The second part of the dissuasive from popery in vindication of the first part, and further reproof and conviction of the Roman errors / by Jer. Taylor ...

SECTION VI.

Of the Worship of Images.

THat society of Christians will not easily be refor∣med, that think themselves oblig'd to dispute for the worship of Images, the prohibition of which was so great a part of the Mosaic Religion, and is so infinitely against the nature and spirituality of the Christian; a thing which every understanding can see condemned in the Decalogue, & no man can excuse, but witty persons that can be bound by no words, which they can interpret to a sense contradictory to the de∣sign of the common: a thing for the hating of, and abstaining from which the Jews were so remark'd by all the world, and by which as by a distinctive cognisance they were separated from all other Nations, and which with perfect resolution they keep to this very day, and for the not observing of which, they are intolerably scandaliz'd at those societies of Christians, who with∣out any necessity in the thing, without any pretence of any Law of God, for no good, and for no wise end, and not without infinite danger, at least, of idolatry, retain a worship and veneration to some stocks and stones. Such men as these are too hard for all laws, and for all arguments; so certain it is, that faith is an obedience of the will in a conviction of the understan∣ding; that if in the will and interests of men there be a

perverseness and a non-compliance, and that it is not bent by prudent and wise flexures and obedience to God, and the plain words of God in Scripture, no∣thing can ever prevail, neither David, nor his Sling, nor all the worthies of his army.

In this question I have said enough in the Dissua∣sive, and also in the Ductor dubitantium; but to the arguments and fulness of the perswasion, they neither have, nor can they say any thing that is material; but according to their usual method, like flies they search up and down, and light upon any place which they suppose to be sore, or would make their prose∣lytes believe so. I shall therefore first vindicate those few quotations which the Epistles of his brethren ex∣cept against; (for there are many, and those most pregnant which they take no notice of) as bearing in them too clear a conviction. 2. I shall answer such testimonies, which some of them steal out of Bellar∣mine, and which they esteem as absolutely their best. And 3. I shall add something in confirmation of that truth of God, which I here have undertaken to de∣fend.

First, for the questioned quotations against the worship of images; S. Cyril was nam'd in the Dissua∣sive as denying that the Christians did give veneration and worship to the image even of the cross it self, but no words of S. Cyril were quoted; for the denial is not in express words, but in plain and direct argument: for being by Julian charg'd with worshipping the cross, S. Cyril in behalf of the Christians takes notice of their using the cross in a religious memory of all good things, to which by the cross of Christ we are ingag'd, that is, he owns all that they did, and therefore ta∣king no notice of any thing of worship, and making no answer to that part of the objection, it is certain that the Christians did not do it, or that he could not justi∣fie

them in so doing. But because I quoted no words of S. Cyril, I now shall take notice of some words of his, which do most abundantly clear this particular by a general rule; [Only the Divine Nature is ca∣pable of adoration, and the Scripture hath given ado∣ration to no nature but to that of God alone;] that, and that alone ought to be worshipped. But to give yet a little more light to this particular; it may be no∣ted that before S. Cyrils time this had been objected by the Pagans, particularly by Caecilius, to which Minu∣tius answers by directly denying it, and saying, that the Pagans did rather worship erosses, that is, the woodden parts of their Gods. The Christians indeed were by Tertullian called Religiosi crucis, because they had it in thankful use and memory, and us'd it fre∣quently in a symbolical confession of their not being asham'd, but of their glorying in the real cross of Christ: But they never worshipped the material cross, or the figure of it, as appears by S. Cyrils owning all the objections, excepting this only, of which he nei∣ther confessed the fact, nor offered any justification of it when it was objected, but professed a doctrine with which such practice was inconsistent. And the like is to be said of some other of the Fathers who speak with great affections and veneration of the cross, meaning, to exalt the passion of Christ; and in the sense of S. Paul to glory in the cross of Christ, not meaning the material cross, much less the image of it, which we blame in the Church of Rome: And this very sense we have expressed in S. Ambrose, Sapiens Helena egit, quae crucem in capite regum levavit, ut Christi Crux in Re∣gibus adoretur. The figure of the material cross was by Helena plac'd upon the heads of Kings, that the cross of Christ in Kings might be ador'd:] How so? He answers, Non insolentia ista sed pietas est cum defertur sacrae redemptioni. It is to the holy redemption, not

to the cross materially taken; this were insolent, but the other is piety. In the same manner also S. Chryso∣stom is by the Roman Doctors, and particularly by Gretser, and E. W. urg'd for the worshipping Christs cross. But the book de cruce & latrone, whence the words are cited; Gretser and Possevine suspect it to be a spurious issue of some unknown person: It wants a Father; and sometimes it goes to S. Austin, and is crouded into his Sermons de Tempore: But I shall not trouble my discourse any farther with such counterfeit ware. What S. Chrysostoms doctrine was in the mat∣ter of images, is plain enough in his indubitate works, as is, and shall be remark'd in their several places.

The famous testimony of Epiphanius, against the very use of images in Churches, being urg'd in the Dissuasive as an irrefragable argument that the Roman doctrine is not Primitive or Catholic, the contra-scri∣bers say nothing; but that when S. Hierome translated that Epistle of S. Epiphanius, it appears not that this story was in that Epistle that S. Hierome translated; which is a great argument that that story was foisted into that Epistle after S. Hieromes time.] A likely mat∣ter! but spoken upon slight grounds. It appears not, saith the Objector, that this story was in it then: To whom does it not appear? To Bellarmine indeed it did not, nor to this Objector who writes after him. Alan Cope denied that Epiphanius ever wrote any such Epistle at all, or that S. Hierome ever translated any such; but Bellarmine, being asham'd of such unreason∣able boldness, found out this more gentle answer, which here we have from our Objector: well! but now the case is thus; that this story was put into the Epistle by some Iconoclast is vehemently suspected by Bel∣larmine and Baronius. But this Epistle vehemently burns their fingers, and the live coal sticks close to them, and they can never shake it off. For 1. who

should add this story to this Epistle? Not any of the reformed Doctors; for before Luthers time many ages, this Epistle with this story was known, and confessed, and quoted, in the Manuscript copies of divers Nati∣ons. 2. This Epistle was quoted, and set down as now it is, with this story by Charles the great above DCCC. years ago. 3. And a little after by the Fa∣thers in the Council of Paris; only they call the Au∣thor John Bishop of C. P. instead of Jerusalem. 4. Sir∣mondus the Jesuite cites this Epistle as the genuine work of Epiphanius. 5. Marianus Victor, and Dionysi∣us Petavius a Jesuite of great and deserved fame for learning in their Editions of Epiphanius, have publish∣ed this whole Epistle; and have made no note, given no censure upon this story. 6. Before them Thomas Waldensis, and since him Alphonsus a Castro acknow∣ledge this whole Epistle as the proper issue of Epi∣phanius. 7. Who can be supposed to have put in this story? The Iconoclasts? Not the Greeks, because if they had, they would have made use of it for their ad∣vantage, which they never did in any of their disputa∣tions against images; insomuch that Bellarmine makes advantage of it, because they never objected it. Not the Latins that wrote against images; for though they were against the worship of images, yet they were not Iconoclasts: Indeed Claudius Taurinensis was, but he could not put this story in, for before his time it was in, as appears in the book of Charles the great before quoted. These things put together are more than suf∣ficient to prove that this story was written by Epipha∣nius, and the whole Epistle was translated by S. Hie∣rome, as himself testifies. But after all this, if there was any foul play in this whole affair, the cosenage lies on the other side; for some or other have destroyed the Greek original of Epiphanius, and only the Latin co∣pies remain; and in all of them of Epiphanius's works,

this story still remains. But how the Greek came to be lost, though it be uncertain, yet we have great cause to suspect the Greeks to be the Authors of the loss: And the cause of this suspicion is the command made by the Bishops in the seventh Council, that all writings against images should be brought in to the Bishop of C. P. there to be laid up with the books of other heretics. It is most likely here it might go away: But however, the good providence of God hath kept this record to reprove the follies of the Roman Church in this particular.

