Defense of the Discourse Concerning Idolatry in the Church of Rome, Part 2 · Chapter 4

Defense of the Discourse Concerning Idolatry in the Church of Rome · Part 2 · Chapter 4

p. 784CHAP. 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, §. 1.which seem to require any farther Answer. The first thing I begin with is, the Head of Contradictions, T. G. p. 13, 14, 15.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,Rational Account, p. 54. 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, p. 785unreasonable, 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:Dr. Still. still against Dr. Still. A.D. 1675. 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.Infallibility of the Roman Catholick Church against Dr. Still. by E. W. 1674. Preface. 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; p. 786about 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 Doomsday 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, Answer to several Treatises, First part, p. 19, &c.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 p. 787no 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 p. 788profession 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 p. 789him:) I must therefore consider what he saith, that is material, if any thing be found so. However, he saith,Dr. Still. still against Dr. Stîll. p. 95. 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 inconsistent with the essence of a true Church. And since no kind of Idolatry is lawful, if the Roman Church hold it to be so, she must needs hold an errour inconsistent with some Truth. Most profoundly argued! He only ought to have subsumed, (as I think such Logicians as I. W. call it) but all Errour is Fundamental and inconsistent with the essence of a true Church; or That Infallibility is necessary to the Being of a Church, and when he proves that, I promise to renounce the charge of Idolatry. Now it is not possible, saith I. W. that the Roman Church should bold any Idolatry lawful (knowing it to be Idolatry) unless she holds that some Honour, which is due only to God, may be given to a Creature. I am afraid to be snapt by so cunning a Sophister, and therefore I distinguish in time. The Roman Church doth not hold any Idolatry lawful which it judges to be Idolatry, p. 790or the Honour due only to God; but the Roman Church may give the real parts of worship due only to God to a meer creature, and yet at the same time, tell men it is not a part of the Honour which is due to God. To make this plain even to the understanding of I. W. The Church of Rome may entertain a false notion of Idolatry, or of that worship which is due only to God: which false notion being received, men may really give the worship that only belongs to God to His Creatures; and the utmost errour necessary in this case is no more than having a false notion of Idolatry, as, that there can be no Idolatry without giving Soveraign Worship to a Creature, or that an Idol is the representation only of an Imaginary Being, &c. Now on these suppositions, no more is necessary to the practice of Idolatry, than being deceived in the notion of it. If therefore T. G. or I.W. will prove that the Church of Rome can never be deceived in the notion of it, or that it is repugnant to the essence of a Church to have a false notion of Idolatry, they do something towards the proving me guilty of a contradiction in acknowledging the Church of Rome to be a true Church, and yet charging it with Idolatry. But I. W. saith, p. 791That 'tis impossible the Roman Church should teach or hold any kind of Idolatry, p. 97.whatsoever it be, but she must hold expressly or implicitly, that some Honour due only to God, may be given to a meer Creature. Such kind of stuff as this would make a man almost repent ever reading Logick (which this man pretends so much to) for surely Mother Wit is much better than Scholastick Fooling. Such a Church which commits, or by her doctrines and practises leads to Idolatry, needs not to hold, i. e. deliver as her judgment that some Honour due only to God may be given to a Creature; it is sufficient if she commands or allows such things to be done, which in their own nature, or by the Law of God is really giving the worship of God to a Creature. Yet upon this mistake, as gross as it is, the poor waspish Creature runs on for many leaves, and thinks all that while he proves me guilty of a contradiction. But the man hath something in his head which he means, although he scarce knows how to express it, viz. that in good Catholick Dictionaries, a Fundamental errour, and a damnable errour, p. 101.and an error inconsistent with the essence of a true Church, are terms Synonymous. Now I know what he would be at, viz. that Infallibility p. 792is necessary to the Being of a Church: therefore to suppose a Church to err, is to suppose it not to be a Church: But will he prove me guilty of contradiction by Catholick Dictionaries? I beg his pardon: for in them Transubstantiation implies none; but whosoever writes against them, must be guilty of many. If he would prove me guilty of Contradiction, let him prove it from my own sense and not from theirs. Yet he would seem at last to prove that the practice of any kind of Idolatry, p. 10…, &c.especially being approved by the Church, is destructive to the Being of a Church. Which is the only thing, he saith, that deserves to be farther considered, by enquiring into two things. 1. Whether a Church allowing and countenancing the practice of Idolacry can be a true Church? 2. Whether such a Church can have any power or Authority to consecrate Bishops, or ordain Priests? For this is a thing which T. G. likewise objects, as consequent upon my assertion of their Idolatry, that thereby I overthrow all Authority, and Iurisdiction in the Church of England, as being derived from an Idolatrous Church. These are matters which deserve a farther handling, and therefore I shall speak to them.

p. 7931. Whether a Church may continue a true Church, and yet allow,§. 2. and practise any kind of Idolatry? And to resolve this, I resort again to the ten Tribes; Supposing what hath been said sufficient to prove them guilty of Idolatry, my business is to enquire, whether they were a true Church in that time. This I. W. denies;I.W. p. 78. saying, I ought to have proved and not barely supposed that the Idolatry introduced by Ieroboam was not destructive to the being of a True Church: and several Protestants, he saith, produce the Church of Israel to shew that a true visible Church may cease. Alas poor man! he had heard something of this Nature, but he could not tell what; they had produced this as an instance against the perpetual Visibility of the Church, and he brings it to prove that it ceased to be a true Church; and the time they fix upon by his own Confession is, when Elias complained that he was left alone in Israel; which was not when the Idolatry of the Calves, but when that of Baal prevailed among the people of Israel; i. e. when they worshipped Beel-samen or the Sun instead of God. Now that they were a true Church while they worshipped Ieroboams Calves, I prove by these two things. p. 7941. That there was no time from Ieroboam to the Captivity of Israel, wherein the worship of the Calves was not the established Religion of the ten Tribes; this is evident from the expression before mentioned, that the Children of Israel departed not from the sins of Jeroboam,2 King. 17.22, 23. 1 Kings 15.26, 34.16.13, 19, 26, 31.2 Kgs 17:222 Kgs 17:231 Kgs 15:261 Kgs 15:341 Kgs 15:161 Kgs 15:131 Kgs 15:191 Kgs 15:31 till God removed Israel out of his sight. And it is observable of almost every one of the Kings of Israel, that it is said particularly, that he departed not from the sins of Jeroboam.22.52. 2. That during that time God did own them for his People, 2 Kings 3.3.2 Kgs 3:310.29.13.2.14.23.15.9, 18.24.28.which is all one with making them a True Church. Thus Iehu is said to be anointed King over the People of the Lord. 2 Kings 9.6.2 Kgs 9:6And there is a remarkable expression in the time of Iehoahaz, that the Lord was gracious unto them, 13.23.and had respect unto them, because of his Covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and would not destroy them, neither cast he them from his presence as yet. Would God have such respect to those whom he utterly disowned? Nay the Prophet Hosea saith,Hosea 11.8, 9.Hos 11:8Hos 11:9 that God was still the Holy one in the midst of Ephraim; and How shall I give thee up Ephraim? how shall I deliver thee Israel? Which shews God had not yet discarded them: and afterwards he saith to Israel, 14.1.Return unto the Lord thy p. 795God; and Amos saith,Amos 4.12.8.2.Amos 4:12Amos 4:8Amos 4:2 prepare to meet thy God O Israel: and both he and Micah, Micah 6.2, 3.Mic 6:2Mic 6:3call them still Gods people. From whence it is evident, that they were still a true Church notwithstanding the Idolatry of Ieroboam.

2. Supposing a Church to continue a True Church, what reason can there be to question the Authority of that Church as to the consecration of Bishops, or the ordination of Priests? I have formerly shewed that no Act of Ordination is invalid in case of any heresie or Crime of the Giver;Answer first part Gener. pres. in sin. and that the contrary doctrine is condemned for heresie by the Church. I now shall particularly shew that the Power of giving Orders is not taken away by the guilt of Idolatry; which I prove from the case of the Arian Bishops. I have at large made it manifest,Part 1. Ch. 1. sect. 17. that the Arians were condemned for Idolatry by the consent of the Fathers of greatest reputation, S. Athanasius, S. Basil, S. Gregory Nazianzen, Nyssen, Epiphanius, S. Chrysostom, S. Ambrose, S. Augustin, &c. And the second Nicene Council saith,Concil. Nicen. 2. act. 6. p. 411. that the Catholick Church looked on them as Idolaters. Now, if I can make it appear, that the Arian Ordinations were allowed, I shall put this matter past dispute, that the charge of Idolatry doth not null the Ordinations of p. 796our Church as being derived from those who were guilty of Idolatry. For this purpose, the second Nicene Council affords us plentiful assistance in the First Session; wherein Peter the Popes Vicar declares, that Meletius was ordained by Arian Bishops, Act. 1. p. 82.Acts 1and yet his Ordination was never questioned; and this was received by the Council as true. Epiphanius, Socrates and Sozomon all agree,Epiph. haer. 73. n. 28. Socr. l. 2. c. 44. Sozom. l. 4. c. 28. that Meletius received his Consecration from the Arian Faction; and Epiphanius saith, he had it from the hands of Acacius Bishop of Caesarea; the worst of all the Arians, saith Baronius. Baron. ad A.D. 360. n. 52.Socrates and Sozomen do seem to imply, that the followers of Eustathius at Antioch would not joyn with Meletius and his party, though both consenting in the Nicene Creed, because of his ordination by the Arian faction, and the peoples being baptized by Arian Priests; but Theodoret mentions no such thing,Theod. l. 2. c. 31. and saith the first breach began there, when Meletius was banished by the Arian party; and Euzoius the Arian was made Bishop of Antioch: and Baronius makes the Schism to begin from the ordination of Paulinus by Lucifer Caralitanus;Baron. ad A. 408. c. 31. however this were, we never find the Ordination of Meletius disputed by p. 797the Catholick Bishops; and when S. Athanasius writes a Synodical Epistle to those of Antioch, to compose the differences among them upon the ordination of Paulinus, he gives this direction to the other Catholick Christians concerning Meletius his party, who met foreign (so the place of their meeting was called, being in the old City, which the interpreter of Athanasius renders in veteris Ecclesiae communione) that they should receive those who came to them from the Arians without requiring any more from them, Athanas. ap. ad Antioch. p. 575.than the renouncing Arianism and subscribing or owning the Nicene Creed; Whereby, the Arian Baptism and Orders were allowed. But we have a fuller Testimony of the general sense of the Church of that Age as to this matter of the Arian Ordinations; Ruffinus saith,Ruffin. hist. Eccles. l. 1. c. 28.Sir 50:1 that when the Catholick Bishops were returned from banishment, several of them met together at Alexandria to consult what was to be done with those who had received Orders from the Arian Bishops; and after consultation about it, it was decreed in Council, that only the Heads of the party should be rejected, but others received to the exercise of their Priestly Office: upon which Asterius was dispatched into the Eastern p. 798parts to settle the Churches there, and Eusebius into the Western: but he returning to Antioch, found that Lucifer in the mean time had broken his promise in the Consecration of Paulinus, and Eusebius therefore would not own him as Bishop; which so enraged Lucifer, that he quarrelled with the decree of the Alexandrian Council about receiving the Arian Bishops and Priests upon disowning their Heresie. And so the Luciferian Schism began: for the followers of Lucifer charged the Catholick Church with being the Synagogue of Antichrist for receiving the Arian Bishops, as appears by S. Hierom; Hieron. advers. Luciferian. init.for they yielded to the receiving the penitent Laity but not the Clergy; allowing the Arian Baptism, but not their Ordinations: upon which S. Hierom triumphs over them. And he saith, that eight Arian Bishops were received in the Council of Nice, although their Arianism were declared before: and that the decree of the Alexandrian Council was universally received by the Church: which is as ample a Testimony to our purpose as can be desired.

