A defence of the discourse concerning the idolatry practised in the Church of Rome in answer to a book entituled, Catholicks no idolators / by Ed. Stillingfleet ...

PART II. Being a particular Defence of the Charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome in the Worship of Images. (Book 2)

CHAP. I. The State of the Controversie about the Worship of Images, between Christians and Heathens.

HAving in the precedent Discourse given a general account of the Nature of Idolatry,* 1.1 I now come to the particulars in dispute between us. The first whereof is, con∣cerning the worship of Images; in which nothing is more necessary, than to give a true account of the State of the Contro∣versie;

which that I may do with the greatest clearness,

1. I shall consider wherein the State of this Controversie lay, as it was managed between the Christians and Heathens.

2. I shall give a just account of the Rise, and progress of this Controversie in the Christian Church. And when by this means, the State of the Controversie is well understood, the difficulty will not be great in giving answers to all the Sophisti∣cal Cavils of T. G.

1. For the State of the Controversie about the Worship of Images between the Christians and Heathens. To this purpose I had used these expressions in my former Discourse,* 1.2

That S. Paul dealing with the Athenians, did prove the unreasonable∣ness of their worshipping God by Images, because he was the God that made the world,* 1.3 and is Lord of heaven and earth, and that we are his offspring, therefore we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold or silver, or stone graven by art or mans device; where I observed, that the Apostle doth not speak meerly against their other objects of worship besides the true God, nor their supposing their Gods to be present in their Images, nor taking their Images for Gods, but against

their supposition, that there was any re∣semblance between God and their Images, or that he was capable of receiving any honour by them. The same argument, I added, S. Paul useth to the Romans,* 1.4 speak∣ing of those in whom that which may be known of God is manifest, even his Eter∣nal Power and Godhead, yet these per∣sons who knew God,* 1.5 did not glorifie him as God, but changed the glory of the incor∣ruptible God into an Image made like to corruptible man, &c. where changing his glory into Images, is, I said,* 1.6 immediately opposed to the glorifying him as God, in re∣spect of his Eternal Power and Godhead, so that these two are inconsistent with each other, to glorifie God by an Image, and to glorifie him as God. For here the Apostle doth not discourse against the most gross and sottish Idolaters of the Heathens, but as S. Chrysostom well ob∣serves, against the Philosophers, and the Wisest among them, who, although they differed in their opinions of Religion ex∣treamly from the Vulgar, yet they concur∣red with them in all the external practices of Idolatry. And therefore the Apostle doth not charge them with false notions of a Deity, for he saith, that they held the Truth in unrighteousness,* 1.7 and that they

did know God: but they shewed their vani∣ty and folly in thinking they had found out subtiller wayes of defending the com∣mon Idolatries among them; and instead of opposing them, made use of their Wits to excuse them.

To which I added this ma∣terial observation,

That the most intelli∣gent Heathens did never look on their Images as any other, than Symbols or re∣presentations of that Being to which they gave divine worship; for which purpose I produced several Testimonies of Celsus, Porphyrie, Athanasius, Arnobius, S. Augu∣stin, Max. Tyrius, Iulian and Eusebius, from whence I desired to know whether these men, who worshipped Images on those grounds, did amiss or no in it? I do not ask, as my words are expresly, whether they were mistaken as to the objects of their worship; but on supposition they were not, whether they were to blame in the man∣ner of serving God by Images, in such a way as they describe? if not, wherefore doth S. Paul pitch upon that, to condemn them for, which they were at not all to blame in? He ought, I said, to have done, as the Iesuits in China did, who ne∣ver condemned the people for worship∣ping Images,* 1.8 but for worshipping false Gods by them, and perswaded them not

to lay them aside, but to convert them to the honour of the true God; and so melt∣ed down their former Images, and made new ones of them. Can we imagine S. Paul meant the same thing, when he blames men, not for believing them to be Gods, but that God could be worshipped by the work of mens hands, and for chang∣ing thereby the glory due to God in regard of his infinite and incorruptible Being, in∣to mean and unworthy Images, thinking thereby to give honour to him? And up∣on these grounds, I there shew, that the Primitive Fathers disputed against the Heathen Idolatry:* 1.9 for the making use of corporeal representations makes the Deity contemptible, saith Clemens of Alexandria.* 1.10 Origen saith,* 1.11 that Christians have nothing to do with Images, because of the second Commandment; and on that account will rather dye, than defile themselves with them; and that it is impossible any one that knows God, should pray to them: That it is no sufficient excuse to say, they do not take them for Gods, but only for Sym∣bols or representations of them, for they must be ignorant, mean, and unlearned persons, who can imagine the work of an Artificer can be any representation of a Deity. I shewed further,* 1.12 that many of the

wiser Heathens themselves condemned the worship of God by Images, as incon∣gruous to a divine nature, and a disparage∣ment to the Deity, as Zeno, Xenophanes, Antisthenes, Xenophon, Numa, Varro, and many others.

* 1.13Having thus laid down so much of my former Discourse together, as was neces∣sary to understand the State of the Con∣troversie, I come now to consider what T. G. doth answer to it.

1. To the places of S. Paul, Acts 17.24. and Rom. 1.19. he saith, that no one ever denyed the unsuitableness of the worship of such Images to the Divine Nature,* 1.14 as are conceived to be proper likenesses, or re∣presentations of the Divinity, of which S. Paul speaks in the first place; or of the Images of the false Gods of the Heathens, of which he speaks in the latter.

In reply to this, I begin with the first place, Acts 17.24. where, he saith, it is plain from S. Pauls words, that they thought the Divinity to be like to the Images they made of gold and silver: and this was a mighty argument from the mouth of S. Paul to drive that erroneous conceit out of the minds of the Athenians, who believed the Divinity to be like the

Images they made; but none at all from my pen against Catholicks, who detest the thoughts of having or making any such Image. This then is the question be∣tween us, whether S. Paul's discourse against the Athenians did proceed only on the supposition of the Divinity being like to their Images, or whether the dissimili∣tude between them be not made use of by the Apostle as an argument to shew that Images are not a proper suitable means whereby to worship God? For which we are to consider the Apostles scope and de∣sign; which certainly was to convince them of their Idolatry. For it is said, ver. 16. that his Spirit was stirred within him, when he saw the City wholly given to Ido∣latry; and in the beginning of his speech he takes notice of their Bigoterie in the Heathen worship, ver. 22. & 23. that among their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. Idols, saith Theophylact, he had espied an Altar with this Inscription, To the unknown God: and upon this he takes an occasion more fully to discover him whom they ignorantly wor∣shipped, and withal to shew the unreaso∣nableness of their worshipping God at all by Images. If the Apostles design had been, as T. G. imagines, to drive that erroneous conceit out of the minds of the Athenians,

that the Divinity was like to their Images; his Spirit should not have been moved, at the sight of their Images, but at their discourses about them when he heard them own the Divinity to be like them. For, in case they only looked on their Images as helps to their devotion; or as Analogi∣cal representations of some divine perfe∣ctions, although they did worship God by them, T. G. must think then S. Paul a little too hasty to be so soon angry at the sight of them; for upon this ground his Spirit might be stirred within him, at the sight of the Altars and devotions in Rome, as well as Athens. But S. Paul did not wait for any decree of the Areopagus in this matter; he saw enough to inflame his zeal, in their practices, and publick wor∣ship, without looking after any distinctions of their Sophisters and School-Divines; although there were many upon the place ready to justifie every rite of their wor∣ship, and that would not let go one tittle of their grossest superstitions for all the truth and Reason in the world. They could find out as many Analogies and Me∣taphorical significations as other men; and thought it as little disparagement to the Deity to worship him under the several re∣presentations of Minerva, Ceres or Bac∣chus,

when by these they understood the several effects of Gods Wisdom and Goodness in giving the fruits of the earth, as others can in representing him as an Old man with a Popes Crown on his head; or with one Head and three Faces, as some that are no Athenians have done. For Gods sake, which of the two are more apt to beget in mens minds such appre∣hensions of God, that he is like to men; those who make and expose such Images of the God they worship, or such who made an Inscription upon an Altar to the Un∣known God? And if he were Unknown, how came they to know him to be so like themselves? What need S. Paul take such pains to drive a conceit out of their heads, which for all that we see, never entered into them? If indeed S. Paul had seen over that Altar a grave Image of a man in Pontifical Robes, with an hoary head, a long beard, and a Triple Crown; he would probably have asked them, how the Athe∣nians, that were witty men, could be guil∣ty of such an absurdity, to call that an Altar to the Unknown God, when they were so familiarly acquainted with him as to know the very cut of his beard, and fashion of his Crown? But, as Superstiti∣ous as the Athenians were, they were not

so ridiculous; but yet because they sup∣posed this God might be pleased with the worship of the Idols, that were not only in the Temples, but in the Streets and Fo∣rum of Athens (where Thucydides saith,* 1.15 there were twelve Altars) therefore S. Paul discourseth of this God after such a manner, as to shew how unsuitable such a way of worship was to his Nature, and Perfections,

1. From his Infinite Power, v. 24, 25. God that made the world and all things in it, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in Temples made with hands, neither is worshipped with mens hands. Can any thing be plainer, than that here S. Paul disputes against their worship, and not their opinion? He finds no fault with their opinion about the true God, but only that it was not clear and distinct enough, in that he was too much the Unknown God among them; he takes it for granted, that one Supream God, Creator of the world was acknowledged by them; and from the consideration of that Infinite Power of his, he shews how unreasonable it was for them to circum∣scribe him within their Temples, or to wor∣ship him by their Images:

For what are all these Images of yours, which you are

so fond of, and so unwilling to part with? although they were the Statues of Phidias or Polycletus, or the Pictures of Xeuxes, or Apelles, yet still they are but the Work of mens Hands: and what are these to the Heavens and the Earth, which he hath made? If any Image de∣serve worship, it is one of Gods making, and not of your own; but since no Image can represent the infinite Perfections of the great Creator, never think to honour him by your foolish Puppets, and Babies of Dirt and Clay.

This is the design of the Apostles argument; but what doth this signifie to their thinking the Divinity to be like themselves? For whether God were like or unlike to their Images, yet still they were the work of mens hands: as a picture is still the work of the Paint∣er, although never so unlike the person for whom it is intended; but S. Paul condemns them for worshipping God with the work of mens hands, i. e. with Images and Statues; as being infinitely below the greatness of that Divine Power, for the sake of which we give divine worship to him.

2. From his infinite perfection; mani∣fested by his Self-sufficiency, Needing no∣thing, v. 25. and from his communicating

to his creatures what is needful for them, Seeing he giveth to all life and breath and all things. Now what can there be more unsuitable to the honour of such a Being, than to be worshipped by such dull, sense∣less, contemptible pieces of earth, which have not in them the perfection of the meanest animal, to whom God hath given life and breath; that are so far from representing the perfection and self-sufficiency of the Divine Nature, that they are not in the least able to help them∣selves? But when by the help of Wedges and Beetles an Image is cleft out of the Trunk of some well grown Tree, (that little dreamt of the honour which was like to come to the dullest part about it, after it should pass through the several refinings of the Carpenters Ax, whose blows it en∣dured with admirable patience, and of the Painters Pencil, whose Miniature adds much beauty and glory to it) yet after all the skill of Artificers to set forth such a Divine Block, it cannot one moment secure it self from being eaten by Worms, or de∣filed by Birds, or cut in pieces by Axes; or, if any of these sail, from decaying through meer standing. Or suppose, this Wor∣shipful Idol be made of a harder sub∣stance, and after its being digged out of

the earth, and sawed, and carved, and po∣lished, and with much ado brought into the resemblance of a man, and a rude sym∣bol of the Deity, and set up for the ado∣ration of mankind; yet still it wants the things which are above the utmost power of man, but are given to the least mite, viz. life, and sense, and motion, and an ad∣mirable contrivance of the instruments of these; yet such mean and pittiful things as these, will the folly of mankind find out to represent the greatest and the most perfect Being in the world. Judge now whether things that want life, and breath, and all things, are fit means whereby to worship him who giveth all these things to his creatures? or whether those things, which need the art of man to make them, and his continual care to preserve them, are fit to represent that Being, which stands in need of nothing?

3. From his Infinite Presence, v. 27, 28. That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live and move and have our Being. One of the most plausible argu∣ments of Idolaters in all Ages was, that by the help of Images they did represent the object of their worship as present to them,

so as thereby to be put more in mind of him, and to excite their reverence and Devo∣tion; but S. Paul tells the Athenians, there was no need of any such representa∣tions of Gods presence, for he is not far from every one of us, for in him we live and move and have our beings: and that man who will not find God in those admi∣rable effects of his Power, Wisdom, and Goodness we carry continually about us, will hardly find him in the senseless repre∣sentations of Wood and Stone: and he that will not stand in awe of him, as he governs the World, will hardly fear him, when he is set forth in shape of a man, although he have a Thunderbolt in his hand.

4. From the disparity between God and Images, v. 29. For as much then, as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like to gold, or silver, or stone graven by art or mans device. Upon which words, Lorinus a Iesuit makes this paraphrase, forasmuch as the Athenians following their own Poets, do confess, that we are the living Image of God, they ought to think that material Idols made by the art of men,* 1.16 which fall far short of the perfection of Nature, are infinitely distant from the Divine Power, by which we obtain a dignity far above

these material things; and since we cannot express this Image of God in us by any lines, much less can we the Divine Origi∣nal, so that it is the grossest ignorance to affirm, that God can dwell, or be included or worshipped in or by their Altars, or Images, (for so delubra must be under∣stood by him if he speaks pertinently, for although sometime it signifies a Temple with more Images than one, yet Servius withal saith,* 1.17 it signifies a wooden Image, and so Festus understands it; which things I am forced to explain, to prevent cavil∣ling; for otherwise T. G. would have com∣plained of my perverting the sense of Authors, as he hath done very unjustly, as will appear in this Chapter.) But Lori∣nus, after having brought the several places of Scripture against making any Image of God, thinks to salve all by say∣ing, they are to be understood of such Images, as represent him to the life, (as though it were possible for any to do it) or such which they worshipped for Gods, which the Heathens utterly denyed, that they did. Cornelius à Lapide,* 1.18 after seve∣ral vain attempts, to make out the force of the Apostles argument, at last concludes this to be it; that since our Soul according to which we are the offspring of God, can∣not

be painted, or represented in gold, sil∣ver, or stone, being incorporeal and spi∣ritual; much less can the Divinity be painted or represented by them, being a pure Spirit, and the fountain of Spirits. Estius agrees,* 1.19 that this is the force of the Apostles argument, from whence, he saith, he doth not infer, that we ought not to think gold, silver, or stone, to be God; although he might have done it (but to little purpose) because, saith he, he spake to the Athenians, among whom were many Philosophers, learned and wise men, who did not with the Vulgar, think their Images to be Gods, although they worshipped them together with them; but they believed their Gods to be represented by them, as by their Images. If he speaks of the Epi∣cureans, there is some ground for it; for what Deity they acknowledged, they sup∣posed to be as-if-coporeal, and of hu∣mane shape; but he is much mistaken, that doth not account them rather Atheists than Idolaters;* 1.20 and as to the other Athe∣nian Philosophers, I shall make it appear to be a gross mistake, to suppose that they thought their Gods to be of humane shape; but of that hereafter.

The thing I now insist upon is, that the Apostle's shewing the disparity between

God and Images, is not meerly to drive out the opinion of Anthropomorphitism, but from hence to shew farther the folly of Idolatry; for if Images fall so much short of the infinite perfections of God, there can be but this plea left, that they are like to him, and therefore we may worship God by them, for the sake of their resem∣blance of him; now this the Apostle shews to be as vain and idle a pretence as any of the rest, there being no manner of re∣semblance between the workmanship of gold, silver, and stone, and an Infinite and Spiritual Being.

5. From the necessity of repentance, and the consideration of a future judge∣ment, v. 30, 31. If all the Apostle had aimed at, was only to rectifie an erroneous conceit of the Athenians about the Divini∣ty being like to their Images, he had taken away the force of his exhortation to re∣pentance, from the consideration of a judge∣ment to come: because such an erroneous conceit may possess men of innocent minds and free from Idolatry, as it was the case of the Monks in Aegypt, of whom Epiphani∣us,* 1.21 and S. Austin speak;* 1.22 and whom Epi∣phanius supposeth to have been very harm∣less men, saving only their separation from the Church: nay, he doth not seem

to apprehend any dangerous consequence of their opinion: which we need not won∣der at, if that which Nicephorus saith be true,* 1.23 viz. that Epiphanius was an Anthro∣pomorphite himself. And yet Epiphanius is well known to have been as great an enemy to Image-worship, and all kind of Idolatry, as any Person that lived in his Age. The same is observable of Ter∣tullian and Lactantius, whereof the one attributed corporeity to God, and the other shape and figure,* 1.24 as our Adversaries con∣fess; and yet both these were vehement disputers against the Heathen Idolatry. From whence we see, that there is no ne∣cessary connexion between this opinion, and the practice of Idolatry, or the worship of Images: and yet there is altogether as good reason why God should be worshipped by an Image, on that supposition, as why Christ should be by a Crucifix since his In∣carnation; which is T. G's great argu∣ment on all occasions. But those who supposed God to be like to men, might yet think it unreasonable to worship God by the work of mens hands; and if arbitrary representation be a sufficient ground of worship, then natural would be much more so, and consequently it would be more reasonable for men to worship one

another, than to worship Images: and all the same distinctions and pleasant evasi∣ons would serve for one, as well as they do for the other.

I desire now to know of T. G. whether the Athenians were to blame only for this erroneous conceit of theirs,* 1.25 in thinking the Divinity to be like their Images? If this were all their fault, (1.) I dare undertake to prove, that many among them were whol∣ly innocent, viz. those who followed the Schools of Plato and Zeno, besides those of the people who took their Images for Symbols of the Divinity. (2.) S. Paul takes very needless pains to make use of such arguments against Image-worship, which do not suppose any opinion of simi∣litude between God and the Image; as the incongruity of Images to the Divine Power, Perfection, and Presence. (3.) Why doth he call upon them so earnestly to repent? was it only of an erroneus con∣ceit? and that of such a nature, that the argument made use of by him, to move them to repentance, was rather apt to confirm them in that opinion, viz. that God would judge the world by that Man whom he hath appointed. If a Man be appointed to judge the world, the manage∣ment

of which must imply infinite Wis∣dom and Power, what absurdity, might they say, is it in us to suppose the Images of men to represent God, as he is the ob∣ject of worship? For if the humane na∣ture be capable of union to the Divinity, why might it not be so united alwayes, as well as at the end of the world? and if it be united, then that humane nature might be represented in an Image, and the Divine Nature honoured by worshipping that re∣presentation. Which being supposed to be lawful, the Apostles argument loses its force; for the subtile Athenians might easily have answered S. Paul, that there was no more repugnancy in supposing God to have assumed a humane body from eternity, than that he should do it so late∣ly in Iudea; which being supposed, their defence naturally follows, for they could not be so foolish to imagine their Images to be like the Divine Nature in it self, but to that humane body which was as∣sumed by the Divine Nature. And that this is no extravagant supposition, will ap∣pear by this, that several of the antient Christian Writers had an opinion very like this, viz. that when God is said to have made man after his own Image, it is to be understood of that humane figure

and shape, which God had then assumed, which was the exemplar according to which man was created: thus Prudentius and the Audiani are understood by Peta∣vius;* 1.26 and some passages of Tertullian look much this way:* 1.27 and Augustinus Steu∣chus Eugubinus a learned but zealous Pa∣pist,* 1.28 contends for the necessity of this opini∣on, because man saw God walking, and heard him speaking in Paradise, and be∣cause of the frequent appearances of God in humane shape, mentioned in the old Testament. And to confirm this, he brings that Verse of Ovid,

Et Deus humana lustro sub imagine terras.

and those of Catullus,

Praesentes namque ante, domos invisere castas Saepius & sese mortali ostendere coetu, Coelicolae, nondum spreta pietate solebant.

and he shews that the Fictions of Homer and the rest of the Poets, as to the Ap∣pearances of the Gods in humane shape, had their true Original from hence, that God did at first assume the Nature of

Man, according to which man was said to be framed after the Image and Similitude of God. But S. Paul, although he asserts the Incarnation of Christ, yet deriving the argument against the worship of God by Images, from the consideration proper to the Divinity, we ought not to think, that the Godhead is like to gold, &c. doth there∣by teach us, that that which is disagree∣ing to the divine nature which is the pro∣per object of worship, cannot be a proper means for us to worship God by: so that although the Images made by men only represent the humane nature assumed by the Divine, yet because the Godhead is not like unto them, we ought not to wor∣ship God by them. For otherwise the Athenians were meer Blockheads (if it were lawful to worship the divine nature of Christ before an Image of his humane, and to give the same worship to one which belongs to the other) that they did not deny S. Pauls consequence;

For what if the Godhead be not like to our Images, it doth not follow, that we may not give them divine worship as long as God hath often appeared in humane shape among us, and we may give worship to the re∣presentation of that Nature wherein he appeared, and the same that belongs to

the Divine Nature, which did assume it.

And I confess, I cannot see how T. G. could have defended S. Paul upon his supposition; for according to T. G.'s principles,* 1.29 although before the Incarnation of Christ, the worship which people gave to the Images of Gold, was incongruous to the Divine Nature, and a Disparagement to the Deity; yet to those to whom the My∣sterie of God made man is revealed, it is no disparagement to him to be represent∣ed in the likeness of man, and to be wor∣shipped by such an Image. Very well; say the Athenians, and so say we too. To worship God by any Image, as repre∣senting his infinite and invisible Nature is folly and madness; but to make Images of him according to his several appear∣ances for the good of mankind in the likeness of men, is no disparagement to the Deity; nor to be worshipped by such an Image. Let T.G. therefore either say, that S. Paul argues inconsequently, or ac∣knowledge that the force of his argu∣ment doth hold against the worship of any representations of God. For it is plain to any man that hath any use of his senses, that S. Paul doth not argue against any meer erroneous conceit of the Athenians, but against their Idolatrous worship, which

he first shews to be unreasonable by many arguments, and then tells them, God now commanded them to repent, and adds the most forcible motive to perswade them to it, from the proceedings of the future judge∣ment.

But I have not yet done with T.G. about this place.* 1.30 Is it not T. G. that, when he fixed his foot, as he saith, and deliberate∣ly enquired what the Supream God of the Heathens was, tells us in plain terms it was the Devil,* 1.31 and an Arch-Devil; and this he doth, he saith, for Gods sake? saith he so indeed? And was this unknown God at Athens whom they ignorantly wor∣shipped, and S. Paul declared, the Devil and an Arch-Devil? No: for here he grants, that the Athenians thought the Divinity to be like their Images; what Divinity doth he mean? Surely, not the Divinity of an Arch-Devil. But I see, those that believe Transubstantiation, are capable of speaking as well as believing contradictions. Yet, it is possible T. G. may imagine that the Athenians meant one Divinity, and S. Paul another. So some say S. Paul plaid the So∣phister with the Athenians, and when the true inscription was to the Unknown Gods; he, because it served better to his pur∣pose, reads it in the singular number, to

the Unknown God. But as Cajetan wisely answers,* 1.32 the Authority of S. Paul affirming there was such an Inscription, ought to be valued above those who deny it; and saith he, if there had not been any such, the Athenians who were by, might presently have charged S. Paul with falshood, in say∣ing he met with an Inscription to the Un∣known God, when there was none such among them. Lorinus shews from several Testimonies of S. Austin that the Athe∣nians did worship the true God: and that in case the inscription had run only in the plural number S. Paul had drawn a con∣clusion out of false premises, whereas Isidore Pelusiota admires the irresistible force of S. Pauls reasoning,* 1.33 being built up∣on premises, which are confessed by the Adversaries; as he disputed with the Iews out of the Scriptures, so he did with the men of Athens from the inscripti∣on on one of their own Altars. This be∣ing then taken for granted by S. Paul, that the Athenians did acknowledge and wor∣ship the true God, how come they to be charged with Idolatry in worshipping Images, if it be lawful to worship the true God▪ by an Image? especially since their intention was, as Ferus saith expresly,* 1.34 by their Idols to worship the true God. I

beseech T. G. to reconcile this, if he can, with making Idolatry to consist in taking Images for Gods, or for the representati∣ons of false Gods; for here was neither, and yet the Athenians were condemned for Idolatry; and Ferus confesses, that those were Idols, whereby they designed to worship the true God; how can that be, if actions pass whither they are intended; for how can that worship be terminated on an Image, according to T. G's Divini∣ty, which is designed to pass through it to God? And that the true God was meant by the Athenians, Corn. à Lapide saith,* 1.35 is manifest from hence, that S. Paul was otherwise bound to shew, that it was not the true God which they wor∣shipped, and to tell them who was the true; whereas here S. Paul saith, he de∣clared to them the same God whom they ignorantly worshipped; which had been ve∣ry unbecoming the sincerity and faithful∣ness of so great an Apostle, in case he knew, they did not worship the true God when he told them they did: for this was at once to deceive, to flatter, to betray them; and that in a matter, upon which the salvation of their souls did depend: which of all persons was most unworthy of the Apostle of the Gentiles, whose business

it was to turn men from Idols to God, to serve the true and living God.* 1.36

But T. G. asks,* 1.37 to what purpose this place was brought by me? (if he did not understand it before, I hope, he will do it now:) Except I intended, he saith, the Reader to believe the Papists to be no wiser than the Athenians. I wish in this matter they were as wise; for it were better for them to erect Altars to an Un∣known God, than to make those absurd, scandalous, and horrible representations of the Mysterie of the Trinity: from whence some of the Antitrinitarians have taken occasion to expose that sacred My∣sterie to scorn and contempt, and have published a Book on purpose, to set forth the Images of the Trinity, which are pub∣lickly seen and allowed in the Roman Church. But the Athenians, he tells us from S. Chrysostom, were so possessed with a wrong apprehension of the Nature of God, that when they heard S. Paul speak of Anastasis, they thought her to be some new Goddess. If they had gone much far∣ther, and worshipped this Anastasis, I think the Athenians had done no worse, than those who worship with solemn de∣votion Saints that never were in the world; and after so long a time of worship of

S. Christopher, and S. George, the wisest among them cannot to this day tell, whe∣ther they were Saints, or Allegories: and if T. G. please, he shall take Baronius his Saint Synoris, to joyn with the Athenian Goddess Anastasis; or if this will not content him, let him take other three Saints which he may find in some old Litanies,* 1.38 of their Church, as I have done, viz. S. Faith, S. Hope, and S. Charity; all three daugh∣ters of a grave Matron, called S. Sapien∣tia; but which far outgoes the Athenian devotion, every one of these hath an Ora pro nobis added to it; but what work would T. G. have made with the poor Athe∣nians, if they had cryed Sancta Anastasis ora pro nobis? yet he may find as gross ab∣surdities nearer home.

* 1.39I now come to the second place, Rom. 1.21, 23. in which T. G. saith, nothing can be more clear, than that the Apostle speaketh there of the Idols or Images of the Heathens; for after he had laid down the matter of fact which he condemned, viz. that although they knew God, yet they did not glorifie him as God, but changed the Glory of the incorruptible God into an Image made like to corruptible man, he adds also, And to Birds, and fourfooted

Beasts, and creeping things, (which words, he saith, were clapt under deck by me with an &c. because they plainly declare what kind of Images the Apostle meant) and then v. 25. tells us, that by so doing, they changed the Truth of God into a lye, and worshipped and served the Creature ra∣ther than the Creator: which words, he saith, are so plain, that I had no way to evade them, but by saying that the Apostle discoursed against the Philosophers, and the Wiser Heathens: whom he proves from S. Chrysostom, to have been guilty of the same Idolatry with the people; and in∣stances in the Aegyptians, and Plato, and Socrates, who commanded a Cock to be of∣fered to Aesculapius. For the clearing the sense of this place, we are to consider, 1. Who the persons were that S. Paul speaks off. 2. What he affirms concern∣ing them.

1. T. G. saith, the words are so plain, that I could find no evasion, but to say. that the Apostle doth not discourse against the most gross and sottish Idolaters, but the Philosophers and the wisest among them; but doth T. G. in good earnest call this an evasion? Was it an evasion in Caje∣tan,* 1.40 when he saith, S. Paul here reproved the sin of the Philosophers; and that the

Philosophers were they who detained the truth in unrighteousness: that the Philoso∣phers did either make, or worship Images, therefore they changed the glory due to God? Was it nothing but meer evasion in Vasquez,* 1.41 when he saith, the Apostle de∣signs to prove, that the Philosophers, both had the true knowledge of God, and held it in unrighteousness? or in Estius,* 1.42 when he saith in plain terms, the Apostle speaks of the Philosophers? and instanceth in Py∣thagoras, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Tris∣megist, and Seneca, who although they did know the true God, yet none of them wor∣shipped him as they ought to do. I need not mention S. Austin, who in many places applyes this to the Philosophers, as appears by Beda's Commentary,* 1.43 when even the words of S. Chrysostom shew this to be far enough from an evasion; what is that to the Philosophers? Marry, I answer, as T.G. translates him, that what hath been said most of all concerns them; but this doth not fully express his meaning, for his words are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or as some Copies read it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, all that hath been said doth most of all con∣cern them, or altogether; and the Greek Scholiast, saith, that it is plain S. Paul strikes at the Wise men among the Greeks,

and those who were like them. Origen saith, he speaks of some of the Wise men of Greece. By these and many more Testi∣monies, if it were needful to heap them in so clear a case, it appears sufficiently, that this was no evasion of mine, but the natu∣ral sense, which their own Commentators, and the Fathers agree in.

2. As to what the Apostle affirms of them, viz. that they held the truth in un∣righteousness, v. 18. i. e. saith the Greek Scholiast, that they gave the worship of God to Idols; for the knowledge of God is truth, and the deceitfulness of Idols is unrighteousness. Hear, saith Theophylact, what it is to detain the truth in unrigh∣teousness, The Truth or the Knowledge of God is naturally put into all mens minds from the beginning; this knowledge or truth the Greeks held in unrighteousness, i. e. they did all the injury to it they could, by giving the glory of God to Idols; and both herein follow S. Chrysostom, who saith, they did it, by giving the glory of God to Wood and Stone. This the Apostle afterwards inlarges upon, when he saith, that knowing God they did not glorifie him as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their imagination, and their fool∣ish heart was darkned. Professing them∣selves

to be wise, they became Fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an Image made like to corruptible man, and to Birds and fourfooted Beasts, and creeping things. And for the sense of this charge I am content to appeal to the judge∣ments of the most allowed Interpreters on both sides, that hat have not been parties in the quarrel. They thought themselves wise, saith S. Hierom or the Author of the Commentaries under his name, as those that had found out, quomodo invisibilis Deus, per simulachrum visibile coleretur; how an invisible God might be worshipped by a visible representation: which is the sense of simulachrum there; for he sup∣poses the worship to be directed to the invisible God through the Image, and therefore the Image could not be taken either for God, or a representation of a false God; so that nothing can be more clear (to use T. G's words) according to S. Hi∣erom, than that T. G. professing to be wise, doth thereby discover his folly, when he saith, that S. Paul speaks of those who took the Images themselves for Gods; or worshipped the Images of false Gods. And the Philosophers professing to be Wise, did become Fools, because saith S. Hierom, they did not understand that what is mortal

and corruptible, could have no resemblance to what is immortal and eternal. The Greek Scholiast saith, they became vain in their imaginations, when they would re∣present him in a Figure that had none, and comprehend him in corporeal Images, that was wholly spiritual; not as though they were such Fools to think to shut up Infinity within the bounds of an Image; but to comprehend, there is taken with relation to that representation which conveys a thing to the mind; and so he useth it a little after, they thought themselves wise, be∣cause they thought they could comprehend every thing: and so the Image was sup∣posed to be such a species as did convey an intellectual Being to the mind. The same words are used by Theophylact; which they both borrowed from S. Chrysostom, who condemns the Greeks for their folly, not for comprehending, but for seeking a spiritual and incorporeal Being, in corpore∣al Images. And what can be more foolish, saith the Scholiast and Theophylact, than to fall down before Stocks and Stones? And Origen doth express the meaning of the Apostle in this place as fully as I can de∣sire, when he applyes all these expressions to those that had a right notion and con∣ception of God in their minds, but gave

divine worship to all sorts of Images, as well of beasts,* 1.44 as of men, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for the honour of the Deity. And in truth, the Apostles supposition being allowed, that these Philosophers did know the true God, and his Eternal Power and Godhead, we must suppose them to be turned stark staring Fools, that should take the Images either of men or beasts to be Gods: but it is very agreeable to the Philosophers practice and opinions to give external worship to these Images, when they in the mean time did direct that external worship to the honour of the invisible Deity.

But the sense of this and the former place will be made more evident by a di∣ligent enquiry into the State of the Con∣troversie about the worship of Images be∣tween the Christians and Heathens.* 1.45 (1.) Whether it was that the Heathens took their Images for proper likenesses of the Deity? Or, (2.) That they wor∣shipped only the Images of false Gods, or that they took their Images themselves for Gods? And if the Controversie did not wholly relate to these things, then it will follow, that it was of the same nature with that between us and the Church

of Rome. I shall therefore shew,

1. That the Wiser Heathens concerning whom the dispute is, did not suppose their Images to be proper likenesses of their Gods. Which I prove, 1. From the na∣ture and kinds of their Images. 2. From the notions they had of their Gods.

1. From the nature and kinds of their Images. There are three sorts of Images which were worshipped among the Hea∣thens, 1. Such as had no artificial shape or figure. 2. Such as had an artificial shape, but it was of no real being. 3. Such as had the shape either of men or beasts. Of the two first, and those of Beasts, I suppose, no man professing himself to be wise, will shew himself such a Fool to say, that the Heathens thought their Gods to be like them. My business therefore as to them, is to shew that there were such among them to which they did give divine worship.

1. For Images without any artificial shape, or figure. By Images here I mean some external visible things which are de∣signed to represent some other thing to our minds. So Tully calls characters, verbo∣rum Imagines, and the countenance, Ima∣ginem animi; in which no exact resem∣blance can be understood, but some thing

which is intended to represent another thing to us, which doth not depend on the nature of things, but the arbitrary insti∣tution of men; as may be seen by the notes and characters of Tyro and Seneca; of which no account can be given, why they represent one thing rather than ano∣ther, but only the Will of the Maker of them. Thus if men agreed that a Spear, a Cymiter, a Trunk, a Mountain, a rude Stone, or a Pyramid should be set up to represent the Deity to them which they worshipped, every one of these did there∣by become the Image of that Deity. He∣rodotus, Solinus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Arnobius, and Ammianus Marcellinus,* 1.46 all agree that the antient Scythians had no other Image of a Deity among them, but only a Scythian Sword, which Herodo∣tus calls the Image of Mars, and he saith, they sprinkled the blood of the Sacrifice upon it. Clemens Alexandrinus and Ar∣nobius tell us from Varro, that the antient Romans worshipped a Spear for Mars, which is also affirmed by Iustin;* 1.47 and the Thespians a Bough for Cinxia or Iuno; the Icarians an unhewn piece of Wood for Diana; the Samii a frame of Wood for Iuno; the Pessinuntii a Flint for the Mother of the Gods; which was carried by the Roman

Ambassadours from Phrygia to Rome, saith Livy; called Religiosa silex by Claudian.* 1.48 The Arabians, an unpolished stone; which was square, saith Maximus Tyrius,* 1.49 of a black colour, saith Suidas,* 1.50 without any shape or figure upon it, four foot high and two broad, to which they sacrifice, and sprinkle the blood upon it. Euthymius charges the Mahumetans with Idolatry for kissing the stone Bracthan;* 1.51 concerning which, they have several fabulous traditions, of its being one of the stones of Paradise, and coming down from thence with Adam, &c. which is placed in one of the corners of the Caaba, or Temple at Mecca, above two cubits above ground, and was stolen from thence by the Karmatiani, hoping to draw away the Pilgrims; but finding it would not do, they restored it to the inhabitants of Mecca twenty years after, who knew it to be the genuine stone, as they said, by its swimming above water; which our learn∣ed Dr. Pocock conjectures to have been one of the Idols of the old Arabs,* 1.52 as the Temple at Mecca was one of their Idol-Temples; but the Mahumetans say they worship it out of a respect to Abraham; as they do another stone, wherein they say are the footsteps of Abraham to be seen, at which they say their prayers; as others

do at Loretto, before a Madonna of the same complexion with the stone Bracthan; of which colour I suppose the same reason may be given which the Mahumetans do of the stone Bracthan, viz. that it came purely white out of heaven, but was turned black by the sins of the people. Such ano∣ther Idol was Manah or Meneth, which was of old worshipped between Mecca and Medina; which the Arabick Writers call a rock or a stone;* 1.53 and was probably as the same Author conjectures, the Meni mentioned Isa. 65.11. and Saad, which he describes to be an oblong stone lying on the shore.* 1.54 The Paphians, Max. Tyrius saith,* 1.55 worshipped Venus under the repre∣sentation of a white Pyramid: and the Lacedaemonians saith Pausanias,* 1.56 erected after the ancient custome, seven pillars to the seven planets; and the same Author affirms it to have been the ancient custome of all the Greeks to set up unpolished stones instead of Images, to the honour of the Gods; which Testimony is very considerable, not only because it makes it the most ancient, but an Universal Custome among the Greeks; and near the Statue of Mercury, he saith, there were thirty square stones, which the Pharii worshipped, and gave to every one the name of a God. Pausanias

mentions many other such Images remain∣ing in Greece after the ancient Mode,* 1.57 as of Hercules in Boeotia,* 1.58 of Cupid among the Thespienses,* 1.59 of the Graces among the Or∣chomenii, where he saith,* 1.60 the people wor∣ship the stones which they believed to have dropt down from heaven. They were wont, saith Hesychius,* 1.61 to have Altars be∣fore the Doors in the fashion of a pillar, which was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; some, saith Har∣pocration,* 1.62 make these proper to Apollo, others to Bacchus, others to both; these were common at Athens, as appears by the Testimonies of Cratinus, Menander and Sophocles quoted by Harpocration; and So∣phocles, he saith, applyed that Athenian custome to Troy, in his Laocoon, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. whom Suidas follows.* 1.63 Stephanus Byzant. saith,* 1.64 the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were Obelisks erected to the honour of the Gods; for which he quotes Eupolis. It seems both Pyramids and Altars were called by this name among them, being both design∣ed for the worship of their Gods: and it is not improbable those rude Pyramids in Yorkshire, mentioned by Cambden,* 1.65 called the Devils bolts, and many such in Den∣mark, by Olaus Wormius,* 1.66 might be first erected for the same purpose, this custome having been so general. Peter della Valle,

in his late Travels in the Indies, saith, that at Ahmedabad, there was a famous Tem∣ple of Mahadeù, wherein there was no other Image but a little column of Stone, after a Pyramidal form,* 1.67 but ending at the top in a round figure; which Mahadeù, he saith, in their language signifies the great God, and after this fashion, he saith, it is the custom of the Brachmans to repre∣sent Mahadeù;* 1.68 the like he observes at Manèl.* 1.69 Although that Author takes the liberty to call this an Idol, I do not see with what conscience T. G. could do it;* 1.70 for an Idol according to him doth signifie either a representation of some imaginary being, or in the utmost sense, something which is falsely esteemed and worshipped as God; but this Pyramid to represent Ma∣hadeù or the great God, was neither a re∣presentation of an imaginary Being, nor was it self taken for God, and therefore was no Idol, nor the worship given to God by it Idolatry: and upon his principles, the worship of the Gioghi is very justifiable by the Law of God,* 1.71 for this is not a represen∣tation by which men are in danger of be∣ing Anthropomorphites; but only hath some analogical and metaphorical signification; and therefore it is no disparagement to the Deity to be thus represented. Thus it falls

out, as I foresaw, that T. G. could not ju∣stifie the practice of their own Church, but he must unavoidably justifie that which is condemned by it, viz. the Heathen Idola∣try. But to proceed, Herodian describing the Worship of Alagabalus at Emesa in Phoenicia,* 1.72 saith, that he had no kind of Image after the Greek, or Roman fashion made by mens hands; but a great stone round at the bottom, lessening by degrees, after the fashion of a Cone; and of a black Colour, (like the stone Bracthan,) which they say, was not made by mens hands, but fell down from heaven. It is great pity Gretser had not put it into his Book, de Imaginibus non manufactis; together with that of the Pessinuntii in Herodian;* 1.73 and of Diana of Ephesus; and of the Graces among the Orchomenii; which were all believed to have come from heaven, as well as those mentioned by Gretser; and the evidence is much alike for them all; and for the miracles wrought by them, Peter della Valle saith, that the Image of Maha∣deù was in great reputation among the In∣dians for working miracles; and in ano∣ther place he saith,* 1.74 there were persons who believed themselves cured of sore eyes by the Idols, and made their presents of sil∣ver and golden eyes,* 1.75 and some Iewels (as

they do in other places on occasion of the like miracles) And notwithstanding what Della Valle intimates of the honesty of Ro∣man Priests in comparison of the Gioghi, in this matter of miracles, a man might ven∣ture a great deal on their heads, that they come behind none of them in any thing that tends to deceive the people. And I do not at all wonder, that this Gentleman seeing their solemn processions in mighty numbers, in pilgrimage to certain places of devotion, should so naturally think of the carrying of the Images of Saints by a Fra∣ternity in procession to Loretto or Rome in the Holy year;* 1.76 any more than that seeing the tricks of Hamant or the holy Apes in the Indies, should bring to his mind those he had seen plaid by some creatures much of the same kind in Europe. But leaving the consideration of Gretsers divine Images to another place, I return to the stone of Alagabalus, whereof there were more than one according to Lampridius,* 1.77 who saith, Lapides qui Divi dicuntur ex proprio Templo, &c. he took out of the Temple of Alagabalus the stones which were called Gods: where the great Criticks are strangely confounded by joyning this clause with that which follows of the Image of Diana from Laodicea, and are

very hard put to it, to tell what Image, and what Laodicea this was; * 1.78 a late Author supposes them to be the same with those stones mentioned in Pausanias, and that it was Laodicea of Achaia which he meant; but Tristan hath shewn the true sense by dividing the clauses;* 1.79 for the stones menti∣oned before, had no relation to Laodicea, but to the proper Temple of the Deity from whom Heliogabalus took his name. Sal∣masius instead of the lapides qui Divi di∣cuntur,* 1.80 would have it read lapides qui vivi dicuntur, alluding to the Boetulia, which Philo Byblius calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the ani∣mated stones, of which he speaks in his translation of Sanchoniathons account of the Phoenician Idolatry: and the place agrees well enough with it; and they did suppose a more than ordinary presence of God in those stones,* 1.81 for which reason they attributed Life to them; and the Arabi∣ans called them the Daughters of God, be∣ing as it were inspired with life by him, and believed that they could intercede with God for them; and therefore they gave them Divine Honour; of which sort, Allat, Alozza, and Manah, are men∣tioned in the Alcoran; although some think Alozza to have been the Trunk of a Tree, which was worshipped among the

Arabians.* 1.82 Bern. de Breitenbach saith, that they had two stones, one black which they called Camos, and the other white which they called Mercury; which two they went twice a year to worship; and the proper rites of their worship, were for the first, the casting of stones behind them, and for the other, burning incense, naked and sha∣ven; and not only the Arabs, but the Am∣monites and Moabites joyned in this wor∣ship. Afterwards Mahomet finding this worship among them, which was before de∣signed to the Honour of Saturn and Mars, continues the customes but turns the wor∣ship another way, and placed one of the stones in the Corner of the Temple, and the other he pitched in the ground in the mid∣dle, and required of all persons that came to Mecca to kiss these stones, with their heads shaven and their backs naked, cast∣ing stones backward. Petrus Alphonsus translated out of Arabick a Conference be∣tween a Christian and a Saracen; which is extant in Vincentius Bellovacensis,* 1.83 wherein we have the same account of the worship of the two stones; but, he saith, the custome came first from the Nations of the Indies which were called Xechiam, and Albarachuma, i.e. saith Scaliger,* 1.84 Brach∣mani, who were wont to worship their

Gods after that manner, by kissing the cor∣ners of stones, and casting them behind them. Maimonides saith,* 1.85 that Markolis was worshipped by the casting of stones, and Cemosh by shaving the head, &c. By Markolis many understand Mercury, but Elias Levita saith,* 1.86 he could find no such worship of him among the Romans, but, he saith, it was the name of an Idol whose peculiar worship that was, and was believed to be an intercessour between them, and the Planet Mercury from whom the name was derived. Buxtorf gives this account of the figure of Markolis,* 1.87 that it was after this fashion; viz. two huge stones standing one against another; and a third lying cross over them, covering the other two with one half of his bigness; which, he saith, the Rabbins called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 do∣mum Kolis; thence, he saith, that the Rabbins in Avoda Zara say, that three stones being placed after that manner are forbidden, because that was the figure of the Idol Markolis. (What if our Stone∣henge were some such thing? for the stones lye transversely upon each other after this figure, which neither belonged to a Ro∣man Temple, nor the Danish Monu∣ments?) Towards these stones they were wont to cast stones, which was the proper

rite of worship belonging to Markolis; and is still performed by the Pilgrims to Mecca, but directing their intention another way. This is done, saith Scaliger on the Mount Arraphoth without Mecca;* 1.88 they cast them into the Valley of Mena, or Akabah, saith Dr. Pocock from the Arabick Writers;* 1.89 but they pretend to do it upon quite other grounds than the ancient Ido∣laters did; viz. in imitation of Abraham, who they say, in that place sent the Devil packing with a stone in his forehead when he came to interrupt him in the sacrificing of his Jon; others say, they do it out of opposition to Idolatry, and in contempt of the Idols formerly worshipped there. But the Iews say, that he that useth a rite pro∣per to Idolatrous worship,* 1.90 though by way of contempt, is guilty; and they instance parti∣cularly in this very thing; however the Mahumetans, having looked over Aristo∣tle's threshold, do know that acts go whi∣ther they are intended, and for their parts, since they intend to knock the Devil in the head with the stones they cast back∣ward, the Devil is like to suffer most by this custome; especially, if it be true which some of the Arabick Writers say, that those stones do break the Devils back. And what harm can there be in kissing and

worshipping the stone Bracthan, as long as they pretend to honour Abraham by doing it? For this is their pretence for it in Da∣mascen;* 1.91 if relative worship be lawful, I do not see, why the Mahumetans direct∣ing their intention to the God of Abraham, are in any greater fault, than those who worshipping an Image, direct their wor∣ship finally to God, but after a relative and inferiour manner, suffer it to fall upon the Image for his sake. But Damascen saith something farther, viz. that they who look more narrowly into this stone (as some may see farther into a stone than others) do find the Image of Venus,* 1.92 which they called Chabar in it; to which Dr. Po∣cock answers from the Arabick Writers,* 1.93 that this is both a mistake of one stone for another; and that all the impression in that stone is as like the face of Venus, as a mans heels are like his head; unless, saith he, the Mahumetans be so blind with su∣perstition, as not to be able to distinguish the head and feet from each other; for so Abulfeda saith, it hath only the impression of Abrahams feet; but granting they were mistaken, and that they could not tell Abrahams footstep from an ordinary Pil∣grims, yet methinks they should know some difference between the foot of a man,

and the face of Venus. And what reason is there to search for the figure of a face upon a stone, when I have already so fully proved it was the custome to worship rude and unpolished stones; especially in those Eastern parts, where the Boetulia were in so much request,* 1.94 which many learned men do suppose to have come at first from the stone, which Iacob anointed in Bethel, and set up for a pillar there, to which the Jews say, the Canaanites afterwards gave divine worship; and that from hence came the custome of worshipping such stones, and the name of them. Which makes the conjecture of Bochartus very probable, that Sanchoniathon had written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the interpreter mistaking but one letter read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and so rendered it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 animated stones, which was no more than anointed stones: which custome of anointing stones for worship, among the Heathens, is mentioned by Clemens Alex∣andrinus, Minutius, Apuleius and others.* 1.95 S. Augustin hath a passage very observable to our purpose concerning Iacob, viz. that he did not anoint the stone at Bethel after the custome of Idolaters, as if he made it a God; for, saith he, he did not worship the stone nor sacrifice to it; where we not only find this custome of Idolaters,

but the meaning of that phrase in the Fa∣thers of taking their Images for Gods, by which they meant no more than what S. Augustin here explains it by, viz. giv∣ing divine worship to them. Damascius in Photius,* 1.96 mentions many of these Boetu∣lia, that were seen by Asclepiades on Mount Libanus near Heliopolis in Syria; of which, he saith, some were consecrated to Saturn, others to Jupiter, others to the Sun.

Maximus Tyrius shews at large,* 1.97 that simi∣litude to the Deity was not regarded in the things they gave divine worship to, and look∣ed on as symbols of the God they worshipped; thus they gave divine honour to fountains, trees, tops of Mountains, and Mountains themselves;* 1.98 as the inhabitants of West-Bar∣bary worshipped Mount Atlas; and the Cappadocians the Mount Argaeus, and others Mount Casius; and so Carmel is called in Suetonius the God Carmel:* 1.99 and that Philo∣sopher makes it an arbitrary thing, what kind of representations of the Deity men make use of, as long as they are designed to put them in mind of God, and are wor∣shipped with a respect to him. The ancient Celtae, he saith, had no other Image of Jupiter but a great Oak. The Lacedemo∣ans had some ancient Images of the Dio∣scuri, which they called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which,

saith Plutarch,* 1.100 were nothing else, but two pieces of timber lying at an equal distance, with two others laid cross over them; from whom Eustathius repeats it.* 1.101 And Tacitus saith,* 1.102 the old Germans had no Images of their Deities of any humane figure; and that they attributed the names of their Gods to their Groves: for they had as Claudian expresses it Robora, numinis In∣star. T. G. saith,* 1.103 it is evident from Taci∣tus himself, that they had other Figures and Symbols in their consecrated Groves; although they had not any in the likeness of men, because they thought them unsuita∣ble to the Celestial Deities; but I desire to be informed by him, 1. How other figures come to be a less disparagement to the Deity, than humane figures? Did they in∣deed think it less dishonour to God to be like a bruit, or a plant, or a cockboat than to be like a man? Did they who thought the Images of men so much below their Gods, take the others to be more agreeable to them? 2. How doth Tacitus make it appear, that they had other Symbols and Figures in the consecrated Groves? It is true that he saith, part of the Suevi did sacrifice to Isis; but, he saith, this was a foreign Religion, and he knows not how it came there, but he is sure by the Figure it

was foreign? and doth this prove, that the Religion of the Germans did allow of Images, because a Religion was known to be foreign, by its Image? But this is the very quintessence of ingenuity, when he hath had no more to say against this Te∣stimony, and not a word against any of the rest, to conclude after this fashion, His other citations I took upon his word without examining them (which I hardly take upon his word, finding him so ready to cavil upon the slightest occasion) and the Rea∣der may guess by this out of Tacitus, whe∣ther it be not likely I did him a kindness in it; which I am content to leave to the Readers Ingenuity.

We are certain it was the custome both of the Germans and Gauls,* 1.104 as well as other Nations, to worship not only stones and fountains, but Trees. Pliny saith in gene∣ral,* 1.105 that Trees were looked on as Temples of the Gods; and that the people did not more worship the Images of Gold and Ivory, than they did the Groves; and the same Quintilian saith,* 1.106 especially of Aged Oakes. Curtius saith,* 1.107 the Indians accounted all things Gods which they worshipped, especi∣ally Trees. The Council of Carthage mentions the remainders of Idolatry in

Groves and Trees as well as Images.* 1.108 And there was no one custome of Idolatry which the Northern Nations especially, were more hardly drawn from, after they had received Christianity: which was therefore strictly forbidden in the Capitu∣lar of Carolus M. and the Priests were severely punished if they did not discover those who did aut arbores,* 1.109 aut fontes, aut saxa venerari, which are the words there used. In the Lombard Laws,* 1.110 there is a constitution of Luitprandus, against those that did worship ad arborem atque ad fon∣tanas, before a certain tree, and at Springs. Othlonus in the Life of Boniface,* 1.111 not only mentions this custome, but that Boniface did cut down a very great tree, which was called Arbor Iovis in a placed called Ges∣mere; which is in the lower Hassia saith Serrarius.* 1.112 Agathias saith,* 1.113 that the Ger∣mans worshipped Trees and Rivers, and Hills and Groves. In S. Augustins time,* 1.114 we find this custome continued among many called Christians, to pay their vows before certain trees, and to say their pray∣ers at Fountains; for which he charges them with Idolatry; which trees, he saith, if they fell, they would not take a stick of them to burn, whereby they give honour to a dead Tree, and contemn the precepts of

the living God. The twelfth Council of Toledo produces the second Command∣ment,* 1.115 and the other severe prohibitions of Idolatry against this practice. The second Council of Arles hath a Canon against the Bishops,* 1.116 who suffer any such Trees or Stones to remain in their Dioceses: the same hath the Council of Braga against Presbyters.* 1.117 The second Council of Tours charges the Priests to excommunicate those who did these things:* 1.118 Le Cointe by the Stones un∣derstands the Boundaries, at which the Heathens did celebrate the Terminalia, but without any bloody sacrifice, as he proves from Dionys. Halicarnassaeus, and Plutarch. The Synod of Auxerre forbids Christians paying their vows either before holy Trees,* 1.119 or at Fountains. The Council of Nantes commands the cutting down all such Trees,* 1.120 and casting away the stones; and that all people be told what a dreadful sin Idolatry is, and that he that worships Trees and Stones, denies God and renounces his Christianity; with a great deal more to that purpose; and yet all this while these men pretended to be Christians, and to direct the intention of their worship aright; which I beseech T. G. to observe; for all the fault the Council found with them was, that they did those things be∣fore

Trees and Stones which ought to be done only in the Church, viz. making their oblations and saying their prayers. And in the Canons of Eligius,* 1.121 this is one, Nullus Christianus ad fana, vel ad Petras, vel ad Fontes, vel ad Arbores, aut ad Cellos, vel per trivia, luminaria faciat, aut vota red∣dere praesumat. Where we see these Canons did respect Christians and not In∣fidels; and several of them are inserted in the Collection of Canons by Burchardus and Regino:* 1.122 now I desire to be resolved by T. G. why it is not as lawful to say ones prayers in a consecrated Grove, or at a Fountain, or before a Stone or Pillar, as before a consecrated Image? Hath God only forbidden Groves and Statues to be worshipped, and not Images at all? Nay, one would think, that at the same time he had forbidden the one, he had commanded the other; when we see how scrupulous these Fathers were in the former, and how much the practice of devotion in the Ro∣man Church, where it is openly and pub∣lickly allowed, consists in the other. Surely a man is not more apt to think God to be like a Tree, or a Stone, than to the Image of a man; and if this argument of similitude signifies any thing, it tends to ju∣stifie these practises, condemned by so ma∣ny

Councils; and to condemn the worship of Images in the likeness of men, which T. G. endeavours to justifie. And to let us see, how general this kind of worship was among the Heathen Idolaters, I shall conclude this discourse with a double Te∣stimony to this purpose. The one of Dio Chrysostome,* 1.123 who saith, the generality of the barbarous Nations, called Mountains, Trees, and Stones by the name of Gods, i. e. as the Greeks and Romans did their Images, to which they gave divine worship. The other of Acosta;* 1.124 who saith, the Indians worshipped Rivers, Fountains, Rocks, or great stones, Hills and the tops of Moun∣tains, which they called Apachita's, and all things in Nature which seemed to have something extraordinary in them.

2. The Heathens worshipped such Images, as had some shape and Figure,* 1.125 but it was not of any real being, but only Imaginary. This I have so little reason to go about to prove against T. G. that he desires me,* 1.126 to take notice, that the Heathens (as Origen, Hom. 8. in Exod. 20. and Theodoret q. 38. in Exod. tells us, when they expound the second Commandment) had two sorts of Images; some of which were purely figments or fictions of their

own brain, made to represent what had no existence but in their own imaginations, as Sphinxes, Tritons, Centaures, and the like; and others which were made to represent such things, as had a real, and substantial Being in the World, as the Sun, Moon and Stars, &c. which they esteemed and wor∣shipped as Gods. I shall not now dispute, whether the Idols forbidden in the second Commandment, be only such representati∣ons; nor whether. Sphinxes, and Cen∣taures be such imaginary Beings, (for about the latter S. Hierom is uncertain;* 1.127 and a Sphinx is nothing but an Aethio∣pian Ape, such as Philostorgius saith himself saw;* 1.128) but that which I insist upon, in this place, is, that this sort of Images was not certainly unlawful on the account of similitude to the Deity; and those who thought so were not Idolaters, but Atheists; for then they thought that to be like God, which was like to Nothing. And if the Athenians had any such as these, (as they were as good at Chimaera's as other people) S. Pauls argument would not reach to them; and it seems S. Paul mistook his point: for he, good man, thought he had been talking against Idolatry at Athens; but it was no such matter; for saith T. G. he talked against such Images as were

proper likenesses and representations of the Divinity; now the Divinity certainly is a Real Being; and Idolatry is the worship of Idols; but an Idol, saith T. G. is a re∣presentation of an imaginary Being; there∣fore those Images S. Paul spake against at Athens were no Idols; and consequently S. Paul doth not prove the Athenians guilty of Idolatry. But of these things more at large when I come to the second Commandment.

3. They had artificial Images of real Beings; in the Likeness of Men.* 1.129 And I shall now shew, that even these Images were not set up or worshipped among the Heathens, because they supposed the Gods to be like them. For which, in the first place I shall produce this remarkable Testi∣mony of Cicero, where he answers the Epi∣curean argument for the Gods being of hu∣mane form, because men are wont to re∣present them so; Quis tam caecus, saith he,* 1.130 in contemplandis rebus unquam fuit, ut non videret species istas hominum collatas in Deos, aut consilio quodam sapientum, quo facilius animos imperitorum ad Deorum cultum à vitae pravitate converterent; aut Superstitione, ut essent simulachra, quae venerantes, Deos ipsos se adire crederent?

Who was there ever so blind in the judge∣ment of things, as not to see that the Fi∣gures of men are attributed to the Gods, either by the advice of wise men, the easier to draw rude and wicked people to the wor∣ship of them; or out of superstition, that when they worshipped their Images, they might believe they approached to the Gods themselves? Where we observe, that these words are brought to disprove the Epicurean opinion of the Gods being like to men; and he undertakes to give an ac∣count how they came to be represented in humane shape, although they were not like to it; viz. 1. To make the notion of God more familiar and easie to rude and barbarous people, that knew not how to conceive of him, and therefore neglected his worship, which is all one with making them Books for the ignorant Laity. 2. To excite their devotion, that when they made their addresses to these Images, they might believe they made them to the Gods them∣selves. And according to T. G. what harm was there in all this? provided that these were declared not to be proper like∣nesses of the Deity; and so we see they were, by their best and wisest men. But the people might imagine the Gods to be like them; and what then? may they not

do the same in the Roman Church, and with as good reason? when they see God painted like a Pope, with his Crown and Pontifical Vestments; may they not as rea∣sonably think, that as the Pope is Gods Vicar on earth, God himself is the Pope in Heaven. If they say they take care the people be better informed: not too much of that neither; but did not Cicero and others do the like by the Heathens? who argued against the folly of supposing the Gods to be like men, and derided the Epi∣cureans for asserting it; as men that nei∣ther understood the nature of Gods, or Men. And Cicero in the same place is so far from looking on this practice of wor∣shipping the Gods in Images of humane shape as Universal,* 1.131 that he confesses it to be almost peculiar to the Greeks and Ro∣mans; and saith,* 1.132 that the Epicureans who did assert the Gods, to have the members of mens bodies, but made no use of them, did only droll, and in words assert a Deity, which in Truth they denied. Maximus Tyrius debates the case about the several ways of representing God;* 1.133 and although he makes the manner as indifferent, as whe∣ther our words be expressed in Phoenician, or Ionian, or Attick, or Aegyptian Cha∣racters, they being all intended only as

helps to our understandings and Memories, and as far distant from the Deity as Hea∣ven from Earth; yet, he saith, they are useful to the duller part of mankind, who like Children are taught to read and un∣derstand, by these broader characters; which are intended only as a Manuduction to them; yet, he prefers that which he calls the Greek way, of representing the Gods with the most exquisite art in humane Figures; but he doth it so timorously, that he only saith, it is not unreasonable; not that he imagined the Gods to be like them; but only because the Soul of man comes nearest to God; and that habitation which God had chosen for a divine Soul seemed the fittest to be a Symbol of the in∣visible Deity. But he does not blame the other Nations which made use of other wayes of representing the Deity; which he must have done, if he had thought the Greek Images the proper likenesses of God; for although he disputes against the Persi∣ans and Aegyptians, yet he concludes all at last with this saying, whether men wor∣ship God by the art of Phidias, as the Greeks; or by the worship of living Crea∣tures, as the Aegyptians; or by the worship of Rivers, or of Fire, as other Nations, I condemn not the variety; let them only

understand and love, and remember him whom they worship. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. in T. G.'s Translation, let a man only direct his intention towards God, and then without doubt the actions go whither they are intended. And upon these grounds none of the Heathens were to blame in the worship of Images, provided they looked on them only as Symbols, or Ana∣logical representations of the Deity, as Maximus Tyrius saith they did, and di∣rected their worship towards the Supreme Being, as he adviseth them all to do. For, saith he, God who is the Father and Maker of all things, elder than the Sun and Hea∣ven, better than Time, and Age, and all Fluid things, a Lawgiver without name, that cannot be expressed with words, or seen with eyes; whose essence being incom∣prehensible by us, we make use of all helps from sounds and words, and living Crea∣tures, and Images of Gold, and Ivory, and Silver, and Plants, and Rivers, and Moun∣tains, to bring us to the Conception of him; and because of our Weakness, those things we account good we attribute to him, as lovers use to do, who delight in any repre∣sentation of him they love; and behold with great pleasure, the harp, or the dart, or the seat he sate upon, or the place he ran

in, and whatever brings him to mind▪ What need I say any more concerning Ima∣ges? Let God only be in the mind. Is not this a Vindication of Heathen Idolatry, to T. G.'s hearts desire?* 1.134 For, saith T. G. Is it not an honour to the King to kiss his Pi∣cture? And the very light of nature teaches that the honour or dishonour done to a picture, or Image, reflects upon the person represented by it. Now, saith Max. Tyrius, we look upon Images, and Trees, and Rivers, and Mountains but as so many imperfect pictures and represen∣tations of the Deity; but although they do not come near his beauty, yet we honour them for the sake of him whom they repre∣sent; wherein we do but as great lovers do, we kiss the footsteps where he trod, we embrace, admire, and value things as they represent him, and bring him to our minds. And is there any thing more na∣tural than this? For is it not an honour to the King to kiss his picture? or, as the Emperour Iulian more elegantly expresses it,* 1.135 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. He that loves the King, takes pleasure in seeing the picture of the King, he that loves his Child, loves any representation of him, and so doth he that loves his Father; even so, saith the devout

Emperour Iulian by the meer light of Na∣ture, every one that is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Lover of God, loves the representations of the Gods, and beholding their Images doth secretly fear and reverence them, which although invisible themselves do behold him. Wherein we see how admirably Iulian and T. G. have hit not only on the same principle of nature, but the very instance, and almost the very same expressions: It seems, this great man did not corrupt him∣self in those things he knew naturally, but pursued the light of Nature towards the Defence of Pagan Idolatry; making the Worship of Images a part of Natural Reli∣gion, as T. G. doth. But what spight is this, for me to mention Julian and T. G. together? whereas it is well known that Julian was against Invocation of Saints, and called that as great Idolatry as the Heathens, as T. G. notably observes against Dr. St. But for all this Iulian, though an Apostate, and great enemy to Christianity was a shrewd understanding man, and found out the very fundamental principle of the worship of Images, and resolved it in∣to the Light of Nature, as T. G. doth. But Julian supposed these Images to be pro∣per Likenesses of the Gods, and consequent∣ly the worship of them as such is con∣demned:

no such matter I assure you, Iu∣lian was a more Orthodox man than so, he was no follower of that damnable here∣tick called Anthropomorphus (for so I find him in an ancient Catalogue of Hereticks;) Iulian detests that opinion,* 1.136 and calls the Gods 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, without any cor∣poreal figure, or shape; and therefore he proposes the objection of a Christian against him, how it could then be proper to make any corporeal Images of them? Why, to that,* 1.137 saith Iulian, I answer, the Images of the Gods are placed by our Ancestors, as Signs and Symbols of their presence, not that we should believe them to be Gods, but that we should worship the Gods by giving Reverence to them. For, we living in the body ought to give them a worship suitable to our corporeal state, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; but they are incorporeal. So that Iu∣lian did not look on Images as the proper likenesses of the Gods, but as ancient and venerable Symbols of their presence; in which, he saith, all Nations of the world were agreed, and in all Ages. Wherein he lashes too far; but that is at least but a venial sin, to stretch a little for the sake of so good a Cause. And Iulian was not singular in this opinion of his, of the fit∣ness of corporeal Images, although the

Gods were not like them; for Varro was of the same mind; who gives this account of the first design of making the Images of the Gods like to men,* 1.138 Quorum qui si∣mulachra specie hominis fecerunt, hoc vi∣deri secutos, quod mortalium animus, qui est in corpore humano, simillimus est im∣mortalis animi, &c. that the soul of man was most like the Deity; and men made Images like to their Bodies, just as if a Wine-vessel were put in the Temple of Bacchus to represent him, intending there∣by to represent first the Wine, which should be in the Vessel, and by the Wine him that is the God of Wine: so, saith he, by Images of mens shape they signified the Soul con∣tained within the body; and by the Soul they represented God as of the same na∣ture, viz. the Soul of the World. Porphy∣rie,* 1.139 such another good Catholick as Iulian was, in this point of the worship of Images, doth not in the least suppose any similitude between the Shape of a Man, and the Na∣ture of God, but he gives this account of representing the Gods in Figures like to men, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, They made the Gods like to men, because the Divinity is a rational Being; and withall, he saith, that many were wont to represent him by a black stone,

to shew that he is invisible. Dio Chry∣sostome at large debates the case about Images, in his Olympick Oration;* 1.140 where∣in he first shews, that all men have a na∣tural apprehension of one supreme God the Father of all things; that this God was re∣presented by the Statue made by Phidias of Jupiter Olympius, for so he said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, before whom we now are; and then describes him to be the King, Ruler and Father of all both Gods and men; this Image he calls, the most blessed, the most excellent, the most beautiful, the most be∣loved Image of God.* 1.141 He saith, there are four wayes of coming to the knowledge of God, By nature, by the instructions of the Poets, by the Laws, and by Images: but neither Poets,* 1.142 nor Law-givers, nor Artifi∣cers were the best Interpreters of the Deity, but only the Philosophers who both understood and explained the Divine Na∣ture most truly and perfectly. After this, he supposes Phidias to be called to account for making such an Image of God,* 1.143 as un∣worthy of him; when Iphitus, Lycurgus, and the old Eleans, made none at all of him,* 1.144 as being out of the power of man to express his nature; to this Phidias re∣plies, that no man can express mind and understanding by figures,* 1.145 or colours, and

therefore they are forced to fly to that in which the soul inhabits, and from thence they attribute the seat of Wisdom and Rea∣son to God, having nothing better to repre∣sent him by: and by that means joyning power and art together, they endeavour by something which may be seen and painted, to represent that which is invisible and in∣expressible. But it may be said, we had bet∣ter then have no Image or representation of him at all; no saith he, for mankind doth not love to worship God at a distance, but to come near and feel him, and with assurance to sacrifice to him and crown him. Like Children newly weaned from their Parents, who put out their hands to∣wards them in their dreams as if they were still present: so do men out of the sense of Gods goodness and their relation to him, love to have him represented as present with them, and so to converse with him: thence have come all the repre∣sentations of God among the barbarous Na∣tions in Mountains, and Trees, and Stones. But if the quarrel be, that I have given a humane shape to him; for that, saith he, the Poets are much more to blame who be∣gan those things, especially Homer who compared Agamemnon to God in his head and eyes: but for my statue, no man that

is not mad would compare it to a mortal man, much less to the perfection of the Deity: and so Dio proceeds with a great deal of eloquence to shew, how the repre∣sentation of God by his Image was more decent and becoming God, than that which the Poets had made of him: and how he had endeavoured by the utmost of his skill to represent the perfections of the Divine Nature in the admirable workmanship of his Statue, as to his power, Greatness, and Good Will to Mankind; and concludes all with saying, that as to his workmanship he thinks he hath gone beyond all others; but yet no workmanship can be compared to the God that made the whole World. Thus we see from the Testimony of these very considerable Authors, the Wiser Hea∣thens had no such foolish Imagination as T. G. supposes them to be possessed with, viz. that the Images of the Deity which they worshipped were the proper likenesses of him; and if T. G's Light of Nature and Common sense do sufficiently decide this Controversie, it is very plain on which side the ballance inclines, viz. towards Paga∣nism against Christianity. Macrobius saith,* 1.146 that anciently they made no Image at all of the Supreme God, as being above any representation; but they made Images

of the inferiour Gods although they were formarum talium prorsus alieni, in nothing like to them. The former Clause in Ma∣crobius must be understood of the most ancient times before the Age of Phidias as appears by the foregoing passages; and yet Porphyrie saith,* 1.147 that the Aegyptians were wont to represent the Creator whom they called Cneph in the figure of a man of a dark blew Colour, holding a girdle and a Scepter in his hand; out of whole mouth came an Egg, by which they represented the world as his production. Not much unlike to this, is the Image of the Creator in the Temple of Meaco in Iapan, which is all over black, with a Scepter in his hand, and they likewise represent the world by an Egg; as Arnoldus Montanus observes.* 1.148 In the Itinerary of Alexander Geraldinus to those parts of Africa under the Aequinoctial (which was written by him to the Pope, when he was Bishop of S. Domingo) in the account he gives of the Religion of those parts (which is far more particular than is to be met with elsewhere) he describes se∣veral Images of the Great God which were in mighty veneration among them: as in Bassiana the King with all his people do worship the God of Nature in an Image of Marble, set upon a high Throne,* 1.149 holding the

Sun in his right hand, and the Moon in his left, and the other Stars on either side of him; and wherever the King travels, he carries such an Image along with him, and prays five times a day prostrate before it. In Demnasea upon the top of a wall is placed the Image of God holding all things,* 1.150 before which the people are bound to pray every morning.* 1.151 In Ammosenna, they re∣present the God of Heaven by four Heads coming out of the body of a Lynx looking towards the four quarters of the world to represent his omnisciency and omnipresence, whom they call Orissa.* 1.152 In Logonsennea, the God of Nature is painted in the Image of a man and all other Images of him con∣demned Now if T. G. were sent on a Mission into any of those parts where God was worshipped after such a manner, I have a great desire to understand, what his opinion would be concerning this kind of worship; whether it were Idolatry or no? If not, they might still continue in it and be saved; as far as men can be saved by the meer light of Nature, which herein T. G. thinks they follow exactly; for they honour God by worshipping his Image. If it be Idolatry, how comes it to be so? for this is neither the representation of some Pigment, but of a real Being; nor is it

of some real thing falsely taken to be God, which is his larger notion of an Idol; but it is looked on only as the Image of the True God; and that not as a proper Like∣ness, but by Analogical representation, and consequently according to T. G. is no dis∣paragement to the Deity.* 1.153

But whatever T. G's opinion in this case is,* 1.154 the Fathers when they discoursed against the Heathen Idolatry, made use of such ar∣guments which held against such Images and representations as these; and that upon these two weighty considerations.

1. Because such a representation of God, was unsuitable to his Nature.

2. Because it was repugnant to his Will.

1. Because such a representation of God was unsuitable to his Nature. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith Clemens Alexandrinus.* 1.155 A visible repre∣sentation of the Deity lessens his Majesty; and it is a disparagement to an intellectual Being to worship him by sensible matter: therefore, saith he,* 1.156 Moses forbad any Image to be made of God, that we might ascend above sensible things; and thereby de∣claring

God to be invisible, and incompre∣hensible. And from hence Zeno the Stoick said, no workmanship of man could be wor∣thy of God. And in another place, he saith,* 1.157 the reason why Numa forbad any Image of God like to man, or any living creature, was, because the most excellent Being could be represented only to our Minds; and that Antisthenes learnt that from Socrates, that God was like to no re∣presentation we could make of him;* 1.158 and therefore no man could learn any thing of him from an Image; and Xenophon, that it is apparent that God is great and power∣ful, but we know not how to make any thing like him. Is it possible then, that such A∣thenians as these, should look on any Images as the proper likenesses of God? These wiser Heathens, T. G. confesses,* 1.159 did mean, that the nature of God being spiri∣tual and invisible, it could not be repre∣sented by any thing like unto it; and yet these were Athenian Philosophers, as well as those whom, he saith, S. Paul condemned for supposing their Images to be proper Likenesses and representations of the Di∣vinity.* 1.160 But T. G. supposes, that the rea∣son why the worship of Images is a dispa∣ragement to the Deity, and incongruous to the Divine Nature, is, because the people

gave worship to them as Gods, or like unto the Gods they worshipped; whereas I have now plainly shewed, that those who con∣tended for the Worship of Images among them, did neither look upon them as Gods, nor like to their Gods, but only as Sym∣bolical representations of the Divine Na∣ture. And the Fathers make use of this acknowledgement of theirs of the incon∣gruity of Images to the Deity, from thence to prove the incongruity of the worship of them. So that it is not, the supposing the Images to be like God, which they con∣demn in them, for none of their wiser men were such Fools; but the making of such Images and worshipping of them, which in their own nature were so infi∣nitely beneath the divine Being, did tend to the begetting in mens minds mean and unworthy thoughts of God. And there∣fore they frequently insist upon this, that mens imaginations are easily tainted and corrupted by the daily representations of things, especially when they are proposed as objects of worship: and however, the very manner of worshipping an infinite, and immaterial Being by a gross and ma∣terial representation is that which the Fa∣thers condemn as most unsuitable to the Divine Nature. For this, Justin Martyr

saith, is not only unreasonable, but it is done 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with the reproach of God,* 1.161 whose glory and form is inexpressible. Athenagoras saith,* 1.162 if God and matter be all one, it is then reasonable to worship God by giving worship to sensible matter; but if there be an infinite distance between them, why are we accused for not doing it? And if we refuse to worship the workmanship of God, viz. the Heaven and Elements;* 1.163 why should we do it to the workmanship of men? Origen looks on this,* 1.164 as one of the most peculiar characters of the Christian doctrine, that it raises mens minds above Images and all worship of Creatures to the Creator of all things, and that it is one of the first things the Catechumens are instructed in, to despise Idols,* 1.165 and all Images; He saith, it is not only a foolish thing to pray to Images, as Heraclitus said; but to seem to do it as the Philosophers did. If they are wor∣shipped, it must be either as Gods, which Celsus denyed,* 1.166 or as representations of God, which cannot be, because God is in∣visible and incorporeal: and therefore, he saith,* 1.167 that the Christians would not endure the worship of God by Images; and although other Nations did refuse the worship of Images, (with whom Celsus

parallels the Christians) yet it was not upon the same ground that the Christians did, viz. because they would not debase and draw down the worship of God to∣wards matter so fashioned and formed. Lactantius shews,* 1.168 how unreasonable it is to worship God by an Image; since Images are intended to represent the absent; but God is every where present. But if there ought to be any Image of God (which he calls simulachrum Dei, and surely doth not signifie an Idol in T. G's sense; and I hope here he will not charge me with want of fidelity in translating it Image) it ought to be living and sensible, because God lives for ever: therefore that cannot be the Image of God that is made by the Work of mens hands, but Man himself, who gives all the art and beauty to them which they have; but poor silly men as they are, they do not consider, that if their Images had sense and motion, they would worship the Men that made them; and brought them into such a curious figure out of rude and unpolished matter. Who can be so foolish to imagine, there can be any thing of God in that Image, in which there is nothing of man, but the meer shadow? But their minds have the deepest tincture of folly; for those who have sense, worship things

that have none; they who think themselves wise, things that are uncapable of Rea∣son; they that live, things that cannot stir, and they that came from heaven, things that are made of earth. What is this, saith he, but to invert the order of Na∣ture, to adore that which we tread upon? Worship him that lives, if ye would live; for he must dye, that gives up his Soul to things that are dead. And after he hath fully shewn his Rhetorick in exposing the folly of worshipping Images, he concludes very severely;* 1.169 quare nonest dubium quin Religio nulla sit, ubicun{que} simulachrum est. Wherefore there can be no true Religion, where there is the worship of Images; no, although it be simulachrum Dei, the wor∣ship of God by an Image; for his reason holds against all; Religion, saith he, is a divine thing, and whatever is divine is heavenly, but whatever is in Images is earthy, and therefore there can be no Religion in the worship of Images. What sport do Tertullian, Minucius, and Arno∣bius make with the Images which were consecrated to divine worship?* 1.170 from the meanness of the matter they are made of, the pains, and art that is used to bring them into their shape, the casualties of fire and rottenness, and defilements they are

subject to, and many other Topicks on purpose to represent the ridiculousness of worshipping such things; or God by them. O, saith Arnobius, that I could but enter into the bowels of an Image, and lay be∣fore you all the worthy materials they are made up of; that I could but dissect be∣fore you a Jupiter Olympius, and Capi∣tolinus. Yet these were dedicated to the worship of the Supreme God. Would men ever have been such Fools to have ex∣posed themselves rather than such Images to laughter and scorn, if they had used any such themselves, or thought them ca∣pable of relative divine worship? How easily would a Heathen of common under∣standing have stopt the mouths of these powerful Orators, with saying but a few such words to any one of them.