The authority of S. Austin, reprehending the wor∣ship of images, was urg'd from several places of his writings cited in the Margent. In his first book de moribus Ecclesiae, he hath these words which I have now set down in the Margent; in which, describing among other things the difference between su∣perstition and true religion, he presses it on to issue; [Tell not me of the professors of the Christian name. Follow not the troops of the unskilful, who in true religion it self either are superstitious, or so given to lusts, that they have forgot∣ten what they have promis'd to God. I know that there are many worshippers of sepulchers and pictures, I know that there are many who live luxuriously over [the graves of] the dead.] That S. Austin reckons these that are worshippers of pictures among the superstiti∣ous and the vitious, is plain, and forbids us to follow such superstitious persons. But see what follows, [But how vain, how hurtful, how sacrilegious they are,

I have purpos'd to shew in another volume.] Then ad∣dressing himself to the Manichees, who upon the occa∣sion of these evil and superstitious practices of some Catholics, did reproach the Catholic Church, he says, [Now I admonish you that at length you will give over the reproaching the Catholic Church, by reproaching the man∣ners of these men, (viz. worshippers of pictures, and sepulchers, and livers riotously over the dead,) whom she her self condemns, and whom as evil sons she endea∣vours to correct.] By these words now cited, it ap∣pears plainly, that S. Austin affirms that those few Christians, who in his time did worship pictures, were not only superstitious, but condemned by the Church. This the Letter writer denies S. Austin to have said; but that he did say so, we have his own words for wit∣ness. Yea, but 2. S. Austin did not speak of worship∣pers of pictures alone: what then? Neither did he of them alone say they were superstitious, and their acti∣ons vain, hurtful and sacrilegious. But does it fol∣low that therefore he does not say so at all of these, because he says it of the others too? But 3. neither doth he formally call them superstitions,] I know not what this offer of an answer means, certain it is, when S. Austin had complained that many Christians were su∣perstitious, his first instance is of them that worship pictures and graves. But I perceive this Gentleman found himself pinch'd beyond remedy, and like a man fastned by his thumbs at the whipping-post, he wries his back and shrinks from the blow, though he knows he cannot get loose.

In the Margent of the Dissuasive, there were two other testimonies of S. Austin pointed at; but the Letter says, that in these S. Austin hath not a word to any such purpose: That is now to be tried. The purpose for which they were brought, is to reprove the doctrine and practice of the Church of Rome in the

matter of images: It was not intended that all these places should all speak or prove the same particular; but that which was affirmed in the text being suffici∣ently verified by the first quotation in the Margent, the other two are fully pertinent to the main inquiry, and to condemnation of the Roman doctrine, as the first was of the Roman practice. The words are these,

[Neither is it to be thought that God is circumscri∣bed in a humane shape, that they who think of him should fancy a right or a left side, or that because the Father is said to sit, it is to be supposed, that he does it with bended knees, lest we fall into that sacriledge, for which the Apostle Execrates them that change the glory of the incorruptible God into the similitude of a corruptible man. For, for a Christian to place such an image to God in the Church is wickedness, but much more wicked is it to place it in our heart.]

So S. Austin. Now this testimony had been more pro∣perly made use of in the next Section, as more rela∣ting to the proper matter of it, as being a direct con∣demnation of the picturing of God; but here it serves without any sensible error, and where ever it is, it throws a stone at them, and hits them. But of this more in the sequel.

But the third testimony (however it pleases A. L. to deny it) does speak home to his part of the questi∣on, and condemns the Roman hypothesis: the words are these, [See that ye forget not the testimony of your God which he wrote, or that ye make shapes and ima∣ges:] But it adds also saying, Your God is a consuming fire, and a zealous God. These words from the Scrip∣ture Adimantus propounded; [Yet remember not only there, but also here concerning the zeal of God, he so blames the Scriptures, that he adds that which is com∣manded by our Lord God in those books, concerning the not worshipping of images; as if for nothing else he repre∣hends

that zeal of God, but only because by that very zeal we are forbidden to worship images. Therefore he would seem to favour images, which therefore they do that they might reconcile the good will of the Pagans to their mise∣rable and mad sect,] meaning the sect of the Mani∣chees, who to comply with the Pagans, did retain the worship of images. And now the three testimonies are verified; and though this was an Unnecessary trouble to me, and I fear it may be so to my Reader, yet the Church of Rome hath got no advantage but this, that in S. Austins sense, that which Romanists do now, the Manichees did then; only these did it to comply with the Heathens, and those out of direct and meer superstition. But to clear this point in S. Austins do∣ctrine, the Reader may please to read his 19. book against Faustus the Manichee, cap. 18. and the 119. Epistle against him, chap. 12. where he affirms that the Christians observe that, which the Jews did in this, viz. that which was written, Hear O Israel, the Lord thy God is one God, thou shalt not make an idol to thee, and such like things: and in the latter place, he affirms that the second Commandment is moral, viz. that all of the Decalogue are so, but only the fourth. I add a third as pregnant as any of the rest: for in his first book de consensu Evangelistarum, speaking of some who had fallen into error upon occasion of the pictures of S. Peter and S. Paul, he says, Sic nempe errare merue∣runt qui Christum & Apostolos ejus non in sanctis condicibus sed in pictis parietibus quaesiverunt.

The Council of Eliberis is of great concern in this Question, and does great effort to the Roman practi∣ces. E. W. takes notice of it, and his best answer to it is, that it hath often been answered already. He says true; it hath been answered both often and many ways. The Council was in the year 305. of 19. Bi∣shops, who in the 36. Canon, decreed this [placuit pi∣cturas

in Ecclesiis esse non debere.] It hath pleas'd us that pictures ought not to be in Churches; That's the decree: The reason they give is, ne quod colitur & adoratur in parietibus depingatur, lest that which is worshipped be painted on the walls. So that there are two propositions; 1. Pictures ought not to be in Churches. 2. That which is worshipped ought not to be painted upon walls. E. W. hath a very learned Note upon this Canon. Mark, first the Council suppo∣seth worship and adoration due to pictures, ne quod colitur & adoratur. By which mark, E. W. confesses that pictures are the object of his adoration, and that the Council took no care and made no provision for the ho∣nour of God, (who is and ought to be worshipp'd and ador'd in Churches, & illi soli servies) but only were good husbands for the pictures for fear, 1. they should be spoiled by the moisture of the walls, or 2. defaced by the Heathen; the first of these is Bellarmines, the latter is Perrons answer: But too childish to need a se∣verer consideration. But how easie had it been for them to have commanded that all their pictures should have been in frames, upon boards or cloth, as it is in many Churches in Rome, and other places. 2. Why should the Bishops forbid pictures to be in Churches; for fear of spoiling one kind of them, they might have permitted others, though not these. 3. Why should any man be so vain as to think, that in that age, in which the Christians were in perpetual disputes against the Heathens for worshipping pictures and images, they should be so curious to preserve their pictures, and reserve them for adoration. 4. But then to make pictures to be the subject of that caution, ne quod coli∣tur, & adoratur, and not to suppose God and his Christ to be the subject of it, is so unlike the religion of Christians, the piety of those ages, the Oeconomy of the Church, and the analogy of the Commandment,

that it betrays a refractory and heretical spirit in him, that shall so perversely invent an Unreasonable Com∣mentary, rather than yield to so pregnant and easie testimony. But some are wiser, and consider, that the Council takes not care that pictures be not spoil'd, but that they be not in the Churches; and that what is adorable be not there painted, and not, be not there spoiled. The not painting them is the utmost of their design, not the preserving them; for we see vast num∣bers of them every where painted on walls, and preser∣ved well enough, and easily repair'd upon decay, therefore this is too childish; to blot them out for fear they be spoiled, and not to bring them in∣to Churches for fear they be taken out. Agobardus Bishop of Lions, above 800. years since cited this Ca∣non in a book of his which he wrote de picturis & imagi∣nibus, which was published by Papirius Massonus; and thus illustrates it, Recte (saith he) nimirum ob hujusmodi evacuandam superstitionem ab Orthodoxis pa∣tribus definitum est picturas in Ecclesia fieri non debere [Nec] quod eolitur & adoratur in parietibus deping atur. Where first he expresly affirms these Fathers in this Canon to have intended only rooting up this supersti∣tion, not the ridiculous preserving the pictures. So it was Understood then. But then 2. Agobardus reads it, Nec, not [Ne] quod colitur, which reading makes the latter part of the Canon, to be part of the sancti∣on, and no reason of the former decree; pictures must not be made in Churches, neither ought that to be painted upon walls which is worshipped and adored. This was the doctrine and sentiment of the wise and good men above 800. years since. By which also the Unreasonable supposition of Baronius, that the Canon is not genuine, is plainly confuted; this Canon not be∣ing only in all copies of that Council, but own'd for such by Agobardus so many ages before Baronius, and

