Defense of the Discourse Concerning Idolatry in the Church of Rome, Part 2 · Chapter 2 (2 of 3)

Defense of the Discourse Concerning Idolatry in the Church of Rome · Part 2 · Chapter 2 (2 of 3)

p. 5492. By fabulous stories and lying Miracles. Of the former we have many instances in the Actions of that famous Council; Concil. Nicen. 2. act. 4. p. 251.but I shall only mention that out of the Limonarion of the pretended Sophronius about the Spirit of Fornication haunting a Monk who had an Image of the Blessed Virgin; to whom the Devil said, If thou wilt not worship that Image, I will trouble thee no more. But the Devil would not tell him this great secret till he had solemnly promised him, he would reveal it to no body. The Monk next day told it to the Abbot Theodore, who assured him he had better go into all the Stews in the City, than leave off the worship of that Image; with which the Monk went away much comforted. But the Devil soon after charged him with perjury; the Monk replyed, he had forsworn to God and not to him. Upon which Iohn Vicar of the Oriental Bishops, said, it was better to forswear p. 550ones self, than to keep an oath for the destruction of Images. And concerning miracles, it is observable, that Tarasius confesses,p. 223. that their Images did work none in their dayes: because miracles were for unbelievers; and yet Manzo a Bishop there present saith,p. 258. he was cured of a disease by laying an Image of Christ upon the part affected. Bellarmin and Baronius say,Bell. de script. Eccles. in Athanas. Baron. ad 1.787. n. 29. the miracle of the Image at Berytus was done in those times; and yet after the reading the story (which made the good Fathers weep) Tharasius saith those words, which make this story, by comparing these circumstances together, appear a meer Fabulous imposture. For in the Council of Nice, the story is reported as written by S. Athanasius near four hundred years before; but not only those Authors but Sigebert saith it was done A. D. 765. and Lambecius undertakes to prove that this story was never written by S. Athanasius. But most remarkable is the passage which Eutychius the Patriarch of Alexandria relates concerning the occasion of Theophilus the Emperours extirpating Images out of Churches. Sigeb. Chron. ad A. 765. Lambec. Comment. de Biblioth. Vindobon. l. 1. p. 124. &c. Eutychii An. To. 2. p. 448.One of the Courtiers had told him there was an Image of the Blessed Virgin, from whose breasts there dropt Milk upon her day; but search p. 551being made the Cheat was discovered, the Church officers executed, and all Images prohibited. If all the Impostors of this kind were dealt with after the same manner, there would be fewer pretences to miracles wrought by Images than there are.

3. By crying up those for Martyrs, who suffered for the worship of Images, and opposing the Imperial Edicts for pulling them down. Thus Pope Gregory 2. in his Epistle to Leo magnifies the zeal of the Women who killed the Emperours Officer who was sent to demolish the Image of Christ called Antiphoneta, Greg. 2. ep. 1. ad Leon.and afterwards suffered themselves for the tumult they raised in the City. But this was not the only Act of Zeal in the Women in this good Cause; for as Baronius relates it,Baron. ad A. 726. n. 12. out of the Acts of Stephanus extant in Damascens Works, when a new Patriarch was set up in the room of Germanus, they shook off all Modesty, and ran into the Church, and threw stones at the Patriarch, and called him Hireling, Wolf, and what not? One need not wonder at the mighty zeal of the Women in this Cause, for as Pope Gregory notably observes on behalf of Images, the Women were wont to take the little Children in their arms, Greg. 2. ep. 2.and shew them this and the other Image; which contributed p. 552mightily to the infallibility of Oral Tradition: when the Women and Nurses could point with their Fingers to the Articles of Faith elegantly expressed in Pictures, which the Children did delight to look upon. The great number of Martyrs in this Cause, of which Baronius glories, consisted chiefly of Women and Monks, who were the most zealous Champions in it. And the late Historian can hardly abstain from making the Empress Irene a Martyr in this Cause; for in his Epistle to the Queen (a Lady of so incomparably greater Virtue and Goodness, History of the Iconoclasts Epistle Dedicat. p. 3.5.that it is an affront to her Majesty to commend such an one to her protection) he had the boldness to tell her that the only imputation which assaults those Princesses repute (viz. Irene and Theodora) was their piety in restoring the Religious use and veneration of holy Images to the Eastern Empire. What can be expected from such an Historian, who durst in the face of the World tell her Majesty so impudent a falshood? For Zonaras, Cedrenus, Glycas, Theophanes, Constantinus Manasses, Zonar. Annal. To. 4. p. 97. Cedren. p. 473. Glyc. p. 285. Theoph. p. 398. Manass. p. 90, 91.although Friends to the worship of Images, yet all accuse Irene of Intolerable Ambition and Cruelty to her Son, the Emperour Constantine, and to all his Kindred. Nay, p. 553Baronius himself (who minceth the matter as much as may be) saith,Baron. ad A. 796. n. 8. That if she used those cruelties to her Son, out of a desire of Empire, as the Greek Historians say she did, she was worse than Agrippina: but Const. Manasses, as zealous as any for Images, makes her worse than a Tigre, or Lion, or Bear, or Dragon for her cruelty; and he can think of no Parallel for her among women but Medea. And was not this an excellent Confessour at least, if not a Martyr in this Cause? a Person fit to be commended to her Majesties protection, as one that suffered only under the imputation of her zeal for Images? But if any be given up to believe lies, some must be first given up to tell them. And if this doughty Historian hath any honour or Conscience left, he ought to beg her Majesties pardon, for offering such an affront to her. But what had Queen Mary deserved at his hands, that in his Key to his History, he should compare her to the Empress Irene?Pref. p. 21.

4. By pretending to Antiquity. This might justly be wondred at in so clear evidence to the contrary, as I have made to appear in this matter: but however, among the ignorant and superstitious multitude, the very pretending to it goes a great way. p. 554Thus the Patriarch Germanus boasted of Fathers and Councils for Image-worship to the Emperour Leo;Acta Steph. Iun. apud Damascen. but what Fathers, or Councils did the aged Patriarch mean? why did he not name and produce them to stop the Emperours proceedings against Images? Baronius confesseth,Baron. ad A. 726. n. 6. there were no Councils which had approved the worship of Images by any Canon; but because they never condemned it, being constantly practised, it was sufficient. All the mischief is, this constant practice is as far from being proved, as the definition of Councils. If the picture Christ sent to Abgarus King of Edessa, or those drawn by S. Luke, or the forged Canon of the Council of Antioch; or the counterfeit Authority of S. Athanasius about the Image at Berytus; if such evidences as these will do the business; they have abundance of Autiquity on their side: but if we be not satisfied with these, they will call us Hereticks, or it may be, Samaritan Sectaries, and that is all we are to expect in this matter.

5. The Council of Nice had a trick beyond this, viz. burning, or suppressing all the Writings that were against them. The Popes Deputies in the fifth Action made the motion, Concil. Nic. 2. act. 5. p. 387.which was received and p. 555consented to by the Council:Concil. Nic. Can. 9. and they made a Canon to that purpose, That all Writings against Images should be brought into the Patriarch of Constantinople, under pain of Anathema if a Laick, or Deposition, if in Orders (and this without any limitation as to Authors or Time,) and there to be disposed of among heretical Books. So that it is to be wondred, so much evidence should yet be left in the Monuments of Antiquity against the worship of Images.

As to what concerns the matter of Argument for the worship of Images produced in this Age, §. 7.I must leave that to its proper place; and proceed to the last Period, as to this Controversie, which is necessary for discerning the History and the State of it, viz.

4. When the Doctrine and Practice of Image-worship was settled upon the principles allowed and defended in the Roman Church. Wherein I shall do these 2 things.

1. I shall shew what additions have been to this doctrine and practice since the Nicene Council.

2. Wherein the present practice of Image-worship in the Roman Church doth consist, and upon what principles it is defended.

p. 5561. For the additions that have been made in this matter since the Nicene Council. And those lie especially in two things.

