The Divine Right of Church Government and Excommunication, Religious polemic · Chapter 1 · Question 5

The Divine Right of Church Government and Excommunication · Religious polemic · Chapter 1 · Question 5

p. 144QUEST. V.

Whether the Ceremonies, eſpecially kneeling in the act of receiving the Sacrament, be guilty of idolatry?

VVHoever preſumeth to invent a worſhip of his own, committethArg. 7. Idolatry interpretatively, becauſe he worſhippeth a God whom he conceiveth is pleaſed with falſe worſhip: But that is not the true God, for he is pleaſed with no worſhip, but what he hath preſcribed himſelf; but all inventers and practiſers of humane Ceremonies, worſhip ſuch a God: Alſo, all who uſurpethOf Religious kneeling. the room and place of God, give the glory of God to creatures; but all Authors and practiſers of humane Ceremonies, take the room and place of God, from God, and give it to creatures, becauſe to ordain worſhip; and all Religious means of worſhip, is proper to the only wiſe Law-giver: But for the clearing of this Queſtion, I divide it in ſome ſubordinate Queſtions.

SECT. I.

Whether Religious kneeling, laying aſide our intention and will to Adore that before which we kneel, of its own nature be Adoration?

This Queſtion is moſt neceſſary, both againſt Papists and Formaliſts: But firſt remember, that aaRathael de la Torres, or▪ din. praedicat. tom. 1. in 22. Tho. q. 84. tra. 2. diſp. 5.Raphael de la Torres, a late Schoolman, maketh ſeaven Adorations: 1. Bowing of the knee. 2. Proſtration. 3. The lifting up of the eyes. 4. Of the hands to Heaven. 5. Kiſſing. 6. Knocking on the Breaſt. 7. Uncovering of the head: Though this laſt be not Adoration, but a Nationall ſign of Reverence, and is not every where Adoration; yet bbAbulenſis in Levit. cap. 13. q. 10.Lev 13Abulenſis ſaith, the Iews did pray and Sacrifice with covered heads: So ſaith ccVirgil. An. 3. Et capiteante aras phrygio velatus amictu.Virgill, and ddLod. vives com. in Auguſt. de civit. dei lib. 15. c. 2.Lod. Vives: Therefore the Corinthians had this from the Grecians as a civil ſign of gravity, which ſhould not be baniſhed from Gods worſhip; and if it be appropriate to an Idol, it ſhould in that caſe be made Veneration: But no Reverence p. 145at all is due to an Idol. Jeſuits, as eeSuarez. Tom. 1. in 3. Thom. q. 25 art. 5. Sect. 4.Suarez▪ and others, and Formaliſts, Morton, Burges, Hooker teach us, That Religious bowing before a creature, if there be no intention of Adoring, is not Adoration: But it is to be conſidered;

1. Bowing of the knee Phyſically or civilly▪ is indifferent and is not Adoration: for we bow to Kings, and Artificers may bow the knee to drive a nail in a bed, and yet are not Adoring; but Religious Adoration, whither ye will or not by natures impreſſion is a Religious note of Religious ſubmiſſion.

2. I conſider four acts of the ſoul that may convoy externall Adoration.Four things in Adoration. 1. One of the minde, a conſideration of the excellency of what we Adore: 2. A will to ſubmit to this excellency: 3. The judgements diting this to be honeſt to ſubmit: 4. A purpoſe or intention habituall or actuall of Adoring; many of theſe may be where there is no Adoring: and the Religious externall bowing of the body is eſſentially Adoring, when that bowing is in a ſtate of worſhip: kneeling before conſecrated Elements for Reverence of either God or the Elements, muſt be Adoration, though we ſhould waſh it with foul water, and ſay, that there is no intention to tender Gods glory to theſe Elements.

3. Let it be conſidered what is ſaid by the ffJoannes de Lugo, de myſter. incarna…, diſ. 23. Sect. 2. n. 23.Jeſuit Joannes de Lugo, the Popes Profeſſor at Rome, which I propound with ſome change: 1. There is a purpoſe of externall Adoring, with an inward ſubmiſſion of the heart; whether this be an habituall or actuall intention, it▪ is ſure it is an Adoration, when it cometh forth in a geſture of Adoring. 2. A will to bow the body in ſcorn and deriſion, as the Souldiers bowed the knee before Ieſus; and this being not in a ſtate of worſhipping, but in a ſtate and …aſe of diſgracing, is not Religious bowing or Adoration: This is not a naturall expreſſion of inward ſubmiſſion, but rather of diſgrace. 3. There is a willed or voluntary Religious bowing for fear, for gain, or for glory; yet without any internall eſtimation of the excellency of the thing Adored. This Suarez denyeth to be worſhipping, it being only a faining of worſhip, not a worſhipping.Intention of worſhip not eſſentiall to worſhip.