so many ages after the Council. And he is yet farther reproved by Cardinal Perron, who tells a story, that in Granada in memory of this Council, they use frames for pictures, and paint none upon the wall at this day. It seems they in Granada are taught to understand that Canon according unto the sense of the Patrons of ima∣ges, and to mistake the plain meaning of the Council. For the Council did not forbid only to paint upon the walls, for that according to the common reading is but accidental to the decree; but the Council com∣manded that no picture should be in Churches. Now-then let this Canon be confronted with the Council of Trent, Sess. 25. decret. de S. S. invoc. [Imagines Christi, Deiparae virginis, & aliorum sanctorum in Templis praeser∣tim habendas & retinendas, that the images of Christ, and of the Virgin Mother of God, and of other Saints be had and kept especially in Churches:] and in the world there cannot be a greater contradiction between two, than there is between Eliberis and Trent, the old and the new Church: for the new Church not only commands pictures and images to be kept in Churches, but paints them upon walls, and neither fears thieves nor moisture. There are divers other little answers amongst the Roman Doctors to this uneasie objection; but they are only such as venture at the telling the se∣cret reasons why the Council so decreed; as Alan Cope saith, it was so decreed, lest the Christians should take them for Gods, or lest the Heathen should think the Christians worshipped them; so Sanders. But it matters not for what reason they decreed: Only if ei∣ther of these say true, then Bellarmine and Perron are false in their conjectures of the reason. But it mat∣ters not; for suppose all these reasons were concen∣tred in the decree, yet the decree it self is not observ'd at this day in the Roman Church, but a doctrine and practice quite contrary introduced. And therefore

my opinion is, that Melchior Canus answers best, [aut nimis duras aut parum rationi consentaneas a Consiliis pro∣vincialibus interdum editas, non est negandum. Qualis illa non impudenter modo verum etiam impie a Consilio Elibertino de tollendis imaginibus. By this we may see not only how irreverently the Roman Doctors use the Fathers when they are not for their turns; but we may also perceive how the Canon condemns the Roman do∣ctrine and practice in the matter of images.

The next inquiry is concerning matter of History, relating to the second Synod of Nice in the East, and that of Francfurt in the West. In the Dissuasive it was said, that Eginardus, Hincmarus, Aventinus, &c. affirmed, 1. That the Bishops assembled at Francfurt, and condemned the Synod of Nice. 2. That they commanded it should not be called a General Council. 3. They published a book under the name of the Em∣peror confuting that Unchristian Assembly. These things were said out of these Authors, not supposing that every thing of this should be prov'd from every one of them, but the whole of it by its several parts from all these put together.

1. That the Bishops of Francfurt condemned the Sy∣nod of Nice or the seventh General. Whether the Dissuasive hath said this truly out of the Authors quo∣ted by him, we need no further proof, but the confessi∣on of Bellarmine. Auctores antiqui omnes conveniunt in hoc, quod in concilio Francofordiensi sit reprobata Synodus VII. quae decreverat imagines adorandas. Ita Hincmarus, Aimoinus, Rhegino, Ado, & alii passim docent. So that if the objector blames the Dissuasive for alledging these authorities, let him first blame Bellarmine, who confesses that to be true, which the Dissuasive here af∣firms. Now that by the VII. Synod Bellarmine means the II. Nicene, appears by his own words in the same chapter. Videtur igitur mihi in Synodo Francofordiensi

vere reprobatam Nicaenam II. Synodum; sed per errorem, & materialiter, &c. And Bellarmine was in the right; not only those which the Dissuasive quoted, but all the Ancient writers saith Bellarmine. So the Author of the life of Charles the Great, speaking of the Council of Francfurt; [There Queen Fastrada died. Pseudo∣synodus Graecorum quam falso septimam vocabant pro ima∣ginibus, rejecta est a pontificibus. The same is affirm'd by the Annals of the Francsa; by Adhelmus Benedicti∣nus in his Annals, in the same year; by Hincmarus Rhemensisb in an Epistle to Hincmarus his Nephew; by Strabus the Monk of Fulda, Rhegino prumiensis, Ur∣spergensis, and Hermanus Contractus in their Annals and Chronicles of the year 794. By Ado viennensisc; sed pseudosynodus, quam septimam Graeci appellant, pro ado∣randis imaginibus, abdicata penitus; the same is af∣firmed by the Annals of Eginhardusd; and by Aimoi∣nus e and Aventinus. I could reckon many more, if more were necessary, but these are they whom the Dis∣suasive quoted, and some more; against this truth no∣thing material can be said, only that Hincmarus and Aimoinus (which are two whom the Dissuasive quotes) do not say that the Synod of Francfurt rejected the se∣cond Nicene, but the Synod of C. P. But to this Bel∣larmine himself answers, that it is true they do so, but it is by mistake; and that they meant the Council which was kept at Nice: so that the Dissuasive is ju∣stified by his greatest adversary. But David Blondel answers this objection, by saying that C. P. being the head of the Eastern Empire, these Authors us'd the name of the Imperial city for the provinces under it: which answer though it be ingenious, yet I rather be∣lieve that the error came first from the Council of Francfurt, who called it the Synod at C. P. and that after it, these Authors took it up: but that error was not great, but always excusable, if not warrantable;

because the second Nicene Council was first appointed to be at C. P. but by reason of the tumults of the people, was translated to Nice. But to proceed, That Blondus (whom the Dissuasive also quotes) saith, the Synod of Francfurt abrogated the seventh Synod, the objector confesses, and adds, that it confuted the Felician heresie for taking away of images: concerning which, lest the less wary Reader should suppose the Synod of Francfurt to have determin'd for images, as Alan Cope, Gregory de Valentia, Vasquez, Suarez, and Binius would fain have the world believe; I shall note, that the Synod of Francfurt did at the same time con∣demn the Heresie of Felix Urgetitanus, which was, that Christ was the adopted son of God. Now because in this Synod were condemned the breakers of Images, and the worshippers of images; some ignorantly (amongst which is this Gentleman the objector) have suppos'd that the Felician Heresie was that of the Ico∣noclasts.

2. Now for the second thing which the Dissuasive said from these Authors; that the Fathers at Franc∣furt commanded that the second Nicene should not be called a general Council, that matter is sufficiently cleared in the proof of the first particular; for if they abrogated it, and called it pseudosynodum, and decreed against it; hoc ipso, they caused it should not be, or be called a General Synod. But I shall declare what the Synod did in the words of Adhelmus Benedictinus; Synodus etiam quae paucos ante annos C. P. sub Helena & Constantino filio ejus congregata, & ab ipsis non tantum septima, verum etiam Universalis est appellata, ut nec sep∣tima nec Universalis diceretur, habereturque quasi super∣vacua, in totum ab omnibus abdicata est.

3. Now for the third thing, which the Dissuasive said, that they published a book under the name of the Emperor; I am to answer that such a book about that

time, within three or four years of it, was published in the name of the Emperor, is notoriously known, and there is great reason to believe it was written three or four years befor the Synod, and sent by the Empe∣ror to the Pope; but that divers of the Church of Rome did endeavour to perswade the world that the Emperor did not write it, but that it was written by the Synod, and contains the acts of the Synod, but published un∣der the Emperors name. Now this the Dissuasive af∣firm'd by the authority of Hincmarus, who does affirm it, and of the same opinion is Bellarmine; Scripti vi∣dentur in Synodo Francofordiensi & acta continere synodi Francofordiensis: & enim asserit Hincmarus ejus tempo∣ris Author.] So that by all this the Reader may plain∣ly see how careful the Dissuasive was in what was af∣firm'd, and how careless this Gentleman is of what he objects: Only this I add, that though it be said that this book contained the acts of the Synod of Francfurt, though it might be partly true, yet not wholly. For this Synod did indeed do so much against that of the Greeks, and was so decretory against the worship of images, (quod omnino Ecclesia Dei execratur, said Hoveden, and Matthew of Westminster) that it is vehe∣mently suspected, that the Patrons of Images (the ob∣jector knows whom I mean) have taken a timely course with it, so that the monuments of it are not to be seen, nor yet a famous and excellent Epistle of Alcuinus written against the Greek Synod, though his other works are in a large volume carefully enough preser∣ved.

It was urg'd as an argument a minori ad majus, that in the Primitive Church it was accounted unlawful to make images; and therefore it was impossible that the worship of images should then be the doctrine or pra∣ctice of the Catholic Church. To this purpose Cle∣mens Alexandrinus, Tertullian and Origen were alledg∣ed.