1. In making Images of God the Father, and the Holy Trinity. 2. In the manner of worship given to Images.

1. In making Images of God the Father and the Trinity. It is easie to observe how much the most earnest pleaders for Images did then abhor the making of any Image of God. So Gregory 2. in his Epistle to Leo saith expresly,Greg. 2. ep. ad Leon. Aug. They made no Images of God, because it is impossible to paint or describe him; but if we had seen or known him, as we have done his Son, we might have painted and represented him too, as well as his Son. We make no Image or Likeness of the invisible Deity, saith the Patriarch Germanus, whom the highest Orders of Angels are not able to comprehend. If we cannot paint the Soul, saith Damascen, German. epist. ad Ioh. Synad. in act. 4. Concil. Nic. p. 291. Damascen. orat. 1. de …mag. p. 747.how much less can we represent God by an Image, who gave that Being to the soul which cannot be painted? What Image can be made of him, who is invisible, incorporeal, without quantity, magnitude, or form? We should err indeed, Orat. 2. p. 759.saith he, if we should make an Image of God who cannot be p. 557seen; and the same he repeats in other places, Who is there, in his senses, Orat. 3. p. 767, 768saith Stephanus Junior, that would go about to paint the Divine Nature, which is immaterial and incomprehensible? Acta Steph. Iun. apud Damas. p. 805.For if we cannot represent him in our minds, how much less can we paint him in colours? Now these four, Gregory, Germanus, Damascen, and Stephanus were the most renowed Champions for the Defence of Images; and did certainly speak the sense of the Church at that time:Conc. Nic. 2. act. 4, 5, 6, 7. To the same purpose speak Ioh. Thessalonicensis, Leontius, and others in the Nicene Council. The Greek Author of the Book of the use of Images according to the sense of the second Council of Nice (published by Morellius and Fronto Ducaeus) goes farther, for he saith,Biblioth. Patrum Gr. Lat. To. 1. p. 737. That no Images are to be made of God, and if any man go about it, he is to suffer death as a Pagan. By which it appears that according to the sense of this Council, the making any Images of God was looked on as a part of Heathen Idolatry. But when a breach is once made, the waters do not stop just at the mark, which the first makers of the breach designed: Other men thought they had as much reason to go a little farther, as they had to go thus far. Thence by degrees p. 558the Images of God the Father, and the Holy Trinity came into the Roman Church, and the making of these Images defended upon reasons which seemed to them as plausible, as those for the Images of Christ upon his appearing in our Nature; for so God the Father might be represented not in his nature, but as he is said to have appeared in the Scriptures. Baronius, Baron. ad A. D. 726. n.in his Marginal Notes on the Epistle of Gregory, saith, Afterwards it came into use to make Images of God the Father, and of the Trinity; not that they fall under our view, but as they appeared in holy Writ; for what can be described, Ad A. 765. n. 8.may be painted; to the same purpose he speaks in another place. It seems then by the confession of Baronius no Images of God the Father were in use then, because they did not think them lawful; when they first came into use, Christianus Lupus professes,Christian. Lup. not. in Canon. Conc. Sept. dissert. c. 5. p. 1175. that he knows not; but, he saith, there were none such in the Roman Church in the time of Nicolaus 1. But Bellarmin, Bell. de Imag. l. 2. c. 8.Suarez, and others, produce an argument for the lawfulness of them, from the general practice of their Church, which, they say, would not have suffered such an universal custom, if such Images had been unlawful. p. 559Bernardus Pujol Professour of Divinity in Perpignan, saith,Pujol de sacr. Adora. cultu disp. 3. sect. 4. p. 250, 252. not only that the Images of the Trinity are universally received among Catholicks, but that they are allowed by the Council of Trent, and doth suppose the use of them as a thing certain and undoubted: and saith, that such Images are to be worshipped. For, saith he, as the mind is excited by the Image of Christ, or the Saints, so may devotion be raised by such an Image of the Deity. Ysambertus saith,Ysambert. de Myster. Inc. ad q. 25. disp. 3. art. 6. that they who give caution concerning the doing of a thing, as the Council of Trent doth, about the Images of God, are to be understood to approve the thing it self: and he saith, the opinion about the lawfulness of such Images is so certain, that to say otherwise is rashness; and the common practice of the Church for a long time hath been to have such Images in Churches, and they were never reproved either by the Pope, or so much as a Provincial Synod. Vasquez goes farther,Vasq. ad 3. Aq. disp. 103. c. 3. saying, That the lawfulness of Images of the Trinity is proved by the most frequent practice of the Church, which commonly at Rome and other places, doth set forth the Image of the Trinity to be worshipped by the People. Arriaga saith, p. 560That it is so certain that these Images are lawful, Arriaga ad 3. Th. disp. 5. sect. 1.that to say the contrary is not only rashness, but a plain errour; for God cannot be supposed to suffer his universal Church to err in a matter of such moment. Tannerus asserts,Tann. To. 3. disp. 5. q. 2. dub. 3. That it is not only lawful to make Images of God and the Trinity; but to propose them as objects of Worship; which, he saith, is the common opinion of their Divines, and he proves it, as the rest do, from the practice of their Church and the Council of Trent. Neither are such Images, saith Cajetan, only for shew, as the Cherubims were in the Temple; but they are set up that they may be worshipped, as the practice of the Church shews. In the processionale of Sarum, Suar. in Aq. 3. p. To. 1. q. 25. disp. 54. sect. 2. Cajet. in Aq. 3. q. 25. act. 3. Procession. secund. usum Sarum 1555. fol. 16.I find a Rubrick for the incensing the Image of the Holy Trinity: which clearly manifests the practice of worshipping the Image of the Trinity.

Now in this matter, I say, there is a plain innovation since the second Nicene Council, which thought such Images utterly unlawful, as Petavius proves,Petav. de Incar. l. 15. c. 14. n. 1. from the Testimonies before mentioned.

