them.

3. There are besides these some unquestionable remnants of the conceptions that the Wisest and so∣berest of the heathen had concerning the Christians and their worship: as in the Epistle of Pliny about their Assemblies, and the rescript of Trajan, as also in Lucian Philopatris; in none of which is any inti∣mation of the Nicene Images or their Adoration. It may be you will undervalue this consideration, be∣cause built upon testimony negatively, when it doth not follow, that because such and such mentioned them not, therefore they were not then in use or be∣ing. But Sir, an Argument taken from the absolute silence of all approved Authors, concerning any thing of importance, supposed to be or happen in their dayes, and who would have had just occasion to make mention of it, had any such thing then been in rerum naturâ, is as great an evidence, and of as full a certainty, as the monuments of times are capa∣ble of. Is it possible for any rational man to con∣ceive, that if there had been such an use and venera∣tion of Images in the primitive Churches as is now in the Roman, or that the reception and veneration of them was made the tessara of Church Communi∣on,

as it is by the (Nicene Conventicle, that all the first Writers of Christianity treating expresly and purposely of the Assemblies of the Christians and the worship of God in them, with the manner and cir∣cumstances thereof, would have been utterly silent of them; or that those who set down and com∣mitted to record all the particularities of the Pagans rage in scattering their Assemblies, would not drop one word of any indignity shewed to any of their sacred images, when they pass not by their wrath against their houses, goods and cattel? Such things are fond to imagine.

2. Many of the Antients, do note it as an abomi∣nation in some of the first Hereticks, that they had introduced the use of Images into their worship, with the adoration of them. Theodoret. haeret. sub. lib. 1. tells us, that Simon Magus gave his own image and that of Selene to be worshistped by his follow∣ers. And Iraeneus, Lib. 1. cap. 23. that the followers of Basilides used images and invocations: and cap. 24. that the Gnosticks had images both painted ones and carved, and that of Christ, which they said was made originally by Pontius Pilate, and this they adored. And so doth Epiphanius also, Tom. 2. lib. 1. Haer. 27. Carpocrates procured the images of Christ and Paul to be made and adored them: and the like is recorded of others. Now do you think they would have observed and reproved this pra∣ctice as an abomination in the haereticks, if there had been any thing in the Churches usage that might give countenance thereunto? or at least that they would not have distinguished between that abuse of images, which they condemned in the hereticks, and that use which was retained and approved among themselves. But they are utterly silent, as unto any

such matter, contenting themselves to report and reprove the superstition and idolatry of the He∣reticks in their Adoration of them. But this is not all.

3. They positively deny that they had any images or made any use of them, and defend themselves against the charge of the Pagans against them for professing an imageless Religion. Clemen. Alexand. Strom, Lib. 6. plainly and openly confesseth and testifieth, that Christians had no Images in the world. And in his Adhortat. ad Gent. he positively asserts that the arts of Painting and Carving as to any religious use were forbidden to Christians, and that in the worship of God they had no sensible image made of any sensible matter, because they worshipped God with understanding. What was the judgement of Tertullian, is known from his book de Idololatria, from whence if we should transcribe what is argumenta∣tive against image worship, very little would be re∣maining. But of all the Antients Origen doth most clearly manifest what was the doctrine and practice of the Church of God in his dayes; as in other places, so in his seventh book against Celsus he directly han∣dles this matter: Celsus charged the Christians, that they made use of no images in the worship of God, telling them that therein they were like the Persi∣ans, Scythians, Numidans and Seres, all which im∣pious nations hated all images, as the Turks do at this day. To which discourse of his, Origen return∣ing answer, grants that the Christians had no images in their sacred worship, no more then had the Bar∣barous nations mentioned by Celsus; but withall adds the difference that was between those and these; and tells you, that their abstinence from Image worship was on various accounts. And after he hath shewed

wherefore those Nations received them not, he adds that Christians and Jews abstained from all sacred use of Images because of Gods command. Thou shalt fear (as he reads the text) the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve; and thou shalt not make to thy self any graven image, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, and adds, that they were so far from praying to the images as the Pagans did, that saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a thing expresly commanded in the Nicene Conventi∣cle, we do not give any honour at all to Images, least we should give countenance to the error of ignorant peo∣ple, that there were somewhat of Divinity in them; with very much more to the same purpose, ex∣presly condemning all the use of Images in the wor∣ship of God, and openly testifying that there was no such usage among the Christians in those dayes heard of in the world. Arnobius or Minutius Faelix acknowledgeth the same; Cruces nec colimus nec optamus, we do no more worship Crosses then desire them, and grants that Christians had nulla note simulachra, because no image could be made to or of him whom alone they worshipped. What was the judgement of the Elibertine Council I have before told you. Lactantius in his Institut. ad Constant. lib. 2. by an happy anticipation, answers all the arguments that you use to this day, in defence of your image wor∣ship, and concludes peremptorily, that where there are any Images, there is no Religion; shewing how perverse a thing it is that the image of a dead man should be worshipped by a living image of God. The time would fail me to relate the words of Euse∣bius, Athanasius, Hilarius, Ambrosius, Cyrillus, Chrysostome, Epiphanius, Hierom, Austin, and others to the same purpose. I cannot but think that

it is fully evident to any one that consults antiquity, that the image use and worship, which is become the Tessera of your Church Communion, by your espousing the Canons and Determinations of the second Nycene Synod, was in part utterly unknown unto, and in part expresly condemned by the whole Primitive Church for 600. years after Christ; and that you have plainly by your Tridentine decree and Nicene Anathematismes cut off your selves from the Communion of the Catholick Church of Christ, and all particular Assemblies that worship him in sin∣cerity, for the space of some hundreds of years in the world.

Thus things went in the Church of God before your Nicene Convention. How did they succeed af∣terwards? did image worship presently prevail upon their determinations? or was that then the faith of the generality of the Church of Christ, which was declared by the fathers of that Convention? no∣thing less; no sooner was the rumor of this horrible innovation in Christian Religion spread abroad in the world, but that upon it there was a full assembly of 300. Bishops of the Western Provinces assembled at Franckeford in Germany, wherein the superstition and folly of the Nicene Assembly was layed open, their Arguments confuted, their determinations re∣jected, and image worship absolutely condemned, as forbidden by the word of God, and contrary to the Antient constant known practice of the whole Church of God.