But I prove the contrary: 1. Becauſe then no enacted worſhipping of Idols, were indeed a worſhipping of an Idol, and yet all the time that the Adorer boweth his knee to the Idol, though he have no inward purpoſe of heart to Adore the externall bowing, p. 146muſt be a naturall expreſſion of actuall ſubmiſſion to the thing before which we bow, and a conciliating of an opinion with others, of Religious eminency and ſubjection of Divine dignity, to that thing before which we kneel. 2. Religious kiſſing of the Calves of Samaria, Hoſ. 8. is a naturall expreſſion of Religious love to theſe Calves, though the kiſſer have no intention of worſhipping▪ 3. Act. 14. 11, 12, 13. The men of Lyſtra are reproved for Sacrificing, and ſo for Adoring-men; 15. Sirs, Why do ye theſe things for we alſo, are men of like paſſions as you, and Preach to you that ye ſhould turn from theſe Vanities to the living God? Barnabas and Paul rebuketh the men of Lyſtra, becauſe they worſhipped men with humane paſſions; yet did they not intend to worſhip men, for they were to them in that act of worſhipping, Gods in mens ſhape, as they ſay, v. 11. Gods are come down to us in the likeneſſe of men; if they conceived them not to be men indeed, but Gods come down from heaven; then could they not intend to worſhip men, but Gods: So Iohn would not, nor had any purpoſe to worſhip a created Angel; but taking him to be God, he fell down and worſhipped, as is clear by the Angels reproofe, Rev. 19. 10. He ſaid unto me, See thou do it not, I am thy fellow ſervant: Likewiſe, Act. 17. The Athenians ſet up an Altar not to the Pourtraict of gold, which yet they worſhipped, v. 2. 4, 5. but intended not to worſhip it;Alſo to intend worſhip is eſſentiall to worſhip, as ſincere and hearty; Ergo, … is not eſſentiall to worſhip in generall, as what is eſſentiall to the ſpece as ſuch, is not eſſentiall to the general that com prehendeth that ſp…ce. But the God which made heaven and earth, whom Paul preached: So are the Gentiles ſaid to offer to Devils, not to God▪ what they offer, 1 Cor. 10. 20. Deut. 37. 17. Pſal. 106. 37. and 2 Chron. 11. 15. Peroboams Calves are Devils; and yet they intended not to worſhip Devils, but God, that brought them out of the Land of Aegypt, 1 King. 12. 28.

4. If Religious kneeling require that we intend to worſhip every thing, before which; as an object, we do Religiouſly kneel; then Religious kneeling ſhould not ſignifie in ernall ſubmiſſion of the heart by natures impreſſion or Divine inſtitution; but by the voluntary and the free inſtitution of him that kneeleth: But this …a… ter is abſurd, for if kneeling ſhould ſignifie, what it doth ſignifie by our free and voluntary appointment: Then we might 1. put upon naturall geſtures what ſig…ific…tion we pleaſed, and were not to ſtand to the ſignification which God and nature have put upon kneeling. 2. So it were in mans power to impoſe upon Religious p. 147kneeling to God, civill curteſie, ſuch as a ſubject expreſſeth to his Prince, or a ſon to his Father, and it were free to us to kneel to a ſtock, and that Religiouſly, and yet put upon kneeling the negative reverence, that we give to the Bible; and it were in the three childrens will to kneel to N…buchadnezzars Image, and impoſe this ſignification on the g…ſture, that they were kneeling to God only, all which are manifeſtly falſe: ſo ggField of the Church, 4. book cap. 31.Field ſaith, kneeling hath inſtitution from the inſtinct of nature.

They Object, 1. The externall act of kneeling ſignifyeth the inward ſubmiſſion of heart, but there is no inward ſubmiſſion of the heart to a thing to which we kneel, when we are compelled to kneel only for fear of men, or induced to kneel for hope of glory, or ſome byrespect without any intention or purpoſe to adore, therefore this externall Adoration is a falſe ſigne, and ſignifieth not a thing as it is, and ſo is no worſhip.