But T. G. saith, That Germanus and Damascen,§. 8. and consequently the rest, only p. 561spake against such Images, T.G. p. 119.as are supposed to represent the Divinity in it self; with whom they fully agree in this matter, and think all such Images of the Divinity unlawful. To which I answer, (1.) This is plainly contrary to their meaning; for they shew that it was unlawful to make any Image of God till the Incarnation of Christ, as might be at large proved from all their Testimonies. Now this assertion would signifie nothing, if they thought it lawful to make any Image of God from the manner of his appearances. For then it was as lawful to make Images of God before as after the Incarnation of Christ. And one of the arguments of Damascen and the rest for the Images of Christ, although he were God, was to shew the reality of his humane nature, against those who said he took only the appearance of it. But if an appearance of God were sufficient ground for an Image, then this argument did prove nothing at all. And yet the Council of Nice laies so great weight upon it, as to conclude those who reject Images to deny the reality of Christs humane nature. They went therefore upon this principle, that no meer appearance is a sufficient ground for the Image of a Person; for in case it p. 562be a meer appearance, the representation that is made, is only of the appearance it self, and not of the Person who never assumed that likeness, which he appeared in, to any Personal union; but, say they, when the humane nature was personally united to the God head, then it was lawful to make a representation of that Person by an Image of his humane nature. How far this will hold, at to an object of divine worship, must be discussed afterwards, but from hence it appears, that they did not speak only against such Images which represent the Divinity in it self, but against such as were made of any appearance of him. And it is observable that the ancient Schoolmen, such as Alexander Hales, Aquinas, Bonaventure and Marsilius, Alex. Hales p. 3. q. 30. m. 3. art. 3. Aquin. p. 3. q. 25. a. 3. re…p. adj. Bo…av. l 3. d. 9. q. 2. Mars. l. 3. q. 8. a. 2.do all agree that any representation of God was forbidden before the Incarnation of Christ; from whence it follows, that they could not think any representation of God from his appearances to have been lawful under the Law. And there can be no reason given, why the representation of God from an appearance should have been more unlawful then, than under the Gospel. (2.) This would only hold then against Anthropomorphites, or those who supposed the Divinity to be really like their Images; p. 563of which sort I have shewn how very few there were among the Heathens themselves; and if this had been their meaning, they should not have made all Images of God unlawful, but have given them cautions not to think the Divinity to be like them. But whatever the conceptions of men were, they declare in general, all Images of God to be unlawful; which the Church of Rome is so far from doing, that the Council of Trent allows some kind of representations of God from his appearances; Conc. Trident. sess. 25. de Imag.and the constant practice of that Church shews, that they picture God the Father as an Old Man, not only in their Books, but in places of worship, and with a design to worship Him under that representation; which was a thing the great Patrons of Images in the time of the second Council of Nice professed to abhor. (3.) Those Images of God which are allowed in the Roman Church are confessed by their own Authors to be apt to induce men to think God to be like to them. Ioh. Hesselius, Hessel. in Catech.a Divine of great reputation in the Council of Trent, confesses, That from the Images of God in humane shape men may easily fall into the errour of the Anthropomorphites; especially the more ignorant, for whose sake especially those p. 564Images are made. It being not so easie for them to understand Metaphorical and Analogical representations; but it being very natural, for them to judge of things according to the most common and sensible representations of them. And if they were all Anthropomorphites in the Roman Church, I wonder what other representation they could make of God the Father, than that which is used, and allowed, and worshipped among them. If there be then so much danger in that opinion as T. G. intimates, how can that Church possibly be excused, that gives such occasions to the People to fall into it? He that goes about to express the invisible nature of God by an artificial Image, sins grievously and makes an Idol, saith Sanders;Sander. de honor. Imag. ador. c. 4. but how is it possible for a man to express the invisible nature of God by an Image, otherwise than it is done in the Church of Rome? How did the Heathens do it otherwise according to T. G. than by making the Image of God in the Likeness of Man? But, T. G. saith, men may conceive the Deity otherwise than it is, and so go about to make an Image to represent it, which is folly and madness; and so it is to make such an answer: for then all the folly and madness in making the grossest Images of p. 565God doth not lye in the Images themselves, but in the imagination of the Persons that make them. Is it not as great in those that worship them with such an imagination? if it be, then whatever the Design of the makers was, if they be apt to beget such imaginations in those who see and worship them, they are in that respect as unlawful, as T. G. supposes any Images of God among the Heathens to have been. (4.) What doth T. G. mean, when he makes those Images unlawful which represent the Divinity in it self, and not those which represent God as he appeared? Can the meer essence of any thing be represented by an Image? Is it possible to represent any being otherwise than as it appears? But it may be T. G. hath found out the way of painting Essences; (if he hath, he deserves to have the Patent for it, not only for himself, but for his Heirs and Executors.) For he allows it to be the peculiar priviledge of an infinite Being that it cannot be represented as it is in it self; then all other things may be represented as they are in themselves, in opposition to the manner of their appearance; or else the distinction signifies nothing. Petrus Thyraeus a man highly commended by Possevin for for his explication of this p. 566matter, saith, the meaning is, that an Image doth not represent the Nature but the Person that is visible;Possevin. biblioth. l. 8. c. 16. for, saith he, when we see the Image of a man, we do not say we see a Reasonable Creature, but a Man. Very well! and so in the Image of the Deity we do not see the Divine Nature, but the Divine Person, or in such a way as he became visible. The Invisible Nature of God cannot be represented in an Image; (and can the invisible Nature of Man?) Therefore, saith he, it is no injury to God to be painted by an Image: no more upon these principles than to a man. Bellarmin proves the lawfulness of making Images of God, because man is said to be the Image of God;Bell. de Imag. l. 2. c. 8. and he may be painted, therefore the Image of God may be too; for that which is the Image of the Image is likewise the Image of the Exemplar, those which agree in a third agreeing among themselves. To this some answer'd that man was not the Image of God as to his body, but as to his soul which could not be painted; but Bellarmin takes off this answer, by saying, that then a man could not not be painted, for he is not a man in regard of his outward lineaments; but in regard of his substance, and especially his Soul; but notwithstanding the soul cannot p. 567be painted, yet a man may truly and properly be said to be painted, because the Figure and colours of an Image do represent the whole man; otherwise, saith he, a thing painted could never seem to be the true Thing, as Zeuxis his grapes did which deceived the birds. Therefore according to Bellarmines reasoning, that which represents a Being according to outward appearance, although it have an invisible Nature; yet is a true and real representation, and represents it as it is in it self; and as far as it is possible for an Image to represent any thing. Wherein then lyes the difference between making the Picture of a man, and the Image of God? If it be said, that the Image of God is very short, imperfect, and obscure; is not the same thing to be said of the Picture of a man, which can only represent his outward Features without any description of his inward substance or soul? If it be farther said, that there is a real resemblance between a Picture of a man, and his outward lineaments, but there is none, between God and the Image of a man; then I ask, what Bellarmins argument doth signifie towards the proving the lawfulness of making an Image of God? For if God may be painted because man may, who is the Image of God; (for the Image p. 568of the Image is the Image of the Exemplar;) then it follows that Man is the Image of God, as he may be painted, and so God and man must agree in that common thing which is a capacity of being represented, which cannot be supposed without as real a resemblance between God and his Image, as between a Man and his Picture.

But T. G. tells us,T. G. p. 69. that they abhorr the very thoughts of making any such likeness of God, and all that the Council of Trent allows is only making representations of some apparition or action of God in a way proportionable to our Humane Conception. I answer, (1.) It is no great sign of their abhorring the thoughts of any such likeness of God, to see such arguments made use of to prove the lawfulness of making Images of God which do imply it. (2.) Those Images of God which are the most used and allowed in the Roman Church, have been thought by Wise men of their own Church to imply such a Likeness. Molanus and Thyraeus mention four sorts of Images of the Trinity, Molanus de Picturis, c. 3. Thyre. apud Possevin. biblioth. l. 8. c. 16.that have been used in the Roman Church. 1. That of an old man for God the Father, and of Christ in humane nature, and of the Holy Ghost in the Form of a Dove. 2. That of three Persons of equal Age and Stature. 3. That of an Image of the p. 569Bl. Virgin in the belly of which was represented the Holy Trinity: this Ioh. Gerson saith,Gerson. serm. in nativit. Dom. To. …. p. 620. he saw in the Carmelites Church; and saith, there were others like it; and Molanus saith, he had seen such a one himself among the Carthusians. 4. That of one Head with three faces, or one body and three Heads; which Molanus saith, is much more common than the other; and is wont to be set before the Office of the Holy Trinity; these two latter those Authors do not allow; because the former of them tends to a dangerous errour, viz. that the whole Trinity was incarnate of the B. Virgin, and the latter, Molanus saith, was an invention of the Devil, (it seems then, there was one invention of the Devil at least to be seen in the Masse-Book;) for, saith he, the Devil once appeared with three Heads to a Monk, telling him he was the Trinity. But the two former, they allow and defend; Waldensis, Waldens. To. 3. tit. 19. c. 155.saith Molanus, with a great deal of learning defends that of the three Persons from the appearance of the Three to Abraham; and Thyraeus justifieth the first, and the most common from the Authority of the Church, the Consent of Fathers, and the H. Scriptures. And yet Pope Iohn 22. as Aventinus relates it,Avent. Annal. Boior. l. 7. p. 751. condemned some p. 570to the Fire as Anthropomorphites and enemies to Religion, for making the very same representation of the Trinity, which he defends, being only of God as an old man, and of the Son as a young man, and of the Holy Ghost under the picture of a Dove. Ysambertus takes notice of this story;Ysambert. de Myst. Incarn. ad q. 25. disp. 3. art. 7. but, he saith, they were such Images as were according to the mind of the Anthropomorphites; whereas Aventinus saith expresly, they were no other than such as are used and allowed in the Roman Church; by which Ysambertus saith, there is no more danger of mens being led into a false opinion of God, than there is by the expressions of Scripture. And upon this ground the danger doth not lye in making any representations of God, but in entertaining a false opinion of those representations; and the Scripture instead of forbidding men to make any similitude of God, should only have forbidden men to entertain any erroneous conceit of any Image of him. But, if the Church take care to prevent such an opinion, as he saith she doth, the other Image with three faces and one Head, or one body and three Heads might be justified on the same reason that the other is. Whereas the Roman Catechism saith,Catech. Rom. part. 3. n. 12. that Moses did therefore wisely say, that they p. 571saw no similitude of God, lest they should be led aside by errour, and make an Image of the Divinity, and give the honour due to God to a Creature. From whence it follows, that all Images that tend to such an errour are forbidden, and all worship given to such Images is Idolatry. And it is farther observable, that the Image allowed in the Roman Church for God the Father is just such a one as S. Augustin saith,Aug. de fide & symb. c. 7. it is wickedness for Christians to make for God and to place in a Temple, and I would desire of T. G. to tell me, what other Image of God the greatest Anthropomorphites would make, than that which is most common among them? And if there be such danger in mens conceptions of a Deity from any Images of God, they give as much occasion for it, as ever any people did: So much, that all men of any ingenuity have cryed shame upon them; but to very little purpose. Abulensis, Durandus and Peresius are cited by Bellarmin himself as condemning any Images of God: and which is observable, they do not condemn such Images as represent God in himself, as T. G. speaks, but such as were in use in the Roman Church. Durandus saith,Durand. in sent. l. 3. dist. 9. q. 2. n. 15. it is a foolish thing either to make or to worship such p. 572Images, viz. of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, after the former manner: and which is yet more, he quotes Damascen against this sort of Images, saying, that it was impiety and madness to make them: and so doth Peresius too.Peres. de tradit. part 3. p. 118. ed. Colon. Thuanus mentions this passage relating to this matter,Thuan. hist. l. 28. that A. D. 1562. the Queen Mother of France by the advice of two Bishops and these three Divines, Butillerius, Espencaeus and Picherellus declared, that all Images of the Trinity should be taken out of Churches and other places, as forbidden by Scripture, Councils and Fathers: and yet these were such Images which T.G. pleads for; but this soon came to nothing, as all good purposes of Reformation among them have ever done.

