The divine right of church-government and excommunication: or a peacable dispute for the perfection of the holy scripture in point of ceremonies and church government; in which the removal of the Service-book is justifi'd, the six books of Tho: Erastus against excommunication are briefly examin'd; with a vindication of that eminent divine Theod: Beza against the aspersions of Erastus, the arguments of Mr. William Pryn, Rich: Hooker, Dr. Morton, Dr. Jackson, Dr. John Forbes, and the doctors of Aberdeen; touching will-worship, ceremonies, imagery, idolatry, things indifferent, an ambulatory government; the due and just powers of the magistrate in matters of religion, and the arguments of Mr. Pryn, in so far as they side with Erastus, are modestly discussed. To which is added, a brief tractate of scandal ... / By Samuel Rutherfurd, Professor of Divinity in the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. Published by authority.

SECT. III.

Whether Papists and Formalists give that divine honour that is proper only to God and his son Iesus Christ to Images, and the elements of Bread and Wine?

I. Con. TO adore Images is to give worship to God before I∣mages, or, in, or through the Images without any Faith of a Godhead, or divine power in the Image according to the Do∣ctrine of the Church of Rome. I prove this out of their Councels. a 1.1 The Councell of Trent saith, Due honour and veneration is due to the Images, not because it is believed, that there is any Divinity and vertue in them, for the which they should be worshipped; but because the honour given to them is referred to the samplar, which they repre∣sent; that by these Images vvhich vve kisse, and before vvhich vve uncover our head and bow dovvn; vve may adore Christ, and the Saints which these Images resembleth: Hence 1. the Image doth but, as a memorative object, excite the affection to give honour to God, in, and through the Images; but 2. Let these words be exa∣mined, the Councell denyeth any divinity to be in Images, but if they mean no divinity really to be in Images, so they say nothing against us; for we do not ascribe to Papists that they teach there is a reall God-head in the Image, but that all that is really in it, is Wood, Gold, or Mettall, and so did the Gentiles believe their Images to be teaching books, Hab. 29. Ier. 10, 8. Deut. 4. 19. Isa. 40. 18. & 46. 6, 7. Act. 17. 29. and gold and silver; but say they, What needed the Prophets to prove that gold and silver could not see, nor hear, nor de∣liver in time of trouble, reason would here convince them to be ten

times blinde, who believed any such thing. Ans. The Prophets do* 1.2 well to do so: Nor that the Heathen believed there was any God∣head in them formally, but because they ascribed actions to these images, that were due to living creatures, and made them to be such as did see, hear, move, deliver; So Isaiah proveth Egypts horses not to be God, but flesh, yet they did not believe there was a Godhead in the horses, but Consequenter, by good consequence, when they laid that hope on the horse, that they were to lay upon God, he had need to say the horse vvas flesh and not God: So when men give to these things, bowing of the body, and say unto a stock, Thou art my Father: God may prove the stock is not a living man, and hath no sences, to convince them the more, that they can far lesse be Gods Vi∣car; for a Vicar or Deputy creature representing the living God, should be such as can do what God doth; else we should put on it the honour due to God: But if the Councell mean, They have no divinity in them, but by way of representation, because they be Vicaria dei signa, signes resembling the Creator God; Now if this be denyed, the images must be naked memorials before which people do adore God, as Mirandula, Durandus and others said, and yet latter Papists say more of their own Images: But I would have it remembred, that there be two sorts of deputed or Vicar-Ima∣ges; some that do only signifie, as the darknesse of the Skie go∣ing before the morning light in the East, that doth nothing at all which the morning light doth, but nakedly signifieth that the Sun is rising: There be other Depute signes that can exercise acts,* 1.3 which the samplar would do, if it were present, as the deputy is not a naked Vicar or depute signe of the King, for he doth not on∣ly signifie the Kings minde, but can do Royall Acts in the Kings name: Images are depute signes of God, of the first sort, that do only rub the memory and understanding, and therefore deserve no honour except the honour due to the means of worship, as the Bible, Sacraments, which deserve not Adoration, but onely a Negative Reverence, or a not dispising or con∣temptuous handling of them, Images being unlawfull meanes, and not Commanded of God, deserve no Veneration at all; and though it be true, that the Ambassadour deserve Princely Honour, for the Princes Place, whom he represen∣teth; yet he can act the person of the Prince, and is not a naked de∣puted

sign, but Images are therefore convinced to be unlawfull de∣puties representing (as Idolaters made them to be, Isa. 40. 18. Isa. 46. 6, 7.) Because they can do no acts at all, nor exercise any actions proper to the samplar, for Psal. 115. v. 6. They have mouths, but they speak not, eyes they have, but they see not, 7. They have eares, but they hear not; and therefore should not be trusted in, as in means and deputed representations of God, for which cause the Prophet inferreth ver. 8. They that made them, are like unto them, so are every one that trusteth in them. ver. 9. O Israel trust thou in the Lord. Therefore Religious trusting in them is Idolatry: But the Canon of Trent saith this same of their Images, to wit, that there be no Godhead or vertue in them. 2. If the worship of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the higher service due to God, be given to Images, as I prove hereafter, then also some deity or Divine vertue; for Gods highest honour can no more be communicated to any, save to God, then the Godhead it self; for a Relative Godhead is as due to stocks, as a relative worship. 3. If the Tridentine Canonists will have divine Adora∣tion given to God Coram imaginibus, before Images, or at their presence, as only memorative signes, & active objects exciting us to worship God, then is our Thesis proved: But if they mean that God is Adored, Coram imaginibus, before images, as not only memorative and active objects, but also before them as passive objects, that are compartners under God of some divine adoration; then I say 1. they contradicted themselves, for Gods highest honour called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, can not be given to them but by a figure, because they are Gods, & have divinity in them only by a figure, and not really: for Suarez & Vas∣quez denieth that we can fix our hope and faith in Images, or make prayers to them, Nisi modo figurativo & tropo duriore, by a figure, and a hard troop, and most improperly and by that same reason must be given to stocks and stones most improperly, and that is, men do religiously bow before them, as before memorative objects. 2. Gabriel b 1.4 Vasquez saith well, There can be no footstep of holi∣nesse in the image, beside the excellency of the samplar, nor any divine vertue wherefore it should be worshipped; for there is nothing in the

image of it self, but that which is senslesse, and lifelesse, and spiritlesse and no man can in a Religious way submit himself to such a creature? Hence it must be a naked memorative sign, and therefore the kis∣sing of the Image, though Physically it be reall, and not Metaphysi∣call, yet moral it is not propper, seeing all religious affection in that kissing is transferred to God. And we know Vasquez alloweth, that every thing, as it is a being, and resembleth God the first being, is to be Adored, and so stones,—Frogs, the Devil, Judas lips that kis∣sed Christ, are to be Adored.

So their seventh pretended Synod c 1.5 faith, That the Honour due to God is not to be given to images, according to our faith, only at the be∣holding of Pictures we are put in minde of the samplar: And the same saith Mr. Lindesey, is the way of Adoring God in the Sacra∣ment. But so the Gentiles, as saith d 1.6 Arnobius, and e 1.7 Lactan∣tius, yea, and the Apostle f 1.8 Paul ••aith Adored images; yea, and God would g 1.9 not forbid similitudes of God to be Adored, except he did teach that the heathen Idolaters worshipped similitudes, and so the Papists in that vulgar verse said, they Adored not the Ima∣ges, but the thing signified by the Images.

Effigiem Christi dum transis, semper Adora: Non tamen effigiem, sed quod designat, Honora.

Let me adde these reasons to prove they cannot Adore the Image, but as a memorative sign: 1. The Image and the elements in any consideration, either as creatures, or as the honourable act of re∣presentation is put upon them, are but creatures; for the act of re∣presentation is a temporary Godhead, and maketh them but Time-Gods; Ergo, they cannot be Adored. 2. If there be two Adora∣tions here, one given to God, and another to the Image, and if both be divine honour, there must be two collaterall Gods; if Adora∣tion prove Christ to be God, two divine honours put upon things, one upon God, and another upon the Creature; there must be

two Gods, or then the Creature remaining a Creature, must have Communion with Gods high honour, which is Idolatry. 3. Ima∣ges and elements are either worshipped for themselves▪ or for some other thing; if for themselves, they are God, for only God for him∣self is worshipped with Divine honour; if for God they be wor∣shipped, then it is an inferiotr, and improper worship, and there∣fore they must be worshipped as memorative objects. 4. Images and elements, if they partake of externall worship proper to God: Why may not Sacrifices and Incense be offered unto them, and faith and hope fixed on Images? They do not partake of internall wor∣ship: for as Vasquez saith well, inward worship consisteth in Ap∣prehensione primi principii, & in motu ad illud; in apprehension of the first Author and Creator of all things, and in the wills motion toward it. But this apprehension cannot be put upon Images or elements, therefore they be here significant objects only.

So their second Councell h 1.10 of Nice, as Epiphanius a Deacon, in name of the Synod saith, Images were present before the kneelers, as our elements are, only as memorative objects. 2. That the singu∣lar affection of Adoring, was bounded only upon God: And i 1.11 Concilium Senonense saith, Images are to be Adored, not because there is any Godhead in them, but for the memory of the samplar: And k 1.12 Concilium Moguntinum, Images are not propounded that we should worship them, but that we may call to minde the things which we are to worship. If therefore we Adore God at the presence of the ele∣ments, as memorative signes we do Adore the elements; but if the kneeler direct all his worship before the elements, to Christ up at the right hand of the Father: Why then (as Lactantius said well to the Gentiles) do they not turn away their senses and eyes off the elements? For Christ is not substantially inclosed in them, and lift them up toward heaven, where they believe Christ to be? But in so doing the elements should not be received as Sacraments, for in the act of receiving we are to fixe our souls upon the visible ele∣ments: If the Athenians did believe the golden image, Act. 17. 29.

was essentially God, and kneeled to it as to God; Paul did in vain rebuke them for believing that the Godhead was like silver or gold; and if the men of Lystra believed the shapes of men, and the like∣nesse of men to be essentially God, and in that respect gave the ho∣nour of Sacrificing due to God, to these shapes; then the Scrip∣ture in vain should bring these men of Lystra in, as putting a diffe∣rence betwixt the shapes of men, and the Godhead of Jupiter and Mercurius, to which they were about to give Divine Sacrifice. And if Formalists kneel before the elements, and give a transitive glory to Christ through them, they are in the same sense Idolaters that the Gentiles were. So the Councel of Moguntine, l 1.13 and Alphon∣sus de Castro m 1.14 deny that they Adore the letters of the Name (Jesus) drawn with base ink▪ or the Tree of the Crosse; but they Adore the signified thing: Yea, saith n 1.15 Waldensis, He that beholdeth the i∣mage, almost forgetteth the image, while as he is ravished with the thing signified: as many see a man clothed, and yet being asked, they cannot declare the colour of his clothes, the minde is so much set upon the man: Yea, the Adorer may hate the painted image of Christ, be∣cause the rude ignorance of the painter, when he Adoreth Christ in the same image, though he may love some morall representation in it. This Doctrine is taught by o 1.16 Gregorius, and by p 1.17 Adrianus, and q 1.18 approved by a Councel at Rome under Stephanus the third.

II. Conclusion. Grosser Papists go a subtiler way to work, and do avouch that the very Latreia and supream worship that is proper to God, is given to the Image.

Though the creature saith r 1.19 Suarez cannot, Primo, & per se, principally, kindly, and of it self be worshipped or adored with Latreia, the supream worship due to God, yet it may be co-adored, with the same honour that is given to Christ, as is the Kings purple Robe: So the first Distinction is of Adoration and co-Adoration, or Adoration kinde∣ly,

and by it self, and Adoration with another. Henriquez s 1.20 saith, It is a fault that it is not preached to the people, that the image of Christ is to be adored with supream worship called Latreia t 1.21. Cra∣brera saith, many Schoolmen are of this mind; and so doth w 1.22 Azorius x 1.23 Archangelus Rubeo y 1.24 Iacobus de Graphiis, Let us worship (saith he) every Image with that same worship, with which we worship the samplar: That is, let us bestow the worship highest of Latreia, up∣on the Image of God and Christ, and the signe of the Crosse, as it bringeth us in minde of Christs suffering: The second distinction is, that the Image is truly properly adored, as the materiall object no lesse then the samplar: Hence they reprove Durandus, Picus Mirandula, Hulcot, and others, who say that Images are improper∣ly adored, & a 1.25 Raphael de la Torres answering to that of Durandus and Mirandula, That Images are adored by accident, in respect that be∣fore them, and at their naked presence, as before memorative objects, we adore God and Christ (saith he) (are adored by accident) is thus to be understood, Images are adored, Ratione Alterius, by reason of another, Vel per aliud, by another thing, but this argueth not that Images are improperly adored, hereby onely is denyed that there is any adoration of the proper excellency of the thing adored. Hence he would say that the borrowed honour of Adoration given to the Image is truly and properly the Adoration that is due to God, but it is given to the I∣mage in reference to God, and not for any inherent Excellency that is in the Image: For (saith he) If we do not properly adore the Image, we do but exercise the materiall action of kissing and kneeling to the image, without any internall affection of submission to the Sam∣plar: He addeth that it is enough that the intention of submission is referred to the samplar, and the external Adoration to the Image, for if any shall (saith he) kisse the earth (as the rude multitude in some place doth) upon an intention of inward submission of heart to God, Nequaquam vere & proprie adorat terram, he doth not truly and properly adore the earth, but only he exerciseth a materiall action

of kissing toward the earth: But I answer, all this is vanity, for such* 1.26 a one worshippeth the earth, but referreth the internall submissi∣on to God, and all this, is to say the Image doth truly partake of the Religious honour (Latreia) due to God only.