Anſ. That externall bowing is not true, but falſe: I diſtinguiſh, it is not true Morally, becauſe it is a falſe ſigne, and a ſinfull abuſing of worſhip, for there ought to be a bow…d heart, when there is a bowed knee, but if the meaning be, this externall bowing is not true metaphyſically, and partaketh not of the nature of Religious worſhipping, it is falſe, for it is truly worſhip, and the eſſence and definition of worſhip agreeth to it: for from Religious bowing there reſulteth by the nature of the externall Act, which is of divine inſtitution, an honouring of that before which we do bow, as before a propoſed object, what ever be the preſent purpoſe or intention of the bower: elſe if I bow to an Idol intending, and conveying in my heart-purpoſe all honour to God only, I ſhould not worſhip an Idol: The three Children caſt into the fiery Furnace did but refuſe externall bowing to Nebuchadnezzar, and would hazard upon burning quick, before they ſhould give that to theReligious bowing of its nature, not by mans free and Arbitrary intention ſignifieth divine Adoration. Image; for the Kings commandment was not, that all ſhould give and convey in purpoſe of heart to that Image all divine glory, but only Religious proſtration before it; yet the three Children ſay, Dan. 3. Well, be it known to thee, O king, that we will not ſerve thy Gods, nor worſhip thy golden Image, foreign They expreſly refuſe knee-bowing, & the reaſon is, becauſe if ye bow your knee Religiouſly to a ſtock, it is not in your power or free choice, to ſtay the flux and motion of Religious honour off, or from the ſtock; but p. 148becauſe Religious bowing doth not convey honour to the thing before which ye bow by your free will, but by God and natures inſtitution, even as weeping naturally expreſſeth ſorrow, laughing, gladneſſe, ſo doth Religious bowing ſignifie Religious honouring, without any act of the free choice of the worſhipped intervening. It is impoſſible to adore God, in and through an Image, and give no Religious reverence to the Image at all; as it is impoſſible to hear the word and tremble at it; and yet none of that Religious trembling be bounded and terminated upon the Word; as it is impoſſible to kneel to the Kings Ambaſſador conveying all and whole that civill honour to the King, but ſome honour muſt redound to the Ambaſſador; a father cannot love the Doctor for his ſons cauſe, but ſome love he muſt confer really upon the Doctor, if not abſolute, yet relative, for his ſons cauſe. Jacob could not kiſſe Joſeph his ſons coat, and yet refer that whole expreſſed affection to Ioſeph and nothing at all to the coat, for then ſhould there be no reaſon, why he ſhould kiſſe the coat, rather then the skin of the beaſt ſuppoſed to be the devourer of his ſon; if therefore the Communicant ſhould kiſſe the Sacramentall Bread, as he boweth Religiouſly before it, as the object of his Sacramentall worſhip, which he receiveth, I hope it would be thought very like the kiſſing of the Calves of Samaria, and a Religious expreſſion of love to the bread, and by the ſame caſe, Religious bowing to God, by the interveening of bread a repreſentative object, muſt be an expreſſion of Religious honouring of Bread, but no Religious honouring by Religious bowing can be expreſſed, but Adoration of bread; for as I have proved, it is not in our free Election that Religious kneeling ſignifie what honour we pleaſe, as if it were in our power, that Religious kneeling ſignifie Religious, or civill honour, or more, or leſſe Religious honour, but our will or thoughts cannot change the nature of things; kneeling is eſſentially Religious, as aaIoannes de Lugo, de myſtei incarnat, diſp. 13. S. 2. n. 14.Iohannes Delugo defineth it, Nota ſubmiſſion is internae.

2. bbSuarez to. 1. in 3. q. 25. art. 5. S. 4. Objection of Suarez contending that intention of adoring is eſſentiall to Adoration, removed.Suarez objecteth, Adoration is a voluntary action proceeding from the will of the Adorer; and therefore excluding this will, it is not Adorations, but only the materiall action of adoring; alſo adoration is honouring, but none can honour without an intention of honoring, and therefore he who externally giveth ſignes of honour to an Idol without an intention to honour the Idol, doth not truly honour and adore the Idol, but only diſſembleth.

p. 149Anſ. Qui bené diſtinguit benè ſolvit: Our third diſtinction doth well anſwer this: The naked materiall action of bowing Phyſically conſidered, wanting all Religious will of adoring is not an honouring; if a Carpenter bow before an Image to drive a naile in it, he doth not worſhip the Image, becauſe that is an action, In ſtatu artis, non in ſtatu Religionis; In a ſtate of Art, not in … Religious ſtate: But the voluntary bowing before any thing in a ſtate of worſhip, or Religion, as its here, is Adoration; for there is voluntary bowing in a Religious way of a ſtate, but there is not required a particular intention to Adore the ſigne, that is accidentall to the nature of worſhip.

