the mind of the Anthropomorphites whereas Aventinus saith expresly they were no other than such as are used and allowed in the Roman Church by which Ysambertus saith there is no more danger of mens being led into a false opinion of God than there is by the expressions of Scripture And upon this ground the danger doth not lye in making any representations of God but in entertaining a false opinion of those representations and the Scripture instead of forbidding men to make any similitude of God should only have forbidden men to entertain any erroneous conceit of any Image of him But if the Church take care to prevent such an opinion as he saith she doth the other Image with three faces and one Head or one body and three Heads might be justified on the same reason that the other is Whereas the Roman Catechism saith that Moses did therefore wisely say that they saw no similitude of God lest they should be led aside by errour and make an Image of the Divinity and give the honour due to God to a Creature From whence it follows that all Images that tend to such an errour are forbidden and all worship given to such Images is Idolatry And it is farther observable that the Image allowed in the Roman Church for God the Father is just such a one as S. Augustin saith it is wickedness for Christians to make for God and to place in a Temple and I would desire of T. G. to tell me what other Image of God the greatest Anthropomorphites would make than that which is most common among them And if there be such danger in mens conceptions of a Deity from any Images of God they give as much occasion for it as ever any people did So much that all men of any ingenuity have cryed shame upon them but to very little purpose Abulensis Durandus and Peresius are cited by Bellarmin himself as condemning any Images of God and which is observable they do not condemn such Images as represent God in himself as T. G. speaks but such as were in use in the Roman Church Durandus saith it is a foolish thing either to make or to worship such Images viz. of the Father Son and Holy Ghost after the former manner and which is yet more he quotes Damascen against this sort of Images saying that it was impiety and madness to make them and so doth Peresius too Thuanus mentions this passage relating to this matter that A. D. 1562. the Queen Mother of France by the advice of two Bishops and these three Divines Butillerius Espencaeus and Picherellus declared that all Images of the Trinity should be taken out of Churches and other places as forbidden by Scripture Councils and Fathers and yet these were such Images which T.G. pleads for but this soon came to nothing as all good purposes of Reformation among them have ever done If it be said as it is by Ysambertus that these are not properly Images of God but of his appearance in a visible form I answer 1. This doth not mend the matter for we are speaking of an Image of the Father as a Person in the Trinity and whatever represents him as such must represent him as he is in himself and not barely in regard of a temporary appearance and as to such an Image of God the Father T. G's distinction will by no means reach 2. It is the common opinion of the Divines in the Roman Church that all the appearances of God in the old Testament were not of God himself but of Angels in his stead And Clichtovaeus gives that as a Reason why all representations of God were unlawful in the old Testament because all appearances were by Angels and those Angels were no more united to the Forms they assumed than a mans body is to his Garments from whence it must follow that all representations of God by such appearances is still unlawful 3. Suppose this be a representation only of some appearance of God and so not of what God is but of what he did I ask then on what account such an effect of divine power is made the object of Divine adoration For we have seen already by the confession of their most eminent Divines that the Images of the Trinity are proposed among them as objects of adoration now say I how comes a meer creature such as that apparition was to become the object of Divine worship Durandus well saw the consequence of this assertion for when he had said that those corporeal Forms which are painted are no representations of the Divine Person which never assumed them but only of those very Forms themselves in which he appeared therefore saith he no more reverence is due to them than is due to the Forms themselves When God appeared in the burning bush that Fire was then an effect of Divine Power and deserved no worship of it self how then can the Image of the burning bush be an object of Divine worship If God did appear to Daniel as the Ancient of dayes it must be either by the impression of such an Idea upon his Imagination or by assuming the Form of an old man but either way this was but a meer Creature and had no such personal Union to the Godhead to deserve adoration how much less then doth the Image of this Appearance deserve it So that I cannot see how upon their own principles they can be excused from Idolatry who give proper Divine worship to such Images as these He commits Idolatry saith Sanders that proposes any Image to be worshipped as the true Image of the Divine Nature if this be Idolatry what is it then to give the highest sort of worship to the meer representation of a Creature for those Images which only set forth such appearances are but the Creatures of Creatures and so still farther off from being the object of adoration So that notwithstanding all T. G's evasions and distinctions we find that as to this matter of the Images of God and the Trinity the Church of Rome is not only gone off from Scripture Reason and Antiquity but from the doctrine and practice of the second Council of Nice too 2. I now come to the additions that have been made to the Council of Nice by the Church of Rome as to the manner of worship given to Images For which I must consider 1. What that worship was which the Council of Nice did give to Images 2. What additions have been made to it since that time 1. What that worship was which the Council of Nice did give to Images which will appear by these two things 1. That it defined true and real worship to be given to Images 2. That it was an inferiour worship and not Latria 1. That it defined true and real worship to be given to Images i. e. that Images were not only to be Signs and helps to memory to call to mind or represent to us
them therefore he saith they deny Christ and joyn with the Gentiles giving the same worship to several Gods I do not think any proposition in Euclid can be made more clear than it is from these expressions of Athanasius that he believed Idolatry to be consistent with the belief and worship of one God The same thing he urges in other places but if this be not proof enough I know not what will be S. Gregory Nazianzen parallels those who worshipped the Son or Holy Ghost supposing them to be creatures with those who worshipped Astaroth or Chemosh or Remphan because they were creatures too For whatever difference of honour or glory there be all creatures are our fellow servants and therefore not to be worshipped by us Might not the Arians have chared Gregory Nazianzen to have imitated Iulian the Apostate upon as good reason as T. G. doth me For however in words they professed to abhor the worship of Ashtoreth or Chemosh or Remphan as much as he did yet he did not regard their professions but thought it reasonable to judge by the nature of their actions And what profaneness would T. G. have accounted this to parallel the worship of the Son and Holy Ghost with that of Chemosh and Ashtoreth Yet we see Gregory doth not forbear making use of the similitude of the worship although there were so great a disparity in the objects Gregory Nyssen saith that the Devil by the means of Arianism brought Idolatry again insensibly into the world perswading men to return to the worship of the creature by his sophistry and that Arius Eunomius Eudoxius and Aetius were his instruments in restoring Idolatry under a pretence of Christianity In another place he hath this considerable passage God commands by the Prophet that we should have no new God nor worship any strange God but that is a new God which was not for ever and that is a strange God which is different from our God Who is our God the true God who is a strange God he that hath a different nature from the true God He that makes the Son a creature makes him of a different nature And they who make him a creature do they worship him or no if not they joyn with the Iews if they do worship him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they commit Idolatry Therefore we must believe him to be the true Son of the true Father that we may worship him and doing so that we be not condemned as worshipping a strange God To the same purpose he argues against Eunomius that it is the property of Idolaters to worship the creature or any new or strange God and that they who divide the Father and the Son must either wholly take away the worship of the Son or they must worship an Idol the very word used by S. Gregory making a creature and not God the object of their worship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 placing the name of Christ upon an Idol that this was the fault of the Heathen Idolaters that they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worship those which were not Gods by nature and therefore could not worship the true God where it is observable that he uses the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both for the worship given to Idols by the Heathens and for that which is proper to God from which it is evident that these Fathers knew of no such distinction of the nature of divine worship as is understood in the Roman Church under the terms of Latria and Dulia for if they had having to deal with subtile adversaries they would not have failed to have explained themselves in the matter which had been absolutely necessary to the force of their own arguments if any such distinction had been known or allowed in the Christian Church Again he saith that he that puts the name of Son to a creature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be reckoned among Idolaters for they saith he called Dagon and Bel and the Dragon God but for all that they did not worship God and therefore he still urgeth against Eunomius that either with the Iews he must deny the worship of Christ or he must joyn with the Gentiles in the worship of the creature S. Basil charges the Arians and Eunomians with bringing in the Polytheism and Idolatry of the Greeks for they who say that the Son of God is a creature and yet worship him as God do worship a creature and not the Creator and so introduce Gentilism again And against Eunomius he urges the same places and reasons which I have already mentioned out of Nyssen viz. that if Christ be not the eternal God he must be a new and strange God and to worship that which by nature is not God is the fault S. Paul charges the Heathen Idolaters with Epiphanius proves that Christs being a creature and having divine worship given him are inconsistent according to the Scriptures and that those who worship a creature fall under S. Pauls reprehension of the Heathen Idolaters who did call the creatures God but true faith teaches us to worship the Creator and not the creature He thinks this Rule sufficient against all the arts and sophistry of men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that no creature ought to be worshipped For saith he upon the same reason we worship one we may worship all together with their creator 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where we see he doth not speak of such worship as doth exclude the Creator but of that which is supposed to be joyned together with his nor of a Soveraign Worship to be given to them but of such as doth suppose the distance between the Creator and his Creatures Upon this principle he saith the Arians made the Son of God like to the Idols of the Heathens for if he be not the true God he is not to be worshipped nay he adds that those who said Christ was to be worshipped although a creature did build up Babylon again and set up the image of Nebuchadnezzar and by their words as by Musical instruments draw men to the worship of an Image rather than of the true God Is it credible saith he that God should make a creature to be worshipped when he hath forbidden men to make any likeness of things in Heaven or Earth and to fall down and worship it when the Apostle makes this the Idolatry of the Heathen that they worshipped the creature as well as the Creator wherein they became Fools for it is a foolish thing to attribute divinity to a creature and to break the first Commandment of the Law Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve Therefore saith he the holy Church of God doth not worship any creature but the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father together with the Holy Ghost To the very same purpose he speaks in his Ancoratus If the Son of God be a creature
believe lies some must be first given up to tell them And if this doughty Historian hath any honour or Conscience left he ought to beg her Majesties pardon for offering such an affront to her But what had Queen Mary deserved at his hands that in his Key to his History he should compare her to the Empress Irene 4. By pretending to Antiquity This might justly be wondred at in so clear evidence to the contrary as I have made to appear in this matter but however among the ignorant and superstitious multitude the very pretending to it goes a great way Thus the Patriarch Germanus boasted of Fathers and Councils for Image-worship to the Emperour Leo but what Fathers or Councils did the aged Patriarch mean why did he not name and produce them to stop the Emperours proceedings against Images Baronius confesseth there were no Councils which had approved the worship of Images by any Canon but because they never condemned it being constantly practised it was sufficient All the mischief is this constant practice is as far from being proved as the definition of Councils If the picture Christ sent to Abgarus King of Edessa or those drawn by S. Luke or the forged Canon of the Council of Antioch or the counterfeit Authority of S. Athanasius about the Image at Berytus if such evidences as these will do the business they have abundance of Autiquity on their side but if we be not satisfied with these they will call us Hereticks or it may be Samaritan Sectaries and that is all we are to expect in this matter 5. The Council of Nice had a trick beyond this viz. burning or suppressing all the Writings that were against them The Popes Deputies in the fifth Action made the motion which was received and consented to by the Council and they made a Canon to that purpose That all Writings against Images should be brought into the Patriarch of Constantinople under pain of Anathema if a Laick or Deposition if in Orders and this without any limitation as to Authors or Time and there to be disposed of among heretical Books So that it is to be wondred so much evidence should yet be left in the Monuments of Antiquity against the worship of Images As to what concerns the matter of Argument for the worship of Images produced in this Age I must leave that to its proper place and proceed to the last Period as to this Controversie which is necessary for discerning the History and the State of it viz. 4. When the Doctrine and