§. 3.Next to contradictions, T. G. charges me with maintaining strange Paradoxes, which he puts into the Title of one of p. 799his Chapters in these words,T.G. p. 76. A strange Paradox advanced by Dr. St. What can an Image do to the heightning of Devotion or raising affections? Not finding my self to be any great lover of Paradoxes, but of plain and useful Truths, I was the more curious to find out what Paradox it was I had broached. And searching for the place, I found these words, And can any one imagine, there should be greater irreverence of God shewn in calling him to witness upon every slight occasion, than there is in bowing down before a block or a hewen stone, representing God to my mind by it? What can SUCH an Image do to the heightening of devotion, or raising affections? This is the monstrous Paradox advanced by me, viz. that such a gross representation of God by an Image doth tend more to abate than raise our estimation of him: which is so far from being a Paradox, that I have herein the consent, not only of the ancient Fathers, but of the greatest Patrons of Images in the Eastern and Western Churches, till the latter times, as I have shewed already. But T. G. sets himself very industriously to prove that Pictures have an advantage in representation above living Creatures; T.G. p. 86. to 90.which he doth with great p. 800force of wit and strength of Reason; because Ladies sit, (sometimes to make Madonna's by) for their Pictures, and Authors Pictures are set before their Books; (it is pitty we want our Authors on so just an occasion) and men keep the Pictures of their Friends (and Sign-posts are very useful in London streets, and may suggest many good meditations to men, as the three Nuns or the like) but to hold the contrary opinion, is the way to undo the company of Picture-drawers (which would be a great unkindness to all ingenious Artists,) but the most dismal consequence of my doctrine is, that the Ladies instead of the Pictures of their Friends should wear Ants and Flies in Crystal cases; and instead of their own pictures the Apes and Asses should be sent them; which I brought in so lamely, and the Tygers too if they can catch them, as greater resemblances of their Perfections. These passages, I hope, were intended for sallies of Wit; which do become T. G. as well in this argument, as dancing upon the Ropes would do a Capucin Frier in his habit. But whence comes all this Rage of Wit? this arming all the Pencils and brushes of the Town against me? this Appeal to the Ladies against the pernicious consequences p. 801of my opinion? this hurrying of me from the Playhouse and the Scenes there to the Bear-garden, to the Apes, and Asses, and Tygers? All this ariseth only from this innocent saying, that it seems more reasonable to me to Worship God by prostrating my self to the Sun, nay to an Ant or a Fly, than to a picture or an Image; for in the other I see great evidences of the Power, and Wisdom and Goodness of God, which may suggest venerable apprehensions of God to my mind; whereas these can have nothing worthy admiration, unless it be the skill of the Painter or Artificer. Hinc illae lachrymae! Could I ever have imagined that these words being spoken meerly with a respect to the representation of God in order to Worship, should have raised the Arriereban of all the Ladies and Painters against me? If nothing will satisfie T. G. but having it under my hand that I had no malicious intention against the ingenious art of Painting, nor any design to ruine the company of picture-drawers, I do hereby give it him, and with this humble acknowledgement I hope the parties concerned will rest satisfied. It is not in the point of bare representation I compare pictures and Gods Creatures; but it is in representing those perfections which are the ground and Reason of Worship; and here I stand to it, that the least living Creature is a far better Image of God, than an old Man in Pontifical habits, or the best Crucifix in the world can be: i.e. it represents more those perfections for the sake of which I give divine Worship to God. But T. G. saith,T.G. p. 89. that Atheists will deny the perfections of the Creatures to be any evidence at all of the being we call God; but cannot deny a Crucifix to represent to their own thoughts that Person whom we believe to be God? This is very ill put; for he should have parallel'd blind men and Atheists together; and I dare say no blind man discerns more of the excellency or likeness of a Picture, than Atheists do of the perfections of God by his Creatures. If men will shut their eyes, what can a Crucifix do to raise affections? and if their eyes be never so open, it can only represent that which falls infinitely short of being a Reason for Divine Worship. For, as to the meer representation of Christs humanity by an Image, whoever disputed with T. G. about the lawfulness of it? but if he goes no farther than representation, or a help to memory or apprehension, T. G. knows well enough, he falls short of what is required of p. 803him, by the Decrees of their Councils, and the constant practice of their Church, about which our Controversie with them is.

To the former paradox I added these words,§. 4. that I cannot for my heart understand why I may not as well, (nay better) burn incense and say my Prayers to the Sun, having an intention only to honour God by it, as to do both those to an Image? Here T. G. gives me warning not to say my Prayers to the Sun no more than they do to Images; T.G. p. 90.he needs not give me that warning, for I never intend to do it so much; for although he would insinuate that I know they do not, I hope he will change his mind when he reads the account I have given of their practises in that particular; but I only pretended to pray to the Sun having an intention to honour God by it; and in this sense I am sure T. G. cannot deny, that they pray to their Images. But if I do not say my prayers to the Sun, but only bow down to it, so it be not out of ignorance, or Heathenism, or to give scandal to weak Brethren, he gives as much liberty as I could wish, and he quotes S. Leo for it too; in that very place where he condemns it, as appears by the last words he p. 804cites out of him;p. 91. let the Faithful therefore abstain from so perverse and worthy to be condemned a Custome, nor let the honour due to God alone, be mixed with their rites who serve the Creatures, for the Holy Scripture saith, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve. Where the reason he gives against it, is not as T. G. insinuates, because there were some Reliques of Paganism remaining, but because it was giving the Creature part of that Honour which is due to God alone. p. 93.But T. G. offers to give me a clear solution to my scruple; which he does in two particulars. 1. That although the Creatures do represent God after their manner, yet it is so rudely, remotely, darkly, and imperfectly, that there is need of a great deal of discourse to discover the analogy or proportion to their Creator; and they are called the footsteps of God; whereas an Image (for example) of Christ is so apparently representative of him, that upon sight thereof our thoughts fly presently unto him. By which argument S. Paul was strangely mistaken when he talked of the Eternal Power of God being so known or manifest by the things that are seen, Rom. 1.20.Rom 1:20that even the Heathens were left without excuse; no such p. 805matter, saith T. G. the Creatures represent God rudely, remotely, darkly and imperfectly; which make an excellent paraphrase on the words of the Psalmist,Psal. 19.1.Ps 19:1 The Heavens declare the glory of God, and the Firmament shews his handy-work. Mens handy-work by Images will do it rarely, presently, effectually, inflamingly; but Gods Work doth it dully, remotely, rudely, and imperfectly. O how much the skill of a painter exceeds the Power of God! Whereas in truth the least work of Nature infinitely exceeds the greatest art of man in curiosity, beauty, strength, proportion, and every thing that can discover Wisdom or Power. But, saith T. G. they are called Gods footsteps, and to gather the height and bigness of Hercules from his footstep was not the Work of every vulgar capacity, which is a very Childish way of reasoning, and taken only from such a Metaphorical expression that Vasquez calls it a frivolous argument that is taken from it. I, but the pretty story of Hercules and that put together make a pleasant jingling: and looks like Reason to those that know not what it means. Must men take the measure of God just by the same Geometrical proportions that he did, that gathered the height and bigness of Hercules by his p. 806foot? This sort of Wit is a delicate thing, and endures no rough handling. But still I say it is not in the meer quickness of representation, but in the perfections represented, that natural things do so far exceed the most artificial Images; and we are to consider that in all representations of objects of worship, those are the most excellent which best set forth the Nature of that Being as it deserves our worship. Now in this respect, the works of Creation manifest Gods eternal Power, and what is it the Image of an Old man represents? So that comparing these two, the Sun, Moon and Stars do in regard of real representation of the Divine Being, much more deserve to be worshipped than any Image whatsoever. And Vasquez doth well prove that upon the principles of Worshipping Images, Vasquez Hisp. 110. c. 2.one may lawfully Worship God in any Creature whatsoever. For if the presence of God in the Image by a meer fiction of the mind, be a sufficient Ground to worship that Image; is not Gods real presence in every creature a far better ground and reason to worship it? and all the distinctions and evasions which serve in one will equally serve in the other case. How earnestly did T. G. contend for the Worship of Gods Footstool? and why may p. 807not His Footsteps be worshipped as well as His Footstool? I am sure T. G. himself could not have taken the height and bigness of Hercules from his Footstool, which he saith, was done from his Footsteps; and therefore one comes nearer to the thing worshipped than the other. Cardinal Lugo gives an excellent answer to this Metaphor of the Creatures being Gods Footsteps;Lugo de Mysterio Incarn. disp. 37. Sect. 1. For, saith he, they may be worshipped for all that; for do not we worship the Footsteps of Saints in many Churches? how much more ought we to adore the Footsteps of God?

But T. G. gives another reason against worshipping the Creatures,§. 5. T. G. p. 93, 94.viz. That there is greater danger of terminating the worship upon them, than upon an Image; because they are Creatures subsisting of themselves, and are the causes of real benefits to mankind. If there be more danger in the one, there is more folly in the other, in the judgement of the Fathers, who looked on the worship of Images as the most silly and childish thing in the world; while they thought the worship of the heavens very excusable: Upon this ground, I had said before, it follows, that what deserves most honour should have the p. 808least given it, and that which deserves least, should have most; for the danger is still greater, where the excellency is greater; and by this reason we ought rather to worship a Beast than a Saint, for there is less danger of terminating the worship on one than on the other, and so the Egyptians were more excusable than the Papists. These words he returns upon me, on a very slight occasion, viz. setting the Sun before an Ant or a Fly;T. G. p. 86. as though they had been a Reason of my giving, where as I only shew the ridiculousness of this which is the only pretence they have for not worshipping God by a living Old Man, as well as by the Picture of one. And if this be all T. G. hath to say, I see still the distinctions of Soveraign and inferiour, of absolute and relative worship will bear any man out in the worship of any Creature with a respect to God, as well at least as it doth them in the worship of Images. Vasquez saith there are these several grounds for the worship of a Creature among them.Vasq. ubi sup. 1. Representation, which belongs to an Image. 2. Contact, although long since past; thence they worship the Cross, Nails, Garments, and other things that had touched the bodies of Christ or the Saints. 3. Union; thence they worship p. 809all Reliques which had been parts of the Saints. 4. Presence: thence God being more present in his Works, than any Saint can be in a Garment he did once wear; there is more Reason to worship God in His Works, than any Saint in Reliques. Cardinal Lugo assigns these several Reasons for the worship of God in any Creature. 1. Because they worship the work of mens hands, as the hand-writing of any Saint, Lugo ubi sup.much more ought we to worship Gods Works with a Relative worship. 2. Becaus they worship the very places where the Saints have been; as a Stone on which they have sate, for the sake of contact and propinquity; much more ought we to worship Gods Creatures, to whom He is far nearer than the Body of a Saint to a Stone. 3. Because they receive gifts from Princes with great veneration, although mean in themselves; therefore since all the Creatures are Gods gifts we may worship them for His sake. 4. Because a man is the living Image of God, therefore as a Wooden Image may be worshipped for the sake of the exemplar, much more, saith he, ought such a lively Image as man is. Thus we see how men of the greatest understanding among them, have discerned the necessary consequence of their own principles of worship, and p. 810find there is no defending them, without yielding the lawfulness of worshipping God through any of His Creatures; and living men rather than dead Images, on the account of a fuller representation of God; and saith Lugo, With the worship of Latria, in respect of God, and an inferiour worship on the account of His proper excellency. n. 8.If men had set themselves to oppose the doctrine of the Primitive Church about Divine Worship, they could not have thought of a principle more directly opposite to the general sense of it than this is, of the lawfulness of the worship of Creatures. But there are two cases wherein they will not allow it. 1. In the case of indecency, although there have been a real contact; thus the lips of Iudas are excepted, although they touched Christ. And Cardinal Lugo with particular caution excepts the Tail of the Ass on which Christ rode to Jerusalem.n. 11. But saith Arriaga, There was indignitas moralis,Arriag. de Myster. Incarn. disp. 57. sect. 2. subject. 2. n. 10. that did hinder the worship of Judas his lips; however he doth not understand, how this can cut off the adorability of them on the principles of Vasquez and Lugo. As to the Ass on which Christ rode; there are some, saith he, do yield that it might be worshipped; and the Mule, and the Ass which stood by p. 811the Maunger, as well as the Maunger is self: but it may be, it were better denied, because there is, saith he, I know not what meanness in it which hinders adoration; but he adds, that in all these moral things very much depends on the apprehension of the persons; and in case the intention be rightly directed, he thinks it very hard (upon their principles) to prove that God cannot be worshipped in any Creature. 2. In case of publick scandal they do not allow it. Not from any real hurt in the thing, but because the People have been only hitherto accustomed to worship Images, and Reliques of Saints. The danger, saith Vasquez from Cajetan, would be none to understanding men, but only to the rude and ignorant people, that cannot so easily apprehend God in His Creatures, as in an Image, and withall it would savour of Heathen superstition. But it were well they would consider the Answer they give us in this case, when we urge the same argument against the worship of Images: Hold, say they,Ysamb. de Myster. Incarn. ad Qu. 25. disp. 3. art. 15. a meer scandal is no reason to take away the use of a thing, if it be such as doth not arise from the nature of the thing; but only by accident through the malice or ignorance of the Persons. So that in this case nothing is wanting, but well instructing the p. 812People; and upon their principles of worship they may revive the worship of the Host of Heaven, the Fire and Water, and Trees, and the Earth it self; and it is but conquering a little squeamishness of stomach at first, the very Tail of the Ass on which our Savio…r rode, will go down with them. And now I leave the Reader to judge which of us two is guilty of the greater Paradoxes.