Suarez objecteth, The e…nce of Adoration requireth the intention of the Adorer, therefore the adoring of this, or that thing, requireth a proportionable intention of adoring the thing.

Anſ. 1. The Antecedent is not univerſally true, and is a begging of the queſtion, becauſe externall adoring of an Idol may be without intention to adore an Idol. 2. Though the Antecedent were true; that an abſolute Adoration of God requireth the intention of the doer, as it is not true; Lawfull and ſincere Adoration indeed requireth the intention, but not abſolute adoration: Though (I ſay) it were true, yet it followeth not that a relative adoration requireth an intention of giving co-adoration or relative worſhip to the ſigne.

Suarez. 3. Objecteth: The honouring of one thing cannot properly be called the honouring of another thing different therefrom, except that honouring be ſome way referred by the minde, to that other thing, or except they be partakers one of another; but the Image, and firſt ſamplar, or prototype are different things, therefore the honouring of the firſt ſamplar cannot be called the honouring of the Image, except the honouring by the intention be referred to the Image. I anſwer, The Image and Samplar are one in a ſinfull imagination, as Jehovah and the Golden Calf are one, but it followeth not, that there muſt be two diſtinct intentions, one in adoring the Prototype, and in coadoring the Image another: But he who intendeth to honour the King in his Ambaſſadors perſon, needeth not two intentions, one by which he intendeth to honour the King, another whereby he intendeth to honour his Ambaſſador.

p. 150SECT. II.

Whether the Idolatrous Jevvs were charged with the crime of Idolatry, becauſe they adored the creature as ſuch, or becauſe they adored the Godhead in, with, or under the creatures ſhape? and whether or no, do Papiſts commit Idolatry with them in this point:

LEt theſe conſiderations go before.

1. That the Jews believed the Image to be God by vvay ofOf the Idolatrous worſhip of the Iews and Papiſts. repreſentation, not eſſentially or really; they believed the Image to be God objective, commemorative, repreſentative, relative, declarative, ſignificative; Non eſſentialiter, non per ſe, non realiter.

2. There is an honour or negative r…verence due to any Image of God, ordained by himſelf, or to any mean of honouring God, becauſe it is ſuch, though it cannot be expreſſed in the act of Adoration; but the queſtion is, if the honour of adoration, either relative or abſolute be due to the Image?

3. The Jews intended to honour Jehovah in their Images, what inferiour intention they had to honour the Image, we are now to inquire.

4. We bow our knee two wayes before a creature, either before a creature as an object by accident, as while we pray, there of neceſſity muſt be before us ſome creature, a wall, a Table, a Pulpit, none of theſe are adored, becauſe they are before us by accident, as having no Religious ſtate. The Image before the Iew, and the Sacramentall elements before the kneeler, cannot be thus preſent: 2. The creature is before the kneeler, of Religious purpoſe, as a Religious object.

5. The Creature is Religiouſly preſent before the kneeler two wayes, 1. Active. 2. Paſſive. 1. In the meer and naked act of teaching and exciting the memory, ſo that when that act is paſt, I turne from the creature, and adore the Creator; So at the ſight of the Sun or Moon being taught and inſtructed of the wiſdom and power of God, in creating ſuch excellent creatures, I am to turn from them, and adore the Lord of theſe creatures. Thus the creatures are kindely and per ſe objects in the act of teaching, but not objects at all in the act of adoration: 2. The creatures are objects paſſive, when bodily bowing in a religious ſtate is directed toward the creatures really and bodily preſent by a commandment of the Church, or of purpoſe, and ſo they are made objects of Adoration.