And now Sir as I said you may begin to see what you have to do, if you intend to speak any thing to the purpose concerning your figures and Images. You must take the Decree of your Council of Trent, and the Nicene Canons therein confirmed, and

prove, confirm, and vindicate them from the oppo∣sition made to them by Tertullian, Arnobius, Origen, Lactantius, the Synod of Franckeford and others of the Antients innumerable by whom they are rejected and condemned; and yet when you have done so, if you are able so to do, your work is not one quarter at an end. You can make nothing of this business untill you have confuted or burned the Scripture it self, wherein your Images making and Image worship is as fully condemned as it is possible any superstition or Idolatry should be. Your present loose discourses, whereby you endeavour to possess the minds of un∣wary men, that you do not do that which indeed you do every day, and which almost all the world know that you do, and which you curse others for not doing, will not with considering persons re∣dound at all unto your advantage.

2. That you may the better also discern what is in∣cumbent on you, and expected from you the next time you talk of figures, I shall make bold to mind you of what is the Doctrine of the chief Masters and In∣structors of your Church, from whence certainly we may better learn what the Doctrine and practice of it is, then from one who discovers enough in what he sayes and writes, to keep us from laying any great weight on his authority. Now I confess that you do in this, as in sundry other points of your Religi∣on, give us an egregious specimen of that consent and unity among your selves which you so frequent∣ly boast of. Raphael de Torre in his Sum. Relig. Quaest. 94. Artic. ••. disput. 6. dub. 5. gives us an account of five several opinions maintained by your Doctor in this matter, of all which he rejects that only of Durand and some others, affirming that images are not worshipped properly but only impro∣perly

and abusively, as rash and savouring of heresie The same doth Bellarmine also; and the Truth is that that opinion of Durrand, Gerson, and same others is plainly condemned by the Tridentine De∣cree, as hath been already declared. The Authors of the other four opinions, though they differ among themselves and have several digladiations about s••me expressions and distinctions framed meerly in the••r own imaginations, agree well enough, that Images are religiously to be worshipped. Worshipped religi∣ously they are to be, but whither per se and absolute∣ly, directly and ultimately, whither with the same kind of worship wherewith that is to be worshipped which they represent, they are not so fully agreed as might be desired in a matter of this importance. For it is justly to be feared that whilest your Doctors are wrangling, your people are committing as gross Idolatry as any of the Heathen were guilty of. In the mean time, the most prevalent Opinion of your Doctors is that of Thomas and his followers, that images are to be adored with the same kind of worship wherewith that which they represent is to be worshipped. And therefore whereas the Lord Christ is to be worshipped with Latria, that which is pecu∣liar in your judgement to God alone, it follows saith he, that his image is to be worshipped with the same worship also. And as some of your learned men do boast, that this indeed is the only approved opi∣nion in this matter in your Church; so the truth is, if you will speak congruously and at any consistency with your selves it must be so. For whereas you lay the foundation of all your worship of them, be it of what fort it will, in that figment, that the honour which is done to the image redounds unto him whose image it is, if the honour done to the image

be of an inferior sort and kind unto that which is due unto the exemplar of it by referring that honour thereunto, you debase and dishonour it, by ascribing less unto it then is its due. If then you intend to answer just expectation in this matter, the next time you speak of figures pray consider what your Thomas teacheth as the Doctrine of your Church, 3. p. q. 25. ae. 3. which Azorius sayes is the con∣stant judgement of Divines, lib. 9. cap. 6. As also the exposition of the Tridentine Decree by Suarez Tom. 1. d. 54. §. 4. Vasquez, Costerus, Bellarmine and others. And

3. You may do well to consider the practice and usage of your Catholick people all the world over, especially in those places where you have preserved them from being disturbed in their Devotion, by the Arguments and exceptions of Protestants, as also the direction that is given them for the exercise of their Devotion in that prescription of Rites and prayers which is afforded unto them. Is not your bowing, kneeling, creeping, kissing, offering, singing, praying to the Cross and images notorious? yea your placing your trust and confidence in them; Yea, have you omitted any of the abominations of the heathen, that you have not acted over again to provoke the Lord to anger? And

4. Do you think to relieve them from the guilt of Idolatry by a company of distinctions, which nei∣ther they nor you understand? The next time you see one of your Catholicks worshipping an image upon his knees, I pray go to him and tell him that he must worship the Image with dulia, or superdulia, but not with latria, or if with latria, yet not by its self and simply but after a sort, analogically and reductively, or that he is about a double worship;

one terminated in the image, and the other passing by it unto the examplar of it, and you will find what thanks he will give you for your good instructi∣on. And how small a portion are these of that Mass of distinctions which you have coyned to free them from Idolatry who worship Images, who all the while understand not one word of what you intend by them, nor can any rational man reduce them unto any thing intelligible!

Sir, In this matter of images you talk of coming up close to your business, and I was willing to take a little pains with you to direct you in your way, that having a mind to your work as you seem to pretend, you may not mistake and wander away from your duty, but address your self unto that which you un∣dertake and which is expected from you. You are to prove that there is a necessity of receiving the use of images in the worship of the Church, so that who∣soever doth not admit them, is to be cast out of the Communion thereof; and 2. That these Images so received are to be worshipped and adored with religious veneration, if not with the very same worship that is due to the Persons represented by them, yet with that which redounds unto them; and that not only by the outward gesture of the body but the inward motions of the mind. And when you shall have proved that the Doctrine and practice of your Church in this matter of making and worshipping Images is not contrary to the Scripture, or was ever received or approved by the primitive Church for six hundred years, I will promise you setting aside all other Considerations, immediately to become a Papist: for the present I see no cause so to do, and shall therefore return to consider what you here say for the further adorning of your pictures.