Practice of Image-worship was settled upon the principles allowed and defended in the Roman Church Wherein I shall do these 2 things 1. I shall shew what additions have been to this doctrine and practice since the Nicene Council 2. Wherein the present practice of Image-worship in the Roman Church doth consist and upon what principles it is defended 1. For the additions that have been made in this matter since the Nicene Council And those lie especially in two things 1. In making Images of God the Father and the Holy Trinity 2. In the manner of worship given to Images 1. In making Images of God the Father and the Trinity It is easie to observe how much the most earnest pleaders for Images did then abhor the making of any Image of God So Gregory 2. in his Epistle to Leo saith expresly They made no Images of God because it is impossible to paint or describe him but if we had seen or known him as we have done his Son we might have painted and represented him too as well as his Son We make no Image or Likeness of the invisible Deity saith the Patriarch Germanus whom the highest Orders of Angels are not able to comprehend If we cannot paint the Soul saith Damascen how much less can we represent God by an Image who gave that Being to the soul which cannot be painted What Image can be made of him who is invisible incorporeal without quantity magnitude or form We should err indeed saith he if we should make an Image of God who cannot be seen and the same he repeats in other places Who is there in his senses saith Stephanus Junior that would go about to paint the Divine Nature which is immaterial and incomprehensible For if we cannot represent him in our minds how much less can we paint him in colours Now these four Gregory Germanus Damascen and Stephanus were the most renowed Champions for the Defence of Images and did certainly speak the sense of the Church at that time To the same purpose speak Ioh. Thessalonicensis Leontius and others in the Nicene Council The Greek Author of the Book of the use of Images according to the sense of the second Council of Nice published by Morellius and Fronto Ducaeus goes farther for he saith That no Images are to be made of God and if any man go about it he is to suffer death as a Pagan By which it appears that according to the sense of this Council the making any Images of God was looked on as a part of Heathen Idolatry But when a breach is once made the waters do not stop just at the mark which the first makers of the breach designed Other men thought they had as much reason to go a little farther as they had to go thus far Thence by degrees the Images of God the Father and the Holy Trinity came into the Roman Church and the making of these Images defended upon reasons which seemed to them as plausible as those for the Images of Christ upon his appearing in our Nature for so God the Father might be represented not in his nature but as he is said to have appeared in the Scriptures Baronius in his Marginal Notes on the Epistle of Gregory saith Afterwards it came into use to make Images of God the Father and of the Trinity not that they fall under our view but as they appeared in holy Writ for what can be described may be painted to the same purpose he speaks in another place It seems then by the confession of Baronius no Images of God the Father were in use then because they did not think them lawful when they first came into use Christianus Lupus professes that he knows not but he saith there were none such in the Roman Church in the time of Nicolaus 1. But Bellarmin Suarez and others produce an argument for the lawfulness of them from the general practice of their Church which they say would not have suffered such an universal custom if such Images had been unlawful Bernardus Pujol Professour of Divinity in Perpignan saith not only that the Images of the Trinity are universally received among Catholicks but that they are allowed by the Council of Trent and doth suppose the use of them as a thing certain and undoubted and saith that such Images are to be worshipped For saith he as the mind is
this first principle yet they all agreed in this that it was immortal and not only good in it self but the fountain of all good Which surely was no description of an Arch-Devil But what need I farther insist on those Authours of his own Church who have yielded this when there are several who with approbation have undertaken the proof of this in Books written purposely on this subject such as Raim Breganius Mutius Pansa Livius Galantes Paulus Benius Eugubinus but above all Augustinus Steuchus Eugubinus who have made it their business to prove that not only the Being of the Deity but the unity as a first principle the Wisdom Goodness Power and Providence of God were acknowledged not meerly by the Philosophers as Plato and Aristotle and their followers but by the generality of mankind But I am afraid these Books may be as hard for him to find as Trigautius was and it were well if his Principles were as hard to find too if they discover no more learning or judgement than this that the Supreme God of the Heathens was an Arch-Devil But T. G. saith that the Father of Gods and men among the Heathens was according to the Fathers an Arch-Devil Is it not possible for you to entertain wild and absurd opinions your selves but upon all occasions you must lay them at the doors of the Fathers I have heard of a place where the people were hard put to it to provide God-fathers for their Children at last they resolved to choose two men that were to stand as God-fathers for all the Children that were to be born in the Parish just such a use you make of the Fathers they must Christen all your Brats and how foolish soever an opinion be if it comes from you it must presently pass under the name of the Fathers But I shall do my endeavour to break this bad custome of yours and since T. G. thinks me a scarce-revolted Presbyterian I shall make the right Father stand for his own Children And because this is very material toward the true understanding the Nature of Idolatry I shall give a full account of the sense of the Fathers in this point and not as T. G. hath done from one single passage of a learned but by their own Church thought heretical Father viz. Origen presently cry out the Fathers the Fathers Which is like a Country Fellow that came to a Gentleman and told him he had found out a brave Covie of Partridges lying in such a Field the Gentleman was very much pleased with the news and presently asked him how many there were what half a score No. eight No. Six No. Four No. But how many then are there Sir saith the Country Fellow it is a Covie of one I am afraid T. G 's Covie of Fathers will hardly come to one at last Iustin Martyr is the eldest genuine Father extant who undertook to reprove the Gentiles for their Idolatry and to defend the Christian worship In his Paraenesis to the Greeks he takes notice how hardly the wiser Gentiles thought themselves dealt with when all the Poetical Fables about their Gods were objected against them just as some of the Church of Rome do when we tell them of the Legends of their Saints which the more ingenuous confess to be made by men who took a priviledge of feigning and saying any thing as well as the Heathen Poets but they appealed for the principles of their Religion to Plato and Aristotle both whom he confesses to have asserted one Supreme God although they differed in their opinions about the manner of the formation of things by him Afterwards he saith That the first Authour of Polytheism among them viz. Orpheus did plainly assert one Supreme God and the making of all things by him for which he produces many verses of his and to the same purpose an excellent testimony of Sophocles viz. that in truth there is but one God who made Heaven and Earth and Sea and Winds but the folly and madness of mankind brought in the Images of Gods and when they had offered sacrifices and kept solemnities to these they thought themselves Religious He farther shews that Pythagoras delivered to his disciples the unity of God and his being the cause of all things and the fountain of all good that Plato being warned by Socrates his death durst not oppose the Gods commonly worshipped but one may guess by his Writings that his meaning as to the inferiour Deities was that they who would have them might and they who would not might let them alone but that himself had a right opinion concerning the true God That Homer by his golden chain did attribute to the Supreme God a Power over all the rest and that the rest of the Deities were near as far distant from the Supreme as men were and that the Supreme was he whom Homer calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God himself which signifies saith Iustin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the truely existent Deity and that in Achilles his Shield he makes Vulcan represent the Creation of the world From these arguments he perswades the Greeks to hearken to the Revelation which the true and Supreme God had made of himself to the world and to worship him according to his own Will In his Apologies to the Roman Emperours Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius and the Roman Senate and People for so Baronius shews that which is now called the first was truely the second and that not only written to the Senate but to the Emperour too who at that time was Marcus Aurelius as Eusebius saith and Photius after him he gives this account of the State of the Controversie then so warmly managed about Idolatry that it was not whether there were one Supreme God or no or whether he ought to have divine worship given to him but whether those whom the Gentiles called Gods were so or no and whether they or dead men did deserve any divine honour to be given to them and lastly that being supposed whether this honour ought to be given to Images or no For every one of these Iustin speaks distinctly to As to their Gods he denies that they deserved any divine worship because they desired it and were delighted with it From whence as well as from other arguments he proves that they could not be true Gods but evil Daemons that those who were Christians did only worship the true God the Father of all vertue and goodness and his Son who hath instructed both men and Angels for it is ridiculous to think that in this place Iustin should assert the worship of Angels equal with the Father and Son and before the Holy Ghost as some great men of the Church of Rome have done and the Prophetick Spirit in Spirit and truth In another place he saith that they had no other crime to object against the Christians but that they did not
or these are not faithful servants to him by bringing in visible objects of worship by setting up Images and perswading men to make oblations and offer sacrifices to them And because it was so hard a matter to choke those natural motions of mens minds towards the Supreme God and Father of all therefore they endeavour'd to draw men farther from him by tempting them to all manner of impiety Whereas the good Angels we read of in Scripture always directed men to pay their honours and adoration not to themselves but only to the Supreme God and teach men that it is not fit to give them to any of his Ministers and Servants but these Deities of Iulian are willing to receive worship from men and their prayers and acknowledgements and praises and gifts and sacrifices where we see he joyns them all together as parts of that divine worship which is proper only to God But Iulian is very much displeased at the Second Commandment and would have been glad to have seen it struck out of the number of ten as some in the World have done because God therein expresses so much jealousie for his own honour Cyril in answer to him shews that this is no way unbecoming God to be so much concerned for his honour because mens greatest happiness as Alexander Aphrodisiensis said in his Book of Providence lies in the due apprehension and service of God By which we see that the controversie about Idolatry as it was hitherto managed between Christians and Heathens did suppose the belief of one Supreme God in those who were charged with the practise of it After these it may not be amiss to consider what the ancient Author of the Recognitions under Clemens his name saith upon this subject of the Heathen Idolatry he lived saith Cotelerius in the Second Century if that be true his Authority is the more considerable however it is certain Ruffinus translated this Book and thâ—â— makes it ancient enough to our purpose He brings in the Heathen Idolaters pleading thus for themselves We likewise acknowledge one God who is Lord over all but yet the other are Gods too as there is but one Caesar who hath many Officers under him as Praefects Consuls Tribunes and other Magistrates after the same manner we suppose when there is but one Supreme God he hath many other inferiour Gods as so many Officers under him who are all subject to him but yet over us To this he brings in S. Peter answering that he desires them to keep to their own similitude for as they who attribute the name of Caesar to any inferiour Officers deserve to be punished so will those more severely who give the name of God to any of his Creatures Where the name is not to be taken alone but as it implies the dignity and Authority going along with it and the professing of that subjection which is only due to that Authority for what injury were it to Caesar for a man only to have the name of Caesar but the injury lies in usurping the Authority under that name so the nature of Idolatry could not lie in giving the name of Gods to any Creatures but in giving that worship which that name calls for and yet this worship here is supposed to be consistent with the acknowledgement of the supreme excellency of God If we now look into the sense of the Writers of the Latine Church against the Heathen Idolaters we shall find them agreeing with the other Tertullian appeals to the consciences of men for the clearest evidence of one true and Supreme God for in the midst of all their Idolatries they are apt upon any great occasion to lift up their hands and eyes to Heaven where the only true and great and good God is and he mentions their common phrases God gives and God sees and I commend you to God and God will restore all which do shew the natural Testimony of conscience as to the unity and supreme excellency of God and in his Book ad Scapulam God shewed himself to be the powerful God by what he did upon their supplications to him under the name of Iove Minucius Felix makes use of the same arguments and saith they were clear arguments of their consent with the Christians in the belief of one God and makes it no great matter what name they called him by as I have observed already and afterwards produces many Testimonies of the Philosophers almost all he saith that they acknowledged one God although under several names Arnobius takes it for granted that on both sides they were agreed that there was one Supreme God eternal and invisible and Father of all things from whom all the Heathen Deities had their beginning but all the dispute was about giving divine worship to any else besides him Lactantius saith there was no wise man ever questioned the being of one God who made and governed all things yet because he knew the World was full of Fools he goes about to prove it at large from the testimonies of Poets and Philosophers as so many had done before him and for T. G 's satisfaction he saith that Orpheus although as good at feigning as any of the Poets could not by the Father of the Gods mean Jupiter the Son of Saturn yet who can tell but such a Magician as Orpheus is said to have been might mean an Arch-Devil by him But I am sure neither Lactantius nor any of the Fathers ever thought so for if they had they would not so often have produced his Testimony to so little purpose And to the Greek Testimonies mentioned before by others Lactantius adds those of Cicero and Seneca who calls the infeririour Gods the children of the Supreme and the Ministers of his Kingdom Thus far we have the unanimous consent of all the Writers of the Christian Church against the Heathen Idolatry that the Heathens did acknowledge one Supreme God S. Augustin tells us that Varro thought that those who worshipped one God without images did mean the same by him that they did by their Jove but only called him by another name by those S. Austin saith Varro meant the Iews and he thought it no matter what name God is called by so the same thing be meant It is true S. Augustin argues against it from the Poetical Fables about Saturn and Iuno but withal he confesses that they thought it very unreasonable for their Religion to be charged with those Fables which themselves disowned and therefore at last he could not deny that they believed themselves that by the Jove in the Capitol they understood and worshipped the Spirit that quickens and fills the world of which Virgil spake in those words Iovis omnia plena But he wonders that since they acknowledged this to be the Supreme if not only Deity the Romans did not rather content themselves with the worship of him alone than run about and