A third distinction is here, of b 1.27 Gabriel Biel on the Canon of the Masse, In the Adoring of images (saith he) and of other things which are adored by accident, though there be an externall act of bow∣ing both to the images and the samplar, yet there be two internall acts which are different, vvhereof one is terminated and bounded upon the image, not absolutely as it is such a materiall thing of stone, or mettall, but as it is an image: This is an acknowledgement whereby I esteem the Image a thing ordained to represent Christ, or a complacency whereby I rest on such a thing, as to be honoured for Christ, and the other i•• a recognition, and acknowledgement immediatly ter∣minated and bounded upon the samplar, whereby it is acknowled∣ged to be the chiefest good. But the truth is, Religious geniculation before the image, or at the presence of the image (saith c 1.28 Durandus) as if the samplar were there present, is one and the same adoration gi∣ven to the image and the samplar; and all that d 1.29 Gregorius de Va∣lentia saith against this, is, that Durandus minus circumspect•• locutus, he spake not so warily, as need were: And so did their e 1.30 seventh pre∣tended synod speak, as f 1.31 Leontius expoundeth them, Non liguo∣rum aut colorum naturam adoro, absit, and g 1.32 Vasquez saith, They displease some in so speaking, but they mean well: They meant all that which our Formalists do▪ and there is no discord (saith h 1.33 Ga∣briel Biel) in re, in the matter it self; for both say; 1. that the creature should not be adored with the highest honour (Lateria) of it self, as if it were the object of Adoration: 2. Both teach that the minde and affection is carried toward the samplar, which is adored: 3. Both mean that the adorer exerciseth some act upon the image, as it representeth the samplar, only the diversity is, if this act termina∣ted on the Image, should be called an adoring of the Image; and all these three Formalists do to the elements in the supper: Hence I require of the Formalists, one difference betwixt the objective presence of the elements before the kneeler, in the act of receiving, and the objective presence of the Heathens image of God, Isa. 40.

18. & 46. 6, 7, 8. and the Papists image of dumb wood, and blinde stone: Mr. Lindsey answered me once in a conference, That the ele∣ments were present as the Ordinances of God, but the Popish and Hea∣then images as the inventions of men. I replied to him, That is no answer: for images and elements (I know) do differ, Physicâ specie; The Sun adored by Persians, and Satan by Indians differ. Satan and the Sun, are not Ejusdem speciei, of that same nature, but it is ido∣latry to worship either; images and bread in the kind of means of worship differ, but, as touching the objective presence before the kneeler kneeling to these, there is no difference: as 1. To memo∣rative objects: 2. As to objects vicarious and standing in the room of Christ: 3. At their presence and through them God is adored. i 1.34 Suarez, is not content with the doctrine of Durandus here, By this, images are (saith he) but occasions, Vel signa excitantia homi∣nem ad prototypum adorandum, non vero ••es quae adorantur, or signes moving the m••n to adore the samplar, but they are not things adored: for (saith he) the man, vvho seeing a beautifull creature, ariseth in ••is minde to the consideration of the Creator, and there∣fore praiseth and loveth th•• Creator, cannot be truly said to praise and love that fair creature, thoug•• the presence of that creature have stirred up the love of the Creator, and by this means images are reser∣ved only for memory. Thus he will have images adored with the same worship that is given to God: But I answer: 1. if he shall kisse that creature and direct Religious bowing toward it, and and through that external Religious act, convey his worship to God, and give no other externall adoration and signe of heart submission to God, then that which is tyed and alligated of purpose to that fair creature, as Papists and Jews did of old, who kissed the calves, and fell down before the images, as Isa. 44. 17. which yet were but memorials of Iehovah teaching them of Iehovah, Esa. 40. 18. Esa. 46. 6, 7. Hab. 2. 18, 19. Such a one should also worship that fair* 1.35 creature: Our Formalists do not make the elements memorative signes representing Christ, for that they have by divine institution, but upon that ground they kneel before them, and tie, by the Churches Commandment, the externall Religious bowing toward them, and that (saith the act of our new Assembly at Perth) in reve∣rence of God, and in due regard (Religious regard they must mean) of so divine a mystery, and in remembrance of so mysticall a union:

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

2. God hath no other externall bowing made to him in the act of re∣ceiving, then is made before these elements, in due regard of so di∣vine a mystery, and because of so mysticall union; the union is reall, whether it be by consubstantiation, or transubstantiation, they wil not define, the Lord Iesus is present in the elements, in a more reall and spirituall manner, then he is in any groundlesse image of mettall or wood; and therefore the image and elements do most really par∣take even by Durandus and Hulcot, and Mirandula their minde of that worship of (Latreia) due to God; only Durandus (as Vas∣quez, and Gregor. Valent. say) spake not so warily, but not so grosse∣ly, as to say, What ever is given to God, is given to the image: 2. It is not in the Adorers power that kneeling should be a signe of lesse worship, as referred to the image, and of greater, as referred to God; for the same materiall kissing, and Religious Prostration, which would immediatly be conveyed to Christ, if he were in per∣son present in the image and elements, is done to the image and elements, and Religious kissing, and Religious kneeling signifieth internall divine submission of heart to God, as the first author of all, and the last end, not by mans will, but by divine institution. 3. Kneeling to God is a protestation (saith k 1.36 Gregor, de Valent.) That we are willing to raise an opinion of excellency in God, as this ex∣cellency is in some manner, and relatively in the image. If therefore kneeling of its own nature, without any act of mans will, or the Churches institution, wanting Gods Word, do conciliate an opini∣on* 1.37 of excellency; to whomsoever kneeling is directed, in this it must conciliate the same opinion: if then it it be given to Images and elements, it must be a protestation that we are willing to con∣ciliate an opinion of Divine excellency in these lifelesse creatures, which is all we give to God by kneeling. 4. It is not enough that Valentia saith, This honour belongeth to Christ, in so far as it concili∣ateth

to Christ the honour due only to God, and is expressed by kneeling, & it belongeth to the images so, as Coram, & in illis, before, and in them this opinion is conciliated to Christ: But if the image be God only representatively, and by way of signification, then is it not God of it self and really, Quod est tale tantum significativé, non est tale per se, & realiter, as a painted man is not of it self, and really a man; the word (Iesus) as written with base ink, is not infinite Iesus, the migh∣ty God, the Prince of Peace, really, but only in meer signification: therefore to give Gods honour and externall Religious bowing (which essentially doth note the highest excellency of God) to them, is Idolatry: It is a vain thing to say, The Ambassadour is not really the King; yet the reall honour due to the King, is done to him. I Answer, where the King declareth that it is his will, that his Am∣bassadour be really honoured as himself; this is not the giving of the Kings glory to another against his will: But here expresly con∣trary to that (Thou shalt not bow down to them) expounded especi∣ally of similitudes, Deut. 4. 15. Ye saw no manner of similitude. The glory of Religious bowing contrary to Gods will, (Who will not give his glory to another) is given to images, and to Bread. 2. It redoundeth kindely to the King, who is absent, and to be obeyed in his absence, that His Vicegerent and Deputy be honoured as him∣self, and presupposeth an infirmity in the King that he cannot be in many places to receive immediately the honour due to him, and therefore will have that due paid to himself, mediately, by the ho∣noured person of a Deputy. God infinite is in all places, to receive immediately the pay of Religious knee-honour, and it dishonoureth God to have his glory laid down in the hand of any creature; as it dishonoureth the Husband that his wife give her body to another, representing his person: For this cause l 1.38 Bernardus Puiol faith, Images are properly to be Adored, contrary to that which Durandus saith: And m 1.39 Azorius saith, It is the common opinion that Ima∣ges are to be worshipped with (Latreia) the highest honour due to God: So (saith he) Thomas, Alexander, Bonaventura, Richardus, Albertus, Paludanus, Alman, Marsilius, Capreolus, Cajetanus, & caeteri ju∣niores sic sentiunt.

The fourth expression of wit, is this distinction of n 1.40 Vasquez, That that internall submission to God, as to the Creator and chief God, is due to God only; and that the image, seeing it is a Creature, is not

capable of that high honour. But the externall act of kissing and kneeling, he will have due to the image, for the excellency of the Samplar. And so he denyeth contrary to Suarez, That the image separated from the Samplar, or the humanity of Christ separated from Divinity, can be Adored: But if externall Adoration may be given to images; so also internall submission: (Thou shalt not bow down to them) Religiously it is expounded in the second Command∣ment, (Thou shalt not Worship them.) It is grossenesse in Vasquez to say, The Worshipping of images was forbidden the Iews in the se∣cond Commandment, as a Ceremoniall inhibition, because of the Iews propension to idolatry: But Act. 17. 29. Paul expoundeth the second Commandment, Forbidding the similitude of God: And the Athe∣nians were not under the Law of Ceremonies. Ioannes o 1.41 de Lu∣go saith, This is a probable opinion: But it is clear, Cornelius a de∣vout man, one who feared and worshipped God, whose Prayers were heard in heaven for Christs sake, knew that Peter was a man which lodged in the house of Simon a Tanner; yet his Religious externall bowing (though he knew Peter was not God, but a Di∣vine man resembling God) by Peter is rebuked as idolatry, Act. 10. v. 25, 26. I cannot help Ioan. p 1.42 de Lugo, to say, That Peter for∣bade Cornelius to worship him, not because it was a sin, but for mo∣desties cause. But 1. Peters Argument striketh against idolatry, ver. 26. (Stand up, (he forbiddeth Religious kneeling) for I my self also a man) The very Argument that Paul and Barnabas useth, Act. 14. ••er. 15. We also are men &c. and used against the idolatry of Lystra, expresly condemned in that place: And the Angels Ar∣gument against the idolatry of Iohn, Rev. 19. 10. I am thy fellow servant, Worship God; Ergo, externall Religious bowing should not be given to any, save to God. 2. Peter and the Angel should have opened the Jesuits and Formalists distinction, if worshipping of Saints and dumbe images be worshipping of God, and the ho∣nour principally of inward acknowledgment of the Supremacy and Soveraignty of God, be intended, in bowing to images, and modesty should not forbid honouring of God: And whereas Ioannes de Lu∣go* 1.43 saith, Iohn was forbidden to Worship the Angel, to signifie that our nature in Christ was advanced to a dignity above the Angels. But 1. then it is unlawfull to any to worship Angels. 2. Nor is it Law∣full to give the Virgine Mary Divine worship, as Suarez saith:

1. For her excellency in touching Christ. 2. For her Grace and San∣ctity. 3. For her mothers place in bearing Christ; because her na∣ture in Christ is not exalted above the nature of other believers, for the nature common to all believers, and Eadem specie, was as∣sumed by Christ. 3. The Angel saith, (Worship God) he therefore believed the Worshipping of Angels was not the Worshipping of God. All these fight against Religious bowing before the elements, in due regard of so Divine mysteries: the Bread would say (if it could speak) See thou do it not, for I also am a Creature.