The first thing you reflect upon is my censure of that passage in your Fiat, that the sight of Images in the Church is apt to cast the minds of men on that medi∣tation of the Apostle, Heb. 12. You are come to mount Sion, to the City of the living God, to the Heavenly Hierusalem, the Society of Angels, and Church of the first born written in heaven, to God the judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, to Jesus the Me∣diator of the new Covenant. These, I tell you, upon the sight of an House full of Images may be the thoughts of a man distracted of his wits, not of any that are sober and wise. To which you reply, mad men it seems can tell what figures represent, sober and wise men cannot. But who told you that your images represent the things mentioned by the Apo∣stle? for instance, God the Judge of all, the spirits of just men, Angels, and the Church of the first born; or can any man unless he be greatly distempered in his imagination, fancy any such thing. The house of Micah, Judg. 18. was notably furnished with Images of all sorts. Judg. 17. he had 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an house full of Gods, or a Chappel adorned with Images, for there was in it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 carved image, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a sacred ornament for it, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lesser portable Image, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a molten statue, Judg. 18. would it not think you, notwithstanding the gaiety of all this provision, have bee a mad thought in the Danites if upon their entrance into this house, they had ap∣prehended themselves to be come to the Communion of the Catholick Church, and therein to the invisible God, to Angels and Saints departed? The truth is, there is aliquid dementiae, a tincture of madness in all Idolatry, whence the Scripture testifies that men are mad upon their Idols, but yet we do not find that these Danites though resolved upon false worship,

were so mad as to entertain such vain thoughts as you imagine the Chappel full of images might have suggested unto them. Or do you think Ezekiel had any such thoughts, when God shewed him in vision the imagery of the house of Israel with all the Dei∣ties portrayed on the wall, and the elders worship∣ping before them? Ezek. 8. God and the Prophet discover other thoughts in reference unto them. Besides Sir, the Holy Ghost tells us that a graven image is a teacher of Lyes, Hab. 2. 18. and how like∣ly it is, that a man should learn any truth from that whose work it is only to teach lyes, I do not as yet understand.

You proceed to another exception; the violation of an image say you, redounds to the Prototype if it be rightly and duely represented, not else. To which you reply, and, when then for example is Christ crucified rightly and duly represented? are you one of those that can tell what figures represent or not? 1. You do not rightly report my words, though you might as easily have done it as set down those you have made use of. My words were, that the violation of an Image redounds to the Prototype, provided it be an Image rightly and duely destined to represent him, that is intended to be injured; which is so cleared by an instance there expressed, as turns your exception out of doors as altogether useless. For first, I require that the Image be rightly and duly destined to the re∣presentation of the Prototype; that is, by him or by them who have power so to do, and by the express consent and will of him whose image it is, who other∣wise is not concerned in it. Now nothing of all this can you affirm concerning your Images. 2. I require an intention of doing injury or contumely un∣to the Person represented by the image, without

which whatever is done to the image reflects not at all upon him; And so a man may break an Image of a King which he finds formed against his will in some ugly shape to expose him to contempt and scorn, as I suppose out of Loyalty unto him, without the least violation of his honour, which is the very condition of your Images and those that reject them. And this also may suffice to what you add about hanging of Traitors in Effigie, which is a particular instance of your general Assertion that the violation of an Image redounds to the Prototype; which we grant it doth when the Image is rightly designed to that purpose by them who have just authority so to do, and when there is an intention of casting contempt upon it; the first whereof is not found amongst your Images, nor the latter among them who reject them.

Besides if all that were granted you which you express, yet what you aime at would not ensue. For though it should be supposed that the violation of an Image would redound unto the injury of the Proto∣type upon a meer intention of reflecting upon him, without which it is a foolish conceit to apprehend any such thing, yet it doth not thence follow that the honour done to an Image redounds unto him that is represented by it, provided that the intention of them that give the honour be so to do: For besides our intention in the worship of God, we have a rule to attend unto, without the observation whereof the other will stand us in little stead. And if this might be admitted, the grossest Idolatry that ever was in the world might easily be excused. That for in∣stance of the Israelites setting up a golden Calf, and worshipping it, must needs be esteemed excel∣lent, seeing they thought to give honour to Jehovah

thereby. When the things mentioned then are wanting, Images may be dealt withal as false money, which his Majesty causeth every day to be broken, though it have his own Image and superscription up∣on it, because stamped without his warrant.

You proceed and add as my words, where the Psalmist complains of Gods enemies breaking down his Sculptures, he means not thereby any Images or figures, but only wainscot or carved Ceilings. Would you could find in your heart rightly to report my words. The reason is evident why you do not, namely because then you had not been able to make any pretence of a reply unto them; But yet this ought not to have prevailed with you to persist in such unhandsome dealing. My words are, The Psal∣mist indeed complains that they broke down the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or carved works in the Walls and Ceilings of the Temple (though the Greeks render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 her doors, the Verb signifying prin∣cipally to open) but that those apertiones or inci∣surae were not Pictures and Images for the people to adore and venerate, or appointed for their instruction you may learn. You see Sir, I grant that the Word may denote carved works: and if so, I think they must be either in the walls or ceiling; that which only I deny was, that these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or carved works were proposed to the people to be adored or venerated. This you should have confuted, or held your peace. But you take another course; having misreported my words to gain some counte∣nance thereby unto what you had to except against them, you add, Surely the Prophet wanted a word then to express himself, or Translators to express the Prophet: If we must guess at his meaning without heeding ••is words, one might think it as probable that

the House of God was adorned with Sculptures of Cherubims and other Angels to represent his true house that is above, as with the Circles, &c. of wainscot. Sir, the Prophet wanted not a word rightly to ex∣press his meaning and intention; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is originally aperire, to open, and solvere to loose, and because en∣gravings are made by opening the matter engraved with incisions, it signifies also to engrave, as 2 Chron. 3. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he graved Cherubims, and thence is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Zech. 3. 9. engraving, or work engraving, the word here used by the Psalmist ex∣pressing the effect of what is affirmed, 2 Chron. 3. 7. and elsewhere. And this is well enough expressed by sundry Translators; and you speak very faintly when you talk of the guessing at the Psalmists mean∣ing about the Temples being adorned with engraven Cherubims, as though you knew not certainly that it was so, or as though it were a thing at all que∣stionable. Sir, the Text is express for it, both in the Kings, Chronicles and Ezechiel; neither was it ever called in question; but withall the same places inform us that there was as many Palm trees as Cherubims, and those attended with flowers and Pomegranats; And the Cherubims in Ezechiels vision had each one two faces, the one of a man, the other of a young Lion, the one face looking towards one Palm tree, the other towards another; all which we grant were used for ornament in that wonderfull and magnificent Structure; but so to imagine that they were proposed to the people to adore and ve∣nerate, is a little flowing, if not foaming of the mad∣ness we lately discoursed of. That Cherubims were not Images, I shall shew you by and by. And I de∣sire to be informed of you, what Palm tree and flow∣ers, or Angels with two faces, one of a man, another

of a Lyon, you think there are in heaven, that you should suppose them represented by these below? you may easily discern how well you have evinced the conclusion manifested before, to expect some proof at your hands, by faintly intimating that the walls of the Temple were engraven with Cherubims, Palm trees and flowers, and therefore doubtless he that will not worship Images deserves to be Ana∣thematized.