after a publick and solemn repentance But that this Prince was yet a worshipper of the Sun appears by what follows when the Emperor Zenâ— had him at his mercy and made him promise fidelity to him by bowing of himself to him he to avoid the reproach of it among his People carried himself so that he seemed only to them to make his Reverence to the Sun according to the custom of his Country But it will add yet more to the conviction of T. G. and to the discovery of the Nature of Idolatry to shew that those Nations which are at this day charged with Idolatry by the Church of Rome have acknowledged one Supreme God And I shall now shew that those Idolaters who have understood their own Religion have gone upon one of these three principles either 1. that God hath committed the Government of the world under him to some inferiour Deities which was the principle of the Platonists and of the Arabians and Persians Or 2. that God is the Soul of the world and therefore the parts of it deserve divine honour which was the principle of Varro and the Stoicks Or 3. That God is of so great perfection and excellency that he is above our service and therefore what external adoration we pay ought to be to something below him which I shall shew to have been the principle of those who have given the least external adoration to the Supreme God These things I shall make appear by giving a brief account of the Idolatry of those parts of the world which the Emissaries of the Church of Rome have shewed their greatest zeal in endeavouring to convert from their Idolatries There are two Sects in the East-Indies if I may call them so from whom the several Nations which inhabit there have received what principles of Religion they have and those are the Brachmans and the Chineses and the giving account of these two will take in the ways of worship that are generally known among them For the Brachmans I shall take my account chiefly from those who have been conversant among them and had the best reason to understand their Religion Francis Xaverius who went first upon that commendable imployment of converting the Indians saith that the Brachmans told him they knew very well there was but one God and one of the learned Brachmans in his discourse with him not only confessed the same but added that on Sundays which their Teachers kept very exactly they used only this prayer I adore thee O God with thy Grace and Help for ever Tursellinus saith that he confessed this to be one of their great mysteries that there was one God maker of the world who reigns in Heaven and ought to be worshipped by men and so doth Iarricus Bartoli not only relates the same passages but gives this account of their Theology that they call the Supreme God Parabrama which in their language signifies absolutely perfect being the Fountain of all things existing from himself and free from all composition that he committed to Brama the care of all things about Religion to Wistnow another of his Sons the care of mens rights and relieving them in their necessities to a third the power over the elements and over humane bodies These three they represent by an Image with three Heads rising all out of the same trunk these are highly esteemed and prayed to for they suppose Parabrama to be at perfect ease and to have committed the care of all to them But the Brachman Padmanaba gave a more particular account of the management of all things to Abraham Rogers who was well acquainted with him and was fifteen years in those parts Next to Brama they make one Dewendre to be the Superintendent Deity who hath many more under him and besides these they have particular Deities over the several parts of the world as the Persians had They believe both good and evil Spirits and call them by several names the former they call Deütas and the other Ratsjaies and the Father of both sorts to be Brachman the son of Brama In particular cases they have some saith Mr. Lord who conversed among them and to whom Mons. Bernier refers us to one who gave a faithful account of them whom they honour as Saints and make their addresses to as for Marriage they invocate Hurmount for Health Vagenaught for success in Wars Bimohem for Relief Syer c. and I suppose incontinent persons may have someone instead of S. Mary Magdalen to pray to The custom of their daily devotion as the Brachman Padmanaba said was first to meditate of God before they rise then after they have washed themselves they repeat 24 names of God and touch 24 parts of their bodies upon Suâ— rising they say prayers and pour down water in honour of the Sun and then 〈◊〉 down upon their knees and worship him and after perform some ceremonies 〈◊〉 their Idols which they repeat in the evening The particular devotion which theâ— have to their Saints and Images aâ—â— Reliques is fully described by Boullaye-le-Gouz in his late Travels into those parts Mandelslo saith that in the time of the publick devotions they have long Lessâ—â— about the Lives and Miracles of the Saints which the Bramans make use 〈◊〉 to perswade the people to worship them Intercessors with God for them Amoâ—â— their Saints Ram is in very great estimâ—tion being the restorer of their Religiâ—â— and a great Patron of their Braman Kircher supposeth him to be the 〈◊〉 with him whom the Iaponese call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Chinese Ken Kian 〈◊〉 Kircher 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Kia saith Marini and those of Tunquin Chiaga or as Marini Thic-Ca in all which parts he is in very great veneration him they look on as the great propagator of their Religion in the Eastern parts and they say he had 80000 disciples but he chose ten out of them all to disperse his opinions From whence it is supposed that the Religion of the Brachmans hath spread it self not only over Indosthan but Camboia Tunquin Cochinchina nay China it self and Iapan too where it is an usual thing for persons to drown burn or famish themselves for the honour of Xaca This Sect was brought into China 65 years after Christ from Indosthan as Trigautius or rather Matthaeus Riccius tells us for Bartoli assures us that Trigautius only published Riccius his papers in his own name which he supposes was brought in by a mistake for the Christian Religion and surely it was a very great mistake but for all that Trigautius hath found a â—trange resemblance between the Roman Religion and theirs For saith he they worship the Trinity after a certain manner with an image having three Heads and one Body they extol coelibate 〈◊〉 a high degree so as to seem to condemn marriage they forsake their Families and go up and down begging i. e. the Order of Friers
Question proposed is who was the Supreme and the most ancient of the Gods To which the Answer is that the most-ancient of the Gods is called Alfader the Father of all and he had twelve names which are there enumerated and after it is said of him that This God lives for ever and governs all things that he made the Heaven and Earth and Air and all things in them and which is the greatest of all he made Man and gave him a Soul that should live for ever although the body be destroyed and that those who were good should be with him in a place called Gimle or Wingulf but those that were bad to Hela and from thence to Niflheim Which Niflheim they add was made many ages before the Earth and then they proceed to the creation of things which is there reported after a fabulous manner It is true this Tradition came to be corrupted among them when the attributes and worship belonging to this God were given to that Prince who conducted the Goths from their former Seat about the Palus Maeotis into the Northern Regions who was called Odin or Woden and so there came in such a confusion in their Idolatry as was among the Greeks between Iupiter Olympius and him of Creet But since they do mention this Odin as chief of the Asae and tell the circumstances of his leading the people first to one place then to another they cannot mean by him the same God whom they assert to have been from eternity and to have created all things but all this confusion did arise among them and other Nations when vain and ambitious men did take upon them the names of the Deity on purpose that they might have worship given to them and such a one this Odin is described to have been by all the Northern Historians and from hence likewise the names of Deified men have been given to him whom they worshipped for the Supreme God Thus also Thor was the Son of Odin yet in some of the Northern parts they worshipped the Supreme Deity under his name attributing the power over all things even the inferiour Deities to him And accordingly he was worshipped with a Crown on his Head a Scepter in his hand and twelve Stars about him as he is described by Olaus Magnus and others and Ioh. Magnus saith that Thor was worshipped in the Golden Temple at Upsalia tanquam potentissimus summus omnium Deorum and to this day among the most barbarous Laplanders the Supreme God is worshipped under the same representation of Thor as we are informed by a late credible Writer and to him they give besides the name of Iumala under him they worship a Deity whom they call Storjunkare or Vice-Roy like the Tartars Natagay under whose care they suppose all inferiour creatures to man to be and therefore they living much by hunting make many supplications to him and worship him under the representation of a rough hollow stone which as rude and barbarous as they are they are far enough from thinking to be the Deity it self but only a Symbol to represent him And the Idolatrous inhabitants of Samogitia although they worship a multitude of Gods under several names and as having a particular care over some things and a sort of Serpents as Ministers of their Gods yet they confess a Supreme God so Lasicius saith they have one omnipotent God but many Zemopacii or terrestrial Gods which he there at large enumerates and the same is acknowledged by Ioh. Meletius who lived among them and describes their Idolatrous customs in an Epistle to Georg. Sabinus A. D. 1553. who saith that in the first place they invocate Occopirnus the God of Heaven and Earth and then the inferiour Deities who are set over the Sea Air Spring Woods c. Thus far I have clearly proved that the acknowledged Idolatry of the present world doth not exclude a Supreme God but either the Idolaters suppose him to be above their worship or think it not unlawful to worship inferiour Deities with the same external acts of worship which they perform to the Supreme God The last thing I shall prove the consistency of Idolatry with giving Soveraign Worship to the Supreme God by is from the Testimony of those Fathers who have charged such Christians with Idolatry concerning whom there could be no dispute whether they believed and worshipped a Supreme God Athanasius frequently lays this to the charge of the Arians that by giving adoration to the Son of God supposing him to be a Creature they did bring in the Heathen Idolatry among Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which words are the more remarkable because he accuses them of doing the same thing which S. Paul charges the Gentiles with which therefore doth not imply the passing by the worship of the Creator but giving the same divine worship to a creature which they do to the Supreme God The same words he repeats afterwards in the same Oration and desires the Arians to shew the difference between the Greeks and them if they believed Christ not to be the true God but only by participation as the Greeks supposed their Gods to be The force of this argument were wholly lost if either the Greeks supposed many independent Deities or Idolatry were inconsistent with the acknowledgement of one True God for the Arians might upon either of those grounds have shewed the disparity between them and the Greeks Afterwards he saith expresly they fell into the Polytheism of the Greeks from whence it unavoidably follows that their Polytheism did not suppose several Deities of necessary and eternal existence but one Original and Supreme God and the others only made so by participation from him If it be impossible for a man who hath a right opinion of Gods incomparable excellency above the most noble creatures to attribute the honour due to God alone to that which he conceiveth to be a mere creature then the Arians were unjustly charged with Idolatry for they were supposed to do that which it seems is impossible to be done for they asserted Christ to be a mere creature and yet Athanasius saith they were therein guilty of Idolatry although they believed God to be incomparably above his creatures in as much as all creatures and Christ himself had what he had by participation from him and whatever excellencies are attributed to a mere creature as to Power or Wisdom or Goodness supposing them to be derivative from a Superior Being they do still suppose an incomparable distance between the Creator and the creature And it is farther observable in Athanasius that he doth not lay the force of his argument in any distinction of the degrees of the divine worship but useth promiscuously the terms of Latria and Dulia as to the worship given to a creature for where he speaks afterwards of the Arians and Gentiles agreeing in giving divine worship to a creature he thus expresses it