I now come to the great rock of offence, the second Council of Nice:§. 6. which, he saith,T.G. p. 118. I most irreverently call that wise Synod; upon which he falls into a very Tragical exclamation; that I should dare to reflect so much dishonour on a Council, wherein there were 350.p. 119. Fathers, with the Popes Legats, and the Vicars of the Oriental Patriarchal Sees; and yet himself calls the Council of Constantinople a Conventicle, wherein there were 338. Bishops; (and doth he think the number of twelve more in one than in the other, makes such a huge difference in point of Wisdom?) But the Author of the Caroline Book saith,Carol. de Imag. l. 4. c. 13. That by their own confession they were but 306. And the Council of Francford (which opposed this, and of which T. G. speaks not very honourably, as I shall make appear) consisted of about p. 813…00. Bishops, by the confessions of their own Writers: so that if number carries it, I have above 600. Bishops of my side; and if they were wise, the Nicene Council was not so. It is therefore in T. G's choice to call 300. or 600. Bishops, Fools. But if he be guilty of the same fault, that doth not excuse me for speaking so Ironically, of so lawful, so general, so judicious a Council, as that at Nice was: and therefore he adviseth me to recant, and to follow the example of Gregory of Neocaelarea: I hope he doth not mean in the way of S. German; although one of that name was a great Patron of Images about that time. But if this Council were neither so lawful, so general, nor so judicious as T. G. pretends, for all that I know, the Rector of a Parochial Church never to be found in the list of any General Council (which is a shrewd aggravation of my fault) may have leave to call the Second Council of Nice, a wise Synod.

1. I shall enquire whether this were a lawful General Council, and so received by the Church: There are three things T. G. insists on to make this out. 1. That it was called by the Popes Authority; which he knows we deny to be sufficient to make a lawful General Council; for then p. 814every Assembly of Bishops at Rome called by the Pope would be a General Council. 2. The consent and presence of the Patriarchs. 3. That it hath been received as such by the Church. But I shall make it appear, that it was just such another General Council as that of Trent was, and managed with as much fraud and collusion; and that it was not received by the Church as a General Council. 1. As to the presence and consent of the Patriarchs; this Council in their Synodical Epistle boast that they had the concurrence of East, Act. 7. p. 586.Acts 7West, North and South: Which is such an extravagance, that no sober men would have been guilty of, that had any regard to Truth or Honesty; or did in the least consider the State of the World at that time. The Western Bishops were never so much as summon'd, the Patriarch, of Ierusalem was dead, the Eastern Patriarch, and the Patriarch of Alexandria were neither in condition to appear themselves, nor to send Legats thither; which Baronius ingenuously confesseth:Baron. ad A. D. 785. n. 40. Because Aaron who was then Chaliph of the Saracens, was a great enemy to the Christians, under whose dominion at that time they were. Although Christianus Lupus, Christian. Lup. in Conc. T. 2. p. 1210.a Professor of Divinity at Lovain, makes him a great Friend to p. 815the Christians in Egypt; which is not only contrary to Baronius, but to the Synodical Epistle, the two Monks carried to the Council, from the Monks of Palestine, and was read and approved by the Council. Theophanes saith,Theoph. Chrongr. p. 388. Histor. Miscell. l. 23. p. 333. That the Empress and Patriarch, both sent to the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, while the Peace continued; but soon after upon Aaron's being made Chaliph, the peace was broke; and there was no liberty for the Patriarchs either to go or send.

But do we not read in the Acts of the Council that John appeared and subscribed as Vicar of the Oriental Patriarchs; and Thomas as Vicar of the Patriarch of Alexandria? Very true: but Baronius gives an excellent account of this notorious cheat. The Legats that were sent to the Patriarchs did never arrive at Antioch or Alexandria; but coming into Palestine, they there understood what a grievous persecution the Christians suffered under the new Chaliph, and that if it should be discovered what errand they went upon, it would not only hazzard their own lives, but of all the Christians of those parts; therefore they forbore going any farther, and acquainted the Monks of Palestine with their design; who met together, and p. 816took upon them to send these two, John and Thomas as the Legats of the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria: For Theodorus Patriarch of Ierusalem was lately dead. And these two were the goodly Vicars of the Patriarchal See's which sate and subscribed in their names in this most Oecumenical Council; and passed in all the Acts of it for the Legats of the Oriental Patriarchs. Act. 7. p. 558.Acts 7For they subscribe themselves Legats of the three Apostolical Sees, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem: and yet the summons never came to either of the Patriarchs, but they were in truth only the Plenipotentiary Monks of the Patriarchal Monks of Palestine: So both Baronius and Binius confess they were only the Monks that sent them, and they call themselves Eremites in the beginning of their Epistle; and yet in the Acts of that Council they pass for very great men of the East, Bin. not. in Concil. Nic. 2. Concil. Nic. Act. 3. p. 187, 190.Acts 3and Euthymius Bishop of Sardis calls them the Patriarchs of the East; and Epiphanius takes it for granted that the Letters were sent by the very same to whom Tarasius directed his; when the very Letters themselves, which were read in the Council, shew that the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria were never consulted with. And yet Christianus Lupus in his p. 817late Notes on the Canons of the General Councils, Lup. not. in Can. Concil. Sept. To. 2. p. 1109.very fairly tells a formal story of Politian, Patriarch of Alexandria, and Theodoret of Antioch, and Elias of Ierusalem, sending these for their Legats to this Council (I had thought it had been only the Popes Prerogative to make titular Patriarchs) and he gravely magnifies the zeal and courage both of the Patriarchs and Legats for venturing so much in such a time of Persecution: and then falls into a mighty Encomium of the two Legats that Tarasius sent, for venturing through a thousand deaths to get to the Patriarchs, when God knows they never came near them. But which is far more to be wondred at, Pope Adrian in his Answer to Charles the Great about the Nicene Synod had the face to say,Adriani epist. Synod. Nic. To. 7. Concil. p. 924. That the Synodical Epistle of the three Patriarchs, of Cosmus of Alexandria, and of Theodore of Antioch, (it seems Elias is turned to Theodore again) and Theodore of Ierusalem was read and approved in this Council of Nice; than which (with his Holiness's leave) there never was a more notorious falshood, unless it were that of Tarasius; who upon the approbation of these Letters of the Monks, cry'd out,p. 154▪ That the East and the West, the North and the South were all p. 818agreed; and the whole Council followed this with an acclamation of Glory be to God that hath united us; when the Eastern Patriarchs knew nothing of the Council, the Western Bishops opposed it as soon as ever they knew it. And was not this a very hopeful General Council, having as T. G. saith,T.G. p. 118. The Popes Legats for Presidents, and the Vicars of the Oriental Patriarchal Sees assisting in it?

2. That it was not received for a General Council by the Church. §. 7.For even in the Greek Church it self, Theophanes only saith,Theoph. Chron. p. 389. That the Emperour called together all the Bishops within his own Dominions; which is said likewise by Landulphus Sagax; only Theophanes would have it believed that the Oriental Patriarchs sent their Legats, Paul. Diacon. l. 23. p. 733.which was very false: as not only appears from the very Acts of the Council, wherein the Monks Letter is inserted, but because this Council was not received many years after in those Patriarchal Sees; which is evident from Photius his Encyclical Epistle to the Patriarch of Alexandria and others,Photii Epist. 2. p. 60. not long since published in Greek from a Ms. brought out of the East; wherein Photius expostulates the case, why the Nicene Council was not p. 819received among them, as the six General Councils were. In that Copy which is extant in Baronius, translated by Metius, and with great diligence compared with two Mss. whereof one was a very ancient one, it is said expresly,Baron. A. D. 863. n. 33. That it was reported among them that none of the Churches under the Apostolical See of Alexandria did own the Nicene Synod for a General Council; which in B. Montagues Copy is mitigated into some; but by the tenour of his Discourse it appears, it was not published in their Churches, nor received among them as a General Council: and he useth many arguments to perswade them to it; among the rest he saith, That Thomas was present in it from his See, and others with him; but he doth not say, he came as Legate. And he hath found out Companions for him too; which is more than the Nicene Council discovered: and yet he acknowledges that by reason of the persecution of the Saracens, the Acts of that Council never came to them; which would be very strange, if the Patriarch of Alexandria sent a Legate thither. Baronius ingenuously confesses that this Nicene Council was not received as an Occumenical Council in any of the Eastern Patriarchates, Ib. n. 6.excepting only that of Constantinople; p. 820and he is very hard put to it to prove that it was owned as such even at Rome it self; because Nicholaus 1. in a Council at Rome in the cause of Photius reckons up but six General Councils, which Photius upbraids him with; and it is but a pitiful pretence which Baronius hath for it, viz. that they had only a bad Translation of it; such a one as it was, it was of Hadrians procuring, as Anastasius saith.Anast. vit. Hadrian. 1. p. 119. If they had received it as a General Council, where were the Authentick Acts of it? or if they did not understand Greek, could they not have procured a better Latine Translation before the time of Anastasius? But the plain Truth was, although Pope Hadrian joined with it, and would not allow Tarasius his being Patriarch till he undertook to get the worship of Images confirmed, yet the Nicene Council was so very ill received in the Western Church; that the following Popes were ashamed to call it an Oecumenical Council; as Binius confesses in the very words of Baronius, according to his custom. And long after their times, it was so little known or esteemed in the Western parts,Concil. Gener. Tom. 8. p. 775. that Aquinas and the ancient Schoolmen never mention it in the matter of Images, but determine expresly against it. Which either shews it p. 821was not known, or had not any value put upon it; For if Baronius his reason hold good, as soon as Anastasius had finished his Translation, this Council would have been as much known here, as any other; and so much the more, because so many Schoolmen were concerned to justifie the worship of Images, and they were so much to seek for arguments to defend it, that they would have leaped for joy to have had a Decree of an allowed General Council on their side; or if they had found it against them, they would some way or other have answered it.