You add nextly as my words, The eye may not have her species as well as the ear, because God hath commanded the one, and not the other. You know full well that you do not express my words, nor meaning as you ought. But I shall now cease to expect better dealing from you, and make the best that I may of what you are pleased to set down. Speaking in general, I do not, nor did deny that the eye might have its use and the species of it to help and further our faith and devotion in the worship of God. It hath so in the Sacraments by him insti∣tuted; but I tell you it can have no use to these ends in things which God hath forbidden, as he hath done the making of Images for religious adoration. But you say, Fiat Lux makes it appear that God com∣mands both, and the natue of man requireth both, nor can I give any reason why I may not look ••pon him who was crucified, as well as hear him. Pray Sir talk not of Fiat Lux making it appear. The design of Fiat Lux is rather to hide then to make any thing appear; and you might have done well to direct us unto that place in your Fiat, where you fancied that you had made it appear that God commands that use of Images in his worship which you plead for; and as for what the nature of man requireth we suppose God knows as well at least as the Pope, and is as

careful to make suitable provision for its relief and help in the duties he calls us to the performance of. And it is an easie thing to give you a reason why you may not look on him that was crucified, that is with your bodily eyes, as well as hear him by the preaching of the word, and it is because you cannot. You your self tell us, when you think it for your pur∣pose, that Christ as to his humane nature is now in∣visible, and that is it I think you intend. Now how you will look with your bodily eyes on that which un∣to you and us is at present invisible, I cannot un∣derstand. I know that one of the great Fathers of your second Nicene faith, publickly affirmed in the Council with the approbation of his Associates, that Christ is so present with, or related unto his Image, that he should speak of it and should say, this is Christ, should not err. But I know also he did it with as much wisdom as he whom the Prophet de∣rides for carving a stock into the likeness of a man, and then saying unto it, Thou art my God. So Sir you may not with your bodily eyes look on him that was crucified because you cannot; and as looking on the picture of him, which you mean, is nothing of that which we contend about: so I fear it is unto you only a means of taking you from looking after his Person in a way of believing which he so earnestly calls us unto.

Your next progress is to some words of mine about the end of preaching, which you set down: Nor is the sole end of preaching as Fiat Lux would have it, only to move the mind of hearers unto corre∣sponding affections; whereas indeed they are; he is mistaken if he think the sole end of preaching the Cross and death of Christ, is to work out such repre∣sentations to the mind, as Oratory may affect for the

moving of Corresponding affections: which if you know not to differ very much from what you have expressed, I wish you would let these matters alone, and talk of what you understand. How∣ever, your reply unto what you are pleased to ex∣press, is such a piece of ridiculous Scurrility, as I shall not stain paper with a recital of. In summ, you deny there is any other end of preaching, and excuse your self that you thought not of those other ends, which you suppose I might have in my heart, but yet conceal; and then instance in such a rabblement of foolish wicked fancies, as I wonder how your thoughts came to be conversant about. As to the thing its self I must tell you Sir, whither you are willing to hear it or no, that if you know no other end of preaching the Cross and death of Christ, but meerly to work upon the minds of men, so as to stir up their Affections, that you are a Person bet∣ter skilled in the Mass book then the Gospel, and much fitter to be employed in sacrificing according to the Order of that, then in preaching of the My∣sterie and Doctrine of this. Did never any man in∣form you, that one end of preaching the word was to regenerate the whole souls of men, and to beget them anew unto God? that it was also to open their eyes, and to illuminate them with the saving know∣ledge of God in Christ, that it was to beget and encrease faith in them; that it was to be a means of their growth in Grace, and in the knowledge of God; that the Word preached is profitable for re∣proof, Correction, Dotrine and instruction in righte∣ousness; that it is appointed as the great means of working the souls of men into a likeness and con∣formity unto the Lord Jesus, or the changing of them into his Image; that it is appointed for the

refreshment of the weary, and consolation of the sorrowful, and making wise of the simple? Did you never hear that the word preached hath its effect upon the understanding and will as well as upon the Affections, and upon these consequentially only unto its efficacy on them, if they are not deluded? Is growth in knowledge, faith, grace, holiness, conformity unto Christ, Communion with God, for which end the word is commanded to be preached, nothing at all with you? is being made wise in the mysterie of the Love of God in Christ, to have an insight into, and some understanding of the unsearchable treasures of his Grace, and by all this the building up of souls in their most holy faith, of no value with you? Are you a stran∣ger unto these things, and yet think your self a meet person to perswade your Countreymen to for∣sake the Religion they have long professed, and to follow you they know not whither? Or do you know them, and yet dare to thrust in your scur∣rility to their exclusion? Plainly Sir, the most cha∣ritable judgement that I can make of this Discourse of yours, is that it proceeds from ignorance of the most important truths and most necessary works of the Gospel.

