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. VII.

Of Picturing God the Father, and the Holy Trinity.

AGainst all the authorities almost which are or might be brought to prove the Unlawfulness of Picturing God the Father, or the Holy Trinity, the Roman Doctors generally give this one answer; That the Fathers intended by their sayings, to condemn the picturing of the Divine Essence; but condemn not the picturing of those symbolical shapes or forms in which God the Father, or the Holy Ghost, or the Blessed Trinity are supposed to have appeared. To this I re∣ply, 1. That no man ever intended to paint the essence of any thing in the world. A man cannot well under∣stand an Essence, and hath no Idea of it in his mind, much less can a Painters Pensil do it. And therefore it is a vain and impertinent discourse to prove that they do ill who attempt to paint the Divine Essence. This

is a subterfuge which none but men out of hope to de∣fend their opinion otherwise, can make use of. 2. To picture God the Father in such symbolical forms in which he appear'd, is to picture him in no form at all; for generally both the Schools of the Jews and Christi∣ans consent in this, that God the Father never appear'd in his person; for as S. Paul affirms, he is the invisible God whom no eye hath seen or can see; He always appear∣ed by Angels, or by fire, or by storm and tempest, by a cloud or by a still voice; he spake by his Prophets, and at last by his Son; but still the adorable majesty was reserved in the secrets of his glory. 3. The Church of Rome paints the Holy Trinity in forms and symboli∣cal shapes in which she never pretends the Blessed Tri∣nity did appear, as in a face with three Noses and four Eyes, one body with three heads, and as an old man with a great beard, and a Popes Crown upon his head, and holding the two ends of the transverse rafter of the Cross with Christ leaning on his breast, and the Holy Spirit hovering over his head: And therefore they wor∣ship the images of God the Father, & the Holy Trinity, figures which (as is said of Remphan and the Heathen Gods and Goddesses) themselves have made; which therefore must needs be idols by their own definition of idolum; s••mulachrum rei non existentis; for never was there seen any such of the Holy Trinity in Unity, as they most impiously represent. And if when any thing is spoken of God in Scripture allegorically, they may of it make an image to God, they would make many more Monsters than yet they have found out: For as Durandus well observes,

If any one shall say, that because the Holy Ghost appeared in the shape of a Dove, and the Father in the old Testament under the Corporal forms, that therefore they may be re∣presented by images, we must say to this, that those corporal forms were not assumed by the Father and

the Holy Spirit; and therefore a representation of them by images is not a representation of the Divine person, but a representation of that form or shape alone. Therefore there is no reverence due to it, as there is none due to those forms by themselves. Nei∣ther were these forms to represent the Divine persons, but to represent those effects which those Divine per∣sons did effect.]

And therefore there is one thing more to be said to them that do so; They have chang'd the glory of the incorruptible God into the similitude of a mortal man. Now how will the Reader imagine that the Dissuasive is confuted, and his testimonies from Antiquity answered? Why, most clearly E. W. saith, that one principle of S. John Damascen doth it, it solves all that the Doctor hath or can alledge in this matter. Well! what is this principle? The words are these; (and S. Austin points at the same) Quisnam est qui in∣visibilis & corpore vacantis ac circumscriptionis & figurae expertis Dei simulachrum effingere queat? Extremae ita∣que dementiae atque impietatis fuerit Divinum numen fin∣gere & figurare.] This is the principle to confute the Do∣ctor:] why, but the Doctor thinks that in the world there cannot be clearer words for the reproof of pictu∣ring God and the Holy Trinity. For to do so is mad∣ness and extreme impiety, so says Damascen: But stay says E. W. these words of Damascen are [as who should say, He that goes about to express by any image the perfect similitude of Gods intrinsecal perfections or his Nature, (which is immense without body or figure) would be both impious, and act the part of a Mad-man.] But how shall any man know that these words of Damascen are as much as to say this meaning of E. W. and where is this principle (as he calls it) of Damascen, by which the Doctor is so every where silenc'd? Certainly E. W. is a merry Gentleman, and thinks all mankind are fools. This is the ridiculous Commentary of E. W.

but Damascen was too learned and grave a person to talk such wild stuff. And Cardinal Cajetan gives a better account of the doctrine of Damascen.

[The Authority of Damascen in the (very) letter of it condemns those images, (viz. of God) of folly and impiety. And there is the same reason now concern∣ing the Deity which was in the old law. And it is certain, that in the old law the images of God were forbidden.]