If it be said, as it is by Ysambertus, Ysamb. ad q. 25. disp. 3. art. 4.that these are not properly Images of God, but of his appearance in a visible form; I answer, (1.) This doth not mend the matter, for we are speaking of an Image of the Father as a Person in the Trinity; and whatever represents him as such must represent him as he is in himself, and not barely in regard of a temporary appearance; and as to such an Image of God the Father, T. G's distinction will by no means reach. (2.) It is the common p. 573opinion of the Divines in the Roman Church, that all the appearances of God in the old Testament were not of God himself, but of Angels in his stead. And Clichtovaeus gives that as a Reason why all representations of God were unlawful in the old Testament;Vasquez ad q. 25. disp. 103. art. 3. c. 3. Clichtov. in Damasc. l. 4. c. 17. because all appearances were by Angels, and those Angels were no more united to the Forms they assumed, than a mans body is to his Garments: from whence it must follow that all representations of God by such appearances is still unlawful. (3.) Suppose this be a representation only of some appearance of God, and so not of what God is, but of what he did, I ask then on what account such an effect of divine power is made the object of Divine adoration? For we have seen already by the confession of their most eminent Divines, that the Images of the Trinity are proposed among them as objects of adoration; now say I, how comes a meer creature, such as that apparition was, to become the object of Divine worship? Durandus well saw the consequence of this assertion; for when he had said, that those corporeal Forms which are painted are no representations of the Divine Person which never assumed them, but only of those very Forms themselves in which p. 574he appeared; therefore, saith he, no more reverence is due to them than is due to the Forms themselves. When God appeared in the burning bush, that Fire was then an effect of Divine Power, and deserved no worship of it self; how then can the Image of the burning bush, be an object of Divine worship? If God did appear to Daniel as the Ancient of dayes, Dan. 7.9.Dan 7:9it must be either by the impression of such an Idea upon his Imagination, or by assuming the Form of an old man; but either way this was but a meer Creature, and had no such personal Union to the Godhead to deserve adoration; how much less then doth the Image of this Appearance deserve it? So that I cannot see how upon their own principles they can be excused from Idolatry, who give proper Divine worship to such Images as these. He commits Idolatry, saith Sanders, Sander. de honor. Imag. adorat. c. 4.that proposes any Image to be worshipped as the true Image of the Divine Nature: if this be Idolatry, what is it then to give the highest sort of worship to the meer representation of a Creature? for those Images, which only set forth such appearances, are but the Creatures of Creatures, and so still farther off from being the object of adoration. So that notwithstanding all T. G's evasions p. 575and distinctions, we find that as to this matter of the Images of God and the Trinity, the Church of Rome is not only gone off from Scripture, Reason, and Antiquity, but from the doctrine and practice of the second Council of Nice too.

2. I now come to the additions that have been made to the Council of Nice by the Church of Rome as to the manner of worship given to Images. §. 9.For which I must consider,

1. What that worship was, which the Council of Nice did give to Images?

2. What additions have been made to it since that time?

1. What that worship was which the Council of Nice did give to Images? which will appear by these two things. 1. That it defined true and real worship to be given to Images. 2. That it was an inferiour worship, and not Latria.

1. That it defined true and real worship to be given to Images; i. e. that Images were not only to be Signs and helps to memory, to call to mind or represent to us the object of worship; but that the acts of worship were to be performed to the Images themselves. The former use of Images doth suppose them to be only of p. 576the nature of Books, which represent things to our minds without any act of adoration performed to that which is only an instrument of intellection; although the thing represented to the mind be a proper object of adoration. As, if by reading a Book an Idea of God is represented to my mind whom I ought to worship, yet no man can imagine that from hence I should fall down upon my knees out of honour to the Book, or with a design to worship it. When a man reads his prayers out of a Book, and makes use of that only as a means or instrument to help his understanding, and direct his expressions; no man can have any colour of Reason to say that he worships the Book, which he uses for a quite different purpose. It is the same case as to Images, when they are used for no other end but barely to represent to the mind an object of worship; as a Crucifix may do our Saviour; then it is no more than an external Note or Character, and hath the same use that words have. But those who go no farther than thus, stand condemned and Anathematized by the second Council of Nice. Concil. Nicen. 2. Act. 7. p. 555.Acts 7For that not only determines with a great deal of assurance that Images are to be set up in Churches and houses, and wayes, in order to the worship p. 577of them; but very freely Anathematizes all sorts of dissenters either in judgement or practice. p. 577.Anathema be to all those who do not Salute the Holy and Venerable Images: Anathema to all hereticks: Anathema to those that follow the Council against Images. Anathema to them that do not salute the Images of Christ and his Saints. Epiphanius in the sixth Session declares this to be the sense of the Council;Act. 6. p. 542.Acts 6 Those who say that Images are to be had only for memory and not for worship or salutation, are half-wicked, and partly true and partly false, they are so far right as they are for Images, but they are in the wrong as they are against the worship of them. O the folly of these men! saith Epiphanius. But this is not all, for as it was not sufficient to have Images for helps to memory, so neither was it to give them some kind of honour or reverence; nothing but worship would satisfie them. So the Patriarch Tarasius, saith in plain terms, they who pretend to honour Images, Act. 4. p. 247.Acts 4and not to worship them, are guilty of Hypocrisie, and self-contradiction. For worship, saith he, is a Symbol and signification of Honour, therefore they who deny to worship them, do dishonour them. This was the Patriarchal way of arguing in this famous p. 578Council. And this he proves from the saying of Anastasius Bishop of Theopolis, Let no man be offended with the name of adoration or worship, for we worship men and Angels, but do not serve them, and worship is an expression of Honour. And it would do one good at heart, to see how all the Reverend Fathers clap their hands for joy at the subtle Criticism which it seems that Bishop had discovered, viz. that when our saviour said, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him Only shalt thou serve, that Only was not applyed to Worship but to Service. Mark that, cryes the Council, Only belongs to Service, and not to worship, therefore although we may not serve Images, yet we may Worship them. If the Devil had been so subtle, might not he have said to our Saviour, Mark that, you are forbidden Only to Serve any else but God, but you may Worship me, notwithstanding that command? The Patriarch Tarasius in his Epistle to Constantine and Irene expresses this worship by the very same word which is used to God; for, when God saith, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, Act. 7. p. 785.Acts 7and him only shalt thou serve; he restrains Service to himself, but allows Worship to other things; therefore, saith he, foreign, without p. 579the least doubt or dispute it is a thing acceptable and well pleasing to God, for us to worship and salute the Images of Christ and the B. Virgin, and of the Holy Angels and Saints. If any man think otherwise, and have any doubt in his mind, or any wavering, foreign, about the Worship of the Venerable Images, the Holy and Oecumenical Synod hath Anathematized him; and what is an Anathema but a Separation from God? And thus it becomes no less than damnation to doubt of the Worship of Images. O blessed Change! from what it was in the primitive times, when it was damnation to worship them. This worship he expresses in the same Epistle by Kissing, by bowing, by prostration; all which he shews from the signification of the word, and the use of it in Scripture. And in the Definition of the Council, among the Acts of worship, Act. 7. p. 555.Acts 7are reckoned the oblation of Incense and Lights, because the honour of the Image passes to the thing represented by it. So that all external acts of adoration were by the Definition of this Council to be performed to Images; and the same have been practised by the approbation of the Roman Church; wherein this Council of Nice is received as a General Council, p. 580and appealed to by the Council of Trent, Concil. Trident. sess. 25.supposing the Decrees of that Council to be still in force. In the Constitutions of Thomas Arundel Archbishop of Canterbury made in the Convocation of the Bishops and Clergy begun at S. Pauls, 14 Ian. A. D. 1408. we have a particular enumeration of the several Acts of worship which were required to be performed to Images; and the places and Reliques of the Saints, viz. processions, Spelman. Concil. To. 2. p. 653.666.genuflections, bowing of the body, thurifications, deosculations, oblations, burnings of Lights, and Pilgrimages, and all other forms and modes of worship which have been practised in the times of our predecessours or in our own; and this not only the People were required to practise, but the Clergy to teach and preach up the worship of the Cross and other Images with these acts of adoration. And this Constitution is extant in Lyndwood as part of the Canon Law then in force; Lyndwood Provinc. l. 5. tit. de heret. p. 160.2.who in his Notes upon it, observes, that offering incense was a sacrifice, as it was burnt upon the Altar, and a part of Latria, and therefore he saith, the same incense was not used to the Clergy and people with that burnt upon the Altar, but of another sort which was not consecrated. In the Records of the Tower is extant the Form p. 581of Renunciation imposed on the Lollards, Claus. 19. R. 2.wherein are these words concerning the worship of Images, Spelman. p. 655.I do swear to God and to all his Seynts upon this Holy Gospell, that fro this day forward I shall Worship Images, with praying and offering unto them in the worschop of the Seynts that they be made after. And yet after all this plain evidence, some have had the confidence to tell us, that they hardly worship Images in the Roman Church, but praying to them they abhorr and detest. What conscientious men were those then who made the poor Lollards swear to do that, which they forbid them to do? But surely the Bishops and Clergy then understood the doctrine and practice of the Roman Church as well as T. G. and his Brethren do at this day; and having Authority in their hands were not so cautious and reserved in this matter, as some think it for their interest to be at present.