You next proceed to your plea from the Cheru∣bims set up by Moses in the Holy place over the Ark; and thence you will needs wrest an argument for your Images and the worship of them. Although your Vasquez is ashamed of it, and hath cashiered it long ago, and that worthily, as not at all belong∣ing unto thus matter: For 1. The Cherubims were not Images, to which you say, since the real Cheru∣bims are not made of beaten Gold, those set up by Moses must be only figures; but it is of Images that

we are speaking precisely, and not in general of figures; figures may include Types and Hieroglyphicks and any representation of things. Images repre∣sent Persons, and such alone are those about which we treat. And if a Person be not presented by an Image, it is not his Image. Now I pray tell me what personal subsistences these Cherubims with their various wings and faces did represent? Do you believe that they give you the shape and like∣ness of Angels? It is true, John the Bishop of Thes∣salonica in your Synod of Nice with the approbation of the rest of his company, affirms that it was the opinion of the Catholick Church that Angels and Archangels were not altogether incorporeal and in∣visible, but to have a slender body, of ayre or fire, Act. 5. But are you of the same mind? or do you not rather think that the Catholick Church was be∣lyed and abused by the Synod? And if they are absolutely incorporeal and invisible, how can an Image be made of them? Should a man look on the Cherubims as Images of Angels, would not the first thing they would teach him be a ley? namely that Angels are like unto them, which is the first lan∣guage of any Image whatever. The truth is, the Mosaical Cherubims were meer Hieroglyphicks to represent the constant tender love and watchful∣ness of God over the Ark of his Covenant, and the people that kept it, and had nothing of the nature of Images in them. 2. I say, suppose of them what you please, yet they were not set up to be adored, as your Images are; To which you reply, It is not to my purpose or yours that they were not set up to be adored; for Images in Catholick Churches are not set up for any such purpose, nor do I anywhere say so. No man alive hath any such thought, no Tr••••••∣tion,

no Council hath delivered it, no practice infers it. And do you think meet to talk at this rate? have you no Tradition amongst you that you plead for the Adoration of Images? hath no Council amongst you determined it? doth not your practice speak it? were you awake when you wrote these things? did you never read your Tridentine Decree, or the Ni∣cene Canons commended by them? is not the adora∣tion of Images asserted an hundred times expresly in it? hath no man alive such thoughts? are not on∣ly Thomas and Bonaventure, but Bellarmine, Gregory de Valentia, Baronius, Suarez, Vasquez, Azorius, with all the rest of your great Champions now utterly defeated, and have not one man left to be of their judgement? I would be glad to hear more of this matter. Speak plainly, do you renounce all adora∣tion and worship of Images? is that the Doctrine of your Church? prove it so, and I shall publickly ac∣knowledge my self to have been a long time in a very great mistake. But it was for this cause that I gave you a little Image of the Doctrine and pra∣ctice of your Church in this matter, at the entrance of our discourse, foreseeing how you would preva∣rica••e in our progress. Come Sir, if Image Worship be such a shameful thing that you dare not avow it, deal ingenuously and acknowledge the failings of your Church in this matter, and labour to bring her to amendment. If you think otherwise, and in truth yet like it well enough, d••al like a man, and dare to dete••d it at least as well as you can, and more no 〈◊〉〈◊〉 can look for at your hands. You mention somewhat of the different opinions of your Schoolmen in this matter, which you sleight. But Sir, I tell you again, that you and all your Masters are agreed that Images are to be adored and vene∣rated▪

that is, worshipped; and their disputes about that honour that rests absolutely on the Image, and that which passeth on to the Prototype, with the kind of the one and the other, are such as neither them∣selves, nor any other do understand. You tell us indeed, All Catholick Councils and practice, declare such sacred figures to be expedient assistants to our thoughts in our divine meditations and prayers, and that is all you know of it. But if you intend Coun∣cils and practice truly Catholick or Primitive, you can give no instance of allowing so much to Images as here you ascribe unto them; no not one Council can you produce to that purpose for some hundreds of years, but a constant current of Testimonies for the rejection of such pretend expediencies and as∣sistances. The first beginning of their use arising from Heathens, as Eusebius declares Lib. 7. cap. 18. But if you intend your Roman Catholick Councils and Practice, your Assertion is as devoid of Truth as any thing you can possibly utter. What kind of Assistance in devotion these your sacred Figures do yield, we shall anon consider.

It is added in the Animadversions that it was God who appointed these Cherubims to be made, and placed where they were never seen of the people, and that his special dispensation of a Law constitutes no general rule; so he commanded his people to spoil the Aegyptians, though he forbid all men to steal. This was said on supposition that they were Images or adored, both which I shewed to be false. And it is the answer given by Tertullian; When he was pleading against all making up of pictures which we do not. Now do you produce Gods special command for the make∣ing, use and veneration of your Images, and this contest will soon be at an end. But whereas God

who commanded these Cherubims to be made, hath severely interdicted the making of Images, as to any use in his worship unto us, what conclusion you can hence draw I see not. To this you reply in a large discourse wherein are many things Atheological. I shall briefly pass through what you say. Thus then you begin, We must know, you as well as I, that God who forbids men to steal, did not then command to steal as you say he did, when he bad his People spoil the Aegy∣ptians under the species of a loan. Malum omen▪ You stumble at the threshold. Did I say that God commanded men to steal? porrige frontem; the words of the Animadversions lay before you when you wrote this, and you could not but know that you wrote that which was not true. This immorality doth not become any man of what Religion soever he be. Stealing denotes the pravity of taking that which is another mans. This God neither doth nor can command; for the taking of that which for∣merly belonged unto another, is not stealing if God command it; for the reason which your self have stumbled on, as we shall see afterwards. The Aegy∣ptians were spoyled by Gods Command, but the People did not steal; for his Command who is the Soveraign Lord of all things the great possessor of Heaven and earth, dispenced with his Law of one mans taking that which before belonged unto ano∣ther as to that particular whereunto his Command extended, in reference whereunto stealing or the pravity of that act of alienation consists, and so it is in other Cases. It is murder for a Father to slay his Son. Neither can God command a man to murder his Son: and yet he commanded Abraham to slay his. To so little purpose is your following attempt to prove that the Hebrews did not steal, and that