To the like purpose is that of the famous Germanus, who though too favourable to pictures in Churches for veneration, yet he is a great enemy to all pictures of God. Neque enim invisibilis Deitatis imaginem, & similitudinem, vel schema, vel figu∣ram aliquam formamus, &c. as who please may see in his Epistle to Thomas Bishop of Claudiopolis; But let us con∣sider when God forbad the children of Israel to make any likeness of him, did he only forbid them to express by any image the perfect similitude of his intrinsecal per∣fections? Had the children of Israel leave to picture God in the form of a man walking in Paradise? Or to paint the Holy Trinity like three men talking to Abra∣ham? Was it lawful for them to make an image or pi∣cture, or (to use E. W. his expression) to exhibit to their eyes those visible or circumscribed lineaments, which any man had seen? And when they had exhibited these forms to the eyes, might they then have fallen down and worshipped those forms, which themselves exhibi∣ted to their own and others eyes? I omit to enquire how they can prove that God appear'd in Paradise in the form of a man, which they can never do, unless they will use the Friers argument; Faciamus hominem ad similitudinem nostram, &c. and so make fair way for the Heresie of the Anthropomorphites.

But I pass on a little further; Did the Israelites,

when they made a molten calf, and said, These are thy Gods O Israel, did they imagine that by that image they represented the true form, essence or nature of God? Or did the Heathens ever pretend to make any image of the intrinsecal perfections of any of their Majores or Minores Dii, or any of their Daemons and dead Heroes? And because they neither did nor could do that, may it therefore be concluded, that they made no images of their Gods? Certain it is, the Heathens have as much reason to say they did not pi∣cture their Gods, meaning their nature and essence, but by symbolical forms and shapes represented those good things which they suppos'd them to have done. Thus the Egyptians pictur'd Joseph with a Bushel upon his head, and called him their God Serapis; but they made no image of his essence, but symbolically repre∣sented the benefit he did the nation by preserving them in the seven years famine. Thus Ceres is painted with a Hook and a Sheaf of corn, Pomona with a Basket of Apples, Hercules with a Club, and Jupiter himself with a handful of symbolical Thunderbolts; This is that which the Popish Doctors call picturing God, not in his Essence, but in history, or in symbolical shapes: For of these three ways of picturing God, Bellarmine says, the two last are lawful. And therefore the Heathens not doing the first, but the second, and the third only, are just so to be excused as the Church of Rome is. But then neither these nor those must pretend that they do not picture God: For whatever the intention be, still an image of God is made, or else why do they worship God by that, which if it be no image of God, must by their own doctrine be an Idol? And therefore Bellarmines distinction is very foolish, and is only craf∣ty

to deceive; for besides the impertinency of it in an∣swering the charge, only by declaring his intention, as being charged with picturing God; he tells he did it indeed, but he meant not to paint his nature, but his story or his symbolical significations, which I say is impertinent, it not being inquir'd with what purpose it is done, but whether or no; and an evil thing may be done with a good intention: Besides this I say, that Bellarmines distinction comes just to this issue: God may be painted or represented by an image, not to ex∣press a perfect similitude of his form or nature, but to express it imperfectly, or rather not to express it, but ad explicandam naturam, to explain it, not to de∣scribe him truly, but historically; though that be a strange history, that does not express truly and as it is: But here it is plainly acknowledged, that besides the history, the very Nature of God may be explicated by pictures or images, provided they be only metaphori∣cal and mystical, as if the only reason of the lawfulness of painting God is, because it is done imperfectly and unlike him; or as if the metaphor made the image law∣ful; just as if to do Alexander honour, you should pi∣cture him like a Bear, tearing and trampling every thing, or to exalt Caesar, you should hang upon a table the pictures of a Fox and a Cock and a Lion, and write under it, This is Cajus Julius Caesar. But I am asha∣med of these prodigious follies. But at last, why should it be esteemed madness and impiety to picture the nature of God, which is invisible, and not also be as great a madness to picture any shape of him, which no man ever saw? But he that is invested with a thick cloud, and encircled with an inaccessible glory, and never drew aside the Curtains to be seen under any re∣presentment, will not suffer himself to be expos'd to vulgar eyes, by phantastical shapes, and ridiculous forms.