First for Tertullian, of whom the Letter says, that he said no such thing: sure it is, this man did not care what he said; supposing it sufficient to pass the common Reader, to say Tertullian did not say for what he is alledged: for more will believe him, than exa∣mine him. But the words of Tertullian shall manifest the strange confidence of this person. The Quotati∣ons out of Tertullian are only noted in the Margent, but the words were not cited, but now they must, to justifie me and themselves. 1. That reference to Ter∣tullians book of idolatry, the objector takes no notice of, as knowing it would reproach him too plainly: see the words, [the artificers of statues and images, and all kind of representations, the Devil brought into the world,] and when he had given the Etymology of an Idol, saying 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is formula, he adds, Igitur omnis forma vel formula idolum se dici exposcit: Inde omnis Ido∣li artifex ejusdem & Unius est criminis. And a little before. Exinde jam caput facta est Idololatriae ars omnis quae Idolum quoquo modo edit. And in the beginning of the fourth chapter, Idolum tam fieri quam coli Deus pro∣hibet. Quanto praecedit ut fiat quod coli possit, tanto pri∣us est ne fiat si coli non licet. And again, toto mundo ejusmodi artibus interdixit servis Dei. And a little af∣ter he brings in some or other objecting; Sed ait qui∣dam adversus similitudinis interdictae propositionem, cur ergo Moses in eremo simulachrum serpentis ex aere fe∣cit? To this at last he answers. Si eundem Deum ob∣servas habes legem ejus, ne feceris similitudinem, si & praeceptum factae postea similitudinis respicis & tu imita∣re Moysen. Ne facias adversus legem simulachrum ali∣quod, nisi & tibi Deus jusserit. Now here is no subter∣fuge for any one: For Tertullian first fays, the Devil brought into the world all the artists and makers of sta∣tues, images and all sorts of similitudes. 2. He makes all these to be the same with Idols. And 3. that

God as well forbad the making of these and the worship of them, and that the maker is guilty of the same crime; and lastly I add, his definition of Idolatry, Idololatria est omnis circa omne idolum famulatus & servi∣tus. Every image is an idol, and every service and obeysance about any or every idol is idolatry. I hope all this put together will convince the Gentlemen that denied it, that Tertullian hath said some such thing as the Dissuasive quoted him for. Now for the other place quoted, the words are these; proinde & similitu∣dinem vetans fieri omnium quae in coelo & in terra & in aquis, ostendit & causas, idololatriae scilicet substantiam exhibentes. God forbidding all similitude to be made of things in Heaven and Earth, and in the Waters, shews the causes that restrain idolatry: the causes of idolatry he more fully described in the fore-cited place; Quando enim & sine idolo idololatria fiat: for he suppo∣ses the making of the images to be the cause of their worshipping, and he calls this making statues and ima∣ges Daemoniis corpora facere. But there is yet another place in his books against Marcion, where Tertullian affirming that S. Peter knew Moses and Elias on Mount Tabor by a spiritual extasie, says it upon this reason, Nec enim imagines eorum aut statuas populus habuisset aut similitudines lege prohibente. The same also is to be seen in his book De spectaculis, c. 23. Jam vero ipsum opus personarum quaero an Deo placeat qui omnem simili∣tudinem vetat fieri, quanto magis imaginis suae. By this time I hope the Gentleman thinks himself in some shame, for denying that Tertullian said the making of images to be Unlawful.

Now let us see for the other two Authors quoted by the Dissuasive; The objector in the Letter says, they only spake of making the Images of Jupiter and the other heathen Gods: but E. W. says he cannot find those quotations out of Clemens Alexandria, because

the books quoted are too big, and he could not espy them. The author of the Letter never examined them, but took them for granted; but E. W. did search a little, but not exactly. However he ought not to have look'd in the sixth book of the Stromata for the words there quoted, but in the protrepticon, as I shall shew by and by. That other quotation in the Stromata is the sixth book, and is only referred to, as to the question in general against images, for so, S. Clement calls it spiritual adultery to make idols or images. Now to this E. W. says, although he did not find what he look'd for, yet he knows before-hand, that the word in the Latin translation is simulachrum, that is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an Idol. It is indeed well guessed of E. W. for the word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and if he had seen the place, he now tells us what answer we might have expected. But I am before-hand with him in this particular, and out of Tertullian have prov'd, idolum to be the same with formula, deriv'd from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and consequently means the same with an image. And he had a good warrant from the greatest Master of the Latin tongue. Imagines quae idola nominant, quorum incursione non so∣lum videamus, sed etiam cogitemus, &c. said Cicero: and the same notion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is in a great Master of the Greek, S. Chrysostom, who speaking of the statues and images with which they adorned their houses, calls them idols. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But it matters not so much what Greek or Latin word is us'd in any translation, for in the Hebrew in which the spirit of God spake, when he forbad the worship of images, he us'd two words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Pesel and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Themunah, and the latter of these signifies always an image or similitude, and that most properly, and is always so translated; and the former of these is tran∣slated indifferently by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, image, carved image and idol, for they are all one.

And therefore proportionably Justin Martyr reciting this law of God, says, that God forbad every image and similitude, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and the words. But suppose that idolum and imago were not the same; yet because the Commandment forbids not only idolum but imago, not only Pesel, but Themunah; they do not observe the Commandment, who make to themselves, viz. for worship, either one or the other. But to re∣turn to S. Clement, of whom our present inquiry is. And to deal most clearly in this affair, as in all things else, that out of the Stromata of S. Clement, that I ra∣ther remark, is not this of the sixth book, but out of the fifth. S. Clement of Alexandria saith; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Pythagoras commanded that his dis∣ciples should not wear rings, or engrave them with the ima∣ges of their Gods, as Moses many ages before made an ex∣press law, that no man should make any graven, cast or painted image; and of this he gives two reasons. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that we may not attend to sensible things, but pass on to the things discernible by the Understanding. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The custom of seeing so readily causes that the Majesty of God becomes vile and contemptible, and by matter to wor∣ship that which is perceiv'd intellectually, is to disesteem him by sensation.] Now the Reader may perceive that S. Clemens speaks against the making of any images, not only of Jupiter and the Heathen Gods, but of the true God, of whatsoever intelligible being we ought to worship; and that upon such reasons which will greatly condemn the Roman practices. But hence also it is plain,

how careless and trifling this objector is, minding no truth but the number of objections. See yet further out of S. Clement. Nobis enim est aperte vetitum falla∣cem artem exercere. Non facies enim (inquit Propheta) cujusvis rei similitudinem, we are forbidden to exercise that cosening art, (viz. of making pictures or ima∣ges) for says the Prophet (meaning Moses) thou shalt not make the likeness of any thing. E. W. it seems could not find these words of S. Clement in his Paraene∣tic: He should have said his Protreptic, for I know of no Paraenetic that he hath written. But E. W. fol∣lowed the Printers error in the Margent of the Dissua∣sive, and very carefully turned over a book that was not, and compared it in bigness with a book that was. But I will not suppose this to be ignorance in him, but only want of diligence: however the words are to be found in the 41. page of this Protreptic, or his admo∣nition to the Gentiles, and now they are quoted, and the very page named; only I desire E. W. to observe, that in this place S. Clement uses not the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not simulachrum, but cujusvis rei si∣militudinem.

In the place which was quoted out of Origen in his fourth book against Celsus, speaking of the Jews, he hath these words: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. All makers of images were turned from their common-wealth: for not a painter or statuary was admitted, their laws wholly forbidding them, lest any occasion should be given to dull men, or that their mind should be turned from the wor∣ship of God to earthly things by these temptations.] Then he quotes the law of God against making images, and adds, by which law this was intended, that being content with the truth of things they should beware of lying fig∣ments.] There it is plain that Origen affirms the law of God to have forbidden the making images, any simi∣litude

of things in Heaven, Earth or Waters: which law also he in another place affirms to be of a moral and eternal obligation, that is, not to be spoken to them only who came out of the terrestrial Egypt; and therefore is of Christian duty. And of the same mind are S. Irenaeusa, Tertullianb, S. Cyprianc and S. Au∣stin d affirming the whole decalogue, except the law of the Sabbath to be an unalterable, or natural law. But for the further verification of the testimony from Origen against the worship of images in the Primitive Church, I thought fit to add the concurrent words of the prudent and learned Cassander: Quantum autem veteres initio Ecclesiae ab omni veneratione imaginum ab∣horruerunt declarat unus Origines adversus Celsum: but of this I shall have occasion to speak yet once more. And so at last all the quotations are found to be exact, and this Gentleman to be greatly mistaken.

From the premisses I infer; if in the Primitive Church it was accounted unlawful to make images, certainly it is unimaginable they should worship them, and the argument is the stronger, if we understand their opinion rightly; for neither the second Com∣mandment, nor yet the Ancient Fathers in their Com∣mentaries on them, did absolutely prohibit all making of images; but all that was made for religious wor∣ship, and in order to adoration, according as it is ex∣pressed in him, who among the Jews collected the ne∣gative precepts, which Arias Montanus translated in∣to Latin: the second of which is, signum cultus causa ne facito; the third, simulachrum Divinum nullo pacto conflato; the fourth, signa religiosa nulla ex materia facito.