The fifth trick of wit, is a distinction of q 1.44 Suarez, That one* 1.45 and the same act of Adoration may be given, and is given in externall Worship to the image and to God, but in reference to God, it is Latreia, the high Honouring of God, and in reference to the image, it is an in∣ferior Veneration: So do our Formalists say, as r 1.46 Burges saith▪ Adoration and Veneration differ not but by mens will; and if it be lawfull to Adore God before the Ark, s 1.47 Why not at the Sacrament? The Bread and the Wine are Christ significative, (as the Ark had the title of Iehovah) by occasion of the elements, not as they are, but as they signify; we may tender a knee-worship, not at all to them, but only to God or Christ. And again, t 1.48 he holdeth it lawfull to Adore the elements, but then Adoration as given to the elements, is Venera∣tion, and Adoration in a large sence, 1 Chron. 29. 20. The people Worshipped God and the King: The outward Adoration was one, as the word by which it is expressed was one; but the Religious and Ci∣vill worship were distinct in the minde and intention of the worshippers. Edward, the 6. Book w 1.49 saith, Kneeling is to eschew prophaning of the Sacrament. Opposit to prophaning is externall Religious ho∣nouring, expressed by kneeling, and that is Adoring. Hence one and that same Adoration and externall bowing, is given to Bread and to Christ; but the minde and will of the Adorer maketh the same act in reference to Christ, Adoration, or Latreia, of the high∣est degree of honour; but in reference to the Bread, lawfull Ve∣neration of an inferior nature. Answer 1. If it were possible that the Wise could transmit her body in the act of Harlotry, by, or through a strange Lover to her Husband, her will and minde might change Adultery; if she saith, she giveth her body to a stran∣ger, but in her minde and will intendeth to bring forth children to her own Husband: So if divers acts of the minde, make Religious

kneeling to a stock or Bread lawfull, if one should Adore the man Iudas as a memoriall of Christ, his intention of will might save his Soul; if he say, I give one and the same externall worship to Iudas and to Christ: Or if Cornelius should say, I give one and the same knee▪ worship, to Peter and to Christ; but in my intention they be far different: For I Worship Iudas and Peter in that act with Civill homage Commanded in the fifth Commandment, as they be Christs Apostles, and represent him; but in that same I Worship Christ with the highest honour, called Latreia: Vasquez and Burges make them one externall Worship. The three Children might have knee∣led to the Image of Nebuchadnezzer, for their minde and will (as Formalists say) might have put another signification of honouring the Lord Iehovah, upon their knee-worship; and externall knee∣ling could not have been denyed to the Lord Iehovah; and so the three Children should not have given Divine honour and knee∣glory to the Image, and they were fooles who did hazard their bo∣dies to the fire: But wisemen think, if they had given knee-wor∣ship (what ever their heart thought) they should have obeyed the King, yet they professe disobedience, Dan. 3. 18. We will not wor∣ship thy graven image. 2. Neither think we the Athenians gave that same honour to the similitude Act. 17. 29. of God, that they gave to the God that Paul Preached, who made Heaven and earth, v. 23, 24. Yet in giving Worship externall to both, they were Idolaters, ver. 29. Nor did the men of Lystra give the same heart-honour to the Deities of Iupiter and Mercury, which they gave to the shapes of men; yet are they Idolaters in that. 3. Mr. Burges saith, Isra∣el 1 Chron. 29. 20. in one and the same act (externall) Worshipped God and the King, because one and the same word expresseth honour both to God and the King. But how shall we call that act? Civill, or Religious, or mixt? and did they transmit Latreia, divine honour through the King to God? he hath a Metaphysicall faith who be∣leeveth such dreames, because one word is used to expresse both the worshipping of God and the King, therefore it was one externall act of worshipping, and differenced in the minde and intention of the worshippers; the consequence is most weake, 1 Sam. 12. 18. All the people greatly feared the Lord and Samuel, Prov. 24. 21. My son, feare the Lord and the King, is it one manner of feare really, that is both religious to God, and to Samuel, and to the Lord, and the

King▪ because one word expresseth both? I see not but one & the same action of bowing may be made to God, to Christ, to the water in Baptisme, to the Bible, to the Sun and Moon, and we might kneel and Adore a Toad, a straw, and Satan, as they represent Gods wis∣dom and power, and through that same externall knee-worship al∣so Adore God: What, may we not then Religiously Adore all things and Creatures, as they represent God the first being.

Presentem{que} refert quaelibet herba Deum. A man may Adore himself, his own hands, his legs, his Mothers Wombe that bare him, &c.

As for Adoring of the Ark and foot-stool of God: 1. Ioan. x 1.50 Gisenius, a Lutheran saith, The Iews had precept and promise to Worship God before the Ark, we have no Command to tye externall Adoration to any place or Creature. 2. y 1.51 Didoclavius saith, It is lawfull to Adore God before the Ark, and the Symboles of his imme∣diate presence, because God is there to receive his own Worship him∣self, by an immediate indwelling presence: For saith z 1.52 Mr. Weames, He appeared in glory above the Ark, betwixt the Cherubims, and it* 1.53 was a type of Christ who dvvelt in our flesh; but it is not lavvfull to Worship him, before the Symboles of his grace. 3. The Ark was a type in the act of teaching, we grant; but that it was in the act of Adoring, God who was immediately present, and a Symboll Vice∣gerent of God, we reade not. There is no need of mediate signes, where God is immediately present, and Adored as he was in the Ark; they were to fixe both senses and thoughts immediate∣ly upon God. 4. They were to worship, not the Ark, but the precept is, & incurvate vos scabello, Worship tovvard the Ark. a 1.54 A∣rias Mont. turneth it, Worship to the Ark: The Greek Fathers of the second Nicen. Councel, ignorant of the Hebrew Tongue, would have the Lord Commanding to Adore his foot-stool; whereas the Particle (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) is a note of the Dative case, and often it signi∣fieth motion to a thing, or at a place, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ad dextram, and doth not absolutely signifie the accusative case. b 1.55 Musculus ad Sca∣bellum,

he maketh it the Ark of the Testament. Calvine, c 1.56 the Tem∣ple. Iunius, d 1.57 maketh it well to signifie the measure of bowing, bow to the foot-stool, or ground, or pavement of the Temple where the Lords feet are, as he sate on the Cherubims, 1 Chron. 28. 1. For there is no ground for Adoring the Ark; but the words are to be read, Exalt the Lord our God, and bow your selves, (to wit, to Ieho∣vah, who sheweth himself, or dwelleth at his foot-stool) that is, betwixt the Cherubims, 2 Sam. 6. 1. For the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 at his foot-stool, is not constructed with the Verb, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 incurvate vos: Jesuits and Formalists, devised that construction, but it is to be constructed with the word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which is to be repeated from the former part of the verse, Bow your selves to Jehovah who dwelleth in the Ark, or in the Temple: A familiar eleipsis to the Hebrews, Psal. 5. 8. I will bow my self (to the Iehovah dwelling) in the Temple of thy holinesse, as we are taught, Our Father which art in Heaven: So 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and it is a description of God from the place where he dwelt, and exhibited his presence to his rude people. 4. It is ignorance in Burges to prove God may be A∣dored in the elements, because they are as excellent Symbols of Gods presence as the Ark: for created excellency is no ground of Ado∣ring the elements, except it be a Godhead, and uncreated excellen∣cy: We condemne Pope e 1.58 Anastasius, who directeth Reverend bowing at the hearing of the Gospel, and not of the Epistles, as if the Gospel were holier then the Epistles.

But if Adoration may be given to the elements, because knee∣worship signifieth according to humane institution, and mans will, and are taken from customes of men, and so doth signifie lesse ho∣nour then is due to God: Let me be resolved of this doubt, words of Prayer signifie according to mens institution and their will, no lesse then Religious gestures do, and we may say to a stock, (Thou art my Father) and it is in our will that (Father) signifie a representa∣tive Father, not an infinite and Independent Father, such as God only is.

And if the image in externall kneeling, be Adored Per aliud, or co-adored with the Samplar, because it is one with the Samplar; Why may we not pray to the image, and fixe our faith and hope on

the image and elements by co-adoration, or in relative praying and trusting in them? Yet f 1.59 the Fathers of Trent for shame deny that we should pray to images, and put our trust in them: yet do For∣malists turn the enunciative words of Christ (This is my body) in an optative mood, and a Prayer, The body and blood of Christ (they mean the elements in their hands) preserve thee to eternall life: And we are not ignorant, that faith and hope are ascribed to the Crosse, and this sung in the Church of Rome:

O crux ave spes unica, Hoc passion is tempore, Auge pi•••• justitiam, Reis{que} dona veniam.

A Learned Papist, g 1.60 Raphael de la Torres saith plainly, It is lawfull to pray to images, so the inward devotion be directed to God: But if the Iews in their Idolatrous worship acknoweledged the image to be but a representation of God, and a Book, Jer. 10. 8. They did no wrong who said Ier. 2. ver. 27. to a stock, Thou art my fa∣ther, and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: For condition maketh all, if they speak by a figure; for the Papists when they speak to the Crosse, and call the Crosse their only hope, the Crosse is not bet∣ter born nor a stock, it is but timber or dumbe wood: Now how doth not the dumbe wood to which Prayers are made, as if Christ himself were present, partake of Prayers and Gods honour, in an inferior and relative way? For the wood standeth before him who prayeth to it, as God by representation, and as an actuall Vicege∣rent, and tree-deputy of God and Christ; it is no lesse worship∣full by mouth-worship, by praying to it, as to the passive object of Adoration, as capable of knee-worship by bowing down to it; and a distinction may save idolatry in the one, as well as in the other: And our Formalists bowing Religiously to bread, do not Adore bread, (as our half Papists say) and so may they pray to bread, and not Adore bread, for they are as well masters of Grammar, to im∣pose significations at their will upon words, as they be Lords of gestures and Ceremonies, to cause kneeling expresse Veneration to the images, and to elements, and not Divine Adoration.

Here two great Iesuites, Suarez and Vasquez helpe the matter for h 1.61 Suarez saith, There be some acts of worship as faith and prayer, which precisely respect a reasonable and intelligent person, therefore this pray∣er (Haile * 1.62 crosse) it is a figurative speech, and a Metonymie, conti∣nens pro re contenta; and the speech is directed to him who was cruci∣fied, and therefore a prayer (saith this Idolater) is considered ut peti∣tio, vel ut honor quidam, either as a petition, and so it is not directed but to God, but as prayer is an honour expressed in such words and signes, the image also is thought to be honoured by praying to it, as the samplar to wit Christ, is honoured; soft words. Answ. 1. If praying and be∣leeving* 1.63 doe properly respect a reasonable creature, so doth positive honouring which is esteemed, by the law of nature, praemium virtu∣tis, a reward of vertue; now vertue morall to be a foundation of ho∣nour, is as vainly given to a tree, or a stocke, as faith and prayer, but to speak to any in prayer, and make our requests known to them may be thought proper onely to a reasonable person, who onely can understand our prayer, and in reason answer our necessities, which a stock cannot doe: but secondly, I answer a stock is by Analogie, and as it is God representatively, as capable of rea∣son to answer, and helpe us, and pitty us, in respect it can no∣tably well represent the Majestie of God, who can answer, helpe, and pitty, as our Idolaters teach, as it is capable of knee-worship, and that honour which is given to God, though in an higher de∣gree; for the formall reason why Images and elements are capable of knee-glory, due to him who sweareth that all knees shall how to him, is, because they represent God, and not because of themselves they have any divinity or Godhead in them. Now the same formall reason holdeth here, for the crosse, stone, tree, or elements that are prayed unto in that religious state, as they are the object of praying, doe represent God, therefore they are also capable of faith and pray∣er, glory, as of knee-worship, or knee-glory. 2. Faith, hope, and charity (as i 1.64 Suarez saith) in so farre as they are given to God, for giving of honour to him as to the supream Lord, they put on the nature of adoration, and in that same place he defineth adoration to be the exhibition of honour due to any in the acknowlegement of ex∣cellency and submission and service due to him: Now Suarez reproo∣veth Durandus and Pic. Mirandula, because they denied that the Image was adored, but would onely have honour given to

God, at the naked presence of the Image, as a memorable signe, but it is certaine, as to trust in God, and to pray to him is incom∣municable to the creature, so to adore any in acknowledgement of supreame excellencie is incommunicable to the creature, therefore either the image is adored with the same knee-worship that is given to God, and that improperly and by a figure, as Durandus and Mi∣randula taught contrary to the mind of Suarez, and idolatrous Iesu∣ites and F••rmalists, or else prayers may be made to wood and stone, as to God, and that properly and without a figure; as knee-wor∣ship is tendered to wood and stone by Iesuits doctrine, prope••••y and without a figure. 3. Papists deny that sacrifices may be offered to Images, yet they burne incense to images; but that is not, saith k 1.65 a Fransciscan Antonius Capellus, a sacrifice, for it is tendred to men, to dead carions, and to things that are blessed, and requireth nei∣ther Altar, nor Priest: It is true, they say so, but burning incense to the brazen Serpent is condemned as Idolatry, and Altar and Priest is not of the essence of a sacrifice; but however as sacrifi∣cing is a recognition that we hold all we have of God, and there∣fore we sacrifice creatures to him, so any adoring of stocks is an ac∣knowledgement that these stocks or stones are by way of represen∣tation, that God of whom we hold all the creatures: and doe not Papists for the honour of God, make oblations to Ministers, and burn incense to Saints? and why may not prayers be offered to them also? 4. It is a wild distinction where he faith that prayers as honour may be tendered to Images, but not prayers as petitions, whereas the very act of calling upon God in the day of trouble, Psal. 50. 15. is an honouring and glorifying God, and praying to God is due to God, as he is to be beleeved in, and to be preached amongst men, Rom. 10. 14. 15. And so is he worthy to be glorified as the subject of preaching; then it is a vaine thing to difference betwixt peti••ioning to God, and honouring God, because in that I petition God, in my ne∣cessities, I submit to him as to God, who can answer and heare pray∣ers: If therefore the Image and the wood be capable of the honour of praying, it is also capable of the honour of petitioning, so as we may as properly petition and supplicate the stocke, as give to it the glory of prayers. 5. If Formalists say in the third person, (the body Sacramentall of the Lord save thee,) they may upon the same ground say, (O thou Sacramentall body of the Lord save me) for this

is a prayer to God, (O that God would save his people,) no lesse then this, (O God save thy people,) the variation of persons in the Grammar, maketh not the one to be a prayer, and not the o∣ther. Vasquez l 1.66 saith, There is not alike reason, why praises, prayers, and Sacrifices should be tendred to Idols, & knee-worship & Adoration, because from the affection of Adoring the samplar, there is derived an externall note of submission to the image, which by a common name is called the honour, Worship and Adoration tendred to the image in a bodily manner, and being done before the image, tendeth to the honour∣ing of the samplar; but the outward action of Praising, Praying, Sa∣crificing, is commonly called Praising, Praying, Sacrificing, in relation to the Samplar, to wit, God, and no way in relation to the image, or to things without life; neither are they by accident referred to the ima∣ges, only they be tendred to God before images, Coram illis. But I Answer, This is but to beg the Question, for we deny, that from A∣doring the image, there resulteth any Adoring of God, but a great dishonouring of his Name. 2. Durandus, Mirandula, Hulcot, de∣ny that Adoring of God, Coram imaginibus tanquam signis memora∣tivis, before the images as memorials of God, should be an Adoring of the images: And Suarez saith, If images be only remembrances and memorials in the act of Adoration, this taketh much honour from the images, and is, saith m 1.67 he, An Adoring of the Samplar, but not an Adoring of the image: Though n 1.68 Vasquez; expounding Gre∣gories minde, (which superstitious man calleth them, o 1.69 good books) contradict Suarez in this, yea, and himself also; for he saith, The enemies of images (he meaneth the Reformed Churches) who use them only for memorials and books, (it is a lye that we use them as books,) will not bow their knee to them, for then (saith he) they should Adore them; and therefore (saith Vasquez,) if Christ be not in very deed, in his presence in the Sacrament present, the knee-worship is tendred to bread and wine, which is (saith he) Idolatry; therefore either our Formalists are Transubstantiators, or Idolaters, or both;

by this learned Iesuites judgement, and why by this same reason may we not say against p 1.70 Vasquez, that the bodily offerings of prayers, prayses, and sacrifices to God, before the Image as the I∣mage, is an honouring of the Image by prayer, they say to the tree of the Crosse.