But it may be, the Church of Rome does not use any such impious practice, much less own so mad a do∣ctrine; for one of my adversaries says, that the pictu∣ring the forms or appearances of God is all that some (in their Church) allow, that is, some do, and some do not: So that it may be only a private opinion of some Doctors, and then I am to blame to charge Popery with it. To this I answer, that Bellarmine indeed says, Non esse tam certum in Ecclesia an sint faciendae imagines Dei sive Trinitatis, quam Christi & Sanctorum; It is not so certain, viz. as to be an article of faith. But yet besides that Bellarmine allows it, and cites Ca∣jetan, Catharinus, Payva, Sanders and Thomas Walden∣sis for it; this is a practice and doctrine brought in by an unproved custom of the Church; Constat quod haec consuetudo depingendi Angelos & Deum modo sub specie Columbae, modo sub Figura Trinitatis, sit ubique inter Ca∣tholicos recepta: The picturing Angels, and God some∣times under the shape of a Dove, and sometimes under the figure of the Trinity▪ is every where received among the Catholicks, said a great Man amongst them. And to what purpose they do this, we are told by Cajetan, speaking of images of God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost saying, Haec non solum pinguntur ut ostendantur sicut cherubim olim in Templo sed ut adoren∣tur. They are painted, that they may be worshipped, ut frequens usus Ecclesiae testatur: This is witnessed by the frequent use of the Church. So that this is recei∣ved every where among the Catholicks, and these ima∣ges are worshipped, and of this there is an Ecclesiasti∣cal custom; and I add, In their Mass-book lately prin∣ted, these pictures are not infrequently seen. So that now it is necessary to shew that this, besides the impi∣ety of it, is against the doctrine and practice of the Primitive Church, and is an innovation in religion, a propriety of the Roman doctrine, and of infinite dan∣ger and unsufferable impiety.

To some of these purposes the Dissuasive alledged Tertullian, Eusebius and S. Hierom; but A. L. says, these Fathers have nothing to this purpose. This is now to be tried. These men were only nam'd in the Dissuasive. Their words are these which follow.

1. For Tertullian, A man would think it could not be necessary to prove that Tertullian thought it unlaw∣ful to picture God the Father, when he thought the whole art of painting and making images to be unlaw∣ful, as I have already proved. But however let us see. He is very curious that nothing should be us'd by Chri∣stians or in the service of God, which is us'd on, or by, or towards idols; and because they did paint and pi∣cture their idols, cast, or carve them, therefore no∣thing of that kind ought to be in rebus Dei, as Tertulli∣an's phrase is. But the summ of his discourse is this,

[The Heathens use to picture their false Gods that indeed befits them, but therefore is unfit for God; and therefore we are to flee, not only from idolatry, but from idols: in which affair a word does change the case, and that, which before it was said to appertain to idols, was lawful, by that very word was made Unlawful, and therefore much more by a shape or figure; and therefore flee from the shape of them; for it is an Un∣worthy thing, that the image of the living God, should be made the image of an idol or a dead thing. For the idols of the Heathens are silver and gold, and have eyes without sight, and noses without smell, and hands without feeling.]

So far Tertullian ar∣gues. And what can more plainly give his sense and meaning in this Article? If the very image of an idol be Unlawful, much more is it unlawful to make an

image or idol of the living God, or represent him by the image of a dead man.

But this argument is further and more plainly set down by Athanasius, whose book against the Gentiles is spent in reproving the images of God real or imagi∣nary; insomuch that he affirms that the Gentiles dis∣honour even their false Gods, by making images of them, and that they might better have pass'd for Gods, if they had not represented them by visible images. And therefore, that the religion of making images of their Gods, is not piety, but impious. For to know God we need no outward thing; the way of truth will direct us to him. And if any man ask which is that way, viz. to know God, I shall say, it is the soul of a man, and that under∣standing which is planted in us; for by that alone God can be seen and Un∣derstood.] The same Father does discourse many excellent things to this purpose, as that a man is the only image of God; Jesus Christ is the perfect image of his Glory, and he only repre∣sents his essence; and man is made in the likeness of God, and therefore he also in a less perfect manner re∣presents God: Besides these, if any man desires to see God, let him look in the book of the creature, and all the world is the image and lively representment of Gods power, and his wisdom, his goodness and his bounty. But to represent God in a carved stone, or a painted Table, does depauperate our understanding of God, and dishonours him below the Painters art; for it represents him lovely only by that art, and therefore less than him that painted it. But that which Athana∣sius adds is very material, and gives great reason of the