The authorities of these Fathers being rescued from slander, and prov'd very pungent and material. I am concerned in the next place to take notice of some au∣thorities which my adversaries urge from antiquity,

to prove that in the Primitive Church they did wor∣ship images. Concerning their general Council, viz. the second Nicene, I have already made account in the preceding periods; The great S. Basil is with great so∣lemnity brought into the Circus, and made to speak for images as apertly, plainly and confidently, as Bel∣larmine or the Council of Trent it self. His words are these, [I ad∣mit the holy Apostles, and Prophets, and Martyrs, and in my prayer made to God call upon them, that by their intercession God may be propitious unto me. Whereupon I honour and adore the characters of their images; and especially those things being delivered from the holy Apostles, and not prohibited, but are mani∣fested, or seen in all our Churches.] Now I confess these words are home enough, and do their business at the first sight; and if they prove right, S. Basil is on their side, and therefore E. W. with great noise and preface insults, and calls them Unanswerable. The words he says are found in S. Basils 205. Epistle ad Julianum. I presently consulted S. Basils works, such as I had with me in the Country, of the Paris Edition by Guil∣lard 1547. and there I found that S. Basil had not 205. Epistles in all; the number of all written by him and to him being but 180. of which, that to Julianus is one, viz. Epistle 166. and in that there is not one word to any such purpose as is here pretended. I was then put to a melius inquirendum. Bellarmine (though both he, and Lindan and Harding cry up this authority as irre∣fragable) quotes this authority not upon his own cre∣dit, but as taking it from the report of a book publish∣ed 1596, called Synodus Parisiensis, which Bellarmine calls, Unworthy to see the light. From hence arises this great noise; and the fountain being confessedly cor∣rupt, what wholsome thing can be expected thence?

But in all the first and voluminous disputations of Bel∣larmine upon this Question, he made no use of this au∣thority, he never saw any such thing in S. Basils works, or it is not to be imagined that he would have omitted it. But the words are in no ancient Edition of S. Ba∣sil, nor in any Manuscript that is known in the world. 2. Iohn Damascen, and Germanus Bishop of C. P. who wrote for the worship of images, and are the most learned of all the Greeks that were abus'd in this Que∣stion; yet they never urg'd this authority of S. Basil, which would have been more to their purpose than all that they said beside. 3. The first mention of this is in an Epistle of Pope Adrian to the Emperors in the seventh Synod, and that makes the business more sus∣picious; that when the Greek writers knew nothing of it, a Latin Bishop, a stranger, not very well skill'd in Antiquity, should find this out, which no man ever saw before him, nor since in any Copy of S. Basils works: But in the second Nicene Council such forge∣ries as these were many and notorious. S. Gregory the Great is there quoted as Author of an Epistle de vene∣ratione imaginum; when it is notorious, it was writ by Gregory III. and there were many Basils, and any one of that name would serve to give countenance to the er∣ror of the second Nicene Synod; but in S. Basil the Great there is not one word like it. And therefore they who set forth S. Basils works at Paris 1618. who either could not, or ought not to have been ignorant of so vile a cheat, were infinitely to blame to publish this as the issue of the right S. Basil, without any mark of difference, or note of inquiry.

There is also another saying of S. Basil, of which the Roman writers make much, and the words are by Damascen imputed to the Great S. Basil; Imaginis ho∣nor exemplum transit, which indeed S. Basil speaks on∣ly of the statues of the Emperors, and of that civil ho∣nour,

which by consent and custom of the world did pass to the Emperor, and he accepted it so; but this is no argument for religious images put up to the ho∣nour of God, he says not, the honour of any such images passes to God; for God hath declar'd against it, (as will appear in the following periods) and therefore from hence the Church of Rome can have no argument, no fair pretence; and yet upon this very account, and the too much complying with the Heathen rites and manners, and the secular customs of the Empire, the veneration of images came into Churches. But sup∣pose it be admitted to be true; yet although this may do some countenance to Thomas Aquinas and Bonaven∣tures way of worshipping the image and the sampler with the same worship; yet this can never be urg'd by all those more moderate Papists, who make the wor∣ship to an image of a lower kind: For if it be not the same worship, then they that worship images, wor∣ship God and his Saints by the image not as they de∣serve, but give to them no more than the image it self deserves: let them take which part they please, so that they will but publickly own it. But let this be as it will, and let it be granted true, that the honour done to the image can pass to the sampler, yet this is but an arbitrary thing, and a King may esteem it so if he please, but if the King forbids any image to be made of him, and counts it a dishonour to him, then I hope it is; and that's the case now, for God hath forbidden any such way of passing honour to him by an image of him; and he hath forbidden it in the second Commandement, and this is confessed by Vasquez: So that upon this account, for all the pretence of the same motion to the image and the sampler, to pass such a worship to God is no better than the doing as the Heathen did, when they worshipped Mercury by throw∣ing stones at him.

An other authority brought by E. W. for veneration of images, is from Athanasius, but himself damns it in the Margent, with and without ingenuity; for inge∣nuously saying, that he does not affirm it to be the Great Athanasius, yet most disingenuously he adds, valeat quantum valere potest, that is, they that will be cosened let them. And indeed these Questions and Answers to Antiochus are notoriously spurious, for in them are quoted S. Epiphanius, and Gregory Nyssen, Chrysostom, Scala Johannis, Maximus, and Nicephorus, who were after Athanasius; and the book is rejected by Delrio, by Sixtus Senensis, and Possevine. But with such stuff as this the Roman Doctors are forc'd to build their Babel; and E. W. in page 56. quotes the same book against me for worshipping the Cross, together with another spurious peice de Cruce & passione Domini, which Nannius, a very learned man of their own and professor at Lovaine, rejects, as it is to be seen in his Nuncupatory Epistle.

Yea, but S. Chrysostoms Liturgy is very clear, for it is said, that the Priest turns himself to our Saviours pi∣cture, and bows his head before the picture, and says this prayer; These words indeed are very plain, but it is not plain that these are S. Chrysostoms words, for their are none such in S. Chrysostoms Liturgy in the Editions of it by Claudius de Saintes, or Morellus, and Claudius Espencaeus acknowledges with great truth and ingenui∣ty, that this Liturgy begun and compos'd by S. Chryso∣stom was enlarged by many things put into it, accord∣ing to the variety of times. And it is evidently so, be∣cause divers persons are there commemorated, who liv'd after the death of Chrysostom, as Cyrillus, Euthymi∣us, Sabas, and Iohannes Eleemosynarius, whereof the last but one liv'd 126. years, the last 213. years after S. Chrysostom. Now how likely, nay how certain it is that this very passage was not put in by S. Chrysostom,

but is of later interpolation, let all the world judge by that known saying of S. Chrysostom; Quid enim est vili∣us atque humilius homine ante res inanimatas se incurvan∣te & saxa venerante? What in the world is baser and more abject than to see a man worshipping stones, and bowing himself before inanimate things?] These are his great authorities which are now come to nothing; what he hath from them who came after these, I shall leave to him to make his best of them: for about the time of Gregory some began to worship images, and some to break them, the latter of which he reproves, and the former he condemns; what it was afterwards all the world knows.

But now having clear'd the Question from the trifling arguments of my adversaries, I shall observe some things fit to be considered in this matter of images. 1. It came at first from a very base and unworthy stock. I have already pointed at this, but now I shall explain it more fully; it came from Simon Magus and his crew; Theodoret says, that the followers of Simon brought in the worship of images, viz. of Simons in the shape of Jupiter, and Helena in the figure of Minerva; but S. Austin says that Simon Magus himself, imagines & suam & cujusdam meretricis quam sibi sociam scelerum fecerat discipulis suis praebuisse adorandas. E. W. upon what confidence I know not, says, that Theodoret hath nothing like it, either under the title de Simone or Car∣pocrate. And he says true, but with a shameful pur∣pose to calumniate me, and deceive his Reader; as if I had quoted a thing that Theodoret said not, and there∣fore the Reader ought not to believe me. But since in the Dissuasive Theodoret was only quoted lib. 5. hae∣ret. fabul. and no title set down; if he had pleased to look to the next title, Simonis haeresis, where in reason