And it is observable,§ 10. that those learned men in the Roman Church who have been most nice and scrupulous in this matter of the worship of Images, have yet agreed with the rest in the practice of the outward acts of worship towards them. So p. 582Vasquez observes concerning Durandus, Vasquez disp. 106. c. 1.Holcot, and Picus Mirandula, who speak the most suspiciously among them about the Worship of Images, that they agreed with the Catholick Church in performing all external acts of adoration to Images, and that they differed only in the manner of speaking from the rest: and that the main thing the Council of Nice determined was the real acts of worship to be performed to Images, leaving the several ways of explaining the manner of giving them, and the names of this worship at greater liberty. The same, Card. Lugo saith, that these men differed from Hereticks, Lugo de Myster. Incarn. disp. 36. Sect. 2.because these utterly refuse giving external acts of adoration to Images, which they allowed. Suarez confesses that some of the Hereticks condemned by the Council of Nice did maintain the Use of Images for Memory, which, he saith, appears by the Acts of the Council;Suarez in 3. p. q. 25. disp. 54. sect. 1. and that all Catholicks agree in this proposition, Imagines esse adorandas, that Imagines are to be worshipped, although some, he saith, do so explain that worship as to differ little or nothing from hereticks. So Durandus,Durand. in sent. 3. dist. 9. q. 2. saith he, openly teacheth that Images are not to be worshipped, but only impropriè & abusivè, improperly and abusively, because at their presence p. 583we call to mind those objects represented by them, which are worshipped before the Images, as if they were present, and on this account the Images are said to be worshipped.

It will contribute much to the understanding the State of this Controversie, to shew a little more particularly, what the opinion of these men was, and how it is condemned by the rest as savouring of Heresie, and repugnant to the Council of Nice, and the sense of the Catholick Church. Durandus goes upon these grounds, 1. That worship properly belongs to him in whom the cause of that worship is, and by accident may be given to that which hath only a relation to that which is the cause. 2. In him to whom proper worship is given we are to consider both the Person to whom it is given, and the Cause for which; worship is only properly given to the Person, and not to any part of him; the Cause is that from whence the excellency of the Person arises. 3. That Supreme worship or Latria is due only to God for it self, by reason of his Deity, because the cause of this honour is only in God; but by accident the honour of Latria may belong to other things; Now, saith he, a thing may have relation to God p. 584two waies, 1. When it goes to make up the same Person, as the Humanity of Christ. 2. When it hath only an extrinsecal relation to Him, as Christs Mother, or His Image. 4. That the humane nature of Christ hath only by accident the honour of Latria given to it, as being part of that Person who is worshipped, who is the Son of God; but the Humanity it self is not properly that which is worshipped, nor is the Cause or reason of that worship, but only of an inferiour. 5. Of those things which have only an extrinsecal relation to God, this is to be held in general; that either they deserve no worship at all of themselves, as the Cross, and Images, or other inanimate things: or if they do, as the B. Virgin, it is an inferiour worship; of the first he determines that no manner of worship doth belong to them, no not to the Cross it self, upon the account of any excellency, n. 14.or contact of Christ, for which he gives this reason, That which is no subject capable of holiness or vertue, cannot in it self be the term of adoration, but the Cross on which Christ did hang, was not a subject capable of holiness, &c. Nunquam ergo cruci Christi debetur aliquis honor nisi in quantum reducit in rememorationem Christi; no kind of honour is p. 585due to the Cross, but as it calls Christ to our remembrance. 6. That although the conception of the mind be of the thing represented upon sight of an Image; there is still a real difference in the thing, and in the conception, between the Image and the thing represented; and therefore properly speaking the same worship is never due to the Image that is to the object represented by it. But, saith he, because we must speak as the most do, the Image may be said to be worshipped with the same worship with the thing represented, because at the presence of the Image we worship the object represented by it as if he were actually present.