Command, why God should severely forbid any image of himself: Calamitati enim & tryannidi servientes ho∣mines Unicum illud est nulli Communicabile Dei nomen lig∣nis lapidibusque imposuerunt: Some in sorrow for their dead children, made their images and fancied that pre∣sence; some desiring to please their tyrannous Prin∣ces, put up their statues, and at distance by a phanta∣stical presence flattered them with honours. And in process of time, these were made Gods; and the in∣communicable name was given to wood and stones.] Not that the Heathens thought that image to be very God, but that they were imaginarily present in them, and so had their Name. Hujusmodi igitur initiis idolo∣rum inventio Scriptura teste apud homines coepit. Thus idolatry began saith the Scripture, and thus it was promoted; and the event was, they made pitiful con∣ceptions of God, they confined his presence to a sta∣tue, they worshipped him with the lowest way imagi∣nable, they descended from all spirituality and the noble ways of Understanding, and made wood and stone to be as it were a body to the Father of Spirits, they gave the incommunicable name not only to dead men, and Angels, and Daemons, but to the images of them; and though it is great folly to picture Angeli∣cal Spirits, and dead Heroes, whom they never saw, yet by these steps when they had come to picture God himself, this was the height of the Gentile impiety, and is but too plain a representation of the impiety practised by too many in the Roman Church.

But as we proceed further, the case will be yet clear∣er. Concerning the testimony of Eusebius, I wonder that any writer of Roman controversies should be igno∣rant, and being so, should confidently say, Eusebius hath nothing to this purpose, viz. to condemn the pi∣cturing of God, when his words are so famous, that they are recorded in the seventh Synod; and the words

were occasioned by a solemn message sent to Eusebius by the sister of Constantius and wife of Licinius, lately turned from being Pagan to be Christian, desiring Eu∣sebius to send her the picture of our Lord Jesus; to which he answers: Quia vero de quadam imagine, qua∣si Christi, scripsisti, hanc volens tibi à nobis mitti, quam dicis, & qualèm, hanc quam perhibes Christi imaginem? Utrum veram & incommutabilem, & natura characte∣res suos portantem? An istam quam propter nos suscepit servi formae schemate circumamictus? Sed de forma qui∣dem Dei nec ipse arbitror te quaerere semel ab ipso edoctam, quoniam neque patrem quis novit nisi filius, neque ipsum filium novit quis aliquando digne, nisi solus pater qui eum genuit. And a little after, Quis ergo hujusmodi digni∣tatis & gloriae vibrantes, & praefulgentes splendores exa∣rare potuisset mortuis & inanimatis Coloribus & scripturis Umbraticis? And then speaking of the glory of Christ in Mount Thabor, he proceeds; Ergo si tunc incarnata ejus forma tantam virtutem sortita est ab inhabitante in se Divinitate mutata, quid oportet dicere cum mortalitate exutus, & corruptione ablutus, speciem servilis formae in gloriam Domini & Dei commutavit? Where besides that Eusebius thinks it unlawful to make a picture of Christ, and therefore consequently, much more to make a picture of God; he also tells Constantia, he supposes she did not offer at any desire of that.] Well, for these three of the Fathers we are well enough, but for the rest, the objector says, that they speak only against representing God as in his own essence, shape or form. To this I answer, that God hath no shape or form, and therefore these Fathers could not speak against making images of a thing that was not; and as for the images of his essence, no Christian, no Heathen ever pretended to it; and no man or beast can be pictured so: No Painter can paint an Essence. And therefore although this distinction was lately

made in the Roman Schools, yet the Fathers knew no∣thing of it, and the Roman Doctors can make nothing of it, for the reasons now told. But the Gentleman saith, that some of their Church allow only and pra∣ctise the picturing those forms, wherein God hath ap∣peared. It is very well they do no more; but I pray in what forms did God the Father ever appear, or the Holy and Mysterious Trinity? Or suppose they had, does it follow they may be painted? We saw but now out of Eusebius, that it was not esteemed lawful to pi∣cture Christ, though he did appear in a humane body: And although it is supposed that the Holy Ghost did appear in the shape of a Dove, yet it is forbidden by the sixth General Council to paint Christ like a Lamb, or the Holy Spirit like a Dove. Add to this, where did ever the Holy and Blessed Trinity appear like three faces joyned in one, or like an old man with Christ cru∣cified, leaning on his breast, and a Dove hovering over them; and yet however the objector is pleas'd to mince the matter, yet the doing this is ubique inter Ca∣tholicos recepta; and that not only to be seen, but to be ador'd, as I prov'd a little above by testimonies of their own.