all Simons heresies were to be look'd for, he should have found that which I referred to. But why E. W. denies S. Austin to have reported that for which he is quoted, viz. that Simon Magus brought in some ima∣ges to be worshipped, I cannot conjecture, neither do I think himself can tell; but the words are plain in the place quoted, according to the intention of the Dis∣suasive. But that he may yet seem to lay more load upon me, he very learnedly says that Irenaeus, in the place quoted by me, says not a word of Simon Magus being Author of images; and would have his Reader believe that I mistook Simon Magus for Simon Irenaeus. But the good man I suppose wrote this after supper, and could not then read or consider that the testimony of Irenaeus was brought in to no such purpose; neither did it relate to any Simon at all, but to the Gnostics or Carpocratians, who also were very early and very deep in this impiety; only they did not worship the pi∣ctures of Simon and Selene, but of Iesus, and Paul, and Homer, and Pythagoras, as S. Austin testifies of them; But that which he remarks in them is this, that Mar∣cellina, one of their sect, worshipped the pictures of Iesus, &c. adorando, incensumque ponendo, they did adore them, and put incense before them: I wish the Church of Rome would leave to do so, or acknowledge whose Disciples they are in this thing. The same also is said by Epiphanius; and that the Carpocratians pla∣ced the image of Iesus with the Philosophers of the world, collocatasque adorant, & gentium mysteria perfi∣ciunt. But I doubt that both Epiphanius and S. Austin, who took this story from Irenaeus, went farther in the Narrative than Irenaeus; for he says only that they pla∣ced the images of Christ, &c. Et has coronant: No more, and yet even for this, for crowning the image of Christ with flowers, though they did not so much as

is now adays done at Rome; S. Irenaeus made an outcry and reckoned them in the black Catalogue of heretics, not for joyning Christs image with that of Homer and Aristotle, Pythagoras and Plato, but even for crowning Christs image with flowers and coronets, as they also did those of the Philosophers; for though this may be innocent, yet the other was a thing not known in the religion of any, that were called Christians, till Simon and Carpocrates began to teach the world.

2. We find the wisest and the most sober of the Heathens speaking against the use of images in their religious rites. So Varro, when he had said that the old Romans had for 170. years worshipped the Gods with∣out picture or image, adds, quod si adhuc mansissent, castius Dii observarentur, and gives this reason for it, qui primi simulachra Deorum populis posuerunt, & civi∣tatibus suis & metum dempsisse, & errorem addidisse. The making images of the Gods took away fear from men and brought in error: which place S. Austin quo∣ting, commends and explicates it, saying, he wisely thought that the Gods might easily be despised in the blockishness of images. The same also was observed by Plutarch, and he gives this reason, nefas putantes augustiora exprimere humilioribus, neque aliter aspirari ad Deum quam mente posse. They accounted it impie∣ty to express the Great Beings with low matter, and they believed there was no aspiring up to God but by the mind.] This is a Philosophy which the Church of Rome need not be ashamed to learn.

3. It was so known a thing, that Christians did abo∣minate the use of images in religion, and in their Churches; that Adrian the Emperor was supposed to build Temples to Christ, and to account him as God, because he commanded that Churches without images should be made in all Cities, as is related by Lam∣pridius.

4. In all the disputations of the Jews against the Christians of the Primitive Church, although they were impatient of having any image, and had detested all use of them, especially ever since their return from Babylon, and still retained the hatred of them, even af∣ter the dissolution of their Temple, even unto superstiti∣on (says Bellarmine;) yet they never objected against Christians their having images in their Churches, much less their worshipping them. And let it be con∣sidered, that in all that long disputation between Iu∣stin Martyr and Tryphon the Iew, in which the subtle Iew moves every stone, lays all the load he can at the Christians door, makes all objections, raises all the envy, gives all the matter of reproach he can against the Christians, yet he opens not his mouth against them concerning images. The like is to be observed in Tertullians book against the Iews; no mention of ima∣ges, for there was no such thing amongst the Christi∣ans, they hated them as the Iews did; but it is not imaginable they would have omitted so great a cause of quarrel. On the other side, when in length of time images were brought into Churches, the Iews forbore not to upbraid the Christians with it. There was a dialogue written a little before the time of the seventh Synod, in which a Iew is brought in saying to the Chri∣stians, [I have believed all ye say, and I do believe in the crucified Jesus Christ, that he is the son of the li∣ving God; Scandalizor autem in vos Christiani quia imagines adoratis, I am offended at you Christians that ye worship images; for the Scripture forbids us every where to make any similitude or graven image. And it is very observable that in the first and best part of the Talmud of Babylon, called the Misna, published about the end of the second Century, the Christians are not blam'd about images; which shews they gave no occasion: but in the third part of the Talmud about

the 10. and 11. age after Christ, the Christians are sufficiently upbraided and reproached in this matter. In the Gemara, which was finished about the end of the fifth Century, I find that learned men say the Iews call'd the Christian Church the house of Idolatry; which though it may be expounded in relation to images, which about that time began in some Churches to be placed and honoured; yet I rather incline to believe, that they meant it of our worshipping Jesus for the true God and the true Messias; for at this day they call all Christians Idolaters, even those that have none, and can endure no images in their Religion or their Churches. But now since these periods, it is plain that the case is altered, and when the learned Christi∣ans of the Roman communion write against the Jews, they are forced to make apologies for the scandal they give to the Iews in their worshipping of images, as is to be seen (besides Leontius Neopolitanus of Cyprus his apology which he published for the Christians against the Iews;) in Ludovicus Carretus his Epistle, in Se∣pher Amana, and Fabianus Fioghus his Catechetical Dialogues. But I suppose this case is very plain, and is a great conviction of the innovation in this matter made by the Church of Rome.

5. The matter of worshipping images looks so ill, so like Idolatry, so like the forbidden practices of the Heathens, that it was infinitely reasonable, that if it were the practice and doctrine of the Primitive Church, the Primitive Priests and Bishops should at least have considered, and stated the question how far, and in what sense it was lawful, and with what inten∣tion, and in what degrees, and with what caution, and distinctions this might lawfully be done; parti∣cularly when they preach'd, and wrote Commenta∣ries and explications upon the Decalogue; especially since there was at least so great a semblance of opposi∣tion

and contradiction between the commandment and any such practice; God forbidding any image & simili∣tude to be made of himself, or any thing else in Hea∣ven, or in Earth, or in the Sea, and that with such threatnings and interminations of his severe judgments against them that did make them for worship, and this thing being so constantly objected by all those many that opposed their admission and veneration; it is cer∣tainly very strange that none of the Fathers should take notice of any difficulty in this affair. They objected the Commandment against the Heathens for doing it; and yet that they should make no account, or take no∣tice how their worshipping Saints and God himself by images, should differ from the Heathen superstition that was the same thing to look upon: This indeed is very Unlikely. But so it is; Iustin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus speak plainly enough of this matter, and speak plain down-right words against making and wor∣shipping images, and so careless they were of any fu∣ture chance, or the present concern of the Roman Church, that they do not except the image of the true God, nor the image of Saints and Angels, no not of Christ, or the Blessed Virgin Mary her self. Nay Ori∣gen expounds the Commandments, and S. Austin makes a professed commentary upon them, but touch'd none of these things with the top of his finger, only told that they were all forbidden: we are not so careless now adays in the Church of Rome; but carefully expound the Commandments against the unsufferable objecti∣ons of the Heretics of late, and the Prophets and the Fathers of old. But yet for all this, a suspicious man would conclude that in the first 400. years, there was no need of any such explications, inasmuch as they had nothing to do with images, which only could make any such need.

6. But then in the next place I consider, that the

second Commandment is so plain, so easie, so per∣emptory against all the making and worshipping any image or likeness of any thing, that besides that every man naturally would understand all such to be forbid∣den, it is so expressed, that upon supposition that God did intend to forbid it wholly, it could not more plainly have been expressed. For the prohibition is absolute and universal, and therefore of all particulars; and there is no word or sign by the vertue of which it can with any probability be pretended that any one of any kind is excepted. Now then to this, when the Church of Rome pretends to answer they over-do it, and make the matter the more suspicious. Some of them answer by saying, that this is no moral Com∣mandment not obligatory to Christians, but to the Iews only: Others say, that by this Commandment it is only forbidden to account an image to be very God; so Cajetan: Others say that an idol only is forbidden, and that an image is no idol. Others yet distinguish the manner of worshipping, saying that the image is worshipp'd for the Samplers sake, not for its own. And this worship is by some called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or service; by others 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; saying that the first is to images of Saints, the other to God only. And yet with this dif∣ference; Some saying that the image of God is ador'd with the same kind of adoration that God is; only it is to the image for Gods sake; so S. Thomas of Aquine, and generally his scholars. Others say that it is a re∣ligious kind of Worship due to Images, but not at all Divine; some say it is but a civil worship. And then it is for the image sake, and so far is intransitive, but whatever is paid more to the image is transitive, and passes further. And whatsoever it be, it cannot be agreed how it ought to be paid: whether properly or improperly, Univocally or aequivocally, for themselves or for something else, whether analogically or simply,