God did not command them to steal, which ••ou fancied or rather feigned to be asserted in the Ani∣madversions, that you might make a pretence of saying something; so that it had been much better to have passed over this whole matter with your wonted silence, which relieves you against the things which you despair of returning a reply unto. You say, the Hebrews might have right to those few goods they took in satisfaction for their long oppression, and it may be their own allowance was not paid them. But this right whatever it may be pretended, was only ad rem, a general equity, which they had no war∣rant to put in execution by any particular instance: And therefore you add Secondly, Because it is a thing of danger that any servant should be allowed to right himself by putting his hand to his Masters Goods, though his Case of wrong be never so clear; therefore did the Command of God intervene to justifie their action. But why do you call this a thing of danger only? is it not of more then danger, even ex∣presly sinfull? Then is a thing morally dangerous when there may be sin in it, not when unavoidably there is; then indeed there is danger of punish∣ment, or rather certainty of it without repentance; but we do not say then there is danger of sinning. It may be you do it to comply with your Ca∣suists, who have determined that in some Cases it is lawful for a servant himself to make up his wrongs out of his Masters Goods, which caused your friends some trouble as you know in the Case of John de Alva. You proceed and insist upon the Command of God proceeding from his Soveraignty and Lordship over all, warranting the Hebrews to take the Aegyptians goods and so spoil them, and that rightly. But this say you, can no way be applyed un∣to

Images: nor could God command the Hebrews to make any Images, if he bad absolutely forbidden to have any at all made. Sir, This is not our Case, God forbad the Hebrews to make any images, so as to bow down to them, in a way of Religious Wor∣ship, and yet might command them to make Hiero∣glyphical representations of his care and watchful∣ness, and to set them up where they might not be worshipped. But let us suppose that you speak ••d idem, and pertinently, let us see how you prove what you say: For this, say you, concerns not any affair between neighbour and neighbour, whereof the Supreme Lord hath absolute dominion, but the service only and ••••ration due from man to his Maker, which God being absolutely good, and immutably true, can∣not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 dispense with. Nor doth it stand with his nature and Deity to change, dispence, or vary the first table of his Law concerning himself, as he may the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 which concerns neighbours, for want of that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ever himself, which h•• hath over any crea∣•••••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 away its right, to preserve or destroy it, 〈…〉〈…〉 pleaseth; and therefore you conclude that 〈…〉〈…〉 his people to set up no Images, 〈…〉〈…〉 h••ve commanded them to set up any; be∣•••••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 would imply a contradiction in himself. A very 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Theol••gical discourse, which might bec•••••• one of the Angelical or Seraphical Doctors of your Church! But who I pray told you that the••e was the same resason of all the Commands of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Table? Vows and Oaths are a part of the worship of God 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in the third Command∣ment yet 〈◊〉〈◊〉 God can do, your Pope takes upon himself 〈◊〉〈◊〉 dispense with them every day. He so dispe••••ed with the Oath of Ladis••aus King of Hunger•••• made in his Peace with the Turks, to the

extream danger of his whole Kingdom, the irrep••ra∣ble loss and almost ruine of all Christendom. So he dispensed with the Oath of Henry the Second of France, which ended in his expulsion out of Italy, his loss of the famous Battail at St. Quintins, and the danger of his whole Kingdom. The strict Ob∣servation of the Sabbath by the Jews was commanded unto them in a Precept of the first Table, and w••s not a matter between neighbours, but belonged im∣mediately to the worship of God himself: according to your Divinity, God could not dispense with them to do any labour that day: But our Lord Jesus Christ hath taught us that by his Command the Priests were to labour on that day in killing the Sa∣crifice, by vertue of an after exception. And your Book of Macchabees will inform you that the whole people judged themselves dispensed withal in case of imminent danger. The whole fabrick of Mosaical worship was a thing that belonged immediately to God himself, aod was not a matter between neigh∣bours, which had its foundation in the second Com∣mandment: and yet I suppose you will grant that God hath altered it, changed it, and taken it away. So excellent is your Rule as to all the precepts of the first Table, which indeed holds only in the first Command. Things that naturally and necessarily belong to the dependance of the rational creature on God as the first Cause, last End, and Supreme Lord of all, are absolutely indispensable, which are in general all comprized as to their nature in the first precept, wherein we are commanded to receive him alone as our God, and consequently to yield him that obedience of faith, love, honour, which is due to him as God: but the outward modes and wayes of expressing and testifying that subjection and obedi∣ence

which we owe unto him, depending on his arbi∣trary institution, are changeable, dispensable and ly∣able to be varied at his pleasure, which they were at several seasons, before the last hand was put to the Revelation of his will by his Son. And then though God did absolutely forbid his people the making of images as to any use of them in his Wor∣ship and Service, he might by particular exception have made some himself; or appointed them to be made, and have designed them to what use he pleas∣ed: from whence it would not follow in the least, that they who were to regulate their obedience by his command, and not by that instance of his own parti∣cular exception unto his institution, might set up any other images for the same end and purpose, no more then they might set up other Altars for Sacrifice be∣sides that appointed by him, when he had command∣ed that they should not do so. Supposing then that which is not true, and which you can give no colour of proof to, namely that the Cherubims were Images properly so called, and set up by Gods command to be adored, Yet they were no less still under the force of his prohibition against the making of Images, then if he had never appointed any to be made at all. It was no more free for them to do so, then it is for you now under the New Testament to make five Sacra∣ments more of your own heads, because he hath ap∣pointed two. So unhappy are you in the Confirma∣tion of your own supposition, which yet as I have shewed you, is by no means to be granted. And this is the substance of your plea for this practice and usage of your Church, which whether it will justifie you in your open transgression of so many express Commands that lye against you in this matter, the day that shall discover all things will manifest.