Auge piis justitiam, reis{que} dona veniam.

Increase righteousnesse in us, and give remission of sinnes, O tree crosse to guilty sinners. Names at Rome goe as men will, but the honour it selfe is put upon the dumbe wood, which is due to Christ. O it is but a figure (say they) yea but (say we) prayers and praises in a bodily manner, and vocally are tendred to the wood, yet if the wife commit adultery with her husbands brother, because he re∣presenteth her husband, I thinke the matter should be washen with Inke, and badly excused to say, O the loving wife for strong love to her husband committeth figurative adultery, and that bodily har∣lotry is referred to the brother of her husband by accident, and to her husband kindly, and per se, for himselfe. The same way, if Formalists bow their knee to bread, that such a holy mystery be not prophaned. We know they cannot understand civill or countrey non-prophanation, that they intend; for kneeling and evill maners at the Lords table doe well consist together. Now religious non∣prophanation by knee-worship, is adoring of these mysterious ele∣ments. Ergo they make prayers and sing praises, and offer sacrifi∣ces to the bread, Let them see to this and answer to it if they can. The sixt evasion of wit, I find in q 1.71 Johannes de Lugo, who saith, 1. That the image and samplar making one and the same object, by aggregation, the inward affection besides externall knee-worship is gi∣ven to both, but to the Image relatively, and for God or the samplar, and not for proper divine excellencie in it, and therefore the Councels (saith he) call it not adoration in spiritu, but it is tendered to God ab∣solutely.

2. We give adoration of internall submission to God, or the samplar as the debt of potestative justice, but we doe not so worship the Image, we have no civill or politick communication with the Image,* 1.72 because it is not a reasonable creature, and therefore the worship of the Image is as it were a materiall and livelesse action; when we uncover our head to the Image, by that action we would say or signifie nothing to the Image, but to the samplar, or to God onely. 3. The inward sub∣mission that we tender to the Image, is not that we submit to it, as to a thing more excellent then we, for that were a foolish lye; yet (saith he) (that the man might fulfill the cup of the iniquity of his Fathers) we kisse not the Image in recto directly tendring honour to it, but to God and the samplar before it. 1. Because then I should adore my owne breast when I knocke upon it adoring the Eucharist. 2. Because so I bow to the wall before me. 3. If I have no honourable opinion of the I∣mage, I doe not adore it at all. 4. By kneeling to the Image, I have a will of submitting externally my affection to the Image, I yeeld to it▪ as a thing above me, giving to it the higher place 4. The act of adora∣tion is simply terminated upon the Image, as a thing contra distingui∣shed from the samplar, though it be adored with the same action with which the samplar is adored. Thus the ••e••uite.

Answ. But here all men may see many contradictions, and that he casteth downe all that formerly he hath said, ••••. Images even as* 1.73 they represent God are dead things, and lesse then a redeemed Saint, Ergo, I can give them no submission of externall honour. 2. I signifie and say nothing of honour to the Image, even as it respecteth God, and representeth him, because the dignity of representing God doth not elevate it to be a reasonable creature, therefore I can∣not honour it, and it were a foolish lye to say that the Image as re∣presenting God, were a reasonable creature. 3. As it representeth God, it cannot heare payers, nor deliver in trouble, as the Holy One of Israel can doe; Ergo by the Holy Ghosts argument, I cannot bow to a lye, Esa. 44. 17. and 46. 9. Hab. 2. 19. 20. it made not the heaven and the earth, but by a figure, because it representeth the maker of heaven and earth, wherefore it should have but figurative honour at the best, and that is no reall honour, Jer. 10. 8, 11, 12, 4. There is no debt of justice due to the dumb wood, or element, ho∣nour of externall submission is a debt of potestative justice due to a superiour, the Images and Elements are not my superiour.

1. They be meanes, I the end. 2. They bee void of life and reason which I have. 3. They are not redeemed, sanctified, and to be glo∣rified as I am. Ioan. de Lugo answereth, As I may love Peter for the goodnesse that is not in Peter but in another, as I may love and desire good to Peter, for the goodnesse that is in his father, and not in himself, and so pay the debt of affection to him for another, so I may honour an Image for the debt of honour that I owe to the samplar represented by the Image, therefore it is not required to the essence of adoration, that we acknowledge debt due to every thing adored for another; it is suffici∣ent a debt be acknowledged, either to the Image, or the samplar. Answ. The debt of love and the debt of honour are not alike. I owe ho∣nour to superiours onely as superiours, I owe love to superiours, equals, inferiours. If I truly adore an Image, I truly acknowledge excellency in the Image, I truly yeeld to it, a worthier place then I deserve to have my selfe, (saith r 1.74 de Lugo) Ergo, by the fifth Commandement according to the debt of justice, I owe feare, honour, and reverence to it, else I adore it by a figure, which the Iesuite doth deny.

I am not afraid that they say, Damascen, s 1.75 a superstitious Monke alloweth Images to be adored. So doeth t 1.76 that preten∣ded seventh Synod, or (u) the second Nicene Synod, and x 1.77 Ste∣phanus and Adrianus, as we may read in Juo. y 1.78 Nicephorus speak∣eth many fables for Images, he sheweth us that Luke the Evangelist should have painted the Images of Christ and the Virgin Mary. z 1.79 And that a 1.80 holy Silvester had the Images of Peter and Paul, and shewed them to the Emperour Constantine, and b 1.81 Canisius a fabulous man saith, there appeared to Silvester at the dedication feast of Saint Salvators church the picture of Christ in the Wall, but the originall of Images seemeth to be the vanity of man, saith c 1.82 the Wiseman. 2. The keeping of the dead in memory, saith d 1.83 Cy∣prian, ad defunctorum vultus per imaginem detinendos expressa sunt simulachra, inde posteris facta sunt sacra quae primitus assumpta fue∣runt solatia, in aliis codicibus ad solatia. 3. The blinde heathen wan∣ting the light of Scripture, began to worship Images. e 1.84 Eusebius saith it began first 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from the Heathenish custome it came that Peter and Pauls Images were first made. Men did it saith f 1.85 Augustine, ut Paganorum concilient benevolentiam, to conci∣liate the favour of Pagans, it may bee seene out of Gregorius

g 1.86 Magnus, saith h 1.87 Voetius, that the worshiping of Images crept in but the sixt age. In the first three hundred yeeres, Images were not admitted (saith our Country-man i 1.88 Patrick Sympson) into the place of worship, in the fourth, fifth and sixt Centurie, they were ad∣mitted into temples, but for the most part without opinion of adoration. In the second Nicene Councell, an obscure age, (saith k 1.89 Petrus Moli∣naeus) when the scriptures were taken away, it is ordained that Images should be adored, but not the Images of the Father. Quoniamquis sit non novimus, dei{que} natura spectanda proponi non potest ac pingi. But onely the Image of the Son. This Councell was Anno 787. as saith l 1.90 Bellarmine. But this wicked Fathers argument proves also that the Image of God the Father may be painted, while they prove wor∣shipping of Images, because the Psalmist saith, The Lord arose as a mighty man after Wine. But m 1.91 Genebrard saith this Councell of Nice, was controuled by a Councell in the West. n 1.92 Barronius mentioneth two Epistles written by Gregorious 2. a defender of Images, wherein he saith, the Sonne may be painted, not the Fa∣ther. This Councell was approved by Constantine, Ireneus, and a Greeke copie of the Synod sent to o 1.93 Adrian the Pope. But 1. this wicked Synod did not maintaine adoration of Images, such as Suarez, Bellarmine, Vasquez, Peri••rius, &c. now hold, but onely veneration. 2. Images were placed in the Churches, saith p 1.94 Paul. Diaconus, multis contra dicentibus, many speaking a∣gainst i••. And q 1.95 Bergomens. saith, the Emperour Constantine himselfe not long after did abrogate the Acts of this Synod, and r 1.96 the Synod of Franckford condemned this Synod. See s 1.97 Aventinus; t 1.98 Hincmarus saith it is true they of Franckford allowed Images to be in Churches, but not to be adored. w 1.99 Vrspergensis saith that this synod did write a book against the second Councell of Nice, called otherwise the seventh generall Councell. A booke came out▪ in France, and after in Germany under the name of Charles the Great, condemning by strong reasons the adoration of Images, and answereth all the arguments of the Nicene Fathers on the contra∣ry, Tannerus the Iesuite saith this was a forged Booke. But against fa∣mous

and learned Authors saying the contrary, and so x 1.100 Hinc∣marius and y 1.101 Ectius make mention of this book, and Pope Adrianus (as z 1.102 Hospinianus doth well observe) doth approve of this Synod of Francford by his Letters written to the Emperour of Constantinople, and the Patriarch Tharasius.

The first five hundred years (saith a 1.103 Calvin) images were not worshipped. Caj••s Caligula a proud Tyrant, commanded the Iews to set up his image in the Temple: the Iews answered they should rather die then pollute the Temple of God with images, as ••aith b 1.104 Iosephus and c 1.105 Eusebius, and this fell out while the A∣postles lived.

Ann. 108. Plunius 2. writeth to Trajanus under the third Persecu∣tion, That Christians were men of good conversation, and detested vices, worshipped Christ, and would not worship Images d 1.106, as that Letter beareth: and e 1.107 Eusebius, reporteth Adrian had a purpose, (as saith f 1.108 Bucol.) to build a Church for the honour of Christ void of Images. See g 1.109 Symson that ancient Writer: h 1.110 Justine Martyr in this Age; Omnes imagines ad cultum proposit as simplici∣ter damnant Christiani. i 1.111 Tertullian, a most ancient writer, who lived under Severus in time of the fifth Persecution, as k 1.112 the Magdeburgenses testifie; saith, Nos adoramus oculis ad caelum sub∣latis, non adimagines seu picturas, and, indignum ut imago Dei vivi imagini idoli, & mortu: fiat similis, (saith l 1.113 he also) and not only thinketh it unlawfull to represent God by an Image, but also saith, that Craftsmen, who professe themselves Christians, ought no•• to make Images of God. An ancient Writer m 1.114 Clemens Alexan∣drinus, Non est nobis imago sensibilis de materiâ sensibili, nisi quae precipitur intelligentiâ. Deus enim qui solus est verè Deas, intelli∣gentiâ precipitur, non sensu: We have no sensible Image of sensible matter, because God is taken up by the understanding, not by the sense: and n 1.115 Nihil in rebus genitis potest referre Dei imaginem. This an∣cient Writer flourished, saith o 1.116 Catolog. Testium veritat. Anno 150. or as p 1.117 Hospinian saith Ann, 200. and q 1.118 Ireneus, the dis∣ciple

of Polycarpus, an hearer of John the Apostle maketh it the Heresie of the Gnosticks, that they held that Pilate made the Image of Iesus: Et quod imagines baberent Christi, Apostolorum atque Philosophorum▪ easque coronarent, ac colendas propo••erent. a 1.119 Cy∣prian saith, Idols, or Images, be not only against the Law of God, but against the nature of man; b 1.120 Origen said, The Images of Christi∣ans are Christians indeed, with Gods Image: and, Nos veno ideo non honor amus simulachrá, quia quantū possumus, cavemnus, ne in••idamus in eam crudelitatem, ut et iis tribuamus divinitatis aliquid. c 1.121 Grave Athanasius saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The invention of Images is from an evil fountain, and not from good, and whatsoever hath a bad beginning, cannot be deemed in any thing good, being altogether bad: The Papist Harding bringeth in a counterfeit Dialogue of Athanasius, betwixt Christ and his Church; and Christ comforting his Church, be∣cause she was persecuted for worshipping Christs Image; but when and where this persecution was, none knoweth, for many times hath the Church been persecured for not worship∣ping Images; but see the answer of the learned d 1.122 Jewell there∣unto; e 1.123 Epiphanius, who lived, Anno 370. proveth against the* 1.124 Collyridiams, That Mary nor no creature should be adored. Ʋnde est simulachrificum hoc studium et diabolious conantus? praetext•• enim* 1.125 justitiae sempersubiens hominum, mentem drabolus, mortalem natu∣ram in hominum oculis deificans, Statuas humanas, imagines pre se ferentes per artum, veritatem expressit, et mortui quidem sunt qui adorantur: Item, Revera sanctum erat corpus Mariae, non tamen Deus, honorata, non in adorationem data. Mary was not God, and therefore is not to be adored: He professeth that he did rive a vail, that had painted in it the Image of Christ, or of some man▪ Cum ego videssem in Ecclesia Christi▪ contra authoritatem scriptura∣rum, hominis pendere imaginem, scidi illud, &c.