whether absolutely or by reduction. And it is remark∣able what Bellarmine answers to the Question, with what kind of worship images may be ador'd? He answers with this proposition; [The worship which by it self and properly is due to images, is a certain imperfect wor∣ship, which analogically and reductively pertains to a kind of that worship, which is due to the Exemplar:] and a little after, to the images a certain inferior worship is due, and that not all one, but various according to the va∣riety of images. To the images of Saints is due dulia secundum quid, which if you do not understand, Bel∣larmine in the next words explains most clearly; dulia secundum quid, is as a man may say, reductive and ana∣logical. But after all this we may be mistaken, and we cannot tell whom to follow nor what to do in the case. Thomas and his Scholars warrant you to give the same worship to Gods image as to God: And is the ea∣siest way indeed to be understood, and indeed may quickly be understood to be direct idolatry. Bellar∣mine and others tell you, stay, not so altogether; but there is a way to agree with S. Thomas, that it shall be the same worship, and not the same worship; for it is the same by reduction, that is, it is of the same kind, and therefore Divine, but it is imperfectly divine, as if there could be degrees in Divine worship; that is, as if any worship could be divine, and yet not the great∣est. But if this seems difficult, Bellarmine illustrates it by similitudes. This worship of images is the same with the worship of the Example, viz. of God, or of Christ, as it happens, just as a painted man is the same with a living man, and a painted horse with a living horse, for a painted man and a painted horse differ spe∣cifically; as the true man and the true horse do; and yet the painted man is no man, and the painted horse is no horse.] The effect of which discourse is this, that the worship of images, is but the image of wor∣ship;

hypocrisie and dissimulation all the way; no∣thing real, but imaginative and phantastical; and in∣deed though this gives but a very ill account of the agreement of Bellarmine, with their Saints, Thomas and Bonaventure, yet it is the best way to avoid idola∣try, because they give no real worship to images: But then on the other side, how do they mock God and Christ, by offering to them that which is nothing; by pretending to honour them by honouring their ima∣ges; when the honour they do give to images, is it self but imaginary, and no more of reality in it, than there is of humane Nature in the picture of a man. Howe∣ver, if you will not commit down-right idolatry, as some of their Saints teach you, then you must be care∣ful to observe these plain distinctions, and first be sure to remember that when you worship an image, you do it not materially, but formally; not as it is of such a sub∣stance, but as it is a sign; next take care that you ob∣serve what sort of image it is, and then proportion your right kind to it, that you do not give latria to that where hyperdulia is only due; and be careful that if doulia only be due that your worship be not hyperduli∣cal. In the next place consider that the worship to your image is intransitive but in few cases, and ac∣cording but to a few Doctors; and therefore when you have got all these cases together, be sure that in all other cases it be transitive. But then when the wor∣ship is pass'd on to the Exemplar, you must consider, that if it be of the same kind with that which is due to the Example, yet it must be an imperfect piece of worship, though the kind be perfect; and that it is but analogical, and it is reductive, and it is not absolute, not simple, not by it self; not by an act to the image di∣stinct from that which is to the Example, but one and the same individual act, with one intention, as to the supreme kind, though with some little variety, if the

kinds be differing. Now by these easie, ready, clear, and necessary distinctions, and rules and cases, the people being fully and perfectly instructed, there is no possibility that the worship of images should be against the second Commandment, because the Com∣mandment does not forbid any worship that is transi∣tive, reduct, accidental, consequential, analogical and hyperdulical, and this is all that the Church of Rome does by her wisest Doctors teach now adays. But now after all this, the easiest way of all certainly is to worship no images, and no manner of way, and trouble the peoples heads with no distinction; for by these no man can ever be at peace, or Understand the Commandment, which without these laborious de∣vices (by which they confess the guilt of the Com∣mandment, does lie a little too heavy upon them) would most easily by every man and every woman be plainly and properly understood. And therefore I know not whether there be more impiety, or more fearful caution in the Church of Rome in being so curi∣ous, that the second Commandment be not expos'd to the eyes and ears of the people; leaving it out of their manuals, breviaries and Catechisms, as if when they teach the people to serve God, they had a mind they should not be tempted to keep all the Commandments. And when at any time they do set it down, they only say thus, Non facies tibi Idolum, which is a word not us'd in the second Commandment at all; and if the word which is there us'd be sometimes translated Ido∣lum, yet it means no more than similitude; or if the words be of distinct signification, yet because both are expresly forbidden in that Commandment, it is ve∣ry ill to represent the Commandment so, as if it were observ'd according to the intention of that word, yet the Commandment might be broken, by the not obser∣ving it according to the intention of the other word,

which they conceal. But of this more by and by.

7. I consider that there is very great scandal and of∣fence given to Enemies and strangers to Christianity; the very Turks and Jews, with whom the worship of images is of very ill report, and that upon (at least) the most probable grounds in the world. Now the Apostle having commanded all Christians to pursue those things which are of good report, and to walk cir∣cumspectly & charitably towards them that are with∣out, and that we give no offence neither to the Jew nor to the Gentile: Now if we consider, that if the Christian Church were wholly without images, there would no∣thing perish to the faith or to the charity of the Church, or to any grace which is in order to Heaven; and that the spiritual state of the Christian Church may as well want such Baby ceremonies as the Synagogue did; and yet on the other side, that the Jews and Turks are the more, much more estranged from the religion of Christ Jesus, by the image-worship done by his preten∣ded servants; the consequent will be, that to retain the worship of images is both against the faith and the charity of Christians, and puts limits, and retrenches the borders of the Christian pale.

8. It is also very scandalous to Christians, that is, it makes many, and endangers more to fall into the di∣rect sin of idolatry. Polydore Virgil observes out of S. Jerome, that almost all the holy Fathers dam∣ned the worship of Images, for this very reason, for fear of idolatry; and Cassander says, that all the an∣cients did abhor all adoration of

images; and he cites Origen as an instance great enough to verifie the whole affirmative. Nos vero ideo non honoramus simulachra, quia quantum possumus cavemus, ne quo modo incidamus in eam credulitatem, ut his tribuantus divinitatis aliquid. This authority E. W. page 55. is not ashamed to bring in behalf of himself in this question, saying, that Origen hath nothing against the use of images, and declares our Christian doctrine thus, then he re∣cites the words above quoted; than which, Origen could not speak plainer against the practice of the Roman Church; and E. W. might as well have disputed for the Manichees with this argument: The Scripture doth not say that God made the world, it only declares the Chri∣stian doctrine thus, In the beginning God made Heaven and Earth, &c. But this Gentleman thinks any thing will pass for argument amongst his own people. And of this danger S. Austin gives a rational account; [No man doubts but idols want all sense: But when they are plac'd in their seats, in an honourable sublimity, that they may be attended by them that pray and offer sacrifice, by the very likeness of living members and senses, although they be senseless and without life, they affect weak minds, that they seem to live and feel, especially when the venera∣tion of a multitude is added to it, by which so great a wor∣ship is bestowed upon them.] Here is the danger, and how much is contributed to it in the Church of Rome, by clothing their images in rich apparel, and by pre∣tending to make them nod their▪ head, to twinkle the eyes, and even to speak, the world is too much satis∣fied. Some such things as these, and the superstitious

talkings and actings of their Priests made great impres∣sions upon my Neighbours in Ireland; and they had such a deep and religious veneration for the image of our Lady of Kilbrony, that a worthy Gentleman, who is now with God, and knew the deep superstition of the poor Irish, did not distrain upon his Tenants for his rents, but carried away the image of the female Saint of Kilbrony; and instantly the Priest took care that the Tenants should redeem the Lady, by a punctual and speedy paying of their rents; for they thought themselves Unblessed as long as the image was away; and therefore they speedily fetch'd away their Ark from the house of Obededom, and were afraid that their Saint could not help them, when her image was away. Now if S. Paul would have Christians to abstain from meats sacrificed to idols, to avoid the giving offence to weak brethren, much more ought the Church to avoid tempting all the weak people of her Communion to ido∣latry, by countenancing, and justifying, and impo∣sing such acts, which all their heads can never learn to distinguish from idolatry.