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 giving the worship of Dulia to a creature as well as to the Creator not as though he looked on the worship of Dulia as distinct from Latria but by using these words promiscuously he shews that he understood by both of them that divine worship which is alone proper to God and which being given to a creature makes it Idolatry He farther saith that supposing what excellencies we please in Christ although derived from God yet if we withal suppose him to be a mere man if we give divine worship to him we shall be found 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worshippers of man i. e. such kind of Idolaters as the Heathen were in the worship of Deified men from which nothing can be more evident than that the supposing the most real excellencies in a creature to have been by participation from God doth not take off from the guilt of Idolatry when that worship is given to the creature which belongs only to God S. Athanasius farther argues that nothing but the divine nature is capable of adoration and not any created excellency how great soever it be For saith he if the height of glory did deserve adoration then every inferiour creature ought to worship the Superior but it is no such matter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for one creature is not to worship another but a servant his Lord and the creature God From hence Peter forbad Cornelius who would have worshipped him saying For I also am a Man And the Angel S. John saying See thou do it not for I am also thy fellow servant worship God Whence he infers nor that the Angel complemented S. Iohn not that S. Peter only did it to shew his humility but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is proper only to God to be worshipped without any distinction of the nature kinds or degrees of worship But how many distinctions would T. G. and his Brethren make before they would grant that proposition It is true say they of Latria soveraign and absolute worship which is proper only to God but not of an inferiour kind of divine worship which may be given to a creature on the account of divine excellencies communicated to it by God This we may suppose was the Answer of the Arians but S. Athanasius was not certainly so weak a man to argue at this rate if he had supposed this a sufficient answer for he could not but foresee it and a man of so much understanding as it is evident he was would have prevented this answer if he had thought it to the purpose but instead of that he sets himself to prove that the Angels knowing themselves to be creatures have on that account rejected all divine worship on the other side the Angels are commanded to worship Christ and Christ did receive divine worship therefore saith he let the Arians burst themselves they can never make it appear that Christ would have been worshipped if he had been a creature And to prevent all subterfuges in this matter in his fourth Oration he argues against joyning Christ together with God in our prayers to him if he were a creature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 No man would ever pray to receive any thing from God and Angels or from God and any creature Little did Athanasius think of mens joyning God and the Saints or God and the B. Virgin in their prayers or praises little did he imagine that ever it would have been received in the Christian Church to conclude their Books with a Doxology to God and the B. Virgin Laus Deo B. Virgini as many of the greatest reputation in the Church of Rome have done and as Baronius hath done it very solemnly at the end of every Tome of his Annals as at the conclusion of the First after the mention of the Father Son and Holy Ghost he adds Nec non sanctissimae virgini Dei Genitrici Mariae ut conciliatrici Divini Numinis ipsi namque sicut haec omnia nostra accepta ferimus ita pariter offerimus ut ipsa eadem qualiacunque sint dilecto filio suo porrigut c. And in the end of the second he hath these words Et beneficii memor actura gratias oratio ex more ad sanctissimae Dei Genitricis Mariae pedes prona se sternat ut Cui accepta fert Omnia dono offerat quicquid à Deo se ejus precìbus intelligit consecutam Is not this joyning God and the creature together which Athanasius supposes no Christian would ever do but supposing they did it he doth not at all suppose them to be excused from Idolatry in so doing But Athanasius goes on shewing that if the Arians confess Christ to be God and to be of a distinct substance from his Father they must bring in Polytheism or at least worship two Gods the one uncreated and unbegotten the other created and begotten and in so doing they must oppose one to the other For saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we cannot see one in the other because of their different natures and operations Which is an argument I desire T. G. to consider the weight of He is proving that supposing Christ to be of a different nature from God although he had all imaginable excellencies in him communicated from the Father yet God could not be worshipped in the worshipping of the Son but these two worships must be opposite to each other because the one is the worship of a created the other of an increated Being How far was Athanasius then from supposing that the worship given to any created Being on the account of communicated excellencies is at last carried to the Supreme and terminated only upon him For he saith that these two worships do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fight one against the other and therefore who ever do give such different worships they must bring in more Gods than one which is an Apostasie from one God where we still observe that Polytheism is consistent as well as Idolatry with the acknowledgement of one Supreme Being and that they are said to worship other Gods who do believe the true but give divine worship to a Creature And therefore he would have the Arians to reckon themselves together with the Gentiles and although they shun the reproach of the name yet they hold the same opinion with them And it is to no purpose for them to say that they do not worship Two uncreated Beings for this is only to deceive the simple for although they do not worship two uncreated yet they worship Two Gods of a different nature the one created the other uncreated For saith he in these remarkable words if the Heathens worshipped one uncreated and many created and they worship one uncreated and one created what difference is there between them and the Gentiles for that one whom they worship is but as the many which the Gentiles being of the same created nature together with
likewise for the adoration that is due to the Son and Holy Ghost S. Chrysostom saith that the Arians and Macedonians making one Great God and another less and created God did bring in Gentilism again For it is that which teacheth men to worship a Creature and to make one great God and others inferiour Such as these S. Paul condemns for giving worship to a creature and they are accursed according to the Law of Moses which saith Cursed is every one who worships a creature or any thing that is made S. Ambrose goes farther and saith S. Paul foresaw that Christians would be brought to the worship of Creatures and therefore not only condemns the Gentiles but warns the Christians by saying that God would damn those who worship the creature rather than the Creator Either therefore let the Arians cease to worship him whom they call a creature or cease to call him a creature whom they worship lest under the name of worshippers they be found to commit the greater sacriledge S. Augustin saith that the Arians by giving worship to Christ as God whom they believed to be a creature did make more Gods than one and break the Law of God which did forbid the worship of more than one God and set up Idols to themselves although they acknowledged one Great God and made the Son and Holy Ghost lesser and inferiour Gods From this unanimous consent of the Fathers in charging the Arrians with Idolatry it most evidently follows that according to them Idolatry is consistent with the belief and worship of one Supreme God which is not the only considerable advantage we gain by those Testimonies but from them it likewise appears 1. That it is Idolatry to give divine worship to any creature how great soever the excellencies of that creature be for none can be imagined greater than those which the Arians attributed to the Son of God 2. That the Fathers looked on the worship of Dulia as divine worship as appears by their applying that term to the worship which was given to Christ. 3. That the name of an Idol doth belong to the most real and excellènt being when divine worship is given to it for they give this name to Christ himself when he is worshipped as a Creature 4. That relative Latria is Idolatry when given to any Creature For this was all the Arians subterfuge that it could not be Idolatry to worship Christ as a Creature because they worshipped him only as the Image of God and relatively terminating their worship on God the Father through him notwithstanding which answer of theirs the Fathers with one consent declare such worship to be Idolatry and that it would make way for the worship of any creature and was the introducing of Heathen Idolatry under a pretence of Christianity These things which are here only observed in passage will be of great use in the following Discourses CHAP. II. Of the Nature of Divine Worship I Now come to the second Enquiry Wherein the Nature of that Divine Worship lies which being given to a creature makes that Worship Idolatry And that I may proceed with all possible clearness in this matter I shall enquire 1. What Worship is 2. What Divine Worship is and what are the proper acts of it 3. How the applying of these Acts to a Creature doth make the worship of it Idolatry What worship is Aquinas hath given this distinction between honour and worship that honour is quaedam recognitio excellentiae alicujus an acknowledgement of anothers excellency but cultus or worship in quodam obsequio consistit implies subjection to another The foundation of this distinction doth not lie so much in the force and signification of the words as in the different effects that excellency alone considered hath upon our minds from what it hath when it is joyned with Superiority and a Power over us Meer excellency doth produce only in our minds a due esteem according to the nature and degrees of it which is a debitum morale as the Schoolmen speak from us towards it i. e. something which according to nature and reason we ought to give it and therefore it is accounted a part of natural justice to esteem whatever excellencies we apprehend to be in others although we receive no benefit by them our selves and whatever implies a real excellencie whether it be intellectual or moral whether infinite or finite whether natural or acquired it deserves an estimation suitable to its kind and degree But the honour which is due to excellencie doth not only lie in an act of the mind but in a correspondent inclination of the will to testifie that esteem by such outward expressions as may manifest it to others and that either by words which is called Praise or by gestures as bowings of the body or by facts as gifts statues c. All these Aquinas tells us do belong to honour But Worship implies something beyond this which is subjection to anotheron the account of his Power over us for we may express honour and esteem towards equals or inferiours because the reason of it may be in those as well as others therefore there must be a different duty in us with respect to Superiority and this is worship So the Schoolmen define adoration adorare non dicimur nisi in dignitate constitutos quos nobis Superiores cognoscimus saith Vasquez Honor potest esse ad aequalem saith Suarez juxta illud ad Rom. 12. honore invicem praevenientes adoratio vero respicit alium ut excellentem superiorem Ex parte adorantis plane necessarium est saith Tannerus ut is rem adorandam concipiat tanquam aliquo modo se superiorem seu praestantiorem But more fully Bernardus Pujol Adoratio est submissio quaedam quasi humiliatio quam subditus facit propter excellentiam superioris in honorem illius and Gamachaeus Adoratio essentialiter includit subjectionem ac submissionem aliquam Adoratio est inferioris ad superiorem saith Ysambertus Cardinal Lugo goes farther saying of Cultus se apud probatos auctores videre semper eam vocem applicari ad significandam reverentiam erga superiores And although Arriaga thinks Cultus of a larger signification yet the definition he gives of adoration is that it is honor exhibitus superiori in signum submissionis humiliationis Bellarmine makes the first act of adoration to be in the mind and that only the apprehension of the excellencie of the object but the second in the will to be not only an inclination of it towards the object but a willing by some internal or external act to acknowledge the excellencie of the object and our subjection and to these he adds the external act either of bowing the head or bending the knee or some other token of subjection So that Bellarmine agrees with the rest in making the formal act of adoration to be
appears more probable both of him and Lot by Heb. 13.2 then it was only an expression of civil respect to them 4. Out of a sudden transport as St. Iohn did to the Angel twice which he would not have done a second time if he had considered his being checked for the first Rev. 19.10.22.8 9. Now if these things may by their circumstances and occasions be apparently differenced from each other and from that Religious adoration which God doth require to be given to himself then there can be no reason from thence to make the signification of external adoration to be equivocal There is the same nature in these acts that there is in words of different significations which being taken in general are of an equivocal sense but being considered with all their particular circumstances they have their sense so restrained and limited that it is easie to discern the one from the other That we call therefore Religious adoration which is performed with all the circumstances of Religious worship as to time place occasion and such like as if men used prostration to any thing within the Courts of the Temple wherein some of the Iews thought that posture only lawful if it were done in the time of Sacrifice or devotion if the occasion were such as required no respect of any other kind as when the Devil demanded of Christ to fall down and worship him in these and such like circumstances we say adoration hath the determin'd signification of Religious worship and is an appropriate sign of it by Gods own institution Thence the Psalmist saith O come let us worship and bow down let us kneel before the Lord our Maker and God forbids bowing down to and worshipping any graven Image or similitude where the bowing down is one act of worship and was so esteemed by the common consent of mankind as might be easily made appear by the several customs of external adoration that have been used in all parts of the world and it might for the universality of the practice of it vye with Sacrifice So that on this account as well as the proper signification of it adoration ought to be esteemed as significant and peculiar a sign of absolute worship as Sacrifice There are only two things that seem yet to make this adoration not appripriate to God for the instances of Balaam and Saul are not worth mentioning and those are Ioshua's Religious adoration of the Angel that appeared to him and the adoration that the Iews performed towards the Ark the latter is easily answered the Ark being only a Symbol of the divine presence of Gods own appointing towards which they were to direct their adoration but of this at large when I come to the worship of Images the other cannot be denied to be Religious worship but we are to consider what Aquinas saith to this place that it may be understood of the absolute