Lactantius Formianus, Images are to represent these who are absent. God is every where present, it is vanity therefore to forme an image of God. Also h 1.126 There is no Religion, where there is an image: Also

i 1.127 your gods be either in Heaven, or not; if they be not in Heaven, why do ye worship them? If they be in Heaven, why do ye not lift your eyes to Heaven while you adore them? Why do you convert your eyes toward walls, stocks and stones, rather then toward that place where you imagine your gods to be?

k 1.128 His Arguments against Images be these: l 1.129 1. They forget reason, when they fear the work of their own hands: 2. m 1.130 God is not absent, but present every where: 3. n 1.131 The image is a dead thing void of sense, God is the eternall and everliving God: 4. o 1.132 Nothing mortall should be worshipped. 5. p 1.133 What vanity to hope for protection from these things, which cannot defend themselves •• 6. q 1.134 The image is lesse and viler then the worshipper: 7. r 1.135 Man according to Gods image, is the image of God. 8. (s) God needeth nothing, neither torches because he made the light, nor images. This man lived, Anno 300. Before which time the Church of Christ being persecuted, they had no Churches, nor Images to be ornaments in their Churches, as saith (t) Ambrosius, and also u 1.136 Chrysostom, who was displeased with the fooleries in Temples in his time, and saith, They were not like the Templ••s of the Apostolick Churches: and x 1.137 Tertullian, and y 1.138 Eusebius saith, They had then, Simplices domos, Simple houses, void of paintries and pictures: And the want of Temples was objected against Christian Religion, as z 1.139 Ori∣gen cleareth in the time of Constantine, the son of Chlorus, as saith, a 1.140 Sozomen, and b 1.141 Eusebius, Temples were builded, but as c 1.142 Joan. Quintinus expoundeth Tertullian, without the ornaments of images, and d 1.143 Tertullian himself maketh building of Altars, and portracts, Idol••tricos cultus, Idolatrous worship. In the fourty years space, betwixt the reign of Valerian, and the 19. year of Diccle∣sian, there were Oratories and Temples builded, but neither painted Pictures, nor Images in them, as saith [e] Eusebius: Yea, of thirty Bishops of Rome, even from Peter and Paul to Sylvester, and Con∣stantine the Emperour; to wit, three hundred years, there were none, who were not persecuted to blood, or to death, or some other way. It is a vain thing to say, they had breathing time to build* 1.144

Temples, and erect Altars, and golden Images of Christ, and the Virgin Mary, and the Saints. It is true, in the two hundreth year after Christ, under Alexander Severus, Gordianus, Philippus, Gal∣lienus; Churches were builded, as f 1.145 Nicephorus saith, but a∣gain under Dioclesian they were demolished to the ground, but ob∣serve well there were no Images of Christ broken, which that Ty∣rant in despite of Christ, would not have omitted; see g 1.146 Euse∣bius, they were builded again under great Constantine, so h 1.147 Sozo∣men, i 1.148 Otho Phrisingensis k 1.149 and Nicephorus. The dream of Platina, for the building of a Church, by the donation of Con∣stantine, with twelve portions of earth, equall to the number of the twelve Apostles, and of another Church, with the title of the holy Crosse at Ierusalem, which Helena found in that place, and Con∣stantine placed in this Church at Rome, is refuted by l 1.150 Hospi∣nian: yet is there no word of any Images in these Churches.

m 1.151 Arnobius An. 330. maintaineth against the heathen, that the Christians ought to have no Images: 1. Because the device of images is a novelty, and was not before two thousand years, but God and Religion are no new things. 2. n 1.152 Because either the Gods dwel∣leth in their images, against their will, or of their own accord; if the former be said, they are compelled, which is absurd. If the latter, then they do either bide alwayes in their images, and so are miserable, or they go out of the images when they please, and then the images are empty things.

a 1.153 Eusebius Caesariensis who lived, An. 300. when Constantia Augusta wrote to him for the Image of Christ, answered.

That could not be: 1. Because his manhood was joyned with his Godhead, and could not be separated therefrom. 2. Because his God∣head cannot be represented, Mortuis, & inanimatis coloribus, with dead and livelesse colours. b 1.154 Hieronimus, who lived, An. 331. under Constantine, denyeth that any Creature, Angel, or Virgin Mary should be worshipped. c 1.155 Ruffinus faith, Helena the mother of Constantine adored crucified Christ, but antiquity saith not, that she adored the nails that fixed him to the Crosse, because they were but creatures.

d 1.156 Ambrosius, who lived, Anno 370. condemneth Images. 1. Be∣cause they change the images of the dead, in the glory of God, who worshippeth images: 2. The living serve the dead. 3. They take from

stocks and stones what they are, and give to them, what they are not. 4. e 1.157 Idols are unclean. 5. It is undecent f 1.158, to worship what men maketh with their hands. 6. Because g 1.159 images are but shadows.

h 1.160 Augustine condemneth Images. 1. Because they infect the vveak mindes of rude people, to worship them. 2. They have eyes and see not. 3. The creatures are images of God, not stocks. 4. Idols i 1.161 are huskes and empty. 5. These k 1.162 who brought in Images, tooke a∣way the feare of God, and increased error. 6. Martyrs l 1.163 are not gods. 7. Confounded m 1.164 be they who worship stones, our living stone Christ is in heaven.

8. a 1.165 Though worshippers of Images say, they worship God in Images, yet they worship devills; for good men, as Paul and Barnabas, Angels, and Cornelius forbade men to worship them. 9. It is a shame to adore a beast endowed with sense and life, farre more to adore a dumbe and livelesse creature, August, ps. 113. b 1.166 Chrysostome is against Images. 1. Because the Law of God forbiddeth them. 2. c 1.167 God must be honou∣red, as he willeth himselfe. 3. It is d 1.168 a depressing of soules to wor∣ship Images. e 1.169 It commeth from Satan to take Gods glory from him, f 1.170 it is mockerie that man should be the creator of God, the Creator of all things.

g 1.171 Cyrillus Alexandrin. who lived An. 415. saith, We neither be∣leeve the martyrs to be gods, nor doe we adore them.

h 1.172 Damascen a superstitious man much for Images acknowledg∣eth two things. 1. That Images are but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 unwritten traditions. 2. He ackowledgeth that the brazen Serpent, the Cheru∣bims were made for signification, not for imitation or adoration.

(i)Gregorius Magnus, though he be alledged by Papists for ado∣ration of Images. Yet in his Epistle to Serenus Bishop of Massilia, An. 600. he forbiddeth the adoration of Images, and alloweth onely the Historicall use of them, as is observed by k 1.173 Fran. White, l 1.174 by Hospinian and m 1.175 Catol. testum veritatis, and n 1.176 this man being the first who brought Images into the Church hath this Ca∣veat, atque indica (saith he to Sirenus) quod non tibi, ipsa visio historiae quae, pictura teste, pandebatur, displicueri••: sed illa adoratio quae pictu∣ris

fuerit in competenter exhibita, & si quis imagines facere voluerit, minimè prohibe, adorare vero imagines omnibus modis divita, sed hoc solicitè admoneas, ut ex visione rei gestae, ardorem conjunctionis per∣cipiant, & in adoratione solius Trinitatis prosternantur. It is cleare that this man teacheth an adoration of Images, though he make them onely bookes to the rude. This same o 1.177 Gregorius will have the signe of the crosse adored, because when the Devill came to a Iew sleeping in the night in the Temple of an Idoll, the Iew being afraid, signed himselfe with the Crosse, and the Divell fled; but when doth Iewes come in any Christian Churches, or Idoll-Tem∣ples, who abhorre the name of Christ, and so hate both the Crosse and Christ, and what can be proved from a fact of Sathan?

In the eighth age, p 1.178 Beda Imaginum cultus & adoratio, the worshipping and adoring of Images is unlawfull. 1. Because they have no office in the doctrine of the Gospell. 2. q 1.179 We are for∣bidden to adore, salute, or worship them. 3. The (d) r 1.180 Church is not taught to seeke the Lord by Images, but by faith and good workes. 4. The s 1.181 Apostolique Church did not worship God in Images. 5. Images t 1.182 want, documento antiquitatis, antiquity, example, and the Scripture. 6. We w 1.183 frustrate God of worship due to him. 7. Peter u 1.184 Paul, Angels forbad to worship them, but God only.

We forbid the Church (saith the civill Law) to be obscured with Images. Have the Image of God, (saith x 1.185 Ephrem) in thy heart, non colorum varietate in ligno, not in Images and colours. Who can make (saith y 1.186 Damascen) a representation of the invisible God. z 1.187 Gretserus saith, the Iewes would not admit of Ensignes and Trophies of the Romans for fear Images should be hidden under them. So said Jo∣sephus a 1.188 before him. Their own men say with us, b 1.189 Hulcot who lived an. 1346. saith Latreia, divine worship belongeth to God onely, the Image is not God, neither the Crosse; (saith Ioan. Pic. Mirandula, Concl. 3.) nor the Image of Christ is to be adored (adoratione Latreia eo modo quo ponit Thomas) with divine worship, the guise of Thomas Aquinas c 1.190 Peresius Ajala a Popish Bishop, for adoration of Ima∣ges, saith he, there is neither Scripture, nor Church tradition, nor con∣sent of Fathers, nor good reason to make it good. For saith d 1.191 Gabriel

Biel, The image either considered in it self as it is mettall or stone, or as it is a holy signe, is a sensible Creature, to which Latreia, Divine ho∣nour should not be given: and the Romish c 1.192 Decrees saith, We commend you that you forbid images of Saints to be Worshipped: The d 1.193 Doway Doctors say, Idols have eyes and cannot see, &c. Now if they have Images of God and Christ which can see, and hear, and speak, we exceedingly desire to know: e 1.194 Alexander Allensis, f 1.195 Durandus say, That images in themselves, and properly, are not to be Worshipped.

g 1.196 Geo: Cassander wisheth, That they had continued (in majo∣rum suorum sententia) in the minde of their forefathers, and that the Superstition of people in, Worshipping images had been suppressed. The Councell convened by h 1.197 Constantius Capronimus condem∣neth Worshipping of Images, or placing them in Churches. 1. Be∣cause it is forbidden in the second Commandment. 2. The Picturing of Christ is a dividing of the two Natures. 3. It is against the An∣cients, Epiphanius, Nazianzen, Chrysostome, Athanasius, Amphy∣locius, Theodorus, Eusebius Pamphili. The Councell of Nice is builded upon lies. Adrian Bishiop of Rome, writeth to the Coun∣cell of Nice, That the Emperour Constantine being a Leaper, and labouring to cure his Leprosie by shedding of innocent Babes blood; Peter and Paul appeared to him by night, in a Vision, and bade him go to be Baptized by Sylvester, and that he, to be cured by Sylvesters Baptizing, builded a Temple with the Images of Peter and Paul. This is as true as the Image of Christ spake to Tho: Aqui∣nas at Naples, Bene Scripsistti de me, Thoma, Why is not all Evan∣gell that Aquinas hath written then? For their own Platina a 1.198 saith, The story of Constantines Leprosie is a fable; and Socrates saith, That Constantine was sick when he was 65. years, and he ma∣keth no mention of his leprosie; so b 1.199 Hospinianus saith, and our own c 1.200 Simson saith, That Sylvester and Marcus his successor were both dead before Constantine was Baptized: d 1.201 Genebradus a Papist saith,

down right, that the Councell of Frankford condemned the second Nicene Councell; But e 1.202 Bellarmine, f 1.203 Suarez, g 1.204 Sanderus' h 1.205 Alanus, deny that the Doctrine of the second Nicene Councell for Adoring images, is Condemned by the Councell of Frankford; they say it is onely expounded, and that the right way of Adoring images is made manifest: Yea, saith i 1.206 Nauclerus, k 1.207 Sabellicus, and l 1.208 Blandus: The Councell of Frankford reserveth due honour to images, and saith nothing against the Councell of Nice. But this is to de∣ny daylight at Noon-day: For m 1.209 Annonius is most clear in it, and n 1.210 Abbot Vspergens. o 1.211 the Book of Charles the Great saith the same. The Synod of Frankford was convened An. 794. of pur∣pose to condemne the second Synod of Nice, called the seventh pretended and false Synod: p 1.212 Aventinus saith expresly, Scita Grecorum (in Synodo Nicena decreta) de imaginibus adorandis in concili•• francofurtensi rescissa & abolita sunt: and a 1.213 Vspergensis saith, in this Synod it was decreed, Ʋt septima & universalis Sy∣nodus, nec septima nec aliquid diceretur, quasi supervacua ab omni∣bus abdica tu est; and the same saith b 1.214 Eginradus, c 1.215 Geo•• Cassander: But the very Arguments in the Nicene Councell are set down, and dissolved in the Frankford Councell, as our own Master d 1.216 Simson observeth: As the Nicene Councell reasoneth from the Cherubims, and the brazen Serpent. Frankfoord Answer∣eth, These were made at Gods Commandment, images not so. 2. Yea, say they, and with them e 1.217 Lorinus, The Cherubims and brazen Serpent were not made to be Worshipped; see these and many other Arguments, set down and Answered by the Councell of Frankfoord: As also saith f 1.218 the Learned Author of Catol. Test. Verit. The Arguments used by this Councell, proveth that no Adoration is due to Images, as may be hence collected: As also out of the book of g 1.219 Charles against the dreames of Tarasius, whose entry to the Priesthood was unlawfull, and was a grosse Idolater, and against the Idolater Pope Adrian; Because 1. There is no holinesse in ima∣ges, either as they are figures or colours, or as they are Consecrated.