p. 151I. Concluſion. The relative expreſſion of God which is in theThe relative expreſſion of God in the creature, no ground of Adoring the creature. works of God, is no formall ground of any Adoration of the creatures. 1. Becauſe Adoration upon this ground, though the creatures, the Hoaſt of Heaven be excellent, is forbidden, Deut. 4. 19. 2. Not only Images (which cannot repreſent God) and the Sacraments, but all the creatures, even, Rats, Mice, Flyes, Frogs, Worms, Iudas and wicked men, yea, and Devils are to be worſhipped, becauſe all things having being, are ſhadows and footſteps of God, their cauſe, firſt Author, and laſt end, Pſal. 19. 1. Pſal. 103. 22. Rom. 1. 19, 20. Act. 17. 27, 28, Prov. 16. 4. Rev. 4. 11. Rom. 11. 36, 37▪ 3. Becauſe God is really, and by the diffuſion of his bleſſed eſſenc…, preſent in all creatures, it followeth not that we ſhould Adore them: The Formaliſts upon this ground, that Chriſt is really preſent in the Sacrament, though the manner we know not, think that Chriſt ſhould be Adored in the Sacrament, according to that, Verbum audimus, motum ſentimus, modum neſcimus. But if this be good Logick, becauſe we know not the way of the Spirit, and how the bones grow in a woman with childe, Eccleſ. 11. v. 5. And God, where he worketh, is preſent by the immediation of eſſence and power, though we know not the way of his preſence, we are to Adore the ſoul of man, and the bones of a young childe in a womans belly; & though they ſhould ſay that God-man Chriſt is in a more powerfull and efficacious manner preſent in the Sacrament, then in the works of nature; yet ſhould it follow, that God is to be worſhipped in the works of nature alſo▪ for Magis & minus non variant speciem, for then we could not conclude any thing but this: Though there be not ſo reall a ground of Adoring Lice and Frogs, as Adoring of the Sacrament: Yet there is a ground, ſeeing God is, in the realli…y of his bleſſed eſſence, preſent in all creature….