worship of God who did appear and speak in the person of an Angel And St. Athanasius expresly saith that God did speak in an Angel to Moses at the burning Bush when Moses was bid to put off his Shooes as Ioshua was now and by the description on of him as Captain of the Host of the Lord it is apparent Ioshua looked not on him as an ordinary Angel but as the Angel of whom God said that he should go before them and whom they were bound to obey and by comparing the places in Exodus together where God afterwards threatens to send an Angel and Moses would not be satisfied till God said His Presence should go with them it is evident this Angel of His Presence was more than a meer Angel and therefore the Fathers generally suppose it was the Eternal Son of God who appeared in the Person of an Angel as Petavius hath at lage proved and is sufficiently manifest from hence that they make use of Adoration as a certain argument to prove that Christ was not a creature which argument were of no force at all if they did not believe that adoration was an appropriate sign of that absolute worship which belongs only to God and therefore they observe that when meer Angels appeared they refused adoration as the Angels that appeared to Manoe and St. Iohn but when adoration is allowed or commanded it was the divine nature appearing in the person of an Angel 3. The erection of Temples and Altars is another appropriate sign of divine worship which I need not go about to prove from Scripture since it is confessed by our Adversaries Ad Latriam pertinent templa altaria sacerdotia sacrificia festivitates ceremoniae hujusmodi quae soli Deo sunt exhibenda saith Durandus Mimatensis from Innocentius 3. and the applying these things to any but God he makes to be Idolatry Bellarmin joyns Temples and Altars together with Sacrifice as peculiar to God Templum saith Cardinal Bona est domus Numini Sacra a house Sacred to God and yet Bellarmin had the confidence to lay down this proposition Sacrae domus non solum Deo sed etiam sanctis recte aedificantur dedicantur and he is not satisfied with the answer of some Moderns that say That Temples cannot properly be erected to any but God any more than Sacrifice can be offered to any but him but because there are many Temples dedicated to God that they may be distinguished from each other they have their denomination from particular Saints which is an answer we find no fault with if they do not proceed to the worship and invocation of those Saints to whose memory the Churches are dedicated as the particular Patrons of it but Bellarmin hath found out a subtlety beyond this for he saw well enough this would not reach home to their case and therefore he saith That sacred places are truely and properly built to Saints but how not as they are Temples but as they are Basilicae For saith he Temples have a particular relation to sacrifice but Basilicae have not and he confesses it would be Idolatry to erect them as Temples to Saints but not as they are Basilicae This is a distinction without any difference for Isidore who certainly well understood the signification of these words as used among Christians saith Nunc autem ideo divina Templa Basilicae nominantur quia ibi Regi omnium Deo cultus sacrificia offeruntur and that which we insist upon is not the names that Churches are called by nor the preservation of the memories of Saints in them but the erecting them to Saints as places for the worship and invocation of them And the vanity of this distinction of Temples from Basilicae because Temples relate only to sacrifice will easily appear if we consider that the proper signification of Templum was Domicilium as Turnebus observes which is that which Varro calls Templum naturâ and in this sense he saith Naevius called the Heaven Templum magnum Iovis
altitonantis and from thence it was applyed to any place consecrated by the Augurs and so by degrees was taken for any sacred place that was set apart for divine worship for that was it which made them sacred sacra sunt loca saith Isidore divinis cultibus instituta Either therefore they must say there is no proper worship of God but Sacrifice or the notion of a Temple cannot be said only to refer to Sacrifice And among the Iews our B. Saviour hath told us that the Temple had relation to prayer as well as Sacrifice My House shall be called a House of Prayer Would it not have been a pleasant distinction among the Iews if any of them had dedicated a Temple to Abraham with a design to invocate him there and make him the Patron of it for them to have said they built it as a Temple to God but as a Basilica to Abraham for they sacrificed there only to God or to God for the honour of Abraham but they invocated Abraham as the particular Patron of it This is that therefore we charge them with upon their own principles that when they dedicate Churches to particular Saints as the Patrons of them and in order to the solemn invocation of them there they do apply that which themselves confess to be an appropriate sign of divine worship to Creatures and consequently by their own confession are guilty of Idolatry Neither can it be pleaded by them that their Churches and Altars are only dedicated to the honour of God for the memory of a particular Saint for they confess that it is for the solemn invocation of that Saint And with all in the Form of dedication in the Pontifical there is more implied as appears by these two prayers at the Consecration of the Altar The first when the Bishop stands before the Altar in these words Deus Omnipotens in cujus honorem ac Beatissimae Virginis Mariae omnium Sanctorum ac nomen memoriam Sancti tui N. nos indigni altare hoc consecramus c. The other after the Bishop hath with his right thumb dipped in the Chrism made the sign of a Cross upon the Front of the Altar Majestatem tuam Domine humiliter imploramus ut altare hoc sacrae unctionis libamine ad suscipienda populi tui munera inunctam potenter bene dicere sanctificare digneris ut quod nunc à nobis sub tui nominis invocatione in honorem Beatissimae Virginis Mariae omnium Sanctorum atque in memoriam sancti tui N. c. Where we see besides the memory of the particular Saint to whom the Altar is dedicated the honour of the B. Virgin and the Saints are joyned together with the Honour of God in the general dedication of it By the Pontifical no Altar is to be consecrated without Reliques which the night before the Bishop is to put into a clean vessel for that purpose with three grains of Frankincense and then to seal it up which being conveniently placed before the Church door the Vigils are to be celebrated that night before them and the Nocturn and the Mattins for the honour of the Saints whose the Reliques are and when the Reliques are brought into the Church this is one of the Antiphona's Surgite Sancti Dei de mansionibus vestris loca sanctificate plebem benedicite nos homines peccatores in pace custodite The form of consecration of the Altar it self is this Sanctificetur hoc Altare in honorem Dei omnipotentis gloriosae Virginis Mariae atque omnium sanctorum ad nomen ac memoriam Sancti N. In China Trigautius saith in the Chappel they had there they had two Altars one to our Saviour the other dedicated to the B. Virgin without any distinction at all In the speech the Bishop makes to the people he utterly overthrows Bellarmins distinction of Templum and Basilica for he saith nullibi enim quam in sacris Basilicis Domino offerri sacrificium debet It seems then Basilica is taken with a respect to sacrifice as well as Templum and then he declares that he hath dedicated this Basilica in honorem omnipotentis Dei Beatae Mariae semper virginis omnium Sanctorum ac memoriam Sancti N. So that Basilica is here taken with a respect to God and not meerly to the Saints although they joyn them together with God in the honour of dedication Let us now compare the practice of the Roman Church in this matter with the argument which the Fathers made use of to prove the Divinity of the Holy Ghost because we are said to be his Temple If we are said saith S. Basil to be his Temple because he is worshipped by us and dwells in us then it follows that he is God for we are commanded to worship and serve God alone Where it is plain S. Basil takes a Temple with a respect to worship and not meerly to sacrifice A Temple belongs only to God and not to a creature saith S. Ambrose therefore the Holy Ghost is God because we are his Temple This is peculiar to the Divine nature saith S. Cyril to have a Temple to dwell in If we were to build a Temple saith S. Augustin to the Holy Ghost in so doing we should give him the worship proper to God and he must be God to whom we give divine worship for we must worship the Lord our God and him only must we serve the same argument he urges in several other places a Temple saith he was never erected but either to the true God as Solomon did or to false Gods as the Heathens and this argument from our being said to be the Temple of the Holy Ghost he thinks is stronger than if adoration had been said to be given to it for this is so proper an act of divine worship to erect a Temple that if we should do it to the most excellent Angel we should be anathematized from the Church of God Hoc nunc sit quibuslibet Divis saith Erasmus there in the Margin This is every where now done to Saints at which Petavius is very angry and saith they do it not to the Saints per se praecipué But what becomes then of the argument of the Fathers which supposes the erecting a Temple to be such a peculiar act of adoration that it cannot be applied to any creature no not secondarily For then the opposers of the Divinity of the Holy Ghost might have easily answered S. Augustins argument after the same fashion viz. that we were said to be the Temple of the Holy Ghost not per se praecipuè but only secondarily as it was the divine instrument of purifying the Souls of men From hence we see how unanimously the Fathers looked on the dedication of Temples and Altars as an appropriate sign of that absolute worship we owe to God and that not meerly as an Appendix to sacrifice but as it contains in it
the Brazen Serpent stand to excite the devotion of the people towards God in remembrance of what he did to the people of old by the means of it But it seems Hezekiah had not looked over Aristotle's threshold so far as to know that acts go whither they are intended and therefore he took the giving of that part of worship which God had appropriated to himself to the Brazen Serpent to be sufficient ground for the demolishing of it without particular enquiry into the intentions of the persons Yet I must say for T. G. that he doth not seem so confident of the indifferency of this ceremony under the Law for he saith That it is not appropriated at least in the new Law to the worship of God and therefore it is in the freedom of the Church to determine how and when it shall be used If he means by the new Law the Rubricks or practise of their Church he saith true for Incense is appointed to be burnt to Images and Crucifixes and Reliques out of Religious honour to them but if by the new Law he means the Law of Christ that doth not that I can find make any thing that God had appropriated to himself as a sign of his own worship to be common to any creature with him but I am sure before that burning of Incense before Images was accounted one of the abominations of Israel 5. Solemn Invocation was an external act of worship appropriated to God himself My House is the House of Prayer saith our Saviour of the Temple by which it appears that solemn Invocation was then looked on as a peculiar part of divine worship But I need not prove this since it is granted by our Adversaries that one sort of Invocation is so proper to God that to give it to any besides him were Idolatry which is as T. G. expresseth it the Prayer we make to God as the Author and Giver of all Good but a lower sort of Invocation he contends may be given to Saints and Angels My business here is not to discuss the point of Invocation which is to be handled at large in its proper place but to shew in what sense it was understood among those to whom God gave the Laws of his worship and whether this inferiour sort of Invocation were thought consistent with the true worship of God We will then suppose that in the Temple of Hierusalem at the hours of prayer the Iews at the same time and with the same outward solemnity of worship should make their prayers first to God to have mercy upon them and then immediately to make their addresses to Abraham and Sarah Isaac and Rebecca Iacob and Ioseph and Moses and the Prophets to pray for them whether would this have been thought agreeable to the command of worshipping God alone especially if these prayers were said before the Images of those persons set up in the Temple for if the Law did only forbid the worship of Heathen Idols there would be no repugnancy to the Law in all this What course can we now take to resolve this Question I know but three waies of doing it 1. By comparing this practice with the precept of worship For God being to appoint the Laws and Rules of it we are to enquire in the first place what his will and pleasure was as to this matter for he best knew what worship was pleasing to him If he hath therefore appropriated all acts of Religious worship to himself as it is plain he hath done by that Law Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve then it is unlawful to give it to any other If it be said they do not give the worship proper to God I desire to know who shall judge what is the worship proper to God He by his Law or we by distinctions of our own making Hath God himself made any such distinction as this is Hath He bid men to pray to Him as the Author and Giver of all Good but to Angels or Saints as Mediatours and Intercessors to Him Nay hath He not forbidden it when he commands that all Religious worship without distinction be given to himself And where the Law doth not distinguish what presumption is it in us to do it 2. By the practise of the Iewish Church and it is granted by our Adversaries that there was no Invocation of Saints then used because say they the Saints were then only in Limbo and not in their perfect happiness nor placed over the Church as they are now but the Iews knew of no such reason as this to hinder them for they believed those great Saints to be in a state of perfect Felicity therefore this could be no ground to hinder them and withal they had so mighty a veneration for the Patriarchs and so great a dread of the Divine Majesty that if it had been lawful none would have been more ready to have made use of them as Mediators than they for we see how ready they were to entreat Moses to be a Mediator between God and them why should not they have continued this after his death if they had believed one to be as lawful as the other But although they did not Invocate Saints they might do Angels and some have attempted to prove they did although the Iews know of no such practice among them albeit they attribute so much to the Power of Angels that nothing but the fear of Idolatry could restrain them for they believe one to be a Spirit set over Fire and another over Water another over Clouds c. as the Eastern Idolaters did But did not Jacob pray to the Angel Gen. 48.16 the Angel that redeemed me from all evil bless the lads No saith Abarbinel it was only a prayer to God that had made use of his Angel for he saith God before whom my Fathers did walk the God which fed me all my life long unto this day the Angel which redeemed me c. if this were an invocation of the Angel it was an invocation of him as the Author and Giver of all Good which T. G. confesses to be Idolatry but Abravanel parallels it with that saying of Abraham The Lord God of Heaven which took me from my Fathers House He shall send his Angel before thee But we need not run to the Iews to clear this place for S. Athanasius supposing it to be an Invocation from thence proves that it must be understood of the Eternal Son of God for saith he Jacob would never have joyned a Creature together with God in his prayers and S. Cyrill more generally who would ever pray in the name of Angels And S. Hierome in terms as large and express as may be Nullum invocare i. e. in nos orando vocare nisi Deum debemus we ought to invocate none by praying to them but God himself and from thence he proves the Wisdom there spoken of