Fair and soft, good Sir; while you declaim so much against our Images, think of your own; what if our Iupiter Olympi∣us, or Capitolinus be made of Ivory, or Brass, or Marble; what if the Artificer hath taken so much pains about them; what if they are exposed to Weather, and Birds, and Fire, and a thousand ca∣sualties: are not the Images of S. Peter, and S. Paul, or the several Madonna's of such and such Oratories liable to the very

same accusations? If ours are unfit for worship, are not yours so too? if we be ridiculous, are not you so? and so much the more, because you laugh at others, for what you do your selves.

So that we must either think the first Christians prodigious Fools, or they must utterly condemn all Images for Religious Worship; and not meerly the Heathens on considera∣tions peculiar to them. And that we may not think this a meer heat of Eloquence in these men, we find the same thing as∣serted by the most grave and sober Writers of the Christian Church, when they had to deal not with the rabble, but their most understanding Adversaries. We have no material Images at all, saith Clemens Alexandrinus,* 1.171 we have only one intellectu∣al Image, who is the only true God; We worship but one Image which is of the In∣visible and Omnipotent God, saith S. Hie∣rome.* 1.172 No Image of God ought to be wor∣shipped, but that which is what he is, nei∣ther is that to be worshiped in his stead, but together with him, saith S. Augustin.* 1.173 Where it is observable that the reason of worship given to this Eternal Image of God, is not communicable to any Image made of him, as to his humane Nature; for it can∣not be said of the humane nature it self,

that it is God, much less of any Image or representation of it. Therefore let T. G. judge whether the worshipping Christ by an Image, be not equally condemned by the Fathers with the worship of God by an Image; but of that hereafter. Eusebius answering Porphyrie about the Image of God,* 1.174 saith, What agreement is there be∣tween the Image of a man and the Divine understanding? I think it hath very lit∣tle to a mans mind, since that is incorpo∣real, simple, indivisible; the other quite contrary, and only a dull representation of a mans shape; The only resemblance of God lies in the soul, which cannot be ex∣pressed in Colours or Figures; and if that cannot which is infinitely short of the Di∣vine Nature, what madness is it to make the Image of a man to represent the Fi∣gure and form of God? For the Divine Nature must be conceived with a clear and pure understanding free from all cor∣ruptible matter; but that Image of God in the likeness of man, contains only the Image of a mortal man, and that not of all of him, but of the worst part only, without the least shadow of Life or Soul. How then can the God over all, and the Mind which framed the World be the same that is represented in Brass or Ivory?

S. Augustin,* 1.175 relating the saying of Varro, about representing God by the Image of a mans body, which contains his Soul which resembles God, saith, that herein he lost that prudence and sobriety he discovered in saying, that those who first brought in Images among the Romans, abated their Reverence (to the Deity) and added to their errour;* 1.176 and that the Gods were more purely worshipped without Images: wherein, saith S. Augustin, he came very near to the Truth. And if he durst speak openly against so ancient an errour, he would say, that one God ought to be wor∣shipped, and that without an Image: the folly of Images being apt to bring the Deity into contempt. Is it possible to con∣demn the worship of God by an Image in more express words than S. Austin here does?

2. Because the worship of God by Images is repugnant to his Will.* 1.177 Clemens Alexan∣drinus mentions the Law given by Moses,* 1.178 against the making any Image of God in the place before mentioned; and which he there asserts to be still obligatory to Chri∣stians. But although he there repeats the Command at large against all sorts of Images, yet it is observable that when he

goes about to set down all the Command∣ments, this by some artificial hand is con∣veyed out of the way; and the second Commandment is,* 1.179 Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord, &c. which made me not a little wonder, finding Clemens so often in other places expressing his zeal against Images. But it is not hard to guess what hands his Greek Copies have passed through, since the second Nicene Council; yet we are beholding to them for leaving so much evidence of their foul dealing be∣hind them; for within few Pages,* 1.180 he saith, the tenth Commandment takes in all sorts of Concupiscence, and therefore the precept against Images must be a distinct Command to make up the number: so that Sylburgius justly complains that the place is mutilated. If Clemens did not think this precept concerned Christians, he would never have objected it as an absurdity against a sort of Gnosticks, that thought themselves bound to oppose the Law, why then, saith he, when God said,* 1.181 Thou shalt not make any Graven Image, you were best go and worship Images. By all which we see, that he thought the precept to be still in force, and that it was intended against the worship of Images, and those Images, such as respect God, and not

meerly the Heathen Idols. Origen saith,* 1.182 that for the sake of that Law, Thou shalt not make to thy self any Graven Image, the Christians would rather die than de∣file their Faith with such impieties as the worship of Images: and therefore their case was very different from that of the Scythians, Numidians, Seres and Persians, with whom Celsus joyned them in the con∣tempt of Images. When Symmachus pleaded with Valentinian for the tolerati∣on of the Pagan Religion,* 1.183 on this pretence, that the same God was worshipped by all, and that by several waies men aimed at the same end; S. Ambrose answers,* 1.184 That God himself was fittest to teach what way he would be served in: You worship the Work of mens hands, we account it an in∣jury to God to call anything by His Name that can be made by man; Non vult se Deus in Lapidibus coli, God hath declared, He will not be worshipped after such a man∣ner. Whereby we see the Primitive Chri∣stians fixed themselves on the Command of God, as upon an immoveable rock, against the Worship of Images.

Thus much may suffice to have shewn in this place, that the Controversie be∣tween the Christians and Heathens about the worship of Images, was not whether

they were proper Likenesses of God, from the apprehensions they had of their Images. I proceed now to shew it.

2. From the Notions they had of their Gods. And here, I must in the first place,* 1.185 exclude those who in Truth were Atheists and not Idolaters, I mean the Epicurean Philosophers, who although they seemed to assert some pleasant Beings, that lived in perfect ease, far from the noise and smoke of the World; yet they utterly overthrew all foundations of worship in Prayers, or Sacrifices, by denying the Gods to have any regard to the actions of men, for fear of disturbing their sweet re∣pose. These indeed made their Gods like men, but so thin and airy, that they could not bear the least justle of Atoms, and so quiet and still that the least thought of business would destroy their happiness. These were only made for fine Idea's to amuse the people with, but any one might see that they were never intended for the objects of worship; and therefore Plutarch and Athenaeus say,* 1.186 That Epicurus took away all the worship of the Gods; how∣ever he complyed with the common pra∣ctises of the people; and when he lift up his Hands to his Mouth, in token of ado∣ration,

he could not but laugh through his Fingers at the Gods they worshipped.

But we may see by the discourse of the Academick and Stoick, with the Epicurean in Cicero, how much they abhorred this Epicurean doctrine of the Gods being like to men; and Velleius the Epicurean doth in effect confess, there were no Philosophers of that mind besides themselves. For he reckons up all the opinions of the other Philosophers concerning the Nature of the Gods after such a manner, as to discover that this opinion was peculiar to their own Sect. He acknowledges, that Thales as∣serted God to be an Eternal Mind, which framed all things out of Water;* 1.187 even Anaximander and Anaximenes, who held only Material Gods, or first principles (for even the Atheist were willing to have matter believed to be a God by them, to avoid the odium of Atheism among the people) yet these rejected a humane form; at which the Epicurean is displeased, as though they might have flattered the people, (as they did) in the fashion, as well as in the name of a Deity. Some have undertaken to clear Anaximenes; and to make him of the same opinion with Thales,* 1.188 concerning an incorporeal Deity; saying that by Air, he meant only a Di∣vine

Spirit; and therefore in Plutarch he compares it to the Soul of Man,* 1.189 which be∣ing Air doth animate the body; and Dio∣genes Apolloniates his disciple held Air only for matter,* 1.190 and Reason for the efficient cause: as St. Augustin tells us. How∣ever, Anaxagoras another disciple of Anaximenes is confessed by Velleius to hold God to be an infinite and active mind; free from all mixture of matter; as the words of Anaxagoras in Simplicius do ex∣press his meaning:* 1.191 and S. Augustin under takes his vindication against the Epicurean objections, which suppose it impossible for us to understand any such thing as Mind without the conjunction of sense and Mat∣ter. Pythagoras said, That God was a quickening Spirit diffused through the World; which is best expressed by Virgil, in those words after the sense of Pytha∣goras,

Spiritus intus alit, totos{que} infusa per artus Mens agitat molem, & magno se corpore miscet.* 1.192

Xenophanes falls under the same con∣demnation with the rest for asserting God to be a Mind; but he went somewhat far∣ther, for in the Verses cited out of him

by the Fathers,* 1.193 he said, That God was like to man neither in body, nor in mind: and for men to make an Image of God like to themselves, was all one as if a Horse should paint him with a long tail and four feet, if he had understanding enough to make a representation of the Deity; or an Ox or a Lion should draw him by their own Figures. Parmenides made God to be of a circular figure in the fashion of a Crown or Orb of Light compassing about the Heavens. Whatever the opinions of Alcmaeon, Empedocles, Protagoras, Dio∣genes Apolloniates were, it is certain the Epicurean despises them all; because they either appeared too doubtful and obscure in their opinion about a Deity, or at least seemed to make him of an inconvenient form to deceive the people. Even Demo∣critus himself doth not please him, for al∣though he makes his Images to be Gods, yet he did not by them understand such as T. G. doth, but he means no other than his Atoms (which Laertius calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) and that first matter whence they arise; but, saith Velleius, while he destroys an Eternal Being, Democritus must needs overthrow the very opinion of a Deity; however he would give the title of it to his Images or matter, or the minds of men.

He grants, that according to Plato, God is an incorporeal mind; but then, he saith, he must want sense, and prudence, and pleasure (i. e. Epicurean pleasure), but withall he adds, that Plato contradicts himself, making the world, and the Hea∣vens and Stars, and Men to be Gods, which are both false in themselves, and incon∣sistent with each other. This charge against Plato seems to be the most material, and therefore deserves to be more fully cleared, which shall be afterwards done, when I come to the Platonick doctrine about Di∣vine Worship, where it will be made ap∣pear, that Plato did assert one supreme and incorporeal Deity, and that the worship al∣lowed by him to inferiour Gods was of the same nature with that which is practised in the Roman Church, and that he no more believed Images to be like the true God than they do. I now proceed to the rest of the Philosophers opinions in this mat∣ter: Xenophon is charged by the Epicurean, to be guilty of the same fault with Plato, and that in the Memoires of Socrates writ∣ten by him, he saith, that men ought not to enquire after the Form of God; and that it is impossible for us to know it: for we only know, saith he,* 1.194 that he is great and powerful, who makes all things to

quake and tremble. Antisthenes acknow∣ledged but one God in Nature, although there were many of the Peoples making; by which, saith Velleius, he destroyed the force and nature of the Gods: and upon the Epicurean supposition that they were like to men, he thought it necessary for their pleasure, that there should be more than one to keep up good fellowship among them. And because Speusippus said, That the Divine Nature did imply a Governing Spirit, he thought this as bad as the deny∣ing his Being; it being to his apprehensi∣on impossible to be happy and to Govern. He grants, that Aristotle affirmed God to be an incorporeal Being; however, he saith, that he was not constant to himself, sometimes making nothing to be God but on∣ly Mind; at other times attributing Divi∣nity to the Heavens and parts of the World; but as the late Commentator on that part of Tully observes,* 1.195 the former was only the First, Eternal, Infinite God, the other a secondary, limited, and participa∣tive Divinity, and rather an Image of the Divinity than it self: as he proves from comparing several places in Aristotle toge∣ther,* 1.196 and concludes with that excellent de∣scription of God drawn out of Aristotle by Du Vall, God is an Eternal substance,

and Act, without potentiality and Matter, without magnitude, parts, division,* 1.197 pas∣sion, change, intelligible by himself, the principle of Motion, but immovable, the Cause of Heaven, and, nature, and infi∣nitely happy. Mirare Lector, saith Du Val, hominis Ethnici Theologiam. See how far Aristotle was from thinking the Athenian Images to be proper Likenesses of the Deity. If to these now we add the Stoicks, who asserted God to be a Divine Reason and Spirit actuating the World, we have a full Discovery, that by the confession of those who were of another opinion, all the famous Sects of Philoso∣phers agreed in rejecting that principle that the Gods were of humane shape, and consequently the Idolatry they were guilty of in the worship of Images could not lie in this, that they thought their Images to be proper Likenesses of God. Of the same mind with these were the freer Philosophers of following Ages: among whom Cicero deserves a name,* 1.198 were it only for that ex∣cellent description of God, which Lactan∣tius and S. Augustin quote out of him,* 1.199 with great approbation, Neither can God himself be otherwise understood by us, than as a Mind free, and disentangled from all corporeal mixtures, perceiving and

moving all thing. The same thing might be proved of Seneca, Epictetus, Plutarch, Alcinous, Plotinus, Proclus, Sallustius, and others; but I purposely forbear, both because these are sufficient for my purpose, and because it may be said by those who have nothing else to say, in this matter that they came to have truer apprehensions of God only by the means of the Christian Re∣ligion. Nay, I might prove that many of the very Poets themselves had much nobler conceptions of the Deity, than to imagine him to have any thing corporeal; but I shall only mention these Verses out of the anci∣ent Tragoedian,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Think not that God is like to mortal flesh.

From whence we see, that if there were any so foolish among the Athenians to imagine their Gods to be just like their Images, they did it not for want of in∣struction to the contrary; and if the na∣ture of their Idolatry did lie in this, scarce any understanding man among the Hea∣thens that did really believe a Deity, was guilty of it.

2. But if they did not suppose their Images to be the proper Likenesses of God,* 1.200 yet they worshipped the Images of false Gods, or they worshipped their Images them∣selves for Gods, and therefore, saith T. G. the Apostle condemns them,* 1.201 Rom. 1. To make my Discourse come home to them I must shew, saith he, that the Images by which they honour Christ and his Saints, are worshipped by them as Gods, or as the Images of false Gods, as those were of which the Apostle speaks in that place. That is it I aim at, to bring my discourse as home to them as may be; and therefore to give him full satisfaction, I shall enquire whether the Heathen Idolatry condemned by S. Paul, did consist in one of these two things, either, 1. That they worshipped only the Images of false Gods. Or, 2. That they took the Images themselves for Gods.

1. Whether their Idolatry lay in wor∣shipping the Images of false Gods? If I can prove, 1. That they did intend to worship the true God, either by an Image purposely for him, or to direct the worship through the Gods and Images they wor∣shipped to him; And 2. That there is no greater repugnancy in the manner of their worship, than is used in the Roman

Church, I hope I shall bring my Discourse home enough to T. G.

To do this more convincingly I shall give an account of the principles of Di∣vine worship among the Heathens from their own Writers (which I suppose will be another way of bringing it home to them) and because T. G. particularly charges Socrates and Plato, I shall make choice of the Platonick principles of Divine worship, and see upon what grounds they become guilty of Idolatry, which will not reach home to themselves. Card. Bessarion hath written an elaborate vindication of Plato against Trapezuntius,* 1.202 wherein he shews that Plato did assert the Unity, Power, and Goodness of God, and the Creation of all things by him; and that he doth this frequently and constantly, in his Parme∣nides, Phaedrus, Phaedo, Philebus, Timaeus, Sophista, Laws, Politicks, Epistles, every where.* 1.203 But Trapezuntius charges Plato, that although he did acknowledge God, he did not worship him, and that he sacrificed only to the inferiour Gods; to this Bessa∣rion answers,

that in his Books of Laws, which were made for the People, he doth not expresly prescribe any worship to God under the name of One, or First, or Ineffable, which were the Titles he

had given him in his Dialogues, and were not known to the People; but in his eighth book of Laws, he appoints twelve so∣lemn Feasts to the twelve Gods of whom Iupiter was chief; under which name the Supream God was known among the People, than which name in the proper importance of it, none could have been more significant of the Nature of the Supreme God; and that he retained the other common names of the Gods wor∣shipped among them (that he might not seem to innovate any thing in Religion) although the Philosophers understood them in another sense than the common people did; by Iove they meant the First Being or Supreme Deity, by Mi∣nerva Wisdom, by Mercury Reason, by Saturn Eternity, by Neptune Form, by Iuno Matter, by Venus Nature, by A∣pollo the Sun, by Pan the Universe; but when they spake to the People about the worship of them, they did not mention Wisdom, or Reason, or Eternity, but Mi∣nerva, Mercury, Saturn; and he saith, it would have been folly in them to have done otherwise, the People being ac∣customed to worship the Gods under these names, and nothing more was re∣quisite but to make them understand

them aright. But for Plato himself, he saith, he worshipped the Supreme God af∣ter the best manner, i. e. with inward Reverence and adoration; in Plato's own expressions, by thinking the best and most worthy things of him, which Bessarion interprets in Spirit, and in Truth; and he adds, that Plato looked on Sacrifi∣ces, and Images as unworthy of him who was a pure mind, and could not be repre∣sented by any Image to men.

But Pla∣to's Adversary charges him, with giving the worship of Latria to inferiour Gods, and Creatures: to which Bessarion saith,

that Latria among the Heathens signified on∣ly a stricter kind of service which some men paid to others that were above them;* 1.204 and that the worship by sacrifice by a long custome from the time of Za∣molxis and Orpheus was looked on as common to all things worshipped by them; but, saith he, he referred all that worship which others gave to many and different Gods, to the First and Chief Principle of all things; and again men∣tions that saying in his Epinomis, that the most suitable worship of God is to think honourably of him.

Which I sup∣pose Plato would have said, was the same thing which those of the Church of Rome

call Latria, and that he could by no means understand how sacrifices come to be ap∣propriated to it; and to this purpose Bes∣sarion quotes the saying of Porphyrius, that God is to be worshipped in Silence, and with a pure mind; and with the sacrifice of a good life. And as to other Deities which Plato allowed to be worshipped, he saith,

that he supposed them to be inferiour and subordinate to the Supreme,* 1.205 and de∣pendent upon him; and that he did not worship empty Statues, but one God the principle of all.

Which being compared with Plato's Law, and practice about wor∣shipping according to the Custome of the Countrey, doth imply that he worshipped Images with a respect to the True God. Let now the Reader judge whether ac∣cording to the judgement of this learned Cardinal, Plato was guilty of worshipping only the Images of false Gods. But Tra∣pezuntius still urges hard upon Plato,* 1.206 that if he allowed the worship of a second and third Order of Gods, which were but creatures, he might on the same ground worship any creatures, because all creatures are infinitely distant from the Creator. Bessarion like an understanding man, tells him,

that this argument would hold as well against the Church of Rome, as against Plato,

which worships Angels although they be Creatures; but yet he doth not think the argument will reach to the worship of all creatures; because though all creatures be equally distant as to exi∣stence, yet some come nearer than others as to perfection.

This Trapezuntius takes off, by saying that Plato worshipped Daemons;* 1.207 which Bessarion grants,

but by Daemons he saith, Plato and Aristotle, and other Philosophers did not under∣stand such evil Spirits as we do, but cer∣tain aereal Beings, lower than Gods and above men, whom they looked on as Mediators and intercessours between God and men; but for evil Spirits, he saith, they were not received into their Reli∣gion; and that Lucifer was looked on as accursed by them under the name of Ate.* 1.208 And he shews farther from S. Au∣gustin that all the Poetical Theology was rejected by Plato. So that the whole dispute with Plato about worship must come to these two points.

1. Whether it be lawful to worship the Supreme God, by external and visible representations, supposing that a man direct his intention aright towards the honour of God by them? 2. Whether it be lawful to give an infe∣riour worship to any Created Beings, whose

excellencies are supposed to be far above mens in order to their intercession between God and Us? And now let T. G. judge whether I have not brought my Discourse home to their own doors. I omit Marsilius Ficinus as a man that may be supposed too partial to Plato; but I hope Augusti∣nus Steuchus Eugubinus may pass for a sound Catholick; being an Italian Bishop, and a Roman Courtier, that had so much zeal as to vindicate Constantines Donation against Valla; and therefore his Testimony cannot be rejected.* 1.209 He undertakes at large to prove that Plato acknowledged one True and Supreme God; and that all other Beings are created by him; and when he seems to attribute Divinity to other things, it is only a Divinity by way of gift and participation, such as Angels and holy men are said to have; which doth not hinder our believing them to be all at first created by one God. There were three sorts of inferiour Deities, he saith, asserted by the Philosophers,* 1.210 viz. Dae∣mons, or Gods with aërial bodies, who have a particular care of humane affairs; Intel∣ligences or the Spirits which animate and move the Stars, and Coelestial Deities who converse with the Supreme God; now all these he makes appear from many passages

in Plato, especially the famous one in his Timaeus, to have been made by God. And that when in his Books of Laws,* 1.211 and the Epinomis or Appendix to them, he so much sets forth the Divinity of the Stars and the Heavens, he must either contradict himself, or attribute only an inferiour Di∣vinity to them: and that he did not speak so clearly of the worship of the Supreme God, because he looked on him as incom∣prehensible, and that he could not so well know in what way it was fit to worship him.* 1.212 However he invocates him in seve∣ral places; especially when he was to speak concerning the Gods; and in his Epistle to Hermias, Erastus, and Coriscus, which he writ when he was grown old; he calls to witness, the God over all, Go∣vernour of all things and times, and Fa∣ther of the Lord and Cause of things; but as to the publick manner of worship, he saith, that no man ought to teach unless God himself direct him. He farther shews, that notwithstanding Plato spake so much and so well concerning the true God,* 1.213* 1.214 yet he attributed the title of Divinity to several ranks of Spirits, to the Heavens, the Sea, to the World, to Zamolxis, to Mercurius Trismegistus, and to good men in general, to whom he commands sacrifices and other

acts of worship to be performed, Quod in Religione nostra justissimè fit Sanctis & Divis: which is with great reason done among us to Saints and Deified men. I now appeal to T. G. whether Aug. Steu∣chus doth not bring this matter very home to them? when, he saith,* 1.215 that they either worshipped Angels (so he saith Philo ren∣ders their Daemons) or Saints, as they ve∣rily believed, and supposed the honour of these was very well pleasing to the Supreme God, whom they constantly acknowledged; as he at large proves not only concerning Plato, but Aristotle, and all the Philosophers of any reputation; and he saith, that Socrates in Plato not only confessed the true God,* 1.216 but that he ought to be wor∣shipped and observed by men, and that for his sake men ought never to forsake the way of righteousness, and therefore he re∣solved rather to follow God than the advice of his Friends, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which cannot be better rendred than in the Apostles words, It is better to obey God than men. It would be endless to repeat the places wherein he shews at large, that Plato and the rest of the Philosophers, did acknowledge the Unity, Power, Wisdom, Goodness and Providence of the Supreme God; And after all these acknowledge∣ments

is it possible to conceive that they should never intend to refer the honour they gave to inferiour Deities and their Images to this Supreme God? nay, it is not possible, say some, they should do otherwise, since they believed all the other Deities they worshipped to be created and dependent Beings.

But I need not make use of such a way of proving it, Paulus Benius Eugubinus hath made it appear,* 1.217 he saith, that accord∣ing to Plato the Supreme God is to be wor∣shipped after a singular and peculiar man∣ner. And he gives this account of the Platonick principles of divine worship as to inferiour Deities. 1. That Plato's Gods were no other than our Angels, and that he sets God the maker of them, at a mighty distance from them. 2. That when he speaks so much of the worship of the heavenly Bodies, he doth not thereby in∣tend the worship should be given so much to the bodies, as to those Blessed Minds that moved them; yea, saith he, to them properly and precisely, and so that they being removed, no honour or worship is to be given to the bodies themselves. Which certainly is no more Idolatry on this sup∣position, than adoration of the Host is, upon one far more extravagant. But, he

saith, by one place in Plato's Epinomis, it may be questioned whether he intended the stars should be worshipped otherwise than as Images of the Gods; and there∣fore, saith he, very ingenuously,* 1.218 Plato did scarce at all differ, unless in words, from the doctrine of the Roman Church in this matter. 3. That Plato did put a diffe∣rence in the nature and kind of the wor∣ship which he gave to inferiour Deities, and that which was due to the Supreme God, and the same kind of difference as is made among them; and that when he ac∣knowledges them to be created by him, he could not give Soveraign worship to them. 4.* 1.219 That when Plato gave wor∣ship to Daemons the difference is only about words, because by Daemons he understood an inferiour Order of Angels, whom he supposed to be good and holy, and to have a care of mankind. The only difference then, that this learned man could find, worth taking notice of between Plato's worship and theirs was this, that they worshipped those for Saints and Deified men, and the Images of such, who were not truly Saints (not being Canonized by the Pope) but if they had been such,* 1.220 he then confesses, that they did nothing amiss in the worship they gave to them, or their

Images. Alioquin, saith he, ea cultus venerationisque ratio cum nostra magno∣pere congrueret. So that all the dispute comes to this, whether Mercurius Trismegistus were not as good a Saint as Thomas Becket, and as much deserved to be worshipped; or Socrates as Ignatius Loy∣ola; not, whether we account them so, but whether they upon their supposition of their excellencies and vertues might not as innocently worship them, as the Papists do the other. P. Lescalopier a late Iesuit, saith,* 1.221 that Plato makes so palpable a distin∣ction between the Supreme God maker of all things, and other Deities, that no one but an Epicurean Backbiter can deny, that Plato did openly and constantly assert one God; and that he did not give equal honour to any as he did to him; and delivers this as the substance of his opinion, Unum De∣um imprimis adorandum, cujus gratiâ cae∣tera numina colenda sunt. One God to have Soveraign worship given him, and others to have a relative and inferiour wor∣ship. And now I hope, I have brought this matter home to T. G. and made it ap∣pear from their own Writers, that these Philosophers went upon the same principles of Divine Worship that they do in the Ro∣man Church.

The only appearance of difference is about the worship of Deified men,* 1.222 and that not as to the nature and kind of the wor∣ship, but only as to the persons; and yet as to this it ought to be considered, 1. That it was only a mistake, such a one as many may be guilty of in the Roman Church, who it is possible may worship those for Saints in Heaven, who are in a worse place. 2. Many of those worshipped by the Hea∣thens are confessed to have been good men; so Campanella confesses of Ianus,* 1.223 whom he took to be Noah, and he said, deserved to be worshipped, as well as Moses, and Pe∣ter, and Paul and the Prophets: and he saith farther, that many Wise and Vertuous men were worshipped by the Heathens, who did not look on them as essentially Gods. Thus many learned men have shewed that the Veneration of Adam and Eve, of No∣ah, Shem and Iaphet, of Abraham, Isaac and Iacob, of Ioseph, Moses and Ioshuah, &c. hath been preserved among the Gen∣tiles under the names of the several Dei∣ties of Saturn, Tuisto, Mannus, Mercury, Bacchus, Apollo, Hercules, &c. in which case, the Heathens were innocent as to the Persons they worshipped. 3. The Papists ought in reason to allow them all the ex∣cuses they make use of for themselves;

such as invincible Ignorance, Oral Traditi∣on, Authority of Teachers, and conditional worship, which alone would justifie them; for by that the intention of the worship, is to somewhat supposed to be worthy of it, but if they be mistaken in the particular applica∣tion of it, that general intention is thought sufficient to render the worship lawful.

But what saith T. G. all this while?* 1.224 Why, forsooth, S. Chrysostome saith, that Plato gloried in the worship of Images and Creatures (of which he speaks before) so he renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies no more, than setting them off with the best advantage; of which I have given an account already; and Socrates commanded a Cock to be sacri∣ficed to Aesculapius: who denyes it? All the Question is what Socrates understood by Aesculapius. For those who have had the greatest insight into the doctrine of Socrates, and Plato, tell us, (such as Marsilius Ficinus,* 1.225 and Coelius Rhodigi∣nus) that by Aesculapius Socrates un∣derstood the Divine Beneficence that cures all diseases, to which a Cock was sacrificed as the forerunner of Day and the Sun, thereby acknowledging the Light of Life to be derived from the Divine Bounty, the Daughter of Providence: and that now especially they should do it in token of his

deliverance from the diseases of doubt and fear; and the ancient Oracles say, that Souls returning to Heaven sing an Iô Pae∣an, the fittest Emblem of which was the offering up a Cock. But besides this, Ta∣citus hath a remarkable passage to explain this sacrificing to Aesculapius,* 1.226 viz. that many called God by the name of Aesculapius as he healed the diseases of Mankind; of which Seguinus takes notice in some anci∣ent Coynes, wherein the Serpent the pro∣per Symbol of Aesculapius is joyned with the horn of Iupiter Ammon,* 1.227 and the Rays of the Sun; to shew, saith that learned An∣tiquary, that the same God was meant by all those several titles. So that hereby appears no contradiction to what I have said as to the Platonick doctrine and prin∣ciples of Divine Worship.

However, T. G. is content to suppose that the Philosophers were as subtil as I would make them (or rather as honest as their own Writers make them) yet, saith he, were they not worthily condemned by the Apostle, though but for the external profession of praying and offering Sacrifice to the Statues of Jupiter, Venus, Mercury, &c. as also to those of birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things as the Vulgar did? I an∣swer, that upon the principles of worship

allowed in the Roman Church, they were not to blame in what they did, supposing that to be their meaning, which their own Writers allow; as appears by the forego∣ing discourse. But T. G. saith,* 1.228 however they were to blame in two things. 1. Be∣cause the Images being instituted by publick Authority for the worship of false Gods, they concurred as I acknowledge with the vul∣gar in all the external practises of their Idolatry. 2. Because though in the Schools they denyed them to be Gods, yet as Origen charges Celsus, they worshipped them as Gods, and the people are confirmed in their opinion. But all the question is, how this external worship comes to be Idolatry, sup∣posing they acknowledged one Supreme God, and gave only a relative or inferiour worship to other Beings created by him, or to the Images of them. Wherein I pray did this Idolatry consist? not in worship∣ping the true God by Images: that T. G. utterly denyes to be Idolatry. Was it then in giving Soveraign worship to inferiour Gods? that their own Writers deny that they did, but only a subordinate and relative wor∣ship. But it lay, saith T. G. in worshipping the Images of false Gods: these false Gods by the confession of their own Writers, were either good Angels, or Deified men; and

is it at last confessed to be Idolatry to give divine worship to these? But they concur∣red with the people in their worship; and why not upon their grounds? what scandal did this give among them? but it was the external profession of Idolatry; of what Idolatry? of the worship of false Gods. What! still in a round? I grant they were false Gods, as they had divine worship given to them; and so whatever creature it be, that is so worshipped, though never so real or excellent a Being, becomes a false God; and so doth the Image of that Being so worshipped. But the people had other notions of these false Gods than the Philosophers had, and yet they complyed with the people in external acts of wor∣ship. This is just the case of the Roman Church, their Learned men have com∣plained that the people worship the Images for Gods among them; but doth T. G. think himself guilty of external profession of Idolatry in using the same external acts of worship with the people, though with another intention? if not, why shall not the same excuse hold for Titius, which holds for Sempronius? Will they under∣take to defend the follies of the ignorant people? no, they do not think themselves bound to do it, but blame them for their

Ignorance and Superstition, and say the Church is free because it hath taken care to instruct them better. Might not the Philosophers have said the very same thing?

We are not bound to answer for the madness of the rabble; we instruct them better, and our Schools are open for them to learn: but since the nature of such actions depends upon the inten∣tion of the Doers; we declare our in∣tentions to be to honour the Supreme God in the first place; then the Coelestial Deities, with a worship inferiour to his, but above all other Beings; next to them we worship the Heavens on the account of the Intelligences that animate and move them; then the aereal Daemons or Lower Angels which have the nearest entercourse with men; and last of all the Souls of Deified men, whom some extraordinary excellency hath advanced above the condition of other souls: and according to the worship we give to the Beings represented, we give worship to the Images or representations. And if you allow the distinctions of Divine Worship, into Soveraign and subordinate, into absolute and relative, what harm is there in all that we do? Indeed, if it be unlawful to worship God by any

Image; if it be unlawful to give any divine worship to any Creature; we are then to blame, and are justly con∣demned, otherwise we think we stand upon equal terms, with those who make use of the same distinctions, and only change the names of some, and the per∣sons of others.

Thus T. G. may see the parallel is not so extravagant as he would make it to be: and while S. Paul con∣demned the Philosophers for changing the glory of the incorruptible God, into Images of men or beasts, while they still retained God in their minds, he doth effectually condemn all those who worship the true God by any Images either of himself, or of any of his Creatures.

But besides this opinion of the Platonick Philos. there was another currant among the Heathens, viz. that one and the same God was worshipped under different names and titles; and Simon Majolus an Italian Bishop, and of great reputation as appears by the cha∣racter given of him by Ferd. Ughellus,* 1.229 is of opinion, that they who began the Poe∣tick Theology among the Heathens were wiser than Pythagoras, Socrates, or any of the Philosophers; for their design was, saith he, under the representation of a mul∣titude of Gods,* 1.230 to shew to the people that

God did see and know all things; because the common people were uncapable of un∣derstanding how one God should be present in all places; therefore they called that Divine power which Governed the Hea∣vens Jove, the air Juno, the Sea Neptune, &c. And we may observe, saith he, that all the Gods of the Ancients were nearly re∣lated to Jove, by which it appears that their design was to signifie but one God that ruled and governed all things, whose power was diffused over the whole World. To which that saying of Plotinus agrees, speaking of God that made the world, bring∣ing the rest of the Gods with him, or rather, saith he,* 1.231 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Who is one and all; and every one is all agreeing in one; in powers different, yet in that various power they are all one, or rather one is all. Plutarch saith,* 1.232 that there were not different Gods among the Greeks and Barbarians, in the Northern and Southern parts: but as the Sun, Moon, Heavens, Earth, and Sea are common to all Nations, but called by different names; so that One Reason and Providence which orders, disposes, and manages all things hath different honours, and Titles and

Symbols, some more plain and easie, others more difficult and obscure. So Apuleius saith,* 1.233 the same Deity was worshipped through the whole world, under different names, and Images, and customes. Which Hypothesis makes it yet more difficult for T. G. to charge the Heathens with the wor∣shipping the Images of false Gods; for if the same God were worshipped only under dif∣ferent titles and representations as they say, if the worship of God by an Image be lawful, all the Heathens which went upon this principle, must be freed from the charge of Idolatry.

2. But T. G. is a man of tricks,* 1.234 and he hath one fetch yet behind; which is, that the Heathens took the Images themselves for Gods, and therein were guilty of Idola∣try. S. Paul, saith he, speaks of such Images,* 1.235 as were worshipped for Gods, or for Images of false Gods. This is the very last re∣serve, and if this doth not help him, no∣thing can. Who would not commend the various artifices of my Antagonist, that doth with so much slight of hand convey one distinction after another, to blind the Spectators eye? If Idolatry be forbidden, and the command be too plain to be denyed; Yes, saith he, Idolatry is a very naughty

thing; but what is Idolatry? Idolatry is the worship of an Idol, is it not? Yea ve∣rily. Now pray tell me, what is an Idol? an Idol is an Idol, in the self-evident and scientifical way. But to be serious,

Methinks Sir, saith a Disciple of T. G. to him, my conscience is a little unquiet when I worship an Image of a Madonna, for fear that should be an Idol.

Now see what a Fool you are; is not the B. Virgin in Being?

Yes without doubt in Heaven.

Then her Image can be no Idol.

Say you so? but I pray how doth that appear?

Why, saith T. G. to his Scholar, an Idol is a representation of nothing that seems to be something; as if you imagine a Centaur, or a Triton, or any Chimera. And so fare∣well the Commandment.

But doth not S. Paul condemn the A∣thenians for Idolatry in worshipping the work of mens hands? And although Chimera's be the work of mens brains, yet surely Images are the work of mens hands.

It is true, saith T. G. but then he con∣demns not all Images, but such as are the proper likenesses of the Deity.

Hold Sir a little, you are too quick for me; Were these Athenians Idolaters or no?

Why do you ask me that Question?

I will tell you, Sir, an Idol you told me was a Chimera, but the proper like∣ness of the Deity is no Chimera, unless you suppose the Deity it self to be one; so that, methinks you free them from that which S. Paul condemns them for, viz. Idolatry. But I pray, Sir, what think you of those S. Paul condemns, Rom. 1. did they believe their Images to be proper likenesses of their Gods? had they any four-footed and creeping Gods, as they had Images like to such things?

No, saith T. G. these were another kind of Images from those at Athens.

"Of what kind were these?

These were the Images of false Gods.

"You mean they were Idols, do you not?

Yes, they were Idols.

Very well; then I have them right; they were Images of Centaures, Tritons, Sphinxes, Chimera's; but he doth not speak against such Images, but the repre∣sentations of living and real Beings, as men, or beasts, &c. which are no Chi∣mera's. Therefore it seems, whatever S. Paul saith, these were not guilty of Idolatry; and so methinks we have done a very good act of charity, for we have freed almost all the Heathens from Ido∣latry.

Hold a little, saith T. G. they were guilty for all this.

Of what? of Idolatry? when S. Paul saith, They knew God, but did not glori∣fie him as God, because they worshipped such Images; then it should seem to be Idolatry to worship God by an Image.

You run too fast; I said they were guil∣ty; but, do you mark me, I did not say of Idolatry, but of complying with the people in the external practice of Idolatry.

Very well; the people then were guilty of Idolatry, and they only of com∣pliance; but why doth not S. Paul lay this only to their charge, which was their only fault, as he doth when he blames the Corinthians for eating in the Temple of Idols? I remember, Sir, a good principle of yours, that actions go whither they are intended: now if these men intended to worship the true God by the publick Images, this action of worship must be free from Idolatry in them, whatever it were in others who had not such intention.

But what do you mean by the exteri∣our practice of Idolatry? If all external actions be aequivocal, and the nature of Idolatry depends on the intention of the mind, how comes the guilt of Idolatry

to be charged upon external acts when you do not know the inward intention? Suppose among us, a person falls to his prayers before the Image of the Blessed Virgin; here is all the external professi∣on of Idolatry that may be, for I can see no difference in any outward act between what he doth to the Image, and what he would do to the Person of Christ, if he appeared to him. If this be Idolatry, Wo be to us all; if it be not Idolatry in us, how came it to be so in the Philoso∣phers, who, I have heard, owned the same true God, and had the same distin∣ctions of the degrees of worship that we have?

But these were false Gods that they wor∣shipped.

I hope the true God is not a false God, but I said they worshipped the true God.

Suppose that, yet they joyned false Gods with him.

Not in the same degree with him, for they supposed him to be far above them all which were created by him, and de∣pendent upon him: and do not we do the very same in the worship of Angels and Saints?

True, but theirs were false Gods, and ours are Saints and Angels.

Upon the whole matter then, I find the fault of the Wiser Heathens, did not lie either in the general principles or pra∣ctises of Divine Worship; but only that they called these Gods whom we call Angels (which I have heard S. Cyrill and S. Augustin thought not worth dis∣puting) and that they did not worship such good Saints as we do, and of whom we have so good assurance that they were (as S. Christopher, Longinus, the eleven thousand Virgins, the seven Sleepers) whereas the poor Heathens were bred up with Fables; and we have such eminent proofs of their Sanctity, as S. Dominick's butchering Hereticks, and S. Ignatius Loyola's founding the Order of Iesuites. I am now very well satisfied, how justly the Philosophers were condemned, and how innocently we give the same kind of worship to those that far better deserve it.

Yet, saith T. G. there is another thing behind, which makes the difference so ap∣parent that nothing but malice and blind∣ness can hinder men from seeing it.

What is that, good Sir? for hitherto I have been forced to use my Spectacles; the difference was so fine and subtle.

Why, saith T. G. the Heathens took their Images themselves for Gods, which you know we do not.

This I confess is a very notable thing; but I pray, Sir, tell me, how they did it, and how we do it not? Did they really believe that the Wood and Stone of their Images did make and Govern the World? Or that a man by Houghs and an Axe could cut a God out of a Tree? That were as great a Miracle, as our Priests turning a Wafer into God, by saying five words; but I hope such Miracles are pe∣culiar to the Roman Catholick Church. What was it then they meant, when they took their Images for Gods? I sup∣pose it was only, that they believed a more special presence of their Gods in them; and that by their means Miracles were wrought at them, and that they sometimes spake, and sometimes bowed, and moved themselves. But do not all good Catholicks believe the very same things of our Images? Do not we know that our Lady is more present in one Image than in another? and that she works Miracles at some Images more than at others, and that she moves and speaks, and travels too; Witness the Holy House of Loretto, and the Madonna there; where was there ever such a thing done in Old Rome? The bringing the Stone from Phrygia, of the Mater Deo∣rum,

or the Serpent from Epidaurus, or the tattling of the Image of Iuno Moneta at Veii were not to be compared to this. Therefore, Sir, give me leave to advise you in this point; have a care of dispa∣raging our wonder-working Images, while you would charge the Heathens with Ido∣latry, and free our Church from the guilt of it.

I had thought I had said enough in my former Discourse,* 1.236 to make it appear, That the Wiser Heathens did not look on their Images as Gods, but as Symbols and Re∣presentations of that Being to which they did give Divine Worship: For I shewed that Celsus said, none but Fools think other∣wise of them: that Porphyrie and the Hea∣thens in Athanasius said they were only Books for the Ignorant: that in Arnobius thy denied that they ever thought their Images to be Gods, or to have any Divini∣ty in them, but what only comes from their consecration to such an Use; and in S. Au∣gustin, that they worshipped not the Images themselves, but through them they worship∣ped the Deity; that Maximus Tyrius at large proves, that Images were but signs of Divine honour, and helps to remem∣brance: that Julian saith, they do not

think their Images to be Gods, but that through them they may worship the Deity; and that Eusebius in general testifies of the Heathens, that they did not look on their Images as Gods. All this put to∣gether I thought had signified something to the proving that the Heathen Idolatry did not lie in taking their Images to be Gods: and so it seems it did. For T. G. runs quite off from the business,* 1.237 saying, That all these quotations do only prove (what I brought them for) that they did not look on their Images as Gods; but he saith, it appears from some of them that they looked on them nevertheless as Images or Symbols of false Gods. And did not I say, that I would prove by them, that they looked on them as Symbols or re∣presentations of that Being to which they gave Divine worship? I never said or thought, that the Heathens looked on all their Images as representations of the su∣preme God; For I very well considered that they worshipped inferiour Gods by Images made for them. And therefore after the producing these Testimonies I state the Que∣stion thus, I desire to know whether these men, who worshipped Images upon those grounds did amiss or no in it? I do not ask whether they were mistaken as to the ob∣jects

of their Worship, but on supposition they were not, whether they were to blame in the manner of serving God by Images in such a way as they describe? And to this T. G. saith not one wise word; but only talks of scandal and compliance with exte∣riour practice of Idolatry, and what I have already answered: but he charges me, with misrepresenting the Testimonies, be∣cause, forsooth, Celsus adds, that they were Statues erected to the Gods; and Di∣vinity and Deity are not in the Testimonies of Arnobius and S. Augustin;* 1.238 and then bids the Reader learn what credit he is to give hereafter to my citing of Authors; and at the same time receive a farther Testimony of his kindness to me in taking the rest upon my word. Very artificially done, I confess, to pass those by to which no answer was to be returned, and to spend some Pages in most disingenuous cavils about the two Testimonies he insists upon. I desire only the Reader to consider, what I was proving, viz. That the Heathens did not take their Images themselves for Gods, which he yet asserts several times in that Chapter, after I had produced these Testimonies expresly to the contrary. Had it not become him either to have answered these Testimonies, or not to have asserted

that, which these Testimonies most fully and clearly denied? But he is content to take them upon my word; I thank him for his kindness in it. But doth he take them as true or false? If as true, then the Hea∣thens did not worship their Images as Gods, which he yet saith, they did: if he took them as false when I quoted them as true, the kindness was very extraordinary, and ought to be acknowledged. If he had produced the Testimonies of Bellarmin, Vasquez, Suarez, Valentia, and others, to shew that the Papists do not take their Images for Gods, and I should say, I took the Testimonies upon his word, and yet asserted the direct contrary to them, with∣out so much as the least answering to what they said, would not any indifferent Reader account me either impudent or ridiculous?

Yet this is exactly the case of T. G. for he saith several times in this Chapter, that the Heathens did worship their Images as Gods, whereas those Testimonies say as plainly as words can express it, that they did not; and yet these Testimonies he takes upon my word, i. e. in common con∣struction he believes them to be true, and yet the matter contained in them to be false: which is an admirable piece of T. G.'s art and ingenuity. But to add

yet more to his kindness, at the same time he takes these Testimonies on my word, he will let the Reader see, what credit he is to give to my citing of Authors. But why then will he take any upon my word, if I have so little credit with him? Herein▪ he shews himself either very weak, if he will take my word, when he thinks I deserve no credit; or very malicious, if he knows I deserve credit, and yet goes about to blast it, as much as in him lyes.

But wherein is it, I have exposed my re∣putation so much in the two Testimonies,* 1.239 he hath fastned his Talons upon? The first is that of Arnobius, wherein I say, the Heathens deny, that they ever thought their Images to be Gods, or to have any Divinity in them, but what only comes from their consecration to such an Use. That which he charges me with is, that by cogging in the word Divinity in the singu∣lar number, I would represent it to the Reader, as though the wiser Heathens in∣tended to worship the true Divinity by those Images, whereas all that they say in Arno∣bius, is that they did not look on their Images as Gods per se of themselves, but they wor∣shipped the Gods which by dedication were made to dwell in them; i.e. saith he, by

Magical Incantation, by which the Souls of Wicked men were evocated and as it were tied to dwell in those Images,* 1.240 as S. Austin relateth l. 8. de Civ. Dei. c. 23. & 26. Hereupon he charges me very severely, with soul dealing; in putting Divinity in the singular number, when the Infernal Spirits were meant by it; as if they in∣tended to worship the true God by these Images, when they declared they worship∣ped false Gods by them. A very heavy charge; to which I shall give a distinct answer: 1. To that of translating Divi∣nity in the singular number, T. G. may if he please take it upon my word (or if not, let him search the place once more) that I translated these very words of Arnobius, Nihil Numinis in esse simulachris, that the Images have no Divinity in them, and if these words be not in that very place, and but two lines before those quoted by him. Erras & laberis, &c. I will venture my credit in citing Authors upon T. G.'s inge∣nuity: but if they be there, as most cer∣tainly they are, what doth such a man de∣serve for so notorious fair dealing? 2. My design was not to represent by this means that the Heathens only intended to worship the true God by Images, but that the worship of Images was unlawful, al∣though men did not take the Images them∣selves

for Gods: so I said in the very be∣ginning of those quotations, that I would prove that the Heathens did look on their Images as Symbols or representations of that Being to which they gave divine wor∣ship. Do I say of the True God? Are not the words so general on purpose to imply that, whatever Being they worshipped, they looked on the Images as symbols or repre∣sentations of it? And after, to prevent all such cavils, I purposely added, I do not ask whether they were mistaken as to the objects of their worship? But what can a man do to prevent the cavils of a disinge∣nuous Sophister? 3. As to what he saith, that what they plead in Arnobius is only that their Images were not Gods per se of themselves, but by virtue of the Spirits dwelling in them, I answer, that T. G. charges the Heathen Idolaters with worshipping the Images themselves;* 1.241 and saith, that I deal very disingenuously in af∣firming that the Wiser Heathens did not worship the Images themselves. Now what could be more pertinent to my pur∣pose, than to produce those very words of Arnobius, You erre and are mistaken O T. G. in what you affirm, for we do not think the matter of Brass, Silver and Gold to be Gods or adorable Deities per se of themselves. Whereby we see T. G's own

words as he renders them out of Arnobius do sufficiently vindicate me and contradict him. He saith, they did worship the Images themselves, and they say they did not. What doth he mean else, when he saith in other places,* 1.242 that the Heathens worshipped their Images as Gods; what is this but to take the Images themselves for Gods? For he never once supposes it unlawful to worship Images on the account of a Di∣vine Spirit being present in the Images, supposing that spirit of it self to deserve adoration: as suppose upon consecration of an Image of the B. Virgin, she should manifest her self in and by that Image, in speaking, or moving, or working miracles, doth T. G. think it the more unlawful to worship such an Image? no certainly, but that men ought to shew more devotion to∣wards it. Therefore T. G. could not con∣demn the Heathens for the worshipping the Images, supposing good Spirits did dwell in them. Setting aside then, the dispute about the nature of the Spirits, all that he could imagine the Fathers had to condemn in those that worshipped Images, was, that they worshipped the Images themselves for Gods; which the Heathens in Arnobius deny, and which was the thing I produced that Testimony to prove. Bellarmin, whom

my Adversary follows, saith, that the Hea∣thens did take the Images themselves for Gods,* 1.243 for which he gives some very sub∣stantial Reasons. 1. Because their Priests told them so. 2. Because almost all the world believed it. This one would think were enough to justifie the belief of it, ha∣ving the Authority of their Teachers, and Consent of Nations for it. 3. The motion, speech, and oracles that came from them. 4. The humane shape it self, which he saith, is a very notable argument to make men think that Images live, because men do; especially, he saith, if it be said so by Wise men. But whatever the rea∣sons be, he saith, he would prove that the Heathens believed ipsa idola esse Deos, the very Images themselves to be Gods. Now what could be more contradictory to this assertion, than those words of the Heathens in Arnobius are? So that the Per se which T. G. charges me with leav∣ing out, adds rather more weight and Em∣phasis to the Testimony. 4. After all this, I say, that Arnobius doth reject the worship of Images on such grounds as do hold against the worship of the true God by an Image. For he brings that as the objection of the Heathens against the Chri∣stians, that supposing they had never so

right apprehensions of the nature of those Beings which the Heathens worshipped for Gods, yet they were to blame for not wor∣shipping their Images, Nec eorum effigies adoramus, saith Arnobius of the Christi∣ans,* 1.244 which I beseech T. G. to remember are the words I translate, for fear he should take the next words, Templa illis ex∣truimus nulla; and then cry out, there is no such thing as Images in the words, that I have cogged in the word to serve my turn; that this is setting up a flag in a Fireship—Dolus an Virtus— with such kind of laudable plain-dealing. Nay, Arnobius goes yet farther, For, saith he, what greater honour can we attribute to them, than that we place them there, where the Head and Lord, and King of all is to whom they owe the same acknowledge∣ments that we do? But do we honour him, delubris aut Templorum constructionibus, with Images and Temples? So I render it without the fear of T. G's new charge of disingenuity; for, besides that the delubra were, saith Festus, wooden Images; it is certain that afterwards, according to Varro, the most learned of the Romans, when delubrum was applyed to a place, it signified such a one,* 1.245 in quo Dei simula∣chrum dedicatum est: and in the old Glos∣saries

it is rendred into Greek by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, therefore to honour God sine delubris, must be to worship him with∣out Images; and this was the reason why the Christians denyed they had any Temples because the Heathens supposed there could be no proper Temples with∣out Images; therefore in S. Hierom,* 1.246 Sanctorum Basilicas in Templa con∣vertere, is all one as turn Churches into Idol Temples: and both in Origen and Minucius, the Heathens joyn those accu∣sations together, that the Christians had no Altars, nor Images, nor Temples; and Vitruvius in the building of a Temple,* 1.247 takes the greatest care of placing the Images, that they may stand so, that the Images may look on those who come up to the Altars. And it appears by the discourse in Arnobius, that they valued no Temples, where there were no Images; thence came the suspicion that Hadrian in∣tended to worship Christ, because he com∣manded Temples to be built in all Cities without any Images; as Lampridius saith in the Life of Alexander Severus.* 1.248 It is all one to our purpose whether Hadrian had any such intention, or no; for its be∣ing believed that he had from this Reason, because the Temples were without Images,

is a most undeniable evidence that the Christians then did not worship God or Christ, by any Images in their Churches. After this, Arnobius argues against the use of Images for this Reason;* 1.249 if you be∣lieve your Gods to be in Heaven, to what purpose do you make Images of them to wor∣ship? cannot you as well pray to the Gods themselves? But it may be you will say, because you cannot see the Gods themselves, you represent them as present by those Images? But, saith he, he that thinks he must have Gods to be seen, doth not believe any at all. However, say they, we worship them through these Images. And what, saith he, can be more injurious, or reproach∣ful than to know God to be one thing, and yet to pray to another? to expect help from the Deity, and yet to fall down before a senseless Image? which is like a man that should pretend to take advice from men, and to ask it of Asses and Swine. Is not that, saith he,* 1.250 not meer mistake but mad∣ness, supplicare tremebundum factitatae abs te rei, to fall down trembling before a thing made by your selves? Besides this, he argues from the matter, form, and design of them, how ridiculous it is to wor∣ship Images; and after exposing the other pretences of the Heathen Idolaters, in the

last place he considers this, that the anci∣ents understood well enough,* 1.251 Nihil habere Numinis signa; that there was no Divini∣ty in Images, (T. G. sees I am for the singular number still, and I think Numen is so too) but that Images were set up to keep the rude people in awe; which, he saith, they were so far from, that they only made their Gods contemptible, and thereby encouraged them more in their Wickedness. I desire now the Reader to reflect, whether these arguments are pe∣culiar to the worship of false Gods; and whether they do not with as much force hold against the worship of the true God by Images? And if it be possible to sup∣pose that a man, that hath not the stupidity of an Image, should object those things a∣gainst their worship, which would be return∣ed upon his own, and never provide in the least for any defence of it? So that after all the loud clamours, and insolent charges of T. G. we find that Arnobius himself doth fully prove, that the Divinity cannot be worshipped by Images; and that what the Heathens plead for themselves in him, doth shew, that they believed there was no Divinity in Images; but what only comes from their consecration to such an Use.

The next Testimony he charges me with foul-dealing in, is that of S. Austin,* 1.252 wherein I say the Wiser Heathens deny,* 1.253 that they worshipped the Images them∣selves, but they add, that through them they worship the Deity. After this T. G. sets down those words of S. Austin, Vi∣dentur sibi purgatiores esse Religionis, &c. And because in the following expressions, mention is made of the Corporeal Crea∣tures, or the Spirits that rule over them as worshipped by their Images, therefore he charges me with great disingenuity in saying, that the Heathens in S. Austin af∣firmed that through their Images they did worship the Deity: and yet as it falls out, these are the very words I translated in S. Austin, Non hoc visibile colo, sed Numen quod illic invisibiliter habitat; and I now appeal to men of any common ingenuity, what usage I have met with from this Ad∣versary, who passes by the very words I translated, as near to the signification as possible; and produces other passages; and then Hectors, and Triumphs, and cryes out of my disingenuity; when scarce ever any man discovered greater than in so do∣ing, and I fear against his own conscience. The true state of the case in S. Austin

about the worship of Images is this, 1. He exposes the worship of Images in general as a silly and ridiculous thing; being of things much inferiour to the meanest Brutes; and if men are ashamed to wor∣ship Beasts, that hear and see, and live and move, they ought to be much more ashamed to worship a dumb, stupid, sensless Image; and they might with greater reason wor∣ship the Mice and Serpents which are not afraid of their Images, but shelter them∣selves within them. Now it is plain this discourse of S. Austin doth reach to all sorts of Images for whomsoever they are intended. For an Image made for the true God hath no more sense, or life, or motion in it, than one of T. G's Idols, or an Image made for a Chimera. But because the Christian Church knew nothing at that time of the worship of Images, therefore he directs his discourse against the Heathens, to consider the pleas and excuses they made for it. 2. He reckons up their several pleas for their Images; 1. Some said that there was a secret Deity which lay hid in the Image, and which they worshipped through it. 2. Others, that thought them∣selves of a more refined Religion, said, they neither worshipped Images, nor Daemons, but only beheld in the corporeal Image, the

Symbol of that which they ought to worship. Which is the place cited by T. G. Now I appeal to the Reader, whether this very place doth not prove what I intended, viz. that the Heathens did look on their Images as Symbols or representations of that Being to which they gave divine wor∣ship. Whereby I see T. G. hath done me a kindness indeed, which I thank him for, i.e. he hath proved that which I did intend, and confuted that which I did not.

But there remains yet another charge of disingenuity to be answered,* 1.254 which con∣cerns the quotation of Trigantius; the oc∣casion whereof was this,

I had said, if S. Paul had not thought men to blame in the worship of God by an Image, he would never have condemned them for it; as he doth Rom. 1. But he ought to have done as the Iesuits in China did, who never condemned the people for worshipping Images,* 1.255 but for worshipping false Gods by them; and perswaded them not to lay them aside, but to con∣vert them to the honour of the true God, and so melted down the former Images and made new ones of them. Can we imagine S. Paul meant the same thing, when he blames men not for believing

them to be Gods, but that God could be worshipped by the Work of mens hands; and for changing thereby the glory due to God in regard of his infi∣nite and incorruptible Being into mean and unworthy Images, thinking thereby to give honour to him.

These are my words. Now observe T. G's ingenuity;* 1.256 in∣stead of answering the argument he falls to the exercise of his best Talent, cavil∣ling: the force of the argument lay in this, S. Paul condemns the very manner of worshipping God by Images; the Iesuits in China do not that, but bid them lay aside their old Images, and worship new ones: what is the reason, that the Iesuits vary from S. Pauls method, but only be∣cause they differ in judgement, i. e. S. Paul thought the worship of Images in general unlawful, the Iesuits do not, but only the Images of false Gods. This was the thing designed by me, to which he gives no man∣ner of answer; but only for several pages he tells a sad story how hard it was for him to come by the Book of Trigautius; & when he had it, he thought he had gotten a mighty advantage against me; because, forsooth, I render simulachra Images; for the whole charge comes to this at last; for whereas Trigautius distinguished the Heathen simu∣lachra

from the Images of Christ because I did not in the account of the thing; (for I designed no verbal translation, as T. G. knew well enough by the character) therefore this is charged to be the effect of some very bad design; and an instance of my want of fidelity, sincerity, honesty, in∣genuity, and what not? I am sorry Tri∣gautius was so hard to come by, for it is possible, if he had not been put to so much trouble in procuring him, I might have escaped better. But is it in good earnest, such a horrible fault to translate simulachra Images? I see what a good thing it is to have a good Catholick Dictionary, for a hundred to one, but others would have rendred it, as I have done. I had thought Tully's using the words Statuae, Imagines, Signa and simulachra promiscuously might have been sufficient ground for my transla∣ting it by Images:* 1.257 But it seems the Ec∣clesiastical use of the word is otherwise. I had thought Isidore a good Iudge of the Ecclesiastical use of a word; and he uses it promiscuously with Imagines & effigies; but I confess Ecclesiastical uses have been much changed since Isidores time. And it seems simulachra is only applyed to Heathen Images, by no means to those among Chri∣stians. But why so? do they not vultum

simulare, as Horace expresses it;* 1.258 bear a resemblance to what they represent? Do they not pariles line as principali ab ore de∣ducere, which is Arnobius his description of the proper notion of simulachrum?* 1.259 But for all this, their Images are not simu∣lachra, and shall not be simulachra. It seems when Images were baptized Christi∣an, they lost their former name, and have gotten a new one: and very much good may it do them, and all those that worship them, if the change of name would excuse their guilt. Yet Agobardus was of ano∣ther opinion when he saith,* 1.260 that if those who forsook the worship of Devils had been bidden to worship the Images of Saints, puto quod videretur eis non tam Idola reliquisse, quam simulachra mutâsse: I think, saith he, that it would have seem∣ed to them, that they had not left their Idols, but only changed their Images. Where we see Agobardus is my Author for making si∣mulachra common to the Images of Heathens and Christians. And S. Augustin calls the Image of the true God simulachrum.* 1.261 But to set aside Authorities, I hope the Images used in China before the Gentiles conversion, and those after did agree in something com∣mon to them both: although they were before the Images of false Gods, and after

of Christ or the B. Virgin, yet they were all Images still. Might I not be allowed to say, that the Jesuits did not perswade the Converts to lay aside the use of Images; but to convert them to the honour of the true God; and so melted down the former Images and made new ones of them? No, by no means, For them and them, coming after one another, and the first being the Images of false Gods, it was scarce possi∣ble for an ordinary Protestant Reader not to avoid being mistaken. In what? in thinking they did not worship Images after, as well as before their conversion? no, but in supposing, that they made use of the same Images afterwards, which they did before? and what if they did? what harm was there in it on T. G's principles, sup∣posing the intention be directed aright? Nay, T. G. after all his clamour yields the thing, for saith he, St. Gregory turned the Pagan Festivals into Christian Assem∣blies,* 1.262 and Heathen Temples to Christian Churches without ever pulling them down to build them up again; and supposing the worship of Images lawful, why not those to be used as well as Temples? And yet, I no where say, that they made use of the very same, but they melted them down and made new ones of them; which is plainly

to say, that though they did not allow those particular Images, yet they did not condemn the Use of Images for divine wor∣ship; but of the materials of the former Images they made new ones to be used by them as Christians, after that manner of worship which the Iesuits delivered to them; which was all that was necessary to my purpose. And now I leave the Rea∣der to Judge whether in all this charge about these citations, T. G. hath not shewed himself to be a man of admirable ingenuity; and whether he be not well ac∣complished in the most laudable vertue of a Writer of Controversies, viz. sincerity, and fair dealing?

CHAP. II. The State of the Controversie about Images in the Christian Church.

HAving thus far endeavoured to State the Dispute about Image-worship,* 1.263 as it was managed between Christians and Heathens, I now come to the Rise and Pro∣gress of this Controversie in the Christian Church. Wherein I shall proceed according to these following Periods, 1. When Images were not used or allowed in the Christian Church. 2. When they were used, but no worship allowed to be given to them. 3. When inferiour worship was given to them, and that worship publickly defended. 4. When the doctrine and practice of Image-worship was settled upon the princi∣ples allowed and defended in the Roman Church; and from thence to shew, wherein lie the main points of difference between us and the Church of Rome, as to this Con∣troversie about the Worship of Images.

1. As to the First Period I had said in my former Discourse,

That the Primi∣tive

Christians were declared enemies to all worship of God by Images, but I need the less to go about to prove it now, since it is at last confessed by one of the most learned Iesuits they ever had, that for the four first Centuries and farther, there was little or no use of Images in the Tem∣ples,* 1.264 or Oratories of Christians: but we need not their favour in so plain a Cause as this; as shall be evidently proved if occasion be farther given.

This T. G. had no mind to;* 1.265 and therefore saith, Not to Dispute the matter of fact, of which he confesses there was some little use (much as if I should say, that T. G. hath shewn little or no ingenuity in his Book, and he to his great comfort should infer there was some little ingenuity in it) but Petavius his words, are supprimi omittique satius visum est, it was thought better to suppress them and let them alone; was it all one in T. G's sense to use them, and to omit the use of them? And for the little reason, he saith, he had to doubt my sincerity in re∣lating Petavius his words, from what I did with Trigautius; in truth there was as lit∣tle as might be; but I have great reason to believe from his usage of me about other citations, that if he could have found any words before or after, that he could have

interpreted to another sense, he would have made little or no conscience of saying, those were the words I translated thus and thus. But instead of debating the matter of fact as to the Primitive Church, he saith, he will give me the answer of Mr. Thorndike, that at that time there might be jealousie of Offence in having Images in Churches, before Idolatry was quite rooted out, of which afterwards there might be no ap∣pearance; and therefore they were after∣wards admitted all over, for it is mani∣fest, the Church is tyed no farther, than there can appear danger of Idolatry. This, he calls Mr. Thorndikes answer, but it is truly the answer of Petavius, from whose words it seems to be translated; dum periculum erat, saith Petavius, ne of∣fensionis aliquid traheret externa quorun∣dam rituum species, cum iis que ab Eth∣nicis celebrabantur, similitudine ipsa con∣gruens, &c. Therefore I shall consider it as the answer of Petavius, and here exa∣mine, whether this were the ground on which the Primitive Church did forbear the use and worship of Images? I shall prove that it was not from these two Ar∣guments. 1. Because the Reasons given by them against the worship of Images will equally hold against the worship of Images

among Christians. 2. Because the notion of Idolatry, which they charged the Hea∣thens with, may be common to Christi∣ans with them.

1. This supposes the Primitive Chri∣stians to look on the worship of Images as in it self indifferent, and to be made good or evil according to the nature of the ob∣ject represented by them: which is a sup∣position as remote from the sense of the Primitive Church as any thing we can ea∣sily imagine. For then all the arguments used by them against the worship of Images must have been deduced only from the ob∣jects represented, or the nature of the wor∣ship given to them; whereas they frequent∣ly argue from the unsuitableness of Images as a Means of worship, and the prohibition of the Divine Law. Would any man of common sense that had thought the wor∣ship of Images in it self indifferent, have said as Origen doth;* 1.266 that the Christians as well as the Iews abstain from the wor∣ship of Images for the sake of the Law of God, which requires rather that we should dye than defile our selves with such im∣pieties? Yes, it may be said, this is ac∣knowledged that the Law of God did forbid the worship of the Heathen Images; but they who make this answer never looked

into Origen, or have forgotten what they read there; for Origen doth not there give an account why the Christians did not comply with the Heathen Idolatry; but why the Christians had no Images in their own worship. For Celsus charges this upon the Christians, that they thought it such a mighty matter, that they had no Images, whereas herein, saith he, they were but like the barbarous Scythians, Numi∣dians, and Seres, and other Nations that had neither Religion, nor civility. To this Origen answers, that we are not only to look at the bare action, but at the reason and ground of it, for those that agree in the same thing, may yet have very different principles; and they that do it on a good principle do well, and not otherwise; as for instance, the Stoicks forbear adultery, and so may the Epicureans; but the for∣mer do it, because it is a thing repugnant to Nature, and civil Society; the latter, because allowing themselves this single pleasure may debar them of many more: so, saith he, in this matter those barbarous Nations forbear Images on other accounts than Iews and Christians do, who dare not make use of this way of worshipping God. Observe, that he doth not say this of the way of worshipping false Gods, or Images

for Gods, but of worshippin 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Deity. And he gives three principal rea∣sons wherein they differed from those Na∣tions. 1. Because this way of worship did disparage the Deity; (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 again) by drawing it down to matter so fashioned. 2. Because the evil spirits were apt to harbour in those Images, and to take plea∣sure in the sacrifices there offered: which reason as far as it respects the blood of Sa∣crifices doth relate to the Heathen Images, standing over the Altars at which the Sa∣crifices were offered. But then Celsus might say, what is all this to the purpose? my question is, why you have no Images in your own way of worship; therefore he adds his third reason, which made it utterly unlaw∣ful for Christians as well as Iews to wor∣ship them, which is the Law of God men∣tioned before: now I say, if Origen an∣swered pertinently, he must give this as the Reason why Christians used no Images in their own way of worship; and conse∣quently was so far from thinking the wor∣ship of Images indifferent, that he thought Christians ought rather to suffer Martyr∣dom than to worship them. But to put this beyond possibility of contradiction; Origen mentions a saying of Heraclitus objected by Celsus, that it is a foolish thing

to pray to Images, unless a man know the Gods and Heroes worshipped by them; which saying Celsus approves, and saith, the Christians were Fools, because they ut∣terly contemned Images, (in totum, the Latin interpreter renders it) To which O∣rigen thus answers, we acknowledge that God may be known, and his only Son, and those whom he hath honoured with the Title of Gods, who partake of his Divinity, and are different from the Heathen Dei∣ties which the Scripture calls Devils (i.e. causally if not essentially, as Cajetan distin∣guisheth) but, saith he, it is impossible for him that knows God to worship Images. Mark that, he doth not say, it is impossi∣ble for him that knows the Idols of the Heathens to worship them; or the evil spirits that lurk in their Images: but for him, that knows the true God, and his Son Christ Iesus, and the holy Angels to do it. Is it possible after this, to believe that Origen supposed the worship of Images to be indifferent in it self, and that God and Christ and Angels might be lawfully wor∣shipped by them? Was all this only pe∣riculum offensionis, jealousie of offence, be∣fore the Heathen Idolatry was rooted out? Which supposition makes the primitive Christians in plain terms jugglers and im∣postors,

to pretend that to be utterly unlaw∣ful even for themselves to do; and to mean no more by it, but this; yes, it is unlaw∣ful to do it, while there is any danger of Heathenism, but when once that is over∣thrown, then we may worship Images as well as the best of them. For my part, I be∣lieve the primitive Christians to have been men of so much honesty and integrity, that they would never have talked at this rate against the worship of Images, (as not on∣ly Origen, but the rest of them, the best, and wisest among them did, as I have shewed in the foregoing Chapter) if they had this secret reserve in their minds, that when Heathenism was sunk past re∣covery, then they might do the same things, which they utterly condemned now. Which would be just like some that we have heard of, who while there was any likelyhood of the Royal Authority of this Nation recovering itself, then they cry'd out upon Kingly Government as ille∣gal, Tyrannical and Antichristian; but when the King was murdered, and the power came into their own hands, then it was lawful for the Saints to exercise that power, which was not fit to be enjoyed by the Wicked of the World: So these men make the most excellent Christians to be

like a pack of Hypocrites. The Heathens every where asked them, as may be seen in Lactantius, Arnobius, Minucius and others, as well as Origen; what is the matter with you Christians, that you have no Images in your Churches? what if you dare not joyn with us in our worship, why do not you make use of them in your own? Is it only humour, singularity, and affecta∣tion of Novelty in You? If it be, you shew what manner of men you are. No truly; say they, gravely and seriously, we do it not, because we dare not do it; for we are afraid of displeasing and dishonouring God by it, and we will on that account rather choose to dye than do it. Upon such an answer, the Heathens might think them honest and simple men, that did not know what to do with their lives, who were so willing to part with them on such easie terms. But if they had heard, the bottom of all this was, only a cunning and sly trick to undermine Paganism, and that they meant no such thing, as though it were unlawful in it self, but only unlawful till they had gotten the better of them; what would they have thought of such men? no otherwise, than that they were a com∣pany of base Hypocrites, that pretended one thing and meant another; and that the

Wicked of the World might not worship Images, but the Saints might, when they had the Power in their hands, although before they declaimed against it, as the most vile, mean, and unworthy way of worship, that ever came into the heads of men; that there could be no Religion, where it obtained; that it was worse than the worship of Beasts; that it was more reaso∣nable to worship the artificers themselves than the Images made by them; that rats and mice had less folly than mankind, for they had no fears of what men fell down before, with trembling and great shews of devotion. These, and many such things as these, the Fathers speak freely, openly, frequently, on all occasions, in all places against the worship of Images; and after all this, was no more meant by it but only this, Thou O Heathen must not worship Images, but I may? And why not as well (might the Heathen reply) Thou must not commit adultery, but I may? Does the na∣ture of the commands you boast so much of alter with mens persons? Is that indeed lawful for you that is not for us? Where doth the Law of Moses say, Thou shalt not worship the Images that we worship, but thou maist worship the Images that Christians worship? And if the Law

makes no difference, either leave off your foolish babbling against our Images, or con∣demn your own. For to our understand∣ing, yours are as much against the Law as ours are.

And so the primitive Christians thought, who very honestly and sincerely declared as much in their words and actions;* 1.267 witness not only the opinions of all the Writers in behalf of Christianity, (not one excepted) that ever had occasion to mention this matter; but the Decree of as good a Coun∣cil as was to be had at that time; I mean the Eliberitan, in the famous Canon to that purpose, Can. 36. It pleaseth us to have no pictures in Churches, lest that which is worshipped be painted upon walls. It is a pleasant thing to see what work our Ad∣versaries make with this innocent Canon; sometimes, it is a meer forgery of here∣ticks (I wonder such men do not say the same of the second Commandment) some∣times, the Bishops that met there were not so wise as they should have been; (no nor Moses and the Prophets, nor Christ and the primitive Christians in this matter) some∣times, that they spake only against pictures upon walls (because the Salt-Peter of the walls would be apt to deface them; or

because in case of persecution, they could not do as Rachel did, carry their Teraphim along with them); but that which Peta∣vius sticks to,* 1.268 is, that the Memory of Hea∣then Idolatry was yet fresh, and therefore it was not thought expedient to have Images in the Oratories or Temples of Christians. So that, after all the tricks and shifts of our Adversaries, the thing it self is yielded to us, viz. that this Canon is against such Images, as are now used and worshipped in the Roman Church. But, saith he, the rea∣son doth not hold still, for then the memo∣ry of Heathen Idolatry was not out of mens minds. It is a wonderful thing to me, that these Spanish Bishops should be able to tell their own reason no better than so. You say, you will have no Images in Chur∣ches: why so I beseech you? Lest that, say they, which is worshipped be painted upon walls: worshipped by whom? do you mean by Heathens? no, we speak of the Churches of Christians. But why may not that which is worshipped be painted? We think that reason enough to any man, that considers the Being worshipped, and that which is painted, and the mighty disparagement to an infinite in∣visible Being to be drawn in lines and colours with a design to honour him there∣by.