But the greatest Testimony against it is the Council of Francford, §. 8.which expresly condemned it; and as Sirmondus confesses,Sirmond. adm. de Can. 2. Concil. Francford. Did not look upon it as an Oecumenial Council, because none but Greeks met in it, and other Churches were not asked their opinion; nay, he saith, that Pope Hadrian himself, did not give it the title of a General Council. To this T. G. answers,T.G. p. 148 That what weight soever that Exception carried at that time, yet it is certain now it hath no force at all, since the Council it self hath for many hundreds of years been accepted as a true and lawful General Council, and its doctrine as Catholick p. 822by all the Provinces of Christendom, and the contrary to it condemned for Heresie. This latter is evidently false, as I have shewed before, and there is no reason for the other; for by the confession of their own Writers the Copies of this Nicene Council lay buried in these Western parts for many Ages, which is the reason they give why the Schoolmen take no notice of it; and in the former Century, the Copies of it were first published from some Mss. that were very little known. The account whereof was, that this Council meeting with so brisk an opposition from the Council of Francford and afterwards from the Gallican Bishops, and being rejected here in England by the consent of our Historians, the very name of it was almost quite forgotten; thence it never was once cited either by Ionas Aurelianensis, or Walafridus Strabo, as Spalatensis observes,Spalat. de Rep. Eccles. l. 7. c. 12. n. 59.Sir 50:7 when they had the greatest occasion to do it in the matter of Images. But when the worship of Images began to be opposed here in England by Wickliffe, the defenders of it finding themselves concerned to find out every thing that made for their advantage, Waldensis having heard of some such thing as a Council against Iconoclasts, by Thomas and Iohn, p. 823two Dominicans of his time, from a certain Book;Waldens. Tom. 3. Tit. 19. c. 150▪ n. 4. he adventures to set it down upon their report, but so faintly with ut fertur, as if he had been telling the story of Pope Ioan; and he saith, it was called under the pious Emperour Constantius the second, and Pascasius: by which we may see what an excellent account they had of this General Council; but in the last Century, Pet. Crabb, a Franciscan, with indefatigable diligence searching five hundred Libraries for any thing pertaining to Councils, lights upon the old Latin Edition of this Council, and published it A. D. 1551. From that time this was looked on and magnified as the seventh General Council in these Western parts, and its Authority set up by the Council of Trent: and the generality of Divines finding it in the Volums of General Councils and there joyned with them, search'd no farther, but imagined it was alwaies so esteemed.

But it may be some will become confident of it,§. 9. when they see so good an Author as T. G. speaking with so much assurance, That it hath been received for many hundred years as a lawful General Council; If he speaks from the time of its being published, he might as well have p. 824said for many thousand years. For 1. In the Age wherein it was first sent abroad, it was utterly rejected by the Council of Francford; as not only appears by the Canon it self, but by the confession of some of the most learned and judicious persons of the Roman Church: such as Sirmondus and Petrus de Marcâ were:Sirmond. Admon. To. 2. Concil. p. 191. Pet. de Marcâ de Concord. Sacerd. l. 2. c. 17. n. 2. Petav. de Incarn. l. 15. c. 11. n. 4. Sur. admon. ad Lect. de Concil. Franc. Cop. Dial. 4. c. 18, 19. Sander. de Imag. c. 5. Suar. in 3. p. Th. disp. 54. sect. 3. and Petavius confesses, That the Council meant by the Council of Francford was the Nicene Council, and not the former of Constantinople; as Surius, Cope, or Harpsfield, Sanders, Suarez, and others were of opinion: nay Labbé and Cossart in their late Edition of the Councils, have most impudently set down this in the very Title of the Council of Francford, That the Acts of the Nicene Council in the matter of Images were confirmed therein: whereas Sirmondus adds this to the Title of his Admonition about the second Canon of that Council, Quo rejecta est Synodus Nicaena: all which Advertisement they have very honestly left out, although they pretend to give all Sirmondus his Notes. But the main pretence for this was, because the words of the Canon do mention the Council of Constantinople;Concil. Gener. To. 7. p. 1013. which Petavius thinks was called so, because Constantinople was the Head of the Eastern Empire; p. 825but the plain reason is, because the Nicene Council was begun at Constantinople upon the 17 of August; but the Emperours Guards would not endure their sitting there, as Theophanes relates, Theop. Chronogr. p. 389.upon which they were forced to rise; and the Empress found out a trick to disband the suspected Officers and Souldiers, and brought in new ones; however it was thought convenient the Council should sit no longer there, but remove unto Nice. And what a mighty absurdity was this to call a Council, which was begun at Constantinople, the Constantinopolitan Council? And it is observable, that Gabriel Biel, Gab. Biel. in Can. Miss. c. 49.who lived in the latter end of the fifteenth Century, quotes the Decree of this Council of Nice, under the name of a Decree of the Council of Constantinople. And the learned P. Pithaeus speaking of Anastasius his Translation,P. Pithei praefat. ad histor. Pauli Diac. calls it the Council of Constantinople. The new French Annalist is satisfied with neither opinion, but he thinks, That another Council of Constantinople was called between the Nicene Council, Annales Eccles. Franc. ad A. D. 794. n. 26. To. 6.and that of Francford, which did in express words determine that the same worship was to be given to Images, which is due to the B. Trinity, and that this was the Council condemned at Francford: but this New Council p. 826is a meer invention of his own, there being no colour for it either from the Greek or Latin Historians; and in truth he pretends only to these reasons, 1. Because it was a Council of Constantinople which was condemned. 2. Because it is not to be supposed that the Council of Francford should condemn the Council of Nice: For he saith, it is not to be believed that so many Bishops, n. 34.the Popes Legates being present, should misunderstand the doctrine of that Council: yet this is all the refuge T. G. hath in this matter:T.G. p. 144. and he offers from Petr. de Marca, to give a particular account of it. To which I answer, That the Author of the Caroline Book (as I have already observed) takes notice of this passage of the Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus; and although there were a mistake in the Translation of it, yet it ought to be observed that, he saith, the whole Council meant the same which Constantine spake out, Carol. de …ag. l. 3. c. 17.although in words they denied it, and he there quotes the very words of their denying it, Non adoramus Imagines ut Deum, nec illis Divini servitii cultum impendimus, &c. From whence it is plain, that the Western Church understood well enough what they said, and what they denied; but they judged, notwithstanding p. 827all their words to the contrary, that they did really give that worship to Images which was due only to God; and no man that reads the Caroline Book can be of another opinion. And T. G. is content to yield it of the Author of that Book, T.G. p. 146.from the Testimonies I brought out of him; but he saith, That Author was not contented with what the Council of Francford had condemned. Which is a lamentable answer; since Hincmarus saith,Hincmar. Opusc. c. 20. p. 457. Carol. l. 4. c. 28. That this very Volume was it which was sent from the Emperour to Rome by some Bishops against the Greek Synod; and he quotes the very place out of it which is still extant in that Book. And is it credible that the Emperour should publish a Book in his own name as a Capitular, as Pope Hadrian calls it, that was different from the sense of the Council of Francford, which was called on purpose to resolve this Question about Images, as well as to condemn the Heresie of Felix and Elipandus? Petavius indeed would have the main Book to have been written some years before the Council, Petav. d… Incarn. l. 15. c. 12. n. 8.as soon as the Acts of the Nicene Synod were known in these parts (and Cassander probably supposes Alcuinus to have been the Author of it) but when the Council of Francford had condemned the Nicene Synod, p. 828Cassan. ep. 15.only some excerpta were taken out of it and sent to the Pope. I am not satisfied with Petavius his Reason, Because the Pope doth not answer all of it, (a better cause may be assigned for that) but in the Preface of the Book the Author declares that it was done with the Advice of the Council (Quod opus aggressi sumus cum conhibentiâ sacerdotum in regno à Deo nobis concesso Catholicis gregibus praelatorum) and Bellarmin and Baronius both grant,Bellarm. de Concil. l. 2. c. 8. Baron. ad A. 794. n. 31. That this Book contains the Acts of the Council of Francford; However if the Book were extant before under the name of Charles, it is so much the more improbable that if the Council differed in opinion from it, the Excerpta out of this Book should be sent as the Reasons of rejecting the Nicene Synod. And that passage which Hincmarus cites out of this Book, is very considerable to our purpose; for the design of it is to shew, That the Greek Synod could have no pretence to be esteemed a lawful General Council, because the doctrine of it was not Catholick, neither were the Acts of it done by the universal Church: and in another place, That Synod is charged with folly and presumption, Carol. de Imag. l. 3. c. 11.in that being but one part of the Church, it should dare to impose its Decrees p. 829upon the Church without advising and consulting with the other parts of it, (debuerat enim ad circumjacentium provinciarum Ecclesias legationem sciscitativam facere, utrum imagines adorari aut non adorari deberent.) For what Rage and Madness is this, for the Church of one part to go about to determine that which was never determined by the Apostles or their Successors, and to endeavour to Anathematize the Churches of the whole World? But this is cursing without reason, anger without Power, damning without Authority: and therefore they are charged with no less than Luciferian pride for taking upon them to pronounce Anathema's against those who dissented from them. Petavius saith,Petav. de Incarn. l. 15. c. 12. n. 4, 10. That when Pope Hadrian sent the Acts of the Council to Charles the Great, and would have a Council called to advise about it; the Pope had not yet declared it for an Oecumenical Council! but if it were not then declared to be a General Council, it is very unlikely he should do it afterwards when he found that three hundred Bishops of Germany, France, and Italy, saith Surius, did so stiffly and resolutely oppose the definition of it in spight of the Popes Legats, who were present there. Which contradiction p. 830of theirs shews, how very far this Council was from being received by the Church as a lawful General Council; and from the Answer of Hadrian it appears that it was not then solemnly confirmed by the Pope, nor ever after, that we can find, till the Council of Trent.

2. We have the Testimony of the best Historians of that and several Ages after, that the Nicene Synod was not received as a lawful General Council. In the Annals of Eginhardus, Eginhardi Annales A. D. 794.who was Secretary to Charles the Great, we have this Account, that not many years before the Council of Francford, there was a Synod at Constantinople, which was called by themselves, not only the seventh, but a General Council; but Charles having summoned together a Council of Bishops out of all parts of his dominions, it was there utterly rejected, so as not to be called or thought to be either the seventh, or a General Council. The Annales Tiliani, Histor. Franc. Script. Coaetan. Tom. 2. & 3.Loiseliani, Bertiniani, Fuldenses, Metenses, Laurishamenses, Massianenses, Egraismenses being the best Records of that Age, all agree with Eginhardus in the rejecting of the Greek Synod; and most of them call it the false Synod, others say, that which would be called the seventh and a General Council; and with p. 831these agree Ado Viennensis, Rhegino, Hermannus Contratus and Urspergensis in their several Chronicles, wherein we have a plainer Testimony that this Council was rejected, than we have that any General Council was ever received.