Aquinas quote these passages with approbation Did they know the intention of Seneca or the Philosophers Why doth Cajetan say that a man that commits only the external act of Idolatry is as guilty as he that commits the external act of theft To both which he sayes no more is necessary than a voluntary inclination to do that act not any apprehension in the mind that what he worships is God nor any intention to direct that act only to the Image Nay why doth Gregory de Valentia himself say that outward acts of worship may be so proper to God either from their own nature or the consent of mankind that whosoever doth them whatever his inward intention be ought to be understood to give the honour proper to God to that for whose sake he doth them And this he calls an implicit Tannerus an indirect intention but neither of them suppose it to be either an actual or virtual intention of the mind but only that which may be gathered from the outward acts Nay T. G. himself saith that on supposition the Philosophers did believe one God and yet joyned with the people in the practice of their Idolatry they were worthily condemned by the Apostle though but for the external profession of praying and offering sacrifice to their Images Say you so and yet do outward acts certainly go whither they are intended Suppose then these Philosophers intended to worship the true God by those Images where this Idolatry or no if not why were they so much to blame for giving worship to the true God by an Image which T. G. commends as a very good thing Was it the figure of their Images displeased him that could not be for the Statue of Iupiter Capitolinus might as fitly represent God to them as that of an old man in their Churches and young Iupiter in the lap of Fortune an Image Cicero mentions might put him in mind of one of the most common Images in their Church and by the help of a good intention might be carryed to a right object And why might not intention do that which their Church afterwards did when it changed the Temple of Hercules to S. Alexius because he was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that of the two Brothers Romulus and Remus or as Bellarmin saith Castor and Pollux to Cosmas and Damianus and the Pantheon to Omnium Sanctorum If there be no harm in the thing there could be none in the intention Or was it the scandal of their practice but to whom was the scandal given it would have been rather scandal among them not to have done it So that if a secret Intention doth carry that act whither it is intended and it be lawful to worship God by Images I do not see wherein the Philosophers were to blame in complying with those outward acts whose good or evil according to T. G. depends upon the intention of the doers of them But if they were really to blame it was for doing those external acts of worship to creatures which belong only to the worship of God and so the Apostle by condemning them doth prove that which I intended viz. that there are such peculiar external acts of divine worship that the doing of them for the worship of a Creature is Idolatry But my Adversary thinks to clear the Church of Rome from the charge of Idolatry by two general answers which serve him and his Brethren on all occasions viz. 1. That there are two sorts of worship one called Latria or Soveraign worship which is proper to God and another called Dulia or inferiour worship that may be given to creatures on the account of excellencies communicated to them from God 2. That the worship they give to any inanimate creatures that have no proper excellencies of their own is not absolute but a relative Latria they intending thereby only to worship God In the examining of these two I shall clear the last part of this Discourse viz. 3. How the applying the acts of Religious worship to a creature doth make that worship Idolatry 1. I shall consider the different sorts of worship which T. G. insists upon to clear the Church of Rome from the practice of Idolatry The Question at present saith T. G. between Dr. St. and the Church of Rome is not whether Divine worship be to be given to Saints for this is abhorred of all faithful Christians but whether an inferiour worship of like kind with that which is given to Holy men upon earth for their Holiness and near relation to God may not be lawfully given to them now they are in Heaven Again he saith if by Religious worship I mean that honour which is due to God alone it is true what the Fathers say that it is not to be given to the most excellent created Beings but nothing at all to the point in debate between us if I mean that honour of which a creature is capable for Religions sake and that relation which it setleth he will he saith shew it to be false that the Fathers deny any such honour to be given to the Holy Angels or Saints and if I prove that this worship ought not to be called Religious he tells me from S. Austin that it is but a meer wrangling about words because Religion may be used in other senses besides that of the worship due to God And by the help of this distinction between the Religious worship due to God and that of which a creature is capable for Religions sake he saith he can clearly dispell the mist I have raised from the Testimony of the Fathers and let the Reader see that I have perverted their meaning and yet said nothing to the purpose Thus he answers the testimonies of Iustin Martyr Theophilus Origen S. Ambrose or the Writer under his name Theodoret S. Austin and if they had been a hundred more it had been all one they had been all sent packing with the same answer let them say what they would they must be all understood of Divine worship proper to God and not of the inferiour worship which creatures are capable of which from S. Austin he calls Dulia as the former Latria The whole strength of T. G's defence as to the Worship of Saints and Angels lyes in this single distinction which I shall therefore the more carefully consider because it tends to clear the nature of Divine worship which is my present subject To proceed with all possible clearness in this debate which T. G. hath endeavoured to perplex I shall 1. Give a true account of the State of the Controversie 2. Enquire into the sense of the Fathers about this distinction about Soveraign and inferiour worship whether those acts of worship which are practised in the Roman Church he only such as the Fathers allowed 1. For the true state of the controversie which was never more necessary to be given than in this place For any one
worship contrary to the Law of God we have the same reason to believe that evil Spirits are the Causes of them as the Primitive Christians had that evil Spirits were worshipped by the Heathens under the notion of Good 5. The Arrians believed Christ to be a Creature and yet were charged with Idolatry by the Fathers If it be said that they did give a higher degree of worship to Christ than any do to Saints I answer that they did only give a degree of worship proportionable to the degrees of excellency supposed to be in him far above any other Creatures whatsoever But still that worship was inferiour to that which they gave to God the Father according to the opinion of those Persons I dispute against For if it be impossible for a man that believes the incomparable distance between God and the most excellent of his Creatures to attribute the honour due to God alone to any Creature then say I it is impossible for those who believed one God the Father to give to the Son whom they supposed to be a Creature the honour which was peculiar to God It must be therefore on their own supposition an inferiour and subordinate honour and at the highest such as the Platonists gave to their Coelestial Deities And although the Arrians did invocate Christ and put their trust in him yet they still supposed him to be a Creature and therefore believed that all the Power and Authority he had was given to him so that the worship they gave to Christ must be inferiour to that honour they gave to the Supreme God whom they believed to be Supreme Absolute and Independent But notwithstanding all this the Fathers by multitudes of Testimonies already produced do condemn the Arrians as guilty of Idolatry and therefore they could not believe that the owning of Saints to be Gods Creatures did alter the State of the Controversie and make such Christians uncapable of Idolatry 2. I come to the second Period wherein Images were brought into the Christian Church but no worship allowed to be given to them And I am so far from thinking that the forbearance of the Use of Images was from the fear of complyance with the Pagan Idolatry that I much rather believe the introducing of Images was out of Complyance with the Gentile worship For Eusebius in that memorable Testimony concerning the Statue at Paneas or Caesarea Philippi which he saith was said to be the Image of Christ and the Syrophoenician woman doth attribute the preserving the Images of Christ and Peter and Paul to a Heathen custome which he saith was done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. saith Valesius inconsideratè imprudenter contra veterem disciplinam incautè very unadvisedly and against the ancient Rules of the Church And yet to my great amazement this place of Eusebius is on all occasions produced to justifie the antiquity and worship of Images if it had been only brought to prove that Heathenish Customes did by degrees creep into the Christian Church after it obtained ease and prosperity it were a sufficient proof of it Not that I think this Image was ever intended for Christ or the Syrophoenician Woman but because Eusebius saith the people had gotten such a Tradition among them and were then willing to turn their Images to the Stories of the Gospel Where they finding a Syrophoenician Woman making her address to our Saviour and a Tradition being among them that she was of this place and there finding two Images of Brass the one in a Form of a supplicant upon her Knees with her hands stretched out and the other over against her with a hand extended to receive her the common people seeing these figures to agree so luckily with the Story of the Gospel presently concluded these must be the very Images of Christ and the Woman and that the Woman out of meer gratitude upon her return home was at this great expence of two brass statues although the Gospel saith she had spent all that she had on Physitians before her miraculous cure and it would have been another miracle for such an Image of Christ to have stood untouched in a Gentile City during so many persecutions of Christians especially when Asterius in Photius saith this very Statue was demolished by Maximinus I confess it seems most probable to me to have been the Image of the City Paneas supplicating to the Emperour for I find the very same representations in the ancient Coines particularly those of Achaia Bithynia Macedonia and Hispania wherein the Provinces are represented in the Form of a Woman supplicating and the Emperour Hadrian in the same habit and posture as the Image at Paneas is described by Eusebius And that which adds more probability to this conjecture is that Bithynia is so represented because of the kindness done by Hadrian to Nicomedia in the restoring of it after its fall by an earthquake and Caesarea is said by Eusebius to have suffered by an earthquake at the same time and after such a Favour to the City it was no wonder to have two such brass statues erected for the Emperours honour But supposing this tradition were true it signifies no more than that this Gentile custome was observed by a Syrophoenician Woman in a Gentile City and what is this to the worship of Images in Christian Churches For Eusebius doth plainly speak of Gentiles when he saith it is not to be wondered that those Gentiles who received benefits by our Saviour should do these things when saith he we see the Images of his Apostles Paul and Peter and Christ himself preserved in Pictures being done in Colours it being their custome to honour their Benefactors after this manner I appeal to any man of common sense whether Eusebius doth not herein speak of a meer Gentile custome but Baronius in spight of the Greek will have it thus quod majores nostri ad Gentilis consuetudinis similitudinem quà m proximè accedentes at which place Is. Casaubon sets this Marginal Note Graeca lege miraberis but suppose this were the sense of Eusebius what is to be gained by it save only that the bringing of Images among Christians was a meer imitation of Gentilism and introducing the Heathen customes into the Christian Church Yet Baronius hath something more to say for this Image viz. that being placed in the Diaconicon or Vestry of the Church of Paneas it was there worshipped by Christians for which he quotes Nicephorus whom at other times he rejects as a fabulous Writer And it is observable that Philostorgius out of whom Nicephorus takes the other circumstances of his relation is so far from saying any thing of the worship of this Image that he saith expresly the contrary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 giving no manner of worship to it to which he adds the reason for it because it is not lawful for Christians to worship either Brass or any other matter no not