This to me seems a reason that holds equally at all times. For was the Be∣ing worshipped more unfit to be drawn so soon after Heathen Idolatry, than he would be afterwards? methinks it had been much better done then, while the skilful Artifi∣cers were living. But those were Heathen Idolaters; suppose they were, you must make use of them, or none, if that which Tertullian and others say, hold true, that it is forbidden to Christians to make Images; which surely they would never have said, if they had thought the time would come, when the Heathen Idolatry should be for∣gotten, and then the Christians might wor∣ship Images. Well; but all this is only against Pictures upon walls, but for all that, saith Bellarmin,* 1.269 they might have Images in Frames, or upon Veils. It seems then that which is adored, might be painted well enough, provided it be not upon a wall; but methinks, it is more repugnant to an infinite Being to be confined within a Frame, than to be drawn upon a wall: and the Decree is, to have no pictures in Chur∣ches; but if they were in Frames, or upon Veils, would they not be in Churches still? What made Epiphanius then so angry at seeing an Image upon a Veil at Anabla∣tha?* 1.270 Was not Heathen Idolatry forgotten

enough yet? It seems not, for it was com∣ing in again under other pretences. But that good mans spirit was stirred within him at the apprehension of it, and could not be quiet, till he had rent asunder the Veil, and written to the Bishop of Hierusa∣lem to prevent the like enormity. One would have thought by this time the jea∣lousie of Offence might have been worn out, the Heathen Idolatry being suppressed; but yet it seems Epiphanius did not understand his Christian Liberty in this matter. Nay so far from it, that he plainly and posi∣tively affirms, that such an Image though upon a Veil and not the Walls, was con∣tra autoritatem Scripturarum, contra Reli∣gionem nostram, against the Law of God, and the Christian Religion. But it may be, this was some Heathen Idol, or Image of a False God; no, so far from it, that Epipha∣nius could not tell whether it was an Image of Christ, or of some Saint; but this he could tell, that he was sure it was against the Authority of the Scriptures. And was Epiphanius so great a Dunce to imagine a thing indifferent in it self, and applyed to a due object of worship, should be directly opposite to the Law of God? Men may talk of the Fathers, and magnifie the Fathers, and seem to make the Authority of the Fathers

next to infallible; and yet there are none who expose them more to contempt, than they who give such answers as these, so directly against the plainest sense and meaning of their words. I confess, those speak more consonantly to their principles, who reject the Authority of this Epistle, at least of this part of it; but there is not the least colour or pretence for it, from any M S. and Petavius ingenuously con∣fesseth, that he sees no ground to believe this part added to the former epistle. God be thanked, there is some little ingenuity yet left in the World: and which is the greater wonder, among the Iesuits too; for not only Petavius, but Sirmondus owns the Epistle of Epiphanius to be genuine,* 1.271 quoting it to prove the Antiquity of Veils at the entrance of the Church. If it be good for that purpose, it is I am sure as good for ours; and so it was thought to be, by those who were no Iconoclasts, I mean the Author of the Caroline Books,* 1.272 and the Gallican Bishops who made use of this Te∣stimony, although themselves were against rending of painted Veils. But commend me to the plain honesty of Iohn Dama∣scen,* 1.273 who saith, one Swallow makes no Sum∣mer; and of Alphonsus à Castro,* 1.274 who tells us, that Epiphanius was an Iconoclast, (i. e.

a terrible heretick with a hard name) ma∣terially so but not formally, because the Church had not determined the contrary. It seems it was no matter, what the Law, or Christian Religion had determined; for those were the things Epiphanius took for his grounds. But he, good man, was a little too hot in this matter, and did not consider, that when the Pagan Idolatry was sufficiently out of mens minds, then it would be very lawful to have Christ or Saints not only drawn upon Veils, or Screens, but to have just such Statues as the Pagans had; and to give them the very same worship which the Prototypes deserve; provided, that the people have forgotten Mercury, Apollo, and Hercules; and put S. Francis, or S. Ig∣natius, or S. Christopher, or S. Thomas Beckett instead of them. O the Divine power of names! for that which would have been Idolatry, downright Paganish Idolatry under the former names, becomes good Catholick Worship under the latter. But I do not see that any of the Primitive Christians did ever think, that the change of names, or persons would have wrought such wonders; but that the wor∣ship of Images would have continued the same thing, whatever names had been

given to them. And what pleasant stories soever Epiphanius the Deacon tells in the second Council of Nice, concerning the disciples of the elder Epiphanius,* 1.275 placing his Image in a Church dedicated to him in Cyprus, yet Petavius confesses, that in his time there were no Images in the Churches of Cyprus, which he takes to be the rea∣son of his mighty zeal against them. Any thing rather than that which himself gives, viz. the Authority of Scriptures, and the Christian Religion.

In the Theodosian Code we find a Law of Theodosius M. against the several parts of the Heathen Idolatry,* 1.276 the sacrifices, liba∣tions, incense, lights, &c. and after the rest, it comes particularly to their worship of Images in these words, Si quis vero mor∣tali opere facta, & avum passura simu∣lachra imposito ture venerabitur, (ac ridioulo exemplo metuens subito quae pro se simulaverit) vel redimita vit∣is arbore, vel erectâ effossis arâ cespi∣tibus vanas imagines, humiliore licet mu∣neris praemio, tamen plena Religionis inju∣riâ honorare temptaverit, is utpote violatae Religionis reus eâ domo seu possessione multabitur in quâ eum Gentilitiâ constite∣rit Superstitione famulatum. The mean∣ing whereof is, that it was the forfeiture

of house and land for any man to offer in∣cense to Images made by men, and that were of a perishing nature; or that hung their garlands on Trees, or raised Altars of Turf before their Images; for although the cost were less, yet the violation of Re∣ligion was the same. This Constitution I grant doth respect Heathen Images, but I say it proceeds upon such grounds which are common to all Images, unless they be such as drop from heaven; such as the Image of Edessa, and the rest mentioned by Gretser, or that of Diana of Ephesus, or some few others that were pretended to have a divine Original; for such as these the Constitution doth not reach, being Divine and immortal, but for all others I do not see how they can escape the Reason of this Law. And it is altogether as ri∣diculous for Christians to worship the things they have formed, as it was for the Heathens to do it: (where T. G. may learn the signification and Etymology of simulachrum, à simulando; for simulare is the same with effigiare, as the Scholiast on that Constitution tells him.) In the same Constitution, they are called sensu ca∣rentia simulachra, which are words put in on purpose to shew how stupid and senseless the worship of them is; and are not all Images

among Christians so? Have they not eyes and see not, and ears and hear not, as well as the Heathen Images? Or do they worship only living and sensible Images? moving I grant sometimes they do; such as Themistius upon Aristotle tells us that Daedaelus made,* 1.277 that moved by the help of quicksilver; or springs, such as the Holy Rood of Boxtel in Kent,* 1.278 whose secret engines for moving the eyes and lips were laid open, and an Ana∣tomy Lecture read upon them at Pauls Cross in Henry the Eighths time by Bishop Fisher.

2. That Notion of Idolatry which the Heathens were charged with by the pri∣mitive Christians,* 1.279 may be common to Christians with them. Therefore if the fear of Idolatry kept them from the wor∣ship of Images, and the same fear may justly continue where ever Images are wor∣shipped, then the Christians rejecting of Images, was not upon any reason peculiar to that Age of the Church. If men by being Christians were uncapable of being Idolaters without renouncing Christianity, there were some pretence for laying aside the fears and jealousies of Idolatry, when the Christian Religion had prevailed in the world. But S. Paul supposes that Chri∣stians continuing so might be Idolaters,

Neither be ye Idolaters as were some of them.* 1.280 Yet these were the Persons who were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and the Sea;* 1.281 and did all eat the same spiritual meat, and drink the same spiritu∣al drink (for they drank of that rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.) Which water they drank of, both before and after their Idolatry (and since the wa∣ter followed them,) at the very time of committing it; so that those persons are said to be partakers of Christ, who were charged with Idolatry, and therefore S. Paul is far from supposing that Idolatry and the profession of Christianity are in∣consistent with each other. But it is said that there can be no Idolatry to the Images of Christ, because the true object of worship is honoured by them; nor to the Images of Saints, so long as men take them for Saints, that is, Gods Creatures; and give only an inferiour worship to them. If this be true, there appears to be little danger of Idolatry among those who do not renounce Chri∣stianity. But against this plea I put in these exceptions.

1. That upon the same grounds all the Wiser Heathens must be cleared from Idola∣try. For, 1. They owned the true Object of Divine worship, viz. One Supreme God, as I

have at large proved in the former Discour∣ses: both, those that went on the Platonick hypothesis of one Supreme Deity, and others inferiour; and those who believed one God to be worshipped under different representa∣tions. The former was the principle which Iulian went upon, and the latter Platonists, who opposed Christianity to the utmost: the other was the principle of the Stoicks and others; and particularly owned by Maximus Madaurensis, who saith,* 1.282 that the Heathens did worship one God under several names, thereby to express his se∣veral powers diffused through the World. Now upon this supposition, that where there is a true object of worship represented, there can be no Idolatry in worshipping the representation, I challenge any man to shew how the Heathens that went on these principles were chargeable with Idolatry. For is Christ any otherwise a right object of worship, than as he is believed to be the True God? if then there can be no Idolatry towards an Image of Christ, neither can there be towards any representation of the True God.

2. The Heathens did assert the diffe∣rence between God and his Creatures, as I have already proved, that they looked on their inferiour Deities, as dependent on

the supreme Being Created and Governed by Him: so that if the acknowledgement of Saints to be Gods Creatures, doth hin∣der men from committing Idolatry, it must do the same for all those who owned a subordination of Deities; which takes in the far greatest part of the Heathen World.

3. They allowed the different degrees of worship suitable to the excellencies of the objects; as Soveraign worship to the supreme God, inferiour worship to the Gods under Him, and so proportionably till they came to their Heroes, or Deified persons to whom they allowed the lowest kind and de∣gree of worship. For it is a palpable mi∣stake in any who think they did give the same degrees of honour and worship to all. Plutarch saith,* 1.283 That Plato did put a diffe∣rence between the worship of Coelestial Gods and Daemons; and so did Xenocrates between the worship of Gods and good Daemons, and those sowre and morose, and vindictive Spirits which lived in the Air. Plato, he tells us, made it the office of good Daemons to carry mens Pray∣ers to the Gods, and to bring from them Oracles, and other Divine Gifts: and so their worship must be suitable to their imployment, which is inferiour to that of the Coelestial Deities, whose station and

employment was more immediately un∣der the supreme God. Apuleius thus reckons up the order of Deities accord∣ing to Plato. 1. The supreme God, the Author and Ruler of all.* 1.284 2. The Coele∣stial Deities, spiritual, immortal, good, and infinitely happy; to whom the Go∣vernment of things is committed next un∣der God; but because they supposed no imme∣diate communication between these Coelesti∣al Gods and men, therefore they ranked be∣tween them and men, 3. Daemons, as Intercessors between the Gods and men, who were subservient to the Coelestial Gods. 4. The lowest sort of Daemons, he saith, are souls discharged of the body; which if they take care of their posteri∣ty, are called Lares, or domestick Gods (Lar, in the old Hetruscan Language, signifies a Prince, thence the Lares are the Gods of Families) and those who were good had the Title of Gods for honours sake conferred upon them, as he speaks. But he confesses, That there was a pecu∣liar honour belonging to the supreme God, Cum sit summi Deorum hic honor propri∣us; and him they did solemnly invocate, as not only appears by frequent passages in Plato, but by that of Boethius;* 1.285 For, as Plato saith, we ought to invocate the

divine assistance in the least affairs; therefore in so great a matter, invocan∣dum rerum omnium Patrem, we ought to call upon God the Father of all things. Next after him they prayed to the Coele∣stial Deities; which prayers, the inferi∣our order of Spirits was to carry up, and to bring down answers. So that the ad∣dresses were made to the Coelestial Deities, which the Aereal Daemons carried to them, saith Apuleius, to keep a due distance be∣tween Gods and men. And although the other Platonists differ from Apuleius in the manner of reckoning up the several orders of inferiour Deities, as may be seen in Alcinous, Proclus, Iamblichus, and others; yet they all agree in making one Supreme God, the First Author and Cause of all things, and therefore making an infinite distance between him and his Creatures; and that there are several degrees of the Beings that are to be worshipped under him; some as the Bestowers of Blessings but subordinate to the supreme, and others only as Intercessors between the Gods and Men. Diogenes Laertius saith of Pytha∣goras,* 1.286 That he charged his Disciples, not to give equal degrees of honour to the Gods and Heroes. Herodotus saith of the Greeks,* 1.287 That they worshipped Hercules

two waies, one as an immortal Deity, and so they sacrificed to him; and ano∣ther as a Hero, and so they celebrated his memory. Isocrates distinguisheth between the Honours of Heroes and Gods, when he speaks of Menelaus and Helena:* 1.288 but the distinction is no where more fully expressed than in the Greek inscription upon the Statue of Regilla, wife to Herodes Atticus, as Salmasius thinks,* 1.289 which was set up in his Temple at Triopium, and taken from the Statue it self by Sirmondus; where it is said, That she had neither the honour of a Mortal, nor yet that which was proper to the Gods. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. If any ask wherein the diffe∣rence of these honours lay; Lilius Gyral∣dus saith,* 1.290 That the Gods were worshipped to the East, the Heroes to the West. Vos∣sius thinks,* 1.291 That among the Greeks and Romans, it lay in having their Images carried in the publick Processions, but with∣out Sacrifices; and their names put into the Saliar Hymns at Rome; and inserted into the Peplus of Minerva at Athens. Hesychius makes the honour of a Hero to lie in a Temple,* 1.292 a Statue, and a Fountain; but Plutarch in the Life of Alexander saith, That he sent to the Oracle of Am∣mon to know whether Hephaestion should

be made a God or no; the Oracle an∣swered, That they should honour him and sacrifice to him as to a Hero; whence we observe that the material act of sacrifice, as T. G. speaks, might be common to Gods and Heroes, but the inward intention of the mind made the great difference be∣tween their worship, besides that which is expressed in the Inscription of Regilla, viz. that the honour of one sort was looked on as a voluntary Act, but the other was a necessary duty; they might sacrifice and pray to the Heroes (who were the Beati amongst them) but no man was absolutely bound to do it; but those who were devout and Religious would: as Salmasius there ex∣plains the words of the Inscription.* 1.293 And it is observed by the Criticks, that among the Greeks 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are words of a different importance, i. e. in the Language of the Court of Rome, to Bea∣tify, and to Canonize. For I perceive the Heathen Heroes did stand upon their pre∣ferment as well as the Roman Saints, and those who had been Beatified a competent time, came to be Canonized at last: So Plutarch saith,* 1.294 of Isis and Osiris, Hercules and Bacchus, that for their Vertues, of good Daemons they were promoted to Dei∣ties; and of Lampsaca, That she had at

first only Heroical honour given her, and afterwards came to Divine. It seems by the Inscription of Herodes, and by the Testament of Epicteta extant in Greek in the Collection of Inscriptions,* 1.295 that it was in the power of particular Families to keep Festival daies in honour of some of their own Family, and to give Heroical honours to them. In that noble Inscription at Ve∣nice, we find three daies appointed every year to be kept, and a Confraternity esta∣blished for that purpose with the Laws of it; the first day to be observed in Honour of the Muses, and Sacrifices to be offered to them as Deities; the second and third in honour of the Heroes of the Family; between which honour, and that of Deities, they shewed the difference by the distance of time between them and the preference given to the other. But wherein soever the difference lay, that there was a distin∣ction acknowledged among them appears, by this passage of Valerius in his excellent Oration extant in Dionysius Halicarnass.* 1.296 I call, saith he, the Gods to witness, whose Temples, and Altars, our Family hath worshipped with common Sacrifices; and next after them, I call the Genii of our Ancestors, to whom we give 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the second Honours next to the Gods (as

Celsus calls those 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the due honours that belong to the lower Dae∣mons;* 1.297 which he contends ought to be given to them) From which we take no∣tice, that the Heathens did not confound all degrees of divine worship, giving to the lowest object the same which they sup∣posed to be due to the Coelestial Deities, or the supreme God: So that if the distin∣ction of divine worship will excuse from Ido∣latry, the Heathens were not to blame for it.

2. If this pretence doth excuse from Idolatry, the Carpocratian Hereticks were unjustly charged by Irenaeus, Epiphanius, and S. Augustin;* 1.298 for they are said, To worship the Images of Christ together with the Philosophers, Pythagoras, Plato, and Aristotle. Wherein lay the fault of these Hereticks? was it only in joyning the Phi∣losophers together with Christ? If that had been all, it had been easie to have said, That they worshipped the Philosophers together with Christ; but they take particular notice of it as a thing unusual and blame-worthy, that they worshipped the Images of Christ, which they pretended to have had from Pilat: which had been no wonder, if there had been as many Images of Christ then extant, as Feuardentius pretends, viz. the Image of Christ taken by Nicodemus (not I sup∣pose

when he came by night to our Savi∣our) that at Edessa, besides those which S. Luke drew of Him; if there had been so many Images abroad of Him in venera∣tion among Christians, why should this be pitched upon as a peculiar thing of these Gnosticks, That they had some Images painted, others made of other matters, which they crowned and set forth, or wor∣shipped as the Heathens did, among which was an Image of Christ, as Irenaeus reports it? And supposing they had worshipped the Images of Christ as the Gentiles did worship their Images, wherein were they to blame, if the honour given to the Image be not the honour of the Image, but of that which is represented by it? And since Christ deserves our highest worship, on this pretence they deserved no blame at all in giving divine worship of the highest de∣gree to the Image of Christ.

3. The Primitive Christians did utter∣ly refuse to worship the Images of Empe∣rors, although they were acknowledged to be Gods Creatures therefore I say, ac∣cording to their sense, acknowledging the Saints to be Gods Creatures, is not a suf∣ficient ground to excuse the worship of the Images of Saints from Idolatry. As in Pliny's Epistle to Trajan (mentioned be∣fore)

one of the tryals of Christians was, whether they would Imagini tuae thure ac vino supplicare; use the Religious rites that were then customary, of Incense, Libation, and Supplication before the Em∣perours Image; this Minucius calls ad Imagines supplicare, to pray before their Images: which Pliny saith, No true Chri∣stian could ever be brought to: but would rather suffer Martyrdom than do it. S. Hie∣rome speaking of Nebuchadnezzars Image, saith,* 1.299 Statuam seu Imaginem cultores Dei adorare non debent; the worshippers of God ought not to worship an Image; Let, saith he, the Iudges and Magistrates take notice of this, that worship the Em∣perours Statues; that they do that which the three Children pleased God by not do∣ing. By which we see, it was not only the Statues of Heathen Emperours, which the Christians refused to give Religious wor∣ship to; but of the most pious and Chri∣stian; which out of the flattery of Princes, those who expected, or received Honours, were willing to continue under Christian Emperours; but it was at last absolutely forbidden by a Constitution of Theodosius; of which I have spoken already, in the Discourse about the Nature of divine wor∣ship. But upon what reason came this to

be accounted unlawful among Christians; if it were lawful to worship the Images of Saints, supposing them to be Gods Crea∣tures? Is it possible they should think the Emperours to be otherwise? I do not think that the Souldiers who were trepann'd by Iulian, to offer Incense to his Image at the receiving the Donative (and after they understood what they did, were ready to run mad with indignation at themselves, crying out in the Streets, We are Christi∣ans, and ran to the Emperour, desiring they might suffer Martyrdom for the Christian faith, which they were supposed to deny by that act of theirs, as Gregory Nazianzen, and Theodoret relate the story) did ima∣gine that Iulian was any other than one of Gods Creatures;* 1.300 or that they had any belief of his being a God; but the Christi∣ans looked on the act it self of offering in∣cense, as unlawful to be done to the Image of any Creature; or to the Image it self, because it was a Creature, and that of the meanest sort, viz. the Work of mens hands.

4. It is not enough for any of Gods Creatures to be worshipped under the No∣tion of Saints; if any worship be given to them, which is above the rank of Crea∣tures, i. e. any of that worship which be∣longs to God. For none can have greater

confidence of the Saintship of any Persons whose Images they worshipped, (those ex∣cepted which are revealed in Scripture) than many of the Heathens had of the goodness of the Deities which they worshipped. And if we observe the method, which Origen, S. Cyril, S. Augustin and other Christian Writers took to prove them to be evil Spi∣rits which they worshipped, we shall find the great argument was from the Nature of the worship given to them. For, say they, we find in Scripture that good Angels have refused that worship which they seem so desirous of; and therefore there is just reason to suspect that these are not good Angels; (although they firmly believed them to be so, and Hierocles saith,* 1.301 God for∣bid we should worship any other; And the Heathens in S. Augustin,* 1.302 say peremptorily, they did not worship Devils, but Angels and the servants of the Great God.) So say I, as to those who are worshipped under the name of Saints or Angels, if in, or at their Images such things are spoken or done, which tend to the encouraging that wor∣ship which the Primitive Christians re∣fused as Idolatry, there is the same reason still to suspect those are not good but evil Spirits; under whose name or represen∣tation soever they appear. For it is as

easie for them to play the same tricks among Christians, which they did among Heathens; for then they pretended to be Good Spirits, and why may they not do the same still? If we have a fuller discovery of their design to impose upon the world, the folly of men is so much the greater to be abused by them; and the Gentiles were in that respect far more excuseable than Christians, because God had not discovered the Cheat and artifices of Evil Spirits to them, so as he hath done to us by the Christi∣an Religion. Whatever pretence of miracles, or visions, or appearances there be, if the design of them be to advance a way of wor∣ship contrary to the Law of God, we have the same reason to believe that evil Spirits are the Causes of them, as the Primitive Christians had, that evil Spirits were wor∣shipped by the Heathens under the notion of Good.

5. The Arrians believed Christ to be a Creature, and yet were charged with Ido∣latry by the Fathers. If it be said, that they did give a higher degree of worship to Christ, than any do to Saints; I answer, that they did only give a degree of worship proportionable to the degrees of excellency supposed to be in him, far above any other Creatures whatsoever. But still that wor∣ship

was inferiour to that which they gave to God the Father, according to the opinion of those Persons I dispute against. For if it be impossible for a man that believes the incomparable distance between God and the most excellent of his Creatures, to attribute the honour due to God alone to any Creature; then, say I, it is impossible for those who believed one God the Father, to give to the Son whom they supposed to be a Creature, the honour which was peculiar to God. It must be therefore on their own supposition, an inferiour and subordinate honour; and at the highest such as the Platonists gave to their Coelestial Deities. And although the Arrians did invocate Christ, and put their trust in him; yet they still supposed him to be a Creature, and therefore believed that all the Power and Authority he had, was given to him; so that the worship they gave to Christ must be inferiour to that honour they gave to the Supreme God, whom they believed to be Supreme, Absolute, and Indepen∣dent. But notwithstanding all this, the Fathers by multitudes of Testimonies al∣ready produced do condemn the Arrians as guilty of Idolatry: and therefore they could not believe, that the owning of Saints to be Gods Creatures did alter the

State of the Controversie, and make such Christians uncapable of Idolatry.

2. I come to the second Period,* 1.303 wherein Images were brought into the Christian Church, but no worship allowed to be given to them. And I am so far from thinking, that the forbearance of the Use of Images, was from the fear of complyance with the Pagan Idolatry, that I much rather believe the introducing of Images was out of Complyance with the Gentile wor∣ship. For Eusebius in that memorable Testimony concerning the Statue at Pa∣neas, or Caesarea Philippi, which, he saith,* 1.304 was said to be the Image of Christ and the Syrophoenician woman, doth attribute the preserving the Images of Christ and Peter and Paul to a Heathen custome, which, he saith, was done 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. saith Valesius, inconsideratè & im∣prudenter, contra veterem disciplinam, incautè: very unadvisedly, and against the ancient Rules of the Church. And yet (to my great amazement) this place of Eusebius is on all occasions produced to justifie the antiquity and worship of Images: if it had been only brought to prove, that Heathenish Customes did by degrees creep into the Christian Church,

after it obtained ease and prosperity, it were a sufficient proof of it. Not that I think, this Image was ever intended for Christ or the Syrophoenician Woman, but because Eusebius saith, the people had got∣ten such a Tradition among them; and were then willing to turn their Images to the Stories of the Gospel. Where they finding a Syrophoenician Woman making her address to our Saviour; and a Tradi∣tion being among them that she was of this place, and there finding two Images of Brass, the one in a Form of a supplicant upon her Knees with her hands stretched out; and the other over against her with a hand extended to receive her, the com∣mon people seeing these figures to agree so luckily with the Story of the Gospel, presently concluded these must be the very Images of Christ and the Woman; and that the Woman, out of meer gratitude, upon her return home was at this great expence of two brass statues; although the Gospel saith,* 1.305 she had spent all that she had on Physitians before her miraculous cure: and it would have been another miracle, for such an Image of Christ to have stood untouched in a Gentile City during so ma∣ny persecutions of Christians, especially when Asterius in Photius saith,* 1.306 this very

Statue was demolished by Maximinus. I confess it seems most probable to me, to have been the Image of the City Paneas supplicating to the Emperour; for I find the very same representations in the anci∣ent Coines; particularly those of Achaia, Bithynia, Macedonia, and Hispania; wherein the Provinces are represented in the Form of a Woman supplicating, and the Emperour Hadrian in the same habit and posture, as the Image at Paneas is de∣scribed by Eusebius.* 1.307 And that which adds more probability to this conjecture, is, that Bithynia is so represented, because of the kindness done by Hadrian to Nicome∣dia in the restoring of it after its fall by an earthquake, and Caesarea is said by Eu∣sebius to have suffered by an earthquake at the same time; and after such a Fa∣vour to the City, it was no wonder to have two such brass statues erected for the Em∣perours honour. But supposing this tra∣dition were true, it signifies no more, than that this Gentile custome was observed by a Syrophoenician Woman in a Gentile City; and what is this to the worship of Images in Christian Churches? For Eusebius doth plainly speak of Gentiles when he saith, it is not to be wondered that those Gentiles who received benefits by our Saviour should

do these things; when, saith he, we see the Images of his Apostles Paul and Peter and Christ himself, preserved in Pictures being done in Colours, it being their custome to honour their Benefactors after this manner. I appeal to any man of common sense, whether Eusebius doth not herein speak of a meer Gentile custome; but Baronius in spight of the Greek will have it thus, quod majores nostri ad Gentilis consuetudinis si∣militudinem quàm proximè accedentes;* 1.308 at which place, Is. Casaubon sets this Margi∣nal Note, Graeca lege & miraberis; but, suppose this were the sense of Eusebius, what is to be gained by it, save only, that the bringing of Images among Christians was a meer imitation of Gentilism, and introducing the Heathen customes into the Christian Church? Yet Baronius hath some∣thing more to say for this Image, viz. that being placed in the Diaconicon or Vestry of the Church of Paneas, it was there worshipped by Christians, for which he quotes Nicephorus;* 1.309 whom at other times he rejects as a fabulous Wri∣ter. And it is observable, that Philostor∣gius (out of whom Nicephorus takes the other circumstances of his relation) is so far from saying any thing of the worship of this Image,* 1.310 that he saith expresly the

contrary, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 giving no manner of worship to it; to which he adds the reason for it; because it is not lawful for Christians to worship either Brass or any other matter; no not although this Image were believed to re∣present Christ after his Incarnation. What shall be said to such an Author who not only omits so considerable a passage, but puts in words of his own directly contrary to his meaning? The Author of the Caro∣line Book, saith, that allowing this story to be true (which by comparing the relation of Asterius in Photius with what Eusebius, Sozomen and the rest say,* 1.311 there seems to be some reason to suspect) yet it signifies nothing to the worship of Images; such a Statue being erected by a weak ignorant Woman, to express her gratitude after the best fashion among the Gentiles; and what doth this signifie to the Church of God? and supposing the miraculous cures to be wrought by the Herb that grew at the foot of the Statue; yet that doth not prove any worship of Images, but that men ought to leave their former Idols, and embrace the true Faith; for, saith he, according to the Apostle signs are not for Believers, but for Unbelievers. But if we allow the story as it is reported by

Sozomen,* 1.312 That the Christians gathered up the broken fragments of the Statue, and laid them up in the Church, I grant it proves that those Christians did not abhor the use of Images, although there be no proof of any worship they gave to them: and this seems to be as much as Petavius thinks can be made of this story.* 1.313

But Baronius is not content with the Syrophoenician Womans example in this matter of Images, but he produces the Apostles Council at Antioch,* 1.314 and a venera∣ble decree made by them there, which commands Christians to make Images of Christ instead of Heathen Idols; but our comfort is, that Petavius discards this as a meer forgery,* 1.315 as most of the things of the latter Greeks, he saith, are; and yet Baronius saith, this Canon is made use of by the second Nicene Council; which shews what excellent Authorities that Council relyed upon. Nicolas de Cleman∣gis is so far from thinking there was any Apostolical decree in this matter,* 1.316 that he saith, the Universal Church did decree for the sake of the Gentile Converts, that there should be no Images at all in Churches; which decree, he saith, was afterwards repealed. I would he had told us by what Authority; and why other Com∣mandments

and Decrees might not be re∣pealed as well as that?

The first authentick Testimony of any thing like Images among Christians, is that of the painted Chalices in Tertullian;* 1.317 wherein Christ was represented under the Embleme of a Shepherd with a sheep on his back; (as it was very usual among the Romans to have Emblematical Figures on their Cups) but was ever any man so weak among them, not to distinguish be∣tween the ornaments of their Cups and Glasses, and their Sacred Images? How ridiculous would that man have been, that should have proved at that time that Christians worshipped Images, because they made use of painted Glasses? If this signifies any thing, why do they quarrel with us, that have painted glass Windows in our Churches? All that can be inferred from hence is, that the Church at that time did not think Emblematical figures unlawful Ornaments of Cups or Chalices; and do we think otherwise? This I con∣fess doth sufficiently prove that the Ro∣man Church did think Ornamental Images lawful; but it doth no more prove the worship of Images, than the very same Emblem often used before Protestant

Books, doth prove that those Books are wor∣shipped by us.

I cannot find any thing more that looks like any evidence for Images for the first three hundred years; afterwards, there be∣gan to be some appearances of some, in some places; but they met with different entertainment, according to the several apprehensions of men. For although the whole Christian Church agreed in refusing to worship Images; yet they were of seve∣ral opinions as to the Use of them. Some followed the strict opinion of Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Origen, who thought the very making of Images unlaw∣ful; others thought it not unlawful to make them, but to use them in Churches, as the Eliberitan Bishops, and Epiphanius; others thought it not unlawful to have Images there, provided no worship were given to them. It is ridiculous to bring S. Hierom's Saucomariae, for any other pur∣pose,* 1.318 than to prove that the Apostles Images were then seen upon their common drink∣ing cups, of which he speaks; as any one may easily see that reads the passage, and the sport he makes with Canthelius about it: which will prove as much towards the worship of Images, as having the Apostles pictures on a pack of Cards would do.

Whatever the custome was in Tertulli∣ans time (if at least he speaks of the Sacred Chalices) we are sure in S. Au∣gustines time there were no Images of mankind on the Sacred Vessels.* 1.319 For al∣though these, saith he, are consecrated to a sacred use, and are the work of mens hands; yet they have not a mouth and speak not, nor eyes and see not, as the Hea∣then Images had; and afterwards saith, that the humane figure doth more to de∣ceive mankind, as to their worship, than the want of sense doth to correct their er∣rour; and the great cause of the madness of Idolatry is, that the likeness to a living Being prevails more on the affections of miserable men to worship them, than their knowledge that they are not living doth to the contempt of them. Is it possible such a man as S. Austin was, could use such ex∣pressions as these, if in his time there had been any Images then used or worshipped in Christian Churches? What need he have so much as mentioned the Sacred Utensils, if there had been Sacred Images? and how could he have urged those things against Heathen Images, which would al∣together have held as well against Christi∣an? For it was not the opinion of the Heathens he disputed against, so much as

the proneness of men to be seduced to wor∣ship such representations, which they find to be like themselves. To this Bellarmin answers,* 1.320 that S. Augustin doth not say there were no Images in Churches, but on∣ly that the humane shape of Images did tend much to increase their errour who worship∣ped them for Gods. But would any man of common sense have used those arguments against Images, which do not suppose them already worshipped for Gods; but imply the danger of being seduced to that worship where ever they are, in case there were such Images in Christian Churches? The Worship S. Augustin speaks against, is adoring, or praying looking on an Image, (Quis autem ador at vel orat intuens simu∣lachrum) which whosoever doth, saith he, is so affected as to think he is heard by that he prays before, and may receive help by it; and yet these persons S. Augustin disputes against, declare that they did not worship their Images for Gods, but only as the signs or representations of that Being which they worshipped. Which S. Au∣gustin shews to be a most unlikely thing, because the manner of address, and the figure of their Images did shew that they did apprehend something more than meer signs in them whatever they pretended. I

do not deny that there were pictures abroad in S. Augustins time,* 1.321 of Christ and Peter and Paul, for himself doth mention them; but he declares so little reverence for them, that he saith they deserved to be deceived who looked on them as Books to be instructed by; and it was no wonder to see feigners of false doctrines to be led aside by painters. By which it is plain, S. Au∣gustin did not think Pictures and Images to be such good helps for the Ignorant, as was afterwards pretended. And for those, who worshipped Pictures, S. Augustin doth not deny that there were such in his time, but, he reckons them among the ignorant and superstitious,* 1.322 who by their practises did dishonour their profession of Christiani∣ty. So that although we grant in the time of S. Augustin there were several pi∣ctures of Holy men mentioned in Scripture in several places, yet there is no clear evi∣dence that they were then brought into the African Churches any more than into those of Cyprus or Palestine; but they were in the latter end of the fourth Century in some of the more Eastern Churches, as appears by the Testimonies of Gregory Nyssen, and Asterius produced by Petavius and others.* 1.323 And it is a very probable conjecture of Daillè, that in those parts of Pontus and

Cappadocia, they were first introduced, out of a complyance with Gentilism; and in imitation of the practice of Gregory Thau∣maturgus, whom Nyssen commends for changing the Heathen Festivals into Chri∣stian,* 1.324 the better to draw the Heathens to Christianity; which seemed a very plau∣sible pretence, but was attended with ve∣ry bad success, when Christianity came to be by this means, but Reformed Paganism, as to the matter of divine worship. This same principle in all probability brought the Pictures of Martyrs and others into the Churches of Italy, of which Prudentius and Paulinus speak;* 1.325 and this latter confesseth, it was a rare custome in his time to have Pictures in Churches,

—pingere sanctas Raro more domos.

and thought it necessary to make an Apo∣logy for it,* 1.326 which he doth by saying, he looked on this as a good means to draw the rude and barbarous people from their Heathen Customes, changing the pleasure of pictures for that of drinking at the Sepul∣chres of Martyrs; but there is not the least intimation of any worship then given to them.

3. After that the Use of Images had prevailed both in the Eastern and Western parts,* 1.327 men came by degrees to the worship of them: which is the third Period obser∣vable in this Controversie. As to which there are these things remarkable,

1. That it began first among the igno∣rant and superstitious people; of whom S. Augustin speaks in his time, that they were the worshippers of pictures; and af∣terwards in the Epistle of Gregorius M. to Serenus Bishop of Marseilles it is obser∣vable,* 1.328 that the people began to worship the Images in Churches in perfect opposition to Serenus their Bishop; who was so much displeased at it, that he demolished them, and brake them in pieces: which act of his so exasperated them, that they sepa∣rated from his Communion. The news of this coming to Rome (probably from some of these Schismaticks, who alwayes loved to take Sanctuary in Rome, and appeal thi∣ther against their Bishops,) the Pope writes to the Bishop about it by one Cyriacus, he slights the Popes Letters, as if he could not believe they were written by him; Gregory being nettled at this, writes again to him; and reproves him for breaking down the Images, but commends him for

not allowing the worship of them. So that we find the first beginning of the wor∣ship of Images in these Western parts to have been by the folly and superstition of the People expresly against the Will of their own Bishop and the Bishop of Rome. Bel∣larmin saith,* 1.329 that Gregory only reproved the Superstitious worship of Images, i. e. that by which they are worshipped as Gods. Which is a desperate shift in a bad Cause: For if Gregory had intended any kind of worship to be given to Images, could he not have expressed it himself? He speaks plain enough about this matter in all other things, why did he not in distinguishing what worship was to be given to Images, and what not? We praised you; saith he, that you forbad the worship of Images (so adorari must be rendred, and not accord∣ing to the modern sense of Romish Au∣thors who would against all sense and rea∣son appropriate that word to Soveraign Worship) but we reprehended you for break∣ing them. It is one thing to worship an Image, and another thing to learn by it what is to be worshipped. That ought not to be broken down which was set up in Churches not to be worshipped, but Only to instruct the minds of the Ignorant. Would any man of common sense have said this,

that did allow any worship of Images? Would Bellarmin, or T.G. or any that embrace the second Nicene and Tridentine Council have said that Images are set up in Churches ad instruendas solummodo men∣tes nescientium; only to instruct the ig∣norant? Nay Gregory goes yet farther, and tells Serenus, he ought to call his Peo∣ple together, and shew them from Scri∣pture that it is not lawful to worship the Work of mens hands, because it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Which very place Anastasius Bishop of Theopolis, in his Epistle produced in the second Nicene Council,* 1.330 thus expounds; Mark, saith he, only is joyned to serve, and not to wor∣ship, adorare quidem licet, servire ne∣quaquam, saith the Latin Translation there; worship of other things is lawful but not the service, which is directly con∣trary to what Gregory saith, who makes the worship of any other thing unlawful from these words; and to conclude all, Gregory saith, forbid not those who would make Images; adorare verò Imagines modis omnibus devita, but by all means avoid the worship of them. What! no kind of worship to be allowed them? no distinction of an inferiour, honorary, rela∣tive

worship? no, not the least tittle tend∣ing that way. But our Adversaries run from this Epistle to another to Secundinus to help them out, where they say Gregory approves the worship of Images; to which no other answer is needful, than that all that passage is wanting in the Ancient M S. as Dr. Iames hath attested upon a diligent examination of them:* 1.331 and how∣ever, ought to be interpreted according to his deliberate sentence in the Epistle to Serenus, where he not only delivers his judgement, but backs it with the strongest Reason.

2. That the worship of Images no soon∣er prevailed, but it was objected against the Christians by the Iews and Gentiles. Thus it appears in the Apology of Leonti∣us Bishop of Neapolis in Cyprus, written against the Iews, and read in the second Nicene Council (and if the Testimony of Constantinus Bishop of Constantia in Cy∣prus there extant,* 1.332 may be taken, he flou∣rished in the time of Mauricius) in which the Iew is introduced, upbraiding the Chri∣stians with breaking the Commandment of God in the worship of Images, and Leontius is put to miserable shifts to desend it. And in the dispute between the Iew and the Chri∣stian in the fifth Action of that Council; the

Iew saith, I am scandalized at You Chri∣stians, because you worship Images,* 1.333 ex∣presly against the Command of God. And in the discourse of Iohn Bishop of Thessalo∣nica, the Gentile saith,* 1.334 Do not You Chri∣stians not only paint the Images of Your Saints, and worship them, but even the Image of your God too? so likewise think, that we do not worship the Images them∣selves, but those incorporeal powers which are worshipped through them. And this learned Bishop to make out the disparity between the Heathens and them flyes to this lamentable refuge, that they did not believe the Angels to be incorporeal as the Gentiles did, and therefore might better make Images of them. Which is not the thing I now observe; but only, that as soon as the worship of Images began, the Christians were sufficiently upbraided with it, by their enemies; and therefore it is most unreasonable to suppose, that if the same worship had prevailed before, the Iews and Gentiles would not have ob∣jected the same thing; when there were men that wanted neither advantages, nor ill will to do it.

3. That when the Controversie about the Worship of Images grew hot, the de∣fenders of them made use of Treason and

Rebellion to maintain their Cause. It would make one wonder to see how a late pretended Author of the History of the Iconoclasts in English hath endeavoured to accommodate that History to our Reforma∣tion in England,* 1.335 making Henry 8. to be Leo Isauricus and Queen Mary to be Irene, (which is not much for her honour.) But suppose Henry 8. to be Leo, on whose side lay the charge of Rebellion, which it is most certain the Pope and his adherents were guilty of towards Leo? For Grego∣ry 2. confesses in his Epistle to Leo,* 1.336 that the people rebelled against him, out of zeal to their Images; and Onuphrius saith,* 1.337 that by reason of Leo's opposition to Images, the Pope deprived him of the remainder of the Empire in Italy. And this worthy Historian himself saith, that the Romans and others then subject to Leo did not on∣ly throw down his Statues from the high places and pillars whereon they stood, but would no longer pay him any Tribute or obey his Orders;* 1.338 and he confesses after∣wards, that upon the Popes instigation they began a Defensive Conspiracy for Religion; (Just such another as the Irish Rebellion;* 1.339 which that Author hath heard of) only this was far more bloody and cruel than the other. But P.T. is concerned for

the Popes honour, saying, that what the Pope intended only for a defensive Confede∣racy for Religion, (sore against the Popes will) proved an offensive conspiracy against the Emperours temporal Right; in so much that all Italy renounced his dominion. Was the forbidding the paying Tribute to the Emperour only a defensive confederacy for Religion? Yet this Anastasius Bibliothecari∣us, Zonaras, Cedrenus, Glycas, Theophanes, Sigebert, Otto Frisingensis, Conradus Ur∣spergensis, Sigonius, Rubeus and Ciacconi∣us all agree to have been done by the Pope,* 1.340 upon the Emperours declaring against the Worship of Images. But I need go no farther than this* 1.341 Historian, who delivers this for the doctrine of this Pope in a Synod at Rome on behalf of Images, viz. That it is against reason to believe, God would have a mul∣titude of men, or all mankind to be damned rather than resist with armes, false do∣ctrine favoured by one or a few Soveraigns, seeing Christ dyed rather to save Souls than to humour Soveraigns. Most primi∣tive and Catholick doctrine! and happily applyed to the Worship of Images. But he goes on, as if he had been giving instru∣ctions for another Rebellion; that the Rule whereby they ought to judge of the time and lawfulness of their resistance, must not

be their own fancies, but a real danger of altering the Catholick Faith, and the So∣veraigns actual endeavours to do it. So that according to this blessed doctrine, a Rebellion on the account of Religion, is a just and holy War; and is it not easie to discern what such men would be at, who deliver this as the Doctrine of their Head of the Church in a Council of Bishops? If Gregory 2. said such things, he did but speak agreeably to his actings; if he did not, we know at least the mind of this Historian; who seems to have calculated his history for a Meridian nearer home.

4. It is observable, how great and appa∣rent a change was made in the doctrine and practice of the Roman Church in this mat∣ter of Images, between the time of the two Gregories, the first, and the second, i.e. between A. D. 604. wherein the first Gre∣gory died, and A.D. 714. wherein the second was made Pope. It would afford a man some pleasure to compare the Epistle of Gregorius M. to Serenus, with those of Gregory 2. to the Emperour Leo, and yet both these according to the Roman pre∣tence Infallible Heads of the Church. We have already seen what the former Gre∣gories opinion was, let us now compare it with his Name-sakes. He charges the

Emperour Leo with using the very same words that his predecessour had done in this matter,* 1.342 viz. that we are not to wor∣ship the Work of mens Hands; whereas, saith he, very wisely, those words were spoken in Scripture for the sake of such Pa∣ganish Idolaters, who worshipped golden, and silver, and wooden Animals (the Pope calls them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) and said, these are thy Gods, and there is no other God be∣sides: (as though there ever had been such Fools in the World!) and for the sake of these Works of the Devils hands we are commanded not to worship them: but whatever is made by men for the honour of God ought to be worshipped; in spight of his Predecessours definition to the con∣trary in the very same case. And then he tells a very worshipful story of the Pi∣ctures that were taken of Christ and his Apostles by their Disciples; and of the Image Christ sent for a present to the King of Edessa; it is great pity the Ve∣ronica was forgotten by him; but that piece of Antiquity was not yet known. Then, he bids the Emperour go among the boys at School, and if he should say among them that he was an enemy to Images, they would throw their Table-books at his Head; because Children alwayes love Pictures;

and a little after, he saith, he was like Ozi∣as the King of the Iews that destroyed the brazen Serpent. It seems the Bible was then a Book not much studyed by the Head of the Church: for was it indeed Ozias that demolished the brazen Serpent? and was this such a reproach to Leo to be com∣pared to good Hezekiah? And so very learnedly he falls to the commending the brazen Serpent, and inveighing against that insolent King that broke it in pieces? Was not this a hopeful piece of Infallibi∣lity! After this, our learned Historian saith,* 1.343 the Pope declared him not only an Heretick, but an Heresiarch; for what I beseech him? for being of the same opini∣on as to the worship of Images, that his Predecessour Gregory had been of? But see how the case is altered in a hundred years! In my mind, the Emperour Leo asked a very pertinent Question of the Pope; How comes it to pass that the six General Councils ne∣ver said a word of Images, if they were such necessary things? And the Pope made as impertinent an answer; And why, saith the Pope, did they say nothing of eating and drinking?* 1.344 it seems Images in his opinion were as necessary to Religion, as meat and drink to our bodies; for, he saith, the Fathers carried their Images

to Council with them, and travelled with them; and I suppose slept with them too, as Children do with their Babies.

5. The artifices and methods ought to be observed whereby such a cause as the worship of Images,* 1.345 was advanced and de∣fended. For being destitute of any co∣lour from Scripture, Reason, or Antiquity, there was a necessity of making use of other means to supply the want of these. Such as,

1. Representing their Adversaries to the greatest disadvantage; which is done to purpose in the fifth Action of the second Nicene Council.* 1.346 The demolishing of Images was condemned in Serenus by Gregory as an act only of intemperate zeal and indiscretion; but now it was become heresie, worse than heresie, Iudaism, Sama∣ritanism, Manichaism, nay worse than all these. This Tarasius offers to prove in the beginning of that Action; from S. Cy∣ril, he compares them with Nebuchadnez∣zar, who destroyed the Cherubim; from Simeon Stylites, to the Samaritans; and Iohn the pretended Vicar of the Oriental Bishops saith, the Samaritans are worse than other hereticks; therefore they ought to be called Samaritans; and Constanti∣nus

Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus saith, they are worse than Samaritans.* 1.347 After∣wards the same Iohn saith, see how clearly we have demonstrated that the Accusers of Christians (in this matter of Images) are partakers with Nebuchadonosor, and Samaritans,* 1.348 and Iews and Gentiles and Manichees, and those who denyed that Christ was come in the Flesh. Why? what is the matter? what article of the Christian Faith have they denied? what! have they renounced Christianity, and been circumcised! No: but worse; be∣ing Christians they call the worship of Images Idolatry. O dangerous heresie, and horrible blasphemy! But it may be worth our while to consider a little the account which Tarasius desires Iohn to give the Council of the beginning of this most detestable heresie;* 1.349 viz. that after the death of Solyman Caliph of the Arabs, Homar succeeded him, after whom followed Ezid or Jezid a vain man; in his time there was at Tiberias one Sarantapechys a Leader of the Iews, and a Magician; who promised long life to the Chaliph on con∣dition he would do what he would have him; which he presently undertook with great promises of rewards to him; then the Iew required an Edict for the demolishing

and defacing all the Images in the Christi∣an Churches; which was accordingly exe∣cuted by the Iews and Arabs. The news of which excited the Bishop of Nacolia, and those about him to do the same thing; but Jezid lived not above two years and a half after; and his Son Ulid destroyed this Iew, and the Images were again restored. This was the story told and approved in the Council; but Zonaras saith,* 1.350 they were two Iews who perswaded Jezid to publish his Edict against Images, and that he dyed within the year; and that his Son seeking to punish them, they were fled into Isauria, where they met with Leo then a young man to whom they foretold the Empire, and made him promise them that when he came to is, he would do one thing for them: which one thing proved to be the destruction of Images; and they challenging their pro∣mise when he was now Emperour gave the occasion to the terrible persecution of Images. Cedrenus saith,* 1.351 that a few years before the Reign of Leo, some Iews of Lao∣dicea in Phoenicia went to Jezid, and ob∣tained the Edict against Images, and then he tells the rest of the story, as Zonaras did. Theophanes saith,* 1.352 it was but one Iew of Laodicea, and that Jezid dyed be∣fore the Edict was published in all parts of

his Dominions, and saith, this was in the seventh year of the Empire of Leo. Con∣stantinus Manasses, and Michael Glycas only mention the Iews foretelling the Em∣pire to him,* 1.353 and putting him upon the de∣struction of Images, without the other cir∣cumstances. Let the Reader now judge whether this be not a probable story; and purposely invented to cast the odium of rejecting the worship of Images on the Iews and Saracens? as though it could ne∣ver have come from any Christian. It was one Iew, saith the Vicar of the Oriental Bishops; they were two Iews or more, say the Greek historians. It was a Iew of Tiberias, saith Iohn; no, saith Cedrenus, they were two Iews of Laodicea; but one saith Theophanes. These Iews met with Leo when he was a young man and fore∣told the Empire to him, say Zonaras, Ma∣nasses and Glycas; but a few years before the Reign of Leo, saith Cedrenus; nay, saith Theophanes, it was in the seventh year of Leo; in the eighth, saith Baronius,* 1.354 for Jozid did not reign before. Was there ever a more consistent story than this? But the Author of the late history of the Ico∣noclasts,* 1.355 thinks he hath found out a salvo for these contradictions. For he makes two several Edicts under two Jezids

that were Chaliphs; the former of the two Iews about A. D. 686. who were the men that foretold the Empire to Leo, and the other of Sarantapechys to Jezid the second in the time of Leo; this he hath borrowed from the French Author, as he hath done all his quotations (and I much question by his manner of citing them, whether he ever saw the Books he quotes in his Life.) But this is said without the least shadow of proof; for no one of all the Historians, ever mention two Edicts of the several Iezids; but all pretend to tell the very same story. And is it probable that the two Iews who foretold the Em∣pire to Leo, A. D. 686. should come to Constantinople to Leo, after A. D. 723. when Leo began to oppose Images; meer∣ly with a design to extirpate Images, with∣out proposing any other advantage to them∣selves by the Emperour, as the Greek histo∣rians say? Credat Iudaeus. They are a sort of people, that know how to improve such an advantage to better purposes; and their zeal against Images was never so great, as the love of their own Profit. But our English Historian is not content with the Fables of the Greeks; but he makes more of his own. For, he saith, these were Samaritan Sectaries, who were more

precise than the rest of the Iews, and were much troubled at the Cherubims in the Temple, and more at the respect which the Christians tendered to the Images of Christ and his Saints. I never saw a more pit∣tiful pretender to History than this Author; who, if he offers to add to, or vary from his Original, he makes the matter worse than he found it. For not one of his Au∣thors in the Margin, say they were Sama∣ritans but only Hebrews, as Zonaras, and Cedrenus; his other Authors Elmacinus, and the Chronicon Orientale have not one word about it, where they mention Iezid the Chaliph of Arabia. And yet granting they were Samaritans, there is not the least ground for his saying, they were more precise in this matter of Images than the rest of the Iews; for Epiphanius himself,* 1.356 whom he quotes, suspects them of secret Idolatry in Mount Gerizim, and the Iews general∣ly charge them with it: for they say, they worship the Image of a Dove on Mount Gerizim;* 1.357 which Maimonides affirms of them with great confidence, and Obadias Bartenora, with several others. It was therefore very unhappy for this Historian to pitch upon the Samaritan Sectaries of all others, as the Beginners of the heresie of the Iconoclasts. And was it not luckily done to

begin a History with so palpable a falshood! But this was a pretty artifice to possess his Reader at the entrance, that none but Sa∣maritan Sectaries could be enemies to the worship of Images: which, he knew, to have been the method of the second Coun∣cil of Nice: only he pursued it with greater Ignorance than they.

2. By fabulous stories and lying Mira∣cles. Of the former we have many in∣stances in the Actions of that famous Coun∣cil;* 1.358 but I shall only mention that out of the Limonarion of the pretended Sophronius about the Spirit of Fornication haunting a Monk who had an Image of the Blessed Virgin; to whom the Devil said, If thou wilt not worship that Image, I will trouble thee no more. But the Devil would not tell him this great secret till he had so∣lemnly promised him, he would reveal it to no body. The Monk next day told it to the Abbot Theodore, who assured him he had better go into all the Stews in the City, than leave off the worship of that Image; with which the Monk went away much comforted. But the Devil soon af∣ter charged him with perjury; the Monk replyed, he had forsworn to God and not to him. Upon which Iohn Vicar of the Oriental Bishops, said, it was better to for∣swear

ones self, than to keep an oath for the destruction of Images. And concern∣ing miracles, it is observable, that Tarasi∣us confesses,* 1.359 that their Images did work none in their dayes: because miracles were for unbelievers; and yet Manzo a Bishop there present saith,* 1.360 he was cured of a di∣sease by laying an Image of Christ upon the part affected. Bellarmin and Baronius say,* 1.361 the miracle of the Image at Berytus was done in those times; and yet after the reading the story (which made the good Fathers weep) Tharasius saith those words, which make this story, by com∣paring these circumstances together, appear a meer Fabulous imposture. For in the Council of Nice, the story is reported as written by S. Athanasius near four hundred years before; but not only those Authors but Sigebert saith it was done A. D. 765. and Lambecius undertakes to prove that this story was never written by S. Athana∣sius. But most remarkable is the passage which Eutychius the Patriarch of Alexan∣dria relates concerning the occasion of Theophilus the Emperours extirpating Images out of Churches.* 1.362 One of the Cour∣tiers had told him there was an Image of the Blessed Virgin, from whose breasts there dropt Milk upon her day; but search

being made the Cheat was discovered, the Church officers executed, and all Images prohibited. If all the Impostors of this kind were dealt with after the same man∣ner, there would be fewer pretences to miracles wrought by Images than there are.

3. By crying up those for Martyrs, who suffered for the worship of Images, and opposing the Imperial Edicts for pull∣ing them down. Thus Pope Gregory 2. in his Epistle to Leo magnifies the zeal of the Women who killed the Emperours Officer who was sent to demolish the Image of Christ called Antiphoneta,* 1.363 and afterwards suffered themselves for the tumult they raised in the City. But this was not the only Act of Zeal in the Women in this good Cause; for as Baronius relates it,* 1.364 out of the Acts of Stephanus extant in Dama∣scens Works, when a new Patriarch was set up in the room of Germanus, they shook off all Modesty, and ran into the Church, and threw stones at the Patriarch, and called him Hireling, Wolf, and what not? One need not wonder at the mighty zeal of the Women in this Cause, for as Pope Gre∣gory notably observes on behalf of Images, the Women were wont to take the little Children in their arms,* 1.365 and shew them this and the other Image; which contri∣buted

mightily to the infallibility of Oral Tradition: when the Women and Nurses could point with their Fingers to the Arti∣cles of Faith elegantly expressed in Pi∣ctures, which the Children did delight to look upon. The great number of Mar∣tyrs in this Cause, of which Baronius glo∣ries, consisted chiefly of Women and Monks, who were the most zealous Cham∣pions in it. And the late Historian can hardly abstain from making the Empress Irene a Martyr in this Cause; for in his Epistle to the Queen (a Lady of so incom∣parably greater Virtue and Goodness,* 1.366 that it is an affront to her Majesty to commend such an one to her protection) he had the boldness to tell her that the only imputa∣tion which assaults those Princesses repute (viz. Irene and Theodora) was their piety in restoring the Religious use and vene∣ration of holy Images to the Eastern Empire. What can be expected from such an Histo∣rian, who durst in the face of the World tell her Majesty so impudent a falshood? For Zonaras, Cedrenus, Glycas, Theopha∣nes, Constantinus Manasses,* 1.367 although Friends to the worship of Images, yet all accuse Irene of Intolerable Ambition and Cruelty to her Son, the Emperour Con∣stantine, and to all his Kindred. Nay,

Baronius himself (who minceth the mat∣ter as much as may be) saith,* 1.368 That if she used those cruelties to her Son, out of a desire of Empire, as the Greek Histori∣ans say she did, she was worse than Agrip∣pina: but Const. Manasses, as zealous as any for Images, makes her worse than a Tigre, or Lion, or Bear, or Dragon for her cruelty; and he can think of no Pa∣rallel for her among women but Medea. And was not this an excellent Confessour at least, if not a Martyr in this Cause? a Person fit to be commended to her Ma∣jesties protection, as one that suffered only under the imputation of her zeal for Images? But if any be given up to believe lies, some must be first given up to tell them. And if this doughty Historian hath any honour or Conscience left, he ought to beg her Majesties pardon, for of∣fering such an affront to her. But what had Queen Mary deserved at his hands, that in his Key to his History, he should compare her to the Empress Irene?* 1.369

4. By pretending to Antiquity. This might justly be wondred at in so clear evi∣dence to the contrary, as I have made to appear in this matter: but however, among the ignorant and superstitious multitude, the very pretending to it goes a great way.

Thus the Patriarch Germanus boasted of Fathers and Councils for Image-worship to the Emperour Leo;* 1.370 but what Fathers, or Councils did the aged Patriarch mean? why did he not name and produce them to stop the Emperours proceedings against Images? Baronius confesseth,* 1.371 there were no Councils which had approved the wor∣ship of Images by any Canon; but because they never condemned it, being constantly practised, it was sufficient. All the mis∣chief is, this constant practice is as far from being proved, as the definition of Councils. If the picture Christ sent to Abgarus King of Edessa, or those drawn by S. Luke, or the forged Canon of the Council of Antioch; or the counterfeit Authority of S. Athanasius about the Image at Berytus; if such evidences as these will do the business; they have abundance of Autiquity on their side: but if we be not satisfied with these, they will call us Hereticks, or it may be, Samari∣tan Sectaries, and that is all we are to ex∣pect in this matter.

5. The Council of Nice had a trick be∣yond this, viz. burning, or suppressing all the Writings that were against them. The Popes Deputies in the fifth Action made the motion,* 1.372 which was received and

consented to by the Council:* 1.373 and they made a Canon to that purpose, That all Writings against Images should be brought into the Patriarch of Constantinople, un∣der pain of Anathema if a Laick, or De∣position, if in Orders (and this without any limitation as to Authors or Time,) and there to be disposed of among heretical Books. So that it is to be wondred, so much evidence should yet be left in the Monu∣ments of Antiquity against the worship of Images.

As to what concerns the matter of Ar∣gument for the worship of Images produced in this Age,* 1.374 I must leave that to its pro∣per place; and proceed to the last Period, as to this Controversie, which is necessary for discerning the History and the State of it, viz.

4. When the Doctrine and Practice of Image-worship was settled upon the princi∣ples allowed and defended in the Roman Church. Wherein I shall do these 2 things.

1. I shall shew what additions have been to this doctrine and practice since the Nicene Council.

2. Wherein the present practice of Image-worship in the Roman Church doth consist, and upon what principles it is de∣fended.

1. For the additions that have been made in this matter since the Nicene Coun∣cil. And those lie especially in two things.

1. In making Images of God the Father, and the Holy Trinity. 2. In the manner of worship given to Images.

1. In making Images of God the Father and the Trinity. It is easie to observe how much the most earnest pleaders for Images did then abhor the making of any Image of God. So Gregory 2. in his Epi∣stle to Leo saith expresly,* 1.375 They made no Images of God, because it is impossible to paint or describe him; but if we had seen or known him, as we have done his Son, we might have painted and repre∣sented him too, as well as his Son. We make no Image or Likeness of the invi∣sible Deity, saith the Patriarch Germanus, whom the highest Orders of Angels are not able to comprehend. If we cannot paint the Soul, saith Damascen,* 1.376 how much less can we represent God by an Image, who gave that Being to the soul which cannot be painted? What Image can be made of him, who is invisible, incorporeal, without quantity, magnitude, or form? We should err indeed,* 1.377 saith he, if we should make an Image of God who cannot be

seen; and the same he repeats in other places, Who is there, in his senses,* 1.378 saith Stephanus Junior, that would go about to paint the Divine Nature, which is immaterial and incomprehensible?* 1.379 For if we cannot represent him in our minds, how much less can we paint him in co∣lours? Now these four, Gregory, Ger∣manus, Damascen, and Stephanus were the most renowed Champions for the De∣fence of Images; and did certainly speak the sense of the Church at that time:* 1.380 To the same purpose speak Ioh. Thessalonicen∣sis, Leontius, and others in the Nicene Council. The Greek Author of the Book of the use of Images according to the sense of the second Council of Nice (published by Morellius and Fronto Ducaeus) goes far∣ther, for he saith,* 1.381 That no Images are to be made of God, and if any man go about it, he is to suffer death as a Pagan. By which it appears that according to the sense of this Council, the making any Images of God was looked on as a part of Heathen Idolatry. But when a breach is once made, the waters do not stop just at the mark, which the first makers of the breach designed: Other men thought they had as much reason to go a little farther, as they had to go thus far. Thence by de∣grees

the Images of God the Father, and the Holy Trinity came into the Roman Church, and the making of these Images defended upon reasons which seemed to them as plausible, as those for the Images of Christ upon his appearing in our Na∣ture; for so God the Father might be repre∣sented not in his nature, but as he is said to have appeared in the Scriptures. Baro∣nius,* 1.382 in his Marginal Notes on the Epistle of Gregory, saith, Afterwards it came into use to make Images of God the Fa∣ther, and of the Trinity; not that they fall under our view, but as they ap∣peared in holy Writ; for what can be described,* 1.383 may be painted; to the same purpose he speaks in another place. It seems then by the confession of Baronius no Images of God the Father were in use then, because they did not think them lawful; when they first came into use, Christianus Lupus professes,* 1.384 that he knows not; but, he saith, there were none such in the Roman Church in the time of Ni∣colaus 1. But Bellarmin,* 1.385 Suarez, and others, produce an argument for the law∣fulness of them, from the general pra∣ctice of their Church, which, they say, would not have suffered such an univer∣sal custom, if such Images had been un∣lawful.

Bernardus Pujol Professour of Divinity in Perpignan, saith,* 1.386 not only that the Images of the Trinity are universal∣ly received among Catholicks, but that they are allowed by the Council of Trent, and doth suppose the use of them as a thing certain and undoubted: and saith, that such Images are to be worshipped. For, saith he, as the mind is excited by the Image of Christ, or the Saints, so may devotion be raised by such an Image of the Deity. Ysambertus saith,* 1.387 that they who give caution concerning the doing of a thing, as the Council of Trent doth, about the Images of God, are to be under∣stood to approve the thing it self: and he saith, the opinion about the lawful∣ness of such Images is so certain, that to say otherwise is rashness; and the com∣mon practice of the Church for a long time hath been to have such Images in Churches, and they were never reproved either by the Pope, or so much as a Pro∣vincial Synod. Vasquez goes farther,* 1.388 saying, That the lawfulness of Images of the Trinity is proved by the most fre∣quent practice of the Church, which com∣monly at Rome and other places, doth set forth the Image of the Trinity to be worshipped by the People. Arriaga saith,

That it is so certain that these Images are lawful,* 1.389 that to say the contrary is not only rashness, but a plain errour; for God cannot be supposed to suffer his uni∣versal Church to err in a matter of such moment. Tannerus asserts,* 1.390 That it is not only lawful to make Images of God and the Trinity; but to propose them as objects of Worship; which, he saith, is the common opinion of their Divines, and he proves it, as the rest do, from the pra∣ctice of their Church and the Council of Trent. Neither are such Images, saith Cajetan, only for shew, as the Cherubims were in the Temple; but they are set up that they may be worshipped, as the pra∣ctice of the Church shews. In the pro∣cessionale of Sarum,* 1.391 I find a Rubrick for the incensing the Image of the Holy Tri∣nity: which clearly manifests the pra∣ctice of worshipping the Image of the Trinity.

Now in this matter, I say, there is a plain innovation since the second Nicene Council, which thought such Images ut∣terly unlawful, as Petavius proves,* 1.392 from the Testimonies before mentioned.

But T. G. saith, That Germanus and Damascen,* 1.393 and consequently the rest, on∣ly

spake against such Images,* 1.394 as are supposed to represent the Divinity in it self; with whom they fully agree in this matter, and think all such Images of the Divinity unlawful. To which I answer, (1.) This is plainly contrary to their meaning; for they shew that it was un∣lawful to make any Image of God till the Incarnation of Christ, as might be at large proved from all their Testimonies. Now this assertion would signifie nothing, if they thought it lawful to make any Image of God from the manner of his appea∣rances. For then it was as lawful to make Images of God before as after the Incar∣nation of Christ. And one of the argu∣ments of Damascen and the rest for the Images of Christ, although he were God, was to shew the reality of his humane nature, against those who said he took only the appearance of it. But if an ap∣pearance of God were sufficient ground for an Image, then this argument did prove nothing at all. And yet the Council of Nice laies so great weight upon it, as to conclude those who reject Images to deny the reality of Christs humane nature. They went therefore upon this principle, that no meer appearance is a sufficient ground for the Image of a Person; for in case it

be a meer appearance, the representation that is made, is only of the appearance it self, and not of the Person who never as∣sumed that likeness, which he appeared in, to any Personal union; but, say they, when the humane nature was personally united to the God head, then it was lawful to make a representation of that Person by an Image of his humane nature. How far this will hold, at to an object of divine worship, must be discussed afterwards, but from hence it appears, that they did not speak only against such Images which re∣present the Divinity in it self, but against such as were made of any appearance of him. And it is observable that the anci∣ent Schoolmen, such as Alexander Hales, Aquinas, Bonaventure and Marsilius,* 1.395 do all agree that any representation of God was forbidden before the Incarnation of Christ; from whence it follows, that they could not think any representation of God from his appearances to have been lawful under the Law. And there can be no rea∣son given, why the representation of God from an appearance should have been more unlawful then, than under the Gospel. (2.) This would only hold then against Anthropomorphites, or those who supposed the Divinity to be really like their Images;

of which sort I have shewn how very few there were among the Heathens them∣selves; and if this had been their mean∣ing, they should not have made all Images of God unlawful, but have given them cautions not to think the Divinity to be like them. But whatever the conceptions of men were, they declare in general, all Images of God to be unlawful; which the Church of Rome is so far from doing, that the Council of Trent allows some kind of representations of God from his appea∣rances;* 1.396 and the constant practice of that Church shews, that they picture God the Father as an Old Man, not only in their Books, but in places of worship, and with a design to worship Him under that repre∣sentation; which was a thing the great Patrons of Images in the time of the se∣cond Council of Nice professed to abhor. (3.) Those Images of God which are al∣lowed in the Roman Church are confessed by their own Authors to be apt to induce men to think God to be like to them. Ioh. Hesselius,* 1.397 a Divine of great reputation in the Council of Trent, confesses, That from the Images of God in humane shape men may easily fall into the errour of the Anthropomorphites; especially the more ignorant, for whose sake especially those

Images are made. It being not so easie for them to understand Metaphorical and Analogical representations; but it being very natural, for them to judge of things according to the most common and sensible representations of them. And if they were all Anthropomorphites in the Roman Church, I wonder what other representati∣on they could make of God the Father, than that which is used, and allowed, and worshipped among them. If there be then so much danger in that opinion as T. G. in∣timates, how can that Church possibly be excused, that gives such occasions to the People to fall into it? He that goes about to express the invisible nature of God by an artificial Image, sins grievously and makes an Idol, saith Sanders;* 1.398 but how is it possible for a man to express the invi∣sible nature of God by an Image, other∣wise than it is done in the Church of Rome? How did the Heathens do it otherwise ac∣cording to T. G. than by making the Image of God in the Likeness of Man? But, T. G. saith, men may conceive the Deity otherwise than it is, and so go about to make an Image to represent it, which is folly and madness; and so it is to make such an answer: for then all the folly and madness in making the grossest Images of

God doth not lye in the Images themselves, but in the imagination of the Persons that make them. Is it not as great in those that worship them with such an imagina∣tion? if it be, then whatever the Design of the makers was, if they be apt to be∣get such imaginations in those who see and worship them, they are in that respect as unlawful, as T. G. supposes any Images of God among the Heathens to have been. (4.) What doth T. G. mean, when he makes those Images unlawful which repre∣sent the Divinity in it self, and not those which represent God as he appeared? Can the meer essence of any thing be repre∣sented by an Image? Is it possible to represent any being otherwise than as it appears? But it may be T. G. hath found out the way of painting Essences; (if he hath, he deserves to have the Patent for it, not only for himself, but for his Heirs and Executors.) For he allows it to be the peculiar priviledge of an infinite Being that it cannot be represented as it is in it self; then all other things may be repre∣sented as they are in themselves, in oppo∣sition to the manner of their appearance; or else the distinction signifies nothing. Pe∣trus Thyraeus a man highly commended by Possevin for for his explication of this

matter, saith, the meaning is, that an Image doth not represent the Nature but the Per∣son that is visible;* 1.399 for, saith he, when we see the Image of a man, we do not say we see a Reasonable Creature, but a Man. Very well! and so in the Image of the Deity we do not see the Divine Nature, but the Divine Person, or in such a way as he became visible. The Invisible Na∣ture of God cannot be represented in an Image; (and can the invisible Nature of Man?) Therefore, saith he, it is no injury to God to be painted by an Image: no more upon these principles than to a man. Bellarmin proves the lawfulness of making Images of God, because man is said to be the Image of God;* 1.400 and he may be painted, therefore the Image of God may be too; for that which is the Image of the Image is likewise the Image of the Exemplar, those which agree in a third agreeing among themselves. To this some answer'd that man was not the Image of God as to his body, but as to his soul which could not be painted; but Bellarmin takes off this an∣swer, by saying, that then a man could not not be painted, for he is not a man in re∣gard of his outward lineaments; but in regard of his substance, and especially his Soul; but notwithstanding the soul cannot

be painted, yet a man may truly and pro∣perly be said to be painted, because the Figure and colours of an Image do repre∣sent the whole man; otherwise, saith he, a thing painted could never seem to be the true Thing, as Zeuxis his grapes did which deceived the birds. Therefore according to Bellarmines reasoning, that which repre∣sents a Being according to outward ap∣pearance, although it have an invisible Nature; yet is a true and real representa∣tion, and represents it as it is in it self; and as far as it is possible for an Image to repre∣sent any thing. Wherein then lyes the diffe∣rence between making the Picture of a man, and the Image of God? If it be said, that the Image of God is very short, imperfect, and ob∣scure; is not the same thing to be said of the Picture of a man, which can only represent his outward Features without any descripti∣on of his inward substance or soul? If it be farther said, that there is a real resem∣blance between a Picture of a man, and his outward lineaments, but there is none, between God and the Image of a man; then I ask, what Bellarmins argument doth signifie towards the proving the law∣fulness of making an Image of God? For if God may be painted because man may, who is the Image of God; (for the Image

of the Image is the Image of the Exem∣plar;) then it follows that Man is the Image of God, as he may be painted, and so God and man must agree in that common thing which is a capacity of being represent∣ed, which cannot be supposed without as real a resemblance between God and his Image, as between a Man and his Picture.

But T. G. tells us,* 1.401 that they abhorr the very thoughts of making any such likeness of God, and all that the Council of Trent allows is only making representations of some apparition or action of God in a way proportionable to our Humane Conception. I answer, (1.) It is no great sign of their abhorring the thoughts of any such likeness of God, to see such arguments made use of to prove the lawfulness of making Images of God which do imply it. (2.) Those Images of God which are the most used and allowed in the Roman Church, have been thought by Wise men of their own Church to imply such a Likeness. Mola∣nus and Thyraeus mention four sorts of Ima∣ges of the Trinity,* 1.402 that have been used in the Roman Church. 1. That of an old man for God the Father, and of Christ in humane na∣ture, and of the Holy Ghost in the Form of a Dove. 2. That of three Persons of equal Age and Stature. 3. That of an Image of the

Bl. Virgin in the belly of which was re∣presented the Holy Trinity: this Ioh. Gerson saith,* 1.403 he saw in the Carmelites Church; and saith, there were others like it; and Molanus saith, he had seen such a one himself among the Carthusians. 4. That of one Head with three faces, or one body and three Heads; which Mo∣lanus saith, is much more common than the other; and is wont to be set before the Office of the Holy Trinity; these two lat∣ter those Authors do not allow; because the former of them tends to a dangerous errour, viz. that the whole Trinity was incarnate of the B. Virgin, and the latter, Molanus saith, was an invention of the Devil, (it seems then, there was one in∣vention of the Devil at least to be seen in the Masse-Book;) for, saith he, the Devil once appeared with three Heads to a Monk, telling him he was the Trinity. But the two former, they allow and defend; Wal∣densis,* 1.404 saith Molanus, with a great deal of learning defends that of the three Persons from the appearance of the Three to Abra∣ham; and Thyraeus justifieth the first, and the most common from the Authority of the Church, the Consent of Fathers, and the H. Scriptures. And yet Pope Iohn 22. as Aventinus relates it,* 1.405 condemned some

to the Fire as Anthropomorphites and ene∣mies to Religion, for making the very same representation of the Trinity, which he defends, being only of God as an old man, and of the Son as a young man, and of the Holy Ghost under the picture of a Dove. Ysambertus takes notice of this story;* 1.406 but, he saith, they were such Images as were according to the mind of the Anthropomor∣phites; whereas Aventinus saith expresly, they were no other than such as are used and allowed in the Roman Church; by which Ysambertus saith, there is no more danger of mens being led into a false opi∣nion of God, than there is by the expressi∣ons of Scripture. And upon this ground the danger doth not lye in making any representations of God, but in entertaining a false opinion of those representations; and the Scripture instead of forbidding men to make any similitude of God, should only have forbidden men to entertain any erroneous conceit of any Image of him. But, if the Church take care to prevent such an opinion, as he saith she doth, the other Image with three faces and one Head, or one body and three Heads might be justi∣fied on the same reason that the other is. Whereas the Roman Catechism saith,* 1.407 that Moses did therefore wisely say, that they

saw no similitude of God, lest they should be led aside by errour, and make an Image of the Divinity, and give the honour due to God to a Creature. From whence it follows, that all Images that tend to such an errour are forbidden, and all worship given to such Images is Idolatry. And it is farther observable, that the Image al∣lowed in the Roman Church for God the Father is just such a one as S. Augustin saith,* 1.408 it is wickedness for Christians to make for God and to place in a Temple, and I would desire of T. G. to tell me, what other Image of God the greatest An∣thropomorphites would make, than that which is most common among them? And if there be such danger in mens con∣ceptions of a Deity from any Images of God, they give as much occasion for it, as ever any people did: So much, that all men of any ingenuity have cryed shame upon them; but to very little purpose. Abulensis, Durandus and Peresius are cited by Bellarmin himself as condemning any Images of God: and which is observable, they do not condemn such Images as re∣present God in himself, as T. G. speaks, but such as were in use in the Roman Church. Durandus saith,* 1.409 it is a foolish thing either to make or to worship such

Images, viz. of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, after the former manner: and which is yet more, he quotes Damascen against this sort of Images, saying, that it was im∣piety and madness to make them: and so doth Peresius too.* 1.410 Thuanus mentions this passage relating to this matter,* 1.411 that A. D. 1562. the Queen Mother of France by the advice of two Bishops and these three Di∣vines, Butillerius, Espencaeus and Picherel∣lus declared, that all Images of the Tri∣nity should be taken out of Churches and other places, as forbidden by Scripture, Councils and Fathers: and yet these were such Images which T.G. pleads for; but this soon came to nothing, as all good pur∣poses of Reformation among them have ever done.