You proceed to the vindication of another pas∣sage in your Fiat, from the Animadversions upon it, with as little success as the former you have attem∣pted. Fiat Lux sayes, God forbad forreign Images, such as Moloch, Dagon, and Astaroth, but he com∣mand his own (Sir, Moloch and Astaroth were not Images properly so called, whatever may be said of Dagon; the one was the Sun, the other the hoast of Heaven, or the Moon and Stars) but the Animad∣versions say that God forbad any likeness of himself to be made; they do so, and what say you to the contrary! why, You may know and consider, that the Statues and graven Images of the Heathen, towards whose land Israel then in the wilderness was journey∣ing, were ever made by the Pagans to represent God and not any devils, although they were deluded in it. But 1. Your good friends will give you little thanks for this concession, whose strongest plea to vindicate themselves and you from Idolatry in your image worship is, that the Images of the Heathen were not made to represent God, but that an Idol was really and absolutely nothing. 2. God did not forbid the people in particular the making Images unto Molock, Dagon or Astaroth, but prohibits the worshipping of the Idols themselves in any way; but he forbids the making of any Images and simili∣tudes of himself in the first place, and of all other things to worship them. But what of all this? why then say you, there was good reason that the He∣brews who should be cautioned from such snares, should be forbidden to make to themselves any similitude or likeness of God. Well then they were so forbidden, this is that which the Animadversions affirmed be∣fore, and Fiat Lux denyed, affirming that they were the ugly faces of Moloch that were forbidden▪

Moses say you, p. 294. forbad prophane and forraign images, but he commanded his own; but here you grant that God forbad the making of any similitude or likeness of himself; the reason of it we shall not much dispute, whilest the thing is confessed; though I must inform you, that himself insists upon another, and not that which you suggest, which you will find if you will but peruse the places I formerly directed you unto. But say you, what figure or si∣militude the true God had allowed his people, that let them hold and use untill the fulness of time should come, when the figure of his substance, the splendor of his glory and only image of his nature should appear; and now since God hath been pleased to shew us his face, pray give Christians leave to keep and honour it. I presume you know not, that your discourse is So∣phistical and Atheological, and I shall therefore give you a little light into your mistakes. 1. What do you mean by figure or similitude that the true God had allowed his people? Was it any figure or simili∣tude of himself, not of Moloch which you were speaking of immediately before, and which your fol∣lowing words interpret your meaning of, where you affirm that in the fulness of time he hath given us the image of himself? have you not denyed it in the words last mentioned? have you no regard how you jumble contradictions together, so you may make a shew of saying something? Do you intend any other likeness or similitude? why then do you deal sophistically in using the same expression to denote diverse things? 2. It is Atheological that you af∣•••••••• Christ to be the image of the nature of God. He is, and is said▪ to be, the image of his fathers per∣son, Heb. 1. 2. And when he is said to be the image of the invisible God, the term God is to be taken

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for the Person of the Father, and not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for the nature, or substance, or essence of God. 3. Christ is the essen••eal image of the Father in his Divine nature, in as much as he is partaker with him of all the same Divine properties and excellen∣cies, and morally in his whole Person, God and man as Mediator, in that the Love, Grace, Will, and Wisdom of the Father, are in him fully represented unto us, and not in the outward Lineaments of his humane nature, Esa.. 52. & 53. And what is all this to your Images that give us the shape and form of a man, and of what individual person neither you nor we know? 4. And is it not a fine business to talk of seeing the face of God, which shone forth in Christ, in a carved image or a painted figure? Is not this to confess plainly that your Images are teachers of Lyes? 5. Your Logick is like your Divinity. Inartificial argument or Testimony you use none in this place, and I desire you would draw your Dis∣course into a Syllogisme. Christ is the brightness of the Glory of God, God shews us his face in him, there∣fore we ought to make Images of wood and stone, caved and painted, and set them up in Churches to be adored, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And hereby you may also discern what is to be judged of your defence of what you had affirmed in your Fiat, namely that we had a command, that we should have Images, and a command that we should not have Images; which I never imagined that you would put upon a various ••ection of the Text, and thought it sufficient to ma∣nifest your failing, to intimate unto you the express preciseness of the prohibition, with which your fan∣cied command for Images is wholly inconsistent. God hath strictly forbidden us to make any Image either of himself or of any other person or thing to adore

or worship it, or to put it unto any use purely religi∣ous. This is an everlasting Rule of our Obedience. His own making of Cherubims and placing them in the most holy place whilest the Judaical Oeconomy conti∣nued gives us no dispensation as to the obedience which we owe to that Command and rule, whereby we must be judged at the last day.

Your last exception is layed against what I affirmed concerning the Relation you fancy between the Image and its prototype, whereby you would excuse the honour and worship which you give unto it, which I said is a meer effect of your own imagination. To which you reply, that speaking of a formal re∣presentation or relation and not of the efficient cause of it, you cannot but wander at this illogical Assertion. But sir, this your formal representation or relation which you fancy, must have an efficient cause, and hath so; a real one, if it be real; an imaginary one if it be fictitious, and this I enquired after; and I think it is not illogical to affirm that the relation you pretend is fictitious because it hath no cause but your own imagination on which alone it depends. A divine institution constituting such a relation you have none, nor doth it ensue on the nature of the thing it self. For the carving of a stock into the likeness of a man, gives it no such relation to this or that individual man, as that which is done unto the one should have any respect unto the other. But you add; Is the picture made by the spectators imagination to represent this or that thing, or the ima∣gination rather guided to it by the picture? By this Rule of yours the image of Caesar, did not my imagina∣tion help it, would no more represent a man then a mouse. But you quite mistake the matter; the relation you fancy includes two things; first that this Image re∣presents

not a man in general, but this or that indivi∣dual man in particular, and that exclusively to all others; for instance; Simon Peter, and not Simon Magus, who was a man no less then he or any other man whatever. Now though herein the imagina∣tion may be assisted when it hath any certain grounds of discerning a particular likeness in an image unto one man when he was living more then to another, yet you in most of your images are destitute of any such assistance. You know not at all that your images represent any thing peculiar in the persons whereof you pretend them to be the images, which sufficiently appears by the varity that is in the images whereby you represent the same Person, even Christ himself in several places. So that though every man in his right wits may conceive, that an Image is the image of a man and not of a mouse, yet that it should be the image of this or that man, of Christ himself; or Peter, he hath no ground to imagine, but what is suggested unto him by his imagination, directed by the circumstances of its place and Title. When Clo∣dius had thrust Cicero into banishment to do him the greater spite, he demolished his house, and dedicated it as a devoted place to their Gods, setting up in it the image of the Goddess Libertas. The Or••tor up∣on his return in his Oration ad Pontifices for the re∣covery of his house to overthrow this pretended dedication and devotion of it, pleads two things, first that the Image pretended by Clodius to be the Image of Libertas, was indeed the Image of a fa∣mous or rather infamous whore that lived at Tanager; had this dedication passed, I wonder how this Image could have any relation unto Libertas, but by vertue of the imagination of its worshippers when in very deed it was the Image of a Tangraean whore; And