The next charge is concerning S. Hierom, that he says no such thing; which matter will soon be at an end, if we see the Commentary he makes on these words of Isaiah; Cui ergo similem fecisti Deum?] To whom do you liken God?] Or what image will ye make for him, who is a Spirit, and is in all things, and runs every where, and holds the earth in his fist? And he laughs at the folly of the nations, that an Artist, or a Brasier, or a Gold∣smith, or a Silversmith makes a God,] viz. by making the image of God. But the objector adds, that it

would be long to set down the words of the other Fa∣thers quoted by the Doctor: And truly so the Doctor thought so too at first; but because the objector says they do not make against what some of his Church own and practise, I thought it might be worth the Readers pains to see them.

The words of S. Austin in this question are very plain and decretory.

For a Christian to place such an image to God, (viz. with right and left-hand, sit∣ting with bended knees, that is, in the shape of a man) is wickedness; but much more wicked is it to place it in our hearts.

But of this I have given ac∣count in the preceding Section.

Theodoret, Damascen, and Nicephorus do so expresly condemn the picturing God, that it is acknowledg'd by my adversaries, only they fly for succour to the old mumpsimus; they condemn the picturing the essence of God, but not his forms and appearances; a distin∣ction which those good old writers never thought of, but directly they condemned all images of God and the Holy Trinity. And the Bishops in the seventh Synod, though they were worshippers of images, yet they thinking that Angels were Corporeal, believ'd they might be painted, but denied it of God expresly. And indeed it were a strange thing that God in the old Te∣stament should so severely forbid any image to be made of him, upon this reason because he is invisible; and he presses it passionately by calling it to their memo∣ry, that they heard a voice, but saw no shape; and yet that both he had formerly and did afterwards shew himself, in shapes and forms which might be painted, and so the very reason of the Commandment be wholly void. To which add this consideration, that although the Angels did frequently appear, and consequently had forms possible to be represented in imagery, yet none of the Ancients did suppose it lawful to paint

Angels, but they that thought them to be corporeal. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, said Philo. To which purpose is that of Seneca, Effugit oculos, cogita∣tione visendus est: And Antiphanes said of God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: God is not seen with eyes, he is like to no man; therefore no man can by an image know him. By which it appears plainly to be the General opinion of the Ancients, that whatever was incorporeal was not to be painted, no, though it had appeared in symboli∣cal forms, as confessedly the Angels did. And of this the second Synod of Nice it self is a sufficient witness; the Fathers of which did all approve the Epistle of John Bishop of Thessalonica, in which he largely discourses against the picturing of any thing that is incorporeal. He that pleases to see more of this affair, may find much more, and to very great purpose in a little book de imaginibus, in the first book of the Greek and Latin Bibliotheca Patrum; out of which I shall only tran∣scribe these words: Non esse faciendum imagines Dei: imo si quis quid simile attentaverit, hunc extremis suppli∣ciis, veluti Ethnicis communicantem dogmatis, subjici. Let them translate it that please, only I remember that Aventinus tells a story, that Pope John XXII. caused to be burnt for Heretics, those persons who had paint∣ed the Holy Trinity, which I urge for no other reason, but to shew how late an innovation of religion this is in the Church of Rome. The worship of images came in by decrees, and it was long resisted, but until of late, it never came to the height of impiety as to pi∣cture God, and to worship him by images: But this was the state and last perfection of this sin, and hath spoiled a great part of Christianity, and turn'd it back to Ethnicism.

But that I may summe up all; I desire the Roman Doctors to weigh well the words of one of their own

Popes, Gregory II. to the Question, Cur tamen Patrem Domini nostri Jesu Christi non oculis subjicimus? Why do we not subject the Father of our Lord Jesus to the eyes? He answers, Quoniam Dei natura spectanda proponi non potest ac fingi: The nature of God cannot be expos'd to be beheld, nor yet fain'd.] He did not conclude that therefore we cannot make the image of his essence, but none at all, nothing of him to be expos'd to the sight. And that this is his direct and full meaning, besides his own words, we may conclude from the note which Baronius makes upon it. Postea in usu venisse ut pinga∣tur in Ecclesia Pater & Spiritus Sanctus. Afterwards it became an use in the Church (viz. the Roman) to paint the Father and the Holy Ghost. And therefore besides the impiety of it, the Church of Rome is guilty of innovation in this particular also, which was the thing I intended to prove.