3. That this was not barely the sense of that Age, §. 10.but continued to be so of succeeding Ages, appears from the Testimony I gave of the Gallican Church in the time of Ludovicus Pius, and the Synod of Paris, A. D. 824. wherein they persisted in condemning the Nicene Synod, and the doctrine therein asserted: which shews evidently that it was no mistake of the Words of the Council which caused the Council of Francford to condemn the Nicene: for Pope Hadrian had now written in Vindication of it, and endeavoured to clear the sense of the Council; and yet after all this the Gallican Bishops adhered to the sentence of the Council of Francford. To this T. G. returns only this answer,T.G. p. 149. that although they were of this opinion at that time, yet afterwards the doctrine of the Nicene Council was received in the Gallican Church. I proceed therefore to shew, that in the time of the Controversie between Ionas Aurelianensis and p. 832Claudius Taurinensis the Gallican Church had not changed its opinion: (Ionas lived, saith Labbé, to A. D. 842.) For Bellarmin yields that Jonas denied that any worship was to be given to Images, Bell. de Script. Eccles. A. 820.although he disputed against Claudius Taurinensis who followed the opinion of Serenus and would have them all destroyed. Marg. de la Bigne saith,Biblioth. Patr. To. 4. p. 533. that Jonas was one of the Heads of those who opposed the Pope and the Orientals, i. e. the Nicene Synod in this point of the worship of Images, and he calls it a superstitious and pernicious practice, p. 538. p. 547.from which the Gallican Church was free; and a detestable and most wicked errour; notwithstanding the Orientals pretended that they did not worship the Images, but the exemplars by them; and he prays God they may be at last delivered out of that superstition: with so much more to that purpose, that it were endless to repeat it. Walafridus Strabo who lived some years after Ionas, Walafrid. Strabo de reb. Eccles. l. foreign.Sir 50and mentions the death of Ludovicus Pius, is yielded by Baronius to have been of the same opinion with Jonas in this matter: Baron. A.D. 794. n. 41.and he saith, all the honour due to Images is barely negative, not to misuse or destroy them. In the same time with Ionas lived Agobardus Archbishop of Lions, and is at p. 833this day reckoned among the Saints and Confessours of that City; of whose doctrine I had given before an account from the abstract of Papirius Massonus, and from thence I shewed how zealous he was against all worship of Images: and I produced the Testimony of Baluzius to shew that he said no more than the whole Gallican Church in that Age believed. T. G. gives up Agobardus;T.G. p. 150. but he will not yield that Baluzius saith any such thing, for the French Bishops allowed Images to be kept saith Baluzius, that the faithful seeing them might be excited to the imitation of those holy persons whom they represented: whereas Agobardus went so far as to affirm that they were kept for ornaments to delight the eyes, but not for the instruction of the People; nay that they were not to be painted upon Church walls. The words of Baluzius are,Baluz. no…. in Agob. p. 88. Ego crediderim Agobardum scripsisse quod omnes tum in Galliâ sentiebant; and what sense can any man make of these words, if he did not believe, that what Agobardus wrote was the sense of the Gallican Church? I cannot but pity T. G. in these straights he runs himself into; he can creep in at a Mouse-hole, but he soon grows too big ever to get out again. For Baluzius saith what I p. 834affirmed, and Agobardus saith no such thing, as he affirms of him: and in that very Synopsis of his doctrine by Massonus, to which he referrs, we have just the contrary;Papir. Masson. Synops. Agob. c. 10. Picturae aspectandae causâ historiae & memoriae, non Religionis; Images are to be looked on for history and memory sake, but not for Religion; and what is this but for instruction of the people? Whosoever it was, that helped T. G. to this citation, I desire him as a Friend that he will never trust him more; for I would think better of T. G. himself, than that he would wilfully prevaricare. But if this were Agobardus his opinion, why have we it not in his own words? rather than those of Pap. Massonus, who talks so ignorantly and inconsistently in that very place where those words are, but are not set down by him as the judgement of Agobardus. If T. G. would have taken, no great pains, to have read over Agobardus his discourse of Images, Agobard. de Imag. c. 19.32.he would have saved me the labour of confuting him about his opinion; for he delivers it plainly enough against all worship of Images, though for the sake of the Exemplar; but he expresly allows them for instruction. I am sorry T. G. makes it so necessary for me to give him such p. 835home-thrusts; for he lays himself so open, and uses so little art to avoid them, that I must either do nothing, or expose his weakness, and want of skill.

But all this while we are got no farther than towards the middle of the ninth Century, the Church of France might change its opinion after this time, and assert the Council of Nice to have been a General Council, and submit to the Decrees of it. I grant all this to be possible, but we are looking for certainties, and not bare possibilities. Hincmarus of Rhemes, Hincmar, ubi supr.a stout and understanding Bishop of the Gallican Church, died saith Bellarmin, A. D. 882. and he not only calls the Nicene Synod a false General Council, but he makes that at Francford to be truly so: (And these latter words of his are cited with approbation by Card. Cusanus) and he condemns both Factions among the Greeks, Cusan. de Concord. Cathol. l. …. c. 1.of the Iconoclasts, and of the Nicene Fathers. In the same Age lived Anastasius Bibliothecarius, who made it his business to recommend all the Greek Canons and Councils to the Latin Church; (he was alive saith Baronius, A. D. 886.) He first translated the eighth General Council, at which himself was present; and when this was abroad, he tells the Pope what a soloecism p. 836it would be, Anast. Biblioth. Praefat. in sept. Synod.to have the eighth, without a seventh, (ubi septima non habetur, are his very words) from whence it appears in how very little Regard that Council was in the Western Church. It is true, he saith, it was translated before; but it was, almost by all so much contemned, that it was so far from being transcribed, that it was not thought worth reading. This he would have to be laid upon the badness of the translation, (he hath mended the matter much) when in his Lives of the Popes, he saith, it was done by the particular Command of Pope Hadrian, and laid up in his Sacred Library. But when he hath said his utmost for the Catholick doctrine of Image-worship, (as he would have it believed) he cannot deny that the admirable usefulness of this doctrine was not yet revealed to some of the Gallican Church; because they said it was not lawful to worship the Work of mens Hands. After this time, came on the Midnight of the Church; wherein the very names of Councils were forgotten, and men did only dream of what had past; but all things were judged good, that were got into any vogue in the practice of the Church; yet even in that time we meet with some glitterings of light, enough to let us see the p. 837Council of Nice had not prevailed over the Western Church. Leo Tuscus who was a Secretary to the Greek Emperour, and lived saith Gesner, Gesner. Biblioth. To. 1. v. Leo.A. D. 1170. giving an account of the Schism between the Greek and Latin Churches, hath these words, (saith Cassander) that among the Causes of the Breach, Cassand. Ep. 19.that Synod was to be assigned which was called by Constantine and Irene, and which they would have called the seventh, and a General Council; and he adds moreover, that it was not received even by the Church of Rome. About the year 1189. was the Expedition into Palestine by Fredericus Aenobarbus, and Nicetas Acominatus, Nicet. Choniat. l. 2. Is. Angeli. Baron. A. 1189. n. 10.who was a great Officer under the Greek Emperour, Isacius Angelus, (and present in the Army saith Baronius) gives this account of the Germans opinion in those times about the worship of Images. When, saith he, all the Greeks had deserted Philippopolis, the Armenians staid behind, for they looked on the Germans as their Friends, and agreeing with them in Religion, for the worship of Images is forbidden among both of them. Which being a Testimony of so considerable a Person, and not barely concerning the opinion of some Divines, but the general practice of the people, doth p. 838shew that in the twelfth Century, the Necene Council had not prevailed all over the Western Church, when T. G. affirms it did for many hundreds of years before the Reformation. Especially, if we consider what the judgement and practice of the Armenians was, as it is delivered by Nicon, Biblioth. Patr. To. 3. p. 151.(who is supposed to have been a Saint and Martyr in Armenia,) who saith, that they do not worship Images, and their Catholick Bishop or Patriarch excommunicates those that do. Which is confirmed by what is said to the same purpose by Isaac an Armenian Bishop, Auctur. Biblioth. Patr. To. 2.409.who lived in the same Century, viz. that they do not Worship the Images either of Christ, the B. Virgin, or the Saints. And Pet. Pithaeus a learned and ingenuous Papist,P. Pithaei Praes. ad Pauli Diac. hist. confesses, that it was but very lately that those of the Gallican Church began to be fond of Images: and he writ that Epistle wherein those words are extant, A. D. 1568. Surely he did not think the doctrine of the Nicene Council had been received in the Gallican Church for many hundred years.

§. 11.But suppose the Nicene Synod were not owned for a General Council, yet it might be very wise and judicious Assembly; to say p. 839that, is to reflect on the Emperour Charles the Great and all the Western Bishops in his Dominions. And I am sure their expressions would justifie me, if I had spoken sharper without an Irony: for in the Caroline Book we frequently meet with such expressions as these, concerning those grave Fathers;Lib. Carol. de Imag. l. 1. c. 16. c. 13. c. 15. c. 19. c. 20. c. 25. ut illi stultissimè & irrationabilitèr putant; indoctè & inordinatè dicunt; quam absurdè agant; quod magnae sit temeritatis dicere; quod non minus omnibus sed pene plus cunctis Tharasius delirasse dignoscitur; l. 2. c. 8.16. c. 25. l. 3. c. 10.17. c. 19. c. 23. c. 29.31.Deliramento plena dictio Leonis. Ut illi delirant: ut illi garriunt: Ridiculosè & pueriliter dictum; infaustè, praecipitantèr, sive insipienter: dementia prolatum & risu dignum. l. 4. c. 1. c. 17. c. 23.Inutile & mendacio plenum. Dementissimum & ratione carens Deliramentum, errore plenum. Falsissimum & risu dignum. Ridiculosissimum Dictum. Superciliosè & indoctè dixerunt. When T. G. hath considered these expressions, and the force and pungency of them, being all applyed to the Fathers of that Nicene Synod, by the Western Bishops under the name of Charles the Great, he may possibly cool and abate his rage towards me for using only that Ironical expression of That Wise Synod. And there is nothing considerable said by p. 840the Nicene Fathers which is not answered in that Book, to whom I may therefore better referr him, than he doth me to the Answers of Epiphanius in the Nicene Council for satisfaction of no less than eight arguments (as himself numbers them) of the Constantinopolitan Fathers against the Worship of Images.