2. Because to Adore is to glorifie, h 1.220 but only God is to be glorified. 3. God Commandedus not to love images, but men, and sent his son in the flesh for men, and not for images; and if i 1.221 they be not to be believed on, neither are they to be Adored. 4. It cannot be proved that the honour of the image, is the honour of the Samplar: Christ said not, What ye do to images, ye do to me, nor he that receiveth ima∣ges, receiveth me. This Argument proveth, that Veneration is not due to the Images, as to books of the Trinity; because that the Venera∣tion of the Image, is an honouring of God, there must be an union betwixt the Images and God or Christ, betwixt the Tree and Christ. 1. There is no union lawfull, that can be a Warrant of honouring any thing; but an union Warranted of God, betwixt Crossing in the Air, and Dedication to Christs Service, betwixt Sur∣plice and Pastorall Sanctity; There is no union, nor is there a per∣sonall union betwixt Christ and the Image: Nor 2. an union of parts, as betwixt the shoulders and the head. Nor 3. is there a Di∣vine relative union, as betwixt the mean or the end, the Servant or the Lord: for as a 1.222 John White saith well; and b 1.223 the Scrip∣ture proveth, all union betwixt God and the meanes of Worship, which are to be reverenced as meanes of Worship in relation to God, is by divine institution; now certainly if by divine ordina∣tion there had been an union betwixt the Image and God, then had it been lawfull to lay the Image in the heart, to say: How love I thy Image? (the painted pictures and wooden portracts of Christ, the wood of the Crosse are my delight) (I hope in the wood) (I have taken images for my heritage, they are sweeter to me, nor the honey or the honey combe) (hovv pleasant are the wooden feet of these dead and senslesse Ambassadors of Christ, who bring to my soul news of God, or of my Redeemer Iesus.)

c 1.224 Ambrose, d 1.225 Gregorius, e 1.226 Augustine f 1.227 Chrysostom saith, The honour of the servant redoundeth to the Master, when he is a servant by appointment of the Master, and he that heareth faith∣full Pastors, heareth Christ who sent them: And a 1.228 Athanasius, and b 1.229 Basill, to prove the honouring and adoring of Christ, the substantiall Image of God, to be the honouring of God the Father, say; The hearing of the Image, or of the servant of the King, is the hearing of the King. But the Image is formally made an Image of God, and the saints by mens imagination▪ not by Gods word or his

ordination: Their own c 1.230 Peresius saith, If the imagination were carried upon the image or samplar with one motion, yet it cannot be concluded, that the same is to be done in Adoration: And d 1.231 we are not to worship God by our fantasies, saith Augustine, nor by our e 1.232 carnall thoughts. Suarez, Bellarmine, Vasquez, Gretserus, buildeth all their Adoration of images, upon the saying of Aristotle; De memor & remiscen, cap. 2.

Hence the f 1.233 Fathers of Trent, g 1.234 dreaming Damascene, h 1.235 doting Nicephorus; if we believe i 1.236 Suarez, make this a prin∣ciple of their Bible of Idoll worship; That God and the Image are one, but we see not how they be one, nor can we say that God is present in the Image as in a place: for if he be present in the Image, In loco ut sic, as in such a place, then he is there as in a consecrated place, and by promise, and so they must give us the word of God, for Gods presence in Images; but if God be present in Images, as In loco simpliciter, non ut in loco ut sic: As he is in all places, then is he not present in images, as in images, but as in all creatures, and then let us say Amen, to k 1.237 Vasquez, who saith, all things which have a being, A Mouse and Frog are to be adored, as having resem∣blance with God the first being: And he saith, this is the opinion of a 1.238 Cajetanus, and citeth b 1.239 Leontius the dreamer, who was at the Councell of Nice the seventh false Synod; who saith, all Creatures visible and invisible are to be adored. And the Popes Professor c 1.240 Joannes de Lugo proveth by four great reasons, that all crea∣tures should be adored.

1. Because all creatures are the effects, and as it were the hand writing of God.

2. Because we use to kisse and adore materiall places, and the stone, or field where an Angel, or Saint hath been, for the touching and pro∣pinquity of the place and that holy thing, but Gods omnipresence san∣ctifieth all creatures. Be doing then, Masters, kisse, and adore the sanctified Devil and Hell fire, but take heed you scald not your lips.

3. We kisse and worship a gift of a Prince, but all creatures, even the most abject and contemptible, are the gifts of God the Creator.

4. Man in a speciall manner is the living image of God. But true it

is, God is to be praised for all his creatures; but externall Adora∣tion before them, and laying a part of Gods glory upon them, for that is forbidden by your own, for d 1.241 Leo the first saith the con∣trary, and e 1.242 Salmeron saith; The body of f 1.243 Moses was hidden of old for fear of Idolatry, and the use of Images and pictures were by God forbidden to the Iews in the second command, saith [f] A∣lexander Alens. g 1.244 Albertus, h 1.245 Bonaventura, i 1.246 Martinus de Ajala, k 1.247 Abulensis, who I am sure have with them in this, Albertus and Bonaventura, that the Images of God, because (say they) he is an invisible Spirit, are forbidden by the Law of nature.

But I return to the Synod of Franckeford: 5. l 1.248 Because ima∣ges are void of senses and reason. 6. It cannot be proved by the example of the Apostles, m 1.249 Ergo, (say I) Images are neither to be tea∣ching books, nor adored creatures: 7. The ancient Fathers n 1.250 were ignorant of this worship. 8▪ Only the rich a 1.251 who are able to sustain Images, should be saved, and not the poor. 9. There b 1.252 is no profit, but great vanity in adoring Images.

To the Arguments from miracles it is answered, c 1.253 that these miracles are lying signes: for, Ea miracula, nulla Evangelii lectio tradit. 2. They deny that all things are to be adored, in the which, or by the which d 1.254 God wrought miracles. Gregorius Nyssenus bowed his knee to the Image of Abraham: What then? the Coun∣cell saith, these books of Nyssenus are perished.

The fable of Agbarus, to whom the Image of Christs face painted in a cloath was sent, was not in the world till the year of God, 700. It is a counterfeit work ascribed to Athanasius, in stile and phrase of writing not like to him, where it is said, that it was the image of Christ crucified by the Iews in Berythus a Town in Syria, out of whose side flowed blood and water, which being mixed with water, could cure all diseases; e 1.255 so Symson.

The Testimony f 1.256 of the Councell of Eliberia is clear, that images should not be in Churches g 1.257 Canus, h 1.258 Surjus and your own men say, this Councell condemneth images. For 370. years

there were no Images in Churches; in this age Martyrs were ad∣mired, and the Grecians first, especially Gregorius Nyssenus the brother of Basilus had Images in Churches; i 1.259 Sozomen saith, Chri∣stians took into Churches pieces of Christs image, broken by Iu∣lian the Apostat, in the first age, when Religion was born down and holy Pastors killed.

Gregorius Magnus first defended that images should be in Chur∣ches. Its like the Apostate Iulian would hate any thing, bearing the name of Christ most falsly, yea, and Antiquity beareth contra∣dictions most aparent touching images.

But b 1.260 Nicephorus saith, the creatures of God are the Lawfull Images of God. But it is more then evident, by what I have said, that ancient Papists and Synods used images to be memorials of God, and not to be adored.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Concil. triden. Sess. 25. Statuimus imagines in templis ha∣bendas & retinendas ijs{que}debitum honorem & vencratio∣nem imperti∣endam; non quod creda∣tur esse ali∣qua in his di vinitas, vel virtus prop∣ter quam sint colendae: sed quoniam honos qui iis exhibetur, refectur ad Prototypa, quae illa re∣praesentant, ut per ima∣gines quas osculamur, et coram qui bus caput a∣perimus & procumbi∣mus, Chri∣stum adorc∣mus & san∣ctos, quorum illasimilitu∣dinem ge∣runt.
• * 1.2

  Papists did of old adore before, or at the pre∣sence of the Image as a memora∣tive signe, and yet were Ido∣laters.
• * 1.3

  Two sort of signes.
• b 1.4

  Vasquez tom. 1. in 3. art. 3. dis. 108. cap. 8. In imagine praeter ipsius prototypi excellentiam non potest esse aliqua virtus, cui cultus debeatur∣est enim in imagine solum irrationale & inanimatum excellenciae & sanctitatis exemplar, cui ho∣mo nequit digne sese submittere Adoratione.
• c 1.5

  7. Syno∣dus, Quo scilicet per banc imagi∣num picta∣rum inspe∣ctionem, om∣nes qui con∣templantur, ad prototy∣porum me∣moriam & desiderium veniant, il∣lisque Ado∣rationem honorariam exhibeant, non secun∣dum fidem nostram, ve∣ram latrei∣am.
• d 1.6

  Arno∣bius lib. 6. Gentes A∣dorabans statuas, non quod as, aurum, argentum & similes statuarum materi•• dij sint, sed quod corum, quae alias invisibiles sunt, praesentia per simulachra exhibeatur.
• e 1.7

  Lactantius, de institut. ad Constantium. lib. 2. cap. 2. Non ipsa (inquiunt Gentes) simulachra tim••nus, sed ea ad quo∣rum imaginem facta, & quorum nominibus consecrata sunt. Resp. Lactantius nempe ••deo t••me∣tis quod cos in caelis esse Arbitramini, cur igitur o••ul••s in caelum non tollitis? Cur ad parictes lig••a & lapides potius, quam e•• spectatis, ubi eos esse creditis.
• f 1.8

  Act, 17. 29.
• g 1.9

  Deut. 4. 15. Isa. 40. 18. & 46. 6, 7, 8, 9.
• h 1.10

  Conci∣lium Ni∣cen. 2. Qu••d si in recordatio∣nem atquc memoriam, ita quod sa∣lutari quâ∣dam affecti∣one in ipsa prototypa fe∣rebantur (Catholici) salutaverint & honorifi∣cè A••ora∣verint imag∣gines, non tamen ob id ill is latrei∣am exhibue∣ra••t, aut Divinam Venerationem adscripserunt, absit haec calumnia.
• i 1.11

  Concilium S••••••nense Cap. 14. Definit imagines debere adorari non quia in illis aliquid numinis creditur inesse, sed ob recordationem exemplaris.
• k 1.12

  Concilium Mogunt. Cap. 41. Pastores nostri populum accurate moncant imagnes non ad id proponi, ut adoremus aut colamus cas, sed ut quod adorare & col••re aut qua∣rum rerum utiliter,—meminisse debemus, per imagines recordemur.
• l 1.13

  Concil. Mogunt. ib. Sect. 2. Co∣di••••m oculis perlustrans, cum ad ve∣nerabile & tremendum nomen, Iesu devenerit, caput aperit, inclinatur, & suspi∣rans in cae∣lum oculos attolit, & ob id omni reprehensio∣ne & Ido∣latriae su∣spicione ca∣ret; siqui∣dem non li∣teras qu•• vili atramento pinguntur, honorat, sed cogitatione & veneratione mentis suae ad eum honorandum & venerandum rapitur, cujus memoriam hae literae ei suggerunt.
• m 1.14

  Alphons. de Castro heraes. 1. denique adoratio ipsa, et si coram cruce fi••, meus tamen nostra ad id solum refertur quod crux ipsa repr••sentat.
• n 1.15

  Thom. Waldens▪ de sacram. tom. 3. cap. 156. nu. 6.
• o 1.16

  Grego. lib. 7. Epist. ad Secund. q. 53.
• p 1.17

  Adrianus, de imaginibus, cap. 12.
• q 1.18

  Concilium Romanum sub Stephano 3. Et nos quidem non quasi ante Divinitatem, ante illam (imaginem aut elementa sacramentalia) prosternimur, sed illam adoramus, quem per imaginem natum, passum, aut in throno seden••em recordamur.
• r 1.19

  Suarez; Tom 3. in 1. disp. 54. Sect. 4.
• s 1.20

  Henri∣quez sum. Theolog. Moral. lib. 8. cap. 32. Male qui∣dam negant praedican▪ dum populo, quod image Christi si•• adoranda. Latreia.
• t 1.21