Holkot in his Lectures on the Book of Wisdom, Holkot in Sap. c. 13 Lect. 138. p. 424.saith, That in a large sense we may be said to worship the Image, because by the Image we call Christ to mind, and worship him before the Image: and therefore, saith he, I think it fitter to say, that I do not worship the Image of Christ, because it is Wood, nor because it is the Image of Christ, but that I worship Christ before his Image: but he by no means alloweth, that Latria in any sense be given to an Image of Christ. 1. Because Latria is the worship due only to God, but no Image is God: and therefore p. 586it is a contradiction to say, that Latria is due only to God, and yet that it is due to the Image of Christ, and to Christ. 2. Then the same worship would be due to Christ and to a Stone, or to Christ and to a creature. 3. He that gives to any thing the worship of Latria, confesseth that to be God; therefore a man may as lawfully say the Image is God, as that it may be worshipped with Latria; and consequently that something which is not God is God. Ioh. Picus Mirandula gave this for one of his conclusions,Ioh. Pit. Mirand. Apolog. p. 103. That neither the Cross, nor any other Image is to be worshipped with Latria after the way of Thomas: this conclusion was condemned, and he forced to write an Apology for it: where he saith, That the way of Thomas is dangerous, for the Image as an Image is distinct from the thing represented, therefore if as such it terminates the worship of Latria, it seems to follow that something which is not God is worshipped with Latria: and he declares, that he agrees with Durandus and Holcot: but withal, he saith, that this conclusion of his was condemned as scandalous, and against the Custom of the Universal Church. Yet, he concludes his Apology, with saying, That if he had universally condemned the worship p. 587of Images, his proposition had been Heretical. From whence it appears, that these persons who did agree in the practice, yet because they said the Images were to be worshipped only improperly and abusively, were not thought to believe, or do what the Church required. Therefore Suarez saith, Suarez ….(1.) That it is defide, or an article of Faith, imagines esse adorandas, that Images are to be worshipped, and that to be owned not in any limited and improper sense, but absolutely and simply; which article, he saith, is founded in the Tradition and Definitions of the Church, and he proves it by the constant practice of the Church. (2.) That Images are to be worshipped not abusively and improperly, but verè & propriè, truly and properly, and that the contrary opinion of Durandus is dangerous, rash, and savouring of Heresie. So, he saith, Medina determines it, Barth. Medina 3. p. q. 25. a. 3.who reports that Victoria said it was Heretical; and this conclusion, he saith, is commonly received among the modern Divines; and he proves it from the Definitions of Councils; especially the second Council of Nice, which hath defined it under an Anathema. But, he adds, if Images were only to be worshipped abusively and improperly, the worship of them was rather simply p. 588to be denied than affirmed; for an improper and abusive worship is no worship at all; and they were not to be condemned for Hereticks, who allow the use of Images for memory, and only deny their worship. To which he subjoyns this Reason, either the Image truly and in it self, is at least the material object of worship, total, or partial, or it is not; if it be, the thing is granted; if not, then in plain terms, the Image is not worshipped. For it is neither the formal nor the material object of worship; but only the occasion or sign exciting men to worship the thing represented. And according to this opinion, the Hereticks would speak more properly than the Catholicks. For he that at the sight of a beautiful creature is excited to praise or love the Creator, cannot be said to praise or love the creature, although the presence of the Creature did raise that devotion. Therefore, saith he, the Nicene Council did condemn this opinion, when it condemned those who said that Images did only serve for memory, which in truth is all the use that opinion allows them; and when the Nicene Council declares the worship given to Images not to be Latria; for if no more worship be allowed, but only worshipping the object p. 589in presence of the Image, then the most perfect Latria may be given to Christ before the Image; and consequently the worship in that abusive and improper sense may be Latria, which the Council denies: and farther the same Council saith, that not only the exemplar may be worshipped in the Image, but that the Image is to be worshipped for the sake of the exemplar, by which it determines the Image to be the object of worship, although the Reason of it be the thing represented. (3.) Suarez. saith, That not only the external acts of adoration are to be performed towards Images, but the very intention of worship to be directed towards them: For even Durandus himself did allow the external acts to be done towards them, and because the inward intention he said was directed to the exemplar, therefore he said the Images were only said abusively to be worshipped. For which assertion Suarez gives these reasons, (1.) The external act without the intention of the mind is no proper worship, but only counterfeit. And Leontius, quoted in the Council of Nice, saith, In all worship the inward intention is required. (2.) From many passages in that Council, implying that the intention p. 590of worship ought to be about the Images, because they are said to deserve worship, and from the sayings of Epiphanius, Basilius, Adrianus, Tarasius there extant, and Elias Cretensis, who saith he did perfectly worship them, which could not be without the inward intention. And from the Council of Trent, which calls it due honour and worship; but it cannot be any true honour without the inward intention. (3.) To perform the external acts of worship before an Image, is either to worship it, or not: if it be, then the inward intention is granted; but since there may be a distinction between the intention of worship, and the intention of performing the external acts of worship; in order to worship it is not only necessary to perform the material acts, but to do them with the intention of giving worship by them. Neither is it enough to say, that there is an inward intention, but the outward acts are towards the Image, and the inward intention to the exemplar, For, saith Suarez, as true worship doth essentially require the intention of worship, so the worship of this or that particular thing doth require a proportionable intention towards that thing: and the worship of one thing cannot be said to be the worship of p. 591another thing distinct from it, unless it be some way participated by it; but the Image is a distinct thing from the exemplar, therefore the worship of the exemplar cannot be said to be the worship of the Image, unless the Image do partake of the worship, and consequently there must be an intention of giving worship to the Image. This, saith he, may be illustrated by an example; If a man kiss the ground out of a meer intention of giving worship to God thereby, he cannot truly and properly be said to worship the ground about which the material action is conversant, but only God to whom he directed his worship. And all this he confirms by more passages out of the Nicene Council, which, he saith, was not so regardless about the manner and names of worship as Vasquez imagined, but took great care to express it self so that true and proper worship be given to Images; which it defines under an Anathema; and although it useth other words, of salutation, honour, &c. yet it makes these aequivalent to that real worship which it doth expresly require. Ambros. Catharinus saith,Cathar. de cultu & ador. Imag. p. 133. that the opinion of those who say Images are not truly and properly to be worshipped, but God to be worshipped before an Image, differs very p. 592little from those who deny any worship of Images, and is repugnant to the practice of the Church, because we direct our gestures, our words and signs of adoration to the Images, to which likewise we burn incense: And we worship the Cross, saying, O Crux ave, spes unica, &c. And he proves at large by the second Council of Nice, that true and real worship was required to be given to Images; and concludes that Images are not meerly for instruction, p. 137, 138, 139.or memory, or exciting devotion, but that they are set up properly for worship. Therefore if any man asks another, Súntne adorandae Imagines? intrepidè respondeat, adorandae. Are Images to be worshipped? let him answer without fear, they are. Because, saith he, Images being set apart by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost for such a sacred use, do obtain such a degree of Sanctification, that whoever violates them is guilty of Sacriledge and Treason against the Divine Majesty. For, saith he, God himself is most truly believed to be present in them after a particular manner, and he shews his power and presence by them, using them often for Oracles; that after this manner our Saviours saying is fulfilled, I am with you to the end of the World. p. 593And for the sake of this peculiar presence of God which we sensibly perceive (and if I should deny that I had done it my self I should be a lyar and ungrateful) Images do deserve a peculiar adoration, but short of Latria, because they are sanctified for such spiritual offices. Naclantus another Italian Bishop, Naclant. enarr. in Ep. ad Rom. c. … p. 171.and an eminent Divine in the Council of Trent as well as Catharinus saith, That it is needless caution for any to say, that they worship before the Image, sed & adorare imaginem sine quo volueris scrupulo, but they may say it roundly, and without the least scruple that they worship the Image. Bellarmine saith,Bell. de Imag. l. 2. c. 21. That the Images of Christ and the Saints are to be worshipped, not only by accident and improperly, but by themselves and properly, so that they terminate the worship, as they are considered in themselves, and not barely as they represent the exemplar: which he proves from the definition of the Council of Nice, and the same reasons which are mentioned from Suarez before. Dominicus Soto another great Divine of the Council of Trent, Soto de Instit. & jure l. 2. q. 3. art. 2. in fin.determines positively, That Images are not intended by the Church only for helps to memory; for we do not worship the Scriptures or names of Saints, which call them p. 594to our minds; but as to Images we ought to think otherwise, for they do not only raise our minds to worship those who are represented by them, sed easdem ipsas debemus adorare, we ought to worship the Images themselves; for, saith he, the Church doth not say, We worship thee, O Christ, but thy Cross, and O Crux ave, spes unica, &c. whose words are repeated and approved by Ferd. Velosillus. Bernardus Pujol laies down this assertion,Velosill. Advertent. Theol. Scholast. in 2. Tom. Aug. ad 9. quaest. p. 332 ad sin. Pujol de sacro ador. cultu disp. 3. sect. 7. p. 2. The Image truly and properly is the matter of adoration, and the worship truly and properly is terminated upon it: which, he saith, is plain from the seventh Council and from several others, and those are Anathematized who deny it. And the definitions of Councils being absolutely put, are properly to be understood: therefore the worship is truly and properly to be terminated on the Image: and not only the external but the internal worship is, he saith, to be terminated on the Image, which he proves likewise from the second Nicene Council, wherein it is not only required that men do the outward acts of worship, but that they do them with love and affection. And when, saith he, the Council of Trent mentions the external acts, p. 311.it implies that the internal worship p. 595is terminated upon the Images; for the external acts have not the nature of worship, but as they are signs of internal worship. And to say that the worship is terminated improperly and abusively on the Image, is to make the Councils to speak improperly and abusively; and those who say that Images are improperly worshipped, do not only err in the manner of speaking, p. 324.but in the thing it self. Tannerus saith,Tanner. To. 3. disp. … q. 2. dub. 3. assert. 4. Absque haesitatione satendum, imagines non solum venerandas & colendas, sed etiam adorandas esse; that we should say it without hesitation, that Images are not barely to be honoured or reverenced, but to be adored; which he likewise proves from several passages of the Nicene synod. Ysambertus delivers his sense in these particulars,Ysamber. de Myster. Incarn. ad q. 25. disp. 4. 1. That the worship of the thing represented before the Image, is not properly worship of the Image, nor agreeable to the Definitions of Councils. For that, saith he, is only properly worshipped, which terminates the worship, and the Councils define such a worship of Images; which is terminated upon the Images; which he proves from the Council of Trent as well as Nice, because it requires such acts of worship, which are terminated on the Images. 2. Adoration may be directed p. 596to the Image, as to the thing which terminates it; and to the exemplar as the reason of it; for which, besides the reasons given by others, he gives this, viz. when there are two things good and lawful, and there is no positive Precept to do them together, then it is lawful to do one without the other: but in the act of worshipping the Image with the exemplar, there are two good acts, viz. the worship of the Image, and of the exemplar, and there is no precept of the Church to joyn those together, therefore it is lawful to do one without the other. Eligius Bassaeus desires it may be observed,Eligii Bassaei Flores Theolog. Practic. v. Adorat. n. 10. ed. 1663. That in the worship of the Image, not only the object is worshipped, which is represented by it, but also the Image it self, seeing that is properly worshipped, which is the term of adoration, or the matter to which it is directed. This is the Catholick verity, saith Sylvius, …r. Sylvius in 3. p. Th. q. 25. art. 3. q. 5.that Images are truly and properly to be worshipped, so that the honour is given not only to the exemplar, but for the sake of that to the Image, and this is defined, he saith, by the second Council of Nice. Arriaga laies down this as a certain principle among Catholicks,Arriag. de Incarn. disp. 56. sect. 1. That Images are to be truly worshipped, which all the Definitions of p. 597Councils do clearly manifest, which being in a dogmatical point, and against Hereticks cannot without danger of errour be explained in an abusive and improper sense: and he adds afterwards,Sect. 2. that the opinion of Durandus seems manifestly condemned by all those definitions of Councils which require true worship to be given to Images: and he produces several passages of the seventh Synod to that purpose. And it signifies nothing to their excuse, that they perform the outward signs of worship to Images; for, saith he, since they allow no proper worship to them, the Images do only serve to excite the memory; which he thus farther confirms. It is not credible that any hereticks (supposing the object represented to deserve worship) should imagine it lawful to worship that object without an Image, and unlawful to do it when the memory of that object is excited upon the view of an Image, upon supposition that no worship is intended to be given to the Image thereby. And it is not credible, that if this had been all the Councils had determined, that they should never think of such an easie way of satisfying dissenters, as the declaring this to have been their sense would have been. But the controversie lay in another point, viz. that Images p. 598did not deserve any immediate worship, so as to have any honour done to them, although considered only as the material objects. For, saith he, if all the dispute had been only about a condition exciting men to adoration, it could not have come into mens heads to have said, that because Images were dead and inanimate things, they could not be a meer Physical condition of adoration; which is all that Durandus allows them. Is any man so sensless to say, that because words are inanimate things, therefore they ought not to be excited to the worship of God at the hearing of them? and the case is the same of the representation made by the eye or by the ear. But when they denyed the lawfulness of the worship of them, they spake of true and real worship which is immediately carried to the Images themselves, and for this they made use of an argument which hath an appearance of Truth, viz. that Images being dead things have no excellency to deserve any real worship from us. From whence it follows, that when the Fathers condemned these hereticks; they did not determine that they might be used as a condition of worship; but that true and real worship was to be given to them.