the same Orator tells us of a famous Painter who making the picture of Venus and her Companions for their Temples; still drew them by some Strumpet or other that he kept company withall. And whither you have no•• been so imposed upon sometimes or no, I very much question. In which Case nothing but your imagination can free you from the worship of a quean, when you aime your devotion another way; Again he pleads, that the dedication of that Image was not regularly religious, nor according to that institution which they esteemed Divine; whence no sacredness in it could ensue; and want of institu∣tion which may be so esteemed, is that also which we object against your dedication of Images. For be∣sides a relation to this or that Individual person, which as I have shewed, the most of your Images have not, but what in your fancy you give unto them, which is natural or Civil; you fancy also a religious relation, a sacred conjuction between the Image and Prototype, so that the worship yielded to the one should redound to the other in a religious way. And this, I say, is also the product of your own fancy. If it be not, I pray, will you assign some other cause of it: for to tell you the truth, excluding divine Insti∣tution which you have not, other I can think or none▪ And if you could pretend Divine Institution consti∣tuting a sacred relation, between Images and their prototypes, yet it would not presently follow, that they were to be worshipped, no not supposing the Prototypes themselves to be the proper objects of re∣ligious adoration, which as to the most of them you know we deny, unless you have also a Command to warrant you. For there is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Institution of God himself a Sacramental 〈◊〉〈◊〉 b••••ween the wa∣ter in Baptism and the 〈…〉〈…〉; and yet I do

not know that you plead that the water is to be wor∣shipped. And thus is it as to your wooden Cross; you put two sticks a cross and worship them, you take them asunder and burn them; it is the very instance of your Nicene Council, for so they repeat the words of Leontius and approve them, Act. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; whilest the two sticks of the Cross are put together or com∣pacted, I adore that figure for Christs sake who suffer∣ed thereon; but when they are separated, I cast them away and burn them; a pretty course, whereby a man may keep a sacred fire, and worship all his wood pile before he burns it. And all this you are behold∣ing unto your imagination for.

We have done with your exceptions and pleas, and I dare leave it to the Conscience and judgement of any man fearing God, and not captivated under the power of prejudices and a vain conversation re∣ceived by tradition from his Fathers, whither your pretences are sufficient to warrant us to break in upon those many and severe interdictions of God, lying expresly in the letter against this usage and practice, and so apprehended in their intention by the whole primitive Church. In the Command its self, we are forbidden to make to our selves, that is in reference unto the worship of God treated of in that pre∣cept, not only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sculptile a graven Image, but also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 any kind of likeness of anything in heaven, earth or sea, so as that a man should 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bow down, adore, or venerate them, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 serve them with any sacred veneration. And the natural equity of this precept was understood by the wises•• of the Hea∣then.

For not only doth Tacitus witness that the antient Germans had no Images of their Gods, but it is known that Nama Pompilius the Roman Solon admitted not the use of them. Seneca decryes them, Epist. 33. and Macrobius denies that anti∣quity made any image to the most high God. What Silius, Persius and Statius observed to the same pur∣pose, I have shewed elsewhere. And from this Prin∣ciple Paul pleads with the Athenians that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, was not to be represented with images of Gold and Silver, or carved stones. Neither doth God leave us under this interdiction as proceeding from his Sove∣raign Authority, but frequently also shews the rea∣sonableness of his will, by asserting the Incomprehen∣sibility of his nature, and minding us that in the great manifestation of his glory unto the people, they saw no manner of likeness or similitude, which should have been shewed unto them had he been by any sensible means or matter to be represented. And yet, Sir, all this will not deter you from making Images and various Pictures of God himself and the blessed Trinity. Indeed you say you do not do it to represent the essence and nature of the Invisible God, but only some divine manifestations of his ex∣cellency or presence, so that those images are only metaphorical. But you venture too boldly on the Commands of God with your cobweb distinctions; nor do you difference your selves hereby from the more sober Heathen, who openly professed that in their many names and images of God they had no design to teach a multiplication of the Divine es∣sence, but only to represent the various properties and excellencies of that one Deity which they ado∣red, as Lactantius will inform you. Neither I fear do you consider aright, or sufficiently esteem the

scandal that by this means you cast before the Jews and Turks, who abhor the worship of God amongst you, upon the account of your Images; and Christi∣ans also kept from participating in their Sacra by this means. Lampridius tells us in the life of Alex∣ander Severus, that Hadrian the Emperour erected Temples in sundry Cities without Images in them, un∣till he was forbidden by the Soothsayers, affirming that this was the only way to make all men become Christians, as though the weight of the Controversie between Christians and Pagans had turned on this hinge, whither God were to be worshipped in Images or no. As for other Images and Pictures which may as to a civil use be made, which you set up in your Churches to be adored and venerated, is not your Doctrine and practice a meer 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a will worship condemned by the Apostle? Col. 2. 23. A worship destitute of Institution, promise, command or any ground of acceptance with God. A worship wherein you do what is right in your own eyes like the people in the wilderness, and not that only which is commanded you, which God complains of and re∣proves, Deut. 12. 8, 23. And besides you are con∣versant in a will worship of a most dangerous impor∣tance, wherein you ascribe the honour that is due un∣to God alone, unto that which by nature is not God, which is downright Idolatry. I know how you turn and wind your selves into various forms and multi∣ply unintelligible distinctions, to extricate your selves out of the ••nare that you wil••ully cast your selves into. But you all agree well enough in this, if your Nicene and Trent Councils, your Baronius, Vasquez, Suarez, and other great Masters of your Sacr•• may be believed, that they are to be adored and worship∣ped, that is with adoration religious, which what ever

you may talk of its modes, or distinguish about its kind, is to give the honour due to God alone unto 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and stones. And the best security you have to free you from the horrible guilt of Idolatry, lyes in the pretended conjunction and religious relation that is between the image and its Prototype, which is plainly imaginary and fictitious. And, now Sir, I hope I shall obtain your excuse for having drawn forth this discourse unto a length beyond my inten∣tion, your self having given me the occasion so to do, by pretending that you would upon this head of Images, come up close unto me, which caused me to give you a little tast of what entertainment you are to expect, if you shall think meet to continue in the same resolution.