But that he may not think the greatest weight lies in any thing that is passed by, I shall briefly consider the Defence he makes for the Nicene Synod in the particulars mentioned by him. 1. He saith, That the Nicene Fathers did justly plead the continuance of Christ Kingdom against the Idolatry of Christians, T.G. p. 125.because God hath promised that he will take away Idols from the earth, Zach. 13.2.Zech 13:2not for four or five hundred years, but to the end of the world. I desire T. G. to consider, whether this argument would not have held as well against the Catholick Bishops who charged the Arrians with Idolatry: and what answer he gives himself about that, will shew the feebleness of his answer in this case. And the prophecies of the Old Testament relating to Events under the New (supposing that doth so, which is far from being clear) do certainly shew what the design and tendency of the Christian doctrine p. 841is, and what would be if men did observe it. As it is in all the prophecies of the Peace and tranquillity of the World, notwithstanding which, we find the World at the old Rate of quarrelling and Fighting under new pretences: Just so it is with Idolatry, no doctrine in the world would preserve men more effectually from it, if they would observe it; but if under the colour of Christianity they bring in only a new scheme of it; it is still the same kind of thing, although it appears in a fresher dress. But then, saith T. G. the Gates of Hell would prevail against the Church. Against what Church? The whole Christian Church? whoever said they could, or how doth that follow? The Church of Constantinople, or the Church of Ierusalem? Have not the Gates of the Turk been too strong for them? The Church of Rome? The Gates of Hell do certainly prevail against that, if it doth Unchurch all other Christians that are not of its communion? And why may not Idolatry prevail, where Luciferian Pride, and Hellish Cruelty and desperate Wickedness have long since prevailed? Hath Christ made promises to secure that Church from errour, which hath been over-run with all sorts of Wickedness by the confession of p. 842her own members and Friends? These are gobbets, fit only to be cramm'd down the throats of very implicite believers.

T.G. p. 127.2. He undertakes to shew, that the saying of the Fathers against the Arrians cannot reach to those that worship Images, because Epiphanius saith, the Arrians trusted in Christ, and gave properly Divine Honour to Christ, which they do not to the Images of Christ. To answer this, I shewed that Aquinas and his followers did declare that Latria was to be given to the Images of Christ, therefore this could not, at least, excuse them from being parallel to the Arrians, and if their arguments hold good, then all that worship Images fall under the like condemnation. This he bestows the name of many fallacies upon; T.G. p. 128.and runs on so briskly with shewing the inconsequence of it, as though he did in earnest believe it were an impertinent answer; by which he would insinuate, that I had made use of Aquinas his opinion to prove those guilty of Idolatry which were of another opinion. No such matter; For the question was, whether the saying of the Fathers concerning the Arrian Idolatry can be justly applyed to those that worship Images? Yes, say I, upon Epiphanius his own p. 843ground they may, if they who worship Images give divine Honour to them; but Aquinas and his Followers contend that Divine Honour is to be given to them; and therefore they fall under the like censure. And by their argument, all that worship Images must come under it; For either they worship Images for themselves, and then they all acknowledge it is Idolatry; or for the sake of the exemplar: which if it be the reason and object of worship as represented by the Image, it must have the same worship which the thing considered in its own being deserves; which being divine honour, that must be given to the Image. But T. G. supposes the force of all this to depend upon their being of this opinion, and because the Nicene Fathers are not mentioned by me as agreeing with Aquinas, therefore he represents this arguing as ridiculous. Whereas my design was to shew (that since divine honour being given to Images, was confessed to make the case alike) that it was confessed by the most prevalent party in the Church of Rome, that such honour was to be given to them, and that others did it, although they would not own the doing it. And whether men acknowledge it or no; if they p. 844give that which is really Divine Worship, they become guilty of Idolatry as well as the Arrians; and let men call it by what names they will, of Relative or absolute, Soveraign or inferiour Worship, if it be that which God hath forbidden to be given to any Creature, it becomes Idolatry.

3. T. G. saith,T.G. p. 134. that the argument doth not hold, that if the union of the Divine and humane nature be the reason of the worship given to the Person of Christ, then there must be an equal presence or union between Christ and the Image to make that an object of Worship; for, saith he, not only union, but representation may occasion worship. Who doubts of that? but may it not as well occasion people to commit Idolatry? But the question is not, whether representation may occasion the worship of God or no; for so an Ant or a Fly, or any Creature may occasion it. But this is notorious shuffling to talk of Images being only an Occasion of Worship, whereas I have at large shewed that the doctrine and Practice of their Church makes them Objects of Worship. And since the Christian Church acknowledged the humanity of Christ to be capable of worship only on the account of an Hypostatical Union with the Divine Nature; p. 845I desired to know how a meer Image of that Humane Nature can be an object of lawful worship? If T. G. saith, That the Image is a fit object of worship, and representation the reason of it; let him shew how Representation comes to be an equal reason with personal union; and at last, this Representation is nothing but an act of Imagination, which doth not make the object any more really present there than any where else: against which Imagination we set the positive Law of God forbidding any such kind of worship, as I have already proved.

4. He saith in defence of his Nicene Fathers, T.G. p. 136.That although the Image of Christ can only represent the humane Nature as separate from the Divine, yet the charge of Nestorianism doth not follow; because the Object of their worship, is that which is conceived in their minds; and worship being an act of the Will, it is carried to the Prototype, as it is conceived in the understanding; but their understandings being free from Nestorianism, their Wills must be so too: which is all the sense I can make of T. G's answer. Who doth not seem at all to consider there are two things blamed by the Church in Nestorianism. 1. The heretical opinion. 2. The Idolatrous p. 846practice consequent upon that opinion, of the separation of the two Natures in Christ. Now the argument of the Constantinopolitan Fathers proceeds not upon their opinion, as though they really believed the principles of Nestorianism who worshipped Images; but they were guilty of the same kind of worship; for since an Image can only represent the humane nature of Christ; if it were lawful to worship that Image on the account of Christ, then upon the Nestorian principles it would be as lawful to worship the humane nature of Christ, although it had no hypostatical union with the Divine. For could not the Nestorians say that when they considered Christ as a humane Person, yet that humane Person did represent to them the Divine Person, who was the proper object of worship; and although they were not really and hypostatically united, yet by representation, and an Act of the mind, they directed their worship towards the Divine Person. For if a bare Image of the humane Nature be a sufficient object of worship, much more is the humane Nature it self; and if on the account of such representation the worship of Christ may be directed to his Image, with much greater Reason it might be towards Christ, as Homo p. 847Deiferus, in regard of that humane Nature, which had the Divine Nature present, although not united. And upon this Ground the Constantinopolitan Fathers did justly charge the worshippers of Images with Nestorianism as to their worship; and that they could not defend themselves, but they must absolve the Nestorians, whom the Christian Church and this Nicene Synod it self would seem to condemn. For there is a greater separation between the Image of Christ and Christ, than the Nestorians did suppose between the Divine and humane Nature; for they did still suppose a real presence, although not a real Union; but in the case of Images there is not so much as a real presence, but only by representation; therefore if the Nestorians were to blame in their worship, much more are those that worship Images.

As to the last Answer, being only a desire that I would bear in mind against a fit season, T.G. p. 138.that the Eucharist is called by the Constantinopolitan Fathers an Honourable Image of Christ, I shall do what he desires; and I promise him farther to shew the Nicene Fathers Ignorance and Confidence, when they said, It was contrary to the Scriptures and Fathers to call the Eucharist p. 848an Image of Christ. All the other arguments of the Constantinopolitan Fathers, to the number of eight, T. G. passes over, and so must I.

From hence I proceed to the next Charge, §. 12.which is, That I mix School disputes with matters of Faith; For I desired seriously to know, whether any worship doth belong to Images or no? if there be any due, whether is it the same that is given to the Prototype, or distinct from it? If it be the same, then proper Divine Worship is given to the Image; if distinct, then the Image is worshipped with Divine Worship for it self, and not relatively and subordinately as he speaks: and which side soever is taken, some or other of their Divines charge the worship with Idolatry; so that it is in mens choice which sort of Idolatry they will commit when they worship Images, but in neither way they can avoid it. To this T. G. answers several waies.T.G. p. 192. 1. That this is a point belonging to the Schools, and not at all to Faith: which I said, was their common Answer when any thing pincheth them; but to shew the unreasonableness of that way of answering, I added that both sides charge the other with Idolatry, and that is a p. 849Matter of Conscience, and not a Scholastick Nicety. For if the worship of Images be so asserted in the Church of Rome, that in what way soever it is practised, there is by their own confession such danger of Idolatry; the General Terms of Councils serve only to draw men into the snare, and not to help them out of it. 2. He answers this, by a drolling comparison, about the worship due to the Chair of State, T.G. p. 186.whether it be the same which is due to the King or no; if the same, then proper Regal worship would be given to something besides the King, which were Treason: if distinct, then the Chair would be worshipped with Regal Honour for it self, and not relatively, which were for a man to submit himself to a piece of Wood. This he represents pleasantly, and with advantage enough: and supposing the Yeomen of the Guard to have done laughing, I desire to have a difference put between the customes of Princes Courts, and the worship of God: and it is strange to me T. G. should not see the difference. But whatever T. G. thinks, we say, that God by His Law having made some Acts of worship peculiar to himself by way of acknowledgement of His Soveraignty and p. 850Dominion over us, we must not use those Acts to any Creature; and therefore here the most material Question can be asked, is, whether the Acts of worship be the same which we are to use to God or no, i. e. whether they are acts forbidden or lawful? for if they are the same, they are forbidden; if not, they may be lawful. But in a Princes Court, where all expressions of Respect depend on custom, and the Princes Pleasure, or Rules of the Court, the only Question a man is to ask, is, whether it be the custom of the Court, or the Will of the Prince to have men uncovered in some Rooms and not in others; no man in his wits would ask, whether that be the same Honour that is due to the King himself? or who but T. G's Clown could suspect it to be Treason to put off his Hat in the Presence Chamber, or to the Chair of State, let it be done with what intention he pleases? If the Yeomen of the Guard should see an old Courtier approach with many bowings to the Chair of State, and there fall down upon his Knees, and kiss the Arms of the Chair, and deliver his Petition to it for a good Office at Court, and observe that he doth this frequently, and with great gravity, p. 851I am afraid they would hardly hold their Countenances long to see such a solemn Fop; and yet this pleasant Courtier might pretend, that he did all this as imagining the King to be there present by representation, and that he did not give this Honour to the Chair of State absolutely, considered as a piece of Wood; but only Relatively, and for the sake of his Master ▪ that he knew better what belonged to the Honour due to Soveraign worship than such rude fellows as they; that his intention was to shew what esteem he had for his Prince by all this; and though as to the substance of the act this was the same that was done to the Person of the King, yet it fell upon the Chair of State after an inferiour Manner, as a thing relating to the King, and purely for his sake. I leave the substantial Yeomen of the Guard (T. G's Iudges in this Controversie) to determine in a General Council among them, whether T. G's Quaker, or this old Courtier were the more ridiculous By which instance we see that even in Princes Courts men may over-act their Reverence, and make themselves laughed at for their foolish and extravagant Relative worship; for in all such cases the p. 852Rules of the Court are to be observed, where there is no intrenchment upon Divine Laws; and every man that comes to Court enquires after the Orders of the Court, and he that keeps within them doth his duty, and never fears the Yeomen of the Guard. If the Orders of the Court were for men to pass through the Presence, or other Chambers without any Ceremony, would not the Yeomen of the Guard be as ready to observe those who used it? Their business is to observe Orders themselves, and to see that others do it. And this is the only way how this parallel can reach to our Case; all that we plead for, is, that the Rules and Orders be observed which God hath given us for His Worship; since He hath given Laws we ought to obey them; and since He hath appointed what He will have done, and what He will not, we must follow His Rule, and not our own extravagant Fancies, pretending that we have pretty devices to honour Him with, which He hath expresly forbidden. In such a case, we have Reason to enquire, whether the Acts of Worship be the same that He hath forbidden or no: but not where the whole matter depends on custom, and general Rules, p. 853which every man may easily know; and no one hath any reason to be scrupulous as long as he keeps within the measures of Decency.