  Cabrera, in 3. pag. Thom. q. 25. Art. 3. disp. 3.
• w 1.22

  Azo∣rius instit. Moral. to. 1. l. 9. c. 60.
• x 1.23

  Arch∣angel. Ru∣beo in 3. sent. d. 9.
• y 1.24

  Jacob de Graphijs, Decisio. aur. p. i. l. 2. cap. 2. num. 15. Vnam∣quanque imaginem, eodem cultu, quo illum cujus est image, vere∣reremur.
• a 1.25

  Raphael de la Torres, sum. Theolog. de relig. to. 1. in 22. q. 84. art. 2. disp. 5. q. 94. dub. 5. Respondetur modus iste dicendi (per accidens adorantur) ••ic debet intelligi, idest per aliud, vel (quod idem est) ratione alterius; hoc autem non arguit improprietatem adorationis, sed nega•• adorationem excellentiae proprie & residentis in re adorata; sic adoratur humanitas Christi. See also Bellarm. de imag c. 21. c. 25. Neque dicendum eas impropre venerandas esse, quia quod non dicitur nisi improprie, simpliciter negari potest.
• * 1.26

  Diverseva∣sions of Papists touching the wor∣shipping of images.
• b 1.27

  Gabriel Bi••l in can▪ missae. lect. 49. fol. 92.
• c 1.28

  Duran. lib. 3. dist. 9. q. 2. ••. 10. Sed quia lo∣qendum est ut plures, i∣deo commune dictum sic exponendum est, quod pro∣tanto dicitur imago sub ratione ima∣ginis adora∣ri eadem a∣doratione cum re, cujus est imago, quia ad prae∣sentiā imagi¦nis seu signi¦fit rem••mo∣ratio rei, quam reme∣moratam a∣doramus, eadem ado∣ratione ac si presens esset in se▪ ••t ideo concedi potest quod signa et imagines a∣dorantur.
• d 1.29

  Greg. ••9. de Val••••. to. 3. dis. 6. q. 11. de idol pun. 6.
• e 1.30

  Sept. Syn. ar. 14.
• f 1.31

  L••••n. lib. 5. Apol. Syn. 7. ar. 14.
• g 1.32

  Vasq. in 3. q. 25. ar. 3. dis. 106. c. 1.
• h 1.33

  G. Bi•••• in can. mis. lect. 49. fol. 94.
• i 1.34

  Suarez tom. 1. in 3. quest. 25 art. 3. disp. 53. Sect. 3. Qui visa pulchrae cre∣aturae specie animo in∣surgit ad considerati∣onem creato∣ris, & illum laudat ac∣diligit, non potest vere dic•• landere ac diligore creaturam, etiam si pre∣sentia crea∣turae exci∣taverit a••••-rem creato∣ris; ideoque tantum (••ic) propter me∣moriam re∣tinendae imagines.
• * 1.35

  Suarez is not con∣tent at the hungry and unproper expressione of Duran∣dus, Mir••n∣dula, H••l∣cot.
• k 1.36

  Gregor. de Valent. to. 3. disp. 6. q. 11. de idolat. punct. 6. Cum autem per idem officium & motum animi veré etiam dicimus honorem exhiberi imagini, ver∣bo, illi exhiberi, hoc sub est, nos Prototypon ex imagine cogitantes, coram ipsâ actionem honorifi∣cam proinde ac si prototypon similiter esset praesens, exercentes, velle prototypi excellentia protestari, adcoque de ipso excitare opinionem excellentem, ut est quodammodo, nimirum relative in imagine suâ.
• * 1.37

  What need we dispute? to give that externall knee-wor∣ship to bread, which we would give to Christ substantially and personally present, is to adore bread.
• l 1.38

  Bernar. Puiol. de ador. disp. 3. Sect. 7. Quarto col∣ligitur con∣tra Duran∣dum ipsas imagines proprie ado∣rari.
• m 1.39

  Azor. instit. mo∣ral. tom. 1. lib. 9. c. 6. 4. Distin.
• n 1.40

  Vasquez ut supr. dis. 108. Per totum.
• o 1.41

  Joannes de Lugo, de myst. incar. disp. 34. Sect. 2. n. 29.
• p 1.42

  Ibid. disp. 35. Sect. 1. n. 6.
• * 1.43

  Joannes de Lugo, ibid.
• q 1.44

  Suarez, part. 3. to. 1. disp. 54. Sect. 3. Actus [A∣dorandi] respectu prototypi est proprie La∣treia &c. Respectu vero imagi∣nis est infe∣rior Venera∣tio.
• * 1.45

  5. Distin.
• r 1.46

  Burges, Lawfulnes of kneeling cap. 8. p. 14, 15.
• s 1.47

  p. 34, 35.
• t 1.48

  p. 84, 85.
• w 1.49

  Ed∣ward, 6. book of Engl. serv. rubr. 5.
• x 1.50

  Joan. Giseniue in ••uo Patis∣i••o, disp. 25, n. 40.
• y 1.51

  Didocl. in Altari damasc. Hospinianus de originc festorum Christian. contra. Gretser. Profeste corporis Christi, fol: 94. 7. Arca non est bab••••a pro d•••• vivente,—nec propterea adorata. So answereth Molinaus in his buckler of faith of Images, Sect. 118. and Fran. Whites way to the Church, Cap. 9. pag. 3.
• z 1.52

  Weames 3. Volumn of the Ceremon. Law, Cap. 3. pag. 12.
• * 1.53

  The place (worship at his foot∣stool) dis∣cussed.
• a 1.54

  Arias Montanus. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• b 1.55

  Mus∣culus.
• c 1.56

  Calvine comment. in Psal. 99. 5.
• d 1.57

  Junius, Annotation ibid. Lyranus a dorandam Deum aute arcam, non ipsam arcam. Tylenus in syntag nat. de preca. disp. 49. th. 2. nu. 29. particula. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Notat idem quod versus. Vatablus a∣dorate ad scabellum, i. e. in tem¦plo ante arcam.
• e 1.58

  Gratian de conser. dist. 1. cap. 68. Prayer may as lawfully be given to the Crea∣ture as A∣doration. There is a Prayer made to the image of the face of Jesus writ∣ten in linnen, Salve Sancta facies nostri redemptoris salve vultus domini imago beata,—nos de∣duc ad propria •• felix figura, ad videndum faciem qua est Christi pura.
• f 1.59

  Conci∣lium Tri∣dentinum Sessione, 25.
• g 1.60

  Raphael de la Torres in 22. q. 95 art 2. disp. 6. dub. 5. Eusebius, lib. 3. De praeparat. Evang. teacheth us, that Rudio∣res tantum ad ligna & lapides re∣spiciunt, sa∣pientes au∣tem (Genti∣les) volue∣runt Deum & dci vir∣tutes sensi∣bus nostris per imagines nobis fami∣liariter de∣ferri. They made Images books of God. Athanasius in orat. contr. idolat. Dieunt Philosophi statuas quidem non essedcos, sed simu∣lacbra deorum, ideo baberi ut dys sub istis imaginibus respondeant.
• h 1.61

  Suarez, in 3. Tho. q. 25. art. 3. disp. 54. Sect. 4.
• * 1.62

  O crux ave.
• * 1.63

  We may pray to I∣mages and the ele∣ments in the Supper, as well as we may kneel to them.
• i 1.64

  Suarez de tripli. virt. & supr. dis▪ 51. Sect. 1. pag. 757.
• k 1.65

  Antoni∣us Capellus, adversuspri∣matum Re∣gis, Angliae contrav. 2. Cap. 30.
• l 1.66

  Vasquez to. 1 part. 3. q 25. art. 23. disp. 109. cap. 4.
• m 1.67

  Suarez tom. 1. in 3. q. 25. art. 3. disp. 54. Sect. 5. Si tantum coram ima∣ginibus A∣doratur de∣us, hoc mul∣tum derogat imaginum venerationi, nam ••x eo non tantum sequitur imagines [clementa Sacramentalia] minus coli, quam exemplaria, sed etiam sequitur illas non coli omnius,—sed exemplaria tantum.
• n 1.68

  Vasquez, tom. 1. part. 3. q. 25. disp. 108. cap. 14. Nam iconomachi qui ad solam recordationem imaginibus utuntur, ante illas genu•• a non flectunt nec se prostemunt; sic enim ipsas not•• exteriore adorarent, sed erecti absque ullo corporis gestu, qui reverentiam indicet, ••oram imagine exemplaris recordantur, & ipsum spiritu solum adorant.
• o 1.69

  Gregorius Mag. l. 7. Epist. 53. if these be his Epistles.
• p 1.70

  Vasquez ibid. Hee who ado∣reth a saint (saith Ioan. d•• lugo de myster. in∣incarnat disp. 36. sect. 3. n. 29.) for friendship and grace which hee hath argui∣tivè, by conse∣quence hee worshipeth God of whom the man hath grace, yet it is not needfull that he for∣mally a∣dore God, and in recto in so doing for he may honour the saint and not for∣mally ho∣nour God, for the saint and God are two divers objects. Answ. This proveth our point, that when I adore an I∣mage, intending to adore God, some ••oule-adoration adhereth to the Image, and that is a taste of Gods proper glory given to a stocke, or a stone.
• q 1.71

  Ioan. de lugo. de myst. incar. disp. 36. sect. 3. n. 25, 26, 27. & seq. Respectus imaginis est quasi materialis & inanimatus, quia sic ap••rimus caput imagini, ut per illam actionem nihil velimus imagini dicere aut significare, sed soli exemplari, ad quod dirigitur ille actus pro ut significativus & prout civilis communicatio; & ideo respectu illius solum videtur esse actio animata. De Lugo ibid. Hoc enim esset stultum men∣dacium, quia absoluté loquend•• meliores sumus nos quam Imago sancti Petri. And conforme to this the seventh pretended and bastard Councell calleth them halfe holy, and halfe true, halfe false worshipers of God, Antonius Capellus citeth it, Advers. prim. regis Anglia, c. 30. Who will have Images to stand onely for memorialls, but not to be worshipped.
• * 1.72

  Concil. se∣venth art. 1. p. 458. Qui vero dicunt su••∣••icere usum imaginum ad memori∣am solum, non vero ad salutationem ••as habentes illud qui∣dem recipi∣entes, hoc ve∣ro re••icien∣••es, s••mipro∣bi quadante∣nus, & falso v••ti [ut ita dicam] de∣prehendun∣tur.
• * 1.73

  Answ.
• r 1.74

  De Lugo ibid. 39. imagi••s ve∣re cedo exte∣rius, daudo illi meliorē & superio∣rem lo••um honorifice eam tracta••∣do.
• s 1.75

  Orat. 5. d•• imagin.
• t 1.76

  7. Synod act. 4.
• x 1.77

  Iuo 4. part. sui de∣cret. c. 38.
• y 1.78

  Nice∣phorus hist. lib. 2. c. 17.
• z 1.79

  Nice∣phorus hist. li. 2. c. 43. lib. 6. c. ••6.
• a 1.80

  Lib. 7. c. 33.
• b 1.81

  Canisius lib. 5. De Beata vir∣gine, c. 22. Divers Fa∣bles touch∣ing Ima∣ges.
• c 1.82

  S••p. 14.
• d 1.83

  De idolo vanit.
• e 1.84

  Euseb. lib. 7. c. 8.
• f 1.85

  August. contra Ada∣mant c. 13.
• g 1.86

  Gregor. mag. Epist, ad Serenum Massilien sem lib. 7. Ep. 109.
• h 1.87

  Voetius in desper. caus. papat. lib. 3. c. 6. sect. 2.
• i 1.88

  Sympson 6. Century of the wor¦shipping of Images, p. 38.
• k 1.89

  Pet. Molin••us Buckler of Faith of Images, Sect. 118. pag. 308.
• l 1.90

  Bellarm de scrip. in Chron.
• m 1.91

  Gene∣brard ••hron. an. 794. p. 308.
• n 1.92

  Barro∣nius An. 726. Observe that Aene∣as Sylvius epist. 301. saith, ante▪ Nicenam Synodum unusquis{que} sibi vivebat, quemadmodum sibi visum est, & paro••s respectus ad Romanam ecclesiam ••abe••atur, a Metropolitan Bishop, a step to the Popedome, was first created here in Romes Car••bage, Constantin••ple, Antiochia.
• o 1.93

  Pontific.
• p 1.94

  Paulus diaconus lib. 13.
• q 1.95

  Bergo∣mensis lib. 10.
• r 1.96

  Synod Franckford.
• s 1.97

  Aventinus lib. 4.
• t 1.98

  Hincmarus cap. 20. con∣tra Iandu••••ns••m.
• w 1.99

  Vrspergens. in Histor.
• x 1.100

  Hinc∣marin. Archiepis∣copus Remo∣rum c. 10. cont. Hinc∣marin. ••andunen∣sem Episcop.
• y 1.101