p. 599Cardinal Lugo saith,Lugo de Myster. Incarn. disp. 36. sect. …. n. 37. that to the worship of Images, it is not only necessary that the external act be performed to the Image, of kissing, or bowing, &c. but there must be an inward affection too which implyes submission. For, saith he, worship as all agree, is an expression of submission to the thing worshipped; and it would be ridiculous to say that Peter is worshipped by that token of submission which I shew to Paul; therefore to the worship of the Image, the outward act must express the inward submission of the mind to it, or else we must deny the common definition of adoration, and make a new one. And this he afterwards proves to have been the definition of the second Council of Nice, who did decree that true and real worship is to be given to Images as they are distinct from the exemplar according to every thing that is required to the Nature of Worship. Thus I have fully proved from the Acts of the Council, and the judgement of so many of the most learned and eminent Divines of the Roman Church, that by the Decree of the Nicene Council, such true and real worship is to be given to Images as is terminated upon the Images themselves.

p. 600§. 11.2. We are now to equire what kind of worship that was, which the second Council of Nice did give to Images: which will appear by shewing these two things. 1. That the worship required was higher than meer reverence. 2. That it was lower than Latria. (1.) That it was higher than meer reverence. T. G. would insinuate,T. G. p. 123, &c. that all the worship required by the Nicene Council, was no more than the Reverence shewed to the Books of the Holy Gospels, or the sacred Utensils of the Altar; for which he quotes the definition of the Council, wherein those things are joyned together. And so they are in Hadrians epistle extant in the Council, in the Latin translation (for the Greek hath another sense) and in Damascens oration;Act. 2. p. 106. Damasc. oral. 1. p. 749.Acts 2 but to clear yet farther the State of the Question, I shall shew, 1. The difference between the Reverence of these things, and the Worship of Images. 2. That the Council of Nice did put a difference between them.

1. For the difference between the Reverence of these things, and the worship of Images. Although no irrational or inanimate being be capable of that real excellency to deserve any honour from us for its own sake, as Aquinas determines;Aquin. 2.2. q. 103. art. A. ad 3. p. 601yet such things may have a relation to matters of so high a nature as to deserve a different usage and regard from other things; as the Vessels of the Church, or the Chalices are not to be used for common drinking; which peculiarity of the use of such things is that degree of honour which belongs to them on the account of their being dedicated to sacred purposes. So S. Augustin saith,Aug. in Ps. 113. conc. 2.Ps 113 of the sacred Vessels, that they are consecrated and do become holy by their Use, being separated from common service and devoted to the ministry of holy things; but he doth plainly distinguish the respect shewn to them from the worship of Images; for a little before he speaks of such who did worship or pray looking upon an Image, and that those who did so did behave themselves as if they expected to be heard by the Image; but do we pray to the sacred Utensils because we make use of them in our prayers to God? Little did S. Austin think, that praying looking upon Images and the Reverence shewed to sacred Vessels on the account of their use, should have been ranked together. He that prays looking upon an Image, doth either direct his adoration to the Image, or to the Person represented by the Image as if he were actually present, p. 602and this is the true reason of the worship of Images; but no man can pretend this as to the Reverence of Holy things, because all their holiness consists in a bare extrinsecal denomination, which affords no reason for any more than such an esteem as belongs to sacred Things, and not for any act of worship to be done to them. They who make the Images themselves to be the material object or term of adoration, do yet say that the formal reason of that worship is to be taken from the object represented: others say, that the thing represented, and the Image are worshipped with the same act of adoration; but both sorts do make the representation in an Image to be the ground and reason of the worship given to it. Why then should those things, which do not represent be worshipped as those that do? Are not Images appointed by the Definition of the Nicene Council to be set up in Churches, and in High wayes, on purpose for worship? Are they not formed, and set forth with all advantages to allure men to the worship of them? And after all this, is no more meant by their worship than by the Reverence of Holy things; which are designed for a peculiar use, and serve for other ends than to be worshipped by us? If Images p. 603were set up in Churches only for memory and instruction, and were as much appointed by God to inform us of his Will, as the Holy Scriptures are; there were some colour of shewing a like regard to them as to the Holy Bible; but it is quite otherwise, they were never appointed for that purpose, they are uncapable of doing it, and are set up for adoration; and yet can the same men who commanded their worship, have any pretence for making the Reverence to the Bible and the worship of Images to be alike? Besides all this, is there no difference between a Religious respect (if I may so call it) to sacred places and things, and all the most solemn Acts of adoration which were ever given to Images by the greatest Idolaters? such as kneelings before them, prostrations, praying with their eyes fixed upon them, as though they were speaking to them; burning incense and lights before them: which are as great Testimonies of Worship as were ever used by the grossest and most sottish Idolaters. I may rather say, there is no great difference between them and their Images, that can see no difference between such worship and the Reverence of Holy things.

p. 6042. That the Council of Nice did put a difference between these things. For however, to blind the business as much as might be, they put them together in the Definition, yet if we observe the ground on which it established the worship of Images, was such as referred to the things represented by them, and not any sacred use of them: and those expressed in the very same Definition. Concil. Nicen. 2. act. 7. p. 555.For, say they, they honour of the Image passes to the Prototype, and he that worships the Image doth in that worship the thing represented. By which they lay the foundation of the worship of Images upon a thing peculiar to them, and that doth not hold for the other things. And this reason here assigned runs through all the several discourses in that Synod, of Hadrian, Theodorus, Tarasius, Germanus, Leontius and Epiphanius; and the very same reason is assigned by the Council of Trent. It is observed out of S. Augustin, Aug. de Trin. l. 3. c. 10.that the most sacred things are only capable of honour, honorem tanquam Religiosa possunt habere, where he speaks of the elements of the Eucharist, but Tarasius in this Council of Nice pronounces them all guilty of hypocrisie, who would only give honour and not Worship to Images: Act. 4. p. 247.Acts 4by which it appears that the p. 605Council determined more than meer Reverence to be given to Images.