If it be said, as it is by Ysambertus,* 1.412 that these are not properly Images of God, but of his appearance in a visible form; I answer, (1.) This doth not mend the matter, for we are speaking of an Image of the Father as a Person in the Trinity; and whatever represents him as such must represent him as he is in himself, and not barely in regard of a temporary appear∣ance; and as to such an Image of God the Father, T. G's distinction will by no means reach. (2.) It is the common

opinion of the Divines in the Roman Church, that all the appearances of God in the old Testament were not of God him∣self, but of Angels in his stead. And Clichtovaeus gives that as a Reason why all representations of God were unlawful in the old Testament;* 1.413 because all appearan∣ces were by Angels, and those Angels were no more united to the Forms they assumed, than a mans body is to his Garments: from whence it must follow that all representa∣tions of God by such appearances is still unlawful. (3.) Suppose this be a re∣presentation only of some appearance of God, and so not of what God is, but of what he did, I ask then on what account such an effect of divine power is made the object of Divine adoration? For we have seen already by the confession of their most emi∣nent Divines, that the Images of the Tri∣nity are proposed among them as objects of adoration; now say I, how comes a meer creature, such as that apparition was, to become the object of Divine worship? Durandus well saw the consequence of this assertion; for when he had said, that those corporeal Forms which are painted are no representations of the Divine Per∣son which never assumed them, but only of those very Forms themselves in which

he appeared; therefore, saith he, no more reverence is due to them than is due to the Forms themselves. When God ap∣peared in the burning bush, that Fire was then an effect of Divine Power, and deser∣ved no worship of it self; how then can the Image of the burning bush, be an object of Divine worship? If God did appear to Daniel as the Ancient of dayes,* 1.414 it must be either by the impression of such an Idea upon his Imagination, or by assuming the Form of an old man; but either way this was but a meer Creature, and had no such personal Union to the Godhead to de∣serve adoration; how much less then doth the Image of this Appearance deserve it? So that I cannot see how upon their own principles they can be excused from Idola∣try, who give proper Divine worship to such Images as these. He commits Ido∣latry, saith Sanders,* 1.415 that proposes any Image to be worshipped as the true Image of the Divine Nature: if this be Idolatry, what is it then to give the highest sort of worship to the meer representation of a Creature? for those Images, which only set forth such appearances, are but the Creatures of Creatures, and so still farther off from being the object of adoration. So that notwithstanding all T. G's evasions

and distinctions, we find that as to this matter of the Images of God and the Tri∣nity, the Church of Rome is not only gone off from Scripture, Reason, and Antiquity, but from the doctrine and practice of the second Council of Nice too.

2. I now come to the additions that have been made to the Council of Nice by the Church of Rome as to the manner of worship given to Images.* 1.416 For which I must consider,

1. What that worship was, which the Council of Nice did give to Images?

2. What additions have been made to it since that time?

1. What that worship was which the Council of Nice did give to Images? which will appear by these two things. 1. That it defined true and real worship to be given to Images. 2. That it was an inferiour worship, and not Latria.

1. That it defined true and real worship to be given to Images; i. e. that Images were not only to be Signs and helps to memory, to call to mind or represent to us the object of worship; but that the acts of worship were to be performed to the Images themselves. The former use of Images doth suppose them to be only of

the nature of Books, which represent things to our minds without any act of adoration performed to that which is only an instru∣ment of intellection; although the thing represented to the mind be a proper object of adoration. As, if by reading a Book an Idea of God is represented to my mind whom I ought to worship, yet no man can imagine that from hence I should fall down upon my knees out of honour to the Book, or with a design to worship it. When a man reads his prayers out of a Book, and makes use of that only as a means or in∣strument to help his understanding, and direct his expressions; no man can have any colour of Reason to say that he wor∣ships the Book, which he uses for a quite different purpose. It is the same case as to Images, when they are used for no other end but barely to represent to the mind an object of worship; as a Crucifix may do our Saviour; then it is no more than an external Note or Character, and hath the same use that words have. But those who go no farther than thus, stand condemned and Anathematized by the se∣cond Council of Nice.* 1.417 For that not only determines with a great deal of assurance that Images are to be set up in Churches and houses, and wayes, in order to the wor∣ship

of them; but very freely Anathema∣tizes all sorts of dissenters either in judge∣ment or practice.* 1.418 Anathema be to all those who do not Salute the Holy and Ve∣nerable Images: Anathema to all here∣ticks: Anathema to those that follow the Council against Images. Anathema to them that do not salute the Images of Christ and his Saints. Epiphanius in the sixth Session declares this to be the sense of the Council;* 1.419 Those who say that Images are to be had only for memory and not for wor∣ship or salutation, are half-wicked, and partly true and partly false, they are so far right as they are for Images, but they are in the wrong as they are against the worship of them. O the folly of these men! saith Epiphanius. But this is not all, for as it was not sufficient to have Images for helps to memory, so neither was it to give them some kind of honour or reverence; nothing but worship would satisfie them. So the Patriarch Tarasius, saith in plain terms, they who pretend to honour Images,* 1.420 and not to worship them, are guilty of Hy∣pocrisie, and self-contradiction. For wor∣ship, saith he, is a Symbol and signification of Honour, therefore they who deny to worship them, do dishonour them. This was the Pa∣triarchal way of arguing in this famous

Council. And this he proves from the say∣ing of Anastasius Bishop of Theopolis, Let no man be offended with the name of ado∣ration or worship, for we worship men and Angels, but do not serve them, and worship is an expression of Honour. And it would do one good at heart, to see how all the Reverend Fathers clap their hands for joy at the subtle Criticism which it seems that Bishop had discovered, viz. that when our saviour said, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him Only shalt thou serve, that Only was not applyed to Wor∣ship but to Service. Mark that, cryes the Council, Only belongs to Service, and not to worship, therefore although we may not serve Images, yet we may Worship them. If the Devil had been so subtle, might not he have said to our Saviour, Mark that, you are forbidden Only to Serve any else but God, but you may Worship me, not∣withstanding that command? The Patri∣arch Tarasius in his Epistle to Constantine and Irene expresses this worship by the very same word which is used to God; for, when God saith, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God,* 1.421 and him only shalt thou serve; he restrains Service to himself, but allows Worship to other things; therefore, saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, without

the least doubt or dispute it is a thing ac∣ceptable and well pleasing to God, for us to worship and salute the Images of Christ and the B. Virgin, and of the Holy Angels and Saints. If any man think otherwise, and have any doubt in his mind, or any wavering, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, about the Worship of the Venerable Images, the Holy and Oecumenical Synod hath A∣nathematized him; and what is an Ana∣thema but a Separation from God? And thus it becomes no less than damnation to doubt of the Worship of Images. O bles∣sed Change! from what it was in the pri∣mitive times, when it was damnation to worship them. This worship he expresses in the same Epistle by Kissing, by bowing, by prostration; all which he shews from the signification of the word, and the use of it in Scripture. And in the Definition of the Council, among the Acts of wor∣ship,* 1.422 are reckoned the oblation of Incense and Lights, because the honour of the Image passes to the thing represented by it. So that all external acts of adoration were by the Definition of this Council to be performed to Images; and the same have been practised by the approbation of the Roman Church; wherein this Council of Nice is received as a General Council,

and appealed to by the Council of Trent,* 1.423 supposing the Decrees of that Council to be still in force. In the Constitutions of Thomas Arundel Archbishop of Canterbury made in the Convocation of the Bishops and Clergy begun at S. Pauls, 14 Ian. A. D. 1408. we have a particular enumeration of the several Acts of worship which were required to be performed to Images; and the places and Reliques of the Saints, viz. processions,* 1.424 genuflections, bowing of the body, thurifications, deosculations, oblati∣ons, burnings of Lights, and Pilgrimages, and all other forms and modes of worship which have been practised in the times of our predecessours or in our own; and this not only the People were required to pra∣ctise, but the Clergy to teach and preach up the worship of the Cross and other Images with these acts of adoration. And this Constitution is extant in Lyndwood as part of the Canon Law then in force;* 1.425 who in his Notes upon it, observes, that offering incense was a sacrifice, as it was burnt upon the Altar, and a part of Latria, and therefore he saith, the same incense was not used to the Clergy and people with that burnt upon the Altar, but of another sort which was not consecrated. In the Re∣cords of the Tower is extant the Form

of Renunciation imposed on the Lollards,* 1.426 wherein are these words concerning the worship of Images,* 1.427 I do swear to God and to all his Seynts upon this Ho∣ly Gospell, that fro this day forward I shall Worship Images, with pray∣ing and offering unto them in the worschop of the Seynts that they be made after. And yet after all this plain evidence, some have had the confidence to tell us, that they hardly worship Images in the Roman Church, but praying to them they abhorr and detest. What conscien∣tious men were those then who made the poor Lollards swear to do that, which they forbid them to do? But surely the Bishops and Clergy then understood the doctrine and practice of the Roman Church as well as T. G. and his Brethren do at this day; and having Authority in their hands were not so cautious and reserved in this matter, as some think it for their in∣terest to be at present.

And it is observable,* 1.428 that those learned men in the Roman Church who have been most nice and scrupulous in this matter of the worship of Images, have yet agreed with the rest in the practice of the out∣ward acts of worship towards them. So

Vasquez observes concerning Durandus,* 1.429 Holcot, and Picus Mirandula, who speak the most suspiciously among them about the Worship of Images, that they agreed with the Catholick Church in performing all external acts of adoration to Images, and that they differed only in the manner of speaking from the rest: and that the main thing the Council of Nice determined was the real acts of worship to be performed to Images, leaving the several ways of ex∣plaining the manner of giving them, and the names of this worship at greater liberty. The same, Card. Lugo saith, that these men differed from Hereticks,* 1.430 because these ut∣terly refuse giving external acts of adora∣tion to Images, which they allowed. Sua∣rez confesses that some of the Hereticks condemned by the Council of Nice did maintain the Use of Images for Memory, which, he saith, appears by the Acts of the Council;* 1.431 and that all Catholicks agree in this proposition, Imagines esse adorandas, that Imagines are to be worshipped, al∣though some, he saith, do so explain that worship as to differ little or nothing from hereticks. So Durandus,* 1.432 saith he, openly teacheth that Images are not to be worship∣ped, but only impropriè & abusivè, impro∣perly and abusively, because at their pre∣sence

we call to mind those objects repre∣sented by them, which are worshipped be∣fore the Images, as if they were present, and on this account the Images are said to be worshipped.

It will contribute much to the under∣standing the State of this Controversie, to shew a little more particularly, what the opinion of these men was, and how it is condemned by the rest as savouring of Heresie, and repugnant to the Council of Nice, and the sense of the Catholick Church. Durandus goes upon these grounds, 1. That worship properly belongs to him in whom the cause of that worship is, and by accident may be given to that which hath only a relation to that which is the cause. 2. In him to whom proper wor∣ship is given we are to consider both the Person to whom it is given, and the Cause for which; worship is only properly given to the Person, and not to any part of him; the Cause is that from whence the excellency of the Person arises. 3. That Supreme worship or Latria is due only to God for it self, by reason of his Deity, be∣cause the cause of this honour is only in God; but by accident the honour of La∣tria may belong to other things; Now, saith he, a thing may have relation to God

two waies, 1. When it goes to make up the same Person, as the Humanity of Christ. 2. When it hath only an ex∣trinsecal relation to Him, as Christs Mo∣ther, or His Image. 4. That the humane nature of Christ hath only by accident the honour of Latria given to it, as being part of that Person who is worshipped, who is the Son of God; but the Humanity it self is not properly that which is worshipped, nor is the Cause or reason of that worship, but only of an inferiour. 5. Of those things which have only an extrinsecal re∣lation to God, this is to be held in general; that either they deserve no worship at all of themselves, as the Cross, and Images, or other inanimate things: or if they do, as the B. Virgin, it is an inferiour worship; of the first he determines that no manner of worship doth belong to them, no not to the Cross it self, upon the account of any excellency,* 1.433 or contact of Christ, for which he gives this reason, That which is no subject capable of holiness or vertue, can∣not in it self be the term of adoration, but the Cross on which Christ did hang, was not a subject capable of holiness, &c. Nunquam ergo cruci Christi debetur aliquis honor nisi in quantum reducit in reme∣morationem Christi; no kind of honour is

due to the Cross, but as it calls Christ to our remembrance. 6. That although the conception of the mind be of the thing re∣presented upon sight of an Image; there is still a real difference in the thing, and in the conception, between the Image and the thing represented; and therefore properly speaking the same worship is never due to the Image that is to the object represented by it. But, saith he, because we must speak as the most do, the Image may be said to be worshipped with the same wor∣ship with the thing represented, because at the presence of the Image we worship the object represented by it as if he were actually present.

Holkot in his Lectures on the Book of Wisdom,* 1.434 saith, That in a large sense we may be said to worship the Image, be∣cause by the Image we call Christ to mind, and worship him before the Image: and therefore, saith he, I think it fitter to say, that I do not worship the Image of Christ, because it is Wood, nor because it is the Image of Christ, but that I worship Christ before his Image: but he by no means alloweth, that Latria in any sense be given to an Image of Christ. 1. Be∣cause Latria is the worship due only to God, but no Image is God: and therefore

it is a contradiction to say, that Latria is due only to God, and yet that it is due to the Image of Christ, and to Christ. 2. Then the same worship would be due to Christ and to a Stone, or to Christ and to a creature. 3. He that gives to any thing the worship of Latria, confesseth that to be God; therefore a man may as lawfully say the Image is God, as that it may be worshipped with Latria; and consequently that something which is not God is God. Ioh. Picus Mirandula gave this for one of his conclusions,* 1.435 That neither the Cross, nor any other Image is to be wor∣shipped with Latria after the way of Tho∣mas: this conclusion was condemned, and he forced to write an Apology for it: where he saith, That the way of Thomas is dan∣gerous, for the Image as an Image is di∣stinct from the thing represented, there∣fore if as such it terminates the worship of Latria, it seems to follow that some∣thing which is not God is worshipped with Latria: and he declares, that he agrees with Durandus and Holcot: but withal, he saith, that this conclusion of his was condemned as scandalous, and against the Custom of the Universal Church. Yet, he concludes his Apology, with saying, That if he had universally condemned the wor∣ship

of Images, his proposition had been Heretical. From whence it appears, that these persons who did agree in the practice, yet because they said the Images were to be worshipped only improperly and abusively, were not thought to believe, or do what the Church required. Therefore Suarez saith,* 1.436 (1.) That it is defide, or an article of Faith, imagines esse adorandas, that Images are to be worshipped, and that to be owned not in any limited and improper sense, but absolutely and simply; which article, he saith, is founded in the Tradition and Definitions of the Church, and he proves it by the constant practice of the Church. (2.) That Images are to be worshipped not abusively and improperly, but verè & propriè, truly and properly, and that the contrary opinion of Durandus is dangerous, rash, and savouring of Heresie. So, he saith, Medina determines it,* 1.437 who reports that Victoria said it was Heretical; and this conclusion, he saith, is commonly re∣ceived among the modern Divines; and he proves it from the Definitions of Coun∣cils; especially the second Council of Nice, which hath defined it under an Anathe∣ma. But, he adds, if Images were only to be worshipped abusively and improper∣ly, the worship of them was rather sim∣ply

to be denied than affirmed; for an improper and abusive worship is no wor∣ship at all; and they were not to be con∣demned for Hereticks, who allow the use of Images for memory, and only deny their worship. To which he subjoyns this Reason, either the Image truly and in it self, is at least the material object of wor∣ship, total, or partial, or it is not; if it be, the thing is granted; if not, then in plain terms, the Image is not worshipped. For it is neither the formal nor the mate∣rial object of worship; but only the occa∣sion or sign exciting men to worship the thing represented. And according to this opinion, the Hereticks would speak more properly than the Catholicks. For he that at the sight of a beautiful creature is ex∣cited to praise or love the Creator, can∣not be said to praise or love the creature, although the presence of the Creature did raise that devotion. Therefore, saith he, the Nicene Council did condemn this opinion, when it condemned those who said that Images did only serve for memory, which in truth is all the use that opinion allows them; and when the Nicene Coun∣cil declares the worship given to Images not to be Latria; for if no more worship be allowed, but only worshipping the ob∣ject

in presence of the Image, then the most perfect Latria may be given to Christ before the Image; and consequently the worship in that abusive and improper sense may be Latria, which the Council denies: and farther the same Council saith, that not only the exemplar may be worshipped in the Image, but that the Image is to be worshipped for the sake of the exemplar, by which it determines the Image to be the object of worship, although the Reason of it be the thing represented. (3.) Suarez. saith, That not only the external acts of adoration are to be performed towards Images, but the very intention of worship to be dire∣cted towards them: For even Durandus himself did allow the external acts to be done towards them, and because the in∣ward intention he said was directed to the exemplar, therefore he said the Images were only said abusively to be worshipped. For which assertion Suarez gives these reasons, (1.) The external act without the intention of the mind is no proper worship, but only counterfeit. And Leon∣tius, quoted in the Council of Nice, saith, In all worship the inward intention is re∣quired. (2.) From many passages in that Council, implying that the intention

of worship ought to be about the Images, because they are said to deserve worship, and from the sayings of Epiphanius, Ba∣silius, Adrianus, Tarasius there extant, and Elias Cretensis, who saith he did per∣fectly worship them, which could not be without the inward intention. And from the Council of Trent, which calls it due ho∣nour and worship; but it cannot be any true honour without the inward intention. (3.) To perform the external acts of worship before an Image, is either to worship it, or not: if it be, then the inward intention is granted; but since there may be a distin∣ction between the intention of worship, and the intention of performing the ex∣ternal acts of worship; in order to wor∣ship it is not only necessary to perform the material acts, but to do them with the intention of giving worship by them. Neither is it enough to say, that there is an inward intention, but the outward acts are towards the Image, and the in∣ward intention to the exemplar, For, saith Suarez, as true worship doth essen∣tially require the intention of worship, so the worship of this or that particular thing doth require a proportionable intention to∣wards that thing: and the worship of one thing cannot be said to be the worship of

another thing distinct from it, unless it be some way participated by it; but the Image is a distinct thing from the ex∣emplar, therefore the worship of the ex∣emplar cannot be said to be the worship of the Image, unless the Image do partake of the worship, and consequently there must be an intention of giving worship to the Image. This, saith he, may be illustrated by an example; If a man kiss the ground out of a meer intention of giving worship to God thereby, he cannot truly and pro∣perly be said to worship the ground about which the material action is conversant, but only God to whom he directed his wor∣ship. And all this he confirms by more passages out of the Nicene Council, which, he saith, was not so regardless about the manner and names of worship as Vasquez imagined, but took great care to express it self so that true and proper worship be given to Images; which it defines under an Anathema; and although it useth other words, of salutation, honour, &c. yet it makes these aequivalent to that real wor∣ship which it doth expresly require. Am∣bros. Catharinus saith,* 1.438 that the opinion of those who say Images are not truly and properly to be worshipped, but God to be worshipped before an Image, differs very

little from those who deny any worship of Images, and is repugnant to the practice of the Church, because we direct our gestures, our words and signs of adorati∣on to the Images, to which likewise we burn incense: And we worship the Cross, saying, O Crux ave, spes unica, &c. And he proves at large by the second Council of Nice, that true and real worship was re∣quired to be given to Images; and con∣cludes that Images are not meerly for in∣struction,* 1.439 or memory, or exciting devoti∣on, but that they are set up properly for worship. Therefore if any man asks ano∣ther, Súntne adorandae Imagines? intre∣pidè respondeat, adorandae. Are Images to be worshipped? let him answer without fear, they are. Because, saith he, Images being set apart by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost for such a sacred use, do ob∣tain such a degree of Sanctification, that whoever violates them is guilty of Sa∣criledge and Treason against the Divine Majesty. For, saith he, God himself is most truly believed to be present in them after a particular manner, and he shews his power and presence by them, using them often for Oracles; that after this manner our Saviours saying is fulfilled, I am with you to the end of the World.

And for the sake of this peculiar presence of God which we sensibly perceive (and if I should deny that I had done it my self I should be a lyar and ungrateful) Images do deserve a peculiar adoration, but short of Latria, because they are san∣ctified for such spiritual offices. Naclan∣tus another Italian Bishop,* 1.440 and an eminent Divine in the Council of Trent as well as Catharinus saith, That it is needless cauti∣on for any to say, that they worship be∣fore the Image, sed & adorare imaginem sine quo volueris scrupulo, but they may say it roundly, and without the least scru∣ple that they worship the Image. Bellar∣mine saith,* 1.441 That the Images of Christ and the Saints are to be worshipped, not only by accident and improperly, but by them∣selves and properly, so that they terminate the worship, as they are considered in them∣selves, and not barely as they represent the exemplar: which he proves from the de∣finition of the Council of Nice, and the same reasons which are mentioned from Suarez before. Dominicus Soto another great Divine of the Council of Trent,* 1.442 de∣termines positively, That Images are not intended by the Church only for helps to memory; for we do not worship the Scrip∣tures or names of Saints, which call them

to our minds; but as to Images we ought to think otherwise, for they do not only raise our minds to worship those who are represented by them, sed easdem ipsas de∣bemus adorare, we ought to worship the Images themselves; for, saith he, the Church doth not say, We worship thee, O Christ, but thy Cross, and O Crux ave, spes unica, &c. whose words are repeated and approved by Ferd. Velosillus. Bernar∣dus Pujol laies down this assertion,* 1.443 The Image truly and properly is the matter of adoration, and the worship truly and pro∣perly is terminated upon it: which, he saith, is plain from the seventh Council and from several others, and those are Anathematized who deny it. And the definitions of Councils being absolutely put, are properly to be understood: therefore the worship is truly and properly to be ter∣minated on the Image: and not only the external but the internal worship is, he saith, to be terminated on the Image, which he proves likewise from the second Nicene Council, wherein it is not only re∣quired that men do the outward acts of worship, but that they do them with love and affection. And when, saith he, the Council of Trent mentions the external acts,* 1.444 it implies that the internal worship

is terminated upon the Images; for the external acts have not the nature of wor∣ship, but as they are signs of internal worship. And to say that the worship is terminated improperly and abusively on the Image, is to make the Councils to speak improperly and abusively; and those who say that Images are improperly worshipped, do not only err in the manner of speaking,* 1.445 but in the thing it self. Tannerus saith,* 1.446 Absque haesitatione satendum, imagines non solum venerandas & colendas, sed etiam adorandas esse; that we should say it without hesitation, that Images are not barely to be honoured or reverenced, but to be adored; which he likewise proves from several passages of the Nicene sy∣nod. Ysambertus delivers his sense in these particulars,* 1.447 1. That the worship of the thing represented before the Image, is not properly worship of the Image, nor agreeable to the Definitions of Councils. For that, saith he, is only properly worship∣ped, which terminates the worship, and the Councils define such a worship of Images; which is terminated upon the Images; which he proves from the Council of Trent as well as Nice, because it requires such acts of worship, which are terminated on the Images. 2. Adoration may be di∣rected

to the Image, as to the thing which terminates it; and to the exemplar as the reason of it; for which, besides the reasons given by others, he gives this, viz. when there are two things good and lawful, and there is no positive Precept to do them together, then it is lawful to do one without the other: but in the act of worshipping the Image with the ex∣emplar, there are two good acts, viz. the worship of the Image, and of the exem∣plar, and there is no precept of the Church to joyn those together, therefore it is law∣ful to do one without the other. Eligius Bassaeus desires it may be observed,* 1.448 That in the worship of the Image, not only the object is worshipped, which is represented by it, but also the Image it self, seeing that is properly worshipped, which is the term of adoration, or the matter to which it is directed. This is the Catholick veri∣ty, saith Sylvius,* 1.449 that Images are truly and properly to be worshipped, so that the honour is given not only to the ex∣emplar, but for the sake of that to the Image, and this is defined, he saith, by the second Council of Nice. Arriaga laies down this as a certain principle among Catholicks,* 1.450 That Images are to be truly worshipped, which all the Definitions of

Councils do clearly manifest, which being in a dogmatical point, and against Here∣ticks cannot without danger of errour be explained in an abusive and improper sense: and he adds afterwards,* 1.451 that the opinion of Durandus seems manifestly condemned by all those definitions of Councils which require true worship to be given to Images: and he produces several passages of the se∣venth Synod to that purpose. And it signifies nothing to their excuse, that they perform the outward signs of worship to Images; for, saith he, since they allow no proper worship to them, the Images do only serve to excite the memory; which he thus farther confirms. It is not credible that any hereticks (supposing the object repre∣sented to deserve worship) should imagine it lawful to worship that object without an Image, and unlawful to do it when the me∣mory of that object is excited upon the view of an Image, upon supposition that no wor∣ship is intended to be given to the Image thereby. And it is not credible, that if this had been all the Councils had deter∣mined, that they should never think of such an easie way of satisfying dissenters, as the declaring this to have been their sense would have been. But the contro∣versie lay in another point, viz. that Images

did not deserve any immediate worship, so as to have any honour done to them, although considered only as the material objects. For, saith he, if all the dispute had been only about a condition exciting men to adora∣tion, it could not have come into mens heads to have said, that because Images were dead and inanimate things, they could not be a meer Physical condition of adoration; which is all that Durandus allows them. Is any man so sensless to say, that because words are inanimate things, therefore they ought not to be excited to the worship of God at the hearing of them? and the case is the same of the representation made by the eye or by the ear. But when they de∣nyed the lawfulness of the worship of them, they spake of true and real worship which is immediately carried to the Images themselves, and for this they made use of an argument which hath an appearance of Truth, viz. that Images being dead things have no excellency to deserve any real wor∣ship from us. From whence it follows, that when the Fathers condemned these he∣reticks; they did not determine that they might be used as a condition of worship; but that true and real worship was to be given to them.

Cardinal Lugo saith,* 1.452 that to the worship of Images, it is not only necessary that the external act be performed to the Image, of kissing, or bowing, &c. but there must be an inward affection too which implyes sub∣mission. For, saith he, worship as all agree, is an expression of submission to the thing worshipped; and it would be ridiculous to say that Peter is worshipped by that token of submission which I shew to Paul; there∣fore to the worship of the Image, the outward act must express the inward submission of the mind to it, or else we must deny the com∣mon definition of adoration, and make a new one. And this he afterwards proves to have been the definition of the second Council of Nice, who did decree that true and real worship is to be given to Images as they are distinct from the exemplar ac∣cording to every thing that is required to the Nature of Worship. Thus I have ful∣ly proved from the Acts of the Council, and the judgement of so many of the most learned and eminent Divines of the Ro∣man Church, that by the Decree of the Nicene Council, such true and real worship is to be given to Images as is terminated upon the Images themselves.

* 1.4532. We are now to equire what kind of worship that was, which the second Council of Nice did give to Images: which will appear by shewing these two things. 1. That the worship required was higher than meer reverence. 2. That it was lower than La∣tria. (1.) That it was higher than meer reverence. T. G. would insinuate,* 1.454 that all the worship required by the Nicene Council, was no more than the Reverence shewed to the Books of the Holy Gospels, or the sacred Utensils of the Altar; for which he quotes the definition of the Council, wherein those things are joyned together. And so they are in Hadrians epistle ex∣tant in the Council, in the Latin translati∣on (for the Greek hath another sense) and in Damascens oration;* 1.455 but to clear yet farther the State of the Question, I shall shew, 1. The difference between the Re∣verence of these things, and the Worship of Images. 2. That the Council of Nice did put a difference between them.

1. For the difference between the Re∣verence of these things, and the worship of Images. Although no irrational or ina∣nimate being be capable of that real ex∣cellency to deserve any honour from us for its own sake, as Aquinas determines;* 1.456

yet such things may have a relation to matters of so high a nature as to deserve a different usage and regard from other things; as the Vessels of the Church, or the Chalices are not to be used for common drinking; which peculiarity of the use of such things is that degree of honour which belongs to them on the account of their being dedicated to sacred purposes. So S. Augustin saith,* 1.457 of the sacred Vessels, that they are consecrated and do become holy by their Use, being separated from common service and devoted to the mini∣stry of holy things; but he doth plainly distinguish the respect shewn to them from the worship of Images; for a little before he speaks of such who did worship or pray looking upon an Image, and that those who did so did behave themselves as if they expected to be heard by the Image; but do we pray to the sacred Utensils because we make use of them in our prayers to God? Little did S. Austin think, that praying looking upon Images and the Reve∣rence shewed to sacred Vessels on the ac∣count of their use, should have been ranked together. He that prays looking upon an Image, doth either direct his adoration to the Image, or to the Person represented by the Image as if he were actually present,

and this is the true reason of the worship of Images; but no man can pretend this as to the Reverence of Holy things, be∣cause all their holiness consists in a bare ex∣trinsecal denomination, which affords no reason for any more than such an esteem as belongs to sacred Things, and not for any act of worship to be done to them. They who make the Images themselves to be the material object or term of adoration, do yet say that the formal reason of that worship is to be taken from the object re∣presented: others say, that the thing repre∣sented, and the Image are worshipped with the same act of adoration; but both sorts do make the representation in an Image to be the ground and reason of the worship given to it. Why then should those things, which do not represent be worship∣ped as those that do? Are not Images ap∣pointed by the Definition of the Nicene Council to be set up in Churches, and in High wayes, on purpose for worship? Are they not formed, and set forth with all advantages to allure men to the worship of them? And after all this, is no more meant by their worship than by the Reverence of Holy things; which are designed for a peculiar use, and serve for other ends than to be worshipped by us? If Images

were set up in Churches only for memory and instruction, and were as much ap∣pointed by God to inform us of his Will, as the Holy Scriptures are; there were some colour of shewing a like regard to them as to the Holy Bible; but it is quite other∣wise, they were never appointed for that purpose, they are uncapable of doing it, and are set up for adoration; and yet can the same men who commanded their wor∣ship, have any pretence for making the Reverence to the Bible and the worship of Images to be alike? Besides all this, is there no difference between a Religious respect (if I may so call it) to sacred places and things, and all the most solemn Acts of adoration which were ever given to Images by the greatest Idolaters? such as kneelings before them, prostrations, praying with their eyes fixed upon them, as though they were speaking to them; burning incense and lights before them: which are as great Testimonies of Worship as were ever used by the grossest and most sottish Idolaters. I may rather say, there is no great difference between them and their Images, that can see no difference be∣tween such worship and the Reverence of Holy things.

2. That the Council of Nice did put a difference between these things. For how∣ever, to blind the business as much as might be, they put them together in the Definition, yet if we observe the ground on which it established the worship of Images, was such as referred to the things repre∣sented by them, and not any sacred use of them: and those expressed in the very same Definition.* 1.458 For, say they, they honour of the Image passes to the Prototype, and he that worships the Image doth in that wor∣ship the thing represented. By which they lay the foundation of the worship of Images upon a thing peculiar to them, and that doth not hold for the other things. And this reason here assigned runs through all the several discourses in that Synod, of Hadrian, Theodorus, Tarasius, Germanus, Leontius and Epiphanius; and the very same reason is assigned by the Council of Trent. It is observed out of S. Augustin,* 1.459 that the most sacred things are only capable of honour, honorem tan∣quam Religiosa possunt habere, where he speaks of the elements of the Eucharist, but Tarasius in this Council of Nice pro∣nounces them all guilty of hypocrisie, who would only give honour and not Worship to Images:* 1.460 by which it appears that the

Council determined more than meer Reve∣rence to be given to Images.

2. That this worship which the Council of Nice determined was lower than Latria, For so it follows in the definition of the Council, that they only meant an honorary adoration and not true Latria, which is only due to God. Tarasius upon reading Pope Hadrians Epistle declares his consent to the worship of Images asserted in it,* 1.461 reserving Latria, and Faith to God alone. To the same purpose speaks Constantinus Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus upon reading the Epistle of Theodorus;* 1.462 whose words I grant were mistaken by the translatour of the Council into Latin, as appears by what he is charged with in the Caroline Book, and his words in the Acts of the Council; but it doth not therefore follow, as T. G. would have it,* 1.463 that the Council of Franc∣ford did mistake the meaning of the Ni∣cene Synod. For the Author of the Ca∣roline Book particularly observes, that in those words (as translated) He did con∣tradict the sayings of the rest,* 1.464 but that unawares he had betrayed that, which the rest endeavoured to conceal, viz. that they gave the worship proper to God to Images: for however they denyed it in words, they did it in their actions. So Epiphanius the

Deacon saith,* 1.465 that they often declared that they did not give Latria to Images. Thus we see what the sense of the second Coun∣cil of Nice was as to the worship of Images.

* 1.4662. I now come to the additions which have been made to this doctrine, in the Roman Church; when it was delivered as good Catholick doctrine, that the worship of Latria was to be given to the Images of Christ. So Thomas Aquinas determines in several places, which are collected by Simon Majolus; and he goes upon these grounds.* 1.467 1. Because no irrational crea∣ture is capable of worship, but with a re∣spect to a rational Being. 2. Because Images are worshipped on the account of their representation, therefore, saith he, they are to be worshipped with the same worship with the thing represented. 3. Because the motion of the mind towards an Image,* 1.468 as an Image, is the same with the motion towards the thing represented. 4. Because the Church in praying to the Cross, speaks to it as if it were Christ himself. O Crux ave, spes unica. But how can this doctrine be reconciled to the definition of the Council of Nice,* 1.469 which determines expresly con∣trary? Estius saith, that S. Thomas never

saw this definition of the Council; the same is said by Catharinus, and Sylvius; for saith Catharinus,* 1.470 if he had seen it he would have endeavoured to have reconciled his opinion with the decree of the Council; which shews that he thought it inconsistent with it. From whence I argue that the Council of Nice was not then received in the Western Church, for if it had been, is it conceivable that so great a Doctor of the Church as Aquinas, should either not have seen it, or if he had seen it, should have contradicted the Definition of it. But A∣quinas was not the first who asserted this doctrine in the Latin Church, for Alex. Hales, who was his Master, saith as much in effect, although he doth not so openly apply the term of Latria to it;* 1.471 yet put∣ting this question, whether greater wor∣ship doth belong to the Cross than to any man? he determines it affirmatively; and distinguishes between the dignity of a thing, and the dignity of an Image, and an Image having all its excellency from the object represented, all the worship given to it is to be referred to the Proto∣type; now, saith he, man having a proper excellency can deserve no more than Dulia, and therefore the Cross as it represents Christ must have the worship of Latria.

And it is considerable that Alex. Hales, as Pitts saith,* 1.472 writ his Summ by the Command of Pope Innocent 4. and in the time of A∣lex. 4. it was examined by seventy Divines and approved, and recommended to be taught in all Universities. Card. Bona∣venture determines it roundly,* 1.473 that as Christ himself from his union to the Divi∣nity is worshipped with Latria, so is the Image of Christ as it represents him; and concludes thus, proptereà Imagini Christi debet cultus Latriae exhiberi. Rich. de Media Villa who lived in the same Century,* 1.474 asserted the same doctrine. And when Durandus opposed the doctrine of Thomas on this ground, because the Image and Prototype were two distinct things, and therefore what belonged to the exem∣plar could not be attributed to the Image, however considered as an Image, and so the worship are to the exemplar could not be given to the Image, yet he confesses the other was the common and received opinion;* 1.475 which was defended against Du∣randus by Paludanus and Capreolus. Mar∣silius ab Ingen speaks his mind freely in this matter, saying, that the Cross as a sign representing the object of worship, and as a medium of it is to be adored with Latria; and for this he appeals to the practice of

the Church, O Crux ave spes unica, Auge piis justitiam, reisque dona veniam: which three things, he saith, do properly belong to God, and therefore, saith he, it is properly the worship of Latria which the Church doth give to the Cross as a sign. Iacobus Almain declares,* 1.476 that Images are to be worshipped with the same kind of worship that the things represented are: because no Image is to be worshipped for any san∣ctity or vertue in it self, but only for the sake of the object represented, otherwise it would be Idolatry. Gabriel Biel likewise agrees,* 1.477 that the Images of Christ which re∣present him are to be worshipped with La∣tria: but he found out the distinction of a twofold Latria, 1. Proper Latria, which is the worship given to Christ as the object re∣presented upon the sight of an Image of him, and this is not terminated on the Image, but the exemplar. 2. Improper or ana∣logical Latria, which is the worship of the Image as it represents: so that to the same external act of worship he makes two internal acts, whereof one is terminated on the Image, the other on the Prototype. Thomas Waldensis saith,* 1.478 that the Images considered in themselves deserve no wor∣ship at all, but considered in relation to a higher Being and in regard of their re∣presentation,

so they deserve to be worship∣ped; and if the mind passes from the Image to the thing represented, then he saith, the Image and the Prototype are worshipped with the same act; which must be Latria as to the Image of Christ; but the Latria condemned by the Nicene Coun∣cil, he would have to be the worshipping the Images themselves for Gods: which the Heathens themselves, as appears by the Acts of that Synod, utterly denyed that they did in the discourse of Iohn of Thessalonica.* 1.479 We worship not, saith the Heathen, the Images, but through them the Spiritual Powers. Angelus de Clavasio declares, that the Image of Christ is to be worshipped with Latria as well as himself, and that the Cross whereon Christ was Crucified was to be worshipped with La∣tria both on the account of representation and contact;* 1.480 therefore, saith he, we speak and pray to the Cross as to Christ him∣self.* 1.481 The same is said by Bartholomaus Fumus, who was a Dominican, as the other a Franciscan,* 1.482 (whereby we see it was no opinion peculiar to the Dominican order on the account of the authority of Thomas) and by Dionysius the Carthusian,* 1.483 as well as Antoninus the Dominican. Franciscus Ferrariensis saith, that when Latria is ap∣propriated

to God, it is be understood primò & per se, primarily and for its own sake; but if it be understood only seconda∣rily and for anothers sakes; then, saith he, Latria may be given to an Image of Christ; for considering the Image, as an Image, it is worshipped with the same act, by which the Person represented is, and therefore since Latria is due to Christ, it must be so to the Image of Christ; and he answers all the arguments of Durandus, Holcot, and Mirandula by the help of the former di∣stinction (as he might have done a hundred more) and he asserts, that the Image and the object represented make together one total object of adoration, whereof one part is the Reason why the worship is termina∣ted on the other: and that the act of ado∣ration whereby God and the Image are worshipped together, cannot be Latria in respect of one, and an inferiour worship in respect of the other, because both the in∣ternal and external acts are such where∣in the worship of Latria doth properly con∣sist: and to shew this to be the Catholick doctrine, he proves it, from the practice of the Catholick Church which makes genu∣flections, prostrations, supplications. and other acts of Latria to the Cross. Which was the true Reason of introducing this

doctrine of Latria to Images contrary to the Definition of the Nicene Council, be∣cause they saw the constant practice of the Church in the Worship of the Cross could not be justified upon other grounds. The Church never owning any Prosopopoeia, but expressing its devotions to the Cross, as really distinct from, although representing the Person of Christ.

Card. Cajetan saith,* 1.484 that the act of wor∣ship towards the Image of Christ, is truly and properly terminated on the Image; not in regard either of its matter or Form, but as it performs the Office of an Image. So that Christ himself is the Reason of the worship of the Image, and his being in the Image, is the condition, by which the Rea∣son of worship doth excite men to worship and terminate it. But since Christ is not asserted to be really and Personally in the Image, but only by representation, Caje∣tan ought to have shewn, that an union by meer Imagination between Christ and the Image, is a sufficient condition for per∣forming those acts of worship to the Image which properly belong to God alone which he hath not undertaken; but he shews against Durandus, that if the Image of Christ were only worshipped, as it puts us in mind of Christ, then any other thing which

puts us in mind of him might be worship∣ped as well as an Image. And the Pra∣ctice of the Church shews, that it doth not worship the Cross as a memorative sign, but because the Image of Christ is to be worshipped with Latria, therefore it wor∣ships it. Thus we see what the judge∣ment of the most eminent and learned Di∣vines of the Roman Church was, concern∣ing giving the worship of Latria to Images before the Council of Trent, and upon what, that judgement was founded, viz. the practice of the Roman Church, in the worship of the Cross.

Let us now see whether this matter hath been otherwise determined by the Council of Trent,* 1.485 and whether the contrary opi∣nion hath obtained since. That wary Council knowing very well the practice of their Church and the opinion of Divines,* 1.486 only determines due honour and venerati∣on to be given to Images; not for the sake of any Divinity, or power inherent in them, for which they are to be worshipped, or that any thing is to be asked of them, or that Trust is to be put in the Images, as it was of old by the Heathens, who placed their hope in Idols; but because the honour which is done to them, is referred to the Proto∣types

which they represent, so that by the Images which we kiss, and before which we uncover our heads, and fall down, we adore Christ and worship the Saints which they represent. Which hath been already decreed by Councils against the opposers of Images, especially the second Nicene Synod. Where we observe these things, 1. That all external Acts of Adoration are allowed to be done to Images; even the very same which were to be done to the Person of Christ, if he were actually present, are to be done to his Image to adore him thereby. 2. That there is not the least intimation against giving the same kind and degree of worship to the Image, which is given to Christ himself. And since the Council al∣lows no proper vertue in the Image for which it should be worshipped▪ but takes all from the representation, and supposes the honour to pass to the Prototype, Vas∣quez thinks it is very evident,* 1.487 that the sense of the Council was, that the Image and the Exemplar were to be worshipped with the same Act of adoration, which as to the Image of Christ must be no less than Latria. 3. After the Council of Trent, many of their most Eminent Divines have asserted the worship of Latria to be given to Images. Dominicus Soto a Divine of

the Council of Trent determines, that every Image is to be worshipped with the same worship,* 1.488 that belongs to the thing repre∣sented; as the Image of God and Christ with Latria, and of the B. Virgin and other Saints with Dulia. Turrianus,* 1.489 ano∣ther of the Trent Divines saith, that the same adoration belongs to the Image, and the Prototype; as that which is called La∣tria to Christ and his Image, but to Christ properly, and to the Image equivocally. Naclantus a third Divine of that Council saith,* 1.490 that if the object represented ought to be worshipped with Latria, so ought the Image too. And what more reasonable way can we have to understand the sense of the Council, than from the Divines who were present and managed the debates of it? Gretser hath a whole Chapter to prove,* 1.491 that the Cross is to be worshipped with Latria. Card. Palaeotus saith,* 1.492 that the same worship which is given to the Proto∣type may be given to the Image, but with the different degrees of Latria and Dulia, &c. When, saith he, the Person of Christ is worshipped without an Image, that ado∣ration is terminated upon his essence and Person as in themselves; but when he is worshipped in an Image, then his essence and Person is worshipped as represented

and being in that Image; although he be not really there, but according to his fi∣gure and similitude. Gregory de Valentia confesses it to be the same Divine worship they give to the Image of Christ that they do to the Prototype,* 1.493 because the Image is worshipped in the stead of Christ, but, he saith, it is given in a different respect to them both: but besides this, he allows an inferiour worship to the Image which is terminated on it self. And in both these Petrus Thyraeus agrees with him.* 1.494 Corneli∣us Curtius an Augustinian,* 1.495 contends for Latria to be due to the very Nails of Christs Cross, by reason of their Contact of the Person of Christ, which worship, he saith, was approved by the Church, when Innocent 6. appointed the Festival of the Souldiers Launce and the Nails of the Cross. Ludovicus de Paramo the Inquisi∣tour of Sicily determines,* 1.496 that the Cross is to be worshipped with no other worship than that of Latria: and if it be taken as joyned with Christ in the mind, it is to be worshipped with a perfect act of ab∣solute Latria: which belongs to Christ per¦se and to the Cross concomitanter & per accidens: but if it be taken as the mate∣rial object of adoration, then it is only a Re∣lative Latria for the sake of Christ. And

he adds, that an Image is truly and pro∣perly to be adored or coadored with the ex∣emplar: which he proves from the Coun∣cil of Trent.* 1.497 To which he subjoyns a remarkable story, viz. of one Ioh. Aegi∣dius Canon of Savil, who was forced to make a publick retractation for denying the adoration of the Cross, which was judged to be contrary to the practice of the Church, when it saith, O Crux ave spes unica, and in another place Crucem tuam adoramus; and for saying that God was to be worshipped with Latria and the Cross with Dulia: which propositions he rejected as heretical; and asserted that the Cross was to be worshipped with the same worship of Latria that Christ himself is. From whence Lud. de Paramo concludes, that this opinion is the most agreeable to the Catholick Faith. Paulus Maria Quarti a Clericus Regularis, in his late Commenta∣ries on the Rubricks of the Missal agrees exactly with Ludovicus à Paramo in the manner of adoration of the Cross:* 1.498 and for Images of Christ, he saith, that their opini∣on is more probable who make it to be ab∣solute Latria, and not reductive and Ana∣logical.* 1.499 Gregorius Valentianus in his Commentaries on the Hymns declares his consent with S. Thomas about worshipping

the Cross with Latria. Layman saith,* 1.500 that we do not worship the Images of Christ with an absolute Latria, because they have no Divinity or rational excellency in them; but with a relative worship whereby we worship the Image and Exemplar together, we ought to acknowledge that the Cross and Images of Christ are worshipped with Latria. Eligius Bassaeus a Capuchine agrees with Layman,* 1.501 that this is not ab∣solute, but a relative Latria, but he de∣termines that the Cross whatever mat∣ter it be made of, ought to be worshipped with Latria as a sign; but that very Cross on which Christ did hang, not only as a sign, but in regard of contact of his body; and so the Nail and Thorns, and Sponge, and other things which touched his body, ex∣cept only Iudas his Lips, and the Ass he rode on to Hierusalem, because they did not partake of his sanctity, as no doubt the Nails and the Wood of the Cross did. But he hath yet a farther subtilty about this Latria, for, he saith, that when the Image of Christ is the material object of worship, and Christ as represented the Reason of that worship, that is not abso∣lute, but relative Latria; but when Christ and the Image together make up the same material object of adoration, then it is

properly Latria; which he endeavours to prove both from the Councils of Nice and Trent▪ Phil. Gamachaeus a late Professour of Divinity of the Sorbon determins,* 1.502 that the Cross and Image of Christ as they repre∣sent him, and as they are conceived toge∣ther with Christ, ought to be worshipped with the supreme worship of Latria: be∣cause Christ himself is the Reason of the adoration, and because the Church doth so worship the Cross. O Crux ave spes unica. The same is asserted as to Relative Latria by N. Ysambertus another late Professour of the Sorbon,* 1.503 (whom I the rather mention, that this might not be thought the parti∣cular opinion of any Orders among them, as of the Dominicans or Iesuits) who as∣serts, that both the Cross and Images of Christ are to be worshipped therewith, be∣cause the Image and the Exemplar make up one complex object, whose soul, as it were, is the exemplar, and whose body is the Image, to which object the adoration is di∣rected, so, as that the worship to the Person of Christ is absolute, and to the Image re∣spective: but yet so, as that the Image is at least the partial terminative object of such adoration. I might produce many more Testimonies not only of Schoolmen, but of Casuists, as Filliucius, Iacobus à

Graffiis, Azorius and others; but I need not do it, since Azorius affirms,* 1.504 that this is the common opinion of their Divine••.

* 1.505All the difficulty is how to reconcile this doctrine with the Definition of the Council of Nice: and about this they have fallen into parties and made a pleasant Counter-scuffle among themselves. Catha∣rinus saith,* 1.506 that none of the Ancients did ever allow Images to be worshipped with Latria; and if this proposition be true, that an Image as an Image is to be worshipped with Latria, that likewise is true, that an Image is to be worshipped with Latria, for all wise men understand an Image as an Image; but this is so far from being in any ancient Writer that the contrary is ex∣presly there, and especially in the Decree of the Council of Nice; and therefore, he hath no way to excuse the doctrine of Tho∣mas, but by saying he had never seen that Decree. But it is plain Thomas Aq. had more regard to the practice of the Church, than to the Definition of that Synod, which he thought could not otherwise be defended. The main argument of Catha∣rinus against this opinion, is, Latria is due to none but God; but an Image how∣ever considered as an Image is not God.

And whatever the Imagination of the Per∣son passeth to upon the sight of an Image, that can never make that to be God which is not God. If a man takes the Image for God, that is an abominable errour: if he saith, it is not God and yet worships it with Latria; this is plainly giving Latria to something else besides God. If it be said, that it is the same act of the mind which passeth from the Image to the Prototype, and conse∣quently the same adoration of both; this, he saith, will not hold, for if the Image be wor∣shipped, that must be the object of adora∣tion, and the worship of the Image must be terminated on the Image, otherwise it is not the worship of the Image, but of the thing represented; neither can it be un∣derstood how there should be two objects and but one adoration. Some answer that the Image and Prototype make one total object of adoration, and so it is but one Act and that of Latria; but this, saith he, makes strange confusion that the act of worship should be equally terminated on both. If they say it begins at the Image, and is terminated on the Prototype, that is not, saith he, proper worship of an Image which is not terminated on it; and how can that be a partial object of adoration, if the worship be no wayes terminated on it?

Others say, there is a twofold Latria per se & per accidens, the former is only due to God, the latter may be given to an Image: this, saith he, contradicts the for∣mer, for then the same act of worship would be both per se and per accidens, which is ridiculous; and that which is per accidens ought not to be looked on as worship, for any thing may be said to be worshipped with Latria per accidens. Others say, that the worship of the Image is not terminated on the Image, but on the thing represented, and yet say it is the worship of the Image as an Image, which as such is distinct from the thing repre∣sented, which, saith he, is not intelligible. To say the Image is worshipped improperly, is a saying not fit for Philosophers or Di∣vines, but for Poets and Orators. For it is no more properly said the Image is wor∣shipped with Latria, than that the Image is the thing represented; which no man in his senses would say properly. To Ca∣jetans saying, that an Image as performing the office of an Image is under that notion, the same with the thing represented, he an∣swers, that such a Metamorphosis is im∣possible by any act of the Image, or of Ima∣gination: but to defend, saith he, that the Image as an Image, or as representing is

the same with the thing represented, and so as that the Latria is any wayes termi∣nated on the Image, is to be mad ones self, and to endeavour to make others so. Therefore others say, that the Images are not truly and properly worshipped, but the things represented at them, before them, or in them; but this, saith he, destroyes the worship of Images, and is against the pra∣ctice of the Church, which directs the po∣sture, words, and signs of adoration, (even incense) to the Images, as when we say to the Cross, O Crux ave spes unica. This we see is the Burden of the Song, among them all; the Church practises thus, and thus; this practice must be defended one way or other, and happy the man that doth it best; but still the practice must be continued, for Catharinus inveighs bitterly against Erasmus, for saying, he thought it safer and easier to take Images out of Churches than to fix the just bounds of Worship and to prevent Superstition. And he grants at last,* 1.507 that by a fiction of the mind, supposing the Image to be the Person represented, it may be said, that the Image is to be worshipped with Latria, yet he concludes, that no one ancient Wri∣ter, that he could ever see, did allow, that Images might any way be worshipped with

Latria, but all of them did abominate such an expression. And he adds, that the do∣ctrine of Thomas doth rather take off from Images, that true and real worship, which, he saith, from the Nicene Council ought to be given to them, and terminated on them∣selves though for the sake of the things re∣presented by them. Martinus Peresius Ayala saith,* 1.508 that the doctrine of giving La∣tria to Images is repugnant to Fathers and Councils, especially to the Definition of the Council of Nice; and he adds, that there is no more connexion between a sign and the thing signified, than between two rela∣tives, as between Father and Son, and al∣though the Son represent the Father, yet no man will say, that by the same act of know∣ledge, whereby I know the Son as a Son, I do know his Father, for then the Relative opposition would be taken away, and the different definitions of correlatives; so, saith he, although by the Image a conce∣ption doth arise of the thing represented, yet it is not the same act of knowledge whereby I apprehend the Image and the thing represented: but suppose it were so, there is not the same reason for worship as for knowledge. For it is not repugnant to an Image as an Image to be apprehended by the same act with the thing represented:

but it seems repugnant to an Image as an Image to be worshipped with the same worship with the thing represented; be∣cause an Image, however considered, is an insensible Creature, to which they all grant no worship is due; and although it repre∣sent never so much, it doth not change its nature, but a block remains a block still, and a Stone doth not become rational by it. But, say they, Is not the Kings Robe wor∣shipped with the same worship that his Person is? I confess, saith he, the whole Person as clothed is worshipped, and his clothes are no more separated, than any other habits or dispositions he hath about him. But, if the Kings Robe be separated from his Person, what reason is there to worship that as the King himself is wor∣shipped? and the Princes Image is neither substantially nor accidentally the same with the Prince, and therefore is not to be com∣pared with his Robe; and although some ho∣nour be due to the Kings Image, yet no man ever saw, unless by the compulsion of some Tyrant, a Princes Image worshipped after the same manner that his Person is. And S. Augustin gives no other reason for the worship of the humanity of Christ (which he compares with the Princes Robe) but because it is united to the Divinity; which

reason cannot hold for such an Imaginary Union, between the Image and the thing represented, and therefore it ought not to be worshipped with the same adoration. Be∣sides, saith he, if this were allowed, we might sacrifice to an Image, as well as do other acts of Latria to it, which cannot be said without blasphemy; but he concludes, that he defines nothing, and submits all to the judgement of the Church. Estius de∣clares,* 1.509 that although almost all the School∣men were for Latria to be given to the Cross, yet that it is point-blank against the definition of the Council of Nice; and it is an unsatisfactory answer to say, they only were against Latria to be given to Images for themselves or absolute Latria; for no man ever doubted of that, that they were not to have divine worship for themselves; and the Council puts a distinction between the worship of the Image and the Exem∣plar; and joyns Images with the Gospels and Vessels, which no man ever thought were to be worshipped with any kind of Latria: and that, when S. Basil saith, the honour of the Image passes to the Prototype, he means no more than that the Image is honoured for the sake of the thing repre∣sented: and that, if an Image may be worshipped with Latria, then sacrifice may

be offered to it, which was condemned in Carpocrates and the Collyridians: and then those things which have a nearer conjuncti∣on than an Image may be better worshipped so, as the B. Virgin which bore him in her womb. Neither is it enough to say, they have proper excellencies of their own; for they might receive a double honour, the one proper, the other relative; and sup∣posing no danger of errour, then it might be done, and Medina, he saith, yields it of the B. Virgin not absolutely, but by reason of the conjunction between Christ and her while he was in her womb. Thus far in the opinion of these men, the case seems desperate as to the reconciling the doctrine of giving Latria to Images with Reason, or the Council of Nice.

But we must not imagine a doctrine so generally allowed and so suitable to the practice of their Church should be thus given up.* 1.510 Therefore Vasquez undertakes the business,* 1.511 and like a generous Adver∣sary, not only proves that this may be the sense of the Councils, but that they could have no other; because, an Image cannot be lawfully worshipped any other way, than as in and by that the exemplar is made the term and next material object

of adoration. This he shews, not only from the common consent of their Di∣vines,* 1.512 but from the Council of Trent it self, where it sayes, 1. That no worship is to be given to Images for the sake of any Vertue inherent in them; but if Images be worshipped as separated from the exemplar, they must be worshipped for some virtue in∣herent in themselves; and whatever im∣pression of Sanctity is supposed to be in them, it is only an inanimate sign of such a sanctity as doth not make it an object of adoration: and if the excellency of the thing represented be the reason moving to adoration, that ex∣cellency cannot be conceived as distinct from the exemplar when it makes the Image capable of adoration. If they say the ex∣cellency is derived from the exemplar to the Image, then it follows, that there is an inherent vertue in the Images for which they are worshipped, which is contrary to the Council of Trent. 2. That Council makes this to be the only reason of worship∣ping Images, because the honour passeth to the exemplar, which shews plainly that ac∣cording to the sense of it, they are to be wor∣shipped only as joyned with the exemplar, and by no means as separated from it. And the same he proves,* 1.513 by expressions to the like purpose, from the Council of Nice;

and from the former Testimony of Basil, which, he saith, cannot be otherwise under∣stood than of the same adoration of the Image and exemplar, or else S. Basils Testi∣mony was very impertinently alledged in the Council of Nice,* 1.514 and doth not serve the purpose for which he used those words him∣self; many other Testimonies he produces, and at last concludes that the other opinion is no older than Catharinus and Ayala, and that all those who were for the worship of Images before, viz. Fathers and Schoolmen, were of his opinion. And he proves his opinion from this reason because no inanimate thing is of it self capable of worship;* 1.515 but an Image considered as an Image, but without the exemplar, is an in∣animate thing: the Major he proves, be∣cause worship is a token of submission to some∣thing on the account of its excellency, and superiority; but to use such to an inanimate thing, is to make our selves slaves to Images, which would be Idolatry: and on the same account a man uses such a mark of submission, he may as well pray to Images, or beg some∣thing of them, as a servant doth of his master, He saith, that Alexander and Thomas, al∣though they never saw the seventh Synod, yet did speak the sense of it, as well as if they had seen it:* 1.516 and when that Council

denies Latria to Images, it is to be under∣derstood only of the inward submission of the Soul, and not of the external acts of adoration; and so he answers all the argu∣ments from the Councils and Fathers: and he saith,* 1.517 that it may be delivered abso∣lutely, that Images are to be worshipped with Latria, if by that be meant the same worship which is given to the exemplar; and that the doctrine of inferiour worship tends to folly and superstition,* 1.518 and that his own opinion is the most useful to be preached to the People. Suarez is by no means satisfied with this way,* 1.519 saying, the Author of it must necessarily fall into the abusive and improper way of worship which is condemned in Durandus and Holcot, for he takes away all proper worship of Images, and makes them only seem to be worshipped; for the external acts of adoration, without the internal is but an appearance of wor∣ship, and no real worship. Therefore he proceeds after another method, which is this: 1. The Prototype may be worshipped in the Image, and the Image for the sake of the Prototype, with one and the same act of adoration, both internal and exter∣nal: to explain this he distinguishes be∣tween the esse reale, and the esse repraesen∣tativum of the Prototype; and although

the Image doth not contain the Prototype in the first, it does in the latter sense, i. e. in plain terms, although the Person of Christ be not in the Image, yet we may fancy him to be there; which being sup∣posed, the mind of him that worships is carried primarily to the exemplar, and by way of concomitancy to the Image; not believing the Image to be Christ, (for that were a dangerous thing) but that it doth represent him as if he were there: and consequently this Imagination is a suffi∣cient ground to perform all acts of ado∣ration to the Image, as if the Person of Christ were actually present. Which is just like a Schoolmaster, whom I knew, who being to come into an unusual pre∣sence, he goes into a pit, where there were many Trees, and although every one of them had the esse reale of a Tree, yet he supposed them to have a distinct esse repraesentativum of the several Persons he was to make his Congies too; and having thus fastned the esse repraesentativum of the Person to the proper Tree, he makes all his approaches and with the same comple∣ments he intended to use to the Persons themselves. If one should have surprised him in this act of civil worship to the Trees, and asked him, whether he believed

the Trees to be the Persons whose names he called them by, he would no doubt, (if he had been versed in School Divinity) have answered to this very subtilly with Suarez, that he was not such an Ass, not to distinguish the esse reale of the Tree, from the esse repraesentativum of the Per∣sons; and although he bowed and made Leggs to the Trees, he did not consider them in so doing as Trees, but as represent∣ing those Persons to whom he was bound to shew all that Reverence, which he shewed to the Trees upon the Imagination that they were those very Persons; so that the Reverence was primarily and per se shewn to those Persons, and but concomi∣tanter & per accidens, and after an inferi∣our manner, to the Trees. But saith Sua∣rez, the Image is not so properly adored, as co-adored, as the Kings Robe is with his Person; and although the Image be really different from the Person of Christ, yet he is worshipped in his true Being as repre∣sented by the Image, and as it were vest∣ed with it, and so they both become one ob∣ject, and that Person is worshipped, and the Image together with him with the very same act of adoration. I am glad to hear that, saith the Schoolmaster, for I hope by this means, I may do my Reverences to the

Persons themselves, by performing them to them as represented in their true Be∣ings in these Trees; and I pray Sir do not think me such a Fop that I would do all this to them considered as Trees, in actu signato, for I consider them as Images in actu exercito; and although you may think I do it to the Trees, you are mista∣ken; my mind all that while unites the Person represented and the Tree together; and although my Reverence be primarily designed to the Person for his own sake, and to the Tree only for the sake of the person represented, yet this is only a co-re∣verence, such as a man shews to the Per∣son of another, by kissing the hem of his garment, only there the Person is really Vested, and here it is only by Imagination. 2. Suarez saith,* 1.520 since it is agreed among Catholicks; that the Reason of the worship of the Image is the excellency of the ex∣emplar; that may be considered two wayes. 1. As the objectum quod or the thing it self worshipped in and by the Image as be∣fore. 2. As the objectum quo, i. e. as the Reason of giving worship to the Image it self: and this is that worship which Vasquez charges with folly and superstiti∣on; but Suarez undertakes to prove this to be a possible and lawful Worship, when

the Image is truly and properly worshipped non adorato directè ut quod ipso exemplari; i. e. the worship not fixing immediately on the thing represented but on the Image it self, although on the account of the exemplar: for which he makes use of this notable ar∣gument; because in this act of worship there is nothing omitted but a directing the intention to the exemplar, but there is no precept that requires, that as often as we worship the Image, we ought to direct our intention farther than the Image it self; and therefore that worship is lawful. And although, an inanimate thing be not, as Vasquez urges, adorabile propter se, yet it may, saith Suarez, with wonderful sub∣tilty, be adorable in se propter aliud: and this second kind of worship he endeavours to prove was established by the Councils of Nice and Trent, as well as the first.

Bellar. undertakes to clear the whole mat∣ter by these propositions.* 1.521 1. That the Images of Christ and the Saints are to be worshipped not only per accidens or impropriè, but per se & propriè, so as they terminate the wor∣ship, as considered in themselves, and not meerly as they represent the exemplar: which he proves, from the definition of the Nicene Council, which decreed Images to be worshipped and not with Latria: but if

the Image were to be worshipped with a respect only to the exemplar, then it could not be denyed that an Image of Christ was to be worshipped with Latria. 2. He would not have it said before the people that Images are to be worshipped with Latria, but rather the contrary, because the distin∣ctions necessary to defend it are too subtle for their noddles, and the truth is, the men that make them do hardly understand them themselves. 3. But if we speak among our selves and of the plain Truth of the case, Images may be worshipped with La∣tria, but then it is improperly and per ac∣cidens: as it is represented in the Image. 4. If we speak of worship per se & propriè, so no Image is to be worshipped with La∣tria; because this was condemned by the Nicene Council. 5. Yet, he saith, that the worship which ought to be given to Images per se & propriè, is analogically and reductively the same that is given to the exemplar, i. e. the worship of an Image of Christ is analogical Latria: So that it is, and it is not Latria; it is so, but we must not say so; yet if we speak of the proper worship of Images, that is not so and yet it is so, i. e. analogically and improperly; but if we speak of the proper worship of La∣tria, then it is not so. But doth not the

proper worship of Latria belong to Christs Person? therefore if Christs Person be worshipped in the Image, it ought to be worshipped with Latria. True, saith Bel∣larmin, when he is worshipped in his own Person, but not as he is in an Image by participation; but he that is worshipped in the Image is supposed to be the true ob∣ject of Latria, and therefore Christ as in the Image must be worshipped with Latria. If representation be a suffi∣cient ground of worship, then his pre∣sence being supposed in the Image doth require the same worship, as they say is due to him under the Sacramental species: and the manner of his being represented in the Image would take no more off from the nature of the worship, than the Princes Robe doth from the worship due to his Per∣son. And Bernardus Pujol from thence proves,* 1.522 that it is lawful to worship the Image and exemplar with the same act of adoration as one complex object, because the Church doth worship the Sacrament of the Eucharist with Latria, as it is one com∣plex object made up of the Species and Christ himself as there present. The same Author proves against Bellarmin,* 1.523 that the proper worship given to Images is not meerly ana∣logically and reductively Latria, but proper∣ly,

although more imperfect, like that which is given to the humanity of Christ, and therefore, he saith, the meaning of the Council was only to exclude absolute La∣tria, and not relative; with whom Ysam∣bertus agrees,* 1.524 who likewise saith, that when the Image and Prototype are worship∣ped with Latria, the Image is a terminative object of that adoration, at least as a part to make one entire object of the exemplar and the Image. Card. Lugo saith,* 1.525 that Vasquez hath not spoken clearly to this point, about the aggregate object, made up of the Image and the exemplar; for, saith he, if internal adoration were allowed to the Image as a partial object, it would go a great way to the proving that the Image it self may be so worshipped in recto, i. e. without the worship of the exemplar: and he thinks, that the same act of adoration may be terminated in recto, both on the Image and the exemplar: and that this aggregate object hath a sufficient excellency to terminate inward worship upon the Image as a part of that object. Arriaga di∣sputes at large against the opinion of Vasquez;* 1.526 but after all he concludes, that we may say absolutely, that Latria is due to the Image of Christ, and he makes it the same case as to Images and the humanity of

Christ; and to the Nicene Council, he saith, that they spake not of the Images of God, but of Angels and Saints, to which no doubt Latria is not due; and he stretches the words of Epiphanius the Deacon, to this sense, that no Images of Creatures are to be worshipped with Latria; therefore, saith he,* 1.527 they did worship the Image of God with Latria. Very subtle I confess! and like Epiphanius his own self, who ar∣gues in that Council, much after that rate, and with equal probability. Petavius concludes with the generality of their Di∣vines,* 1.528 that the design of the Council of Nice was only to exclude absolute Latria, and not relative: for which he quotes the Greek excerpta, wherein it is said, that the Image doth not differ in Hyposta∣sis from the Prototype but only in nature: from whence he inferrs, that it is the same act of adoration to the Image and the thing represented. But if all the danger lay in supposing Images to be distinct hypostates; the Heathens in that Council declared, that they did not look on them as such, but only as representations, and therefore in that respect they were no more to blame than the Nicene Fathers in the Worship of them.

From all this discourse we see, (1.) That some great Divines in the Roman Church

do assert proper and absolute Latria to be given to the Images of Christ, as those who assert, the Image and Christ to make up one entire object of adoration. (2.) That the doctrine of a Relative Latria to be given to Images, and such as is given to the humanity of Christ, hath almost uni∣versally obtained in the Roman Church. (3.) That they all agree in this, that the external acts of adoration are to be per∣formed to Images, such as genuflections, prostrations, burning of Lights and Incense, &c. (4.) That those who assert an infe∣riour adoration to be given to Images, do suppose that adoration to terminate in the Images themselves, although it be given on the account of the thing represented. (5.) That those who differ from each other in this matter, do in effect charge one ano∣ther with Idolatry: but of that afterwards.

Nothing now remains to the full stating of this Controversie,* 1.529 but to consider the practice of the Roman Church in the wor∣ship of Images, which may be gathered very much from the former discourse, but will receive somewhat more light by these observations. 1. That the Church of Rome hath determined in her publick Offi∣ces, that Latria is due to the Cross of

Christ, viz. in the Pontificale, where the Rubrick determines the manner of pro∣cession at the reception of the Emperour;* 1.530 and there it is said, that the Cross of the Legat ought to have the right hand, quia debetur ei Latria, because Latria is due to it; not only that it may lawfully be given to it, but that it is due to it, without any mention of the exemplar, or any distin∣ctions, or limitations about the nature of this Latria. 2. That solemn prayers are made for the consecration of the Images set up for worship and for virtue to be given to them.* 1.531 In the Office of benediction of a new Cross there is this prayer,

Rogamus te Domine Sancte, Pa∣ter omnipotens, sempiterne De∣us, ut digneris bene ✚ dicere hoc lignum Crucis tue, ut sit reme∣dium Salutare generi humano; sit soliditas fidei, profectus hono∣rum operum, redemptio anima∣rum; sit solamen, & protectio ac tutela contra seba jacula inimi∣corum. Per Dominum No∣strum, &c.

Is this prayer made in faith or no? whereby they pray for such mighty bene∣fits

by a new Cross; and to take away any suspicions of Metonymies and Prosopopoeia's it is said expresly hoc lignum Crucis tuae, this Wood of thy Cross, may be a wholsome remedy to mankind, a strengthener of faith, an in∣creaser of good works, the redemption of Souls, a Comfort, protection and Defence against the cruelty of our enemies. And af∣ter such prayers, allowed and used by pub∣lick Authority in the Roman Church, with what conscience could the Council of Trent say, that they believed no vertue in Images, nor hoped for any thing from them? After this, the Bishop consecrates the incense, and prays for many good things to come by that too, then the Cross is sprinkled with Holy Water, and then he incenseth it, saying,

Sanctificetur lignum istud, in no∣mine Pa✚tris & Fi✚lii, & Spi∣ritus ✚ Sancti; & benedictio il∣lius ligni in quo membra sancta salvatoris suspensa sunt, sit in isto ligno; ut orantes inclinan∣resque se propter Deum ante istam cru••em inveniant corporis & anime sanitatem. Per eun∣dem, &c.

Then the Bishop kneels before the Cross,

and devoutly adores, and kisses it; and as many besides as please: after this follows a long prayer for the sanctification of that new sign of the Cross; then the Bishop kneels, adores and kisses again, and as many as will. Then follow particular Offices for the consecration of an Image of the B. Vir∣gin, and of other Images. In the Cere∣moniale Romanum, we find very strange prayers upon the Consecration of the Ag∣nus Dei's,* 1.532 which if there were any ground to hope for any of the advantages there prayed for, by the worship and honour of them, no one that loved either his Soul or Body would be without them. For the Pope himself, good man, prays thus,

Tu eos bene✚dicere, sanctifi✚ca∣re, & consecr✚are digneris, ut tua larga benedictione sanctifi∣cati eandem virtutem accipiant contra omnes diabolicas versu∣tias & fraudes maligni spiritus; ut illos devote super se ferenti∣bus, nulla tempestas eisdem pre∣valeat, nulla adversitas domi∣netur, nulla aura pestilens, ne∣que aeris corruptio, nullusque morbus caducus, nulla maris procella & tempestas, nullum in∣cendium,

neque ulla iniquitas do∣minetur eis, neque prebaleat: homo partus cum matre incolu∣mis conservetur per intercessio∣nem unigeniti, &c.

What admirable vertue have these Agnus Dei's in them! they are, good against the Devil, good against Storms, pestilence, falling-sickness, and Sin; and what could a man wish for more? But then it is to be observed that these vertues do not de∣pend meerly on the carrying of these about one, but the worship of them is required too: So in another prayer there extant,

Bene ✚ dicas, & benedicta sancti∣✚fices, quatenus ipsorum vene∣ratione & honore nobis famulis tuis crimina diluantur, &c.

And there we find the Verses of Urban 5. which he sent to the Greek Emperour with three Agnus Dei's. No Mountebank ever set forth the power of his Medicines with more advantage, than the Pope doth the vertue of his Agnus Dei's.

Balsamus, & munda cera cum Chrismatis unda, Conficiunt Agnum; quod munus do tibi magnum: Fonte velut natum per mystica san∣ctificatum. Fulgura de sursum depellit, omne malignum Peccatum frangit, ut Christi san∣guis: & angit. Pregnans servatur; simul & par∣tus liberatur. Dona defert dignis; virtutem de∣struit ignis, Portatus munde de fluctibus eripi•• unde.

* 1.533Stephanus Quaranta having met with a more perfect Copy, adds some more verses of the vertues of these little Images of Wax; and it is great pity any of them should be lost.

Morte repentina servat, Sataneque ruina. Si quis honoret eum, retinet super hoste Cropheum, Parsque minor tantum tota valet integra quantum.

Agnus Dei, miserere mei, Qui crimnia tollis, miserere nobis.