  Eccius in E••chirid.
• z 1.102

  Hospin. d•• orig. i∣mag. p 197.
• a 1.103

  Calvin. justit. lib. 1. cap. 11. Sect. 13.
• b 1.104

  Iosephus antiq lib. 18. cap. 11.
• c 1.105

  Euse••. bistor. lib. 2. cap. 6.
• d 1.106

  Epist. Plinii. 2 ad Imporat Trajan.
• e 1.107

  Euseb. Histor. lib. 3. cap. 33.
• f 1.108

  Bucol••. in Alexand. severo.
• g 1.109

  Symson 1. Century cap. 1.
• h 1.110

  Justin. Martyr. in Dialog. cum. Trypho. & apolog. 2.
• i 1.111

  Tertullian. apo. cap. 30.
• k 1.112

  Magdeburgens. cent. 3. cap. 10.
• l 1.113

  Apol. 1. 9. 11.
• m 1.114

  Clemens Alexand. in Paraenetico.
• n 1.115

  in s. Stromat.
• o 1.116

  Ca∣tolog. testium veritat. lib. 2. pag. 87.
• p 1.117

  Hospinian. d•• origine imag. cap. 10. pag. 155▪
• q 1.118

  Iren••us, l. 1. cap. 24.
• a 1.119

  Cyprian cont. de▪metria∣num. 1.
• b 1.120

  Origen. cont. cel. sum. l. 8.
• c 1.121

  Atha∣nas. advers. gentes.
• d 1.122

  Jewell against Harding 14. art. of adora••. pag. 506, 507.
• e 1.123

  Epipha∣nius lib. 3. cont. Colly∣ridianos.
• * 1.124

  [f] Idem ibid.
• * 1.125

  (g) Lactan∣tius, insti∣tut. l. 2. cap. 2. Etenim hominis i∣mago neces∣saria tum videtur, cum procul abest, super∣vacua futu∣ra cum presto est, dei autem cujus spiritus ac numen ubi∣que diffu∣sum, abesse nunquam potest, semper utique imago supervacua est. The Arguments of the an∣cients against Images.
• h 1.126

  Lactantius lib. 2. cap. 19.
• i 1.127

  Ib. Cur ad parietes & signa, & lapides po∣tissimum quam illo spectatis, ubi cos esse cre∣datis. ib. instit. div. l. 2. c. 1.
• k 1.128

  instit. l. 2. c. 2.
• l 1.129

  Ibid.
• m 1.130

  Instit. l 2. c. 3.
• n 1.131

  Instit. l. 2. c. 4.
• o 1.132

  Instit. l. 2. c. 18.
• p 1.133

  Ibid.
• q 1.134

  Instit. l. 6. c. 11.
• r 1.135

  Ambros. officior l. 2. cap. 21.
• u 1.136

  Chrys. l. 2. epist. 246.
• x 1.137

  Tertul∣lian apol et c••nt. valent.
• y 1.138

  Eusebi∣us hist. ec. l. 9. c 10.
• z 1.139

  Origen cont. cles. l. 9. c. 4.
• a 1.140

  Sozomen l. 1. c. 8.
• b 1.141

  Euseb. in vita constan. l. ••.
• c 1.142

  Joan Armitants in explan••••io can 5. concilii gangren
• d 1.143

  Tertull. lib. de Idol. Plutarch in vitae Numae non dum ingenia Grecorum atque Tuscorum fingendis simulachris urbem inundaverunt, ita Tertullian, Apol. c. 25.
• * 1.144

  (f) Euseb. Hist. eccles. l. 8. c. 1.
• f 1.145

  Nice∣phorus l. 7. c. 2.
• g 1.146

  Euseb. l. 8. c. 2.
• h 1.147

  Sozo∣men tripart. histor. l. 1. c. 9.
• i 1.148

  Otto Phrisingen∣sis l. 4. c. 3.
• k 1.149

  Nice∣phorus l. 8. c. 27.
• l 1.150

  Hospi∣nian d•• O∣rig. Templo cap. 6. pag. 34.
• m 1.151

  Arnob. cont. gent. lib. 2.
• n 1.152

  Ib. lib. 6. & lib. 7.
• a 1.153

  Euseb. Caesariens. Epist. ad Constantiam Augustam.
• b 1.154

  Hycron. cont. Vigi∣lantium, ad Riparum Presbiter.
• c 1.155

  Ruffi∣us hist. eccl. l. 1. c. 8.
• d 1.156

  Ambro. in cap. 1. epist. ad Rom.
• e 1.157

  Ambros. offices l. 1. c. 26.
• f 1.158

  Ibid.
• g 1.159

  Ibid.
• h 1.160

  Aug. Epist. 49.
• i 1.161

  Aug. de doct. Chri∣sti. lib. 3. c. 7
• k 1.162

  De Civit. dei l. 4. c. 9.
• l 1.163

  De civi••. dei lib. 22. c. 10.
• m 1.164

  August. in Ps. 96.
• a 1.165

  August. in Psal. 96.
• b 1.166

  Chrysost. hom. 49. in Math.
• c 1.167

  Idem ho∣mil. 51. in Math.
• d 1.168

  Idem hom. 33. in Mat.
• e 1.169

  Hom. 1. ad pop. an.
• f 1.170

  In 3. c. Is.
• g 1.171

  Damascen de Imagin. orat. 2.
• h 1.172

  Gregor. lin. 9. ep. 9. Perlatum est ad nos, quod inconsider••∣to zelo suc∣census san∣ctorum ma∣gines sub bac, quasi excusatione, ne adorari debuissent, confregeris, & quidem, quia cas adorari, ve∣t••isses omnino laudamus, fregisse vero reprehendimus.
• k 1.173

  Fran. Whites way to the Church, ch. 9, sect. 2. p. 114.
• l 1.174

  Hospinian de Origen Imag. p. 174.
• m 1.175

  Catol. test. veritat l. 6. p. 562.
• n 1.176

  Greg. mag. lib. 9. ep. 9.
• o 1.177

  Greg mag. lib. 3. dialo.
• p 1.178

  Beda l. 2. c. 21. ad peragenda nostrae salu∣tis mysteria nullum pe∣nitus offici∣um habere n••scuntur.
• q 1.179

  Beda l. 1. c. 9. adorare, salutare, co∣lare, inhibe∣mur pene in cunctis scripturae locis.
• r 1.180

  Idem. l. 1. c. 21.
• s 1.181

  Idem l. 1. c. 24. Idem l. 6. c. 21.
• t 1.182

  Ibid.
• w 1.183

  Cod. l. 8. tit. 12. leg. 20. Theodos. Valentinian
• u 1.184

  Lib. 2. cap. 2••.
• x 1.185

  Ephrem. secunde.
• y 1.186

  Damascen de fid. Or∣thod. l. 4. c. 17.
• z 1.187

  Gretser. lib. 1. de ••ru••. c. 44.
• a 1.188

  Ioseph lib. 18. c. 6.
• b 1.189

  Hulcot in lib. sup. lect. 148. Ioan. Pic. Mirandula conclus. 3.
• c 1.190

  Peresius Ajala de trad. pag. 3. De Imagine{que} scripturam ne{que} traditionem, ne{que} communem sensum sanctorum, neque concilium generalis determinationem, ne{que} etiam rationem adducunt.
• d 1.191

  Gabriel Biel in Can. lec. 49.
• c 1.192

  D••cret. 3. dist. 3. c. 27. Grego.
• d 1.193

  Doway men, An∣not. 2 Sam. 5. 8. The blinde and the lame shall not enter in the Temple.
• e 1.194

  Alexand. Alens. 3. p. q. 30. art. ult.
• f 1.195

  Durand. l. 3. dist. 9. q. 2.
• g 1.196

  Cassand. In Consulta∣tione ad fer∣dinandum & maximi∣lianum art. An. 1170.
• h 1.197

  Concil. Constantin••∣polit. An. 755. of 338. Bi∣shops. Yea, this same se∣cond coun∣cel of Nice, and the seventh Epistle to the Synod, condemneth Nestorius of Idolatry, and condemneth the Arians as Idolaters, who Worshipped Christ whom they believed to be a man onely: And Athanasius, contr. Arian. Orati. 1. And Nyssenus in Laud. Bas. And Nazianzen, Orati. 40. say. To Adore a Creature, though in the Name of Christ or God, is Idolatry.
• a 1.198

  Platina in vita Marci. Papae.
• b 1.199

  Hospin. de orig. perogimatio. pag. 381.
• c 1.200

  Symson, Treatise of Images, p. 47.
• d 1.201

  Genebrad. in Chron. l. 2. Anno 1794.
• e 1.202

  Bellarm. de Imag. l. 2 c. 14.
• f 1.203

  Suarez in 3. part. Thom. q. 25. art. 3. dis. 54. Sect. 3.
• g 1.204

  Sanderus l. 2. de I∣mag. c. 5.
• h 1.205

  Alanus Dial 4. c. 18.
• i 1.206

  Naucl••. in Chron. Vol. 2. ge∣ner. 27.
• k 1.207

  Sabellicus l. 8. Enead, ad. 8.
• l 1.208

  Blandus decad. 2. l. 1.
• m 1.209

  Anno∣nius in An∣nalib. Fran∣corum. 794. Anno.
• n 1.210

  Abbot Vspergens. in Chron. Anno 793.
• o 1.211

  Charles the Great of Images.
• p 1.212

  Aventi∣nus, lib. 4. annal.
• a 1.213

  Vspergens. in Chron. Anno 793.
• b 1.214

  Eginradus in vita Caroli Magni.
• c 1.215

  Cassander in Consul. ad ferdinand. & Maxmilian imp.
• d 1.216

  Simson, Treatise of Images, pag. 48.
• e 1.217

  Lorinus in Art. 17. ver. 25. Serpentem. Conflari••jusfit non quod adorari vellet, nam postea con∣fregit.
• f 1.218

  Catol. Test. Verit. lib. 8. pag. 882, 883, 884.
• g 1.219

  Caroli. lib. 1. cap. 2.
• h 1.220

  Carlo. lib. 1. c. 21.
• i 1.221

  Caro. lib. 2. cap. 24. Caro. lib. 3. cap. 16.
• a 1.222

  White against Fi∣sher, p. 224.
• b 1.223

  Matth. 10. 14, 42. 2 Cor. 8. 4. Gal. 4. 14. Act. 10. 34. Ps. 119. 97. 159. 147. 82. 103. 111. 113. 114. 120. 127. 128. 140. 143. 167. 174.
• c 1.224

  Ambros. epist. 26.
• d 1.225

  Gregor. in reg. l. 5. cap. 1.
• e 1.226

  Augustine on these words, he that recei∣veth you receiveth me.
• f 1.227

  Chrysos. on these same words
• a 1.228

  Athanas. cont. Arria. orat. 4.
• b 1.229

  Basilus de spir. sanct. cap. 18.
• c 1.230

  Peresius Aiala in Trad. 3. de imag.
• d 1.231

  August de ••era re∣lig. cap. 55.
• e 1.232

  Idem e∣pist. 85.
• f 1.233

  Conc. Trident. Sess. 25.
• g 1.234

  Damasceu. l. 4. c. 12.
• h 1.235

  Nicephor. in dial. constant. de imaginibus
• i 1.236

  Suarez in 3. part Thom. to. 1. q. 25. art. 3. disp. 54. Sect. 3.
• k 1.237

  Vasquez in 3. part ••om. 1. disp. ••10. cap. 2. God not in the Image as in a place. Vasquez will have all things to be ado∣red. Joan. de Lugo pro∣veth the same by four rea∣sons.
• a 1.238

  Cajetan. 22. q. ••03. art. 3. ad. 4.
• b 1.239

  Leontius in Dialog. 5. cont. Judaeos. Vt r••fertur in 7. Synod. falsa act. 4.
• c 1.240

  Joan. de Lugo de myster. incarnat. disp. 37. Sect. 1. n. 1. 2, 3.
• d 1.241

  Leo. 1. Serm. 7. De nativita ab∣stinendum ab ipsa specic offi••ij.
• e 1.242

  Salmeron in 1 Tim. 2. disp. 8.
• f 1.243

  Alex. al••n. 3. p. q. 30. memb. 3. art. 3. sect. ••.
• g 1.244

  Albertus dist. 9. art. 4.
• h 1.245

  Bonavent. art. 1. q. 2. ad 1. in con∣trarium.
• i 1.246

  Martuinus de ajala tract. de trad. 3. par.
• k 1.247

  Abulens. Deut. 4. q. 4 & 5.
• l 1.248

  Carol. lib. 2. cap. 25.
• m 1.249

  Ibid.
• n 1.250

  Carol. l. 4. cap. 27.
• a 1.251

  Carol. l. 4. cap. 27.
• b 1.252

  Carol. l. 1. cap. 2••.
• c 1.253

  L. 4. c. 10. l. 3. c. 21.
• d 1.254

  L. 3. c. 2••.
• e 1.255

  Symson treats of the worshipping of Images, pag. 50, 51.
• f 1.256

  Concilium Eleherio, cap. 36. Placuit in Ecclesiis picturas, non esse debere, ne quod colitur, aut adoratur, in paric∣tibus pingatur.
• g 1.257

  Ca••us line 5. cap. 4.
• h 1.258

  Surjus 1 Tom. of concell. an in can. 36. cont. Eliber.
• i 1.259

  Sozomen l. 5. c. 20.
• b 1.260

  Nicephor hist. l. 11. cap. 43.