2. That this worship which the Council of Nice determined was lower than Latria, For so it follows in the definition of the Council, that they only meant an honorary adoration and not true Latria, which is only due to God. Tarasius upon reading Pope Hadrians Epistle declares his consent to the worship of Images asserted in it,Act. 2. p. 127.Acts 2 reserving Latria, and Faith to God alone. To the same purpose speaks Constantinus Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus upon reading the Epistle of Theodorus;Act. 3. p. 187.Acts 3 whose words I grant were mistaken by the translatour of the Council into Latin, as appears by what he is charged with in the Caroline Book, and his words in the Acts of the Council; but it doth not therefore follow, as T. G. would have it,T. G. p. 142, 145. that the Council of Francford did mistake the meaning of the Nicene Synod. For the Author of the Caroline Book particularly observes, that in those words (as translated) He did contradict the sayings of the rest, Lib. Carol. l. 3. c. 17.but that unawares he had betrayed that, which the rest endeavoured to conceal, viz. that they gave the worship proper to God to Images: for however they denyed it in words, they did it in their actions. So Epiphanius the p. 606Deacon saith,Act. 6. p. 539.Acts 6 that they often declared that they did not give Latria to Images. Thus we see what the sense of the second Council of Nice was as to the worship of Images.

§. 12.2. I now come to the additions which have been made to this doctrine, in the Roman Church; when it was delivered as good Catholick doctrine, that the worship of Latria was to be given to the Images of Christ. So Thomas Aquinas determines in several places, which are collected by Simon Majolus; and he goes upon these grounds.Pro desensione sacra. Imagin. Centur. 13. c. 14. 1. Because no irrational creature is capable of worship, but with a respect to a rational Being. 2. Because Images are worshipped on the account of their representation, therefore, saith he, they are to be worshipped with the same worship with the thing represented. 3. Because the motion of the mind towards an Image, Aq. 3. p. q. 25. art. 3. ad lib. sent. 3. dist. 9. q. 2.as an Image, is the same with the motion towards the thing represented. 4. Because the Church in praying to the Cross, speaks to it as if it were Christ himself. O Crux ave, spes unica. But how can this doctrine be reconciled to the definition of the Council of Nice, Est. in sent. l. 3. dist. 9. sect. 3.which determines expresly contrary? Estius saith, that S. Thomas never p. 607saw this definition of the Council; the same is said by Catharinus, and Sylvius; for saith Catharinus, Cathar. de Imag. p. 137. Sylv. in 3. p. q. 25. art. 3. q. 5.if he had seen it he would have endeavoured to have reconciled his opinion with the decree of the Council; which shews that he thought it inconsistent with it. From whence I argue that the Council of Nice was not then received in the Western Church, for if it had been, is it conceivable that so great a Doctor of the Church as Aquinas, should either not have seen it, or if he had seen it, should have contradicted the Definition of it. But Aquinas was not the first who asserted this doctrine in the Latin Church, for Alex. Hales, who was his Master, saith as much in effect, although he doth not so openly apply the term of Latria to it;Alex. Hales 3. p. q. 30. m. 3. art. 3. sect. 1… yet putting this question, whether greater worship doth belong to the Cross than to any man? he determines it affirmatively; and distinguishes between the dignity of a thing, and the dignity of an Image, and an Image having all its excellency from the object represented, all the worship given to it is to be referred to the Prototype; now, saith he, man having a proper excellency can deserve no more than Dulia, and therefore the Cross as it represents Christ must have the worship of Latria. p. 608And it is considerable that Alex. Hales, as Pitts saith,Pitts de Scriptor. Aetat. 13. A. 1245. writ his Summ by the Command of Pope Innocent 4. and in the time of Alex. 4. it was examined by seventy Divines and approved, and recommended to be taught in all Universities. Card. Bonaventure determines it roundly,Bonav. in sent. 3. dist. 9. q. 2. that as Christ himself from his union to the Divinity is worshipped with Latria, so is the Image of Christ as it represents him; and concludes thus, proptereà Imagini Christi debet cultus Latriae exhiberi. Rich. de Media Villa who lived in the same Century, Ric. de Media Villa in 3. sent. q. 9. art. 2.asserted the same doctrine. And when Durandus opposed the doctrine of Thomas on this ground, because the Image and Prototype were two distinct things, and therefore what belonged to the exemplar could not be attributed to the Image, however considered as an Image, and so the worship are to the exemplar could not be given to the Image, yet he confesses the other was the common and received opinion; Palud. in 3. d. 9. q. 1. Capreol. 3. d. 9. q. 1. art. 1. concl. 2. & 3. Marsil. l. 3. art. 2. q. 8. concl. 1. & 3.which was defended against Durandus by Paludanus and Capreolus. Marsilius ab Ingen speaks his mind freely in this matter, saying, that the Cross as a sign representing the object of worship, and as a medium of it is to be adored with Latria; and for this he appeals to the practice of p. 609the Church, O Crux ave spes unica, Auge piis justitiam, reisque dona veniam: which three things, he saith, do properly belong to God, and therefore, saith he, it is properly the worship of Latria which the Church doth give to the Cross as a sign. Iacobus Almain declares,Almain. l. 3. dist. 9. concl. 5. that Images are to be worshipped with the same kind of worship that the things represented are: because no Image is to be worshipped for any sanctity or vertue in it self, but only for the sake of the object represented, otherwise it would be Idolatry. Gabriel Biel likewise agrees,Biel in Canon. Missae lect. 49. that the Images of Christ which represent him are to be worshipped with Latria: but he found out the distinction of a twofold Latria, 1. Proper Latria, which is the worship given to Christ as the object represented upon the sight of an Image of him, and this is not terminated on the Image, but the exemplar. 2. Improper or analogical Latria, which is the worship of the Image as it represents: so that to the same external act of worship he makes two internal acts, whereof one is terminated on the Image, the other on the Prototype. Thomas Waldensis saith,Waldens. To. 3. tit. 19. c. 156. n. 6, 7. that the Images considered in themselves deserve no worship at all, but considered in relation to a higher Being and in regard of their representation, p. 610so they deserve to be worshipped; and if the mind passes from the Image to the thing represented, then he saith, the Image and the Prototype are worshipped with the same act; which must be Latria as to the Image of Christ; but the Latria condemned by the Nicene Council, he would have to be the worshipping the Images themselves for Gods: which the Heathens themselves, as appears by the Acts of that Synod, utterly denyed that they did in the discourse of Iohn of Thessalonica. Concil. Nic. Act. 5. p. 354. Summa Angelica. v. Adorat. n. 5, 6.Acts 5We worship not, saith the Heathen, the Images, but through them the Spiritual Powers. Angelus de Clavasio declares, that the Image of Christ is to be worshipped with Latria as well as himself, and that the Cross whereon Christ was Crucified was to be worshipped with Latria both on the account of representation and contact; Barth. Fumi Armilla Aurea v. Adorat. n. 7.therefore, saith he, we speak and pray to the Cross as to Christ himself. Carthusianus in sent. l. 3. dist. 9.The same is said by Bartholomaus Fumus, who was a Dominican, as the other a Franciscan, Antonin. Sum. 3.p. tit. 12. c. 9. sect. 4.(whereby we see it was no opinion peculiar to the Dominican order on the account of the authority of Thomas) and by Dionysius the Carthusian, Franc. Ferrar. in Th. c. Gentes l. 3. c. 120.as well as Antoninus the Dominican. Franciscus Ferrariensis saith, that when Latria is appropriated p. 611to God, it is be understood primò & per se, primarily and for its own sake; but if it be understood only secondarily and for anothers sakes; then, saith he, Latria may be given to an Image of Christ; for considering the Image, as an Image, it is worshipped with the same act, by which the Person represented is, and therefore since Latria is due to Christ, it must be so to the Image of Christ; and he answers all the arguments of Durandus, Holcot, and Mirandula by the help of the former distinction (as he might have done a hundred more) and he asserts, that the Image and the object represented make together one total object of adoration, whereof one part is the Reason why the worship is terminated on the other: and that the act of adoration whereby God and the Image are worshipped together, cannot be Latria in respect of one, and an inferiour worship in respect of the other, because both the internal and external acts are such wherein the worship of Latria doth properly consist: and to shew this to be the Catholick doctrine, he proves it, from the practice of the Catholick Church which makes genuflections, prostrations, supplications. and other acts of Latria to the Cross. Which was the true Reason of introducing this p. 612doctrine of Latria to Images contrary to the Definition of the Nicene Council, because they saw the constant practice of the Church in the Worship of the Cross could not be justified upon other grounds. The Church never owning any Prosopopoeia, but expressing its devotions to the Cross, as really distinct from, although representing the Person of Christ.