It is not to be questioned, saith Azorius, but, the Pope himself having made these prayers over them (to whom alone it be∣longs to consecrate them the first year of his Popedom,* 1.534 and every seventh year af∣ter) they will have the effects prayed for, if they be used with that due reverence and devotion which is required. I find nothing more ingenuously confessed to have been taken from Heathenism, than the wearing of Agnus Dei's for such uses, by Cardinal Baronius,* 1.535 and Rasponi. Baroni∣us saith, the newly baptized used to have them hanged about their Necks, instead of the little Amulets the Gentiles put upon their Childrens necks against fascination. For, saith he, it being impossible to break off all the Gentile Customes, in those who were become Christians, they were allowed the continuance of them, so they were turned to the worship of the True God. And Card. Rasponi saith,* 1.536 that instead of the little Images of false Gods, these were invented to be worn for the same purposes, viz. the driving away the mischiefs both of body and soul. These were called Bullae, which were worn by Boys, and Pupae, by Girles,

being little round Images, that were first hung upon Children, and after used by the greatest Persons, as by those that Tri∣umphed, as Rasponi observes, to prevent the power of enchantment. (Those that consider this and the saliva lustralis, used upon the dies lustricus among the Hea∣thens,

* 1.537Frontem{que} at{que} uda labella Infami digito, & lustralibus ante salivis Expiat—

with the great vertues attributed by them to salt, and oile, and holy Water, may easily understand that part of the Roman Rituale, which concerns the ceremonies they have added to Baptism.) But besides the Bullae, which the Heathens used for Amulets, they had little Images, which they carried about with them; in which they supposed there were great vertues, and to which they gave divine worship. So Dio saith,* 1.538 Caesar carried a little Image of Venus; and Suetonius of Nero,* 1.539 that he had Icunculam puellarem, and which he secretly worshipped three times a day; and Asclepiades did carry alwayes about with him a little Image of the Dea Coelestis, saith Ammia∣nus Marcellinus;* 1.540 as Apuleius saith,* 1.541 he

did himself, a little Mercury which he worshipped, which, he said, ought not to be touched but with pure hands, being a consecrated thing;* 1.542 just as Azorius deter∣mines, that no Laymen ought to touch an Agnus Dei, for the very same reason, be∣cause they are consecrated: and the Coun∣cil of Milan under Carolus Borromaeus (since Canonized) declares,* 1.543 that when any Artificer makes a golden or Crystal case to put an Agnus Dei in, he must not pre∣sume to touch it either with his Gloves, or with any instrument; but he must send for one in holy Orders to put it into the case. And after all this, is it possible for any to suppose, that the Heathens did attribute virtue to their Images, and that they in the Church of Rome do not? when they pray for virtues to be given to them; and believe great efficacy to be in them, and use them with as much superstition as the Heathens did. Whatever then the Coun∣cil of Trent hath determined to avoid calumny, the solemn Prayers, and Offices, and Practice of their Church, do suffici∣ently manifest that they believe virtue to be in Images, and consequently do trust in them for those effects which were pray'd to be given by their means.

(3.) We ought to compare the practice of the worship of Images in Heathen and Christian Rome together; and if either ex∣ceed the other, the latter hath done it in some parts of folly and superstition. The solemn rites which concerned the worship of Images in Heathen Rome lay in these things, 1. Consecration. 2. Supplication. 3. Pompous Procession.

1. Consecration of Images for publick worship; which was to be performed by the Pontifices or Priests. Before Consecra∣tion,* 1.544 saith Quintilian; they are only the Works of Mens hands, it is that which brings God into them, and makes them fit to be set up for worship; this therefore is not to be permitted to all, but only to those whose hands are pure, and devoted to sacred things. This consecration was generally performed with a certain form of Words, which is now lost with the old Pontifical Books; but perhaps, saith Gu∣therius,* 1.545 they had none at all; no more than they had in the Consecration of Emperours; which was done only by the solemnity of the action it self. Minucius Felix makes the adorning,* 1.546 consecration, and prayers, to be the necessary things, which make an Image to become a God; i. e. when it is solemnly dedicated to divine worship.

But they had two sorts of consecrated Images, some that were only ornamental, which they called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and others that were the proper Images of the Tem∣ple, which were set up over the middle Altar, and to that God, whom that Image represented, the Temple was dedicated, and the rest, as Servius tells us,* 1.547 were only to beautifie the Temple. Vitruvius saith,* 1.548 the Images were to be above the Altars, that they who came to pray and sacrifice at the Altar, might look on the Divinity; as it is fully expressed in one of the Coyns of Domitian mentioned by Gutheri∣us and Gevartius.* 1.549 This was the High Altar, besides which, there were general∣ly two other at least; the one near the entrance, where the Beasts were sacrificed and burnt; the other held the Vessels and Utensils and was called Anclabris saith Festus:* 1.550 but the chief Altar was that, over which the Image was placed, and was called altare ab altitudine, i. e. the high Altar. And it is very observable, although it hath been little taken notice of, that the Sacri∣fices were burnt at the lower Altar; which the Priests having done, they then went up to the High Altar, and there did adolere, i.e. offer incense and prayers; for as Arnobi∣us saith,* 1.551 they did cast their incense into the

Fire, ante ipsa Numinum signa, before the Images of the Gods, which, he there saith, they believed to be the chief part of wor∣ship, and to have the greatest influence on propitiating the Gods. From whence I ob∣serve, how unreasonably those of the Church of Rome, meerly to excuse them∣selves, have made Sacrifice the only exter∣nal act of Latria, and excluded Incense and Supplication from being peculiar to God; when among both Iews and Gen∣tiles, these were looked on as the more so∣lemn and diviner parts of Worship.

2. Supplication: which properly relates to the prayers made in great distresses; but I take it as comprehending all their solemn prayers; which were wont to be made among the old Romans, with great expressions of devotion, before the Images of their Gods; which in Arnobius is expres∣sed by Deorum ante ora prostrati;* 1.552 by Lucretius, Pandere palmas— Ante De∣um delubra; by Caesar,* 1.553 ante simulachra projecti victoriam à Diis exposcerent; by Lucan,* 1.554 moestaeque tenent delubra catervae; by Ovid,

* 1.555Summisso{que} genu vultus in imagine Divae Fixit.

which, with many other expressions to the same purpose in Latin Authors, do imply, that they made their prayers be∣fore the Images of their Gods; and not that they took the Images themselves for Gods, any otherwise than those do who sup∣pose some extraordinary presence after consecration; or by the power of Imagi∣nation represented them as present to them in their Images; which the Romans proper∣ly called Adoration: which was orare ad to pray to them as present; or ad os orare, as Gutherius interprets it; thence Arnobi∣us,* 1.556 quotidianis supplicationibus adorare. And this on great occasions, was perform∣ed through all the Temples for two or three days, as the Senate thought fit, as we find it often in Livy, with solemn processi∣ons of the People.

3. Another part of the Divine Honour they gave to Images, was the carrying them in Pomp upon solemn Festivals (which is largely described by Dionysius:* 1.557) For then they carried their Gods from the Capitol through the Forum into the great Cirque; and after the several Orders of men in the Procession, at last came the Images of the Gods carried upon mens backs; and when this procession was over, the prayers and sacrifices began. This

was looked on as so peculiar to the Gods, that Suetonius reckons it as one of the great instances of Caesars affecting Divine Honours,* 1.558 that he would have his Image carried in this sacred Procession.

* 1.559Let us now see what the Practice of Rome Christian hath been in these particu∣lars. 1. For consecration, we have alrea∣dy seen the set Forms appointed for it in the Roman Pontifical; although the Ni∣cene Council thought no other consecrati∣on necessary, than the setting up the Images for publick worship; yet the Roman Church would not let People imagine them defe∣ctive in any thing which the Heathens did towards the more solemn worship of Images. 2. For supplication before them; let the Images set up for worship over the high Altar speak for them, whether in this point of adoration they come behind Hea∣then Rome. By the Rubrick of the Mis∣sal, in every solemn Mass, the Priest is to go up to the middle of the Altar,* 1.560 and there having kissed the Altar, he puts the incense into the Thuribulum, which he is to do three times with his right hand, and his left hand on his breast; having done this, he makes a profound Reverence to the Crucifix over the Altar (as appears by the picture of the

Altar in Gavantus) and three times in∣censeth that;* 1.561 then bowing again to the Crucifix he incenseth the Altar; which is to be done with so much niceness and cere∣mony, that Gavantus reckons up twenty nine times, with their exact order, wherein the several parts of the Altar and Crucifix are to be incensed by the Priest who cele∣brates Mass. If there be any Reliques or Images of Saints about the Altar, after the incensing and adoration of the Crucifix, be∣fore the Priest goes from the middle of the Altar, he first incenseth those on the right∣hand, and then making his Reverence to the Cross, he doth the same to those on the left∣hand. Philander in his Notes on Vitruvius,* 1.562 in his Discourse to Paul 3. about the right placing of Images, saith, That the due placing of Images is over the Altars, as the Image of the Madonna at Loreto, hath a holy Al∣tar before it of square stone, saith Tursel∣linus;* 1.563 and accordingly Matthaeus Riccius saith,* 1.564 That in China they placed the Image of the B. Virgin on the Altar, where they every day did offer their Devotions. Aloy∣sius Novarinus glories in the invention of a new sort of worship,* 1.565 viz. of the B. Vir∣gin big-bellied, with Christ in her Womb; which was called, LA MADON∣NA DELL' ALLEGREZZA,

and he saith, That he caused an Altar to be erected, and an Image to be set up for this worship, first at Verona; and desires it may be generally received, as the most excellent way of her worship, to promote which, he saith, he had written, (no doubt, an admirable Book) Of the Life of Christ in the Womb of the Virgin.

And for praying to Images, it is done with as much ceremony and formality as it ever was among the Heathens; with prostrations, genuflections, looking as de∣voutly upon the Images, approaching to them, and touching them with as much shew of Reverence as ever was used among them; insomuch that if an old Roman were revived and saw the modern practices of worship of Images at Rome, he would say they had done by worship as the Stoicks did by Philosophy, viz. only changed the Names, when the things were the same. Nay scarce any superstition can be menti∣oned so barbarous among the Heathen Ido∣laters towards Images, but it is practised in the Roman Church; witness the binding the Image of S. Anthony to get a good Wind, which Peter Della Valle saith,* 1.566 it much used, and not without success among the Portugals; and Boulaye le Gouz menti∣ons their putting the Images of S. Antho∣ny

and the B. Virgin, with their Heads forward into Wells, drawing them up and down there, to procure rain, and for other very useful purposes. But setting aside such barbarous superstition of the People (which is not condemned by their spiritual Governours that we find) we need in∣sist on no more than what is either re∣quired, or commonly allowed and practised with Approbation. We have already seen by the confession of their best Writers, That their Church does allow praying to the Cross in the most express and formal terms of Prayer, O Crux Ave spes unica,* 1.567 Hoc passionis tempore, Piis adauge Gratiam, Re∣isque dele Crimina. Wherein Bernardus Pujol confesses that not only the common people, but the Church it self doth speak to the Cross, as the Image of Christ; and what is this then, but praying to the Image? Upon the third of May we find this Anti∣phona to the Cross,

O Crux splendidior cunctis astris, mun∣do celebris,* 1.568 hominibus multùm ama∣bilis, sanctior universis, quae sola fui∣sti digna portare talentum mundi, dul∣ce lignum, dulces clavos, dulcia ferens pondera; Salva praesentem catervam in tuis hodie laudibus con∣gregatam.

But the most solemn adoration of the Cross is performed upon Good-Friday, which according to the Rubricks of the Ro∣man Missal is after this manner,* 1.569 Prayers being ended, the Priest goes to the Epistle side of the Altar, and there takes the Cross from the Deacon; and then turns to the People, and by degrees uncovers a little of it from the top, and begins the Antiphona, Ecce lignum Crucis, in qua salus mundi pependit, Then the Choire sings, Venite Adoremus; at which they all prostrate themselves (not to the earth saith Gavantus, but with kneeling, and a very lowly Reverence) Then he goes for∣ward to the Corner of the Altar, and opening the right-hand of the Crucifix, and lifting it up a little, he sings louder, Ecce lignum, &c. and the rest sing and adore again; then he goes to the middle of the Altar, and uncovers the whole Cru∣cifix, and lifts it up and sings yet louder, and they adore, as before. When this is done, the Priest carries it to a place prepared before the Altar, and there knee∣ling he places it; then he pulls off his Shooes, and goes to worship the Cross, three times kneeling, before he kisses it: and after him, the rest do it in their Order. And the Pope himself on that day,

laies aside his Mitre, hath his Shooes pull'd off,* 1.570 and goes between two Cardinals ad adorandum, to worship the Cross, before which he kneels three times at a conveni∣ent distance, and prays, and then kisses it: and so all the Cardinals two and two, and the rest after them. Several other Ce∣remonies there are in the Missals of York and Salisbury; but those which are in the Roman Missal are sufficient to prove that they in the Roman Church are bound to give as solemn adoration to the Cross, as ever any Heathens gave to any Images whatso∣ever. Besides this, they make solemn sup∣plication to other Images of Christ; as to that of the Veronica at Rome, in those known Verses, Salve sancta Facies nostri Redemptoris, &c. wherein they pray to the Image, to purge them from sin and bring them to heaven; which are pretty reasonable requests to be made to an Image, especially so authentick a one as that is▪ of which Bzovius saith,* 1.571 That it hath su∣preme honour among Christians, and hath an Altar on purpose for it, which is called Altare sanctissimi sudarii, (as he shews from Grimaldus) in S. Peter's Church at Rome, & was in the Oratory of Pope John 7. and the Monuments of the consecration of that Altar are still preserved among other

Records of that Church: which had Priests belonging to it. This Image is shewed at solemn times, and then the people fall down and worship it; the manner where∣of is described by Pope Pius 2. relating the procession of the Pope at the translati∣on of the Head of S. Andrew;* 1.572 The Pope coming in Romp with the Cardinals and Clergy to that part of the Church where the Veronica was, commanded it to be shewn. Forthwith the Cardinal of S. Mark goes up the steps, and shews the venera∣ble and sacred Image, the people three times crying out Mercy. It was, saith he, a wonderful thing at one time to see our B. Sa∣viour (in this Image) and the Reliques of the Apostle; and the Pope and Cardinals and Clergy kneeling and praying with their heads uncovered, viz. to this Image of Veronica? Gretser saith,* 1.573 That in some Missals there was a Missa de Veronica, with an Indulgence granted by Innocent 4. to those who said that Mass, or but the Col∣lect there mentioned; after which follows the Sequence, viz. Salve sancta facies, &c. full of devout affections, saith Gretser; which Bollandus supposes to be the Psalm made by Innocent 3. for the honour of the Veronica,* 1.574 of which Matth. Paris speaks. But we are not to imagine the Veronica to

be only thus worshipped at Rome; for the very same is pretended to be in Spain too, in the Cathedral Church of Iaen in Boetica, where it is likewise shewed and worshipped with mighty Reverence and a kind of Sacred horrour, saith Bollandus, twice a year. Lucius Marinaeus saith,* 1.575 There is so much Divinity in it, that no man can tell what colour it is of; and that the worship of it hath mightily en∣riched the place; to which Clement 7. and Iulius 3. granted large Indulgences, and Litanies are appointed to be used by the people at the shewing of it. There are others of them shewed, and worship∣ped in other places as both Bollandus and Gretser confess; at which they seem a lit∣tle troubled, but think to salve all by say∣ing, that the rest are copies, or that Vero∣nica's handkerchief had three foldings, and every one had a distinct Image, where∣of one was kept at Rome, another at Ie∣rusalem, and a third in Spain; but whe∣ther Originals or Copies, whether true or false, they are all worshipped, where ever they are, with mighty devotion, and mi∣racles are said to be done by them. Luci∣us Marinaeus mentions another Image of Christ which was solemnly worshipped in Spain,* 1.576 viz. one made by Nicodemus, and

was found by a Merchant in an Ark floating on the Sea; Cujus Imaginis invocato Nu∣mine, saith he, The Divinity of which Image being pray'd to, abundance of in∣firm persons were healed. And he saith of Ferdinand King of Spain, That he did most devoutly worship a certain Image of God, which he carried about with him. Ab eâ itaque quicquid & necessario & ho∣nestè petebat, facile semper assequeba∣tur; he obtained easily and alwaies, what ever he duely prayed for to the Image. Another Divine Image of Christ which hath solemn supplications made to it is that imprinted on the sacred Sindon, or Shroud at Besancon, which is shewed twice a year upon a Mountain near the City, where vast numbers of people meet to adore it; and the Devils roar at the opening of it, and the Skies of a sudden clear, although it rained before, when it is shewed, and doth such mighty wonders, that Chiffletius saith,* 1.577 Presenti Divin•• Numine semper affulget; it hath alwaies a Divine Presence with it; forty hours prayers, he saith, are often made to it, and in extraordinary necessities it is carried in procession like the Ark, (but more holy than the Ark) and in a time of general Pestilence,* 1.578 he saith, they finding no other

remedy did fly in S. Sudarii asylum & cli∣entelam, into the Sanctuary and protecti∣on of this Divine Image, and thereupon the City instituted a society and solemn procession to the honour of it every year, on the third of May, to which other Cities of Burgundy, as Dole and Salines, joyned themselves; and Gregory 13. granted an Indulgence to the Altar erected for the honour of this Image: which is called Al∣tare S Sindonis. The like might be shewed concerning other Images, but these are sufficient to my purpose, to prove the com∣mon and allowed practice of the worship of Images in the Roman Church, as to the Rites of Supplication and adoration, to be as extravagant, as ever were among the Heathens.

3. For Solemn Processions with Images, we have as great Instances as ever were among them; witness the Procession with the Image of S. Roch by the grave Fathers of the Council of Constance, Which was done, saith Baronius,* 1.579 by a decree of that Council; when upon the Plague raging there, his Image was carried through the City in solemn Pomp, upon which the Plague stayed: from this example, saith he, his Images were every where set up, and Altars, Chappels, and Temples erected to

him. Witness, The Procession at Rome by Paul 2. wherein the Pope and Cardinals went barefoot, the Image of S. Maria de Populo, and the Image of our Saviour in the Lateran being solemnly carried to gain a victory over the Turks. Cardinal Rasponi saith,* 1.580 That is thought to be the most effectual way to obtain favour and mercy of God, to carry the Image of our Saviour from the Lateran Church in a so∣lemn Procession to S. Maria Major; for then they think their prayers are most sure to be heard, when the Image of Christ stands by that of the B. Virgin, whose Authority and Favour is so great with her Son. So Stephen 3. found when he carried the Image on his own shoulders barefoot, the people following him, when he was much distressed by Aistulphus. Upon the Feast of the Assumption of the B. Virgin, the Pope and Cardinals keep the Vespers at S. Maria Major (as Rasponi de∣scribes it from Benedictus Canon of S. Pe∣ters) those being ended, the Pope returns to the Lateran; the Cardinals take from the Chappel of S. Laurence the Image of our Saviour, but first, the Pope and Car∣dinals, barefoot, make seven bowings, and then open the Image and kiss the feet of it, then this Image is carried with great

Pomp and Devotion, with Torches burn∣ing, and the People singing through those Streets of the City that have been most troubled with Serpents and Devils; for which cause Pope Sergius appointed this Procession. But it seems so great wicked∣ness was committed in this nocturnal Pro∣cession, (although Rasponi saith, That a miracle happened of not consuming the wax of the Torches,) that Pius 5. forbad this Procession. Every year in Rogation Week for three daies the Image of the B. Virgin is carried in a solemn Procession from Mount Gardia near Bononia,* 1.581 with publick suppli∣cations; because one, in a time of great Rain, when no other means would help them, Cardinal Albergati appointed such a Procession against Rain for four daies toge∣ther, after which it seems the Rain ceased. Upon Tuesday in Easter Week, Sedulius de∣scribes a most solemn Procession carrying the Image of the B. Virgin,* 1.582 at Maestricht. First, The Image is taken out of the Chap∣pel, and placed in the middle of the Church for more solemn adoration; where the People continue at their prayers all night, before the Image; at which times, he saith, the officers of the Church have given away seventeen thousand little Images of the B. Virgin with Indulgences:

where, saith he, it is a pleasant sight to behold children, Boys, Virgins, Matrons, Men, only covered with linnen or flannen shirts, and barefooted to approach, to wor∣ship, to kneel, and even to creep about the Image of the B. Virgin; and watering the very ground with their Tears: Many from the head to the knees having iron Armour next to their bodies; going upon their bare knees the whole Procession; and drawing heavy chains of Iron fastened to their Feet. The manner of which procession is thus set down, After Mass performed to the honour of the B. Virgin,* 1.583 and the chords of S. Fran∣cis are distributed among the great Per∣sons, (which they carry upon their gar∣ments that day like shoulder belts) the Procession begins; first a Crucifix is carri∣ed by one of the Friers, whom a great num∣ber follows of men, women, and Children; all barefoot, with only linnen or flanen shifts, with Torches in their hands, in the habit of penitents with great silence pray∣ing and weeping as they go. In the year 1608. there were about a thousand in this dress, among whom were not a few men who covered their Heads with Iron Head∣pieces that they might not be known. Ma∣ny women drew their Children after them that could hardly go; and others carried

them sucking at their breasts; and an old Woman that could not go, was carried in her bed. After these followed the Whippers under the peculiar care of the Ie∣suits, with their faces covered and bare∣foot. Then followed another Cross; after them the Franciscans singing to the Praise of the B. Virgin; then the chief Citizens, then the Officers of her Chappel, then the Torch bearers immediately before the sa∣cred Image, which the choicest Virgins carried on their shoulders: then followed a Company of armed men, who had vowed this service to the Virgin for several years. In that year 1608. there were 86 persons stark naked (only where nature would not allow it) that had iron armour on their bodies from head to foot; and most of them draw∣ing a heavy chain fastened to their right foot, that they might go more uneasily; their linnen drawers did shew how the blood dropt from their flesh by the pinching of the Armour; and the very way was sprinkled with blood; after these, the Ma∣gistrates of the City followed, and the Con∣suls and Senatours all bearing torches be∣fore the Host, which was carried under a silken Canopy, with a most profound Reve∣rence; then came in the last place, the Governour, the Nobility, and a vast multi∣tude

of all sorts of people; and for eight dayes together many people walked the same round out of great devotion. I do not think this Procession can be matched, by the supplications and the Pompa Circensis of old Rome; or by any of the Processions with their Idols, which Peter della Valle describes among the Heathen Indians,* 1.584 which, he confesses, to be very like those used among Christians, when the Images of Saints are carried in procession, when any Body or Fraternity go in Pilgrimage to Lo∣reto or Rome, in the Holy Year.

The Iesuits boast very much of their zeal in setting up the worship of the Images of the B. Virgin in Flanders, and especi∣ally of these solemn processions with her Images;* 1.585 particularly at Courtray for nine dayes together, wherein there have been nine thousand persons: In the year 1636. the plague raging there, a solemn suppli∣cation was appointed with a Procession of the Image through the City, with wonder∣ful devotion; and at Bruges, A. D. 1633. with an incredible number of people; and a thousand torches of Virgin wax; and the like solemnities were set up by their means at Brussels, Antwerp, Mechlin and other places. Otho Zylius a Iesuite sets down the order of the Procession,* 1.586 wherein the Image

of the B. Virgin that was before worship∣ped at Boisleduc was carried to Brussels, up∣on the shoulders of four Capucins, the Infanta Isabella following it with all the Nobility, and infinite number of people, with the highest expressions of Pomp and Devotion, and at last it was placed in the middle of a Chappel just over the Altar, where it hath solemn worship given to it, and wonderful cures are said to be wrought by it. I cannot conclude this Discourse, without giving some account of another notable Procession at Brussels of an Image of the B. Virgin, the occasion whereof was this; a new confraternity was insti∣tuted in Spain of the Slaves of the B. Vir∣gin, by one Simon Rojas;* 1.587 whose custome was to salute one another with those words, Ave Maria, instead of Your humble Ser∣vant, and this Sodality was established with large Indulgences by Paul 5. and after∣wards was begun in Bruges, A. D. 1626. having fetters as the badge of this Slavery, and new Indulgences from Urban 8.;* 1.588 for the establishing this Society it happened luckily, that an officer of the King of Spain's Fleet being sick at Dunkirk, pretended to discover a great Secret to Barth. de los Rios then Preacher to Isabella Clara Eugenia,* 1.589 viz. that he had a most admirable Image

of the B. Virgin, which had been worship∣ped for 600 years in the Cathedral Church of Aberdene, and had spoken to the last Catholick Bishop, and had miraculously esca∣ped the Hereticks hands; and was design∣ed for a present to Isabella; but he, (wretch that he was) upon a promise made by the Franciscans of his own Countrey in Spain, of praying for his Soul and his Families, had intended to have carried it thither, which he found was displeasing to the B. Virgin by his dangerous sickness; and he hoped upon this confession she would have mercy upon him; and therefore he desired him to present this Image to her Highness in the name of the Catholicks of Aberdene; which was received by her with wonderful devotion,* 1.590 and she said her prayers before it morning and evening; but this did not satisfie her, for she resolved to have this Image carried to Brussels with a solemn procession, and for that purpose obtained an Indulgence from Urban 8. for all those who should attend it; and a rich and mag∣nificent Altar was erected, over which the Image was to be placed:* 1.591 and banners were made with this inscription, In Nomine Mariae omne genu flectatur, &c. after which on May 3. the Procession was per∣formed with all imaginable Pomp, and

kept for eight dayes together:* 1.592 and yet af∣ter all this, one Maxwel, a learned Scotch∣man shewed in a Discourse presented to Isabella, that upon the best enquiry he could make, this famous Image was a meer im∣posture,* 1.593 and a trick of a crafty merchant to procure some advantage to himself by it; but the poor man was imprisoned for this discovery, and forced to make a pub∣lick Recantation: and the Worship of this Image was advanced, and a solemn sup∣plication, and procession with it observed every year; as the same Author informs us, and the Confraternity of the slaves of the B. Virgin highly promoted by it. Se∣veral other solemn processions are related by him, as of B. Maria de Remediis,* 1.594 B. Ma∣ria de Victoriâ, with the Popes Bulls for establishing the Society of slaves of the B. Virgin; but these are enough to shew, that the Roman Church in its con∣stant, and allowed practises, doth not come behind old Heathen Rome, in this part of the Worship given to Images.

CHAP. III. Of the Sense of the second Command∣ment.

HAving endeavoured, with so much care,* 1.595 to give a just and true account of the Controversie between us, as to the Worship of Images, and therein shewed from the Doctrine and Practice of the Ro∣man Church; 1. That they set up Images in Churches over Altars, purposely for worship. 2. That they consecrate those Images with solemn prayers for that pur∣pose. 3. That they use all the Rites of Worship to them which the Heathen Ido∣laters used to their Images, such as bow∣ings, prostrations, Lights, Incense, and praying. 4. That they make solemn Pro∣cessions in honour of Images, carrying them with as much Pomp and Ceremony as ever the Heathens did their Idols; The Que∣stion now is, whether these Acts of Wor∣ship towards Images were unlawful only to Heathens and Iews; but are become

lawful to Christians? But if these Acts of Worship be now equally unlawful to us, as to them, then Christians performing them, are liable to the same charge that the Iews and Heathens were; and if the Scripture calls that Idolatry in them, it must be so in Christians too, as much as Murder, or Theft, or Adultery is the same in all, for the words of the Law of God makes no more difference as to one, than as to the other. We are therefore to enquire on what account the Sense of this Law is supposed to be consistent with the practice of the same things among Christians, which were utterly forbidden by it to Iews and Heathens: The words of the Law are these,

Thou shalt not make to thy self any Graven Image, nor the Likeness of any Thing which is in Heaven above, or in the Earth beneath, or in the Waters under the Earth; Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them; for I the Lord thy God am a Iealous God, &c.

My Adversary T. G. denies, that God herein did forbid himself to be worshipped by a Crucifix, or such like sacred Image;

and he asserts, that the design of the Law is only to forbid the Worship of Idols. The first part,* 1.596 he saith, toucheth not the wor∣ship of Images, nor of God himself by them, but only the making them; the second for∣bids indeed in express terms to bow our selves down to the Images themselves, but speaks not one word of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of worshipping God himself by them. To bow our selves down to the Images themselves, without any relation to God, is by the concession of all to worship them instead of God; The Iews we know did worship God by bowing down before the Ark and the Cherubims, and yet they did not worship them instead of God; therefore,* 1.597 he asserts, that by Image an Idol is to be understood, and that by Idol such an Image as is made to represent for wor∣ship a figment that hath no real Being; and by similitude, an Image or resemblance of some real thing, but falsely imagined to be a God. This is the sense which T. G. gives of the second Commandment. But if I can make it appear,

1. That there is no reason to take the word he translates Idol here, for the representa∣tion of a meer figment set up for worship, and that if it were so taken, it would not excuse them.

2. That the worship of God before the Ark and the Cherubims was of a different nature from the Worship of Images here forbidden, and that the sense of the Law doth exclude all worship of Images; then this interpretation of T. G. will appear to be very false and groundless.

1. That there is no reason to understand,* 1.598 what we render Image, of such an Idol as represents a meer figment set up for worship. If there were any colour of Reason for such an acception of the word Idol here, it must either be, 1. From the natural importance of the word; or, 2. From the use of it in Scripture; or 3. From the consent of the Fathers, or 4. From some Definition of the Church. But I shall shew that there is no ground for affixing this sense to the Commandment from any one of these.

1. Not from the natural importance of the word. He that reads such an ex∣press prohibition in a divine Law, of some∣thing so displeasing to God, that he annexes a very severe sanction to it, had need be very well satisfied about the sense he gives to the words of it, lest he incurr the wrath of God, and be found a perverter of his Law. If a man should reject all humane

Authority, because the First Command∣ment saith, Thou shalt have no other Elo∣him besides me; but in Scripture, Magi∣strates and Iudges are called Elohim, there∣fore it is unlawful to own any civil Magi∣strates; he would have much more to say than T. G. and his Brethren have in re∣straining the sense of the Law about Images to such Idols as are only represen∣tations of Imaginary Beings. For the Ori∣ginal word hath no manner of tendency that way, it signifying any thing that is carved or cut out of wood or stone; and as I told T. G. before,

it is no less than forty several times rendred by the LXX. by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and but thrice by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and which is very observable, although Exod. 20.4. they render it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, yet in the repetition of the Law, Deut. 5.8. the Alexandrian MS. hath it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and Deut. 4.16. in some copies of the LXX. the same word is translated 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and Isaiah 40.18. they translate it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is properly an Image, and the Vulgar Latin it self useth Idolum, Sculptile, and Imago (Isa. 44.9, 10, 13.) all to express the same thing.

To this T. G. replyes,* 1.599 that the LXX. generally translating it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, had some particular reason to render it Idol here; and because

this is a word of stricter signification, it ought to regulate the larger; and in the other places, he saith, there is still some term or clause restraining the words to such a graven thing or Image, as is made to be compared with God or to be the ob∣ject of divine worship, that is, to be an Idol. Then it seems a graven Image when it is made the object of Divine worship becomes an Idol in T. G's sense; and yet an Idol in the Commandment is the representation of a meer Figment; but might not that be the sense of an Idol in this place, which he grants is meant in another? where the words are express concerning the represen∣tation of God, as in Isaiah 40.18. And if he allows this to be the meaning of an Idol in the Commandment, I will grant that the LXX had a particular reason to ren∣der Pesel by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here. For Aquinas well observes,* 1.600 that this Commandment doth not forbid the making any sculpture or si∣militude, sed facere adorandam, to make it for worship; because it follows, thou shalt not fall down to them and worship them. And Montanus expresses the sense of the Commandment after this manner;* 1.601 simula∣thrum divinum nullo pacto conflato. Signa cultûs causa ne facito; and Nicolaus Fa∣ber

(both learned men of the Roman Church.)

* 1.602Sculptilibus nè flecte genu, pictaeve ta∣bellae.

and again,

Non pictum sculptúmve puta venerabile quidquam.

If this be T. G's sense of an Idol, I freely yield to him that the LXX. had very good reason so to render Pesel in this place, where it is supposed to be an object of di∣vine worship. But how can this agree with what T. G. saith, that the Law speaks not one word of the unlawfulness of wor∣shipping God himself by an Image? For doth not the Law condemn the worship of an Idol? And doth not T. G. say, that an Image when it is made an object of Divine worship becomes an Idol? And doth it not then follow that the Law in express terms doth condemn the Worship of God by such an Image? Nay, is it not the self∣same T. G. that saith,* 1.603 that the making such Images as are conceived to be proper Likenesses or representations of the Divi∣nity,

is against the Nature and unalterable Law of God? But what Law of God is there that doth forbid such Images, if it be not this? And if this Law doth for∣bid such Images, then the signification of an Idol is not here to be taken for the re∣presentation of a Figment, but of the great∣est and most real Being in the World. Have not I now far better reason to return his own words upon him,* 1.604 such frequent self contradictions are the natural conse∣quences of a Discourse not grounded upon Truth; and although the Reader may think I take delight to discover them in my Ad∣versary, yet I can assure him it is a much greater grief to me to see so subtle a Wit so often intangled in them? But it may be T. G. thinks to escape by saying, that when he saith an Image being made the ob∣ject of divine worship is an Idol, he doth not understand it of an Image of God, but when the Image it self is taken for God; which evasion can do him no service; for, 1. He grants that Images which are made for Likenesses of God are condemn∣ed by the Law of God, and that they are an infinite disparagement to the Divine Nature. 2. I have at large shewed that in the Roman Church, Images of God and Christ are made the objects of Divine wor∣ship.

And 3. That the very Heathens did not take the Images themselves for Gods.* 1.605 4. The place he answers, Isa. 40.18. doth imply that the Images of the Divinity are therefore condemned, be∣cause nothing can be made like unto God. But of that afterwards.

Let us then suppose that the LXX. had particular reason to render Pesel by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Commandment,* 1.606 yet what is this, to the representation of a meer figment for worship? Doth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 so properly, so na∣turally, so necessarily signifie a figment, that it cannot be taken in any other sense? I see T. G. makes only use of good Catholick Lexicons (such a one as that called Catho∣licon which Erasmus is so pleasant with) that assure him what the sense of a word must be in spight of all use of it by prophane and heretical Authors: thus simulachrum must signifie only Heathen Images, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Sphinx, a Triton, or Centaure; and why so? did it alwaies signifie so? did all Greek Authors use it only in that sense? Doth the Etymology of it imply it? no, none of all these: what then is the reason that a word should be so restrained against the former and common acception of it? The reason is very plain; for if it

be taken for the representation of real Be∣ings, then for all that we know, the Image of the Trinity, or of the B. Virgin, or of any other worshipped in the Roman Church may prove Idols; and therefore this must be the sense, because the Church of Rome cannot be guilty of Idolatry. This is the real Truth of the case, but it is too great Truth to be owned. Only Bellarmin (who often speaks freelier than the rest) confesses,* 1.607 their design herein is to shew that the Images worshipped in the Church of Rome cannot be Idols, because they are representations of real Beings. A very miserable shift! as will appear by the examination of it. Let us therefore see whether there be any pretence from the use and importance of the Word, for re∣straining the sense of an Idol, to an imagi∣nary representation. And I am so far from T. G's opinion, that by the best en∣quiry I can make, the proper signification of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is, a representation of something that really is. So Hesychius interprets it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and the old Greek and Latin Glossaries render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and si∣mulachrum by each other (and notwith∣standing T. G's severity against me for translating simulachra Images, I can make it appear from some of the most

authentick Writers of the Roman Church, that they do not scruple calling such Images as they worship simulacra, I leave T. G. then to judge whether they be not Idols too) Isidore makes Idolum to be properly Simulachrum quod humana effigie factum & consecratum est: an Image made and consecrated in the figure of a man: as Plutarch calls the Image of Sylla 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉;* 1.608 and Porphyrie in the beginning of the Life of Plotinus, when Amelius desired a Pi∣cture of him, he answered, Is it not enough to carry such an Idolum about me, but I must leave 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an Image of an Image? So we find Idolum used in the Chaldaick Oracles,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

where Psellus observes,* 1.609 That according to the Platonists, the mind is said to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Image of God; and the ratio∣nal soul, the Image of the mind, and the irrational, the Image of the rational; and nature of the irrational soul; and the body of the Image of Nature; and Mat∣ter of the Body. But Isidore applying Ido∣lum to an Ecclesiastical sense, supposeth not only representation, but consecration to be necessary to it; wherein he follows

Tertullian,* 1.610 who speaking of the created Beings that were worshipped, saith, Eorum Imagines Idola; imaginum consecratio Ido∣lolatria: Their Images were Idols, and the consecration of them is Idolatry: and a lit∣tle before, he saith, That all service of an Idol is Idolatry,* 1.611 and every representa∣tion is an Idol; Omnis forma vel formu∣la Idolum se dici exposcit; For, saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which signifies a form or representation of a thing. Or as the Greek Etymologist thinks it comes imme∣diately from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to resemble. Among the Philosophers it was taken for the Image of things conveyed to our sight, so Dio∣genes Laertius saith, That Democritus held Vision to be performed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the incursion of Images; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 saith Plutarch;* 1.612 Empedo∣cles saith he, joyned raies to the Images, (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉:) and Democritus and Epicurus said that reflection in a glass was performed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the subsistence of the Images. Cicero, Lucretius, and S. Au∣gustin render these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by Imagines; Catius the Epicurean called them Spectra; Macrobius Simulacra;* 1.613 but all of them understood the most proper representations of things to our sight; which Epicurus was so far from thinking that they repre∣sented

things that were not, that he made them infallible criteria of the truth of things. The Poets, and some other Au∣thors made use of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to signifie Spe∣ctres and Apparitions; but still they sup∣posed these to be the representations of some real Beings; So Homer calls the soul of Elpenor that appeared to Ulysses 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉;* 1.614 but Eustathius there observes, That these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were exactly like the Persons they represented as to Age, Stature, Habit, and every thing: and so Homer himself ex∣presses it, saying that Apollo made an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a representation of Aeneas,

* 1.615〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

So in another place speaking of Minerva's making a representation of Iphthima,

* 1.616〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

By which we see that the very Poetical use of the word, for a Spectre, doth im∣ply an exact resemblance to some real Being which it represents: from whence then hath this signification of an Idol come into the Roman Church, that it must signi∣fie a representation of something that is not? but from whenceoever it comes,

we are sure it is neither from the natural importance, nor the use of the word among Greek Authors.

2. Not from the use of it in Scripture.* 1.617 The Author of the Book of wisdom gives this account of the beginning of the wor∣ship of Idols,* 1.618 viz. That Fathers having lost their Children, made Images of them, and appointed solemnities to be kept be∣fore them, as if they were Gods; then by de∣grees, Princes passed these things into Laws, and made men to worship graven Images: and thus either out of affection or flat∣tery the worship of Idols began: where it is observable, that he makes the represen∣tation of Persons, that were really in Be∣ing, to have been the first Idols: and he distinguishes the bringing in of Idols from the worship of the Elements,* 1.619 or heavenly bodies; and he thinks these much more ex∣cusable than those who worship the Work of mens hands; the folly of which he there elegantly describes; but he still supposes these Idols to have the resemblance either of man or some living creature.* 1.620 To the same purpose Diophantus the Lacedemoni∣an in Fulgentius,* 1.621 saith, That Syrophanes the Egyptian, being greatly afflicted for the loss of his son made an Image of him,

and all his servants to please him did what they could to adorn this Image, and some when they had offended ran to it as a Sanctuary; from hence, saith he, came the worship of Idols. And Eutychius gives the like account of the Original of Idols,* 1.622 That when a great man was dead, they set up his Image on his Sepulchre; from whence the World was filled with Idols, i.e. with Images of Men, Women, and Children: this he thinks began among the Chaldeans and Egyptians; but Herodotus saies the Egyptians were the first who made Images of their Gods:* 1.623 Lucian,* 1.624 that they borrowed this custom from the Assyrians. Epipha∣nius makes the beginning of Idolatry to be in the time of Seruch;* 1.625 but he saith, that it went no farther than to Pictures in his time; and came to Images and Statues in the time of Nahor. Cedrenus saith,* 1.626 That Seruch and his Companions made Statues for the honour of those who had done any famous action; which their posterity mis∣understanding, worshipped them as Gods. Thus far we find that the first Idols that are supposed to have been in the world, were the representations of things that had real Beings. The only people that could be suspected to be meant in Scrip∣ture as those who had such Idols as were

representations of what had no real Be∣ings, must be the Phoenicians and Egyp∣tians: who besides the worship of Beasts, and the Images of them, had many extra∣vagant Images. Sanchoniathon saith, Ta∣autus made the Images in Phoenicia with Wings, Saturn with four,* 1.627 and the rest of the Gods with two. And Dagon, and Atergatis or Derceto, is supposed to be an Image, whereof the upper part is of hu∣mane shape, and the lower of a Fish; among the Egyptians, one of their Images had the face of a Ram, and another of a Dog, &c. If these be the Idols T.G. thinks are prohibited in the Second Command∣ment, I desire him to consider, 1. Whe∣ther the Images of humane shape were not prohibited by the Law equally with these? or whether it were lawful to worship such Images as did represent real beings in that manner, that it was unlawful to worship those Images that were only Chimaera's and fancies of mens brains? If not, this di∣stinction serves to no purpose at all. To make this more plain, I ask T. G. whether it were unlawful to worship God among the Egyptians under the representation of an Image with the body of a man, and the Head of a Hawk, which was a repre∣sentation of something that had no real

Being just like it; but it was lawful to worship Him with the Image of a man, as Eusebius saith,* 1.628 that Oneph or the Creator of the world was worshipped under such a representation among them? It is certain, that both these sorts of Images were among the Egyptians, and according to T. G.'s no∣tion, one of these was an Idol, and the other not. But is it possible for men of common understandings, to suppose that God by the words of the Law hath forbid∣den the one, and not the other; when both were intended to represent the same Being? But according to this sense, the Inhabitants of Thebais, of whom Plutarch saith,* 1.629 That they only worshipped Oneph the immortal God, or the Creator under the Image of a man, were altogether as innocent, as those in the Roman Church, who worship God under a like representa∣tion. And can it enter into T. G.'s head, that God should, notwithstanding all the words of this Commandment, allow such a kind of worship of Images as was received among the Egyptians? But if this were condemned in them, then if the Second Commandment be in force, the like wor∣ship must be condemned in the Church of Rome. 2. That there is a distinction to be made between such Images as have no

real resemblance in nature, and such Images which represent that which hath no real Being; for although the Phoenician and Egyptian Images had nothing in nature which answered to their figure, yet there might be something which answered their representation, i. e. they were only Sym∣bolical Images, and the Nature of those Symbols being understood, there was no difference as to matter of worship between these and other Images. As for instance, a Sphinx is one of those Images which T. G. would have to be understood for an Idol in the Second Commandment; sup∣posing then that I allow him (as a Sphinx was painted among the Egyptians with wings, and the face a man, and the body of a Lion) that it was the representation of something that had no real Being agree∣able to it; yet Clemens Alexandrinus saith,* 1.630 That their design was to represent hereby that God was both to be loved and feared; now this Image did Symbolically represent a real object of worship; and therefore could be no Idol even in T. G.'s sense. So Kircher saith,* 1.631 one of the chief and most common Images of the Egyptians was a winged Globe with a Serpent passing through the middle of it; by the Globe, saith he, they represented the Divine na∣ture,

by the Serpent, the spreading of life, and by the wings, the Spirit of the World. Here is an Image that hath no real Being correspondent to it, and yet it represents the infinite nature, and power, and goodness of God: Sometimes, saith he, they represented Providence by a Scepter with a Dogs head within a Semicircle; by which, and innumerable other waies they represented the hidden Mysteries of the Divine Being: and they thought this Sym∣bolical way most pleasing to God; and was certainly farthest from that danger which T. G. thinks to be most considerable in Images, viz. making men Anthropomor∣phites. To avoid which, the Egyptians generally mixed the figures of men and beasts together, not so much to shew the communion of nature, as Porphyrie ima∣gines,* 1.632 as that these were meer Symbolical Images, and not intended for any proper Likenesses, and therefore according to T. G.'s principles, those which he calls Idols, were more innocent, than those which he calls Images; for the one might bring men to erroneous conceits of the Dei∣ty; but the other being Symbolical were not apt to do it. Plutarch saith,* 1.633 That when they represented Mercury by the Image of a man, with the head of a Dog,

they only intended thereby to represent Care, Watchfulness, and Wisdom: and that they represented Osiris by a Scepter with an eye in it, by a Hawk, and by the figure of a man; now by Osiris,* 1.634 he tells us, They meant the most powerful God, and so doth Apuleius; and Tacitus saith,* 1.635 The same God which was called Jove among others, was called Osiris by them. These Images, and many other of very strange shapes, with a mixture of very different forms, are supposed, in the Mensa Isiaca, and the Egyptian Obelisks, to re∣present the most true and perfect Being in regard of his nature and production of things;* 1.636 as Athanas. Kircher hath endea∣voured at large to shew. If therefore the Egyptians did make such Symbolical figures with respect to the most real Being; and yet these Images were Idols properly so cal∣led: then it follows, that some representa∣tions of the true God are Idols, and con∣demned in the Second Commandment.

3. The Scripture uses the word Idol for the representation of all sorts of things which are made the objects of worship. Thus in the first place the LXX. makes use of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it is taken for the Teraphim of Laban, Gen. 31.19, 34, 35. which are supposed to be of humane shape;

not only from the general opinion of Jew∣ish Writers; but because of the mistake of the Teraphim for David, 1 Sam. 19.13. The Images of Baal are called Idols, 2 Chron. 17.3. Jer. 9 13. and what the LXX. render, 2 Kings 11.18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Images of Baal; in the parallel place, 2 Chron. 23.17. they express by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Idols of Baal. Whether by Baal be understood the Assyrian Belus, or the Phoenician Beel Samen, i. e. whether a re∣presentation of a man, or of the Sun, we are sure this was an Image of a real Being, and yet the LXX. call it an Idol. Idols are joyned with Molten Gods by the LXX. Levit. 19.4. i. e. what ever Images are set up for Divine worship: And all the Gods of the Heathen are said to be Idols, 1 Chron. 16.26. but they were not all meer figments of mens brains, being ei∣ther dead men that were worshipped (as S. Hierome saith,* 1.637 by the Idols of the Hea∣thens we understand imagines Mortuorum the representations of dead men) or the works of the Creation, especially the hea∣venly bodies, which was the most early and the most common Idolatry of the Ea∣stern parts, and most frequently condem∣ned in Scripture.

If it be said, That although they had real Beings, yet their Deities were fictiti∣ous, I answer, 1. That is not to the purpose; for the question is, whether the proper signification of an Idol be the re∣presentation of meer imaginary Beings, Sphinxes, Tritons, Centaures? but what a ridiculous answer is this to that question, to say that although their being real, yet their Deity is fictitious? for this is to grant, that Idols are not representations of imagi∣nary Beings, but of imaginary Deities: which I readily grant. 2. This will equal∣ly hold against all representations of crea∣ted Beings that have divine worship given to them; for by giving them any part of divine worship they are so far made Gods; but since they are not truly so, they are still but the representations of imaginary Dei∣ties, although they be of real Saints, or Angels. In which sense the Scripture calls them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nothings, and vanities, and S. Paul saith, That an Idol is nothing in the world; not because it represented that which was not; but be∣cause neither the Image nor the thing re∣presented were any real Deity.

4. The far greatest part of the Idols ex∣pressly mentioned in Scripture were the representations of real Beings: not only

that the things had Subsistence which were represented by them, but that the very Images were of some creatures ex∣isting in the world. Lyra saith,* 1.638 That Moloch was in the fashion of a man; and so Benjamin Tudelensis supposes,* 1.639 when he saith, That two femal Images stood of either side of him. Kircher shews,* 1.640 from Baal Aruch, that Asima was worshipped in the form of a Goat: and from other Jewish Authors, That Nibcas had the figure of a Dog, Thartak of an Ass, Adramelech of a Mule, and Anamelech of a Horse; Bel and Nebo of Serpents and Beasts; Succoth Benoth of a Hen and Chickens; Astaroth of Sheep. Will T. G. say that these were not Idols, be∣cause they were Images of real Beings? If he doth, he must excuse the grossest Idolatry condemned in Scripture; if he doth not, he must then confess, that this is not the notion of an Idol in the sense of Scripture, viz. a representation of what hath no existence, but in the imagination, as Sphinxes, Tritons, Cen∣taures, and the like.

3. But T. G. would have us believe, that this is the sense of the Fathers;* 1.641 for he quotes Origen and Theodoret for this

interpretation of the second Command∣ment. It is well known that Origen had a great many of T. G.'s Idols in his head, viz. imaginations of things that were not; and therefore it is ill fixing upon an inter∣pretation of Scripture of which he was the first Author. But I have proved at large from the unanimous consent of the Fathers in charging the Arians with Ido∣latry, and the Gnosticks in worshipping the Images of Christ with divine honours, that this could not be their sense. For if this were the notion of an Idol, to represent what hath no existence, neither the Ari∣ans nor the Gnosticks could be accused of worshipping an Idol; but the Fathers do in express terms call Christ an Idol, if he had divine worship given him, and yet were not God. And it is farther observa∣ble, (1.) That the second Council of Nice confesses,* 1.642 that the Arrians were justly con∣demned for Idolatry, not only by one or two Fathers, but by the Catholick Church; from whence it is evident, that the Catho∣lick Church did declare that T. G.'s sense of an Idol is false. (2.) That when the Fa∣thers repeat the second Commandment, in∣stead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, they use other words, which they would never have done, if they had thought there had been any peculiar im∣portance

of the word Idol in that place different from Image. Iustin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho the Iew,* 1.643 repeats the words of the Law thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Thou shalt not make any Image or similitude. Clemens Alex.* 1.644 makes the thing forbidden to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to worship graven Images; and the thing required to be, not to make 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, either a graven or a molten Image. And even Origen himself, layes so little weight on his observation about 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that when he gives an account of this Law in his Books against Celsus,* 1.645 he never mentions it, but useth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and saith, the meaning of the Law was to forbid any kind of Images. Ter∣tullian saith, that God hereby did forbid all kind of similitude, quanto magis Imaginis suae, how much more any Image of himself: and elsewhere he makes an Idol and an Image the same thing;* 1.646 and in another place, that God did prohibit all similitudes to prevent any occasion of Idolatry; for, he adds, thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them.* 1.647 Therefore, saith he, the brazen Serpent was not against the Law, being not for worship, but for a Re∣medy; nor the Cherubim, being meerly Ornaments, and therefore not falling un∣der

the Reason of the Law, and afterwards he reckons up the several terms of the Law, by Images, Statues and Similitudes.* 1.648 S. Cyprian interprets the meaning of the word Idols in the Commandment,* 1.649 when he saith, they are such as the Psalmist speaks of, that have mouths and speak not, &c. which is certainly meant of Images of humane shape; and in another place, he saith, the Heathen Idols were made,* 1.650 ad de∣functorum vultus per imaginem detinendos: to preserve the countenances of the dead by Images: which are almost the same words with those of Minucius Felix speaking of the same subject,* 1.651 while they desired, saith he, defunctos Reges in imaginibus videre, to see their Princes Images and to retain their memories in their Statues, that which at first was intended for their comfort, be∣came an object of worship. So Lactantius saith,* 1.652 that their Simulachra, their Idols, in T. G's sense, were either the monuments of the dead, or of the absent; and he makes the sense of the Law to be nihil colendum esse quod oculis mortalibus cerni∣tur, nothing to be worshipped that can be seen. S. Augustin giving the sense of this commandment saith,* 1.653 that therein any si∣militude of God is forbidden to be wor∣shipped; and therefore surely not the meer

figments of mens brains, or representati∣ons of Sphinxes, and Tritons, and Cen∣taurs.

(3.) That those very persons who put that sense upon the word Idol, do yet make the sense of the Commandment to be against the practice of the Roman Church. For both Origen and Theodoret make it unlaw∣ful by the force of this commandment,* 1.654 to perform any external act of worship to∣wards any representation whatsoever: and the difference they both put between worship and service is,* 1.655 that the latter is that of the mind, and the former of the body; but both, they say, are here forbidden; and therefore I cannot imagine what com∣fort T. G. can have in supposing their Images are not forbidden under the name of Idols, if they be forbidden under the name of similitudes, and it be as un∣lawful to worship them under one name as under the other? Our quarrel is not with them, meerly on the account of the word Idolatry; but it is on the account of their worships being contrary to the express Law of God; and whether it be forbidden under the name of Idol, or simi∣litude, it is all one to us, as long as the worship they practise, is as plainly against the sense of this Commandment, as Perjury,

Adultery, or Theft is against the other Commandments: and that even in the opinion of Origen and Theodoret them∣selves. Besides, if we look into the sense of these two Authors, we shall find their meaning was not, as T. G. imagines, to make those only Idols that were made to represent fictions of the brain; but to shew that God had forbidden all sorts of Images, Symbolical as well as others. For, saith Origen, Moses being skilled in all the Wisdom of the Aegyptians; did forbid those things which are used in their secret and hidden Mysteries; i. e. their Sym∣bolical and Hieroglyphical representations: and Theodoret particularly mentions the Aegyptian Images, with the face of a Dog, and the Head of an Ox; whereby it is plain that they thought Moses by this Law intended to forbid all manner of re∣presentations of things in order to wor∣ship, whether it were by Hieroglyphicks, or by proper similitudes. So that, nei∣ther Origen, nor Theodoret by this inter∣pretation do give the least countenance to the practice of the Roman Church.

4. I shall in the last place shew,* 1.656 that this interpretation of the term Idol is over∣thrown by the most learned persons of

the Roman Church; who do confess that the Images of real Beings may become Idols. And that in these following cases, 1. When proper Latria is given to an Image; that is truly Idolatry, saith Bel∣larmin,* 1.657 when proper Latria is given to any thing besides God; and it is not only Idola∣try when an Idol is worshipped without God, but when an Idol is worshipped toge∣ther with God; and from hence he con∣cludes, that no Image ought to be worship∣ped with proper Latria; which conclusi∣on cannot be of any force, unless such an Image becomes an Idol: but he goes far∣ther, and saith, that those who worshipped an Image of Christ with divine honours, although it be for the sake of Christ, and not of the Image, did commit Idolatry; for, saith he, although a man pretends to give these honours for the sake of God or Christ, yet in as much as he gives divine honours to them, he doth really give it for themselves, although he denies it in words, (which is a very fair confession) and from hence those were condemned as hereticks, who gave divine worship to the Image of Christ; as appears by Irenaeus, Epipha∣nius, S. Augustin, and Damascen. Ac∣cording to which concession, the dispute cannot any longer be, whether the Images

of Christ or the Saints be Idols or no, if we can prove that divine honours are given to them by the doctrine and practice of the Roman Church. And even T. G. himself saith,* 1.658 Is not the giving Divine Worship to a Creature the same as to make it a false God? And is it not Heathen Idolatry to worship a false God? From whence it fol∣lows, that it is the Worship makes any thing an Idol, and not the representation of an Imaginary Being. 2. When Images are worshipped as true representations of the Divine Nature. So Sanders expresly;* 1.659 He that goes about to represent the invisi∣ble Nature of God by an Image, sins grie∣vously and makes an Idol; and he that pro∣poses such an Image for worship commits Idolatry: but such an Image is no repre∣sentation of a meer figment of mens brains; but a vain endeavour to set forth the most perfect Being. If he had only said it had been a foolish and vain attempt, he had on∣ly expressed the impossibility of the thing; but when he makes such an Image an Idol when it is proposed for worship, he doth imply, that an imperfect representation of an infinite Nature when it is worshipped becomes an Idol. This is not to be avoid∣ed by saying, that such an Image is a false representation: for it is no otherwise

false than every Image of a man is so; for no Image can represent the invisible Nature of a Man. And it adds much force to this, that the Author of the Greek Excerpta about the use of Images,* 1.660 from the Nicene Council and the Writers of that time, saith, that the design of the se∣cond Commandment is against making any Images of God; which he looks on not only as an absurd but a very wicked pra∣ctice; and which, he saith, was then com∣mon among the Aegyptians. 3. When an Image is worshipped for the sake of any sanctity, vertue, or Divinity abiding in it. Whosoever doth so, saith Iacobus Almain,* 1.661 is an Idolater; and so much is implyed in the Council of Trent it self; when it declares, that no worship is to be given to an Image on any such account; if so, then the doing it is a thing forbidden and unlawful; and not only so, but they looked on this as the certain way of putting a difference between Idolatry and their worship; but men may suppose sanctity, vertue, and Divinity to be in an Image of a real Being; and there∣fore such an Image may be properly an Idol: and so Vasquez confesses that this is Idolatry to give worship,* 1.662 although it be inferiour, to any inanimate being (as an Image is) for the sake of any thing belong∣ing

to it, or inherent in it. Thus I have shewed that there is no pretence to excuse the worship of Images from being Idolatry and a breach of the second Commandment, because an Idol is only a representation, of only imaginary beings, as T. G. saith, such as Sphinxes, Tritons, Centaurs or the like.

2. I now come to shew more particu∣larly what the sense of the Law is,* 1.663 by considering what T. G. saith in answer to what I had formerly said about it: the original Question between us, was, whe∣ther God by this Law hath forbidden the giving any worship to himself by an Image? No, saith T. G. he hath not; but what he forbids there is only giving his worship to Idols. To resolve this Question, being about the sense of a Law, I proposed three wayes. 1. From the Terms in which the Law is expressed. 2. From the Rea∣son annexed to it. 3. From the judge∣ment of the Law-giver himself. But be∣fore T. G. comes to the handling of these,* 1.664 he lays down some arguments of his own to shew, that God did not intend by this Law, to forbid the worshipping of himself by an Image, but only the worship of Idols. 1. Because the Iews did worship God by bowing down before the Ark and the Che∣rubim.

2. Because S. Austin makes this Commandment to be only an explication of the first. To these I shall give a distinct answer.

1. T. G. on all occasions,* 1.665 lays great weight on the worshipping of God before the Ark and the Cherubims: which he makes to be the parallel of their worshipping God by bowing or kneeling before a Crucifix; to which instance I had given this Answer,

1. That the Iews only directed their worship towards the place where God had promised to be signally present among them; which signifies no more to the worship of Images, than our lifting our eyes to heaven doth when we pray; be∣cause God is more especially present there. 2. That though the Cherubims were there, yet they were alwayes hid from the sight of the people, the High-Priest himself going into the Holy of Ho∣lies but once a year; and that the Che∣rubims were no representations of God, but his Throne was between them on the Mercy Seat; but that they were Hiero∣glyphical Figures of Gods own appoint∣ing, which the Iews know no more than we do: which are plain arguments they were never intended for objects of wor∣ship, for then they must not have

been meer appendices to another thing, but would have been publickly exposed as the Images are in the Roman Churches, and their form as well known as any of the B. Virgin.

But T. G. still insists upon it,* 1.666 that the Reverence which the Iews shewed to the Ark and Cherubims, was of the same nature with the worship they give to Images; and he thinks, I have not an∣swered the argument he brought for it. Therefore to give him all reasonable satis∣faction, I shall 1. Compare their worship of Images and these together. 2. Exa∣mine all the colour of argument he pro∣duces for the worship of these among the Iews.

1. For comparing their worship of Ima∣ges, with the Iews worshipping God be∣fore the Ark and the Cherubims. As to their worship of Images, I need only re∣peat; 1. That they are publickly set up and exposed for worship in their Churches, and over their Altars. 2. That they are consecrated for this end. 3. That the people in their devotions bow to them, kneel and pray before them with all expressions of Reverence. 4. That the Councils of Nice and Trent have decreed that worship is to be given to them on the account of their representation; because the honour

given to them passes to the exemplar 5. That the Images themselves on the ac∣count of their representation are a proper object of inferiour worship, and that con∣sidered together with the exemplar they make up one entire object of supreme wor∣ship; in these their Divines generally agree, and condemn the opinion of those who say, That they are only to worship the exemplar before the Image; as contrary to the Decrees of Councils. But if the Ark and Cherubims were neither set up, nor exposed, nor consecrated as objects of worship; if the People of the Iews never thought them to be so, nor worshipped them as such; if the utmost were only that, which the Divines of the Roman Church condemn, viz. making them only a circumstance and not an object of wor∣ship, then I hope the difference will ap∣pear so great that T. G. himself may be ashamed of insisting so much on so weak a parallel.

* 1.667In external Acts of worship these two things are to be distinguished, (1.) The Object of worship, or the thing to which that worship is given. (2.) The local circumstance of expressing that worship to∣wards that object. That there is a real

difference between the object and local cir∣cumstance of worship, by our lifting up our hands and eyes towards heaven when we worship God; but no man that under∣stands our Religion can say, that we wor∣ship the heavens, but only God as present in them; wherefore God is the object, and looking up to heaven, barely the circum∣stance. When we praise any person for some excellency in him, if he be present, we naturally turn our face towards him, to let others by that circumstance under∣stand, of whom we speak; but which way soever we looked, the same person would be the object of our praise; when we do this at anothers mentioning his name, no man of common understanding will say, that the praise is directed to the very name of the Person; and if a man makes a Panegyrick upon another, and reads it out of a Book, no one suspects that his praise is therefore directed to his Book. Thus it is in the acts of worship, the Object is that Being to which the worship is dire∣cted; but because external Acts must have some local circumstances, by the position of our countenances, and the tendency of our posture either towards Heaven, or to∣wards some place as the more immediate Symbol of a divine presence, the diffe∣rence

is apparent between such a direction of the act towards a place, and the dire∣ction of it towards an Object, in case it can be made appear that may be a place of worship, which is not an object of it. For which we must consider, (1.) That the object of worship is that to which the worship is given either for its own sake, or for the sake of that which it represents; but a local circumstance doth only circum∣scribe the material act of worship within certain bounds. And the proper object of worship is a Person, either really present, or represented as present. The Idolaters who worshipped their Images as Gods (if at least any considerable number of them ever did so) it was upon this account, that they supposed some Spirit to be incor∣porated in the Image, and so to make to∣gether with it a Person fit to receive wor∣ship. Those who worshipped the Elements, or heavenly bodies, did it not on the ac∣count of the matter whereof they were made; but of those spirits which they be∣lieved to rule over those things they wor∣shipped, as I have already shewed in the general discourse. But it is not necessary in order to an object of worship, that the Person be really present; for if men by imagination do suppose him present as re∣presented

by an Image, that makes those who worship that Image perform the very same acts, as if he were actually present; and in the Church of Rome they do make this representation by an Image, a suffici∣ent ground for making that an object of worship; which we say is the very thing forbidden in the Second Commandment, viz. that any Image should be worshipped on the account of what it represents; and therefore it forbids all kind of representa∣tions to be worshipped by men: because an Image seems to have such a relation to the thing it represents, that they may pretend they give worship to it on another account than meerly its matter and form, viz. the thing represented by it. Thus when the Rea∣son of the worship of Images is drawn from the exemplar, as it is both in the Councils of Nice and Trent, they thereby shew, that they do make the Image a true object of worship, although the reason of it be drawn from the Person represented. But suppose men worship God towards the West, as the Iews did, or towards the East, as the Christians did; what is there in this that doth represent God to us? what is there that we fix our worship upon, but only himself; God hath no where forbid∣den men to worship Him towards the place

of His presence; for even our Saviour hath bid us pray, Our Father which art in Heaven; and supposing God had promised a more peculiar presence in His Holy Tem∣ple, it was as lawful to worship God to∣wards that, as towards Heaven; but that which God hath strictly forbidden, is the worshipping of any thing on the ac∣count of the representation either of him∣self, or of His creatures; for this doth suppose that Image to be made the object of worship, although it be on the account of what it represents. 2. Supposing the same external acts to be performed towards an Image, and towards a place of Gods particular presence; yet the case is not alike in both these, if those who do them, declare they do them not with a design to worship that place. For to the making any thing an object of worship, there must be some ground to believe that they intend to worship it, either from the nature of their actions, or the doctrine and practice of the Church they live in; but in case it be expressly declared, that what they do, is only intended as a local circumstance, there is no ground to charge them with making it an object of worship. Thus those in the Church of Rome, who declare that they do not worship the Image, but

only worship God before an Image, al∣though they perform the same external acts of worship, yet are condemed of He∣resie, because hereby they declare they do not give worship to Images, which is con∣trary to the decrees of their Councils: Much more certainly will those be con∣demned by them who declare it unlawful to worship any thing on the account of representation; and that they do only de∣termine the acts of outward worship to∣wards a particular place, without any in∣tention to worship that place, but only to worship God that way. And this was the case of the Iews as to the worshipping of Images, and of God towards the Holy of Holies; they declared it utterly unlawful to do one because God had strictly forbid∣den it; and they though it as lawful to do the other, because he allowed the pra∣ctice of it: and it was sufficiently known among the people of the Iews, that they had no intention to worship either the Ark or the Cherubims. 3. Where there is on∣ly a local circumstance of worship, the same thing would be worshipped, supposing that circumstance changed; but where any thing is an object of worship, that being changed, the same thing is not worship∣ped. This makes the difference between

these two easie, and intelligible by all. If a Iew should worship towards the East, or Christians towards the West, the same object of their worship continues still; for they worship the same God both waies; but if the Image of Christ or the B. Virgin be taken away from the Altar, a Papist cannot be said to worship the same thing there, that he did before. Which plainly shews, that there is a real difference between these two; which is of great moment to clear the Iewish worship of God towards his holy place, and to shew how different it was from the worship of Images.

* 1.6682. But T. G. pretends to bring clear Scripture for the Iews worshipping the Ark; Adore ye the foot-stool of God, for it is holy, Psal. 98.5. so all the ancient Fathers,* 1.669 he saith, read it without scruple; and S. Hierome, he saith, confirms it. And why was it placed in the Holy of Holies, and why were the people commanded to adore, or bow down before it, but to testifie their reverence to it? To this I answer, 1. One might venture odds against T. G. that when he quotes all the Fathers for him, he hath ve∣ry few of his side: Nothing less will content him here than all the Fathers reading it

without scruple, for It is holy, when Lori∣nus saith,* 1.670 That all the Greek Fathers, not one dissenting that he had seen, read it, For He is holy: and among the Latins he confesses, That S. Hierome and S. Augu∣stine both read it so; for, saith S. Augustine, Quis sanctus est in cujus honore ador as scabellum pedum ejus? Genebrard ac∣knowledges likewise, that S. Hierome translates it so, and Suarez yields that not only the Greek,* 1.671 but S. Augustine and S. Hierome read it, For He is holy. 2. Those words do not imply, that the Iews did make the Ark the object of their worship; for the Chaldee Paraphrast renders them, Worship Him in His Sanctuary; and the last verse of the Psalm, where the same sense is repeated, interprets this, Worship at his holy hill, for the Lord our God is holy: where, the holy Mountain is the same with the Foot stool before mentioned: and so Muis confesses,* 1.672 who saith withal, That by the phrase of worshipping His Foot-stool, no more is meant than worship∣ping God at His Foot-stool: and the San∣ctuary, he saith, is called Gods Foot-stool, not only by the Chaldee Paraphrast and Kimchi, but Lament. 2.1. And so Lyra interprets it, Ante scabellum pedum ejus: worship before His Footstool: or worship

at His Footstool, as it is Psalm 182.7. And it would be very strange, if the Psalmist should here propose the footstool for an object of worship to them, when the design of the whole Psalm is to call all Na∣tions to the worship of God, as sitting be∣tween the Cherubims, Psal. 99.1. i. e. in His Throne which is surely different from His Footstool. I will not contend with Suarez about the sense of the Footstool of God here mentioned, (although he con∣fesses that Basil and Vatablus understand the Temple by it:) but I will yield him that the Ark is most probably understood by it, because of his sitting between the Cherubims being mentioned before; in which respect the Ark may properly be called his Footstool. For the Cherubims were the Mercabah, or the Divine Cha∣riot, and so called, 1 Chron. 28.18. where the Vulgar Latine renders it Quadri∣ga Cherubim:* 1.673 in such a Chariot Pyrrhus Ligorius,* 1.674 the famous Italian Antiquary,* 1.675 saith, The Deities were wont to be drawn: and Livy, and Plutarch take notice of it in Camillus as an extraordinary thing that he made use of such a Triumphal Chariot which had been before looked on as pro∣per to Iove the Father of Gods and Men.* 1.676 Such a Triumphal Chariot, I suppose that

to have been in the Holy of Holies, but without any representation of the Divine Majesty, and this Chariot is that we call the Cherubim, and the Ark was a kind of Footstool to the invisible Majesty that sate between the Cherubims, and there deli∣vered his Oracles. Now I appeal to the understanding of any reasonable man, whe∣ther God being represented as sitting upon His Triumphal Chariot, without any visi∣ble Image of Him, the worship was there to be performed to the invisible Deity, or to the visible Chariot and Footstool? which is all one as to ask whether persons ap∣proaching to a Prince on his Throne, are to worship the Prince or his Footstool, or Chair of State? But Lorinus and Suarez say, The Hebrew particle being added to a word implying worship, doth not de∣note the place but the object of worship; which is sufficiently refuted by those two places before mentioned, viz. the last verse of this Psalm, and Psalm 132.7.3. Those of the Fathers, who understood this expression of the object of worship, do declare by their interpretation that it was not lawful to worship the Ark after that manner. Therefore Lorinus saith, most of the Fathers understood it of the huma∣nity of Christ, as S. Ambrose, S. Hierome,

S. Augustine and others generally after him; and among the Greeks, he reckons S. Athanasius, and S. Chrysostome. But what need all this running so far from the literal sense, in case they had thought the Ark a lawful object of worship? Let S. Au∣gustine speak for the rest,* 1.677 The Scripture, saith he, elsewhere calls the Earth Gods Footstool; and doth he bid us worship the Earth? This puts me in a great perplexi∣ty; I dare not worship the Earth, lest He damn me who made the Heaven and the Earth; and I dare not but worship His Footstool, because He bids me do it. In this doubt I turn my self to Christ, and from Him find the resolution of it; for His Flesh was Earth; and so he runs into a discourse about the adoration due to the flesh of Christ, and the sense in which it is to be understood. And elsewhere saith, That the humane nature of Christ is no otherwise to be adored than as it is united to the Divinity.* 1.678 Which plainly shews that he did not think the Ark literally un∣derstood to be a proper object of worship.

But T. G. adds, that S. Hierome saith, That the Iews did worship or reverence the Holy of Holies, because there were the Cherubims, the Ark, &c. It is well he puts in Reverence as well as wor∣ship,

for Venerabantur signifies no more than that they had it in great veneration; and that not only for the sake of the Ark and Cherubims, but for the pot of Manna, and Aarons Rod; and doth T. G. think in his conscience, that the Iews worship∣ped these too? But S. Hierom explains himself, when he saith immediately after, That the Sepulchre of Christ is more vene∣rable than that; which he interprets by saying, It was a place to be honoured by all. And are these the doughty proofs which T. G. blames me for not vouchsafing an Answer to them? I think he ought to have taken it as a kindness from me. Let him now judge whether I have neither Scripture, nor Father, nor Reason to abet me, in saying, That the Iews only dire∣cted their worship towards the place where God had promised to be signally present among them.

As to the worship of the Cherubims, all his attempts come only to this, They might be worshipped although they were not seen; and if it were lawful for the High Priest to worship them once a year,* 1.679 it was alwaies lawful; but I deny that the High Priest ever worshipped them; for he only worshipped the God that sate upon His Triumphal Chariot; and their

being hid from the sight of the People, was an argument they were not exposed as ob∣jects of worship, as Images are in the Ro∣man Church. Their being Appendices to the Throne of God, he saith, was rather a means to increase than diminish the Peoples Reverence to them. If by Reverence he means worship, we may here see an in∣stance of the variety of mens understand∣ings. For no less a man than Vasquez, from hence argues,* 1.680 That the Cherubims were never intended as an object of wor∣ship, because they were only the Appendices to another thing; but a thing is then pro∣posed as an object of worship, when it is set up by it self, and not by way of ad∣dition or ornament to another thing: with whom Lorinus, Azorius, and Visorius agree. And even Aquinas himself grants,* 1.681 That the Seraphim (he means the Cheru∣bim) were not set up for worship, but only for the sign of some Mysterie; nay, he saith, the Iews were expressly forbid∣den to worship them. Thus I hope I have made it appear, how very little the wor∣shipping of God before the Ark and the Cherubims doth prove towards the law∣fulness of the worship of Images in the Ro∣man Church.

The second Argument of T. G. is, From the judgement of S. Augustine, who makes that which we call the Second Command∣ment to be only an explication of the First. Which I thought so weak and trifling an Argument, that I gave a short answer to it in these two particulars, 1. That S. Au∣gustine did not seem constant to that opini∣on. 2. That supposing he were, yet it doth not follow that according to his judgement, these words are only against Heathen Idols, and not against the worship of God by Images. Here T. G. thinks he hath the bit fast between his teeth, and away he runs, raising a dust to blind the eyes of beholders; but he must be stopt in his carier, and brought to better Rea∣son. I asked T. G. how he was sure this was S. Austins constant judgement, since in his latter Writings he reckons up the Com∣mandments, as others of the Fathers had done before him? upon this he insults, and calls it a new way of answering Fa∣thers, and the readiest he ever met with,* 1.682 except it be that of denying them: and if this be allowed, when an express Testi∣mony of a Father is alledged, there is no more to do, than to ask how he is sure, that the Father did not afterwards change his

mind? but, he saith, he is sure he hath his judgement professedly for him in his former Writings; and that I ought to bring better evidence of his being of another mind than I have done. But if I do evi∣dently prove, that S. Augustine was of our mind in the main point as to the unlawful∣ness of the worship of God by Images; then what matter is it, whether it be the first, or second, or third, or fourth Com∣mandment, so we are sure it is one of the Ten? And I have already produced suf∣ficient Testimonies from him to this pur∣pose; For doth not S. Augustine declare,* 1.683 That it is unlawful to worship God by an Image, when, he saith, it were impiety for a Christian to set up a corporeal Image of God in a Temple; and that they who do it are guilty of the Sacriledge condem∣ned by S. Paul, of turning the glory of the incorruptible God into an Image made like to corruptible man? Doth not St. Au∣gustine commend Varro for speaking so re∣proachfully concerning the very manner of worshipping the Deity by an Image?* 1.684 and he saith, That if he durst have opposed so old a corruption, he would have both owned the unity of the Godhead, Et sine simulachro colendum esse censeret, and have thought he ought to be worshipped

without an Image. Doth not S. Augustine, when he purposely explains that which he accounts the First Commandment, say, That any similitude of God is thereby for∣bidden to be worshipped;* 1.685 because no Image of God is to be worshipped but what is God himself, i. e. his Son? And can any one speak more expressly our sense than S. Augustine here doth? Let not T.G. then boast of his possession of S. Augu∣stine, unless it be, as he did lately of all the Fathers; and in truth, the reason is much alike for both. But as to the divisi∣on of the Commandments he is of T. G's side; and what is that to our business? If S. Augustine be of our side as to the sense of the Commandment, I can allow him to find out something of the Mysterie of the Trinity in having three Command∣ments of the First Table; and I can be contented with this, that the generality of the Fathers were for the other division, and upon more considerable Reasons. But T.G. saith,* 1.686 That S. Augustine translates this Precept, Thou shalt not make to thy self any Idol, and the sense of the Law to be the forbidding the giving the worship of God to Idols. One would think by this, S. Augustine had no other word but Idolum here; whereas he uses both figmentum

and simulachrum, both which words he elsewhere uses about the Images of the True God. But this is their common me∣thod, if they meet with a word in the Fa∣thers that sounds their way, they never stay to consider the sense of it, but pre∣sently cry out Idolum, Idolum; and then with the Man at Athens, take all that comes for their own: So doth T. G. boast of the possession of the Fathers upon as slight grounds as he did; and makes up by the strength of Imagination what is wanting in the goodness of his title; if at least imagination can sway him so much against the plain evidence of Reason.