But withal, the force of my Question lay in the confession of our Adversaries, who acknowledge on one side, That if the Act of Worship be the same that is given to the Prototype, it is Idolatry; on the other side, if it be distinct it is Idolatry; and then I had all the reason in the world to put this Question, because either way they are entangled by the confession of their own party. But as if Yeomen of the Guard should be so senseless, as some of them to tell a poor Countryman, when he is going through the Presence Chamber, that if he gives the Chair of State the same Honour he gives the King, he commits Treason; and others say, if he does not, he worships the Chair for it self, and so commits Treason; would not any man say, the Countryman had reason to stand, and scratch his head, and consider what he does, for he doth not care to commit Treason, and if he must do it one way or other, for his part he would go some other way, or be better resolved what he is to do. Thus in our case Bellarmin p. 854saith, It is Idolatry to give the same worship to an Image which is due to God: Vasquez saith, It is Idolatry to give distinct worship; therefore if a man would avoid Idolatry, he must give none at all: especially when there is no necessity at all of doing it; and therefore it is in no case parallel with the difficulties about sight and motion, which T. G. makes use of,T.G. p. 188, 185 to shew that such subtilties ought not to hinder men from doing things. Not when they are in themselves necessary to be done; but when it is a doubtful case, and so doubtful that their most learned men say there is danger of Idolatry either way, I do not know a more prudent consideration to keep a man from the Practice of it.

Therefore T. G. after all his complaint of mixing these School disputes, §. 13.and letting me know what edge-tools these School distinctions are (as any one might guess by his manner of handling them) yet at last he resolves to venture upon clearing the point.T.G. p. 176, 188. 1. He saith, The Councils declare in this matter that we are not to give Latria to Images, or the worship due only to God; and this without any distinction p. 855of absolute or relative Latria. 2. He confesses, That S. Thomas, and those of his way, p. 189.do hold that the same worship is to be given to Christ, and to His Image. Can any two things appear with a face of greater opposition than these two? But, saith T. G. Latria is twofold, one absolute, p. 190.and that is due to God himself; and the other relative, that may be given to the Image: or rather, in the same act of worship is a double Notion, the one as it tends to God himself, which is absolute Latria, the other as it reflects on the Image for His sake, which is relative Latria. Which distinction I have already examined, and shewed the vanity of in several places; and that there are many in the Church of Rome who hold absolute Latria to be given to Images, and that upon the grounds of a Relative Latria any Creature may be worshipped; therefore I shall keep to what is proper to this place. 1. I said this distinction is just as if an unchaste Wife should plead to her Husband, that the Person she was so kind with, was extremely like him, and a near Friend of his, that it was out of respect to him, that she gave him the honour of his bed; can any one think that p. 856such an excuse as this would be taken by a jealous Husband? How much less will such pretences avail with that God who hath declared himself particularly jealous of His honour in this Command above others, and that he will not give His glory to another, but hath reserved all Divine Worship as peculiar to himself, and no such fond excuses of Relative, inferiour, and improper worship will serve, when they encroach upon His Prerogative. To this T. G. answers, That the object of Iealousie is a Rival, T.G. p. 180.or what hath relation to or Union with Him, not what may serve to express affection and respect to the Person who ought to be loved. But I have already shewed, from the confession of their own Writers, and the sense of the Christian Church, that even an Image of Christ becomes a Rival when it hath Divine Honour given to it: and T. G. himself will not allow Sacrifice to be offered to an Image;T.G. p. 182, 183. and he denies from the Catholick Catechism (although contrary to the Catholick Practice) that they do pray to Images: let us then suppose that men do pray and Sacrifice to the Image of Christ. Is all this only like the Wifes kissing the Picture for the p. 857Husbands sake? If it be no more, it is lawful and commendable to do them according to T. G's principles; if it be more, then an Image of Christ may have such honour done to it as makes it an Idol, and consequently a Rival with God for His Honour. And so the dispute comes to this, whether the practices of the Roman Church in the worship of Images do not imply giving Divine Honours to them: of which I have treated at large already. 2. By this distinction men might say the Lords Prayer to Saints, or offer up the Host to an Image, so they were done absolutely to God, and only Relatively to the Saints or Images. T. G. being nettled with this, tells me in some passion; That I can no where contain my self within bounds of Mediocrity;T.G. p. 182. he shall see I can by not following his Extravagancy: but he lets me know that the Church of God hath no such custom; I do not ask whether the Church of Rome have any such Custom (the Church of God I know hath not) but whether it may not have that as well as some others, and upon the same grounds of Relative Worship? But if I must not understand this till I become a Proselyte, I hope I shall be alwaies p. 858cntented with my Ignorance; if I can be no otherwise informed,T.G. ib.I am not sorry to see such evidence of their inability to answer who make such put-offs.

Having thus passed through the several Charges drawn up against me,§. 14. I come in the last Place to consider his parallel Instances, by which he hopes to clear and vindicate their Worship of Images. To his first about the Chair of State, and the third about the Iews worshipping towards the Ark and Cherubims, I have answered already, (the fifth belongs to the Adoration of the Host.) There remain only three to be examined, 1. The Reverence shewed to the Ground by Moses and Ioshua. 2. The bowing at the name of Iesus. 3. The bowing towards the Altar; If I can clear these from being of the same Nature with the worship of Images as allowed and practised in the Roman Church, I know no shadow of difficulty which remains throughout his Book.

1. To the Reverence shewed to the Holy Ground where God himself appeared by Moses and Joshua, being commanded to pull off their Shoos. I answered, That, (whatever T. G. thinks of it) there is p. 859some difference to be made between what God hath commanded, and what he hath forbidden; for in the case of Moses and Ioshua, there was an express Command, but in the case of Image-worship there is as plain a prohibition: The former part he calls a short Descant on the former erroneous Ground, T.G.p. 198.and the latter, a note above Ela. I am glad to see the second Commandment set to Musical Notes among them, for I was afraid it had been quite cast out of their Churches. 2. That the special presence and appearance of God doth sanctifie a place to so high a degree, that we may lawfully testifie our Reverence towards it, but this will not hold for Images, unless God be proved present in them, in the same manner as he appeared to Moses and Ioshua, and yet even then, the Reverence he required was not kissing it, or bowing to it, much less praying to it, but only putting off their shooes. Upon this T. G. being in a Musical vein,T. G. ib. sings his Io Paean;and cryes out of the wonderful force of Truth, that after long standing out makes all her Adversaries submit to her Power. I wish we could see such effects of the p. 860Power of Truth; for it would soon rid us of many Fears and Iealousies. But what is it I have said so much amiss, to gain T. G's good word?p. 199. Enough as he thinks to ruin our own Cause and establish theirs. That were indeed confuting him with a Vengeance. But what's the matter? wherein have I given up the Cause? I yield, that the special Presence and appearance of God doth sanctifie a place to so high a degree, that we may lawfully testifie our Reverence towards it. And what then? Why then saith T. G. all my darts which I have so spitefully thrown in the face of the Images of Christ (or the Holy Trinity and the Saints) recoil with double force on my own Head. How with double force? nay how doth it appear that they recoil at all? for to the best of my sight they stick fast where they did; and I do not by my feeling perceive they recoil upon my Head. Well; but a subtle Logician would ask me, whether this Reverence be absolute or Relative: and he doth not question my answer would be, that it was not to the Ground for it self, but meerly out of a Respect to God. Is this indeed the fatal blow I have given the Cause of our Church, when I expresly p. 861mention a Command of God going before it? and who doubts but we may give a Reverence to places, with respect to God, especially when God requires it, as he did in this case? And when T. G. hath made the most of this Ceremony of pulling off the Shooes, he will find, that it was of no other signification in the Eastern parts, than having our heads uncovered is with us; which is the lowest testimony of Respect that may be. Yet this was all which God himself required when he was present after a signal and extraordinary manner: and what is all this, to the consecrating, bowing, kneeling, praying to Images, as they do in the Roman Church? and this I say and have proved, against an express Command of God; and that not upon any real, but Imaginary presence of the true object of worship. He that cannot see the difference of these things, hath some Cataracts before his Eyes, which need couching. But still T. G. demands,T.G.p. 201. is this the same Reverence that is due to God, or distinct from it? I say, it is distinct from it; then, saith he, Vasquez comes upon you wish his artillery; for then you express your submission to an inanimate thing, that hath p. 862no kind of excellency to deserve it from you. Alas poor T. G! how doth he argue like a man spent and quite gone! That which Vasquez saith is, that for a man to use all the acts of adoration to Images which are performed in the Roman Church without respect to the exemplar, were to express our submission to an inanimate thing, which is Idolatry. Where it is to be observed, that he speaks of all the Acts of Worship which in the Church of Rome they give to Images, and which being given to an Image makes it Idolatry, because those Acts are such which do imply a submission to the thing, i. e. they are the highest expressions of adoration; and those who assert that inferiour worship, do hold it to be internal as well as external, and to be terminated on the Images themselves; which is the Reason why Vasquez saith it were Idolatry; But Vasquez was not a man of so shallow an understanding to charge this upon those who declare they put off their shooes or hats, out of no intention or design to worship the Ground or Place, but meerly to express some outward Reverence to a Place on the account of its being Sacred to God. Those who contended for that worship p. 863which Vasquez charges with Idolatry, did agree with him in all external acts of adoration to Images; and went farther than Vasquez thought fit as to the internal; for they said, both ought to concurr in the worship of Images, and that this inferiour worship was terminated on the Images themselves (as I have shewed at large in the stare of the Controversie.) Now saith Vasquez, to assert and practise worship of Images after this manner is Idolatry, for it is expressing our submission to a meer inanimate thing. But do we say, that all acts of worship are to be performed to the Ground that is holy; or that any one act of worship is to be terminated upon it; or that any submission of our minds is to be used towards it? All these we utterly disavow as to the Reverence of Sacred Places, and these things being declared, we yet say there is a Reverence left to be shewed them on the account of their discrimination from other places and separation for sacred uses; which Reverence is best expressed in the way most common for men to shew Respect by, which was putting off Shooes in the Eastern parts, and of Hats here; (of the difference of Reverence and worship, I have p. 864spoken before.) I hope by this time, T. G. sees a little better the force of the argument of Vasquez, T.G.p. 202, 203.and how very far it is from recoiling on my head, because I assert a Reverence to sacred places to have been shewed by Moses and Ioshua on the account of Gods special presence: and so all that insipid Discourse of Idolatry which follows, sneaks away as being ashamed to be brought in to so little purpose here; but hath been fully handled in the First part.