I end this with a memorial out of the Councils of Sens and Mentz, who command moneri populum ne imagines adorent: The Preachers were commanded to admonish the people that they should not adore images. And for the Novelty of the practice here in the British Churches, it is evident in Ecclesiastical story, that it was introduc'd by a Synod of London, about the year 714. under Bonifacius the Legat, and Bertualdus Arch∣bishop of Dover; and that without disputation or inqui∣ry into the lawfulness or unlawfulness of it, but whol∣ly upon the account of a vision pretended to be seen by Eguinus Bishop of Worcester; the Virgin Mary ap∣pearing to him, and commanding that her image should be set in Churches and worshipped. That Au∣stin the Monk brought with him the banner of the

Cross, and the image of Christ, Beda tells; and from him Baronius, and Binius affirms, that before this visi∣on of Egwin the cross and image of Christ were in use; but that they were at all worshipped or ador'd Beda saith not; and there is no record, no monument of it before this Hypochondrical dream of Egwin: and it further appears to be so, because Albinus or Alcuinus an English-man, Master of Charles the Great, when the King had sent to Offa the book of C. P. for the wor∣ship of images, wrote an Epistle against it, ex autho∣ritate-Divina scripturarum mir abiliter affirmatum; and brought it to the King of France in the name of our Bishops and Kings, saith Hovedon.

Notes

• N••mo autem ignorat nulli prorsus naturae, praeterquam Dei, adoratio∣nem à scrip••u∣ris contribui.
• Thesaur. l. 2. c. 1. & alibi. Vna Natura est deitatis quam solum∣modo adorare oportet.
• Orat. de obitu Tbecdos.
• E. W. pag 57.
• Serm. 30.
• A. L.
• Sirmond. Not. in Concil. Nor∣bon. c. 13. l. ••. Concil. Gal.
• Tom. 3. lit. 19. c. 157. & apud Bellarm. lib. 2. de imag. c. 9.
• Lib. 2. de imag. cap 9. Sect. se∣cundò quia he∣retici.
• In Epist. 61. & 101. ad Pam∣mach.
• Syn. 7. Act. 8. Can. 9.
• De moribus Eccles. lib. 1. c. 34.
• Jam videbitis quid inter ostentationem & sinceritatem—postremo quid inter super∣stitionis Sirenas & portum religionis inter∣sit. Nolite mihi colligere professores No∣minis Christiani, nec professionis suae vim aut scientes aut exhibentes. Nolite con∣sectari turbas imperitorum, qui vel in ipsâ verâ religione superstitiosi sunt, vel ita li∣bidinibus dediti, ut obliti sint quid pro∣miserint Deo. Novi multos esse sepulchro∣rum & picturarum adoratores, novi mul∣tos esse qui luxuriosissimè super mortuos vi∣vant.
• Sed & illa quàm vana sint, quàm noxia, quàm sacrilega, quemadmodum à magnâ parte vestrum, atque adeò penè ab omnibus v••∣bis non observentur, alio volumine oftendere instit••i. Nunc vos illud admaneo, ut aliquando Ecclesiae Catholicae maledicere definatis, vituperando mores hominum quos & ipsa condemnat, & quos quotidie tanquam malos filio•• corrigere stude••.
• De fide &. symb. c. 7. Contr. Adi∣mant. c. 13.
• Pag. 27.
• Contr. Adi∣mant. c. 13.
• E. W. pag. 57.
• Pag. 57.
• Ioc. Theol. lib. 5. c. 4.
• Lib. 2. de ima∣gin. c. 14. Sect. secundò quia.
• Sect. neque ob∣stat.
• a

  Ad annum 794.
• b

  Opusc. 55. N. cap. 20.
• c

  Chron. aetat. 6 ad annum Christi eundem & 792.
• d

  Ad eund. annum.
• e

  Lib. 4. c 85.
• In annal.
• Vide supra. Sect. primò quia.
• A. D. 793.
• Of making of images.
• A. L. p. 27.
• Cap. 3.
• Diabolum soe∣culo intulisse artifices statu∣arum & ima∣ginum & om∣nis generis si∣mulachrorum.
• Lib. 2. advers. Marc. c. 22.
• Lib. 4. c. 22.
• Pag. 27.
• Pag. 54. 55.
• Strom. l. 6. p. 687. edit. Pa∣ris. 1629.
• Lib. 1. de fin. bon. & malor.
• In cap. 3. Epist. ad Philip. hom. 10.
• Lib. Strom. 5. Pag. 559. Pa∣ris. 1629. Gr. Lat.
• Vide etiam eundem in Pre∣treptico. pag. 41. Nobis enim est apertè veti∣tum falla∣cem artem exercere. Non facies enim (inquit Propheta) cujusvis rei similitudinem. Id. Stromat. lib. 6. p. 687.
• Pag. 55.
• Pag. 181. edit. G. L. Cantab. 1658.
• Homil. 8 in Exod. apud Bellarm. ima∣gin l. 2. c. 7. Sect. sed haec.
• a

  L. 4 c. 31. & 32
• b

  L. de idolo∣lat. cap. 5.
• c

  L▪ 3. ad Qui∣rinum c. 59. & de exhort. mar∣tyrii. c 1.
• d

  L. 15. contra Faustum c. 4. & 7.
• Consult. de imagin. & si∣mulachris.
• Lib. 4. de gene∣rat. & regene∣ratione Adam.
• E. W. pag. 49.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• Appendix ad Tract. de cultu imaginum in prooem. ante Cap. 1. & in Cap. 4.
• Tom. 3. Com∣ment. in 3. part. Qu. 25. art. 3. disp. 94. c. 3.
• Pag. 50.
• Martinus Del∣rio Vindiciae Areopag. c. 14.
• Comment•• in Isai. c. 2. T 3.
• De haeres ad qued vult De∣um paulò ab initio. haeres. 1. E. W. pag. 51.
• Cum ejus sta∣tuam in Jovis figuram con∣struxissent, Helenae autem in Minervae speciem, eis thura adolebant, & libabant, & tanquam Deos ado∣rabant, Simonianos seipsos nominantes. Theodoret. haeret. fab. lib. 1. tit. Simonis haeresis in fin.
• Vide Irenae. lib. 1. adv. haeres. c. 23. & 24.
• Vbi suprà hae∣res. 7.
• Iren. reli∣quam observa∣tionem circa eas similitèr ut gentes faciunt, i. e. sicut coeterorum illustrium virorum imaginibus consueverunt facere.
• Prudenter ex∣istimavit Deos facile posse in simulachrorum stoliditate con∣temni.
• Plut. in Numâ.
• Aelius Lam∣prid. in Alex∣andro Severo. edit. Salmat. p. 120.
• De imag. c. 7. Sect. Ad pri∣mum.
• Synod. 7. Act. 5.
• Homil. 8. in Exod.
• Lib. 2. de ima∣gin. S. 8. Cap. 25.
• 1 Cor. 8. 13.
• De invent. rerum l. 6. c. 13. E•• insaniae deventum est, ut haec pietatis pars parum differat ab impietate. Sunt enim benè multi rudiores stupidioresque qui saxeas vel ligneas, seu in parietibus pictas imagines colant, non ut figuras, sed. perinde acsi ipsae sensum aliquem habeant, & eis magis fidant quam Christe, Polyd. Virg. lib. 6 c. 13. de invent. rerum. Lilius Giraldus in Syntag. de Diis Gentium loquens de excessu Romanae Ecclesiae in negotio imaginum, praefatur, [Satius esse ea Harpocrati & Angeronae consignare. Illud certè non praetermittam, nos dico Christianos, ut aliquando Romanos fuisse sine imaginibus in primitivâ quae vocatur Ecclesia.] Erasmus in Catechesi ait, usque ad aetatem Hieronymi erant probatae religionis viri, qui in Tem∣plis nullam ferebant imaginem, nec pictam, nec sculptam, nec textam, ac ne Christi quidem.]
• Et ibid: Vt imagines sint in Templis nulla praecepit vel humana co••s••itutio, & ut facilius est, ita lutius quoque omnes ima∣gines è Templis submavere.] Videatur etiam Cassandri consultatio; sub hoc titul•• & Masius in Jesuah cap. 8. Sic autem queritur Ludovicus Vives Comment. in lib. 8. c. ult. de civit. Dei. Divos Divasque non alitèr venerantur, quàm Deum ipsum. Non video in multis quid discrimen sit in∣ter eorum opinionem de sa••ctis, & id quod Gentiles putabant de Diis suis. Diodorus Siculus dixit de Mose, imaginem statuit nullam, ideo quod non erederet Deum ho∣mini similem esse, & Dion. lib. 36 Nullam effigi••m in Hieroso••ymis habuere, quod De∣um crederent ut ineffabilem, ita inaspi∣cuum [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.]
• Consul. de imagin. ex Origene contr. Cel∣sum. lib. 7. versus finem.
• Epist. 49. q. 3.
• C. 14.
• C. 41. apud Bellarmin. lib. 2. de imag. S. S. c. 22. Sect. Secunda propo∣sitio.
• A. D. circit••r 792.
• Annal. part. 1.