* 1.687Having thus cleared the way by remo∣ving these mighty difficulties which T. G. had laid in it to obstruct our passage, I now come to consider the several methods I proposed for finding out the sense of this Law. The first whereof was from the general Terms wherein it is expressed, which are of so large and comprehensive a sense as to take in all manner of represen∣tations, in order to worship; and I chal∣lenged him to shew where the word Te∣munah which they render similitude as well as we, is ever used in Scripture to sig∣nifie such an Idol as he supposes this Law

intends. And to what purpose are words of the largest signification put into a Law, if the sense be limitted according to the most narrow acceptation of one word men∣tioned therein? for there is no kind of Image, whether graven or painted, whe∣ther of a real or imaginary Being, but is comprehended under the signification of the words set down in the Law. To this T. G. answers,* 1.688 that how large soever the signification of this word Temunah or simi∣litude be when taken by it self, yet in our present case, it is limited by the following words, Thou shalt not bow down to them nor serve them, to signifie something which is made to be worshipped as God, that is, to be an Idol. And so, by the word Idol in the Commandment he understands such an Image as is made to represent for wor∣ship a Figment that hath no real Being; and by similitude an Image or resemblance of some real thing, but falsely imagined to be God; but, he saith, it was nothing to the purpose to put the word similitude in its largest meaning, that is, as signifying any Image whatsoever though made with respect to the worship of the true God, when God himself commanded the Ark and the Cherubims to be made with that re∣spect: (doth he mean to represent the true

God? or to be objects of worship? which I have already shewed to be false.) That which I am to prove, he saith, is, that the word Similitude is to be taken so here; whereas, he affirms, that the word simi∣litude is to be restrained to the similitude of false Gods: And to make all sure, he interprets similitude only of the represen∣tation of false Gods, and bowing down to and worshipping that similitude is the Wor∣shipping that Similitude as God: i. e. ta∣king the Likeness to be the Thing it self. I cannot blame T. G. for making the thing forbidden in the Commandment, if it be possible, more absurd than their practice in the worship of Images is; but, whe∣ther he hath made the sense of the Law or himself more ridiculous let the Reader judge. By similitude, he saith, is here to be understood, only the Similitude of False Gods, as the Sun, Moon and Stars, and other like things which they worshipped as Gods; this I confess is intelligible and true, although not the full meaning of the Commandment; but what then is, bowing down to and worshipping this similitude? that is, saith he, to worship this similitude as God: How is that? Is it by believing the Similitude to be the Thing? as the Image of the Sun to be really the Sun?

this is absurd enough of all Conscience, and they were sottish Idolaters indeed that did so. Or is it, that they thought there was no other God, besides that similitude? That were strange indeed, they should think the similitude to be God, and not the thing represented by it. But so the wise Pope Gregory 2. interpreted this Com∣mandment in his incomparable Epistle to Leo Isaurus;* 1.689 The Emperour tells the Pope he durst not allow the Worship of Images, because of this severe Prohibition of any kind of similitude, and he desires him to shew, who it was that since had made it lawful to worship the work of mens Hands. The Pope for this calls him,* 1.690 an Ignora∣mus, a dull, and insolent Fool; and bids him lay aside his pride and haughtiness, and come and learn of him the meaning of the Commandment. And now we ex∣pect something becoming an Infallible Head of the Church; This Commandment, saith the Pope, was made for the sake of the Idolaters who lived in the Land of Promise, that worshipped living Creatures of Gold and Silver, and Wood, and all sorts of Creatures and Fowls of the Aire; and said, These are our Gods, and there is no God besides them; and for the sake of this workmanship of the Devil, God said that

we should not worship them; but there is other Workmanship for the Honour of God, and this men may worship. Exceedingly well spoken! The mischief is, Maimoni∣des saith, there never were such Fools in the world to believe there was no other God but their Idols;* 1.691 but what is Maimo∣nides his saying to the Head of the Church? I am not yet satisfied about T. G's worship∣ping a similitude as God, and so making it an Idol. If it be a God, how is it the similitude of a God? If it be not, how comes it to be worshipped as God? What is it the similitude of? of God? yes. But it is God it self to him that worships it as God; and so it is the similitude of it self. So that the similitude here forbidden to be worshipped, is a Thing that is like its own self. T. G. in another place saith,* 1.692 the thing forbidden in the Commandment, is bowing our selves down to the Images themselves, and this by the Concession of all is worshipping them instead of God. What is this bowing down to the Images them∣selves? Is it supposing them to be really Gods? then they are not worshipped as si∣militudes; and this seems to be his mean∣ing, when he saith, To bow down our selves to the Images themselves, without any Re∣lation to God, is to worship them instead

of God. But I am still to seek for his meaning; is it bowing down to Images themselves, without relation to any other God? that must suppose that those who do so worship them believe there is no God besides the Images, and that were to make God to forbid a thing, that we never read to be practised in the World. Or, is it to suppose those Images themselves to be Objects of Worship? if it be, then all those stand condemned for Idolaters who assert that Images themselves are to be worship∣ped. Which I have shewed to be the common opinion of their Divines, and by them thought to be the Decree of the Councils for the worship of Images. Or lastly, is the worshipping Images them∣selves, without relation to the True God, the worshipping them instead of God? but this is both false, and impertinent. It is false, because they who worship Images without relation to the true God, may yet worship them barely as they re∣present a false God (as the wisest of the Heathens did) and therefore not as God; and Eusebius saith in general of the Hea∣thens,* 1.693 that they did not look on their Images as Gods: it is impertinent, be∣cause by the confession of their own Wri∣ters (as I have shewed) an Image that

hath relation to the True God may be worshipped as God, when divine worship is given to an Image of God or Christ. And therefore all this adoe is to no pur∣pose; for this Commandment must then be so understood, as to exclude the worship of the True God by an Image. Otherwise it cannot be unlawful to give any kind of worship to an Image of the True God; and so the Gnosticks were not to blame in the worship they gave to the Image of Christ, although they stand condemned in all Ages of the Church for it. If this were unlawful, (as they all say it is unlawful to Sacrifice to an Image) then some kind of worshipping the True God by an Image is forbidden by the second Commandment. And now let the Reader judge, how well T.G. hath acquitted himself in his admirable un∣dertakings,* 1.694 when he saith, with so much confidence, that the second Commandment speaks not one Word against the worshipping God himself by an Image; which is to charge the whole Christian Church with Folly and Ignorance in condemning the Carpocratians, for worshipping the Image of Christ with divine worship; who saith Bellarmin,* 1.695 sine dubio Imaginem ejus propter ipsum colebant, without all doubt worship∣ped the Image of Christ with relation to him.

But still when T. G. is miserably mistaken,* 1.696 the Fathers must bear the blame of it. Alas poor Fathers! Must you bear the load of all his miscarriages? It is but doing you justice, to vindicate your innocency in this righteous Cause. He tells me,* 1.697 that I must prove against these Fathers (viz. Origen and Theodo∣ret) and the general sense of the Church of Christ for so many hundred years, that the word similitude is to be taken in the second Commandment for any Image made with respect to the worship of God. A very easie undertaking in it self; but by no means either against those Fathers, or the sense of the Christian Church for many hundred years, which is as plainly on my side in this case, as it is in the Articles of the Creed; as may be seen in the foregoing Chapters. But T. G. is again unlucky when he pretends to the Fathers; for those two Fathers he mentions are point-blank against him in this matter: witness the many citations I there produced out of Origen; wherein, he saith, the Chri∣stians durst have no Images of the Deity, because of this Commandment; and that they would rather dye than defile them∣selves with such an impiety. And even

Theodoret himself saith,* 1.698 they were forbid∣den to make any Image of God, because they saw no similitude of him: and which is more to T. G. even the Nicene Coun∣cil and the great Patrons of Images for a long time after, did yield that the second Commandment did forbid the making or worshipping any representation of God; as I have already at large proved. If I might advise T. G. I would never have him venture at the Fathers again; but be contented to bear his own burdens; and out of meer pity to them, not to load them with the imputation of his own infirmi∣ties, if not wilful mistakes. To make it appear that the intention of the Law was not meerly against the Idols of the Hea∣thens, I added these words

If this had been the meaning of the Law, why was it not more plainly expressed? why were none of the words elsewhere used by way of contempt of the Heathen Idols here mentioned, as being less liable to am∣biguity? why in so short a comprehen∣sion of Laws, is this Law so much en∣larged above what it might have been, if nothing but what he saith, were to be meant by it? For then the meaning of the two first precepts might have been summed up in very few words,

Thou shalt have no other Gods but me, and Thou shalt worship the Images of no other Gods but me.

To all this, which is surely something more than saying, that it is ridiculous to imagine the Law means any thing else; T. G. answers not one word:* 1.699 but instead of that he spends some pages about two similitudes, one of mine, and another quainter of his own; which must stand or fall according to the Reason given for the sense of the Law; and there∣fore I shall pass them over. Only for his desiring me, to make my similitude run on all four, as the Beasts mentioned in it; it is such a piece of Wit, that I desire he may enjoy the comfort of it.

But he hath not yet done with the word Pesel; which, he saith,* 1.700 the LXX. would never have rendred it here contrary to their custome, Idol, without some particu∣lar Reason for it. What particular Rea∣son was there here, more than in the repe∣tition of the Commandment, Deut. 5.8? where they translate it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the Alex. M S. and in other Copies of the LXX. Deut. 4.16. Was there not as much reason to have used the same word in those places as in this, since the Commandment is the very same? And for the other places, he mentions, as Isaiah 40.18 —

44.9, 10, 13. I dare leave it to the exa∣mination of any man, whether they do not far better prove, that an Idol in Scripture is an Image set up for worship, than that by graven Image is meant an Heathen Idol. This I am certain of, that Pet. Pi∣cherellus an excellent Critick,* 1.701 and learn∣ed Divine in the Roman Church, was con∣vinced by comparing of these places, that the signification of an Idol in the second Commandment, is the same with that of a graven Image; and that the using any outward sign of worship before any Image is the thing forbidden in this Command∣ment,* 1.702 and that the doing so is that Idolatry which God hath threatned so severely to punish: which I beseeth T. G. and those of his Church to consider, and repent.

The second way I proposed to find out the sense of the Commandment was from the Reason of it;* 1.703 which, I said,

the Scripture tells us was derived from Gods infinite and incomprehensible na∣ture which could not be represented to men, but in a way that must be an in∣finite disparagement to it. For which I produced Isaiah 40.19, 20, 21, 22. To whom will ye liken God? or what like∣ness will ye compare to him? The work∣man

melteth a graven Image, and the Goldsmith spreadeth it over with gold, &c. Have ye not known, have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? Have ye not understood from the foundation of the earth? It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, &c. Whence I desired to know, whether this reason be given against Heathen Idols, or those Images which were worshipped for Gods or no? or whether by this reason, God doth not declare, that all worship given to him by any visible representation of him is extremely dishonourable to him? And to this purpose when this precept is en∣forced on the people of Israel by a very particular caution,* 1.704 Take ye therefore good heed to your selves, lest ye corrupt your selves, and make you a graven Image, the similitude of any figure, &c. the ground of that Caution is expressed in these words, For ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you. If the whole intention of the Law had been only to keep them from worshipping the Heathen Idols, or Images for Gods, to what purpose is it here mentioned that they saw no simi∣litude of God, when he spake to them?

For although God appeared with a simili∣tude then, yet there might have been great Reason against worshipping the Heathen Idols, or fixing the intention of their worship on the bare Image. But this was a very great Reason why they ought not to think of honouring God by an Image; for if he had judged that a suitable way of Worship to his Nature and Excellency, he would not have left the choice of the similitude to themselves, but would have appeared himself in such a similitude as had best pleased him.

This Discourse T.G. saith,* 1.705 is apt enough to delude a vulgar Auditory out of the Pulpit (I with their Pulpits had never any worse before not vulgar Audi∣tories) but altogether empty and insignifi∣cant when brought to the Test of Reason. That is to be tried, whether my Reason or his Answer will be found so: However, he saith, this doth not prove it Idolatry. No! that is very strange, for if the Image of God, when worshipped, be an Idol and forbidden as such in the Commandment, then I suppose the worship of it is Idolatry. But none so blind as they that will not see.

Now for the terrible Test of Reason. He saith 1. That all representations of

God, are not dishonourable to him; and for that, he produces a Hieroglyphical Picture of a three corner'd light within a Cloud,* 1.706 and the name Iehovah in the midst of it in the Frontispiece of a Book of Common Prayer, by Rob. Barker, 1642. from whence he inferrs, that the Church of England doth not look on all visible repre∣sentations as an infinite disparagement to God. As though the Church of England were concerned in all the Fancies of En∣gravers in the Frontispieces of Books pub∣lickly allowed: He might better have proved that we worship Iupiter Ammon in our Churches, because in some he may see Moses painted with Horns on his Forehead; I do not think our Church ever determined that Moses should have horns, any more than it appointed such an Hieroglyphical Representation of God. Is our Church the only place in the World, where the Pain∣ters have lost their old priviledge, quidli∣bet audendi?* 1.707 There needs no great atone∣ment to be made between the Church of England and me in this matter: for the Church of England declares in the Book of Homilies,* 1.708 that the Images of God the Fa∣ther, Son and Holy Ghost are expresly for∣bidden and condemned by these very Scri∣ptures I mentioned. For how can God a

most pure Spirit, whom man never saw, be expressed by a gross body, or visible simili∣tude? or how can the infinite Majesty and Greatness of God incomprehensible to mans mind, much more not able to be compassed with the sense, be expressed in an Image? With more to the same purpose, by which our Church declares, as plainly as possible, that all Images of God are a disparagement to the Divine Nature; therefore let T. G. make amends to our Church of England for this and other af∣fronts he hath put upon her. Here is no∣thing of the Test of Reason, or Honesty in all this; let us see whether it lies in what follows.* 1.709 2. He saith, That Images of God may be considered two waies, either as made to represent the Divinity it self, or Analogically; this distinction I have al∣ready fully examined, and shewed it to be neither fit for Pulpit nor Schools, and that all Images of God are condemned by the Nicene Fathers themselves, as dishonou∣rable to Him. 3. He saith, That the Reason of the Law was to keep them in their duty of giving Soveraign Worship to God alone,* 1.710 by restraining them from Ido∣latry. This is now the Severe Test, that my Reason cannot stand before. And was it indeed only Soveraign worship to God,

that was required by the Law to restrain them from Idolatry? Doth this appear (to return his own words) in the Law it self, or in the Preface,* 1.711 or in the Commina∣tion against the transgressors of it? if in none of these places, nor any where else in Scripture, methinks it is somewhat hard venturing upon this distinction of So∣veraign and inferiour worship, when the words are so general, Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them? And if God be so jealous a God in this matter of worship, he will not be put off with idle distinctions of vain men, that have no co∣lour or pretence from the Law: for whe∣ther the worship be supreme or inferiour, it is worship; and whether it be one or the other, do they not bow down to Images? and what can be forbidden in more ex∣press words than these are? But T. G. proves his assertion,* 1.712 1. From the Preface of the Law; because the Reason there as∣signed, is, I am the Lord thy God; there∣fore Soveraign honour is only to be given to me, and to none besides me. Or, as I think, it is better expressed in the follow∣ing words, Thou shalt have no other Gods but me: and who denies, or doubts of this? but what is this to the Second Command∣ment? Yes, saith T. G. The same reason

is enforced from Gods jealousie of his honor: very well, of His Soveraign Honour? but provided, that supreme worship be reserved to Him, He doth not regard an inferiour worship being given to Images: Might not T. G. as well have explained the First Commandment after the same manner, Thou shalt have no other Soveraign Gods besides me; but inferiour and subordinate Deities you may have, as many as you please, not∣withstanding the Reason of the Law; which T. G. thus paraphrases, I am the only supreme and super-excellent Being, above all, and over all, to whom therefore Soveraign Honour is only to be given, and to none besides me. Very true, say the Heathen Idolaters, we yield you every word of this, and why then do you charge us with Idolatry? Thus by the admirable Test of T. G's reason, the Heathen Idola∣ters are excused from the breach of the First Commandment, as well as the Papists from the breach of the Second. 2. He proves it from the necessary connexion be∣tween the prohibition of the Law on the one side,* 1.713 and the supreme excellency of the Divine Nature on the other; For from the supreme excellency of God, it necessarily follows that Soveraign Worship is due only to it, and not to be given to any other Image or

thing: but if we consider Him as invisi∣ble only and irrepresentable, it doth not fol∣low on that account precisely, that Sove∣raign worship or indeed any worship at all is due unto it. Which is just like this man∣ner of Reasoning. The Supreme Autho∣rity of a Husband, is the Reason why the Wife is to obey him; but if she consider her Husband, as his name is Iohn or Tho∣mas, or as he hath such features in his face; it doth not follow on that account precisely, that she is bound to obey him and none else for her Husband. And what of all this, for the love of School Divini∣ty? May not the reason of obedience be taken from one particular thing in a Per∣son; and yet there be a general obligation of obedience to that Person, and to none else besides him? Although the features of his countenance be no Reason of obedi∣ence, yet they may serve to discriminate him from any other Person, whom she is not to love and obey. And in case, he forbids her familiarity with one of his servants, because this would be a great disparagement to him; doth it follow that because his Superiority is the general Rea∣son of obedience, he may not give a parti∣cular Reason for a special Command? This is the case here. Gods Supreme Excellen∣cy is granted to be the general Reason of

obedience to all Gods Commands; but in case he gives some particular precept, as not to worship any Image, may not he assign a Reason proper to it? And what can be a more proper reason against making or wor∣shipping any representation of God, than to say, He cannot be represented? Meer invisibility I grant is no general reason of obedience; but invisibility may be a very proper reason for not painting what is in∣visible. There is no worship due to a sound, because it cannot be painted; but it is the most proper reason why a sound cannot be painted, because it is not visible. And if God himself gives this reason, why they should make no graven Image because they saw no similitude on that day, &c. is it not madness and folly in men to say, this is no Reason? But T. G. still takes it for granted,* 1.714 That all that is meant by this Commandment, is that Soveraign worship is not to be given to Graven Images or si∣militudes; and of the Soveraign worship, he saith, Gods excellency precisely is the formal and immediate Reason why it is to be given to none but him. But we are not such Sots (say the Heathen Idolaters again) to give Soveraign worship to our Images of Mercury, or Apollo, &c. there∣fore the Reason of your Command doth not reach us; but we may worship our Images,

as well as you do yours. 3. He proves it, ad hominem, thus, I grant that no perfect Image of God can be made, and that God need not by a Law forbid an impossible thing; but from the Divine Natures be∣ing invisible it only follows that men ought not to presume to make any Image, or like∣ness to represent it as it is, i. e. a perfect Image; and the Law in vertue of it must be to forbid making any such Image; there∣fore according to my self, the irrepresen∣tableness of the Divine Nature as pre∣cisely considered, cannot be assigned for the proper cause or reason of this Law. Ve∣ry subtilly argued! What I said, could not be the sense of the Law, he takes to be the sense of it, and from thence argues against the Reason I had given: which is as if I should say to him; T. G. denies, That this Commandment doth contain any prohibition of the worship of God by an Image; but the Law must be understood to forbid worshipping God by an Image; therefore according to T. G. the Law doth forbid worshipping God by an Image. Call you this arguing ad hominem! One would think it were to a creature of a lower rank. He saith, I deny that the Law for∣bids making an impossible thing, i.e. a per∣fect Image of God; he asserts, That the

Law must be understood to forbid the making of any such Image; and from hence he infers, that according to my self, that cannot be the reason of the Law which I assigned; because from that reason that only follows to be forbidden by the Law, which I said could not be the thing forbid∣den by the Law: and he saith, must be on∣ly forbidden by it. Before T. G. had gone about to prove any thing from hence against my self, he ought to have shewed, 1. That Gods irrepresentable Nature doth only hold against making impossibilities, that is, perfect Images of God. 2. That this must be the meaning of the Second Command∣ment, which he saith, I denied. 3. That when I denied, and he barely affirmed it, he can argue ad hominem from my denial and his affirmation of the same thing, against the Reason alledged by me, viz. I assigned from Scripture, that no Image is to be made of God because He is Infinite and Invisible; now saith T.G. I will prove from your own words, this cannot be the Reason of this Law. How so? You say, that the Law doth not forbid making a per∣fect Image of God, for that is impossible. And what then? doth it hence follow, that the Law doth not forbid making a possible Image of God? Hold, saith T. G.

Gods infinite Nature doth only hold against a perfect Image, and this must be the meaning of the Commandment; which I utterly denied. And so if T. G. will ar∣gue ex concessis, it must proceed thus, I deny that the Law doth forbid an impos∣sible Image of God, or that Gods infinite Nature doth only hold against such Images; and therefore according to my self, this infinite Nature of God cannot be the reason why Images are forbidden in the Second Commandment. Can any man in the earth discern the consequence of this? When I say the Law is made against possible Images, and that the Nature of God is re∣presented so perfect to deter men from making the most imperfect Images of God, because they are a disparagement to Him; doth it follow from my words that this Reason cannot hold against the making of Images?

T. G. having given us such a Test of his Reason; I now follow him to the inter∣pretation he gives of the places of Scrip∣ture produced by me. To the First, Isa. 40.18. To whom will ye liken God? Or what likeness will ye compare unto Him?* 1.715 He Answers, That there is a likeness of representation and a likeness of Compari∣son; if the words be understood of the

former, then he saith, it only follows that such a likeness is not to be made. Which is all that I desire. But again he is at it, That I deny the prohibition hereof to be any part of the Law: Is it possible for T. G. to say this, when my design is to prove the contrary? but By Likeness T. G. under∣stands a perfect representation; why doth he not say then, by likeness is understood sameness? which is not representation, but the thing it self. All representation by the art of man must fall very much short of the perfection of the meanest animal; and no Image can represent a thing as it is, but as it appears; not in regard of its invisible nature, but of its outward lineaments; ei∣ther therefore T. G. must deny any likeness of representation, or he must yield that to be a likeness of representation in an Image of God which doth not perfectly represent him. For if it had the Perfection of God, it would be God. If the words be under∣stood of a likeness of comparison, then the meaning, he saith, is, that none of the Idols of the Heathens are to be compared to Him in Wisdom,* 1.716 Greatness, or Power. But me thinks if not the Hebrew words, nor the Chaldee Paraphrast, nor the LXX, nor other versions, could prevail with T. G. yet the Vulgar Latine should have

had Authority enough to let him know, that these words are not spoken of Hea∣then Idols, but of an Image of God, Cui ergo similem fecistis Deum? aut quam Imaginem ponetis ei? which surely ought to signifie more with him, than meerly the Contents of the Chapters do with us.

To Deut. 4.15. he answers, That de facto no manner of similitude was seen at the giving of the Law, by the people;* 1.717 that afterwards they might not take occasion to conceive it to have been a proper repre∣sentation of the Divinity, and so entertain an erroneous conceit of God. And doth T. G. think, there was not as much danger of dishonouring God by worshipping any such representation of God, as by enter∣taining an erroneous conceit of God in their minds? But why must this be understood only of a proper representation, when the words are, no manner of similitude; is there no manner of similitude, but a pro∣per representation? and yet after all this, the Images of God allowed and worshipped in the Roman Church are as much in danger of making men entertain erroneous conceits of God, as any similitude of that time; and therefore as much against the Reason of this Commandment. But T. G. very modest∣ly denies, these words to contain a Reason

of this Commandment (although they be, For ye saw no manner of similitude,* 1.718 &c. Therefore take heed lest ye corrupt your selves and make a graven Image, &c.) but the matter of fact was made use of by him as a motive to induce the People to the observance of the Law in a Sermon he makes, Deut. 4. to press them to that duty. I see T. G. is resolved to make just such another Test of Scripture as he did of Reason; Could it ever enter into a mans head waking, that these words are a ge∣neral reason of the Whole Law, and not a particular Reason of that Command which immediately follows it, and by the very words relates to it? Ye saw no similitude, therefore make no similitude; this is pro∣per, and natural, and easie to all capaci∣ties: but ye saw no similitude; therefore obey my Law; Hold there, saith T. G. himself (if he be not in a dream and hath forgotten himself) to be supremely excel∣lent is the proper reason of Obedience, and not the seeing no similitude, there∣fore this is no proper Motive to obedience, whatever the Contents of Chapters or tops of the Pages of our Bibles say, which are the pitiful refuges T. G. betakes himself to, to escape down-right sinking. But some men would rather give all for lost,

than think to save themselves by such a mean defence.

Well;* 1.719 but T. G. hath something yet to say; which is, That supposing all this to be true which I have said, as to the Rea∣son of the Law, yet this doth not reach home to them; for it doth not follow from hence, that Christ according to his huma∣nity cannot be represented but with great disparagement to him: or that to put off our hats when we behold the figure of his sacred body with intent to worship him, must be extremely dishonourable to him. This argument therefore doth not concern Catholicks in making the Image of Christ and his Saints with respect to their honour.* 1.720 This is the last effort of T. G. on this argu∣ment, and as weak as any of the rest: For, 1. it is a false and most disingenuous repre∣sentation of their practises, as may appear to any one that will but look back, on what I have said upon that Subject. One would think, by T. G'S words, they had never used or allowed, or worshipped any Images of God or the Trinity in the Church of Rome; which he knows to be other∣wise; and I have abundantly proved it al∣ready. 2. The force of the second Com∣mand, extending to Christians, doth equal∣ly hold against the worship of Christ by an

Image, as it did under the Law against worshipping God by an Image. For if the Law be perpetual, as the Christian Church alwaies believed, and Christ be only the object of worship as He is God, we are as much forbidden to worship Christ by an Image, as the Iews were to worship God by one. I do not say, there is as great an incongruity in representing the humane na∣ture of Christ, as there was in representing the infinite nature of God; but I say, there is as great an incongruity still in sup∣posing an Image, of whatsoever it be, can be the proper object of divine worship. For the humanity of Christ is only capable of receiving adoration from us, as it is hypostatically united to the divine nature; and S. Austin saith, Being considered as separated from it,* 1.721 is no more to be wor∣shipped than the Robe or Diadem of a Prince when it lies on the Ground; and if the humane nature of Christ be not, what then is the Image of it? What union is there between the Divine Nature and a Cruci∣fix? All that can be said is, that imagina∣tion supplies the union, and Christ is sup∣posed to be present by representation; but this overthrows all measures and bounds of worship, and makes it lawful to worship any Creature, with respect to God; it con∣tradicts

the argument of S. Paul, For then God may be worshipped with the Work of mens hands; it is contrary to the sense and practice of the Primitive Church which in∣terpreted this Commandment, to hold against all Images set up for worship, as well those proper to Christians, as others among Iews or Gentiles.

3. The last way I proposed to find out the sense of the Law,* 1.722 was from the Iudge∣ment of the Law-giver: which was fully manifested in the case of the Golden Calf, and the two Calves of Ieroboam. This he calls a solid principle indeed to work up∣on;* 1.723 I am glad to see that we Protestants can fall into the way of Principles; and more glad that Gods judgement recorded in Scripture is acknowledged for such a Prin∣ciple: but after all, he calls this meer imagination;* 1.724 and it must undergo the Test of his Reason. The force of my argu∣ment, as he laies it down, is this,

That the Israelites were condemned by God of Idolatry, for worshipping the Golden Calf, and yet they did not fall into the Heathen Idolatry by so doing, but only worshipped the true God under that Sym∣bol of His presence.

To this T. G. op∣poses his Opinion,* 1.725 That the Israelites

herein fell back to the Egyptian Idolatry. Here then is the state of the Question be∣tween us; to resolve which, and to bring it home to our business, I shall propose these two things. 1. Whether the Israe∣lites did in worshipping the golden Calf, fall back to the Egyptian Idolatry? 2. Whether it be sufficient to T. G's pur∣pose to prove that they did so? for in case the Egyptians themselves did worship the true God under Symbols, T. G. falls short of his design, if he could prove that the Israelites did relapse to the Egyptian Ido∣latry: for it would then appear however to be Idolatry to worship the True God by an Image. 1. I shall examine the evidence on both sides, whether the Israelites did fall back to the Egyptian Idolatry? I offered several reasons to prove that the Israelites had no intention to quit the worship of that God, who had so lately given them the Law on Mount Sinai. 1. From the occasi∣on of this Idolatry, which was not any pre∣tence of infidelity as to the true God; or that they had now better reasons given them for the worship of other Gods besides him; but all that they say is, that Moses had been so long absent; that they desired Aaron to make them Gods to go before them. To this T. G. answers, that the

very text I mention shews their infidelity, viz. in their despair of Moses returning. But if their infidelity had been with a re∣spect to God, it had been far more perti∣nent to have said, Up make us Gods to go before us; for as for this God who gave us the Law, we know not what is become of him; but they only speak of Moses and not of God, and the reason was, because immediately before Moses his going up into the Mount, the last promise God made to the People was of an An∣gel going before them;* 1.726 and they under∣stood that there was to be an extraordinary Symbol of his Presence among them; but what it was they could not tell; and Mo∣ses being so long absent, as the text saith, they grew impatient of having this Sym∣bol,* 1.727 and so put Aaron upon making the golden Calf. T. G. saith,* 1.728 they had forgot∣ten this promise, or thought that God was not able to perform it: for which he hath not the least colour from Scripture or Rea∣son; as will appear by the following par∣ticulars. 2. From the intolerable folly of desiring Aaron to make that God, which before he was made delivered them out of the Land of Aegypt. For so the People say, This is thy God, or these are thy Gods, which brought thee out of the Land of

Aegypt. Is it possible to suppose people so extreamly stupid to imagine a God just then made, should before it was made, deliver them out of Aegypt? But T. G. is a notable man, and hath made a rare dis∣covery, viz. that Calvin said some such thing before me; I thank him for the dis∣covery, for I do assure him it was more than I had ever read in Calvin; but T. G. hath a great mind to make Calvin my Master in every thing. I should not be ashamed to learn from a man of so great abilities; but it falls out unhappily, that I do not find one thing he charges me with following Calvin in, but it is from him that I learn what Calvin said. And if he had pleased he might have quoted an Au∣thor of their own for these words; neque enim tam stupidi erant,* 1.729 saith Ferus, quod crederent Aaron posse facere Deum; they were not so stupid to believe that Aaron could make a God; and therefore he saith, very honestly, that the Israelites worship∣ped the True God, by the Calf. But sup∣pose Calvin did say this, is there ever the less reason in the saying?* 1.730 But we can imagine as sottish things of them, viz. that they terminate their worship on the Images, although they deny any Divinity to be in them? Is it indeed so sottish a thing to

terminate their worship on the Images? what becomes then of all their Divines who plead for it, and say that by the De∣crees of their Councils, worship ought to be terminated on the Images themselves? as T. G. may see in the precedent Chapter. But the Scripture, T. G. saith,* 1.731 represents the Israelites as a people void of under∣standing; and they were without learning, and oppressed for four hundred years toge∣ther, by the most Idolatrous Nation in the world; and served their Gods, Ezek. 20.8. I grant the Scripture gives that severe cha∣racter of them, but it was because they did not consider the consequence of their disobe∣dience; as appears by the next verse Deut. 32.29. Must we because of this imagine them to be such Fools and Sots, that no Idolaters in the World can be pa∣rallel'd with them; viz. to make a God which did mighty things for them, before it was made? Therefore the meaning of making a God can be nothing else, but ma∣king a Symbol or representation of God; and the Question then is, whether it were the representation of an Aegyptian Idol, or the God of Israel? That it was not the former I proved — 3. From the way of worship used by the Israelites, which was an abomination to the Aegypti∣ans,

Exod. 8.26. To this T. G. returns not the least word of Answer; but he shall not escape so, for from hence I shall make it appear beyond contradiction, that it was not Aegyptian Idolatry, which the Israelites fell into; for which we must con∣sider the sacrifices that were offered to the golden Calf. And they rose up early on the morrow,* 1.732 and offer'd burnt-offerings, and brought peace-offerings, and the people sate down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play.* 1.733 S. Stephen saith, And they made a Calf in those dayes, and offered sacrifice unto the Idol, and rejoyced in the Works of their own hands. Now the burnt-offer∣ings and peace-offerings, are expressed, Exod. 20.24. to be their Oxen and their Sheep: and immediately before Moses his going up into the Mount it is said, that they offered burnt-offerings,* 1.734 and sacrificed peace-offerings of Oxen unto the Lord: where the very same words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are used, and the LXX. there render the word we translate oxen 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the Vulg. Lat. Vitulos, the same word which is used for the Golden Calf. Now I shall shew that nothing could be more repug∣nant to the Aegyptian Idolatry, than such sacrifices as these. For which we have this considerable Testimony of Horus in

Macrobius,* 1.735 Nunquam fas fuit Aegyptiis pecudibus aut sanguine, sed precibus & ture solo placare Deos. It was never law∣ful for the Aegyptians to sacrifice with Cattel and blood, but only with prayers and incense:* 1.736 and from thence he proves that the Worship of Saturn and Serapis were but lately received among the Egyptians, in the time of the Ptolemies; and after they were received, their Temples were without the Cities, that they might not be polluted with blood within the Cities. And every one knows, that the Feasts were up∣on their sacrifices; but the Satyrist says of the Egyptians;

Lanatis animalibus abstinet omnis* 1.737 Mensa; nefas illic foetum jugulare ca∣pellae.

Anaxandrides in Athenaeus,* 1.738 saith, that a Greek could have no conversation with an Egyptian; because the one wor∣shipped an Ox which the other sacrificed: and Herodotus saith,* 1.739 that the Egyptians would not touch so much as the knife, or spit, or pot which the Greeks had used; so great an aversion had they from those who either eat or sacrificed the Creatures they worshipped. Herodotus indeed saith, that

the Thebans abstained from sheep,* 1.740 and of∣fered Goats; the Mendesians on the con∣trary abstained from Goats and offered Sheep; but this was on the account of the particular Religion of those two Provinces; (for they differed very much among them∣selves as to particular animals:) but all the Egyptians agreed, as Herodotus there saith, in the worship of Osiris and Isis, Now Diodorus Siculus affirms that Apis and Mneuis the Bulls of Heliopolis and Memphis were sacred to Osiris;* 1.741 Plutarch saith,* 1.742 that the Ox was the Image of Osi∣ris; and Strabo that Apis was the same with Osiris; and Mela,* 1.743 that Apis was the Deity of all the Egyptians. Strabo gives the most particular account of the Egyptian worship,* 1.744 and what creatures were worshipped in the several Provinces; but, he saith, there were three univer∣sally worshipped, whereof the first is, the Ox; and it was an universal practice not to touch or hurt those creatures that were sacred among them; as the Oxen were quite through Egypt; from whence Moses desired to go into the Wilderness to sacri∣fice,* 1.745 for we shall sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians to the Lord our God. Lo, shall we sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians before their eyes, and will they

not stone us? i. e. saith the Targum of Onkelos, because the Egyptians worship Oxen. Because Lambs are the Idols of the Egyptians, saith Ionathan. If we kill, saith S. Hierome, the things which they worship. I leave it now to the considera∣tion of any man, whether the Israelites using their accustomed burnt-offerings and sacrifices, and Feastings upon them, as they did in the Worship of the golden Calf, can be supposed to have returned to the Egyptian Idolatry.

4. I urged this, as an argument that the Israelites intended to worship the true God, because Aaron proclaimed a Feast,* 1.746 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to Iehovah. And however the People were void of understanding, I sup∣pose Aaron being High Priest, and Head of the Church at that time, was not so be∣rest of common sense, as to give the in∣communicable name of Iehovah to a Calf of his own making. All that T. G. saith to this, is,* 1.747 that Aaron perhaps and some of the wiser men among them might not be so sottish, as to suppose the Calf he made to be the God that delivered them out of Egypt, yet it is certain they were so weak, as to concurr with the people in the ex∣ternal practises of their Idolatry. But this is not the force of my argument, which

lies in this, that Aaron said, it was a Feast to Iehovah, when they were to sacrifice to the golden Calf; either therefore he must suppose that worship was intended for the honour of the True God, or he must give the name of Iehovah to the Calf; which would shew him to have been more sot∣tish than the People, for they only called the Calf by the name of Elohim, but he gives the name of Iehovah to it, which was that peculiar name God was known by to the people of Israel upon the accomplish∣ment of his promise in bringing them out of Egypt.* 1.748 I appeared unto Abraham, and to Isaac, and to Jacob by the name of God Almighty, but by my name Iehovah was I not known unto them: wherefore say unto the Children of Israel, I am Iehovah, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, &c. Therefore when the people say, This is the God that brought us out of the Land of Egypt, Aaron pre∣sently proclaims a Feast to Iehovah, i. e. to the God that brought them out of the Land of Egypt. And when afterwards the Ark (which was the Symbol God him∣self appointed of his presence among them) was removed, upon their travelling from the Mount of the Lord,* 1.749 Moses said, Rise up Iehovah; and when it rested, Return O

Iehovah unto the many thousands of Israel. Thus the name of Iehovah was used by Moses himself upon occasion of the ap∣pointed Symbol of Gods presence; but when Aaron proclaimed a Feast to Ieho∣vah upon making the golden Calf, Moses calls it a Golden God, because God saith,* 1.750 they had made a molten Calf, and worship∣ped it, and sacrificed thereunto,* 1.751 and said, This is thy God which brought thee out of the Land of Egypt. Which therefore by S. Stephen is called an Idol.* 1.752 5. The ex∣pressing it to be the God that brought them out of the Land of Egypt, doth imply, that they did not intend one of the Egyptian Gods. For what reason could they have to think that one of the Gods of Egypt should deliver them out of the Egyptian bondage; and while their own worship∣pers were forsaken by them, to preserve those who were so great enemies to them? And how could they think the Gods of Egypt had wrought all the miracles for them which were seen in that delive∣rance? And how unlikely was it they should forsake the God of Israel and return to the Egyptian Gods; when they make use here of the very Preface of the Law, which God had so lately given them on Mount Sinai: viz. I am the God that

brought thee out of the Land of Egypt. To this T. G. returns no manner of An∣swer. 6. When the Israelites revolted to the Idolatry of their Neighbours, the Scri∣pture punctually sets down the names of the Idols they worshipped, as Baal Peor, Moloch, Remphan; but here is nothing of that nature mentioned. To this T. G. answers,* 1.753 What then? Is it the Idols having a name, that makes the worshippers Heathen Idolaters? If they conceived or believed the Calf to be a God, were they not as much Heathen Idolaters for worshipping it with∣out a name, as the Egyptians for worship∣ping it under the name of Apis? But T.G. cunningly dissembles the force of the argu∣ment, which was not from their worship∣ping it without a Name, but from the Scriptures not expressing it, which it doth upon other occasions: and Bellarmin him∣self tells us, from Abulensis,* 1.754 Cajetan and others, that the Israelites had two sorts of Idols, one without a certain name, as the Idol of Micha, Judges 17. and it may be, the golden Calf which Aaron made, and Jeroboam renewed, for the Scripture doth not call it Moloch or Baal, &c. The other had a certain name, as Baal, Moloch, Ash∣taroth, Chamos. Therefore say they not improbably (mark that) that it may be

allowed of the first sort, that the Iews did worship the True God in the Idol. Then an Image of the true God may be an Idol, and those Idolaters, who worship such an Image. But they erred most grievously, saith Bellarmin, in three things: 1. That they sacrificed to the Idol, i. e. gave divine worship to it. 2. That they believed the Divinity to be in it: how doth that ap∣pear? no more surely, than those who be∣lieve Images to speak and to work mira∣cles. 3. That they thought God to be cor∣poreal and like the Idol, i. e. the Israelites thought the great Iehovah to be just of the fashion of the Calf. What prodigi∣ous Fools must some men make the Israe∣lites, that they may not appear as great Idolaters themselves? 7. I argued from S. Stephens words, And they made a Calf in those dayes and offered sacrifice to the Idol:* 1.755 then God turned and gave them up to worship the Host of heaven; whereby, I said it was observable, that the Idolatry of the Calf was distinct from the other Heathen Idolatry, this being a punishment of the other. To this T. G. saith no∣thing; and yet it is a thing which deserves consideration, that that which the Fathers accounted the most justifiable Idolatry of the Heathens, viz. the worshipping the Host

of Heaven, is looked upon as the judge∣ment following the worship of the Golden Calf. So Clemens Alexandrinus,* 1.756 and Ori∣gen plead for this so much in comparison with other Heathen Idolatries, as hardly to think it a fault in them; and it is farther observable that in no kind of Idolatry, which the Israelites ever fell into, save only that of Ieroboam, which was of the same nature with this, that expression was ever used, These are thy Gods which brought thee up out of the Land of Egypt; which shews that this worship had a peculiar re∣spect to that God who brought them in so remarkable a manner out of the bondage they were under there. These are the Reasons which I have to prove, that the Israelites did intend to worship the True God by the Golden Calf: and we have seen what weak answers T. G. gives to some of them, and none at all to others.

I must now attend to the Reasons he gives to the contrary,* 1.757 and those are either from Scripture or Fathers. 1. From Scrip∣ture,* 1.758 where they are charged with for∣saking God, Deut. 32.15, 16, 17, 18. As though the Israelites committed no Ido∣latry in the Wilderness but that of the Golden Calf: whereas it is well known

that they worshipped Baal Peor, Moloch, and Remphan; of which a blacker cha∣racter is given than of the other. But the Psalmist saith, that in worshipping the Calf, they did forget God, Psal. 106.19, 20, 21. And was not that forgetting the God that appeared with such a terrible Majesty on Mount Sinai, to turn His glory into the similitude of an Ox that eateth grass? But in the expressions of Scripture to forget God is to disobey Him;* 1.759 Beware that thou forget not the Lord thy God, in not keeping His Commandments, and His Iudgements, and His Statutes which I com∣mand thee this day. And was not this forgetting God in this sense, so openly to break one of the Laws he had so lately given them? That which seems to come nearest the matter is, the expression of S. Stephen, That our Fathers would not obey, but thrust Him from them (that is, the true God, saith T. G. whereas the words are plainly meant of Moses) and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt, saying,* 1.760 Make us Gods to go before us; which relates not to the object but to the manner of worship by such a Symbol of worship as was in greatest veneration among all the Egyptians. This is the force of all that he brings out of the Scripture.

2. From them he betakes himself to the Fathers:* 1.761 and he quotes two passages of S. Athanasius, and S. Hierome; and a doubtful place of S. Chrysostom to his pur∣pose. This is the first time I have found T. G. citing the Fathers truly and perti∣nently; and it were too hard dealing with him, not to allow him these Testimonies; especially about the exposition of a place of Scripture; wherein their best Commen∣tators take so much liberty of receding from them, when they apprehend the scope and circumstances of the place do en∣force another sense; as I have already shewed at large concerning this. And to these Fathers, I shall oppose the Testimo∣ny of others, who make the Egyptian Ox to be only a Symbolical representation of the Patriarch Ioseph, and say that on this account the Israelites made choice of the Golden Calf; so the Author of the Book De Mirabilibus S. Script. in S. Augustins Works, (as good an Author as the Homi∣list de Poenit.* 1.762 whom he quotes under S. Chrys. name) saith, That the Egypti∣ans set up the Image of an Ox by the Se∣pulchre of Joseph; and for this cause the Israelites made choice of that similitude, when they made an Idol in the Wilderness. Iulius Firmicus Maternus saith, That the

Neocori did preserve in Egypt the Image of Joseph, by which he understands Apis, or the Sacred Bulls; the same is affirmed by Rufinus and Suidas.* 1.763 From whence it follows, that this being looked on as the Symbol taken up in Egypt in remembrance of the service of Ioseph, it was very un∣likely, that the Israelites should look on the Image it self as so powerful a thing, as the Testimonies of Athanasius and S. Chry∣sostom imply; to be able even before it was made, to deliver them out of Egypt: which is such a horrible contradiction, that we had need to have better Testimonies than those, to make us think the Israelites such Sots to believe it. But if it were only looked on as a Symbol of Gods presence, this gives a probable account why the Isra∣elites should make choice of this, before any other of the Egyptians Images, be∣cause by it, the Kindness of Ioseph (who by Moses is compared to a young Ox) was supposed to be remembred by them. But,* 1.764

2. We are to enquire whether supposing that the Israelites did revolt to the Egyp∣tian Idolatry in the worship of the Golden Calf,* 1.765 that be sufficient to prove that they did not worship the True God under this Symbol? For if the Egyptians themselves

did worship the Supreme God under Symbo∣lical representations of Him, then although the Israelites might return with their hearts into Egypt, yet this doth not prove, that they did not worship the true God by the Golden Calf. Plutarch,* 1.766 who discourseth largely concerning the Egyptian Worship, saith, That the Golden Bull was the Image of Osiris, which was shewed for four daies together, from the seventeenth of the Month Athir; And it was a common practice in Egypt to have Golden Images (effigies sacri nitet aurea Cercopitheci) wherein Lucian saith,* 1.767 The barbarous Nati∣ons did exceed the Greeks, who made their Images of Wood, or Ivory, or Stone. For there were two sorts of Images of their Gods among the Egyptians. Those Images and representations which were in their Temples, or places of worship, and those which they accounted the living Images of their Gods, viz. Beasts; such as the two famous Bulls, Apis and Mneuis: the one at Memphis, the other at Heliopolis; both in honour of Osiris: which places were as the Dan and Bethel of Egypt;* 1.768 Memphis being the Metropolis of the upper, Heliopo∣lis of the lower Egypt; wherein the Isra∣elites lived, and saw the worship of the sa∣cred Bull of Heliopolis. Plutarch saith,

The Egyptians looked on Apis as the Image of the Soul of Osiris. Diodorus saith,* 1.769 That they looked on the soul of Osiris as passing by transmigration into Apis (from which doctrin the worship of Beasts was not only entertained in Egypt, but is so in the East Indies to this day, in which case the Beast is only the material object of worship, but the formal Reason is the Presence of some Divine Soul which they suppose to be there, which on their supposition ought to have divine worship given to it by the prin∣ciples of the Roman Church, as the Elements of Bread and Wine on a supposition more extravagant, viz. of Transubstantiation.) But whether the worship of Animals came into Egypt, from the doctrine of transmigra∣tion, or from their usefulness, or from some politick Reasons, which are mentioned both by Plutarch, and Diodorus; this is certain, that Plutarch thinks, Their wiser men did not worship the Animals themselves, but looked on them only as representations of some divine perfection which they discerned in them, and on that account gave worship to them.* 1.770 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Those persons ought to be most esteemed, who did not worship the Animals themselves, but through them did worship the Deity; and they ought to be

looked on as clearer and more natural re∣presentations of God, than inanimate things; and we ought to esteem them, as the Work∣manship and Instrument, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the God that orders all things. And there is all the reason to imagine, that what hath a soul and sense, is better than that which hath none, viz. an Image: and the Divine Nature is not seen in colours and Figures, and smooth Superficies; which are worse than dead creatures, for these never had life in them: but that which hath life, and sense, and motion, hath a greater influence from that Divine Wisdom which governs all things; there∣fore, saith he, these ought not to be looked on as inferiour representations of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Divine Being, than those Images which are made of Brass or Stone by the Workmanship of men, and are subject to corruption, and destitute of all sense and understanding. Whereby we see that Plutarch did put a difference between the common practises of the People, and the intention of the wiser men in the Egyp∣tian Idolatry. He before takes notice of the follies of the People, that worshipped the living creatures themselves as Gods,* 1.771 and thereby not only exposed their Religion to the scorn and contempt of others; but

led some men into horrible superstition, and tempted others to turn Atheists; and then he gives this, as the most reasonable account of the worship of these Animals according to their wiser men, whose opi∣nions ought most to be followed in Religi∣on. From whence it appears that the distinction of the practice of the People, and the Doctrine of Divines hath obtained among the grossest Idolaters; and if the Peoples Practice be excused because the Divines teach otherwise, the most sottish Egyptian Idolaters are excusable, as well as those in the Roman Church. For what is there in this principle of worship laid down by Plutarch, which may not be de∣fended by the avowed doctrine of the Ro∣man Church? Here is (1.) a right ulti∣mate object of worship, viz. the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Divine Being, which orders and go∣verns all things. (2.) Here is a repre∣sentation of that object by the perfections derived from that Being to a Creature. (3.) Here is a right directing the Inten∣tion through that representation to the ul∣timate object. And (4.) the formal reason of worship is the derivation or par∣ticipation of that perfection which re∣presents God from the divine Being: and therefore this is no Soveraign worship which is given to it.

* 1.772The only difficulty here is to shew that the Egyptians did intend to worship the Supreme God by either sort of their Images: which is not only affirmed by Plutarch, who saith, They understood by Osiris the wise Providence of God, and by Porphy∣rie,* 1.773 who saith, The Egyptians, by the several animals they worshipped, did ex∣press their devotion towards the Almigh∣ty power of God; and by Apuleius, who was initiated in the Egyptian Myste∣ries, and in the conclusion of his Meta∣morphosis,* 1.774 Osiris is called, Deus Deum magnorum potior, & majorum summus, & summorum maximus, & maximorum regnator Osiris, which are descriptions of no less than the Supremest God; but Max. Tyrius yields at last that the Egyptians did worship the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.775 the Deity by the wor∣ship of Animals, as the Greeks did by the Statue of Phidias. And there is a consi∣derable Testimony to this purpose in Vopi∣scus,* 1.776 taken out of an Epistle of the Em∣perour Adrian, which he wrote to Servia∣nus from Egypt, giving an account of the manners of the Egyptians; wherein are these words, Unus illis Deus est, hunc Christiani, hunc Iudaei, hunc omnes ve∣ner antur & gentes. They had one God,

whom Christians and Iews, and all Nati∣ons worshipped. Is. Casaubon suspects this passage, but without any reason as Salma∣sius proves, and is apparent because the same thing is said in the beginning of the same Epistle: Where he saith, that how∣ever they differed in other points, yet they all agreed in the worship of Sarapis, by whom Phylarchus in Plutarch under∣stands That God which Governs the World:* 1.777 and Seguinus shews from ancient Coynes and Authors,* 1.778 that Sarapis, and Iu∣piter Ammon, and Iupiter Pharius, and Iupiter rerum omnium potens were all one. Thence the Inscriptions,

D.E.O. I.N.V.I.C.T.O.* 1.779 S.E.R.A.P.I. S.E.R.V.A.T.O.R.I.

D.E.O. M.A.G.N.O. S.E.R.A.P.I.

and that mentioned by Tristan,* 1.780

I.O.M. S.A.R.A.P.I.D.I. P.R.O. S.A.L.V.T.E. I.M.P.

From which it appears that supposing the Israelites did relapse to the Egyptian Idola∣try, it doth not from thence follow that

they did not worship the true God by an Image.

* 1.781I proceed now to the two Calves of Ie∣roboam at Dan and Bethel; which being made in imitation of the Golden Calf must stand or fall by what hath been said alrea∣dy concerning that. But I shall here make good the peculiar arguments to Iero∣boam's case, which were brought to prove that he did intend to worship the God of Israel by the Calves of Dan and Bethel. 1. Because Ieroboam manifests no design of taking the people off from the worship of the true God, but only from the worship∣ping Him at Hierusalem. For all that he saith to the People is, It is too much for you to go up to Ierusalem,* 1.782 behold thy Gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the Land of Egypt. If Ieroboam's intention had been to have altered their Religion, he would have spoken against that, and not only against the place of it; and to shew to them that he had no such intenti∣on, he continued the same Feasts and way of worship which were at Ierusalem. To this T. G. answers,* 1.783 That Jeroboam's end was to secure the Ten Tribes to himself; and the likeliest way to effect it, was the making them such Idols as their Fathers

had worshipped in Egypt and the Wilder∣ness: and yet soon after T. G. represents him as a great Polititian, that would not make any sudden Changes.* 1.784 But could there be any change greater or more sud∣den, than to change the true God for Molten Gods and Devils; as T. G. saith he did: which words (if they be understood in T. G's sense for the Egyptian Idols and Devils in them) was as great a change as could be made in Religion, and too sudden to be made by such a Polititian. He should have begun the alteration in the smaller matters, if he intended no sudden change; and first have gained some of the Great men to him to be ready to joyn with him, when opportunity served, with hopes of Preferment and Places at Court; when these were secured, then put in some of the vilest of the people into the Priesthood (as he did) to render that sacred Office mean and contemptible, the better to pre∣pare the people for a change; then to send Agents abroad to tamper with the most active among them, to allure some and to terrifie others according to their several dispositions; then to give liberty to those tender consciences that longed for the Oni∣ons and Fleshpots and Bulls of Egypt; and when he had by degrees prepared a consi∣derable

party, that would be sure to ad∣here to him, then by little and little to open the great Design to them, which he aimed at all this while. But it was too great a Change for such a Polititian, to say at the very first to them; Come, renounce the God of Israel without more ado; I have set up other Gods for you to worship, and I command you all immediately to obey me: methinks, this would seem too harsh and unpolitick, and too dangerous for so new a Government as his was; a little Indul∣gence for tender consciences, for a time, with the sweetest words, had better be∣come such an Achitophel, as T. G. calls Ie∣roboam. This, this had been the way to have wheadled and drawn in the silly and injudicious multitude,

By telling them what an oppression it was for them to be under the jurisdiction of the High Priest and his Brethren at Ierusalem; and that there was no Reason such a vast number of lazy Priests and ignorant Levites should be maintained out of their labours by Tythes and Offerings; that all the pretence of the true worship of God be∣ing confined to the Temple at Ierusalem, was only out of a design to enrich the Priests and the City; that it was only zeal for their own interest and revenues,

which made them so earnest for that par∣ticular way of worship which was so dif∣ferent from the rest of the World. What! could they imagine that God had no other people in the World, but such as went up to Ierusalem to worship? what would become of the Catholick way of worship, which was in all the Nations round about them? Was it credible, that God should suffer so great a part of mankind to run on in such Idolatry, as a few Iews accounted it? If it were so displeasing to God, could it ever be thought that the Wisest King they ever had, viz. Salomon, should in the wisest time of his Life, viz. in his old Age, fall to the practice of it? Besides all this, they ought to consider, how much the honour and safety of the Nation was concerned in embracing the same Catho∣lick way of worship which prevailed round about them. Their pretending to greater purity of worship than their Neighbours, made them hated and scorn∣ed, and reproached by their Neighbours of all sides, viz. by Moab and Ammon, and Amalek, the Philistins, and those of Tyre: but if they returned to the worship of the Neighbour Nations, they might be sure of the assistance of the

King of Egypt, with whom Ieroboam had lived many years, who would be ready to help them on all occasions; and their lesser enemies would then be afraid to disturb them.

Thus we see what plausible pretences there were to have drawn the people off from the Law of Moses, to the Idolatries of Egypt; but we read not the least intimation of this Na∣ture in the whole History of this Revolt: but Ieroboam only saith, These are thy Gods which brought thee out of the Land of Egypt, which was the most unpolitick way of perswading them to return to the Gods of Egypt. Besides he not only appointed a Feast like unto that in Iudah, but it is said,* 1.785 That he offered upon the Altar, and sacrificed unto the Calves which he had made, i. e. according to the custom of the Iewish Sacrifices, than which nothing could be more repugnant to the Egyptian Idolatry, as I have already proved. But T. G. saith,* 1.786 The Text speaks but of one Feast; it is very true, it mentions but one; but it is said afterwards in several places, That they departed not from the way of Ieroboam;* 1.787 and that very Feast being ac∣companied with so many Sacrifices, was a plain evidence it was not the Egyptian Ido∣latry, which he then set up. And it is

remarkable to this purpose, that every one who was to be consecrated a Priest to the Golden Calves, was to be consecrated with a Sacrifice of a young Bullock,* 1.788 and of seven Rams; which according to the Rites of the Egyptian Idolatry were enough to have profaned the most sacred Person. And Iosephus,* 1.789 (who may be allowed to have understood the mind of Ieroboam as well as T. G.) saith expressly, That in the speech he made to the People, he only pleaded, that God being every where pre∣sent, he might be worshipped at Dan and Bethel, as well as Jerusalem: and that for their greater conveniency he had set up the Calves at Dan and Bethel, that there they might worship God. Thus we see that in this worship at Dan and Bethel, Ieroboam intended no more than to wor∣ship the God of Israel there. I will not de∣ny, that Ieroboam was for Liberty of Con∣science, and allowed the practice of Egyp∣tian Idolatry, and appointed Priests to serve at the several Altars, as the People had a mind; but the established worship, at which himself was present, was at the Calves of Dan and Bethel. For it is said, That he offered on the Altar there.* 1.790 But we read that he appointed Priests, not only for the Calves, but 1. for the High places;* 1.791

which were of two sorts, 1. Some for the worship of false Gods, as those which Sa∣lomon allowed to be built for Chemosh and Moloch on the Mount of Olives.* 1.792 2. Others were for the worship of the true God in the ten Tribes. For there being some dissen∣ting Brethren among the Israelites, who would neither join with the House of Iudah in the worship at Hierusalem, nor with Ieroboam in the worship of the Calves at Dan and Bethel; to keep these secure to his interest, he permits them to worship God on the High places, i. e. Altars ere∣cted to that purpose upon an ascent of ground. And this I prove from that pas∣sage of Elias, They have thrown down thy Altars;* 1.793 speaking of the Children of Is∣raels demolishing them in the time of Ahab, who was the eighth in succession from Ie∣roboam. And in the Reformation of Io∣siah, he puts a difference between the Priests of the High places; for some of them were permitted to eat unleavened bread among their Brethren;* 1.794 and others he slew upon the Altars. Which shews that both in Iudah and Israel there were some who did still worship the true God on the High places. 2. Ieroboam appointed Priests 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Pilosis, to the hairy ones; which I wonder, how it come to be tran∣slated

Devils both here, and Levit. 17. since in above fifty places of Scripture, it signifies Goats; and but in one, the LXX. render it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and there Aquila hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.795 and the Vulgar Latine Pilosi, and our translation Satyrs: and since the worship of Goats, and other hairy animals was so frequent among the Egyptians, as of Dogs, Wolves, Cats, Ich∣neumons, Apes, &c. but especially the Goats, as Herodotus,* 1.796 Strabo,* 1.797 Diodorus,* 1.798 Plutarch,* 1.799 and others relate (and the Pan, and Faunus, and Silenus, and Silvanus, and Satyri were but a sort of Goats: for the Arabick word Satar is a Goat, and the Egyptian name for Pan is Mendes, which, saith Bochartus,* 1.800 signifies a Goat too.) And since this worship was so common in Egypt was there not reason to forbid it by a Law, Levit. 17.7? and is there not cause where we meet with this word re∣lating to an object of worship, to under∣stand it according to the common practice of Idolaters, and the common sense of the word? Therefore I grant that Ieroboam did permit the Egyptian Idolatry, but he established the Golden Calves as the Religi∣on of the State.

* 1.8012. I shewed, that the true God was wor∣shipped by the Golden Calves; because the sin of Ahab who worshipped Baal is said to be so much greater than the sin of Je∣roboam. And it came to pass as if it had been a light thing for him to walk in the sins of Ieroboam,* 1.802 that he took to wife Ie∣zabel, daughter of Baal, King of the Zi∣donians, and went and served Baal, and worshipped him; and he reared up an Al∣tar for Baal, in the House of Baal, which he had built in Samaria. Yes, saith T. G. Ahabs sin was greater,* 1.803 because he added this Idolatry to the other. Who denies that his sin might have been greater in that re∣spect? but that it was not so to be under∣stood, appears by the opposition between God and Baal in the words of Elijah? How long halt ye, saith he to all the People, be∣tween two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow Him:* 1.804 but if Baal, then follow him. Now there being three several waies of worship among the people, if two of the three had not agreed in the same object of worship, viz. the God of Israel, Elijah could not have said that they halted only between two opinions of God and Baal; if some were for the God of Israel, others for the Gods of the Egyptians, and others for

Beel Samen, or the God of the Zidonians. But, saith T. G. Elijah supposes a general Apostasie of the ten Tribes to Baal in the next Chapter.* 1.805 And what then? It was but very lately so, and they were not yet so fixed but they might be put in mind that they were lately of another opinion: and some render it, How long will ye pass from one extreme to another? how long will ye be so uncertain in Religion, now for God, and then for Baal? So Vatablus renders it, Quousque tandem alternis, &c. Now of one side, then of the other? or as some imagine, they themselves worshipped the Calves, and sometimes Baal. So that notwithstanding what T. G, saith, the opposition is here plain between the God worshipped by the Calves, which was the publick and esta∣blished worship of the ten Tribes, and the worship of Baal, which was newly intro∣duced: and so the True God is supposed to be worshipped by those who did not wor∣ship Baal. To confirm this, I added, that Iehu magnifies his zeal for Iehovah against Baal, when it is said of him but a little after, That he departed not from the Calves of Dan and Bethel;* 1.806 which evidently shews the opposition between the God of Israel worshipped by the Calves, and the worship of Baal. No, saith T. G. Iehu's

zeal for the Lord doth not acquit him from Idolatry in following Jeroboam, any more than the lawful act of Matrimony acquits a Husband from the Crime of Adul∣tery, who defiles his Neighbours Bed. I perceive T. G. grew very sleepy when he wrote this,* 1.807 and forgot what we were about: for I never intended to clear Iehu from Idolatry by his zeal for Iehovah, but from such an Idolatry as excludes the worship of the True God. For that was my business to shew that he might be guilty of Idolatry, and yet worship the true God, by the Calves of Ieroboam; as he not only shews by that expression to Ionaedab, but by distin∣guishing between the Priests of the Lord,* 1.808 and the Priests of Baal; and yet soon after that character is twice given of Iehu, That he departed not from that worship which Ieroboam had established.* 1.809

To the last instance I brought of the Sa∣maritans, who sent to the King of Assyria for an Israelitish Priest to teach them the accu∣stomed worship of the God of the Land, who accordingly came and dwelt in Bethel,* 1.810 and taught it them, upon which it is said, They feared the Lord; T. G. returns a strange answer,* 1.811 viz. That there is no mention at all made of his teaching them to worship him in the Calves as Symbols of his presence;

here T. G. nodded again: For if he would but have held his eyes open so long as to have looked back on the 22, and 23 verses of the same Chapter, he would have found these words, For the Children of Israel walked in all the sins of Ieroboam which he did, they departed not from them: until the Lord removed Israel out of his sight, as he had said by all his servants the Prophets. So was Israel carried away out of his own Land to Assyria; and then immediately follows this story of the Samaritans, de∣siring to know the worship of the God of the Land; what can this refer to, but to the worship established by Ieroboam? I leave this to be considered by T. G. when he is awake,* 1.812 for he seems to have written these things in a Dream. As to what he saith, of his having confuted my conjectures, or rather Monceius his; (when it is apparent I differ from Monceius in his main ground, to any man that hath read him) I leave it as a fresh token of his kindness, when he will not so much as suffer me to be the Au∣thor of such weak conjectures, which he hath so easily, and so pleasantly confuted; and for the phrase of my plowing with his Heifer, I suppose it hath relation to the Calves of Dan and Bethel; which I take notice of, that he may not think his Wit is lost upon me.

To conclude this point of the meaning of the Second Commandment,* 1.813 I said, That since the Law giver hath thus interpreted his own Law, we need not be solicitous about the sense of any others, yet herein I say we have the concurrence of the Iew∣ish and Christian Church. The Iews have thought the prohibition to extend to all kinds of Images for worship, and almost all for ornament, and the Image worship of the Church of Rome is one of the great scandals to this day, which hinder them from embracing Christianity. All that T. G. answers to this is,* 1.814 That he would gladly know, whether we must stand or fall by the interpretation of the Iews? Did I bring their Testimony for that purpose? or intimate the least thing that way? did I not use so much caution on purpose to pre∣vent such a cavil? I declared that I did not need their Testimony in so clear a case; and yet it is no small advantage to our Cause, that we have herein the concur∣rence of all that had any Reverence to this Law of God, whether Iews or Mahume∣tans; and not barely of them, but of the whole Christian Church for so many Ages, as I have fully proved in the precedent Chapters.* 1.815 As to the Prophetical confuta∣tion

of my opinion about Idolatry and the Second Commandment by Mr. Thorndike, I do assure him if I could have thought what that learned Person had said in this matter, to have been agreeable either to Scripture or Reason, or the sense of the Primitive, or our own Church, it might have prevented my writing, by changing my opinion; for I was no stranger to his Writings, or his Arguments. But he that can think the Israelites believed the Golden Calf deli∣vered their people out of Egypt before it was made, may easily believe that Mr. Thorn∣dikes Book of 1662. was a confutation of mine, long before it was written; and up∣on equal reason at least, I may hope that this Answer will be a Prophetical Confuta∣tion of all that T. G. will ever be able to say upon this Subject.

CHAP. IV. An Answer to T. G's charge of Contradi∣ctions, Paradoxes, Reproach of the se∣cond Council of Nice, School disputes; and to his parallel Instances.

UNder these Heads I shall comprehend all that remains scattered in the several parts of his Book,* 1.816 which seem to require any farther Answer. The first thing I begin with is, the Head of Contra∣dictions,* 1.817 for he makes in another Book the charge of Idolatry to be inconsistent with my own assertion; Because I had said that Church doth not look on our negative arti∣cles against the Church of Rome,* 1.818 as arti∣cles of Faith, but as infriour Truths; from whence, he saith, it follows, that their Church doth not err against any article of Faith; but Idolatry is an errour against the most Fundamental point of Faith, and therefore for me to charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry, must according to my own principles, be the most groundless,

unreasonable, and contradictory pro∣ceeding in the World. Upon my word, a very heavy charge! And I must clear my self as I can from it. Had not a man need to have a mighty care of dropping any kind words towards them, who will be sure to make all possible advantages from them to overthrow the force of whatever can be said afterwards against them? Thus have they dealt with me; because I al∣lowed the Church of Rome to be a true Church, as holding all the essential points of Christian Faith; therefore all the ar∣guments I have used to prove them Idola∣ters, are presently turned off with this, That herein I contradict my self. Thus I was served by that feat man at Controver∣sie, I. W. who thought it worth his while to write two Books (such as they are) chiefly upon this argument:* 1.819 and he makes me to pile Contradictions on Contradicti∣ons, as Children do Cards one upon ano∣ther, and then he comes and cunningly steals away one of the supporters, and down all the rest fall in great disorder and confu∣sion.* 1.820 And herein he is much applauded for an excellent Artist, by that mighty man at Ecclesiastical Fencing, E. W. the renowned Champion of our Lady of Loreto, and the miraculous translation of her Chap∣pel;

about which he hath published a Defiance to the World, and offers to prove, it against all Comers (but especially my inconsiderable self) to be an undeniable Verity. I must have great leisure, and little care of my self, if I ever more come near the Clutches of such a Giant, who seems to write with a Beetle instead of a Pen; and I desire him to set his heart at rest, and not to trouble himself about the waies of my attacking him; for he may lie quietly in his shades, and snore on to Dooms∣day for me; unless I see farther reason of disturbing his repose than at present I do. But this charge being resumed by so consi∣derable an Adversary, as T. G. is, in com∣parison with the rest, I shall, for his sake, endeavour more fully to clear this whole matter. When I. W. had objected the same thing in effect against me; the sub∣stance of the Answer I made him was this, 1. That it was a disingenuous way of pro∣ceeding,* 1.821 to oppose a judgement of charity concerning their Church, to a judgement of Reason concerning the nature of actions, without at all examining the force of those Reasons which are produced for it. This was the case of I. W. but ingenuity is a thing my Adversaries are very little acquainted with: and therefore I said 2. There was

no contradiction in it: For the notion of Idolatry as applied to the Church of Rome, is consistent with its owning the general principles of Faith, as to the True God and Iesus Christ, and giving Soveraign Worship to them; when therefore we say, that the Church of Rome doth not err in any Fundamental point of the Christian Faith, I there at large shew, the meaning to have been only this, that in all those which are looked on by us as necessary Ar∣ticles of Faith, we have the Testimony and approbation of the whole Christian World of all Ages, and are acknowledged to be such by Rome it self; but the Church of Rome looks upon all her Doctrines, which we reject, as necessary Articles of Faith: so that the force of the Argument comes only to this, that no Church which doth own the ancient Creeds can be guilty of Idolatry. And I farther add, that when we enquire into the essentials of a Church, we think it not necessary to go any farther than the doctrinal points of Faith; because Baptism admits men into the Church upon the profession of the true Faith in the Fa∣ther, Son, and Holy Ghost: but if beyond the essentials we enquire into the moral in∣tegrity and soundness of a Church, then we are bound to go farther than the bare

profession of the essential points of Faith; and if it be found that the same Church may debauch those very principles of Faith by damnable errours, and corrupt the worship of God by vertue of them, then the same Church which doth hold the Fundamentals of Faith, may notwithstand∣ing lead men to Idolatry without the sha∣dow of a contradiction. But T. G. saith, That Idolatry is an Errour against the most Fundamental point of Faith. What doth T. G. mean by this? I suppose it is, that Idolatry doth imply Polytheism, or the be∣lief of more Gods than one, to whom So∣veraign worship is due; then I deny this to be the proper Definition of Idolatry, for although, where ever this is, it hath in it the nature of that we call Idolatry; yet himself confesses, the true notion of it to be, The giving the worship due to God, to a Creature; so that, if I have proved that the worship of Images in the Roman Church, is the giving the worship due only to God to a Creature; then, although the Church of Rome may hold all the essentials of Faith, and be a true Church, it may be guilty of Idolatry without contradiction. But it may be I. W. in his Reply, saith something more to purpose; (at least it will be thought so, if I do not answer

him:) I must therefore consider what he saith, that is material, if any thing be found so. However, he saith,* 1.822 that if the Roman Church doth hold any kind of Idolatry to be lawful, she must needs hold an Errour destructive to a Fundamental and essential point of Faith, and by con∣sequence a Fundamental errour incon∣sistent with the essence of a true Church. And since no kind of Idolatry is lawful, if the Roman Church hold it to be so, she must needs hold an errour inconsistent with some Truth. Most profoundly argued! He only ought to have subsumed, (as I think such Logicians as I. W. call it) but all Errour is Fundamental and inconsistent with the essence of a true Church; or That Infallibility is necessary to the Be∣ing of a Church, and when he proves that, I promise to renounce the charge of Idolatry. Now it is not possible, saith I. W. that the Roman Church should bold any Idolatry lawful (knowing it to be Idolatry) unless she holds that some Honour, which is due only to God, may be given to a Creature. I am afraid to be snapt by so cunning a Sophister, and therefore I distinguish in time. The Ro∣man Church doth not hold any Idolatry lawful which it judges to be Idolatry,

or the Honour due only to God; but the Roman Church may give the real parts of worship due only to God to a meer crea∣ture, and yet at the same time, tell men it is not a part of the Honour which is due to God. To make this plain even to the understanding of I. W. The Church of Rome may entertain a false notion of Ido∣latry, or of that worship which is due on∣ly to God: which false notion being re∣ceived, men may really give the worship that only belongs to God to His Creatures; and the utmost errour necessary in this case is no more than having a false notion of Idolatry, as, that there can be no Idolatry without giving Soveraign Worship to a Creature, or that an Idol is the represen∣tation only of an Imaginary Being, &c. Now on these suppositions, no more is ne∣cessary to the practice of Idolatry, than being deceived in the notion of it. If therefore T. G. or I.W. will prove that the Church of Rome can never be deceived in the notion of it, or that it is repugnant to the essence of a Church to have a false no∣tion of Idolatry, they do something to∣wards the proving me guilty of a contra∣diction in acknowledging the Church of Rome to be a true Church, and yet charg∣ing it with Idolatry. But I. W. saith,

That 'tis impossible the Roman Church should teach or hold any kind of Idolatry,* 1.823 whatsoever it be, but she must hold ex∣pressly or implicitly, that some Honour due only to God, may be given to a meer Crea∣ture. Such kind of stuff as this would make a man almost repent ever reading Lo∣gick (which this man pretends so much to) for surely Mother Wit is much better than Scholastick Fooling. Such a Church which commits, or by her doctrines and practises leads to Idolatry, needs not to hold, i. e. deliver as her judgment that some Honour due only to God may be given to a Creature; it is sufficient if she com∣mands or allows such things to be done, which in their own nature, or by the Law of God is really giving the worship of God to a Creature. Yet upon this mistake, as gross as it is, the poor waspish Creature runs on for many leaves, and thinks all that while he proves me guilty of a contra∣diction. But the man hath something in his head which he means, although he scarce knows how to express it, viz. that in good Catholick Dictionaries, a Fundamen∣tal errour, and a damnable errour,* 1.824 and an error inconsistent with the essence of a true Church, are terms Synonymous. Now I know what he would be at, viz. that In∣fallibility

is necessary to the Being of a Church: therefore to suppose a Church to err, is to suppose it not to be a Church: But will he prove me guilty of contradicti∣on by Catholick Dictionaries? I beg his pardon: for in them Transubstantiati∣on implies none; but whosoever writes against them, must be guilty of many. If he would prove me guilty of Contradicti∣on, let him prove it from my own sense and not from theirs. Yet he would seem at last to prove that the practice of any kind of Idolatry,* 1.825 especially being approved by the Church, is destructive to the Be∣ing of a Church. Which is the only thing, he saith, that deserves to be far∣ther considered, by enquiring into two things. 1. Whether a Church allowing and countenancing the practice of Idola∣cry can be a true Church? 2. Whether such a Church can have any power or Au∣thority to consecrate Bishops, or ordain Priests? For this is a thing which T. G. likewise objects, as consequent upon my assertion of their Idolatry, that thereby I overthrow all Authority, and Iurisdiction in the Church of England, as being derived from an Idolatrous Church. These are mat∣ters which deserve a farther handling, and therefore I shall speak to them.

1. Whether a Church may continue a true Church, and yet allow,* 1.826 and practise any kind of Idolatry? And to resolve this, I resort again to the ten Tribes; Supposing what hath been said sufficient to prove them guilty of Idolatry, my business is to enquire, whether they were a true Church in that time. This I. W. de∣nies;* 1.827 saying, I ought to have proved and not barely supposed that the Idolatry in∣troduced by Ieroboam was not destructive to the being of a True Church: and seve∣ral Protestants, he saith, produce the Church of Israel to shew that a true visi∣ble Church may cease. Alas poor man! he had heard something of this Nature, but he could not tell what; they had pro∣duced this as an instance against the per∣petual Visibility of the Church, and he brings it to prove that it ceased to be a true Church; and the time they fix upon by his own Confession is, when Elias complained that he was left alone in Isra∣el; which was not when the Idolatry of the Calves, but when that of Baal pre∣vailed among the people of Israel; i. e. when they worshipped Beel-samen or the Sun instead of God. Now that they were a true Church while they worshipped Iero∣boams Calves, I prove by these two things.