such an answer for then all the folly and madness in making the grossest Images of God doth not lye in the Images themselves but in the imagination of the Persons that make them Is it not as great in those that worship them with such an imagination if it be then whatever the Design of the makers was if they be apt to beget such imaginations in those who see and worship them they are in that respect as unlawful as T. G. supposes any Images of God among the Heathens to have been 4. What doth T. G. mean when he makes those Images unlawful which represent the Divinity in it self and not those which represent God as he appeared Can the meer essence of any thing be represented by an Image Is it possible to represent any being otherwise than as it appears But it may be T. G. hath found out the way of painting Essences if he hath he deserves to have the Patent for it not only for himself but for his Heirs and Executors For he allows it to be the peculiar priviledge of an infinite Being that it cannot be represented as it is in it self then all other things may be represented as they are in themselves in opposition to the manner of their appearance or else the distinction signifies nothing Petrus Thyraeus a man highly commended by Possevin for for his explication of this matter saith the meaning is that an Image doth not represent the Nature but the Person that is visible for saith he when we see the Image of a man we do not say we see a Reasonable Creature but a Man Very well and so in the Image of the Deity we do not see the Divine Nature but the Divine Person or in such a way as he became visible The Invisible Nature of God cannot be represented in an Image and can the invisible Nature of Man Therefore saith he it is no injury to God to be painted by an Image no more upon these principles than to a man Bellarmin proves the lawfulness of making Images of God because man is said to be the Image of God and he may be painted therefore the Image of God may be too for that which is the Image of the Image is likewise the Image of the Exemplar those which agree in a third agreeing among themselves To this some answer'd that man was not the Image of God as to his body but as to his soul which could not be painted but Bellarmin takes off this answer by saying that then a man could not not be painted for he is not a man in regard of his outward lineaments but in regard of his substance and especially his Soul but notwithstanding the soul cannot be painted yet a man may truly and properly be said to be painted because the Figure and colours of an Image do represent the whole man otherwise saith he a thing painted could never seem to be the true Thing as Zeuxis his grapes did which deceived the birds Therefore according to Bellarmines reasoning that which represents a Being according to outward appearance although it have an invisible Nature yet is a true and real representation and represents it as it is in it self and as far as it is possible for an Image to represent any thing Wherein then lyes the difference between making the Picture of a man and the Image of God If it be said that the Image of God is very short imperfect and obscure is not the same thing to be said of the Picture of a man which can only represent his outward Features without any description of his inward substance or soul If it be farther said that there is a real resemblance between a Picture of a man and his outward lineaments but there is none between God and the Image of a man then I ask what Bellarmins argument doth signifie towards the proving the lawfulness of making an Image of God For if God may be painted because man may who is the Image of God for the Image of the Image is the Image of the Exemplar then it follows that Man is the Image of God as he may be painted and so God and man must agree in that common thing which is a capacity of being represented which cannot be supposed without as real a resemblance between God and his Image as between a Man and his Picture But T. G. tells us that they abhorr the very thoughts of making any such likeness of God and all that the Council of Trent allows is only making representations of some apparition or action of God in a way proportionable to our Humane Conception I answer 1. It is no great sign of their abhorring the thoughts of any such likeness of God to see such arguments made use of to prove the lawfulness of making Images of God which do imply it 2. Those Images of God which are the most used and allowed in the Roman Church have been thought by Wise men of their own Church to imply such a Likeness Molanus and Thyraeus mention four sorts of Images of the Trinity that have been used in the Roman Church 1. That of an old man for God the Father and of Christ in humane nature and of the Holy Ghost in the Form of a Dove 2. That of three Persons of equal Age and Stature 3. That of an Image of the Bl. Virgin in the belly of which was represented the Holy Trinity this Ioh. Gerson saith he saw in the Carmelites Church and saith there were others like it and Molanus saith he had seen such a one himself among the Carthusians 4. That of one Head with three faces or one body and three Heads which Molanus saith is much more common than the other and is wont to be set before the Office of the Holy Trinity these two latter those Authors do not allow because the former of them tends to a dangerous errour viz. that the whole Trinity was incarnate of the B. Virgin and the latter Molanus saith was an invention of the Devil it seems then there was one invention of the Devil at least to be seen in the Masse-Book for saith he the Devil once appeared with three Heads to a Monk telling him he was the Trinity But the two former they allow and defend Waldensis saith Molanus with a great deal of learning defends that of the three Persons from the appearance of the Three to Abraham and Thyraeus justifieth the first and the most common from the Authority of the Church the Consent of Fathers and the H. Scriptures And yet Pope Iohn 22. as Aventinus relates it condemned some to the Fire as Anthropomorphites and enemies to Religion for making the very same representation of the Trinity which he defends being only of God as an old man and of the Son as a young man and of the Holy Ghost under the picture of a Dove Ysambertus takes notice of this story but he saith they were such Images as were according to
ever allow Images to be worshipped with Latria and if this proposition be true that an Image as an Image is to be worshipped with Latria that likewise is true that an Image is to be worshipped with Latria for all wise men understand an Image as an Image but this is so far from being in any ancient Writer that the contrary is expresly there and especially in the Decree of the Council of Nice and therefore he hath no way to excuse the doctrine of Thomas but by saying he had never seen that Decree But it is plain Thomas Aq. had more regard to the practice of the Church than to the Definition of that Synod which he thought could not otherwise be defended The main argument of Catharinus against this opinion is Latria is due to none but God but an Image however considered as an Image is not God And whatever the Imagination of the Person passeth to upon the sight of an Image that can never make that to be God which is not God If a man takes the Image for God that is an abominable errour if he saith it is not God and yet worships it with Latria this is plainly giving Latria to something else besides God If it be said that it is the same act of the mind which passeth from the Image to the Prototype and consequently the same adoration of both this he saith will not hold for if the Image be worshipped that must be the object of adoration and the worship of the Image must be terminated on the Image otherwise it is not the worship of the Image but of the thing represented neither can it be understood how there should be two objects and but one adoration Some answer that the Image and Prototype make one total object of adoration and so it is but one Act and that of Latria but this saith he makes strange confusion that the act of worship should be equally terminated on both If they say it begins at the Image and is terminated on the Prototype that is not saith he proper worship of an Image which is not terminated on it and how can that be a partial object of adoration if the worship be no wayes terminated on it Others say there is a twofold Latria per se per accidens the former is only due to God the latter may be given to an Image this saith he contradicts the former for then the same act of worship would be both per se and per accidens which is ridiculous and that which is per accidens ought not to be looked on as worship for any thing may be said to be worshipped with Latria per accidens Others say that the worship of the Image is not terminated on the Image but on the thing represented and yet say it is the worship of the Image as an Image which as such is distinct from the thing represented which saith he is not intelligible To say the Image is worshipped improperly is a saying not fit for Philosophers or Divines but for Poets and Orators For it is no more properly said the Image is worshipped with Latria than that the Image is the thing represented which no man in his senses would say properly To Cajetans saying that an Image as performing the office of an Image is under that notion the same with the thing represented he answers that such a Metamorphosis is impossible by any act of the Image or of Imagination but to defend saith he that the Image as an Image or as representing is the same with the thing represented and so as that the Latria is any wayes terminated on the Image is to be mad ones self and to endeavour to make others so Therefore others say that the Images are not truly and properly worshipped but the things represented at them before them or in them but this saith he destroyes the worship of Images and is against the practice of the Church which directs the posture words and signs of adoration even incense to the Images as when we say to the Cross O Crux ave spes unica This we see is the Burden of the Song among them all the Church practises thus and thus this practice must be defended one way or other and happy the man that doth it best but still the practice must be continued for Catharinus inveighs bitterly against Erasmus for saying he thought it safer and easier to take Images out of Churches than to fix the just bounds of Worship and to prevent Superstition And he grants at last that by a fiction of the mind supposing the Image to be the Person represented it may be said that the Image is to be worshipped with Latria yet he concludes that no one ancient Writer that he could ever see did allow that Images might any way be worshipped with Latria but all of them did abominate such an expression And he adds that the doctrine of Thomas doth rather take off from Images that true and real worship which he saith from the Nicene Council ought to be given to them and terminated on themselves though for the sake of the things represented by them Martinus Peresius Ayala saith that the doctrine of giving Latria to Images is repugnant to Fathers and Councils especially to the Definition of the Council of Nice and he adds that there is no more connexion between a sign and the thing signified than between two relatives as between Father and Son and although the Son represent the Father yet no man will say that by the same act of knowledge whereby I know the Son as a Son I do know his Father for then the Relative opposition would be taken away and the different definitions of correlatives so saith he although by the Image a conception doth arise of the thing represented yet it is not the same act of knowledge whereby I apprehend the Image and the thing represented but suppose it were so there is not the same reason for worship as for knowledge For it is not repugnant to an Image as an Image to be apprehended by the same act with the thing represented but it seems repugnant to an Image as an Image to be worshipped with the same worship with the thing represented because an Image however considered is an insensible Creature to which they all grant no worship is due and although it represent never so much it doth not change its nature but a block remains a block still and a Stone doth not become rational by it But say they Is not the Kings Robe worshipped with the same worship that his Person is I confess saith he the whole Person as clothed is worshipped and his clothes are no more separated than any other habits or dispositions he hath about him But if the Kings Robe be separated from his Person what reason is there to worship that as the King himself is worshipped and the Princes Image is neither substantially nor accidentally the same with the Prince and therefore is
a Book no one suspects that his praise is therefore directed to his Book Thus it is in the acts of worship the Object is that Being to which the worship is directed but because external Acts must have some local circumstances by the position of our countenances and the tendency of our posture either towards Heaven or towards some place as the more immediate Symbol of a divine presence the difference is apparent between such a direction of the act towards a place and the direction of it towards an Object in case it can be made appear that may be a place of worship which is not an object of it For which we must consider 1. That the object of worship is that to which the worship is given either for its own sake or for the sake of that which it represents but a local circumstance doth only circumscribe the material act of worship within certain bounds And the proper object of worship is a Person either really present or represented as present The Idolaters who worshipped their Images as Gods if at least any considerable number of them ever did so it was upon this account that they supposed some Spirit to be incorporated in the Image and so to make together with it a Person fit to receive worship Those who worshipped the Elements or heavenly bodies did it not on the account of the matter whereof they were made but of those spirits which they believed to rule over those things they worshipped as I have already shewed in the general discourse But it is not necessary in order to an object of worship that the Person be really present for if men by imagination do suppose him present as represented by an Image that makes those who worship that Image perform the very same acts as if he were actually present and in the Church of Rome they do make this representation by an Image a sufficient ground for making that an object of worship which we say is the very thing forbidden in the Second Commandment viz. that any Image should be worshipped on the account of what it represents and therefore it forbids all kind of representations to be worshipped by men because an Image seems to have such a relation to the thing it represents that they may pretend they give worship to it on another account than meerly its matter and form viz. the thing represented by it Thus when the Reason of the worship of Images is drawn from the exemplar as it is both in the Councils of Nice and Trent they thereby shew that they do make the Image a true object of worship although the reason of it be drawn from the Person represented But suppose men worship God towards the West as the Iews did or towards the East as the Christians did what is there in this that doth represent God to us what is there that we fix our worship upon but only himself God hath no where forbidden men to worship Him towards the place of His presence for even our Saviour hath bid us pray Our Father which art in Heaven and supposing God had promised a more peculiar presence in His Holy Temple it was as lawful to worship God towards that as towards Heaven but that which God hath strictly forbidden is the worshipping of any thing on the account of the representation either of himself or of His creatures for this doth suppose that Image to be made the object of worship although it be on the account of what it represents 2. Supposing the same external acts to be performed towards an Image and towards a place of Gods particular presence yet the case is not alike in both these if those who do them declare they do them not with a design to worship that place For to the making any thing an object of worship there must be some ground to believe that they intend to worship it either from the nature of their actions or the doctrine and practice of the Church they live in but in case it be expressly declared that what they do is only intended as a local circumstance there is no ground to charge them with making it an object of worship Thus those in the Church of Rome who declare that they do not worship the Image but only worship God before an Image