FINIS.

Notes

• Vide Plutarch. de Iside & Osir.
• In 3. sent. dist. 9. q. 2. n. 15.
• Rom. 1. 23.
• Pag. 60.
• De fide & symbole. c. 7.
• Damasc. lib. 4.
• Orthod. fidei. cap. 17.
• E. W. pag. 60.
• Authoritas Damasceni in literâ damnat illas (imagines Dei) ins••pientiae & impi∣etatis. Et eadem est ratio nunc de Dei∣tate quae erat in veteri 〈◊〉〈◊〉 quoad rem fig••∣rabilem vel non secundum se. Constat au∣tem in veteri lege imagines Dei esse prohi∣bitas.
• Videat (si pla∣cet) lector Lu∣cum Eudensem adv. Albig. er∣ror. l. 2. c. 9.
• Tom. 4. Bibl. p. p. part 2.
• Apud. Nicen.
• Synod. 11. Act. 5.
• Observandum est tribus mo••i•• posse aliquid pingi. Vno modo ad ••xpri•• mendam perfe∣ctam similitu∣dinem formulae, & naturae rei ipsius. Altero modo ad historiam aliquam oculis exhibendam. Tertio potest aliquid pingi extra historiam ad explicandam naturam rei, non per immediatam & propriam similitudinem, sed analogiam, sive metaphoric••, mysti••asque significationes. Be••. de imag lib. 2. c. 8. Sect. pro solutione. Hoc modo pingimus Deum ibid. Sect. Hoc modo.
• Lib 2. de reliq. & imagin. S.
• S. cap 8. Sect.
• Ego dico tria.
• Pujol. de ado∣rat. disp. 3.
• Sect. 4.
• In 3. part. Tom. q. 25. a. 3.
• Pag. 28.
• De coronâ mi∣lit.
• De Cor. Milit. Johannes Filioli inquit, Cu∣stodite vos ab idolis, non jam ab idolola∣tria quasi ab officio, sed ab idolis, id est, ab ipsâ effigie eorum: Indignum enim est ut imago Divini, imagoidoli & mortui fi∣at: Si enim verbo nudo conditio polluitur ut Apostolus docet, si quis dixerit idolothy∣tum est, non contigeris, multo magis cum habitu, & ritu, & apparatu, &c. Quid enim tam dignum Deo quàm quod indignum idolo?
• Nam si ut dicitis literarum instar Dei prae∣sentiam signant, atque adeò acsi Deum significantia Divinis dignae censentur hono∣ribus, cerrè qui ea sculp••it, eisque effigi∣em dedit, multo magis hos promerebatur honores. Et paulò post. Quocircae hujus∣modi religio, Deorumque fictio non pietatis esse, sed iniquitatis invectio—Veritatis via ad eum qui veru•• Deus est diriget. Ad eum verò ••ognoscendum & exactissimè in∣telligendum nullius extrà nos positae rei opem necessariam haebemus—Quod si quis in∣terrogat quanam ista sit? V••iuscujusque animam esse dixerim, atque insitam illam intelligentiam, per ipsam enim solam Deus inspiciet, & intelligi potest. Orat. contr, ••entiles.
• Synod. 7. act. 6.
• Concil. ••. P. Ca•• 82.
• In Cap. 40. Isai.
• A••t quam imaginem ponetis ei, qui spiri∣tus est, & in omnibus est, & ubique dis∣currit, & terram quasi pugillo continet? Simulque irridet stultitiam nationum, quod artifex sive Faber aerarius, aut auri∣••ex a••t argentarius Deum sibi faciant.
• De fide & symb. c. 7. Tale enim simul••chrum Deo nefas est Christiano in Templo colloca∣re, multò magis in corde nefari∣um est, ubi vé∣rè Templum est.
• Lib. de legat.
• Natur. q. 8. 30.
• Act. 5.
• Pag. 734. &c.
• Annal. Biorum. l. 7.
• In Epistolâ quam Baroni•• Gracè edidit Tom. 9. Annal. ad A. D. 726. in Margine.