1. That there was no time from Ieroboam to the Captivity of Israel, wherein the worship of the Calves was not the esta∣blished Religion of the ten Tribes; this is evident from the expression before men∣tioned, that the Children of Israel departed not from the sins of Jeroboam,* 1.828 till God removed Israel out of his sight. And it is observable of almost every one of the Kings of Israel, that it is said particularly, that he departed not from the sins of Jeroboam.* 1.829 2. That during that time God did own them for his People,* 1.830* 1.831 which is all one with making them a True Church. Thus Iehu is said to be anointed King over the Peo∣ple of the Lord.* 1.832 And there is a remarkable expression in the time of Iehoahaz, that the Lord was gracious unto them,* 1.833 and had respect unto them, because of his Covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and would not destroy them, neither cast he them from his presence as yet. Would God have such respect to those whom he utterly disowned? Nay the Prophet Hosea saith,* 1.834 that God was still the Holy one in the midst of Ephraim; and How shall I give thee up Ephraim? how shall I deliver thee Israel? Which shews God had not yet discarded them: and afterwards he saith to Israel,* 1.835 Return unto the Lord thy

God; and Amos saith,* 1.836 prepare to meet thy God O Israel: and both he and Micah,* 1.837 call them still Gods people. From whence it is evident, that they were still a true Church notwithstanding the Idolatry of Ieroboam.

2. Supposing a Church to continue a True Church, what reason can there be to question the Authority of that Church as to the consecration of Bishops, or the or∣dination of Priests? I have formerly shew∣ed that no Act of Ordination is invalid in case of any heresie or Crime of the Giver;* 1.838 and that the contrary doctrine is condemn∣ed for heresie by the Church. I now shall particularly shew that the Power of giving Orders is not taken away by the guilt of Idolatry; which I prove from the case of the Arian Bishops. I have at large made it manifest,* 1.839 that the Arians were con∣demned for Idolatry by the consent of the Fathers of greatest reputation, S. Atha∣nasius, S. Basil, S. Gregory Nazianzen, Nyssen, Epiphanius, S. Chrysostom, S. Am∣brose, S. Augustin, &c. And the second Nicene Council saith,* 1.840 that the Catholick Church looked on them as Idolaters. Now, if I can make it appear, that the Arian Or∣dinations were allowed, I shall put this matter past dispute, that the charge of Idolatry doth not null the Ordinations of

our Church as being derived from those who were guilty of Idolatry. For this purpose, the second Nicene Council affords us plentiful assistance in the First Session; wherein Peter the Popes Vicar declares, that Meletius was ordained by Arian Bi∣shops,* 1.841 and yet his Ordination was ne∣ver questioned; and this was received by the Council as true. Epiphanius, So∣crates and Sozomon all agree,* 1.842 that Mele∣tius received his Consecration from the Arian Faction; and Epiphanius saith, he had it from the hands of Acacius Bishop of Caesarea; the worst of all the Arians, saith Baronius.* 1.843 Socrates and Sozomen do seem to imply, that the followers of Eusta∣thius at Antioch would not joyn with Me∣letius and his party, though both con∣senting in the Nicene Creed, because of his ordination by the Arian faction, and the peoples being baptized by Arian Priests; but Theodoret mentions no such thing,* 1.844 and saith the first breach began there, when Meletius was banished by the Arian party; and Euzoius the Arian was made Bishop of Antioch: and Baronius makes the Schism to begin from the ordi∣nation of Paulinus by Lucifer Caralita∣nus;* 1.845 however this were, we never find the Ordination of Meletius disputed by

the Catholick Bishops; and when S. Atha∣nasius writes a Synodical Epistle to those of Antioch, to compose the differences among them upon the ordination of Pau∣linus, he gives this direction to the other Catholick Christians concerning Meletius his party, who met 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (so the place of their meeting was called, being in the old City, which the interpreter of Athanasius renders in veteris Ecclesiae com∣munione) that they should receive those who came to them from the Arians with∣out requiring any more from them,* 1.846 than the renouncing Arianism and subscribing or owning the Nicene Creed; Whereby, the Arian Baptism and Orders were al∣lowed. But we have a fuller Testimony of the general sense of the Church of that Age as to this matter of the Arian Ordi∣nations; Ruffinus saith,* 1.847 that when the Catholick Bishops were returned from ba∣nishment, several of them met together at Alexandria to consult what was to be done with those who had received Orders from the Arian Bishops; and after consul∣tation about it, it was decreed in Council, that only the Heads of the party should be rejected, but others received to the exer∣cise of their Priestly Office: upon which Asterius was dispatched into the Eastern

parts to settle the Churches there, and Eusebius into the Western: but he return∣ing to Antioch, found that Lucifer in the mean time had broken his promise in the Consecration of Paulinus, and Eusebius therefore would not own him as Bishop; which so enraged Lucifer, that he quar∣relled with the decree of the Alexandrian Council about receiving the Arian Bishops and Priests upon disowning their Heresie. And so the Luciferian Schism began: for the followers of Lucifer charged the Ca∣tholick Church with being the Synagogue of Antichrist for receiving the Arian Bi∣shops, as appears by S. Hierom;* 1.848 for they yielded to the receiving the penitent Laity but not the Clergy; allowing the Arian Baptism, but not their Ordinations: upon which S. Hierom triumphs over them. And he saith, that eight Arian Bishops were received in the Council of Nice, al∣though their Arianism were declared be∣fore: and that the decree of the Alexan∣drian Council was universally received by the Church: which is as ample a Testi∣mony to our purpose as can be desired.

* 1.849Next to contradictions, T. G. charges me with maintaining strange Paradoxes, which he puts into the Title of one of

his Chapters in these words,* 1.850 A strange Pa∣radox advanced by Dr. St. What can an Image do to the heightning of Devotion or raising affections? Not finding my self to be any great lover of Paradoxes, but of plain and useful Truths, I was the more curious to find out what Paradox it was I had broached. And searching for the place, I found these words,

And can any one imagine, there should be greater irreverence of God shewn in calling him to witness upon every slight occasion, than there is in bowing down before a block or a hewen stone, representing God to my mind by it? What can SUCH an Image do to the heightening of devo∣tion, or raising affections?

This is the monstrous Paradox advanced by me, viz. that such a gross representation of God by an Image doth tend more to abate than raise our estimation of him: which is so far from being a Paradox, that I have herein the consent, not only of the anci∣ent Fathers, but of the greatest Patrons of Images in the Eastern and Western Churches, till the latter times, as I have shewed al∣ready. But T. G. sets himself very indu∣striously to prove that Pictures have an advantage in representation above living Creatures;* 1.851 which he doth with great

force of wit and strength of Reason; be∣cause Ladies sit, (sometimes to make Madonna's by) for their Pictures, and Authors Pictures are set before their Books; (it is pitty we want our Authors on so just an occasion) and men keep the Pictures of their Friends (and Sign-posts are very useful in London streets, and may suggest many good meditations to men, as the three Nuns or the like) but to hold the contrary opinion, is the way to undo the company of Picture-drawers (which would be a great unkindness to all ingenious Ar∣tists,) but the most dismal consequence of my doctrine is, that the Ladies instead of the Pictures of their Friends should wear Ants and Flies in Crystal cases; and instead of their own pictures the Apes and Asses should be sent them; which I brought in so lamely, and the Tygers too if they can catch them, as greater resemblances of their Perfections. These passages, I hope, were intended for sallies of Wit; which do become T. G. as well in this argu∣ment, as dancing upon the Ropes would do a Capucin Frier in his habit. But whence comes all this Rage of Wit? this arming all the Pencils and brushes of the Town against me? this Appeal to the Ladies against the pernicious consequences

of my opinion? this hurrying of me from the Playhouse and the Scenes there to the Bear-garden, to the Apes, and Asses, and Tygers? All this ariseth only from this innocent saying,

that it seems more rea∣sonable to me to Worship God by pro∣strating my self to the Sun, nay to an Ant or a Fly, than to a picture or an Image; for in the other I see great evi∣dences of the Power, and Wisdom and Goodness of God, which may suggest venerable apprehensions of God to my mind; whereas these can have nothing worthy admiration, unless it be the skill of the Painter or Artificer.

Hinc illae lachry∣mae! Could I ever have imagined that these words being spoken meerly with a respect to the representation of God in order to Worship, should have raised the Arriereban of all the Ladies and Painters against me? If nothing will satisfie T. G. but having it under my hand that I had no malicious intention against the inge∣nious art of Painting, nor any design to ruine the company of picture-drawers, I do hereby give it him, and with this hum∣ble acknowledgement I hope the parties concerned will rest satisfied. It is not in the point of bare representation I com∣pare pictures and Gods Creatures; but it

is in representing those perfections which are the ground and Reason of Worship; and here I stand to it, that the least living Crea∣ture is a far better Image of God, than an old Man in Pontifical habits, or the best Crucifix in the world can be: i.e. it re∣presents more those perfections for the sake of which I give divine Worship to God. But T. G. saith,* 1.852 that Atheists will deny the perfections of the Creatures to be any evidence at all of the being we call God; but cannot deny a Crucifix to represent to their own thoughts that Person whom we believe to be God? This is very ill put; for he should have parallel'd blind men and Atheists together; and I dare say no blind man discerns more of the excellency or likeness of a Picture, than Atheists do of the perfections of God by his Creatures. If men will shut their eyes, what can a Crucifix do to raise affections? and if their eyes be never so open, it can only represent that which falls infinitely short of being a Reason for Divine Worship. For, as to the meer representation of Christs humanity by an Image, whoever disputed with T. G. about the lawfulness of it? but if he goes no farther than representation, or a help to me∣mory or apprehension, T. G. knows well enough, he falls short of what is required of

him, by the Decrees of their Councils, and the constant practice of their Church, about which our Controversie with them is.

To the former paradox I added these words,* 1.853

that I cannot for my heart under∣stand why I may not as well, (nay bet∣ter) burn incense and say my Prayers to the Sun, having an intention only to honour God by it, as to do both those to an Image?

Here T. G. gives me warn∣ing not to say my Prayers to the Sun no more than they do to Images;* 1.854 he needs not give me that warning, for I never in∣tend to do it so much; for although he would insinuate that I know they do not, I hope he will change his mind when he reads the account I have given of their practises in that particular; but I only pretended to pray to the Sun having an in∣tention to honour God by it; and in this sense I am sure T. G. cannot deny, that they pray to their Images. But if I do not say my prayers to the Sun, but only bow down to it, so it be not out of igno∣rance, or Heathenism, or to give scandal to weak Brethren, he gives as much li∣berty as I could wish, and he quotes S. Leo for it too; in that very place where he con∣demns it, as appears by the last words he

cites out of him;* 1.855 let the Faithful there∣fore abstain from so perverse and worthy to be condemned a Custome, nor let the honour due to God alone, be mixed with their rites who serve the Creatures, for the Holy Scripture saith, Thou shalt wor∣ship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve. Where the reason he gives against it, is not as T. G. insinuates, be∣cause there were some Reliques of Paga∣nism remaining, but because it was giving the Creature part of that Honour which is due to God alone.* 1.856 But T. G. offers to give me a clear solution to my scruple; which he does in two particulars. 1. That al∣though the Creatures do represent God af∣ter their manner, yet it is so rudely, re∣motely, darkly, and imperfectly, that there is need of a great deal of discourse to dis∣cover the analogy or proportion to their Creator; and they are called the footsteps of God; whereas an Image (for exam∣ple) of Christ is so apparently representa∣tive of him, that upon sight thereof our thoughts fly presently unto him. By which argument S. Paul was strangely mistaken when he talked of the Eternal Power of God being so known or manifest by the things that are seen,* 1.857 that even the Hea∣thens were left without excuse; no such

matter, saith T. G. the Creatures repre∣sent God rudely, remotely, darkly and im∣perfectly; which make an excellent para∣phrase on the words of the Psalmist,* 1.858 The Heavens declare the glory of God, and the Firmament shews his handy-work. Mens handy-work by Images will do it rarely, presently, effectually, inflamingly; but Gods Work doth it dully, remotely, rudely, and imperfectly. O how much the skill of a painter exceeds the Power of God! Whereas in truth the least work of Na∣ture infinitely exceeds the greatest art of man in curiosity, beauty, strength, propor∣tion, and every thing that can discover Wisdom or Power. But, saith T. G. they are called Gods footsteps, and to gather the height and bigness of Hercules from his footstep was not the Work of every vulgar capacity, which is a very Childish way of reasoning, and taken only from such a Metaphorical expression that Vasquez calls it a frivolous argument that is taken from it. I, but the pretty story of Hercules and that put together make a pleasant jingling: and looks like Reason to those that know not what it means. Must men take the measure of God just by the same Geometri∣cal proportions that he did, that gathered the height and bigness of Hercules by his

foot? This sort of Wit is a delicate thing, and endures no rough handling. But still I say it is not in the meer quickness of re∣presentation, but in the perfections repre∣sented, that natural things do so far ex∣ceed the most artificial Images; and we are to consider that in all representations of objects of worship, those are the most ex∣cellent which best set forth the Nature of that Being as it deserves our worship. Now in this respect, the works of Creation manifest Gods eternal Power, and what is it the Image of an Old man represents? So that comparing these two, the Sun, Moon and Stars do in regard of real representa∣tion of the Divine Being, much more de∣serve to be worshipped than any Image whatsoever. And Vasquez doth well prove that upon the principles of Wor∣shipping Images,* 1.859 one may lawfully Worship God in any Creature whatsoever. For if the presence of God in the Image by a meer fiction of the mind, be a sufficient Ground to worship that Image; is not Gods real presence in every creature a far better ground and reason to worship it? and all the distinctions and evasions which serve in one will equally serve in the other case. How earnestly did T. G. contend for the Worship of Gods Footstool? and why may

not His Footsteps be worshipped as well as His Footstool? I am sure T. G. himself could not have taken the height and bigness of Hercules from his Footstool, which he saith, was done from his Footsteps; and there∣fore one comes nearer to the thing wor∣shipped than the other. Cardinal Lugo gives an excellent answer to this Metaphor of the Creatures being Gods Footsteps;* 1.860 For, saith he, they may be worshipped for all that; for do not we worship the Footsteps of Saints in many Churches? how much more ought we to adore the Footsteps of God?

But T. G. gives another reason against worshipping the Creatures,* 1.861* 1.862 viz. That there is greater danger of terminating the worship upon them, than upon an Image; because they are Creatures subsisting of themselves, and are the causes of real be∣nefits to mankind. If there be more dan∣ger in the one, there is more folly in the other, in the judgement of the Fathers, who looked on the worship of Images as the most silly and childish thing in the world; while they thought the worship of the heavens very excusable: Upon this ground, I had said before, it follows, that what deserves most honour should have the

least given it, and that which deserves least, should have most; for the danger is still greater, where the excellency is greater; and by this reason we ought ra∣ther to worship a Beast than a Saint, for there is less danger of terminating the wor∣ship on one than on the other, and so the Egyptians were more excusable than the Papists. These words he returns upon me, on a very slight occasion, viz. setting the Sun before an Ant or a Fly;* 1.863 as though they had been a Reason of my giving, where as I only shew the ridiculousness of this which is the only pretence they have for not worshipping God by a living Old Man, as well as by the Picture of one. And if this be all T. G. hath to say, I see still the distinctions of Soveraign and in∣feriour, of absolute and relative worship will bear any man out in the worship of any Creature with a respect to God, as well at least as it doth them in the worship of Images. Vasquez saith there are these se∣veral grounds for the worship of a Crea∣ture among them.* 1.864 1. Representation, which belongs to an Image. 2. Contact, although long since past; thence they wor∣ship the Cross, Nails, Garments, and other things that had touched the bodies of Christ or the Saints. 3. Union; thence they wor∣ship

all Reliques which had been parts of the Saints. 4. Presence: thence God be∣ing more present in his Works, than any Saint can be in a Garment he did once wear; there is more Reason to worship God in His Works, than any Saint in Reliques. Cardinal Lugo assigns these several Reasons for the worship of God in any Creature. 1. Because they worship the work of mens hands, as the hand-writing of any Saint,* 1.865 much more ought we to worship Gods Works with a Relative worship. 2. Becaus they worship the very places where the Saints have been; as a Stone on which they have sate, for the sake of contact and propin∣quity; much more ought we to worship Gods Creatures, to whom He is far nearer than the Body of a Saint to a Stone. 3. Because they receive gifts from Princes with great veneration, although mean in themselves; therefore since all the Creatures are Gods gifts we may worship them for His sake. 4. Because a man is the living Image of God, therefore as a Wooden Image may be worshipped for the sake of the exemplar, much more, saith he, ought such a lively Image as man is. Thus we see how men of the greatest understanding among them, have discerned the necessary consequence of their own principles of worship, and

find there is no defending them, without yielding the lawfulness of worshipping God through any of His Creatures; and living men rather than dead Images, on the ac∣count of a fuller representation of God; and saith Lugo, With the worship of Latria, in respect of God, and an inferiour worship on the account of His proper excellency.* 1.866 If men had set themselves to oppose the doctrine of the Primitive Church about Di∣vine Worship, they could not have thought of a principle more directly opposite to the general sense of it than this is, of the lawfulness of the worship of Creatures. But there are two cases wherein they will not allow it. 1. In the case of indecency, although there have been a real contact; thus the lips of Iudas are excepted, al∣though they touched Christ. And Cardinal Lugo with particular caution excepts the Tail of the Ass on which Christ rode to Je∣rusalem.* 1.867 But saith Arriaga, There was indignitas moralis,* 1.868 that did hinder the worship of Judas his lips; however he doth not understand, how this can cut off the adorability of them on the principles of Vasquez and Lugo. As to the Ass on which Christ rode; there are some, saith he, do yield that it might be worshipped; and the Mule, and the Ass which stood by

the Maunger, as well as the Maunger is self: but it may be, it were better denied, because there is, saith he, I know not what meanness in it which hinders adoration; but he adds, that in all these moral things very much depends on the apprehension of the persons; and in case the intention be right∣ly directed, he thinks it very hard (upon their principles) to prove that God cannot be worshipped in any Creature. 2. In case of publick scandal they do not allow it. Not from any real hurt in the thing, but because the People have been only hitherto accustomed to worship Images, and Re∣liques of Saints. The danger, saith Vas∣quez from Cajetan, would be none to un∣derstanding men, but only to the rude and ignorant people, that cannot so easily appre∣hend God in His Creatures, as in an Image, and withall it would savour of Heathen superstition. But it were well they would consider the Answer they give us in this case, when we urge the same argument against the worship of Images: Hold, say they,* 1.869 a meer scandal is no reason to take away the use of a thing, if it be such as doth not arise from the nature of the thing; but only by accident through the malice or igno∣rance of the Persons. So that in this case no∣thing is wanting, but well instructing the

People; and upon their principles of worship they may revive the worship of the Host of Heaven, the Fire and Water, and Trees, and the Earth it self; and it is but conquering a little squeamishness of stomach at first, the very Tail of the Ass on which our Savio••r rode, will go down with them. And now I leave the Reader to judge which of us two is guilty of the greater Paradoxes.

I now come to the great rock of offence, the second Council of Nice:* 1.870 which, he saith,* 1.871 I most irreverently call that wise Synod; upon which he falls into a very Tragical exclamation; that I should dare to reflect so much dishonour on a Council, wherein there were 350.* 1.872 Fathers, with the Popes Legats, and the Vicars of the Oriental Patriarchal Sees; and yet him∣self calls the Council of Constantinople a Conventicle, wherein there were 338. Bi∣shops; (and doth he think the number of twelve more in one than in the other, makes such a huge difference in point of Wisdom?) But the Author of the Caroline Book saith,* 1.873 That by their own confession they were but 306. And the Council of Francford (which opposed this, and of which T. G. speaks not very honourably, as I shall make appear) consisted of about

••00. Bishops, by the confessions of their own Writers: so that if number carries it, I have above 600. Bishops of my side; and if they were wise, the Nicene Council was not so. It is therefore in T. G's choice to call 300. or 600. Bishops, Fools. But if he be guilty of the same fault, that doth not excuse me for speaking so Ironical∣ly, of so lawful, so general, so judicious a Council, as that at Nice was: and there∣fore he adviseth me to recant, and to follow the example of Gregory of Neocaelarea: I hope he doth not mean in the way of S. German; although one of that name was a great Patron of Images about that time. But if this Council were neither so lawful, so general, nor so judicious as T. G. pretends, for all that I know, the Rector of a Parochial Church never to be found in the list of any General Council (which is a shrewd aggravation of my fault) may have leave to call the Second Council of Nice, a wise Synod.

1. I shall enquire whether this were a lawful General Council, and so received by the Church: There are three things T. G. insists on to make this out. 1. That it was called by the Popes Authority; which he knows we deny to be sufficient to make a lawful General Council; for then

every Assembly of Bishops at Rome called by the Pope would be a General Council. 2. The consent and presence of the Patri∣archs. 3. That it hath been received as such by the Church. But I shall make it appear, that it was just such another Gene∣ral Council as that of Trent was, and ma∣naged with as much fraud and collusion; and that it was not received by the Church as a General Council. 1. As to the pre∣sence and consent of the Patriarchs; this Council in their Synodical Epistle boast that they had the concurrence of East,* 1.874 West, North and South: Which is such an extra∣vagance, that no sober men would have been guilty of, that had any regard to Truth or Honesty; or did in the least con∣sider the State of the World at that time. The Western Bishops were never so much as summon'd, the Patriarch, of Ierusalem was dead, the Eastern Patriarch, and the Pa∣triarch of Alexandria were neither in con∣dition to appear themselves, nor to send Legats thither; which Baronius ingenu∣ously confesseth:* 1.875 Because Aaron who was then Chaliph of the Saracens, was a great enemy to the Christians, under whose do∣minion at that time they were. Although Christianus Lupus,* 1.876 a Professor of Divinity at Lovain, makes him a great Friend to

the Christians in Egypt; which is not only contrary to Baronius, but to the Synodi∣cal Epistle, the two Monks carried to the Council, from the Monks of Palestine, and was read and approved by the Council. Theophanes saith,* 1.877 That the Empress and Patriarch, both sent to the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, while the Peace continued; but soon after upon Aaron's being made Chaliph, the peace was broke; and there was no liberty for the Patriarchs either to go or send.

But do we not read in the Acts of the Council that John appeared and subscribed as Vicar of the Oriental Patriarchs; and Thomas as Vicar of the Patriarch of Alex∣andria? Very true: but Baronius gives an excellent account of this notori∣ous cheat. The Legats that were sent to the Patriarchs did never arrive at Antioch or Alexandria; but coming into Palestine, they there understood what a grievous per∣secution the Christians suffered under the new Chaliph, and that if it should be dis∣covered what errand they went upon, it would not only hazzard their own lives, but of all the Christians of those parts; therefore they forbore going any farther, and acquainted the Monks of Palestine with their design; who met together, and

took upon them to send these two, John and Thomas as the Legats of the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria: For Theodorus Patriarch of Ierusalem was lately dead. And these two were the goodly Vicars of the Patriarchal See's which sate and sub∣scribed in their names in this most Oecume∣nical Council; and passed in all the Acts of it for the Legats of the Oriental Patri∣archs.* 1.878 For they subscribe themselves Le∣gats of the three Apostolical Sees, Alexan∣dria, Antioch, and Jerusalem: and yet the summons never came to either of the Patriarchs, but they were in truth only the Plenipotentiary Monks of the Patri∣archal Monks of Palestine: So both Ba∣ronius and Binius confess they were only the Monks that sent them, and they call themselves Eremites in the beginning of their Epistle; and yet in the Acts of that Council they pass for very great men of the East,* 1.879 and Euthymius Bishop of Sardis calls them the Patriarchs of the East; and Epi∣phanius takes it for granted that the Let∣ters were sent by the very same to whom Tarasius directed his; when the very Let∣ters themselves, which were read in the Council, shew that the Patriarchs of An∣tioch and Alexandria were never consulted with. And yet Christianus Lupus in his

late Notes on the Canons of the General Councils,* 1.880 very fairly tells a formal story of Politian, Patriarch of Alexandria, and Theodoret of Antioch, and Elias of Ieru∣salem, sending these for their Legats to this Council (I had thought it had been only the Popes Prerogative to make titular Patriarchs) and he gravely magnifies the zeal and courage both of the Patriarchs and Legats for venturing so much in such a time of Persecution: and then falls into a mighty Encomium of the two Legats that Tarasius sent, for venturing through a thousand deaths to get to the Patriarchs, when God knows they never came near them. But which is far more to be won∣dred at, Pope Adrian in his Answer to Charles the Great about the Nicene Synod had the face to say,* 1.881 That the Synodical Epistle of the three Patriarchs, of Cosmus of Alexandria, and of Theodore of Anti∣och, (it seems Elias is turned to Theodore again) and Theodore of Ierusalem was read and approved in this Council of Nice; than which (with his Holiness's leave) there never was a more notorious falshood, unless it were that of Tarasius; who upon the approbation of these Letters of the Monks, cry'd out,* 1.882 That the East and the West, the North and the South were all

agreed; and the whole Council followed this with an acclamation of Glory be to God that hath united us; when the Eastern Patriarchs knew nothing of the Council, the Western Bishops opposed it as soon as ever they knew it. And was not this a very hopeful General Council, having as T. G. saith,* 1.883 The Popes Legats for Presi∣dents, and the Vicars of the Oriental Pa∣triarchal Sees assisting in it?

2. That it was not received for a Gene∣ral Council by the Church.* 1.884 For even in the Greek Church it self, Theophanes only saith,* 1.885 That the Emperour called together all the Bishops within his own Dominions; which is said likewise by Landulphus Sa∣gax; only Theophanes would have it be∣lieved that the Oriental Patriarchs sent their Legats,* 1.886 which was very false: as not only appears from the very Acts of the Council, wherein the Monks Letter is in∣serted, but because this Council was not received many years after in those Patri∣archal Sees; which is evident from Photius his Encyclical Epistle to the Patriarch of Alexandria and others,* 1.887 not long since published in Greek from a Ms. brought out of the East; wherein Photius expostulates the case, why the Nicene Council was not

received among them, as the six General Councils were. In that Copy which is ex∣tant in Baronius, translated by Metius, and with great diligence compared with two Mss. whereof one was a very ancient one, it is said expresly,* 1.888 That it was re∣ported among them that none of the Churches under the Apostolical See of Alex∣andria did own the Nicene Synod for a Ge∣neral Council; which in B. Montagues Copy is mitigated into some; but by the tenour of his Discourse it appears, it was not published in their Churches, nor recei∣ved among them as a General Council: and he useth many arguments to perswade them to it; among the rest he saith, That Tho∣mas was present in it from his See, and others with him; but he doth not say, he came as Legate. And he hath found out Companions for him too; which is more than the Nicene Council discovered: and yet he acknowledges that by reason of the persecution of the Saracens, the Acts of that Council never came to them; which would be very strange, if the Patriarch of Alexandria sent a Legate thither. Ba∣ronius ingenuously confesses that this Ni∣cene Council was not received as an Occu∣menical Council in any of the Eastern Pa∣triarchates,* 1.889 excepting only that of Con∣stantinople;

and he is very hard put to it to prove that it was owned as such even at Rome it self; because Nicholaus 1. in a Council at Rome in the cause of Photius reckons up but six General Councils, which Photius upbraids him with; and it is but a pitiful pretence which Baronius hath for it, viz. that they had only a bad Transla∣tion of it; such a one as it was, it was of Hadrians procuring, as Anastasius saith.* 1.890 If they had received it as a General Coun∣cil, where were the Authentick Acts of it? or if they did not understand Greek, could they not have procured a better Latine Translation before the time of Anastasius? But the plain Truth was, although Pope Hadrian joined with it, and would not al∣low Tarasius his being Patriarch till he undertook to get the worship of Images confirmed, yet the Nicene Council was so very ill received in the Western Church; that the following Popes were ashamed to call it an Oecumenical Council; as Binius confesses in the very words of Baronius, ac∣cording to his custom. And long after their times, it was so little known or esteemed in the Western parts,* 1.891 that Aquinas and the ancient Schoolmen never mention it in the matter of Images, but determine ex∣presly against it. Which either shews it

was not known, or had not any value put upon it; For if Baronius his reason hold good, as soon as Anastasius had finished his Translation, this Council would have been as much known here, as any other; and so much the more, because so many Schoolmen were concerned to justifie the worship of Images, and they were so much to seek for arguments to defend it, that they would have leaped for joy to have had a Decree of an allowed General Coun∣cil on their side; or if they had found it against them, they would some way or other have answered it.

But the greatest Testimony against it is the Council of Francford,* 1.892 which expresly condemned it; and as Sirmondus confesses,* 1.893 Did not look upon it as an Oecumenial Coun∣cil, because none but Greeks met in it, and other Churches were not asked their opinion; nay, he saith, that Pope Hadri∣an himself, did not give it the title of a General Council. To this T. G. answers,* 1.894 That what weight soever that Exception carried at that time, yet it is certain now it hath no force at all, since the Council it self hath for many hundreds of years been accepted as a true and lawful Ge∣neral Council, and its doctrine as Catho∣lick

by all the Provinces of Christendom, and the contrary to it condemned for Here∣sie. This latter is evidently false, as I have shewed before, and there is no reason for the other; for by the confession of their own Writers the Copies of this Ni∣cene Council lay buried in these Western parts for many Ages, which is the rea∣son they give why the Schoolmen take no notice of it; and in the former Century, the Copies of it were first published from some Mss. that were very little known. The account whereof was, that this Coun∣cil meeting with so brisk an opposition from the Council of Francford and after∣wards from the Gallican Bishops, and being rejected here in England by the consent of our Historians, the very name of it was almost quite forgotten; thence it never was once cited either by Ionas Aurelia∣nensis, or Walafridus Strabo, as Spala∣tensis observes,* 1.895 when they had the greatest occasion to do it in the matter of Images. But when the worship of Images began to be opposed here in England by Wickliffe, the defenders of it finding themselves con∣cerned to find out every thing that made for their advantage, Waldensis having heard of some such thing as a Council against Iconoclasts, by Thomas and Iohn,

two Dominicans of his time, from a cer∣tain Book;* 1.896 he adventures to set it down upon their report, but so faintly with ut fertur, as if he had been telling the story of Pope Ioan; and he saith, it was called un∣der the pious Emperour Constantius the se∣cond, and Pascasius: by which we may see what an excellent account they had of this General Council; but in the last Century, Pet. Crabb, a Franciscan, with indefati∣gable diligence searching five hundred Li∣braries for any thing pertaining to Coun∣cils, lights upon the old Latin Edition of this Council, and published it A. D. 1551. From that time this was looked on and magnified as the seventh General Council in these Western parts, and its Authority set up by the Council of Trent: and the generality of Divines finding it in the Vo∣lums of General Councils and there joyned with them, search'd no farther, but ima∣gined it was alwaies so esteemed.

But it may be some will become confi∣dent of it,* 1.897 when they see so good an Au∣thor as T. G. speaking with so much as∣surance, That it hath been received for many hundred years as a lawful General Council; If he speaks from the time of its being published, he might as well have

said for many thousand years. For 1. In the Age wherein it was first sent abroad, it was utterly rejected by the Council of Francford; as not only appears by the Canon it self, but by the confession of some of the most learned and judicious per∣sons of the Roman Church: such as Sir∣mondus and Petrus de Marcâ were:* 1.898 and Petavius confesses, That the Council meant by the Council of Francford was the Ni∣cene Council, and not the former of Con∣stantinople; as Surius, Cope, or Harps∣field, Sanders, Suarez, and others were of opinion: nay Labbé and Cossart in their late Edition of the Councils, have most impudently set down this in the very Title of the Council of Francford, That the Acts of the Nicene Council in the matter of Images were confirmed therein: where∣as Sirmondus adds this to the Title of his Admonition about the second Canon of that Council, Quo rejecta est Synodus Nicaena: all which Advertisement they have very honestly left out, although they pretend to give all Sirmondus his Notes. But the main pretence for this was, because the words of the Canon do mention the Coun∣cil of Constantinople;* 1.899 which Petavius thinks was called so, because Constantino∣ple was the Head of the Eastern Empire;

but the plain reason is, because the Nicene Council was begun at Constantinople upon the 17 of August; but the Emperours Guards would not endure their sitting there, as Theophanes relates,* 1.900 upon which they were forced to rise; and the Empress found out a trick to disband the suspected Officers and Souldiers, and brought in new ones; however it was thought convenient the Council should sit no longer there, but remove unto Nice. And what a mighty absurdity was this to call a Council, which was begun at Constantinople, the Constan∣tinopolitan Council? And it is observable, that Gabriel Biel,* 1.901 who lived in the latter end of the fifteenth Century, quotes the Decree of this Council of Nice, under the name of a Decree of the Council of Con∣stantinople. And the learned P. Pithaeus speaking of Anastasius his Translation,* 1.902 calls it the Council of Constantinople. The new French Annalist is satisfied with nei∣ther opinion, but he thinks, That another Council of Constantinople was called be∣tween the Nicene Council,* 1.903 and that of Francford, which did in express words de∣termine that the same worship was to be given to Images, which is due to the B. Tri∣nity, and that this was the Council con∣demned at Francford: but this New Coun∣cil

is a meer invention of his own, there being no colour for it either from the Greek or Latin Historians; and in truth he pre∣tends only to these reasons, 1. Because it was a Council of Constantinople which was condemned. 2. Because it is not to be supposed that the Council of Francford should condemn the Council of Nice: For he saith, it is not to be believed that so many Bishops,* 1.904 the Popes Legates being pre∣sent, should misunderstand the doctrine of that Council: yet this is all the refuge T. G. hath in this matter:* 1.905 and he offers from Petr. de Marca, to give a particular account of it. To which I answer, That the Author of the Caroline Book (as I have already observed) takes notice of this passage of the Bishop of Constantia in Cy∣prus; and although there were a mistake in the Translation of it, yet it ought to be observed that, he saith, the whole Council meant the same which Constantine spake out,* 1.906 although in words they denied it, and he there quotes the very words of their de∣nying it, Non adoramus Imagines ut De∣um, nec illis Divini servitii cultum impen∣dimus, &c. From whence it is plain, that the Western Church understood well enough what they said, and what they de∣nied; but they judged, notwithstanding

all their words to the contrary, that they did really give that worship to Images which was due only to God; and no man that reads the Caroline Book can be of another opinion. And T. G. is content to yield it of the Author of that Book,* 1.907 from the Testi∣monies I brought out of him; but he saith, That Author was not contented with what the Council of Francford had condemned. Which is a lamentable an∣swer; since Hincmarus saith,* 1.908 That this very Volume was it which was sent from the Emperour to Rome by some Bishops against the Greek Synod; and he quotes the very place out of it which is still extant in that Book. And is it credible that the Emperour should publish a Book in his own name as a Capitular, as Pope Hadrian calls it, that was different from the sense of the Council of Francford, which was called on purpose to resolve this Question about Images, as well as to condemn the Heresie of Felix and Elipandus? Petavius indeed would have the main Book to have been written some years before the Council,* 1.909 as soon as the Acts of the Nicene Synod were known in these parts (and Cassander pro∣bably supposes Alcuinus to have been the Author of it) but when the Council of Francford had condemned the Nicene Sy∣nod,* 1.910

only some excerpta were taken out of it and sent to the Pope. I am not sa∣tisfied with Petavius his Reason, Because the Pope doth not answer all of it, (a bet∣ter cause may be assigned for that) but in the Preface of the Book the Author de∣clares that it was done with the Advice of the Council (Quod opus aggressi sumus cum conhibentiâ sacerdotum in regno à Deo nobis concesso Catholicis gregibus prae∣latorum) and Bellarmin and Baronius both grant,* 1.911 That this Book contains the Acts of the Council of Francford; However if the Book were extant before under the name of Charles, it is so much the more improbable that if the Council differed in opinion from it, the Excerpta out of this Book should be sent as the Reasons of re∣jecting the Nicene Synod. And that pas∣sage which Hincmarus cites out of this Book, is very considerable to our purpose; for the design of it is to shew, That the Greek Synod could have no pretence to be esteemed a lawful General Council, because the doctrine of it was not Catholick, nei∣ther were the Acts of it done by the uni∣versal Church: and in another place, That Synod is charged with folly and presumpti∣on,* 1.912 in that being but one part of the Church, it should dare to impose its De∣crees

upon the Church without advising and consulting with the other parts of it, (debuerat enim ad circumjacentium provinciarum Ecclesias legationem scisci∣tativam facere, utrum imagines adorari aut non adorari deberent.) For what Rage and Madness is this, for the Church of one part to go about to determine that which was never determined by the Apo∣stles or their Successors, and to endeavour to Anathematize the Churches of the whole World? But this is cursing without reason, anger without Power, damning without Authority: and therefore they are charged with no less than Luciferian pride for taking upon them to pronounce Anathe∣ma's against those who dissented from them. Petavius saith,* 1.913 That when Pope Hadrian sent the Acts of the Council to Charles the Great, and would have a Council called to advise about it; the Pope had not yet declared it for an Oecumenical Council! but if it were not then declared to be a General Council, it is very unlikely he should do it afterwards when he found that three hundred Bishops of Germa∣ny, France, and Italy, saith Surius, did so stiffly and resolutely oppose the definition of it in spight of the Popes Legats, who were present there. Which contradiction

of theirs shews, how very far this Council was from being received by the Church as a lawful General Council; and from the Answer of Hadrian it appears that it was not then solemnly confirmed by the Pope, nor ever after, that we can find, till the Council of Trent.

2. We have the Testimony of the best Historians of that and several Ages after, that the Nicene Synod was not received as a lawful General Council. In the Annals of Eginhardus,* 1.914 who was Secretary to Charles the Great, we have this Account, that not many years before the Council of Francford, there was a Synod at Constan∣tinople, which was called by themselves, not only the seventh, but a General Coun∣cil; but Charles having summoned to∣gether a Council of Bishops out of all parts of his dominions, it was there utterly re∣jected, so as not to be called or thought to be either the seventh, or a General Council. The Annales Tiliani,* 1.915 Loiseliani, Bertiniani, Fuldenses, Metenses, Laurishamenses, Massianenses, Egraismenses being the best Records of that Age, all agree with Egin∣hardus in the rejecting of the Greek Synod; and most of them call it the false Synod, others say, that which would be called the seventh and a General Council; and with

these agree Ado Viennensis, Rhegino, Her∣mannus Contratus and Urspergensis in their several Chronicles, wherein we have a plainer Testimony that this Council was rejected, than we have that any General Council was ever received.

3. That this was not barely the sense of that Age,* 1.916 but continued to be so of succeeding Ages, appears from the Testi∣mony I gave of the Gallican Church in the time of Ludovicus Pius, and the Synod of Paris, A. D. 824. wherein they persisted in condemning the Nicene Synod, and the doctrine therein asserted: which shews evidently that it was no mistake of the Words of the Council which caused the Council of Francford to condemn the Ni∣cene: for Pope Hadrian had now written in Vindication of it, and endeavoured to clear the sense of the Council; and yet after all this the Gallican Bishops adhered to the sentence of the Council of Franc∣ford. To this T. G. returns only this an∣swer,* 1.917 that although they were of this opi∣nion at that time, yet afterwards the do∣ctrine of the Nicene Council was received in the Gallican Church. I proceed therefore to shew, that in the time of the Contro∣versie between Ionas Aurelianensis and

Claudius Taurinensis the Gallican Church had not changed its opinion: (Ionas lived, saith Labbé, to A. D. 842.) For Bellar∣min yields that Jonas denied that any worship was to be given to Images,* 1.918 al∣though he disputed against Claudius Tau∣rinensis who followed the opinion of Se∣renus and would have them all destroyed. Marg. de la Bigne saith,* 1.919 that Jonas was one of the Heads of those who opposed the Pope and the Orientals, i. e. the Nicene Synod in this point of the worship of Images, and he calls it a superstitious and pernicious practice,* 1.920 from which the Galli∣can Church was free; and a detestable and most wicked errour; notwithstanding the Orientals pretended that they did not worship the Images, but the exemplars by them; and he prays God they may be at last delivered out of that superstition: with so much more to that purpose, that it were endless to repeat it. Walafridus Strabo who lived some years after Ionas,* 1.921 and mentions the death of Ludovicus Pius, is yielded by Baronius to have been of the same opinion with Jonas in this matter:* 1.922 and he saith, all the honour due to Images is barely negative, not to misuse or destroy them. In the same time with Ionas lived Agobardus Archbishop of Lions, and is at

this day reckoned among the Saints and Confessours of that City; of whose do∣ctrine I had given before an account from the abstract of Papirius Massonus, and from thence I shewed how zealous he was against all worship of Images: and I pro∣duced the Testimony of Baluzius to shew that he said no more than the whole Gallican Church in that Age believed. T. G. gives up Agobardus;* 1.923 but he will not yield that Ba∣luzius saith any such thing, for the French Bishops allowed Images to be kept saith Baluzius, that the faithful seeing them might be excited to the imitation of those holy persons whom they represented: whereas Agobardus went so far as to af∣firm that they were kept for ornaments to delight the eyes, but not for the instruction of the People; nay that they were not to be painted upon Church walls. The words of Baluzius are,* 1.924 Ego crediderim Agobar∣dum scripsisse quod omnes tum in Galliâ sentiebant; and what sense can any man make of these words, if he did not be∣lieve, that what Agobardus wrote was the sense of the Gallican Church? I cannot but pity T. G. in these straights he runs himself into; he can creep in at a Mouse-hole, but he soon grows too big ever to get out again. For Baluzius saith what I

affirmed, and Agobardus saith no such thing, as he affirms of him: and in that very Synopsis of his doctrine by Massonus, to which he referrs, we have just the con∣trary;* 1.925 Picturae aspectandae causâ historiae & memoriae, non Religionis; Images are to be looked on for history and memory sake, but not for Religion; and what is this but for instruction of the people? Who∣soever it was, that helped T. G. to this citation, I desire him as a Friend that he will never trust him more; for I would think better of T. G. himself, than that he would wilfully prevaricare. But if this were Agobardus his opinion, why have we it not in his own words? rather than those of Pap. Massonus, who talks so ignorantly and inconsistently in that very place where those words are, but are not set down by him as the judge∣ment of Agobardus. If T. G. would have taken, no great pains, to have read over Agobardus his discourse of Images,* 1.926 he would have saved me the labour of con∣futing him about his opinion; for he de∣livers it plainly enough against all wor∣ship of Images, though for the sake of the Exemplar; but he expresly allows them for instruction. I am sorry T. G. makes it so necessary for me to give him such

home-thrusts; for he lays himself so open, and uses so little art to avoid them, that I must either do nothing, or expose his weak∣ness, and want of skill.

But all this while we are got no farther than towards the middle of the ninth Cen∣tury, the Church of France might change its opinion after this time, and assert the Council of Nice to have been a General Council, and submit to the Decrees of it. I grant all this to be possible, but we are looking for certainties, and not bare pos∣sibilities. Hincmarus of Rhemes,* 1.927 a stout and understanding Bishop of the Gallican Church, died saith Bellarmin, A. D. 882. and he not only calls the Nicene Synod a false General Council, but he makes that at Francford to be truly so: (And these latter words of his are cited with approbation by Card. Cusanus) and he condemns both Factions among the Greeks,* 1.928 of the Icono∣clasts, and of the Nicene Fathers. In the same Age lived Anastasius Bibliothe∣carius, who made it his business to recom∣mend all the Greek Canons and Councils to the Latin Church; (he was alive saith Baronius, A. D. 886.) He first translated the eighth General Council, at which him∣self was present; and when this was abroad, he tells the Pope what a soloecism

it would be,* 1.929 to have the eighth, without a seventh, (ubi septima non habetur, are his very words) from whence it appears in how very little Regard that Council was in the Western Church. It is true, he saith, it was translated before; but it was, almost by all so much contemned, that it was so far from being transcribed, that it was not thought worth reading. This he would have to be laid upon the badness of the translation, (he hath mend∣ed the matter much) when in his Lives of the Popes, he saith, it was done by the par∣ticular Command of Pope Hadrian, and laid up in his Sacred Library. But when he hath said his utmost for the Catholick doctrine of Image-worship, (as he would have it believed) he cannot deny that the admirable usefulness of this doctrine was not yet revealed to some of the Gal∣lican Church; because they said it was not lawful to worship the Work of mens Hands. After this time, came on the Midnight of the Church; wherein the very names of Councils were forgotten, and men did only dream of what had past; but all things were judged good, that were got into any vogue in the practice of the Church; yet even in that time we meet with some glit∣terings of light, enough to let us see the

Council of Nice had not prevailed over the Western Church. Leo Tuscus who was a Secretary to the Greek Emperour, and lived saith Gesner,* 1.930 A. D. 1170. giving an account of the Schism between the Greek and Latin Churches, hath these words, (saith Cassander) that among the Causes of the Breach,* 1.931 that Synod was to be assigned which was called by Constantine and Irene, and which they would have called the seventh, and a General Council; and he adds moreover, that it was not re∣ceived even by the Church of Rome. A∣bout the year 1189. was the Expedition into Palestine by Fredericus Aenobarbus, and Nicetas Acominatus,* 1.932 who was a great Officer under the Greek Emperour, Isacius Angelus, (and present in the Army saith Baronius) gives this account of the Ger∣mans opinion in those times about the worship of Images. When, saith he, all the Greeks had deserted Philippopolis, the Armenians staid behind, for they looked on the Germans as their Friends, and agreeing with them in Religion, for the worship of Images is forbidden among both of them. Which being a Testimony of so considerable a Person, and not barely con∣cerning the opinion of some Divines, but the general practice of the people, doth

shew that in the twelfth Century, the Ne∣cene Council had not prevailed all over the Western Church, when T. G. affirms it did for many hundreds of years before the Reformation. Especially, if we consider what the judgement and practice of the Armenians was, as it is delivered by Ni∣con,* 1.933 (who is supposed to have been a Saint and Martyr in Armenia,) who saith, that they do not worship Images, and their Catholick Bishop or Patriarch ex∣communicates those that do. Which is confirmed by what is said to the same purpose by Isaac an Armenian Bishop,* 1.934 who lived in the same Century, viz. that they do not Worship the Images either of Christ, the B. Virgin, or the Saints. And Pet. Pithaeus a learned and ingenuous Papist,* 1.935 confesses, that it was but very lately that those of the Gallican Church began to be fond of Images: and he writ that Epistle wherein those words are extant, A. D. 1568. Surely he did not think the do∣ctrine of the Nicene Council had been re∣ceived in the Gallican Church for many hundred years.

* 1.936But suppose the Nicene Synod were not owned for a General Council, yet it might be very wise and judicious Assembly; to say

that, is to reflect on the Emperour Charles the Great and all the Western Bishops in his Dominions. And I am sure their expres∣sions would justifie me, if I had spoken sharper without an Irony: for in the Ca∣roline Book we frequently meet with such expressions as these, concerning those grave Fathers;* 1.937 ut illi stultissimè & irrationa∣bilitèr putant; indoctè & inordinatè di∣cunt; quam absurdè agant; quod magnae sit temeritatis dicere; quod non minus om∣nibus sed pene plus cunctis Tharasius de∣lirasse dignoscitur;* 1.938 Deliramento plena di∣ctio Leonis. Ut illi delirant: ut illi gar∣riunt: Ridiculosè & pueriliter dictum; infaustè, praecipitantèr, sive insipienter: dementia prolatum & risu dignum.* 1.939 Inu∣tile & mendacio plenum. Dementissi∣mum & ratione carens Deliramentum, er∣rore plenum. Falsissimum & risu dignum. Ridiculosissimum Dictum. Superciliosè & indoctè dixerunt. When T. G. hath con∣sidered these expressions, and the force and pungency of them, being all applyed to the Fathers of that Nicene Synod, by the Western Bishops under the name of Charles the Great, he may possibly cool and abate his rage towards me for using only that Ironical expression of That Wise Synod. And there is nothing considerable said by

the Nicene Fathers which is not answered in that Book, to whom I may therefore bet∣ter referr him, than he doth me to the Answers of Epiphanius in the Nicene Council for satisfaction of no less than eight arguments (as himself numbers them) of the Constantinopolitan Fathers against the Worship of Images.

But that he may not think the greatest weight lies in any thing that is passed by, I shall briefly consider the Defence he makes for the Nicene Synod in the parti∣culars mentioned by him. 1. He saith, That the Nicene Fathers did justly plead the continuance of Christ Kingdom against the Idolatry of Christians,* 1.940 because God hath promised that he will take away Idols from the earth,* 1.941 not for four or five hundred years, but to the end of the world. I de∣sire T. G. to consider, whether this argu∣ment would not have held as well against the Catholick Bishops who charged the Ar∣rians with Idolatry: and what answer he gives himself about that, will shew the feebleness of his answer in this case. And the prophecies of the Old Testament re∣lating to Events under the New (sup∣posing that doth so, which is far from being clear) do certainly shew what the design and tendency of the Christian do∣ctrine

is, and what would be if men did observe it. As it is in all the prophecies of the Peace and tranquillity of the World, notwithstanding which, we find the World at the old Rate of quarrelling and Fight∣ing under new pretences: Just so it is with Idolatry, no doctrine in the world would preserve men more effectually from it, if they would observe it; but if under the colour of Christianity they bring in only a new scheme of it; it is still the same kind of thing, although it appears in a fresher dress. But then, saith T. G. the Gates of Hell would prevail against the Church. Against what Church? The whole Christian Church? whoever said they could, or how doth that follow? The Church of Constantinople, or the Church of Ierusalem? Have not the Gates of the Turk been too strong for them? The Church of Rome? The Gates of Hell do certainly prevail against that, if it doth Unchurch all other Christians that are not of its communion? And why may not Idolatry prevail, where Luciferian Pride, and Hellish Cruelty and desperate Wicked∣ness have long since prevailed? Hath Christ made promises to secure that Church from errour, which hath been over-run with all sorts of Wickedness by the confession of

her own members and Friends? These are gobbets, fit only to be cramm'd down the throats of very implicite believers.

* 1.9422. He undertakes to shew, that the saying of the Fathers against the Arrians cannot reach to those that worship Images, because Epiphanius saith, the Arrians trusted in Christ, and gave properly Di∣vine Honour to Christ, which they do not to the Images of Christ. To answer this, I shewed that Aquinas and his followers did declare that Latria was to be given to the Images of Christ, therefore this could not, at least, excuse them from be∣ing parallel to the Arrians, and if their arguments hold good, then all that wor∣ship Images fall under the like condemna∣tion. This he bestows the name of ma∣ny fallacies upon;* 1.943 and runs on so briskly with shewing the inconsequence of it, as though he did in earnest believe it were an impertinent answer; by which he would insinuate, that I had made use of Aquinas his opinion to prove those guilty of Idolatry which were of another opinion. No such matter; For the question was, whether the saying of the Fathers con∣cerning the Arrian Idolatry can be justly applyed to those that worship Images? Yes, say I, upon Epiphanius his own

ground they may, if they who worship Images give divine Honour to them; but Aquinas and his Followers contend that Divine Honour is to be given to them; and therefore they fall under the like cen∣sure. And by their argument, all that worship Images must come under it; For either they worship Images for themselves, and then they all acknowledge it is Ido∣latry; or for the sake of the exemplar: which if it be the reason and object of worship as represented by the Image, it must have the same worship which the thing considered in its own being de∣serves; which being divine honour, that must be given to the Image. But T. G. supposes the force of all this to depend up∣on their being of this opinion, and because the Nicene Fathers are not mentioned by me as agreeing with Aquinas, therefore he represents this arguing as ridiculous. Whereas my design was to shew (that since divine honour being given to Images, was confessed to make the case alike) that it was confessed by the most preva∣lent party in the Church of Rome, that such honour was to be given to them, and that others did it, although they would not own the doing it. And whe∣ther men acknowledge it or no; if they

give that which is really Divine Worship, they become guilty of Idolatry as well as the Arrians; and let men call it by what names they will, of Relative or absolute, Soveraign or inferiour Worship, if it be that which God hath forbidden to be given to any Creature, it becomes Idolatry.

3. T. G. saith,* 1.944 that the argument doth not hold, that if the union of the Divine and humane nature be the reason of the worship given to the Person of Christ, then there must be an equal presence or union between Christ and the Image to make that an object of Worship; for, saith he, not only union, but representation may oc∣casion worship. Who doubts of that? but may it not as well occasion people to commit Idolatry? But the question is not, whether representation may occasion the worship of God or no; for so an Ant or a Fly, or any Creature may occasion it. But this is notorious shuffling to talk of Images being only an Occasion of Wor∣ship, whereas I have at large shewed that the doctrine and Practice of their Church makes them Objects of Worship. And since the Christian Church acknowledged the humanity of Christ to be capable of worship only on the account of an Hypo∣statical Union with the Divine Nature;

I desired to know how a meer Image of that Humane Nature can be an object of lawful worship? If T. G. saith, That the Image is a fit object of worship, and re∣presentation the reason of it; let him shew how Representation comes to be an equal reason with personal union; and at last, this Representation is nothing but an act of Imagination, which doth not make the object any more really present there than any where else: against which Ima∣gination we set the positive Law of God forbidding any such kind of worship, as I have already proved.

4. He saith in defence of his Nicene Fa∣thers,* 1.945 That although the Image of Christ can only represent the humane Nature as separate from the Divine, yet the charge of Nestorianism doth not follow; because the Object of their worship, is that which is conceived in their minds; and worship being an act of the Will, it is carried to the Prototype, as it is conceived in the un∣derstanding; but their understandings being free from Nestorianism, their Wills must be so too: which is all the sense I can make of T. G's answer. Who doth not seem at all to consider there are two things blamed by the Church in Nestorianism. 1. The heretical opinion. 2. The Idola∣trous

practice consequent upon that opini∣on, of the separation of the two Natures in Christ. Now the argument of the Con∣stantinopolitan Fathers proceeds not upon their opinion, as though they really be∣lieved the principles of Nestorianism who worshipped Images; but they were guilty of the same kind of worship; for since an Image can only represent the humane na∣ture of Christ; if it were lawful to wor∣ship that Image on the account of Christ, then upon the Nestorian principles it would be as lawful to worship the humane nature of Christ, although it had no hypostatical union with the Divine. For could not the Nestorians say that when they consi∣dered Christ as a humane Person, yet that humane Person did represent to them the Divine Person, who was the proper object of worship; and although they were not really and hypostatically united, yet by re∣presentation, and an Act of the mind, they directed their worship towards the Divine Person. For if a bare Image of the humane Nature be a sufficient object of worship, much more is the humane Na∣ture it self; and if on the account of such representation the worship of Christ may be directed to his Image, with much greater Reason it might be towards Christ, as Ho∣mo

Deiferus, in regard of that humane Nature, which had the Divine Nature present, although not united. And up∣on this Ground the Constantinopolitan Fa∣thers did justly charge the worshippers of Images with Nestorianism as to their wor∣ship; and that they could not defend them∣selves, but they must absolve the Nestori∣ans, whom the Christian Church and this Nicene Synod it self would seem to con∣demn. For there is a greater separation between the Image of Christ and Christ, than the Nestorians did suppose between the Divine and humane Nature; for they did still suppose a real presence, although not a real Union; but in the case of Images there is not so much as a real presence, but only by representation; therefore if the Nestorians were to blame in their wor∣ship, much more are those that worship Images.

As to the last Answer, being only a de∣sire that I would bear in mind against a fit season,* 1.946 that the Eucharist is called by the Constantinopolitan Fathers an Honourable Image of Christ, I shall do what he de∣sires; and I promise him farther to shew the Nicene Fathers Ignorance and Confidence, when they said, It was contrary to the Scriptures and Fathers to call the Eucha∣rist

an Image of Christ. All the other arguments of the Constantinopolitan Fa∣thers, to the number of eight, T. G. passes over, and so must I.

From hence I proceed to the next Charge,* 1.947 which is, That I mix School di∣sputes with matters of Faith; For I desired seriously to know, whether any worship doth belong to Images or no? if there be any due, whether is it the same that is given to the Prototype, or distinct from it? If it be the same, then proper Divine Worship is given to the Image; if distinct, then the Image is worshipped with Divine Worship for it self, and not relatively and subordinately as he speaks: and which side soever is taken, some or other of their Divines charge the worship with Idolatry; so that it is in mens choice which sort of Idolatry they will commit when they wor∣ship Images, but in neither way they can avoid it. To this T. G. answers several waies.* 1.948 1. That this is a point belonging to the Schools, and not at all to Faith: which I said, was their common Answer when any thing pincheth them; but to shew the unreasonableness of that way of answering, I added that both sides charge the other with Idolatry, and that is a

Matter of Conscience, and not a Schola∣stick Nicety. For if the worship of Images be so asserted in the Church of Rome, that in what way soever it is practised, there is by their own confession such danger of Idolatry; the General Terms of Councils serve only to draw men into the snare, and not to help them out of it. 2. He answers this, by a drolling comparison, about the worship due to the Chair of State,* 1.949 whether it be the same which is due to the King or no; if the same, then proper Regal worship would be given to some∣thing besides the King, which were Trea∣son: if distinct, then the Chair would be worshipped with Regal Honour for it self, and not relatively, which were for a man to submit himself to a piece of Wood. This he represents pleasantly, and with advantage enough: and supposing the Yeomen of the Guard to have done laugh∣ing, I desire to have a difference put be∣tween the customes of Princes Courts, and the worship of God: and it is strange to me T. G. should not see the difference. But whatever T. G. thinks, we say, that God by His Law having made some Acts of worship peculiar to himself by way of ac∣knowledgement of His Soveraignty and

Dominion over us, we must not use those Acts to any Creature; and therefore here the most material Question can be asked, is, whether the Acts of worship be the same which we are to use to God or no, i. e. whether they are acts forbidden or lawful? for if they are the same, they are forbidden; if not, they may be law∣ful. But in a Princes Court, where all ex∣pressions of Respect depend on custom, and the Princes Pleasure, or Rules of the Court, the only Question a man is to ask, is, whether it be the custom of the Court, or the Will of the Prince to have men un∣covered in some Rooms and not in others; no man in his wits would ask, whether that be the same Honour that is due to the King himself? or who but T. G's Clown could suspect it to be Treason to put off his Hat in the Presence Chamber, or to the Chair of State, let it be done with what intention he pleases? If the Yeomen of the Guard should see an old Courtier approach with many bowings to the Chair of State, and there fall down upon his Knees, and kiss the Arms of the Chair, and deliver his Petition to it for a good Office at Court, and observe that he doth this frequently, and with great gravity,

I am afraid they would hardly hold their Countenances long to see such a solemn Fop; and yet this pleasant Courtier might pretend, that he did all this as imagining the King to be there present by representa∣tion, and that he did not give this Honour to the Chair of State absolutely, consi∣dered as a piece of Wood; but only Rela∣tively, and for the sake of his Master▪ that he knew better what belonged to the Honour due to Soveraign worship than such rude fellows as they; that his intention was to shew what esteem he had for his Prince by all this; and though as to the substance of the act this was the same that was done to the Person of the King, yet it fell upon the Chair of State after an inferiour Manner, as a thing relating to the King, and purely for his sake. I leave the substantial Yeomen of the Guard (T. G's Iudges in this Controversie) to determine in a General Council among them, whether T. G's Quaker, or this old Courtier were the more ridiculous By which instance we see that even in Princes Courts men may over-act their Reverence, and make themselves laughed at for their foolish and extravagant Rela∣tive worship; for in all such cases the

Rules of the Court are to be observed, where there is no intrenchment upon Di∣vine Laws; and every man that comes to Court enquires after the Orders of the Court, and he that keeps within them doth his duty, and never fears the Yeomen of the Guard. If the Orders of the Court were for men to pass through the Presence, or other Chambers without any Ceremo∣ny, would not the Yeomen of the Guard be as ready to observe those who used it? Their business is to observe Orders them∣selves, and to see that others do it. And this is the only way how this parallel can reach to our Case; all that we plead for, is, that the Rules and Orders be observed which God hath given us for His Worship; since He hath given Laws we ought to obey them; and since He hath appointed what He will have done, and what He will not, we must follow His Rule, and not our own extravagant Fancies, pre∣tending that we have pretty devices to ho∣nour Him with, which He hath expresly forbidden. In such a case, we have Rea∣son to enquire, whether the Acts of Wor∣ship be the same that He hath forbidden or no: but not where the whole matter depends on custom, and general Rules,

which every man may easily know; and no one hath any reason to be scrupulous as long as he keeps within the measures of Decency.

But withal, the force of my Question lay in the confession of our Adversaries, who acknowledge on one side, That if the Act of Worship be the same that is given to the Prototype, it is Idolatry; on the other side, if it be distinct it is Idolatry; and then I had all the reason in the world to put this Question, because either way they are entangled by the con∣fession of their own party. But as if Yeo∣men of the Guard should be so senseless, as some of them to tell a poor Countryman, when he is going through the Presence Chamber, that if he gives the Chair of State the same Honour he gives the King, he commits Treason; and others say, if he does not, he worships the Chair for it self, and so commits Treason; would not any man say, the Countryman had reason to stand, and scratch his head, and consi∣der what he does, for he doth not care to commit Treason, and if he must do it one way or other, for his part he would go some other way, or be better resolved what he is to do. Thus in our case Bel∣larmin

saith, It is Idolatry to give the same worship to an Image which is due to God: Vasquez saith, It is Idolatry to give distinct worship; therefore if a man would avoid Idolatry, he must give none at all: especially when there is no necessi∣ty at all of doing it; and therefore it is in no case parallel with the difficulties about sight and motion, which T. G. makes use of,* 1.950 to shew that such subtilties ought not to hinder men from doing things. Not when they are in themselves neces∣sary to be done; but when it is a doubtful case, and so doubtful that their most learned men say there is danger of Idolatry either way, I do not know a more prudent consideration to keep a man from the Pra∣ctice of it.

Therefore T. G. after all his complaint of mixing these School disputes,* 1.951 and let∣ting me know what edge-tools these School distinctions are (as any one might guess by his manner of handling them) yet at last he resolves to venture upon clearing the point.* 1.952 1. He saith, The Councils declare in this matter that we are not to give Latria to Images, or the worship due only to God; and this without any distinction

of absolute or relative Latria. 2. He confesses, That S. Thomas, and those of his way,* 1.953 do hold that the same worship is to be given to Christ, and to His Image. Can any two things appear with a face of greater opposition than these two? But, saith T. G. Latria is twofold, one absolute,* 1.954 and that is due to God himself; and the other relative, that may be given to the Image: or rather, in the same act of worship is a double Notion, the one as it tends to God himself, which is absolute Latria, the other as it reflects on the Image for His sake, which is relative Latria. Which distinction I have alrea∣dy examined, and shewed the vanity of in several places; and that there are many in the Church of Rome who hold absolute Latria to be given to Images, and that up∣on the grounds of a Relative Latria any Creature may be worshipped; therefore I shall keep to what is proper to this place. 1.

I said this distinction is just as if an unchaste Wife should plead to her Hus∣band, that the Person she was so kind with, was extremely like him, and a near Friend of his, that it was out of respect to him, that she gave him the ho∣nour of his bed; can any one think that

such an excuse as this would be taken by a jealous Husband? How much less will such pretences avail with that God who hath declared himself particularly jealous of His honour in this Command above others, and that he will not give His glory to another, but hath reserved all Divine Worship as peculiar to himself, and no such fond excuses of Relative, inferiour, and improper worship will serve, when they encroach upon His Prerogative.

To this T. G. answers, That the object of Iealousie is a Rival,* 1.955 or what hath relation to or Union with Him, not what may serve to express affection and respect to the Person who ought to be loved. But I have already shewed, from the con∣fession of their own Writers, and the sense of the Christian Church, that even an Image of Christ becomes a Rival when it hath Divine Honour given to it: and T. G. himself will not allow Sacrifice to be of∣fered to an Image;* 1.956 and he denies from the Catholick Catechism (although con∣trary to the Catholick Practice) that they do pray to Images: let us then suppose that men do pray and Sacrifice to the Image of Christ. Is all this only like the Wifes kissing the Picture for the

Husbands sake? If it be no more, it is lawful and commendable to do them ac∣cording to T. G's principles; if it be more, then an Image of Christ may have such honour done to it as makes it an Idol, and consequently a Rival with God for His Ho∣nour. And so the dispute comes to this, whether the practices of the Roman Church in the worship of Images do not imply giving Divine Honours to them: of which I have treated at large already. 2.

By this distinction men might say the Lords Prayer to Saints, or offer up the Host to an Image, so they were done abso∣lutely to God, and only Relatively to the Saints or Images.

T. G. being nettled with this, tells me in some passion; That I can no where contain my self with∣in bounds of Mediocrity;* 1.957 he shall see I can by not following his Extravagancy: but he lets me know that the Church of God hath no such custom; I do not ask whether the Church of Rome have any such Custom (the Church of God I know hath not) but whether it may not have that as well as some others, and upon the same grounds of Relative Worship? But if I must not understand this till I become a Proselyte, I hope I shall be alwaies

cntented with my Ignorance; if I can be no otherwise informed,* 1.958I am not sorry to see such evidence of their inability to an∣swer who make such put-offs.

Having thus passed through the seve∣ral Charges drawn up against me,* 1.959 I come in the last Place to consider his parallel Instances, by which he hopes to clear and vindicate their Worship of Images. To his first about the Chair of State, and the third about the Iews worshipping to∣wards the Ark and Cherubims, I have an∣swered already, (the fifth belongs to the Adoration of the Host.) There remain only three to be examined, 1. The Reverence shewed to the Ground by Moses and Ioshua. 2. The bowing at the name of Iesus. 3. The bowing towards the Altar; If I can clear these from being of the same Nature with the worship of Images as allowed and pra∣ctised in the Roman Church, I know no shadow of difficulty which remains throughout his Book.

1. To the Reverence shewed to the Holy Ground where God himself appeared by Moses and Joshua, being commanded to pull off their Shoos. I answered,

That, (whatever T. G. thinks of it) there is

some difference to be made be∣tween what God hath commanded, and what he hath forbidden; for in the case of Moses and Ioshua, there was an express Command, but in the case of Image-worship there is as plain a pro∣hibition:

The former part he calls a short Descant on the former erroneous Ground,* 1.960 and the latter, a note above Ela. I am glad to see the second Command∣ment set to Musical Notes among them, for I was afraid it had been quite cast out of their Churches.

2. That the special presence and appearance of God doth sanctifie a place to so high a degree, that we may lawfully testifie our Reve∣rence towards it, but this will not hold for Images, unless God be proved pre∣sent in them, in the same manner as he appeared to Moses and Ioshua, and yet even then, the Reverence he required was not kissing it, or bowing to it, much less praying to it, but only putting off their shooes.

Upon this T. G. being in a Musical vein,* 1.961 sings his Io Paean;and cryes out of the wonderful force of Truth, that after long standing out makes all her Adversaries submit to her Power. I wish we could see such effects of the

Power of Truth; for it would soon rid us of many Fears and Iealousies. But what is it I have said so much amiss, to gain T. G's good word?* 1.962 Enough as he thinks to ruin our own Cause and establish theirs. That were indeed confuting him with a Vengeance. But what's the mat∣ter? wherein have I given up the Cause? I yield, that the special Presence and ap∣pearance of God doth sanctifie a place to so high a degree, that we may lawfully testifie our Reverence towards it. And what then? Why then saith T. G. all my darts which I have so spitefully thrown in the face of the Images of Christ (or the Holy Trinity and the Saints) recoil with double force on my own Head. How with double force? nay how doth it ap∣pear that they recoil at all? for to the best of my sight they stick fast where they did; and I do not by my feeling perceive they recoil upon my Head. Well; but a subtle Logician would ask me, whether this Reverence be absolute or Relative: and he doth not question my answer would be, that it was not to the Ground for it self, but meerly out of a Respect to God. Is this indeed the fatal blow I have given the Cause of our Church, when I expresly

mention a Command of God going before it? and who doubts but we may give a Reverence to places, with respect to God, especially when God requires it, as he did in this case? And when T. G. hath made the most of this Ceremony of pulling off the Shooes, he will find, that it was of no other signification in the Eastern parts, than having our heads uncovered is with us; which is the lowest testimony of Re∣spect that may be. Yet this was all which God himself required when he was present after a signal and extraordinary man∣ner: and what is all this, to the con∣secrating, bowing, kneeling, praying to Images, as they do in the Roman Church? and this I say and have proved, against an express Command of God; and that not upon any real, but Imaginary presence of the true object of worship. He that cannot see the difference of these things, hath some Cataracts before his Eyes, which need couching. But still T. G. demands,* 1.963 is this the same Reve∣rence that is due to God, or distinct from it? I say, it is distinct from it; then, saith he, Vasquez comes upon you wish his artillery; for then you express your sub∣mission to an inanimate thing, that hath

no kind of excellency to deserve it from you. Alas poor T. G! how doth he argue like a man spent and quite gone! That which Vasquez saith is, that for a man to use all the acts of adoration to Images which are performed in the Ro∣man Church without respect to the exem∣plar, were to express our submission to an inanimate thing, which is Idolatry. Where it is to be observed, that he speaks of all the Acts of Worship which in the Church of Rome they give to Images, and which being given to an Image makes it Idolatry, because those Acts are such which do im∣ply a submission to the thing, i. e. they are the highest expressions of adoration; and those who assert that inferiour wor∣ship, do hold it to be internal as well as external, and to be terminated on the Images themselves; which is the Reason why Vasquez saith it were Idolatry; But Vasquez was not a man of so shallow an un∣derstanding to charge this upon those who declare they put off their shooes or hats, out of no intention or design to worship the Ground or Place, but meerly to ex∣press some outward Reverence to a Place on the account of its being Sacred to God. Those who contended for that wor∣ship

which Vasquez charges with Idolatry, did agree with him in all external acts of adoration to Images; and went farther than Vasquez thought fit as to the inter∣nal; for they said, both ought to concurr in the worship of Images, and that this inferiour worship was terminated on the Images themselves (as I have shewed at large in the stare of the Controversie.) Now saith Vasquez, to assert and practise worship of Images after this manner is Ido∣latry, for it is expressing our submission to a meer inanimate thing. But do we say, that all acts of worship are to be perform∣ed to the Ground that is holy; or that any one act of worship is to be termina∣ted upon it; or that any submission of our minds is to be used towards it? All these we utterly disavow as to the Reverence of Sacred Places, and these things being declared, we yet say there is a Reverence left to be shewed them on the account of their discrimination from other places and separation for sacred uses; which Reve∣rence is best expressed in the way most common for men to shew Respect by, which was putting off Shooes in the Eastern parts, and of Hats here; (of the diffe∣rence of Reverence and worship, I have

spoken before.) I hope by this time, T. G. sees a little better the force of the argument of Vasquez,* 1.964 and how very far it is from recoiling on my head, because I assert a Reverence to sacred places to have been shewed by Moses and Ioshua on the account of Gods special presence: and so all that insipid Discourse of Idola∣try which follows, sneaks away as being ashamed to be brought in to so little pur∣pose here; but hath been fully handled in the First part.

* 1.9652. To his Instance of Bowing at the name of Iesus, I answered,

that he might as well have instanced in our going to Church at the tolling of a Bell, for as the one only tells us the time when we ought to go to worship God, so the mentioning the name of Iesus doth only put us in mind of him to whom we owe all manner of Reverence, without dis∣honouring him as the Object of our worship by any Image of him, which can only represent that which is neither the object nor reason of our worship.

At this Answer T. G. is inflamed, and when he hath nothing else to say, he en∣deavours to set me at variance with the

Church of England. This runs quite through his Book, and he takes all occasi∣ons to set me forth as a close and secret enemy to it, although I appear never so much in its Vindication. If my Adversaries were to be believed (as I see no great reason they should be) I must be a very prodigious Author in one respect; for they represent me as a Friend to that which I write against, viz. Socinianism; and an enemy to that which I have de∣fended, viz. the Church of England. But wherein is it, that T. G. thinks me such a back-friend to our Church?* 1.966 in disavow∣ing all Reverence to the Sacred Name of Iesus, which he saith, our Church hath en∣joyned, and hath been defended by Fulk, Whitgift, and B. Andrews. I am glad I know my charge, and I do not doubt to clear my self to hold nothing in this or any other matter, but what the Church of England hath declared to be her sense. Witness, as to this point, the Declaration of the Archbishops and Bishops in Convoca∣tion:

When in time of Divine Service,* 1.967 the Lord Jesus shall be mentioned, due and lowly Reverence shall be done by all Persons present as hath been accu∣stomed; testifying by these outward

ceremonies and gestures, their inward humility, Christian Resolution, and due acknowledgement that the Lord Iesus Christ, the true and Eternal Son of God is the only Saviour of the World.

Is this bowing to the very name of Iesus, and worshipping that as they do Images, when the Convocation declares that only a significant Ceremony is intended by it. Arch-B. Whitgift, in the very place cited by him saith,* 1.968 that the Christians used it to signifie their faith in Iesus; and there∣fore they used bodily reverence at all times when they heard the name of Iesus, but especially when the Gospel was read. Dr. Fulk,* 1.969 another of his Authors saith, that the place alledged by T. G. to prove it, pertains to the subjection of all Crea∣tures to the Iudgement of Christ; howe∣ver, he saith, the ceremony of bowing may be used out of Reverence to his Ma∣jesty; not to the bare name; and that their Idolatrous worship is unfitly compa∣red with the bowing at the name of Iesus. Bishop Andrews saith,* 1.970 we do not bow to the name, but to the sense; which an∣swers and clears all the long allegation out of him. Archbishop Laud calls it, the Honour due to the Son of God at the

mentioning of his Name, which are almost the very words I used. And Whitting∣ton and Meg of Westminster will altoge∣ther serve as well for his expression as that used by me. But T. G. need not be so angry at my mentioning the tolling of a bell, when he remembers the Christening of bells among them, and what mighty Power they have after that, and what Reverend God-fathers they have, and what Saints names are given to them; so that I should rather have thought he would have drawn an argument from the Bells, than have been so disturbed at the naming of them. For all this T. G. fancies a strange Analogy between Words and Pictures, a picture being a word to the Eye, and a word being a Picture to the Ear: which sounds just like Whittington to my ears: and I desire him to consider, that Suarez tells us,* 1.971 that some of their own Divines say, no worship is due to any Name, be∣cause they signifie only by imposition, and do not supply the place of the thing repre∣sented as Images do: of which opinion, he saith, Soto and Corduba are: and Sua∣rez himself grants, that a name being a transient sound can hardly be appre∣hended as conjoyned with the Person, or

the Person in it, so as to be worshipped together with it;* 1.972 And one of their latest Ritualists saith, that when the name of Iesus is mentioned they bow to the Cru∣cifix; which shews that even among them, they do not think the Name of Iesus equal to an Image of Christ.