although they perform the same external acts of worship yet are condemed of Heresie because hereby they declare they do not give worship to Images which is contrary to the decrees of their Councils Much more certainly will those be condemned by them who declare it unlawful to worship any thing on the account of representation and that they do only determine the acts of outward worship towards a particular place without any intention to worship that place but only to worship God that way And this was the case of the Iews as to the worshipping of Images and of God towards the Holy of Holies they declared it utterly unlawful to do one because God had strictly forbidden it and they though it as lawful to do the other because he allowed the practice of it and it was sufficiently known among the people of the Iews that they had no intention to worship either the Ark or the Cherubims 3. Where there is only a local circumstance of worship the same thing would be worshipped supposing that circumstance changed but where any thing is an object of worship that being changed the same thing is not worshipped This makes the difference between these two easie and intelligible by all If a Iew should worship towards the East or Christians towards the West the same object of their worship continues still for they worship the same God both waies but if the Image of Christ or the B. Virgin be taken away from the Altar a Papist cannot be said to worship the same thing there that he did before Which plainly shews that there is a real difference between these two which is of great moment to clear the Iewish worship of God towards his holy place and to shew how different it was from the worship of Images 2. But T. G. pretends to bring clear Scripture for the Iews worshipping the Ark Adore ye the foot-stool of God for it is holy Psal. 98.5 so all the ancient Fathers he saith read it without scruple and S. Hierome he saith confirms it And why was it placed in the Holy of Holies and why were the people commanded to adore or bow down before it but to testifie their reverence to it To this I answer 1. One might venture odds against T. G. that when he quotes all the Fathers for him he hath very few of his side Nothing less will content him here than all the Fathers reading it without scruple for It is holy when Lorinus saith That all the Greek Fathers not one dissenting that he had seen read it For He is holy and among the Latins he confesses That S. Hierome and S. Augustine both read it so for
because in some he may see Moses painted with Horns on his Forehead I do not think our Church ever determined that Moses should have horns any more than it appointed such an Hieroglyphical Representation of God Is our Church the only place in the World where the Painters have lost their old priviledge quidlibet audendi There needs no great atonement to be made between the Church of England and me in this matter for the Church of England declares in the Book of Homilies that the Images of God the Father Son and Holy Ghost are expresly forbidden and condemned by these very Scriptures I mentioned For how can God a most pure Spirit whom man never saw be expressed by a gross body or visible similitude or how can the infinite Majesty and Greatness of God incomprehensible to mans mind much more not able to be compassed with the sense be expressed in an Image With more to the same purpose by which our Church declares as plainly as possible that all Images of God are a disparagement to the Divine Nature therefore let T. G. make amends to our Church of England for this and other affronts he hath put upon her Here is nothing of the Test of Reason or Honesty in all this let us see whether it lies in what follows 2. He saith That Images of God may be considered two waies either as made to represent the Divinity it self or Analogically this distinction I have already fully examined and shewed it to be neither fit for Pulpit nor Schools and that all Images of God are condemned by the Nicene Fathers themselves as dishonourable to Him 3. He saith That the Reason of the Law was to keep them in their duty of giving Soveraign Worship to God alone by restraining them from Idolatry This is now the Severe Test that my Reason cannot stand before And was it indeed only Soveraign worship to God that was required by the Law to restrain them from Idolatry Doth this appear to return his own words in the Law it self or in the Preface or in the Commination against the transgressors of it if in none of these places nor any where else in Scripture methinks it is somewhat hard venturing upon this distinction of Soveraign and inferiour worship when the words are so general Thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them And if God be so jealous a God in this matter of worship he will not be put off with idle distinctions of vain men that have no colour or pretence from the Law for whether the worship be supreme or inferiour it is worship and whether it be one or the other do they not bow down to Images and what can be forbidden in more express words than these are But T. G. proves his assertion 1. From the Preface of the Law because the Reason there assigned is I am the Lord thy God therefore Soveraign honour is only to be given to me and to none besides me Or as I think it is better expressed in the following words Thou shalt have no other Gods but me and who denies or doubts of this but what is this to the Second Commandment Yes saith T. G. The same reason is enforced from Gods jealousie of his honor very well of His Soveraign Honour but provided that supreme worship be reserved to Him He doth not regard an inferiour worship being given to Images Might not T. G. as well have explained the First Commandment after the same manner Thou shalt have no other Soveraign Gods besides me but inferiour and subordinate Deities you may have as many as you please notwithstanding the Reason of the Law which T. G. thus paraphrases I am the only supreme and super-excellent Being above all and over all to whom therefore Soveraign Honour is only to be given and to none besides me Very true say the Heathen Idolaters we yield you every word of this and why then do you charge us with Idolatry Thus by the admirable Test of T. G's reason the Heathen Idolaters are excused from the breach of the First Commandment as well as the Papists from the breach of the Second 2. He proves it from the necessary connexion between the prohibition of the Law on the one side and the supreme excellency of the Divine Nature on the other For from the supreme excellency of God it necessarily follows that Soveraign Worship is due only to it and not to be given to any other Image or thing but if we consider Him as invisible only and irrepresentable it doth not follow on that account precisely that Soveraign worship or indeed any worship at all is due unto it Which is just like this manner of Reasoning The Supreme Authority of a Husband is the Reason why the Wife is to obey him but if she consider her Husband as his name is Iohn or Thomas or as he hath such features in his face it doth not follow on that account precisely that she is bound to obey him and none else for her Husband And what of all this for the love of School Divinity May not the reason of obedience be taken from one particular thing in a Person and yet there be a general obligation of obedience to that Person and to none else besides him Although the features of his countenance be no Reason of obedience yet they may serve to discriminate him from any other Person whom she is not to love and obey And in case he forbids her familiarity with one of his servants because this would be a great disparagement to him doth it follow that because his Superiority is the general Reason of obedience he may not give a particular Reason for a special Command This is the case here Gods Supreme Excellency is granted to be the general Reason of obedience to all Gods Commands but in case he gives some particular precept as not to worship any Image may not he assign a Reason proper to it And what can be a more proper reason against making or worshipping any representation of God than to say He cannot be represented Meer invisibility I grant is no general reason of obedience but invisibility may be a very proper reason for not painting what is invisible There is no worship due to a sound because it cannot be painted but it is the most proper reason why a sound cannot be painted because it is not visible And if God himself gives this reason why they should make no graven Image because they saw no similitude on that day c. is it not madness and folly in men to say this is no Reason But T. G. still takes it for granted That all that is meant by this Commandment is that Soveraign worship is not to be given to Graven Images or similitudes and of the Soveraign worship he saith Gods excellency precisely is the formal and immediate Reason why it is to be given to none but him But we are not such Sots say the
to Scripture or Reason or the sense of the Primitive or our own Church it might have prevented my writing by changing my opinion for I was no stranger to his Writings or his Arguments But he that can think the Israelites believed the Golden Calf delivered their people out of Egypt before it was made may easily believe that Mr. Thorndikes Book of 1662. was a confutation of mine long before it was written and upon equal reason at least I may hope that this Answer will be a Prophetical Confutation of all that T. G. will ever be able to say upon this Subject CHAP. IV. An Answer to T. G's charge of Contradictions Paradoxes Reproach of the second Council of Nice School disputes and to his parallel Instances UNder these Heads I shall comprehend all that remains scattered in the several parts of his Book which seem to require any farther Answer The first thing I begin with is the Head of Contradictions for he makes in another Book the charge of Idolatry to be inconsistent with my own assertion Because I had said that Church doth not look on our negative articles against the Church of Rome as articles of Faith but as infriour Truths from whence he saith it follows that their Church doth not err against any article of Faith but Idolatry is an errour against the most Fundamental point of Faith and therefore for me to charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry must according to my own principles be the most groundless unreasonable and contradictory proceeding in the World Upon my word a very heavy charge And I must clear my self as I can from it Had not a man need to have a mighty care of dropping any kind words towards them who will be sure to make all possible advantages from them to overthrow the force of whatever can be said afterwards against them Thus have they dealt with me because I allowed the Church of Rome to be a true Church as holding all the essential points of Christian Faith therefore all the arguments I have used to prove them Idolaters are presently turned off with this That herein I contradict my self Thus I was served by that feat man at Controversie I. W. who thought it worth his while to write two Books such as they are chiefly upon this argument and he makes me to pile Contradictions on Contradictions as Children do Cards one upon another and then he comes and cunningly steals away one of the supporters and down all the rest fall in great disorder and confusion And herein he is much applauded for an excellent Artist by that mighty man at Ecclesiastical Fencing E. W. the renowned Champion of our Lady of Loreto and the miraculous translation of her Chappel about which he hath published a Defiance to the World and offers to prove it against all Comers but especially my inconsiderable self to be an undeniable Verity I must have great leisure and little care of my self if I ever more come near the Clutches of such a Giant who seems to write with a Beetle instead of a Pen and I desire him to set his heart at rest and not to trouble himself about the waies of my attacking him for he may lie quietly in his shades and snore on to Dooms-day for me unless I see farther reason of disturbing his repose than at present I do But this charge being resumed by so considerable an Adversary as T. G. is in comparison with the rest I shall for his sake endeavour more fully to clear this whole matter When I. W. had objected the same thing in effect against me the substance of the Answer I made him was this 1. That it was a disingenuous way of proceeding to oppose a judgement of charity concerning their Church to a judgement of Reason concerning the nature of actions without at all examining the force of those Reasons which are produced for it This was the case of I. W. but ingenuity is a thing my Adversaries are very little acquainted with and therefore I said 2. There was no contradiction in it For the notion of Idolatry as applied to the Church of Rome is consistent with its owning the general principles of Faith as to the True God and Iesus Christ and giving Soveraign Worship to them when therefore we say that the Church of Rome doth not err in any Fundamental point of the Christian Faith I there at large shew the meaning to have been only this that in all those which are looked on by us as necessary Articles of Faith we have the Testimony and approbation of the whole Christian World of all Ages and are acknowledged to be such by Rome it self but the Church of Rome looks upon all her Doctrines which we reject as necessary Articles of Faith so that the force of the Argument comes only to this that no Church which doth own the ancient Creeds can be guilty of Idolatry And I farther add that when we enquire into the essentials of a Church we think it not necessary to go any farther than the doctrinal points of Faith because Baptism admits men into the Church upon the profession of the true Faith in the Father Son and Holy Ghost but if beyond the essentials we enquire into the moral integrity and soundness of a Church then we are bound to go farther than the bare profession of the essential points of Faith and if it be found that the same Church may debauch those very principles of Faith by damnable errours and corrupt the worship of God by vertue of them then the same Church which doth hold the Fundamentals of Faith may notwithstanding lead men to Idolatry without the shadow of a contradiction But T. G. saith That Idolatry is an Errour against the most Fundamental point of Faith What doth T. G. mean by this I suppose it is that Idolatry doth imply Polytheism or the belief of more Gods than one to whom Soveraign worship is due then I deny this to be the proper Definition of Idolatry for although where ever this is it hath in it the nature of that we call Idolatry yet himself confesses the true notion of it to be The giving the worship due to God to a Creature so that if I have proved that the worship of Images in the Roman Church is the giving the worship due only to God to a Creature then although the Church of Rome may hold all the essentials of Faith and be a true Church it may be guilty of Idolatry without contradiction But it may be I. W. in his Reply saith something more to purpose at least it will be thought so if I do not answer him I must therefore consider what he saith that is material if any thing be found so However he saith that if the Roman Church doth hold any kind of Idolatry to be lawful she must needs hold an Errour destructive to a Fundamental and essential point of Faith and by consequence a Fundamental errour