§. 15.2. To his Instance of Bowing at the name of Iesus, I answered, that he might as well have instanced in our going to Church at the tolling of a Bell, for as the one only tells us the time when we ought to go to worship God, so the mentioning the name of Iesus doth only put us in mind of him to whom we owe all manner of Reverence, without dishonouring him as the Object of our worship by any Image of him, which can only represent that which is neither the object nor reason of our worship. At this Answer T. G. is inflamed, and when he hath nothing else to say, he endeavours to set me at variance with the p. 865Church of England. This runs quite through his Book, and he takes all occasions to set me forth as a close and secret enemy to it, although I appear never so much in its Vindication. If my Adversaries were to be believed (as I see no great reason they should be) I must be a very prodigious Author in one respect; for they represent me as a Friend to that which I write against, viz. Socinianism; and an enemy to that which I have defended, viz. the Church of England. But wherein is it, that T. G. thinks me such a back-friend to our Church? T.G. p. 208▪in disavowing all Reverence to the Sacred Name of Iesus, which he saith, our Church hath enjoyned, and hath been defended by Fulk, Whitgift, and B. Andrews. I am glad I know my charge, and I do not doubt to clear my self to hold nothing in this or any other matter, but what the Church of England hath declared to be her sense. Witness, as to this point, the Declaration of the Archbishops and Bishops in Convocation: When in time of Divine Service,Book of Canons, 1603. c. 18. the Lord Jesus shall be mentioned, due and lowly Reverence shall be done by all Persons present as hath been accustomed; testifying by these outward p. 866ceremonies and gestures, their inward humility, Christian Resolution, and due acknowledgement that the Lord Iesus Christ, the true and Eternal Son of God is the only Saviour of the World. Is this bowing to the very name of Iesus, and worshipping that as they do Images, when the Convocation declares that only a significant Ceremony is intended by it. Arch-B. Whitgift, in the very place cited by him saith,Defence of the Answ. tr. 21. c. 7. div. 3. that the Christians used it to signifie their faith in Iesus; and therefore they used bodily reverence at all times when they heard the name of Iesus, but especially when the Gospel was read. Dr. Fulk, Fulk against Rhem. Phil. 2.10.Phil 2:10another of his Authors saith, that the place alledged by T. G. to prove it, pertains to the subjection of all Creatures to the Iudgement of Christ; however, he saith, the ceremony of bowing may be used out of Reverence to his Majesty; not to the bare name; and that their Idolatrous worship is unfitly compared with the bowing at the name of Iesus. Bishop Andrews saith,Andrew's Ser. 9. of Resur. Speech in Starchamb. p. 50. we do not bow to the name, but to the sense; which answers and clears all the long allegation out of him. Archbishop Laud calls it, the Honour due to the Son of God at the p. 867mentioning of his Name, which are almost the very words I used. And Whittington and Meg of Westminster will altogether serve as well for his expression as that used by me. But T. G. need not be so angry at my mentioning the tolling of a bell, when he remembers the Christening of bells among them, and what mighty Power they have after that, and what Reverend God-fathers they have, and what Saints names are given to them; so that I should rather have thought he would have drawn an argument from the Bells, than have been so disturbed at the naming of them. For all this T. G. fancies a strange Analogy between Words and Pictures, a picture being a word to the Eye, and a word being a Picture to the Ear: which sounds just like Whittington to my ears: and I desire him to consider, that Suarez tells us,Suarez in 3. p. Th. q. 25. disp. 2.54. art. 3. sect. 6. that some of their own Divines say, no worship is due to any Name, because they signifie only by imposition, and do not supply the place of the thing represented as Images do: of which opinion, he saith, Soto and Corduba are: and Suarez himself grants, that a name being a transient sound can hardly be apprehended as conjoyned with the Person, or p. 868the Person in it, so as to be worshipped together with it;Paul. Maria Quarti in Rubr. Misse p. 264, 266. And one of their latest Ritualists saith, that when the name of Iesus is mentioned they bow to the Crucifix; which shews that even among them, they do not think the Name of Iesus equal to an Image of Christ.

§. 16.I am now come to his last Instance, viz. bowing towards the Altar; he would insinuate, as though the Church of England were for giving some kind of worship to the Altar, T.G. p. 218.although under the degree of Divine Worship due to God alone; and saith, that as the allowing this would render me a true Son of the Church of England, so the allowing the like to the sacred Images of Christ would make me in this point, a perfect Proselyte of the Church of Rome. Which is in effect to say, that the Church of England, in allowing bowing to the Altar, doth give the very same worship to it, which their Church requires to be given to Images; and that they who do one and not the other, do not attend to the Consequence of their own Actions. I shall therefore shew, 1. That the Church of England doth not allow any worship p. 869to be given to the Altar. 2. That the adoration allowed and practised in the Church of England is of a very different Nature from the Worship of Images.

1. That the Church of England doth not allow any Worship to be given to the Altar. For this I appeal to that Canon wherein is contained the Explication of the sense of our Church in this particular. Whereas the Church is the House of God, dedicated to his holy Worship,Canons and Constit. c. 7.1640. and therefore ought to mind us, both of the Greatness and Goodness of his Divine Majesty, certain it is that the acknowledgement thereof, not only inwardly in our hearts, but also outwardly with our bodies, must needs be pious in it self, profitable unto us, and edifying unto others. We therefore think it very meet and behooveful, and heartily commend it to all good and well affected People, members of this Church, that they be ready to tender unto the Lord the said acknowledgement, by doing Reverence and obeysance both at their coming in and going out of the said Churches, Chancels, or Chappels, according to the p. 870most ancient Custome of the Primitive Church in the purest times, and of this Church also for many years of the Reign of Q. Elizabeth. The reviving therefore of this ancient and laudable custome, we heartily commend to the serious consideration of all good People, NOT WITH ANY INTENTION TO EXHIBITE ANY RELIGIOUS WORSHIP TO THE COMMUNION TABLE, THE EAST OR THE CHURCH, or any thing therein contained in so doing, or to perform the said gesture in the Celebration of the Holy Eucharist, upon any Opinion of the CORPORAL PRESENCE OF THE BODY OF JESUS CHRIST ON THE HOLY TABLE OR IN THE MYSTICAL ELEMENTS, but ONLY for the advancement of Gods Majesty, and to give him ALONE that honour and glory that is due unto him and NO OTHERWISE. And in the practice or omission of this Rite, we desire that the Rule of charity prescribed by the Apostle may be observed, which is, That they which p. 871use this Rite despise not them who use it not, and they who use it not, condemn not those that use it. This is the full declaration of the sense of our Church about it, made by those who met in Convocation, and were most zealous for the practice of it.Speech in Star-Chamber. p. 43. Agreeably to this Archbishop Laud speaks, when this was charged as an innovation; To this I answer, saith he, First, That God forbid that we should worship any thing but God himself. 2. That if to worship God when we enter into his House, or approach his Altar be an Innovation, it was a very old one, being practised by Jacob, Moses, Hezekiah, &c. p. 46.And were this Kingdom such, as would allow no holy Table standing in its proper place, yet I would worship God when I came into his House. And afterwards he calls it, doing Reverence to Almighty God, p. 47.but towards his Altar: and Idolatry it is not to worship God towards his holy Table. Now with us the People did ever understand them fully and apply them to God, p. 48. p. 52.and to none but God. From whence it appears that God is looked on as the sole Object of this Act of Worship, and that our Church declares, that it allows no intention of exhibiting any Religious worship to p. 872the Communion Table, or East or Church, or any Corporal Presence of Christ.

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

But to remove all scruple from mens minds, that suspect this practice to be too near the Idolatrous worship, which we reject in the Roman Church, I shall consider it not only as to its Object (which is the p. 873main thing, and which I have shewed to be the proper Object of worship, viz. God himself, and nothing else) but as to the nature of the act, and the local circumstance of doing it towards the Altar. 1. As to the nature of the act, so it is declared to be an act of external adoration of God; which I shall prove from Scripture to be a lawful and proper act of Divine Worship. I might prove it from the general consent of Mankind, who have expressed their Reverence to the Deity by acts of external adoration, from whence I called it a natural act of Reverence, but I rather choose to do it from Scripture; and that, both before the Law had determined so punctually the matters of Divine Worship, and under the Law by those who had the greatest regard to it; and under the Gospel, when the spiritual nature of its doctrine would seem to have superseded such external acts of worship. 1. Before the Law, I instance in Abraham's servant; because Abraham is particularly commended for his care in instructing his Houshold to keep the way of the Lord in opposition to Heathen Idolatry, Gen. 18.19.Gen 18:19and this was the Chief Servant of his House, of whom it is said three times in one Chapter, That he bowed p. 874his head worshipping the Lord; the Hebrew words signifie,Gen. 24.26, 48, 52.Gen 24:26Gen 24:48Gen 24:52 and he inclined and bowed himself to the Lord; for the word we translate worship doth properly signifie to bow, and both the Iews and others say, It relates to some external act of the body, Pet. Picherell. de Imag. p. 225.whereby we express our inward Reverence or Subjection to another. So it is said of the People of Israel, when they heard that the Lord intended to deliver them out of Egypt, They bowed their heads and worshipped;Exod. 4.31.Exod 4:31 when Moses declared the Institution of the Passeover to all the Elders of Israel, it is said again, The People bowed their heads and worshipped. 12.27.2. Under the Law; when they were so strictly forbidden in the same words to bow down or worship any Image or similitude; yet the outward act of adoration towards God was allowed and practised. So Moses commanded Aaron and the seventy Elders of Israel to bow themselves a far off; the very same word which is used in the second Commandment. 24.1.And when God had so severely punished the Israelites for bowing to the Golden Calf; yet when He appointed the Pillar of Fire for the Symbol of His own presence, 22.8.it is said, That when all the People saw the Cloudy Pillar stand at the p. 875Tabernacle door, they rose up and bowed themselves every man in his Tent-door. 33.10.When God appeared to Moses, it is said, That he made hast and bowed his head toward the earth and worshipped. 34.8.And when Moses and Aaron came to the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation, they are said to fall upon their faces. Numb. 20.6.Num 20:6In the time of David, upon his solemn thanksgiving to God it is said,1 Chron. 29.20.1 Chr 29:20 All the Congregation blessed the Lord God of their Fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the Lord and the King. And in the time of Hezekiah, 2 Chron. 29.29.2 Chr 29:29When they had made an end of offering, the King and all that were present with him bowed their heads and worshipped. 3. Under the Gospel; we are to observe the difference between the same external act of worship, when it was used towards Christ and toward His Apostles. When the Syrophoenician woman came to our Saviour, in one place it is said, She worshipped Him; and in another,Matth. 15.25.Matt 15:25 That she fell at His feet; but in no place is there the least mention of any check given to her or any others,Mark 7.25.Mark 7:25 who after that manner worshipped Christ: But when Cornelius came to S. Peter, Acts 10.25, 26.Acts 10:25Acts 10:26and fell down at his feet and worshipped him, he would by no p. 876means permit it, but said, Stand up, I my self also am a man:Revel. 19.10.22.9.Rev 19:10Rev 19:22Rev 19:9 And when S. Iohn fell down at the feet of the Angel, he would not suffer it, but bade him worship God. That which I observe from hence is, that even under the Gospel the external acts of Religious adoration are proper and peculiar to God, so that men are to blame when they give them to any Creature, but no Persons are condemned for giving them to God. And I desire those who scruple the lawfulness of giving to God such external adoration under the Gospel, how they can condemn those for Idolatry, who give it to any Creature, if it be not a thing which doth still belong to God?

But if all the scruple be about the directing this Adoration, one way more than another, I say still it is done in conformity with the Primitive Church, as our Canon declares, and which every one knows, did worship towards the East; and this at the most is but a local circumstance of an Act of Worship, which I have already shewed to be very different from an Object of it, when I discoursed of the Nature of the Israelites worshipping toward the Ark and the Cherubims.

p. 877Thus, through the Assistance of God, I have gone through all the material points of T. G's Book, which relate to the General Nature of Idolatry; and have diligently weighed and considered every thing that looketh like a difficulty in this Controversie about the Worship of Images, and do here sincerely protest, that I have not given any Answer, or delivered any Opinion which is not agreeable not only to the inward sense of my Mind, but to the best of my understanding to the sense of Scripture, and the Primitive Church, and the Church of England. And if the subtilties of T. G. could have satisfied me, or any other Argument I have met with, I would as freely have retracted this Charge of Idolatry, as I ever made it. For I do not love to represent others worse than they are; but I daily pray to God to make both my self and others better: and therein I know I have the hearty concurrence of all who are truly Good.

FINIS.

End of the text · Edward Stillingfleet, Defense of the Discourse Concerning Idolatry in the Church of Rome (1676)