* 1.973I am now come to his last Instance, viz. bowing towards the Altar; he would insinuate, as though the Church of England were for giving some kind of worship to the Altar,* 1.974 although under the degree of Divine Worship due to God alone; and saith, that as the allowing this would render me a true Son of the Church of England, so the allowing the like to the sacred Images of Christ would make me in this point, a perfect Prose∣lyte of the Church of Rome. Which is in effect to say, that the Church of England, in allowing bowing to the Al∣tar, doth give the very same worship to it, which their Church requires to be given to Images; and that they who do one and not the other, do not attend to the Consequence of their own Actions. I shall therefore shew, 1. That the Church of England doth not allow any worship

to be given to the Altar. 2. That the adoration allowed and practised in the Church of England is of a very diffe∣rent Nature from the Worship of Images.

1. That the Church of England doth not allow any Worship to be given to the Altar. For this I appeal to that Canon wherein is contained the Explication of the sense of our Church in this particular.

Whereas the Church is the House of God, dedicated to his holy Worship,* 1.975 and therefore ought to mind us, both of the Greatness and Goodness of his Divine Majesty, certain it is that the acknowledgement thereof, not only in∣wardly in our hearts, but also out∣wardly with our bodies, must needs be pious in it self, profitable unto us, and edifying unto others. We therefore think it very meet and behooveful, and heartily commend it to all good and well affected People, members of this Church, that they be ready to ten∣der unto the Lord the said acknow∣ledgement, by doing Reverence and obeysance both at their coming in and going out of the said Churches, Chan∣cels, or Chappels, according to the

most ancient Custome of the Primitive Church in the purest times, and of this Church also for many years of the Reign of Q. Elizabeth. The reviving therefore of this ancient and laudable custome, we heartily commend to the serious consideration of all good Peo∣ple, NOT WITH ANY IN∣TENTION TO EXHIBITE ANY RELIGIOUS WOR∣SHIP TO THE COMMU∣NION TABLE, THE EAST OR THE CHURCH,

or any thing therein contained in so doing, or to perform the said gesture in the Celebra∣tion of the Holy Eucharist, upon any Opinion of the CORPORAL PRESENCE OF THE BO∣DY OF JESUS CHRIST ON THE HOLY TABLE OR IN THE MYSTICAL ELE∣MENTS, but ONLY for the ad∣vancement of Gods Majesty, and to give him ALONE that honour and glory that is due unto him and NO OTHER∣WISE. And in the practice or omissi∣on of this Rite, we desire that the Rule of charity prescribed by the Apostle may be observed, which is, That they which

use this Rite despise not them who use it not, and they who use it not, condemn not those that use it. This is the full declaration of the sense of our Church about it, made by those who met in Con∣vocation, and were most zealous for the practice of it.* 1.976 Agreeably to this Arch∣bishop Laud speaks, when this was charged as an innovation; To this I answer, saith he, First, That God forbid that we should worship any thing but God himself. 2. That if to worship God when we enter into his House, or approach his Altar be an Innova∣tion, it was a very old one, being practi∣sed by Jacob, Moses, Hezekiah, &c.* 1.977 And were this Kingdom such, as would allow no holy Table standing in its proper place, yet I would worship God when I came into his House. And afterwards he calls it, doing Reverence to Almighty God,* 1.978 but to∣wards his Altar: and Idolatry it is not to worship God towards his holy Table. Now with us the People did ever under∣stand them fully and apply them to God,* 1.979 and to none but God. From whence it appears that God is looked on as the sole Object of this Act of Worship, and that our Church declares, that it allows no intenti∣on of exhibiting any Religious worship to

the Communion Table, or East or Church, or any Corporal Presence of Christ.

2. That the adoration allowed and pra∣ctised in the Church of England, is of a very different nature from the worship of Images. For, (as I have fully made it appear in the State of the Controversie) the Church of Rome doth by the Decrees of Councils, require Religious worship to be given to Images; and that those who assert this inferiour worship do yet declare it to be truly Religious worship, and that the Images themselves are the Object of it: (whereas our Church declares point-blank the contrary) nay, that those Persons are looked on by the Generality of Divines in the Roman Church, as suspected at least, if not condemned of Heresie, who pra∣ctise all the external acts of adoration to Images, but yet do not in their minds look on them as Objects, but only as Occasions of Worship, which make the difference so plain in these two cases, that T. G. himself could not but discern it.

But to remove all scruple from mens minds, that suspect this practice to be too near the Idolatrous worship, which we re∣ject in the Roman Church, I shall consider it not only as to its Object (which is the

main thing, and which I have shewed to be the proper Object of worship, viz. God himself, and nothing else) but as to the nature of the act, and the local circum∣stance of doing it towards the Altar. 1. As to the nature of the act, so it is declared to be an act of external adoration of God; which I shall prove from Scripture to be a lawful and proper act of Divine Worship. I might prove it from the general consent of Mankind, who have expressed their Reverence to the Deity by acts of external adoration, from whence I called it a natu∣ral act of Reverence, but I rather choose to do it from Scripture; and that, both before the Law had determined so punctu∣ally the matters of Divine Worship, and under the Law by those who had the grea∣test regard to it; and under the Gospel, when the spiritual nature of its doctrine would seem to have superseded such exter∣nal acts of worship. 1. Before the Law, I instance in Abraham's servant; because Abraham is particularly commended for his care in instructing his Houshold to keep the way of the Lord in opposition to Hea∣then Idolatry,* 1.980 and this was the Chief Ser∣vant of his House, of whom it is said three times in one Chapter, That he bowed

his head worshipping the Lord; the He∣brew words signifie,* 1.981 and he inclined and bowed himself to the Lord; for the word we translate worship doth properly signifie to bow, and both the Iews and others say, It relates to some external act of the bo∣dy,* 1.982 whereby we express our inward Re∣verence or Subjection to another. So it is said of the People of Israel, when they heard that the Lord intended to deliver them out of Egypt, They bowed their heads and worshipped;* 1.983 when Moses declared the Institution of the Passeover to all the Elders of Israel, it is said again, The People bowed their heads and worshipped.* 1.984 2. Under the Law; when they were so strictly forbidden in the same words to bow down or worship any Image or similitude; yet the outward act of adoration towards God was allowed and practised. So Moses commanded Aaron and the seventy Elders of Israel to bow themselves a far off; the very same word which is used in the second Commandment.* 1.985 And when God had so severely punished the Israelites for bowing to the Golden Calf; yet when He appointed the Pillar of Fire for the Symbol of His own presence,* 1.986 it is said, That when all the People saw the Cloudy Pillar stand at the

Tabernacle door, they rose up and bowed themselves every man in his Tent-door.* 1.987 When God appeared to Moses, it is said, That he made hast and bowed his head to∣ward the earth and worshipped.* 1.988 And when Moses and Aaron came to the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation, they are said to fall upon their faces.* 1.989 In the time of David, upon his solemn thanks∣giving to God it is said,* 1.990 All the Congrega∣tion blessed the Lord God of their Fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worship∣ped the Lord and the King. And in the time of Hezekiah,* 1.991 When they had made an end of offering, the King and all that were present with him bowed their heads and worshipped. 3. Under the Gospel; we are to observe the difference between the same external act of worship, when it was used towards Christ and toward His Apostles. When the Syrophoenician woman came to our Saviour, in one place it is said, She worshipped Him; and in another,* 1.992 That she fell at His feet; but in no place is there the least mention of any check given to her or any others,* 1.993 who after that manner worshipped Christ: But when Cornelius came to S. Peter,* 1.994 and fell down at his feet and worshipped him, he would by no

means permit it, but said, Stand up, I my self also am a man:* 1.995 And when S. Iohn fell down at the feet of the Angel, he would not suffer it, but bade him worship God. That which I observe from hence is, that even under the Gospel the external acts of Religious adoration are proper and pecu∣liar to God, so that men are to blame when they give them to any Creature, but no Persons are condemned for giving them to God. And I desire those who scruple the lawfulness of giving to God such exter∣nal adoration under the Gospel, how they can condemn those for Idolatry, who give it to any Creature, if it be not a thing which doth still belong to God?

But if all the scruple be about the dire∣cting this Adoration, one way more than another, I say still it is done in conformi∣ty with the Primitive Church, as our Ca∣non declares, and which every one knows, did worship towards the East; and this at the most is but a local circumstance of an Act of Worship, which I have already shewed to be very different from an Object of it, when I discoursed of the Nature of the Israelites worshipping toward the Ark and the Cherubims.

Thus, through the Assistance of God, I have gone through all the material points of T. G's Book, which relate to the Gene∣ral Nature of Idolatry; and have dili∣gently weighed and considered every thing that looketh like a difficulty in this Con∣troversie about the Worship of Images, and do here sincerely protest, that I have not given any Answer, or delivered any Opi∣nion which is not agreeable not only to the inward sense of my Mind, but to the best of my understanding to the sense of Scripture, and the Primitive Church, and the Church of England. And if the sub∣tilties of T. G. could have satisfied me, or any other Argument I have met with, I would as freely have retracted this Charge of Idolatry, as I ever made it. For I do not love to represent others worse than they are; but I daily pray to God to make both my self and others better: and there∣in I know I have the hearty concurrence of all who are truly Good.

FINIS.

Notes

• * 1.1

  §. 1.
• * 1.2

  Disc. of Idol. ch. 1. sect. 7.
• * 1.3

  Acts 17.24, 25, 29.
• * 1.4

  Rom. 1.19
• * 1.5

  v. 21.
• * 1.6

  v. 23.
• * 1.7

  v. 18, 21.
• * 1.8

  Trigant. de Christ. Ex∣ped. apud Sinas l. 5. c. 16. p. 588
• * 1.9

  Ch. 1. Sect. 8.
• * 1.10

  Clem. Strom. 5. p. 559.
• * 1.11

  Orig. c. Cels. l. 7. p. 375.
• * 1.12

  Ch. 1. Sect. 6.
• * 1.13

  §. 2.
• * 1.14

  T.G. p. 96.
• * 1.15

  Thucydid. l. 6.
• * 1.16

  Ioh. Lorin. in Act. Ap. c. 17. v. 29.
• * 1.17

  Serv. in 4. Aen.
• * 1.18

  Corn. à Lap. in loc.
• * 1.19

  Est. in dif∣ficil. loc. ad loc.
• * 1.20

  Cicer. de Nat. Deor. l. 1.

  Lactant. de Ira Dei, c. 4.
• * 1.21

  Epiph. haet. 70.
• * 1.22

  Aug. de haet. c. 50.
• * 1.23

  Neceph. hist. l. 13. c. 12.
• * 1.24

  Pamel. de Paradox. Tertull. c. 15.

  Petav. dogm. The∣ol. To. 1. l. 2. c. 1. sect. 7.
• * 1.25

  §. 3.
• * 1.26

  Petav. i••. sect. 9.
• * 1.27

  Tertull. de resur. carn. c. 6.
• * 1.28

  Aug. Steuc. Eugub. Cos∣mop. p. 46.
• * 1.29

  T. G. p. 75.
• * 1.30

  T.G. p. 348.
• * 1.31

  p. 390.
• * 1.32

  Cajet. in loc.
• * 1.33

  Lorin. in loc.

  Aug. 1. c. Cresc. c. 29. in ep. ad Rom. c. 1. Isid. Pelus. l. 3. ep. 346.
• * 1.34

  Ioh. Ferus in Act. 17. p. 203.
• * 1.35

  Corn. à Lap. in Act. 17.23.
• * 1.36

  1 Thess. 1.9.
• * 1.37

  T. G. p. 97.
• * 1.38

  Horae secun∣dum usum Roman. in Litaniis.
• * 1.39

  §. 4.
• * 1.40

  Cajet. in loc.
• * 1.41

  Vasquez in loc.
• * 1.42

  Esti. in loc.
• * 1.43

  Bed. in loc.
• * 1.44

  Orig. c. Cels. l. 6. p. 277.
• * 1.45

  §. 5.
• * 1.46

  Herod. Melp. p. 276 Solin. Po∣lyhist.

  Clem. Alex. in Prot. p. 29, 43.

  Arnob. l. 6.

  Am. Mar∣cell. l. 31.
• * 1.47

  Iust. l. 43.
• * 1.48

  Liv. l. 29. Claud. de Raptu Pro∣serp.
• * 1.49

  Max Tyr. diss. 38.
• * 1.50

  Suid. in ver. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.51

  Euthym. in Saracen. Sylburgii, p. 15.
• * 1.52

  Pocock not. ad spec.

  Histor. A∣rab. p. 119.
• * 1.53

  p. 9••, 92.
• * 1.54

  p. 99.
• * 1.55

  Max. Tyr. ib.
• * 1.56

  Paus. La∣conic. p. 103. ed. Sylburg. Achaic. p. 228.
• * 1.57

  Paus. Boeot.
• * 1.58

  p. 300.
• * 1.59

  p. 302.
• * 1.60

  p. 311.
• * 1.61

  Hesych. v. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.62

  Harpocr. p. 5.
• * 1.63

  Suid. in v.
• * 1.64

  Steph. v. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.65

  Cambden in Brit. p. 570.
• * 1.66

  Ola. Worm. Monum. Danic.
• * 1.67

  Viaggi. p. 3. Lett. 1. s. 15. p. 107.
• * 1.68

  p. 116.
• * 1.69

  lett. 6. n. 17. p. 382.
• * 1.70

  T.G. p. 48, 49.
• * 1.71

  p. 61.
• * 1.72

  Herod. l. 5. p. 563.
• * 1.73

  Herod. l. 1. sect. 35.
• * 1.74

  Viaggi p. 108.
• * 1.75

  p. 46.
• * 1.76

  Id. p. 242.
• * 1.77

  Lamprid. vit. Anton. Heliogab.
• * 1.78

  Caroli Pu∣tini Numis∣mata p. 331.
• * 1.79

  Tristan Comment. histor. p. 324.
• * 1.80

  Salmas. in Histor. Aug. Script. p. 181. Euseb. Praep. Ev. l. 1. c. 10.
• * 1.81

  Pocock. not. ad Specim. p. 89.
• * 1.82

  Hotting. hist. Orient. l. 1. c. 7. p. 231, 232, 233.
• * 1.83

  Vinc. Bello∣vac. spec. Histor. l. 23. c. 60.
• * 1.84

  Scal. de Emend. Temp. l. 5. ••. 519.
• * 1.85

  Maim. de Idol. c. 3. sect. 7. Pocock. Not. p. 316.
• * 1.86

  Elias in Thisbi p. 106.
• * 1.87

  Buxtorf. Lex. Tal∣mud. in v. Markolis.
• * 1.88

  Scalig. de Emend. Templ. l. 2. & 5.
• * 1.89

  Pocock. not. in spec. p. 315.
• * 1.90

  Maim. de Idol. c. 3. sect. 7.
• * 1.91

  Damasc. de haeres. p. 941.
• * 1.92

  p. 942.
• * 1.93

  Pocock. not. in spec. p. 120.
• * 1.94

  Scallg. not. in Fragm. Vet. p. 39. Id. in Eu∣seb. Chron. n. 2050. Grot. in Gen. 2818. Vossius, Selden. aliíque. Bochart. Canaan. l. 2. c. 2.
• * 1.95

  Clem. Alex. Str. l. 7.

  Minut. Fe∣lix. p. 2. Arnob. l. 1. p. 22.

  Apul. Flo∣rid. l. 1. Theophrast. char. de Superstit. Aug. de Civ. Dei l. 16. c. 38.
• * 1.96

  Phot. Cod. 242. p. 1047.
• * 1.97

  Max. Tyr. diss. 38.
• * 1.98

  Tristan. Comment. histor. Tom. 2. p. 316.
• * 1.99

  Sueton. in Vespas. c. 9.
• * 1.100

  Plut. de frat. amore p. 478.
• * 1.101

  Eustath. ad Iliad. ••.
• * 1.102

  Tacit. de Morib. Germ. c. 9.
• * 1.103

  T. G. p. 75.
• * 1.104

  §. 6.
• * 1.105

  Plin. l. 12. c. 1.
• * 1.106

  Quint. l. 10.
• * 1.107

  Curt. l. 8.
• * 1.108

  Codex A∣fric. c. 84.
• * 1.109

  Capit. Ca∣roli l. 1. tit. c. 4. l. 7. tit. 236.
• * 1.110

  Leg. Lon∣gobard. l. 2. tit. 38. n. 1.
• * 1.111

  Canis. An∣tiq. Lect. To. 4. p. 421.
• * 1.112

  Serrar. Rer. Mog. l. 3. not. 19.
• * 1.113

  Agath. hi∣stor. l. 1. p. 18.
• * 1.114

  S. Aug. Dom. 21. post Trin. ser. 2.
• * 1.115

  Concil. To let. 12. c. 11.
• * 1.116

  Conc. Are∣lot. 2. c. 23.
• * 1.117

  Conc. Bra∣car. 3. c. 22.
• * 1.118

  Annales Ecclesiast. Franc. A. D. 566. n. 51.
• * 1.119

  Synod. Au∣tissiod. A. D. 586. c. 3.
• * 1.120

  Concil. Nanuet. A. D. 656. c. 20.
• * 1.121

  Annales Eccles. Franc. A. D. 659. n. 36.
• * 1.122

  Burchard. l. 10. c. 9, 10, 32.

  Regino de Eccles. discipl. l. 1. c. 300. l. 2. c. 5. n. 43. c. 3••8.
• * 1.123

  Dio Chry∣sostom. orat. 12.
• * 1.124

  Acosta Na∣tur. & Moral Hi∣story of the Indies l. 5. c. 5.
• * 1.125

  §. 7.
• * 1.126

  T. G. p. 48.
• * 1.127

  S. Hieron. vit. Pauli. p. 238. ed. Froben.
• * 1.128

  Philostorg. hist. l. 3. c. 2.
• * 1.129

  §. 8.
• * 1.130

  De Nar. Deor. •• 1. c. 27.
• * 1.131

  C. 29.
• * 1.132

  De Nat. Deor. l. 3. c. 1.
• * 1.133

  Max. Tyr. diss. 38.
• * 1.134

  T.G. p. 17.
• * 1.135

  Iulian. oper. p. 539.
• * 1.136

  Gennad. de dogm. Ec∣cles. c. 4.
• * 1.137

  p. 537.
• * 1.138

  Aug. de Civ. Dei, l. 7. c. 5.
• * 1.139

  Euseb. Praep. E∣vang. l. 3. c. 7.
• * 1.140

  Dio Chry∣sost. Orat. 12. p. 199.
• * 1.141

  p. 206.
• * 1.142

  p. 207.
• * 1.143

  p. 209.
• * 1.144

  p. 210.
• * 1.145

  p. 211.
• * 1.146

  Macrob. in Somn. Sci∣pion. l. 1. c. 2.
• * 1.147

  Euseb. Praep. E∣vang. l. 3. c. 11.
• * 1.148

  Montanus. p. 279.
• * 1.149

  Alex. Ge∣raldini Itinerar. l. 4. p. 68.
• * 1.150

  l. 11. p. 171.
• * 1.151

  l. 10. p. 168.
• * 1.152

  l. 8. p. 131.
• * 1.153

  T.G. p. 49.
• * 1.154

  §. 9.
• * 1.155

  Clem. Strom. 9. p. 559.
• * 1.156

  p. 584.
• * 1.157

  Str. 1. p. 304.
• * 1.158

  Protrept. p. 46.
• * 1.159

  T. G. p. 74.
• * 1.160

  p. 96.
• * 1.161

  Iustin. Martyr. Apol. 2. p. 57.
• * 1.162

  Athenag. p. 14.
• * 1.163

  p. 16.
• * 1.164

  Orig. c. Cels.

  l. 2. p. 91. l. 5. p. 255. l. 3. p. 120.
• * 1.165

  l. 5. p. 375.
• * 1.166

  p. 376.
• * 1.167

  p. 374.
• * 1.168

  Lact. l. 2, c. 2.
• * 1.169

  c. 18.
• * 1.170

  Tertul. Apol. Minuc. Octav. Arnob. l. 6.
• * 1.171

  Clem. Pro∣trept. p. 34.
• * 1.172

  Hierom. in c. 16.
• * 1.173

  Ezek. c. 4. prope fin. Aug. ep. 119. c. 11.
• * 1.174

  Euseb. Praep. Evang. l. 3. c. 10.
• * 1.175

  S. Aug. de Civ. Dei l. 7. c. 5.
• * 1.176

  L. 4. c. 31.
• * 1.177

  §. 10.
• * 1.178

  Clem. Alex. Str. 5. p. 559.
• * 1.179

  Strom. 6. p. 682.
• * 1.180

  P. 688.
• * 1.181

  Strom. 3. p. 441.
• * 1.182

  Orig. c. Cel. l. 7. p. 375.
• * 1.183

  Symmach. Ep. l. 11. Ep. 54.
• * 1.184

  Ambros. c. relat.

  Symmac. 2.
• * 1.185

  §. 11.
• * 1.186

  Plut. ad∣vers. Colot. Athen. l. 4. c. 27.
• * 1.187

  Cicer. de Nat. Deor. l. 1. c. 25.
• * 1.188

  Lescaloper. ad Cicer. de Nat. Deor. p. 40.
• * 1.189

  Plut. de Placit. l. 1. c. 3.
• * 1.190

  De Civit. Dei l. 8. c. 2.
• * 1.191

  Simplic. in Phys.

  Aristot. l. 1. p. 33. ed. Aldi.
• * 1.192

  Aeneid. 6. v. 724, &c.
• * 1.193

  Euseb. de Praep.

  Evang. l. 13 c. 13.

  Theodoret. de cut.

  Graec. serm. 3.

  Clem. Alex. Str. 5.
• * 1.194

  Xenoph. Mem. 4.
• * 1.195

  Lescaloper. ad Cic. de N.D. p. 55.
• * 1.196

  De Aristot. Theologia, p. 184, &c.
• * 1.197

  Du-Vall. Synops. Analyt. Doctr. Peripat. ad Metaphyl. l. 14. c. 7.
• * 1.198

  Cicer. Tus∣cul. 1.
• * 1.199

  Lact. l. 1. c. 5.

  Aug. de Civ. Dei l. 22. c. 20.
• * 1.200

  §. 12.
• * 1.201

  T.G. p. 99.
• * 1.202

  Bessarion advers. ca∣luminat.

  Platonis. l. 2. c. 3.
• * 1.203

  l. 3. c. 5.
• * 1.204

  l. 3. c. 4.
• * 1.205

  l. 2. c. 4.
• * 1.206

  l. 3. c. 6.
• * 1.207

  c. 7.
• * 1.208

  c. 8.
• * 1.209

  Aug. Steuch. Eugub. de perenni Philos. l. 5. c. 1.
• * 1.210

  c. 2.
• * 1.211

  c. 3.
• * 1.212

  c. 5.
• * 1.213

  Plato. Epi∣nomis p. 989. ed. Serran.
• * 1.214

  c. 6.
• * 1.215

  c. 11.
• * 1.216

  c. 12.
• * 1.217

  Platon. & Arist. The∣olog. De∣cad. 2. l. 2. p. 213.
• * 1.218

  p. 217.
• * 1.219

  p. 219.
• * 1.220

  p. 220.
• * 1.221

  Comment. in Cic. de Nat. D. p. 51.
• * 1.222

  §. 13.
• * 1.223

  Campan. Triump. Atheism. c. 11. n. 18.
• * 1.224

  T. G. p. 98.
• * 1.225

  Ficin. in Platon. Phaedon. Coel. Rho∣dig. Antiq. Lect. l. 16. c. 12.
• * 1.226

  Tacit. hi∣stor. l. 4.
• * 1.227

  Saguin. se∣lect. Nu∣mismat. p. 2, 3, 4.
• * 1.228

  T.G. p. 108.
• * 1.229

  Ferd. U∣ghelli Ita∣lia sacra Tom. 8. p. 559.
• * 1.230

  Majoli Dies Canicul. par. 2. coll. 1. p. 435.
• * 1.231

  Plotin. En∣nead. 5. l. 8. c. 9.
• * 1.232

  Plutarch. de Isid. & Ofirid. p. 377. ed. Francs.
• * 1.233

  Apul. Me∣tam. l. 11.
• * 1.234

  §. 14.
• * 1.235

  T.G. p. 99.106.
• * 1.236

  §. 15.
• * 1.237

  T.G. p. 100.
• * 1.238

  p. 101.
• * 1.239

  §. 16.
• * 1.240

  T. G. p. 102, 103.
• * 1.241

  T.G. p. 106.
• * 1.242

  T. G. p. 99.106.
• * 1.243

  Bell. de Imag. l. 2. c. 13.
• * 1.244

  Arnob. l. 6. p. 190.
• * 1.245

  Macrob. l. 3. c. 4.
• * 1.246

  Hier. ad Ripar. adv. Vigilant.
• * 1.247

  Vitruv. l. 4. c. 5.
• * 1.248

  Lamprid. vit. Alex. Sever.
• * 1.249

  Arnob. l. 6. p. 195.
• * 1.250

  p. 200.
• * 1.251

  p. 208.
• * 1.252

  §. 17.
• * 1.253

  Aug. in Ps. 113.
• * 1.254

  §. 18.
• * 1.255

  Trigaut. l. 5. c. 16. p. 588.
• * 1.256

  T.G. p. 110, 111, 112, 113.
• * 1.257

  Cicer. pro Archia c. 12.

  Pro domo sua.

  Isid. Ori∣gen. l. 8. c. 11.
• * 1.258

  Horat. ep. l. 2. ep. 1.
• * 1.259

  Arnob. l. 6.
• * 1.260

  Agobard. de Imag. sect. 19.
• * 1.261

  Aug. de Fide & Symbolo c. 7.
• * 1.262

  Greg. l. 9. ep. 72.
• * 1.263

  §. 1.
• * 1.264

  Petav. Dogmat. Theolog. Tom. 5. l. 15. c. 1••. sec••. 3. c. ••4. sect. 8.
• * 1.265

  T.G. p. 171.
• * 1.266

  Orig. c. Cels. l. 7. p. 375.
• * 1.267

  §. 2.
• * 1.268

  Petav. de Incarn. l. 15. c. 14. sect. 8.
• * 1.269

  Bell. de Imag. l. 2. c. 9.
• * 1.270

  S. Epiph. ep. ad Ioh. Hierosolym.
• * 1.271

  Sirmond. in Concil. Narbon. p. 616.
• * 1.272

  Carol. M. de Imag. l. 4. c. 25. Synod. Pa∣ris. c. 6.
• * 1.273

  Damasc. tract. 1.
• * 1.274

  Alphons. à à Castro v. Imago. p. 572.
• * 1.275

  VII. Synod. Act. 6.
• * 1.276

  Cod. Theo∣dos. 16. tit. 10. n. 12.
• * 1.277

  Themist. in Aristot. de an. p. 68. col. 2.
• * 1.278

  Lambards peramb. of Kent in Boxtel. Herberts Hen. 8. p. 432.
• * 1.279

  §. 3.
• * 1.280

  1 Cor. 10.7.
• * 1.281

  v. 2, 3, 4.
• * 1.282

  S. Aug. Epist. 43.
• * 1.283

  Plut. de Iside & Osiride p. 361.
• * 1.284

  Apul. de Deo Socrat.
• * 1.285

  Boeth. de Cons. Philos. l. 3. p. 139.
• * 1.286

  Diog. Laer. vit. Pytha.
• * 1.287

  Herod. in Euterpe.
• * 1.288

  Isocr. encom. Helen.
• * 1.289

  Salmas. Not. ed. In∣script. p. 81.
• * 1.290

  Lil. Gy∣rald. synt. Deorum 17. p. 501.
• * 1.291

  Vossius de Idol. l. 1. c. 12.
• * 1.292

  Hesych. v. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.293

  Salmas. not. p. 118.
• * 1.294

  Plut. de Isule & Osinide p. 361.

  Plut. de praecl. fact. Mulier. p. 255.
• * 1.295

  Inscript. Antiq. p. 216.
• * 1.296

  Dionys. Halic. Antiq. Rom. l. 11. p. 696.
• * 1.297

  Orig. l. 8. c. Cels. p. 414.
• * 1.298

  Iren. l. 1. c. 24.

  Epiph. haer. 27.

  Aug. de haeres. c. 7.
• * 1.299

  Hieron. in c. 3. Daniel.
• * 1.300

  Greg. Na∣zianz. in∣vect. 1. in in Iul.

  Theod. hist. l. 3. c. 16, 17.
• * 1.301

  Hierocl. in aur. Carm.
• * 1.302

  Aug. in Psal. 96.
• * 1.303

  §. 4.
• * 1.304

  Euseb. Ec∣cles. hist. l. 7. c. 18.
• * 1.305

  Mark 5.43.
• * 1.306

  Phot. Cod. 271.
• * 1.307

  Imperato∣rum Nu∣mism. col∣lect. à Duce Croyo edit. Gasp. Ge∣vart. Tab. 39. n. 17, 18, 21, 22. Patini Numism. p. 194.

  Euseb. Chron. n. 2144.
• * 1.308

  Baron. ad A. D. 57. n. 112.
• * 1.309

  Nicephor. l. 10. c. 30.
• * 1.310

  Philostorg. Eccles. hist. l. 7. c. 3.
• * 1.311

  Caroli Lib. de Imagin. l. 4. c. 15. Phot. Cod. 271.
• * 1.312

  Sozom. l. 5. c. 21.
• * 1.313

  Petav. de Incarn. l. 15. c. 13. n. 4, 5.
• * 1.314

  Baron. ad A. D. 57. n. 111.
• * 1.315

  Pet. l. 15. c. 14. n. 4.
• * 1.316

  Nic. de Clemangis de Novis celebrat. non institu∣end. p. 151.
• * 1.317

  Tertul. de Pudic. c. 7. & 10.
• * 1.318

  S. Hieron. in Ion. 4.
• * 1.319

  S. Aug. in Ps. 113.
• * 1.320

  Bellarm. de Imag. l. 2. c. 9.
• * 1.321

  Aug. de consens. Evangel. l. 1. c. 10▪
• * 1.322

  Aug. de Moribus Eccles. Cath. c. 34.
• * 1.323

  Petav. d•• Incar. l. 15. c. 13. n. 7. Dallae. de Imag. l. 3. c. 4.
• * 1.324

  Nyssen. vit. Greg. Thau∣mat.
• * 1.325

  Prudent. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. hymn. 9. Paulin. ep. 12.
• * 1.326

  Poem. Nat. 9. p. 614.
• * 1.327

  §. 5.
• * 1.328

  Greg. Ep. l. 9. ep. 9.
• * 1.329

  Bell. de. Imag. l. 2. c. 16.
• * 1.330

  Concil. Ni∣cen. 2. act. 4.
• * 1.331

  Iames Corrupt. of the Fa∣thers, pa. 2. p. 76.
• * 1.332

  Concil. Ni∣cen. 2. act. 4. p. 235.
• * 1.333

  Act. 5. p. 355.
• * 1.334

  p. 354.
• * 1.335

  History of the Icono∣clasts pre∣tended to be pub∣lished A.D. 1671. but writ∣ten 1674. or rather extracted out of Mai•••• bourgs French History.
• * 1.336

  Greg. 2. epist. 1.
• * 1.337

  Onuphr. Annot. in vit. Greg. 2.
• * 1.338

  History of Iconocl. p. 44.
• * 1.339

  p. 47.
• * 1.340

  Anastas. hi∣stor. p. 134.

  Zonar. An∣nal. To. 3. p. 85.

  Cedren. hist. To. 1. p. 453.

  Michel. Glyc. An∣nal. part. 4. p. 281.

  Theophan. hist. p. 338.

  Sigebert. ad A. 728.

  Otto Fri∣sing. l. 5. c. 18.

  Ursperg. ad A. 718.

  Sigonius de Regno Ital. l. 3.

  Rubei Hist. Raven. l. 4.

  Ciaccon. vit. Greg.
• * 1.341

  History of the Ico∣noclasts, p. 54.
• * 1.342

  Greg. 2. epist. 1. ad Leon.
• * 1.343

  History of the Icono∣clasts, p. 55.
• * 1.344

  Greg. 2. ep. 2.
• * 1.345

  §. 6.
• * 1.346

  Concil. Ni∣cen. 2. p. 347. ed. Labb.
• * 1.347

  p. 349.
• * 1.348

  p. 370. p. 383.
• * 1.349

  p. 386.
• * 1.350

  Zonar. An∣nal. Tom. 3. p. 84.
• * 1.351

  Cedren. hist. To. 1. p. 450.
• * 1.352

  Theoph. Chronog. p. 336.
• * 1.353

  Const. Ma∣nass. p. 86. Mich. Glyc. Annal. part. 4. p. 281.
• * 1.354

  Baron. A. 723. n. 17, 21.
• * 1.355

  History of the Icono∣clasts, p 28, 33.
• * 1.356

  Epiphan. l. 1. heres. Samarit. p. 25.
• * 1.357

  Exercit. Anti-Mo∣rin. Sect. 16.
• * 1.358

  Concil. Ni∣cen. 2. act. 4. p. 251.
• * 1.359

  p. 223.
• * 1.360

  p. 258.
• * 1.361

  Bell. de script. Ec∣cles. in Athanas. Baron. ad 1.787. n. 29.
• * 1.362

  Sigeb. Chron. ad A. 765. Lambec. Comment. de Bibli∣oth. Vin∣dobon. l. 1. p. 124. &c. Eutychii An. To. 2. p. 448.
• * 1.363

  Greg. 2. ep. 1. ad Leon.
• * 1.364

  Baron. ad A. 726. n. 12.
• * 1.365

  Greg. 2. ep. 2.
• * 1.366

  History of the Icono∣clasts E∣pistle De∣dicat. p. 3.5.
• * 1.367

  Zonar. An∣nal. To. 4. p. 97.

  Cedren. p. 473.

  Glyc. p. 285.

  Theoph. p. 398.

  Manass. p. 90, 91.
• * 1.368

  Baron. ad A. 796. n. 8.
• * 1.369

  Pref. p. 21.
• * 1.370

  Acta Steph. Iun. apud Damascen.
• * 1.371

  Baron. ad A. 726. n. 6.
• * 1.372

  Concil. Nic. 2. act. 5. p. 387.
• * 1.373

  Concil. Nic. Can. 9.
• * 1.374

  §. 7.
• * 1.375

  Greg. 2. ep. ad Leon. Aug.
• * 1.376

  German. epist. ad Ioh. Synad. in act. 4. Concil. Nic. p. 291.

  Damascen. orat. 1. de ••mag. p. 747.
• * 1.377

  Orat. 2. p. 759.
• * 1.378

  Orat. 3. p. 767, 768
• * 1.379

  Acta Steph. Iun. apud Damas. p. 805.
• * 1.380

  Conc. Nic. 2. act. 4, 5, 6, 7.
• * 1.381

  Biblioth. Patrum Gr. Lat. To. 1. p. 737.
• * 1.382

  Baron. ad A. D. 726. n.
• * 1.383

  Ad A. 765. n. 8.
• * 1.384

  Christian. Lup. not. in Canon. Conc. Sept. dissert. c. 5. p. 1175.
• * 1.385

  Bell. de Imag. l. 2. c. 8.
• * 1.386

  Pujol de sacr. Adora. cultu disp. 3. sect. 4. p. 250, 252.
• * 1.387

  Ysambert. de Myster. Inc. ad q. 25. disp. 3. art. 6.
• * 1.388

  Vasq. ad 3. Aq. disp. 103. c. 3.
• * 1.389

  Arriaga ad 3. Th. disp. 5. sect. 1.
• * 1.390

  Tann. To. 3. disp. 5. q. 2. dub. 3.
• * 1.391

  Suar. in Aq. 3. p. To. 1. q. 25. disp. 54. sect. 2.

  Cajet. in Aq. 3. q. 25. act. 3.

  Procession. secund. usum Sa∣rum 1555. fol. 16.
• * 1.392

  Petav. de Incar. l. 15. c. 14. n. 1.
• * 1.393

  §. 8.
• * 1.394

  T.G. p. 119.
• * 1.395

  Alex. Hales p. 3. q. 30. m. 3. art. 3.

  Aquin. p. 3. q. 25. a. 3. re••p. adj.

  Bo••av. l 3. d. 9. q. 2.

  Mars. l. 3. q. 8. a. 2.
• * 1.396

  Conc. Tri∣dent. sess. 25. de Imag.
• * 1.397

  Hessel. in Catech.
• * 1.398

  Sander. de honor. Imag. ador. c. 4.
• * 1.399

  Possevin. biblioth. l. 8. c. 16.
• * 1.400

  Bell. de Imag. l. 2. c. 8.
• * 1.401

  T. G. p. 69.
• * 1.402

  Molanus de Picturis, c. 3.

  Thyre. apud Possevin. biblioth. l. 8. c. 16.
• * 1.403

  Gerson. serm. in nativit. Dom. To. ••. p. 620.
• * 1.404

  Waldens. To. 3. tit. 19. c. 155.
• * 1.405

  Avent. An∣nal. Boior. l. 7. p. 751.
• * 1.406

  Ysambert. de Myst. Incarn. ad q. 25. disp. 3. art. 7.
• * 1.407

  Catech. Rom. part. 3. n. 12.
• * 1.408

  Aug. de fide & symb. c. 7.
• * 1.409

  Durand. in sent. l. 3. dist. 9. q. 2. n. 15.
• * 1.410

  Peres. de tradit. part 3. p. 118. ed. Colon.
• * 1.411

  Thuan. hist. l. 28.
• * 1.412

  Ysamb. ad q. 25. disp. 3. art. 4.
• * 1.413

  Vasquez ad q. 25. disp. 103. art. 3. c. 3.

  Clichtov. in Damasc. l. 4. c. 17.
• * 1.414

  Dan. 7.9.
• * 1.415

  Sander. de honor. Imag. ado∣rat. c. 4.
• * 1.416

  §. 9.
• * 1.417

  Concil. Ni∣cen. 2. Act. 7. p. 555.
• * 1.418

  p. 577.
• * 1.419

  Act. 6. p. 542.
• * 1.420

  Act. 4. p. 247.
• * 1.421

  Act. 7. p. 785.
• * 1.422

  Act. 7. p. 555.
• * 1.423

  Concil. Tri∣dent. sess. 25.
• * 1.424

  Spelman. Concil. To. 2. p. 653.666.
• * 1.425

  Lyndwood Provinc. l. 5. tit. de heret. p. 160.2.
• * 1.426

  Claus. 19. R. 2.
• * 1.427

  Spelman. p. 655.
• * 1.428

  § 10.
• * 1.429

  Vasquez disp. 106. c. 1.
• * 1.430

  Lugo de Myster. Incarn. disp. 36. Sect. 2.
• * 1.431

  Suarez in 3. p. q. 25. disp. 54. sect. 1.
• * 1.432

  Durand. in sent. 3. dist. 9. q. 2.
• * 1.433

  n. 14.
• * 1.434

  Holkot in Sap. c. 13 Lect. 138. p. 424.
• * 1.435

  Ioh. Pit. Mirand. Apolog. p. 103.
• * 1.436

  Suarez ••••.
• * 1.437

  Barth. Medina 3. p. q. 25. a. 3.
• * 1.438

  Cathar. de cultu & ador. Imag. p. 133.
• * 1.439

  p. 137, 138, 139.
• * 1.440

  Naclant. enarr. in Ep. ad Rom. c. •• p. 171.
• * 1.441

  Bell. de Imag. l. 2. c. 21.
• * 1.442

  Soto de Instit. & jure l. 2. q. 3. art. 2. in fin.
• * 1.443

  Velosill.

  Advertent. Theol. Scho∣last. in 2. Tom.

  Aug. ad 9. quaest. p. 332 ad sin.

  Pujol de sacro ador. cultu disp. 3. sect. 7. p. 2.
• * 1.444

  p. 311.
• * 1.445

  p. 324.
• * 1.446

  Tanner. To. 3. disp. •• q. 2. dub. 3. assert. 4.
• * 1.447

  Ysamber. de Myster. In∣carn. ad q. 25. disp. 4.
• * 1.448

  Eligii Bas∣saei Flores Theolog. Practic. v. Adorat. n. 10. ed. 1663.
• * 1.449

  ••r. Sylvius in 3. p.

  Th. q. 25. art. 3. q. 5.
• * 1.450

  Arriag. de Incarn. disp. 56. sect. 1.
• * 1.451

  Sect. 2.
• * 1.452

  Lugo de Myster. In∣carn. disp. 36. sect. ••. n. 37.
• * 1.453

  §. 11.
• * 1.454

  T. G. p. 123, &c.
• * 1.455

  Act. 2. p. 106.

  Damasc. oral. 1. p. 749.
• * 1.456

  Aquin. 2.2. q. 103. art. A. ad 3.
• * 1.457

  Aug. in Ps. 113. conc. 2.
• * 1.458

  Concil. Ni∣cen. 2. act. 7. p. 555.
• * 1.459

  Aug. de Trin. l. 3. c. 10.
• * 1.460

  Act. 4. p. 247.
• * 1.461

  Act. 2. p. 127.
• * 1.462

  Act. 3. p. 187.
• * 1.463

  T. G. p. 142, 145.
• * 1.464

  Lib. Carol. l. 3. c. 17.
• * 1.465

  Act. 6. p. 539.
• * 1.466

  §. 12.
• * 1.467

  Pro desen∣sione sacra. Imagin.

  Centur. 13. c. 14.
• * 1.468

  Aq. 3. p. q. 25. art. 3.

  ad lib. sent. 3. dist. 9. q. 2.
• * 1.469

  Est. in sent. l. 3. dist. 9. sect. 3.
• * 1.470

  Cathar. de Imag. p. 137.

  Sylv. in 3. p. q. 25. art. 3. q. 5.
• * 1.471

  Alex. Hales 3. p. q. 30. m. 3. art. 3. sect. 1••
• * 1.472

  Pitts de Scriptor. Aetat. 13. A. 1245.
• * 1.473

  Bonav. in sent. 3. dist. 9. q. 2.
• * 1.474

  Ric. de Me∣dia Villa in 3. sent. q. 9. art. 2.
• * 1.475

  Palud. in 3. d. 9. q. 1. Capreol. 3. d. 9. q. 1. art. 1. concl. 2. & 3.

  Marsil. l. 3. art. 2. q. 8. concl. 1. & 3.
• * 1.476

  Almain. l. 3. dist. 9. concl. 5.
• * 1.477

  Biel in Ca∣non. Missae lect. 49.
• * 1.478

  Waldens. To. 3. tit. 19. c. 156. n. 6, 7.
• * 1.479

  Concil. Nic. Act. 5. p. 354.

  Summa Angelica. v. Adorat. n. 5, 6.
• * 1.480

  Barth. Fu∣mi Armilla Aurea v. Adorat. n. 7.
• * 1.481

  Carthusia∣nus in sent. l. 3. dist. 9.
• * 1.482

  Antonin. Sum. 3.p. tit. 12. c. 9. sect. 4.
• * 1.483

  Franc. Fer∣rar. in Th. c. Gentes l. 3. c. 120.
• * 1.484

  Cajet. in Aq. 3. p. q. 25. art. 3.
• * 1.485

  §. 13.
• * 1.486

  Concil. Tri∣dent. sess. 25.
• * 1.487

  Vasq. in 3. p. disp. 108. c. 4.
• * 1.488

  Soto de ju∣stit. & jure. l. 2. q. 3. art. 2. in fin.
• * 1.489

  Turrian. pro Canon. Apost. l. 1. c. 25.
• * 1.490

  Naclant. in Rom. 1.p. 171.
• * 1.491

  Gretser. de Cruce l. 1. c. 49.
• * 1.492

  Palaeot. de sacr. & prof. Imag. l. 1. c. 32.
• * 1.493

  Greg. de Valent. de Idolol. l. 2. c. 7.
• * 1.494

  Pet. Thyrae. apud Pos∣sev. bibli∣oth. l. 8. c. 17.
• * 1.495

  Cornel. Cur∣tius de Clavis Do∣min. c. 12.
• * 1.496

  Lud. de Paramo de Orig. S. In∣quis. l. 2. tit. 3. c. 8. n. 9.
• * 1.497

  n. 19.
• * 1.498

  Rubrice Missal. Rom. Com∣ment. il∣lustr. p. 2. tit. 4. de Introit. sect. 2. dub. 2. & 4.
• * 1.499

  Greg. Va∣lent. in Hymnod. Eccles. tr. 2. Hymn. 13. p. 268.
• * 1.500

  Paul. Lay∣man. Theol. Moral. l. 4. tr. 7. c. 5. n. 10.
• * 1.501

  Elig. Bas∣sae. Flores Theol. Pra∣cti••. tit. Ador. suppl. n. 6, 7.
• * 1.502

  Ph. Gama∣chae. in 3. p. Th. q. 25. con. 2.
• * 1.503

  Ysambert. ad q. 25. disp. 4. art. 1. & disp. 5. art. 1.
• * 1.504

  Azor. I••∣••lit. Moral. l. 9. c. 6.
• * 1.505

  § 14.
• * 1.506

  Cathaer. de cultu Ima∣gin. p. 137.
• * 1.507

  p. 136.
• * 1.508

  Martin. Peres. Ayal. de tradit. 3. p. de imagin. p. 119.121.
• * 1.509

  Est. in sen∣tent. l. 3. dist. 9. sect. 3.
• * 1.510

  §. 15.
• * 1.511

  Vasquez disp. ••08. c. 3.
• * 1.512

  c. 4.
• * 1.513

  c. 3.
• * 1.514

  c. 6.
• * 1.515

  c. 9.
• * 1.516

  c. 13.
• * 1.517

  Disp. 109. c. 1.
• * 1.518

  c. 2.
• * 1.519

  Suarez disp. 54. sect. 4.
• * 1.520

  Disp. 54. sect. 5.
• * 1.521

  Bellarm. de cultu Imag. l. 2, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25.
• * 1.522

  Pujol de cultu ador. disp. 3. sect. 7. as∣sert. 5.
• * 1.523

  assert. 7.
• * 1.524

  Ysambert. ad q. 25. disp. 4. art. 2.
• * 1.525

  Lugo de Myst. In∣carn. disp. 36. sect. 3.
• * 1.526

  Arriag. de Incarn. disp. 56. sect. 6. subs. 2. n. 68.
• * 1.527

  l. 70.
• * 1.528

  Petav. de Incarn. l. 15. c. 15. n. 6.
• * 1.529

  §. 16.
• * 1.530

  Pontificale Rom. Ordo ad recip. Imperat. Rubr. 1.
• * 1.531

  Pontific. in Benedict. Novae Cru∣cis.
• * 1.532

  Sacrar. Ce∣rem. l. 1. c. de consecr. Agnus Dei.
• * 1.533

  Quarant. in Sum. Bullar. p. 7.
• * 1.534

  Azor. In∣stit. Mor. l. 9. c. 9.
• * 1.535

  Baron. ad A. D. 58. n. 76, 77.
• * 1.536

  Raspon. de Basil. La∣teran. l. 2. c. 8. p. 144.
• * 1.537

  Pers. Sa∣tyr. 2.
• * 1.538

  Dio l. 43.
• * 1.539

  Sueton. in Neron. c. 56.
• * 1.540

  Ammian. Marcell. l. 22.
• * 1.541

  Apulei. Apolog.
• * 1.542

  Azor. l. 9. c. 9. q. 3.
• * 1.543

  Acta Ec∣clesiae Me∣diolan. sub S. Carolo Borrom. l. 2. n. 41, 42.
• * 1.544

  Quintil. declam. 323.
• * 1.545

  Guth. de Vet. jure Pontific. l. 4. c. 22.
• * 1.546

  Minuc. p. 26.
• * 1.547

  Serv. in Georg. 3.
• * 1.548

  Vitruv. l. 4. c. 8.
• * 1.549

  Guther. de Vet. jure Pontif. l. 3. c. 6.

  Gevart. Numis. Tab. 32. n. 4.
• * 1.550

  Fest. v. Au∣clabris.
• * 1.551

  Arnob. l. 7. p. 232.
• * 1.552

  Arnobl. 1. p. 29.
• * 1.553

  Lucret. l. 5. Caesar de bellociv. l. 2
• * 1.554

  Lucan. l. 2.
• * 1.555

  Ovid. Fast. l. 4.
• * 1.556

  Guth. de Vet. jure Pontif. l. 4. c. 17. Arnob. l. 1.
• * 1.557

  Dionys. Ha∣lic. l. 7. p. 475.
• * 1.558

  Suet. in Iul. l. 26.
• * 1.559

  § 17.
• * 1.560

  Missal. de Intr. Part. 2. tit. 4. n. 4.
• * 1.561

  Gavant. in Miss. p. 103.
• * 1.562

  Philand. in Vitr. l. 4. c. 8.
• * 1.563

  Tursel. hist. Lauren. l. 1.
• * 1.564

  Trigaud. de Christian. Exped. apud Sinas l. 4. c. 11. p. 403.
• * 1.565

  Novar. Elect. sanc. l. 4. c. 54.
• * 1.566

  Della Valle Lett. 9. p. 6. Boulay Voyage l. 2. c. 25.
• * 1.567

  Hymn. ad Vesper. Dom. Passion. Pujol de ad orat. disp. 3. Sect. 6. p. 281.
• * 1.568

  Brev. Rom. Fest. Maii 30. invent. S. Crucis.
• * 1.569

  Rubr. Mis∣sal. de feria sextâ in Parasceue.
• * 1.570

  Cerem. Sacr. l. 2. de sexta Feriâ, &c.
• * 1.571

  Bzov. A. 1216. n. 16.
• * 1.572

  Aen. Sylv. Comment. l. 8.
• * 1.573

  Gretser de Imag. non manufactis c. 17.
• * 1.574

  Bolland. in 4. Febr. Sect. 3. n. 13
• * 1.575

  Luc. Mari∣nae. Sic. de reb. Hispan. l. 5.
• * 1.576

  Luc. Marin, ib.
• * 1.577

  Chifflet. de linteis sepulchr. Christi. c. 11, 15.
• * 1.578

  c. 14.
• * 1.579

  Baron. Mar∣tyrol. Aug. 16.
• * 1.580

  Claccon. in Paulo. 2. Bzov. A. 1216. n. 16.

  Rasponi de Basil. Later. l. 4. c. 19.
• * 1.581

  Gonon. Chronic. Deip. p. 346. A.D. 1433.
• * 1.582

  Sedul. de Virgine Mosae Tra∣ject. c. 2 1.
• * 1.583

  Marian. l. 2. c. 14.
• * 1.584

  Pet. della Valle lett. 5. n. 3.18.25.
• * 1.585

  Imago pri∣misaec. soc. Iesu l. 6. p. 775, &c.
• * 1.586

  Otho Zyl. histor. B. Mar. Syl∣vaeduc. l. 4. c. 28.
• * 1.587

  Barth. de los Rios hierarch. Marian. l. 2. c. 7.
• * 1.588

  c. 19.
• * 1.589

  c. 10.
• * 1.590

  c. 11.
• * 1.591

  c. 13.
• * 1.592

  c. 14.
• * 1.593

  c. 16.
• * 1.594

  c. 19.
• * 1.595

  §. 1.
• * 1.596

  T. G. p. 38, 39.
• * 1.597

  p. 49.
• * 1.598

  §. ••,
• * 1.599

  T. G. p. 54, 55.
• * 1.600

  Aq. 3. q. 25. art. 3. ad 1.
• * 1.601

  Montan. de Gen. & Regen. A∣dam. l. 4. c. 9.
• * 1.602

  Fa••ri o∣puscul. p. 97.
• * 1.603

  T.G. p. 96.
• * 1.604

  T.G. p. 38.
• * 1.605

  T. G. p. ••1.
• * 1.606

  §. 3.
• * 1.607

  Bellarm. de. Imag. l. 2. c. 5.
• * 1.608

  Catech. Rom. explic. praec. 1. n. 10 Onuphr. de 7 urb. Eccl. de Basil. Lateran. Carol.

  Borrom. in Concil.

  Mediol. 8. p. 1.

  Isid. Orig. l. 8. c. 11.

  Plut. vit. Syllae.
• * 1.609

  Psell. in. Orac.

  Chaldaic. p. 53.
• * 1.610

  Tertul. de Idol. c. 4.
• * 1.611

  c. 3.
• * 1.612

  Diog. Vit. Democr. Cicer. ad Attic. l. 2. p. 3.

  Plut. de placit.

  Philos. l. 4. c. 13, 14.
• * 1.613

  Lucret. l. 4. Cic. ep. l. 15. ep. 16.

  August. ep. 56.

  Macrob. Sat. l. 1. c. 14.
• * 1.614

  Odyss. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. v. 83.
• * 1.615

  Iliad. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. v. 450.
• * 1.616

  Odyss. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. v. 796.
• * 1.617

  §. 4.
• * 1.618

  Wisd. c. 14. v. 15.
• * 1.619

  Ch. 13. v. 6, &c.
• * 1.620

  v. 13, 14.
• * 1.621

  Fulgent. Mythol. l. 1.
• * 1.622

  Eutych. Annal. Tom. 1. p. 56.
• * 1.623

  Herod. l. 2.
• * 1.624

  Lucian. de Deâ Syr.
• * 1.625

  Epiph. l. 1. Sect. 8.
• * 1.626

  Cedren. hist. Comp. p. 45.
• * 1.627

  Euseb. Praep. Evang. l. 1. p. 39.
• * 1.628

  Euseb. Praep. Evang. l. 3. c. 11.
• * 1.629

  Plut. de Isid. & Osiri. p. 357.
• * 1.630

  Clem. Alex. Str. 5.
• * 1.631

  Pignor. exposit. Mensae Isiacae. p. 34. Kircher. Sphinx. Mystagoga par. 2. c. 3.
• * 1.632

  Porphyr. ••e abstin. l. 4.
• * 1.633

  Plut. de Isid. & Osir. p. 355.
• * 1.634

  p. 371.
• * 1.635

  Apul. Me∣tamor. l. 11. Tacit. hist. l. 4.
• * 1.636

  Oedip. Aegypt. Tom. 3.
• * 1.637

  Hieron. in Isai. c. 37. l. 11.
• * 1.638

  Lyra in Lev. 18.
• * 1.639

  Benjam. Itiner. p. 33. ed L' Em∣per.
• * 1.640

  Kirch. Pan∣theon He∣braeorum.
• * 1.641

  §. 4.
• * 1.642

  Concil. Ni∣caen. 2. Act. 6. p. 411.
• * 1.643

  Iust. Mar∣tyr. dial cum Tryph. p. 321.
• * 1.644

  Clem. Alex. Str. l. 3. p. 441.
• * 1.645

  Orig. c. Cels. l. 4. p. 182. Tertull. de spect. c. 23.
• * 1.646

  De Idol. c. 3, 4.
• * 1.647

  C. Marcion. l. 2. c. 22.
• * 1.648

  c. Marcion. l. 4. c. 22.
• * 1.649

  Cyprian. de exh. Mar∣tyr. c. 1.
• * 1.650

  De Idol. vanit. c. 1.
• * 1.651

  Minuc. Fel. p. 21.
• * 1.652

  Lact. l. 2. c. 2, 3.
• * 1.653

  S. Aug. ep. 119. c. 11.
• * 1.654

  Orig. in. Exod. hom. 8. Theod. in Exod. q. 38.
• * 1.655

  Orig. Exhort. ad Martyr. ed. Wetsten. p. 167.
• * 1.656

  §. 5.
• * 1.657

  Bell. de Imag. l. 2. c. 24.
• * 1.658

  T.G. p. 162.
• * 1.659

  Sander. de honor. Imag. adorat. c. 4. init.
• * 1.660

  Biblioth. Patr. To. 4. p. 734.
• * 1.661

  Iacob. Almain. in sentent. l. 3. dist. 9. prope sin.
• * 1.662

  Vasq. q. 108. c. 9. art. 3.
• * 1.663

  § 6.
• * 1.664

  T. G. p. 39, 40,
• * 1.665

  T. G. p. 40, 49, 50, 52, 53, 56, 77, 79, 81, 103, 206, 207.
• * 1.666

  T. G. p. 206.
• * 1.667

  §. 7.
• * 1.668

  §. 8.
• * 1.669

  T.G. p. 206.
• * 1.670

  Lorin. in Psal. 99.5.
• * 1.671

  Genebr. in loc.

  Suarez in 3 ep. q. 54. art. 3.
• * 1.672

  Sim. de Muis in loc.
• * 1.673

  Iacob. Leon. de Cherubinis.
• * 1.674

  Pyrrh. Ligor. de Vehic.
• * 1.675

  Antiq. c. 19. Liv. l. 5. c. 23.
• * 1.676

  Plut. in Camill. p. 132.
• * 1.677

  Aug. in Psal. 98.5,
• * 1.678

  Aug. de Verbis Dom. se∣cunda Ioh. Ser. 58.
• * 1.679

  T.G. p. 207
• * 1.680

  Vasquez disp. 104. c. 6.
• * 1.681

  Lorin. in Act. 17.25. & in Psal. 98.5.

  Azor. Instit. Mor. l. 9. c. 6.

  Visor. resp. ad Moncei. p. 16.

  Aq. 1.2. qu. 102. art. 4. ad 6.
• * 1.682

  T.G. p. 46.
• * 1.683

  Aug. de Fide & Symb. c. 7.
• * 1.684

  De Divit. Dei. l. 4. c. 31.
• * 1.685

  Epist. 119. ad Ian. c. 11.
• * 1.686

  T.G. p. 43.
• * 1.687

  §. 10.
• * 1.688

  T.G. p. 47▪ 48, 49, &c.
• * 1.689

  Greg. 2. Ep. 1. ad Leon. p. 10.
• * 1.690

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.691

  More Ne∣voch. l. 1. c. 36.
• * 1.692

  T. G. p. 39.
• * 1.693

  Eusib. Praep. l. 4. c. 1
• * 1.694

  T.G. p. 38, 39.
• * 1.695

  Bell. de Imag. l. 2. c. 24.
• * 1.696

  §. 11.
• * 1.697

  T. G. p. 50.
• * 1.698

  Theodor. in Deut. quaest. 1. ••. 168.
• * 1.699

  T. G. p. 51, 52, 53.
• * 1.700

  T. G. p. 54.
• * 1.701

  Picherell. Opusc. p. 220, 221.
• * 1.702

  p. 230, 231.
• * 1.703

  §. 14.
• * 1.704

  Deut. 4.15, 16.
• * 1.705

  T. G. p. 58.
• * 1.706

  T. G. p. 59.
• * 1.707

  T. G. p. 60.
• * 1.708

  Homil. p. 3. p. 40.
• * 1.709

  T. G. p. 61.
• * 1.710

  p. 63.
• * 1.711

  p. 57.
• * 1.712

  T. G. p. 64▪
• * 1.713

  p. 65, 66, 67.
• * 1.714

  T.G. p. 67.
• * 1.715

  T.G. p. 69.
• * 1.716

  p. 70.
• * 1.717

  p. 71.
• * 1.718

  p. 72.
• * 1.719

  p. 73.
• * 1.720

  p. 74.
• * 1.721

  In. Evang. secund. Ioh. Serm. 58.
• * 1.722

  §. 13.
• * 1.723

  T.G. p. 153.
• * 1.724

  p. 156.
• * 1.725

  p. 154.
• * 1.726

  Exod. 23.20, 23.
• * 1.727

  Exod. 32, 1.
• * 1.728

  T.G. p. 160.
• * 1.729

  Fer. in Act. 7. p. 94.
• * 1.730

  T.G. p. 155.
• * 1.731

  p. 165.
• * 1.732

  Exod. 32.6.
• * 1.733

  Act. 7.41.
• * 1.734

  Exod. 24.5.
• * 1.735

  Macrob. Saturn. l. 1. c. 7.
• * 1.736

  Cuperi Harpocrat. p. 105.
• * 1.737

  Iuv. Sa∣tyr. 15. v. 11.
• * 1.738

  Athen. l. 7.
• * 1.739

  Herod. l. 2▪ c. 41.
• * 1.740

  Herod. l. 2. c. 42.
• * 1.741

  Diod. Sic. l. 1. c. 13.
• * 1.742

  Plut. de Iside p. 366.
• * 1.743

  Mela l. 1. c. 9.
• * 1.744

  Strabo l. 17.
• * 1.745

  Exod. 8.26.
• * 1.746

  Exod. 32.5.
• * 1.747

  T.G. p. 159.
• * 1.748

  Exod. 6.3, 6.
• * 1.749

  Numb. 10.35, 36.
• * 1.750

  Exod. 32.31.
• * 1.751

  v. 6.
• * 1.752

  Act. 7.41.
• * 1.753

  T.G. p. 162.
• * 1.754

  Bell. de Imag. l. 2. c. 13.
• * 1.755

  Acts 7.41, 42.
• * 1.756

  Clem. Alex. Str. 6. p. 482. Orig. c. Cels. l. 5. p. 238.
• * 1.757

  §. 14.
• * 1.758

  T.G. p. 155.
• * 1.759

  Deut. 8.11, 14.6.12.
• * 1.760

  Act. 7.39.40.
• * 1.761

  T. G. p.
• * 1.762

  De mirab. S. Script. l. 1. c. 15.
• * 1.763

  De errore prosan. Relig. p. ••8.

  Rufin. hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. 23.

  Suid. v. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.764

  Deut. 33.17.
• * 1.765

  §. 15.
• * 1.766

  Plut. de Isid. p. 366. Iuven. Satyr. 15.
• * 1.767

  Lucian in Iove. Tragoed.
• * 1.768

  Marsham. Chronic. Can. p. 60.
• * 1.769

  Plut. de Isid. p. 36••. Diod. l. 1. p. 76.
• * 1.770

  Plut. de Isid. p. 382.
• * 1.771

  p. 379.
• * 1.772

  §. 16.
• * 1.773

  Porphyr. de Abstin. l. 4. sect. 9.
• * 1.774

  Apul. Me∣tam. l. 11.
• * 1.775

  Max. Tyr. diss. 38. in sin.
• * 1.776

  Fl. Vopisc. in Saturni∣no.
• * 1.777

  Plut. de Isid. p. 362.
• * 1.778

  Seguin. Numism. p. 2, 3, 4.
• * 1.779

  Grut. In∣script. p. 85.
• * 1.780

  Tristan. Comment. Histor. To. 2. p. 190.
• * 1.781

  §. 17.
• * 1.782

  1 Kings 12.28.
• * 1.783

  T.G. p. 164.
• * 1.784

  p. 165.
• * 1.785

  1 Kings 12.32.
• * 1.786

  T. G. p. 165.
• * 1.787

  2 Kings 17.22, 23.
• * 1.788

  2 Chron. 13.9.
• * 1.789

  Ioseph. Antiq. Iud. l. 8. c. 3.
• * 1.790

  1 Kings 12.33.
• * 1.791

  2 Chro••. 11.15.
• * 1.792

  1 Kings 11.7. 2 Kings 23.13.
• * 1.793

  1 Kings 19.10, 14.
• * 1.794

  2 Kings 23.9, 20.
• * 1.795

  Isa. 13.21.
• * 1.796

  Herod. l. 2. c. 46.
• * 1.797

  Strab. l. 17.
• * 1.798

  Diodor. l. 1.
• * 1.799

  Plut. de Isid.
• * 1.800

  Boch. de Anim. Sacr. l. 2. c. 53
• * 1.801

  §. 18.
• * 1.802

  1 Kings 16.31, 32.
• * 1.803

  T. G. p. 1••••.
• * 1.804

  1 Kings 18.21.
• * 1.805

  T. G. p. 167.
• * 1.806

  2 Kings 10.16.
• * 1.807

  T.G. p. 166.
• * 1.808

  v. 23.
• * 1.809

  v. 29, 31.
• * 1.810

  2 Kings 17.26, 27, 28, 32, 33.
• * 1.811

  T. G. p. 168.
• * 1.812

  T.G. p. 168.
• * 1.813

  §. 19.
• * 1.814

  T.G. p. 169.
• * 1.815

  T.G. p. 175.
• * 1.816

  §. 1.
• * 1.817

  T. G. p. 13, 14, 15.
• * 1.818

  Rational Account, p. 54.
• * 1.819

  Dr. Still. still against Dr. Still. A.D. 1675.
• * 1.820

  Infallibili∣ty of the Roman Ca∣tholick Church against Dr. Still. by E. W. 1674. Preface.
• * 1.821

  Answer to several Treatises, First part, p. 19, &c.
• * 1.822

  Dr. Still. still against Dr. Stîll. p. 95.
• * 1.823

  p. 97.
• * 1.824

  p. 101.
• * 1.825

  p. 10••, &c.
• * 1.826

  §. 2.
• * 1.827

  I.W. p. 78.
• * 1.828

  2 King. 17.22, 23. 1 Kings 15.26, 34.16.13, 19, 26, 31.
• * 1.829

  22.52.
• * 1.830

  2 Kings 3.3.
• * 1.831

  10.29.13.2.14.23.15.9, 18.24.28.
• * 1.832

  2 Kings 9.6.
• * 1.833

  13.23.
• * 1.834

  Hosea 11.8, 9.
• * 1.835

  14.1.
• * 1.836

  Amos 4.12.8.2.
• * 1.837

  Micah 6.2, 3.
• * 1.838

  Answer first part Gener. pres. in sin.
• * 1.839

  Part 1. Ch. 1. sect. 17.
• * 1.840

  Concil. Ni∣cen. 2. act. 6. p. 411.
• * 1.841

  Act. 1. p. 82.
• * 1.842

  Epiph. haer. 73. n. 28. Socr. l. 2. c. 44. Sozom. l. 4. c. 28.
• * 1.843

  Baron. ad A.D. 360. n. 52.
• * 1.844

  Theod. l. 2. c. 31.
• * 1.845

  Baron. ad A. 408. c. 31.
• * 1.846

  Athanas. ap. ad An∣tioch. p. 575.
• * 1.847

  Ruffin. hist. Eccles. l. 1. c. 28.
• * 1.848

  Hieron. ad∣vers. Luci∣ferian. init.
• * 1.849

  §. 3.
• * 1.850

  T.G. p. 76.
• * 1.851

  T.G. p. 86. to 90.
• * 1.852

  T.G. p. 89.
• * 1.853

  §. 4.
• * 1.854

  T.G. p. 90.
• * 1.855

  p. 91.
• * 1.856

  p. 93.
• * 1.857

  Rom. 1.20.
• * 1.858

  Psal. 19.1.
• * 1.859

  Vasquez Hisp. 110. c. 2.
• * 1.860

  Lugo de Mysterio Incarn. disp. 37. Sect. 1.
• * 1.861

  §. 5.
• * 1.862

  T. G. p. 93, 94.
• * 1.863

  T. G. p. 86.
• * 1.864

  Vasq. ubi sup.
• * 1.865

  Lugo ubi sup.
• * 1.866

  n. 8.
• * 1.867

  n. 11.
• * 1.868

  Arriag. de Myster. Incarn. disp. 57. sect. 2. subject. 2. n. 10.
• * 1.869

  Ysamb. de Myster. Incarn. ad Qu. 25. disp. 3. art. 15.
• * 1.870

  §. 6.
• * 1.871

  T.G. p. 118.
• * 1.872

  p. 119.
• * 1.873

  Carol. de Imag. l. 4. c. 13.
• * 1.874

  Act. 7. p. 586.
• * 1.875

  Baron. ad A. D. 785. n. 40.
• * 1.876

  Christian. Lup. in Conc. T. 2. p. 1210.
• * 1.877

  Theoph. Chrongr. p. 388. Histor. Miscell. l. 23. p. 333.
• * 1.878

  Act. 7. p. 558.
• * 1.879

  Bin. not. in Concil. Nic. 2. Concil. Nic. Act. 3. p. 187, 190.
• * 1.880

  Lup. not. in Can. Concil. Sept. To. 2. p. 1109.
• * 1.881

  Adriani epist. Synod. Nic. To. 7. Concil. p. 924.
• * 1.882

  p. 154▪
• * 1.883

  T.G. p. 118.
• * 1.884

  §. 7.
• * 1.885

  Theoph. Chron. p. 389.
• * 1.886

  Paul. Diacon. l. 23. p. 733.
• * 1.887

  Photii Epist. 2. p. 60.
• * 1.888

  Baron. A. D. 863. n. 33.
• * 1.889

  Ib. n. 6.
• * 1.890

  Anast. vit. Hadrian. 1. p. 119.
• * 1.891

  Concil. Gener. Tom. 8. p. 775.
• * 1.892

  §. 8.
• * 1.893

  Sirmond. adm. de Can. 2. Concil. Francford.
• * 1.894

  T.G. p. 148
• * 1.895

  Spalat. de Rep. Eccles. l. 7. c. 12. n. 59.
• * 1.896

  Waldens. Tom. 3. Tit. 19. c. 150▪ n. 4.
• * 1.897

  §. 9.
• * 1.898

  Sirmond. Admon. To. 2. Concil. p. 191. Pet. de Marcâ de Concord. Sacerd. l. 2. c. 17. n. 2. Petav. de Incarn. l. 15. c. 11. n. 4. Sur. admon. ad Lect. de Concil. Franc. Cop. Dial. 4. c. 18, 19. Sander. de Imag. c. 5. Suar. in 3. p. Th. disp. 54. sect. 3.
• * 1.899

  Concil. Gener. To. 7. p. 1013.
• * 1.900

  Theop. Chronogr. p. 389.
• * 1.901

  Gab. Biel. in Can. Miss. c. 49.
• * 1.902

  P. Pithei praefat. ad histor. Pauli Diac.
• * 1.903

  Annales Eccles. Franc. ad A. D. 794. n. 26. To. 6.
• * 1.904

  n. 34.
• * 1.905

  T.G. p. 144.
• * 1.906

  Carol. de ••ag. l. 3. c. 17.
• * 1.907

  T.G. p. 146.
• * 1.908

  Hincmar. Opusc. c. 20. p. 457. Carol. l. 4. c. 28.
• * 1.909

  Petav. d•• Incarn. l. 15. c. 12. n. 8.
• * 1.910

  Cassan. ep. 15.
• * 1.911

  Bellarm. de Concil. l. 2. c. 8.

  Baron. ad A. 794. n. 31.
• * 1.912

  Carol. de Imag. l. 3. c. 11.
• * 1.913

  Petav. de Incarn. l. 15. c. 12. n. 4, 10.
• * 1.914

  Eginhardi Annales A. D. 794.
• * 1.915

  Histor. Franc. Script. Coaetan. Tom. 2. & 3.
• * 1.916

  §. 10.
• * 1.917

  T.G. p. 149.
• * 1.918

  Bell. de Script. Eccles. A. 820.
• * 1.919

  Biblioth. Patr. To. 4. p. 533.
• * 1.920

  p. 538. p. 547.
• * 1.921

  Walafrid. Strabo de reb. Eccles. l. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.922

  Baron. A.D. 794. n. 41.
• * 1.923

  T.G. p. 150.
• * 1.924

  Baluz. no••. in Agob. p. 88.
• * 1.925

  Papir. Mas∣son. Synops. Agob. c. 10.
• * 1.926

  Agobard. de Imag. c. 19.32.
• * 1.927

  Hincmar, ubi supr.
• * 1.928

  Cusan. de Concord. Cathol. l. ••. c. 1.
• * 1.929

  Anast. Bi∣blioth. Prae∣fat. in sept. Synod.
• * 1.930

  Gesner. Bi∣blioth. To. 1. v. Leo.
• * 1.931

  Cassand. Ep. 19.
• * 1.932

  Nicet. Cho∣niat. l. 2. Is. Angeli. Baron. A. 1189. n. 10.
• * 1.933

  Biblioth. Patr. To. 3. p. 151.
• * 1.934

  Auctur. Biblioth. Patr. To. 2.409.
• * 1.935

  P. Pithaei Praes. ad Pauli Di∣ac. hist.
• * 1.936

  §. 11.
• * 1.937

  Lib. Carol. de Imag. l. 1. c. 16. c. 13. c. 15. c. 19. c. 20. c. 25.
• * 1.938

  l. 2. c. 8.16. c. 25. l. 3. c. 10.17. c. 19. c. 23. c. 29.31.
• * 1.939

  l. 4. c. 1. c. 17. c. 23.
• * 1.940

  T.G. p. 125.
• * 1.941

  Zach. 13.2.
• * 1.942

  T.G. p. 127.
• * 1.943

  T.G. p. 128.
• * 1.944

  T.G. p. 134.
• * 1.945

  T.G. p. 136.
• * 1.946

  T.G. p. 138.
• * 1.947

  §. 12.
• * 1.948

  T.G. p. 192.
• * 1.949

  T.G. p. 186.
• * 1.950

  T.G. p. 188, 185
• * 1.951

  §. 13.
• * 1.952

  T.G. p. 176, 188.
• * 1.953

  p. 189.
• * 1.954

  p. 190.
• * 1.955

  T.G. p. 180.
• * 1.956

  T.G. p. 182, 183.
• * 1.957

  T.G. p. 182.
• * 1.958

  T.G. ib.
• * 1.959

  §. 14.
• * 1.960

  T.G.p. 198.
• * 1.961

  T. G. ib.
• * 1.962

  p. 199.
• * 1.963

  T.G.p. 201.
• * 1.964

  T.G.p. 202, 203.
• * 1.965

  §. 15.
• * 1.966

  T.G. p. 208▪
• * 1.967

  Book of Canons, 1603. c. 18.
• * 1.968

  Defence of the Answ. tr. 21. c. 7. div. 3.
• * 1.969

  Fulk against Rhem. Phil. 2.10.
• * 1.970

  Andrew's Ser. 9. of Resur. Speech in Star∣chamb. p. 50.
• * 1.971

  Suarez in 3. p. Th. q. 25. disp. 2.54. art. 3. sect. 6.
• * 1.972

  Paul. Ma∣ria Quarti in Rubr. Misse p. 264, 266.
• * 1.973

  §. 16.
• * 1.974

  T.G. p. 218.
• * 1.975

  Canons and Con∣stit. c. 7.1640.
• * 1.976

  Speech in Star-Chamber. p. 43.
• * 1.977

  p. 46.
• * 1.978

  p. 47.
• * 1.979

  p. 48. p. 52.
• * 1.980

  Gen. 18.19.
• * 1.981

  Gen. 24.26, 48, 52.
• * 1.982

  Pet. Piche∣rell. de Imag. p. 225.
• * 1.983

  Exod. 4.31.
• * 1.984

  12.27.
• * 1.985

  24.1.
• * 1.986

  22.8.
• * 1.987

  33.10.
• * 1.988

  34.8.
• * 1.989

  Numb. 20.6.
• * 1.990

  1 Chron. 29.20.
• * 1.991

  2 Chron. 29.29.
• * 1.992

  Matth. 15.25.
• * 1.993

  Mark 7.25.
• * 1.994

  Acts 10.25, 26.
• * 1.995

  Revel. 19.10.22.9.