II. Con…luſion. The Idolatrous Jews did not. Adore the goldenThe Iews believed not the golden Calf to be really God. Calf, as a crea…ure, but as God by repreſentation, Exod. 32. 4. And when Aaron had made thereof a golden Calf, they ſaid, Theſe be thy Gods O Iſrael, which brought thee up out of the Land of Aegypt. 5. And when Aaron ſaw it, he built an Altar before it, and Aaron made Proclamation, and ſaid▪ To morrow is a Feaſt to Iehovah. Now that they believed not the golden Calf to be really and eſſentially Iehovah, is more then evident: 1. Becauſe they believed not Moſes to be eſſentially God, but their guide and leader under God; but p. 152this Calf they made to ſupply the want of Moſes, v. 1. The people gathered themſelves together againſt Aaron, and ſaid unto him, Ʋp▪ make us gods which ſhall go before us: For as for this Moſes the man that brought us up out of the Land of Aegypt, we know not what is become of him. They made then the Calf only a viſible God under Iehovah, to lead them in Moſes his place. 2. There is no reaſon why they ſhould have made Aaron rather the maker of the Calf then another; but becauſe he being the Lords Prieſt, they thought by his holineſſe, the God head of Jehovah did ſlide into this Calf; and ſo they held the Calf to be a thing different from Iehovah. 3. They ſay to Aaron, Make us gods: Ergo, they believed Iehovah to be before this made Calf. 4. They ſaw the Calf melted before their eyes, & knew it was made of their ear-rings. 5. They call it Iehovah, & yet they made it Iehovah, and therefore they differenced betwixt the Calf & Iehovah: for they knew that Iehovah brought them out of Aegypt before the Calf was framed, but the Calf was an Image of that Iehovah. aaBellar. contr. tom. 2. l. 2 c. 13.Bellar. and bbGregor. de Valent. to. 3. diſ. 6. q. 11. de Idolat. punct. 6.Gregor. de Valent. ſay, They worſhipped not Iehovah, but a vain Idol: Elſe how is it ſaid, Pſa. 106. when they made this Calf, that they forgot the Lord, if they worſhipped God in the Calf, they were mindefull of God. It is vain reaſoning this, the wife that taketh another Husband to bed with her, Morally forgetteth her husband; and to worſhip God in a memorative ſigne forbidden of God, is a forgetting of God, and a falſe God indeed. 2. Thoſe who acknowledge that the Heathen believe that ſome Godhead dwelt in Images, and gave Reſponſes and Anſwers out of them; do thereby acknowledge, that the Image it ſelf had not the honour of giving Reſponſes, as God hath, but that the incloſed Godhead gave theſe Reſponſes, and therefore the incloſed Godhead was that which they worſhipped. So ccAquinas, par. 3. q. 25. art. 3. ad. 2. Adorabant Gentiles ipſas imagines ut res quaſdans, credcutes iis in eſſe al… ▪ quid numi nis propter reſponſa quae daemones in ipſis dabant, & alios mirabilcs effectus.Aquinas, and ddVaſquez, in 3. tom. 1. q. 25. diſp. 91. art. 3. Ver…ſsimum est quod tradit Auguſtinus Gentiles pro dijs habuiſſe ipſamet ſimulachra, putantes in ipſis numen aliquod latere, cum illis responſa darent.Vaſquez ſaith, The Heathen acknowledged a Godhead to dwell in the Images: And eeBellar. ibid.Bellarmine ſaith, It is not improbable that the Iews believed that they worſhipped the true God in an Idol: Papiſts then may take to them Heathens Idolatry, for Heathens worſhipped God in Images, and not Images as they are ſuch: and ffAbulenſis, in Exodus 23.Exod 23Abulenſis, and ggCajetan, in Exodus 23.Exod 23Cajetan p. 153in the Commentaries of the firſt Edition, on Exodus, ſaid this ſame. 3. Though the Iews believed the Calf to be eſſentially God, yet it was God as God▪ that they intended to worſhip, not the work of mens hands as ſuch: Papiſts believe that the Image is not God, and yet give the higheſt worſhip that is to them. 4. Bellarmine ſaith with us, when he ſaith, They ſaw a Calf in Aegypt and Adored it, they believed Jehovah himſelf to be a Calf, therefore they made the image of a Calf, and Dedicated it to Jehovah. But (I Anſwer) That Image ſo Dedicated, they worſhipped as Iehovah, and called the very materiall Calf Iehovah, and Dedicated it to the Honour of Iehovah; therefore they believed the Lord Iehovah, and the Calf Dedicated to his Honour, (which Calf alſo they worſhipped) to be two divers things, as the Image and the thing ſignified are Relata and oppoſite: Ergo, they believed not that that Image which Aaron had made, was Iehovah eſſentially; therefore in ſetting up that Image, they worſhipped it not as a creature. All the Prophets (ſaith he) proveth that the Idols are not gods, becauſe they speak not, they neither ſee, nor hear, Iſa. 46. Pſal. 113. But (ſay ſome Papiſts) there was no queſtion if they did ſee and hear by way of naked repreſentation, becauſe they repreſented gods and men in ſhape, who ſee and hear. Anſ. firſt, If all granted they were living things, which did hear and ſee by repreſentation; the Prophets did well to prove, they ſhould not be truſted in, nor feared as Images, nor ſhould that Godhead within them incloſed, be feared, becauſe it cannot ſpeak with the mouth, nor ſee, nor hear, nor walk, with their eyes, eares, and feet: and ſo it was a vain thing to make it a repreſentation of God, who by ſerving theſe dead things did help them. But the Prophets ſtrongly prove theſe Images, and the ſuppoſed Godheads in them, were dumbe, deafe, blinde, and dead; and therefore neither ſign, nor ſuppoſed deity repreſented by the ſign, was to be Adored. Alſo, Iſa. 40. 18. To whom then will ye liken God? Or what likeneſſe will ye compare unto him? 19. The Workman melteth a graven Image, and the Goldſmith spreadeth it over with gold, &c. Iſa. 46. 5, 6. To whom will ye liken me? and make me equall, and compare me, that we may be alike? 9. I am God, and there is none elſe; I am God, and there is none like me. Then it is more then clear that they made a likeneſſe, a compariſon, and a ſimilitude betwixt the golden Image and Iehovah: Ergo, they believed p. 154not that the Image was eſſentially God; for every thing like to another, muſt be divers from that to which it is like (they being relatives and oppoſites) the one cannot be eſſentially the other; and he proveth they are not God by repreſentation, Iſa. 46. They cannot move out of their places, except they be born upon Aſſes or mens ſhoulders: And this is the Holy Ghoſts Argument, I am God, Ergo, there is none like me by repreſentation to be worſhipped: All aſſimilation or comparative likeneſſe made by man, betwixt Iehovah and God, is an Idolatrous aſſimilation; yea the Lords Argument, Iſa. 46. is this, every thing made like unto me, before which ye fall down to worſhip, as a memorative Image of me, muſt be a living thing at leaſt, that can move out of his place, and anſwer your cry when ye pray, and ſave you out of trouble, ver. 7. Iſa. 46. And yet it is but a likeneſſe of God, ver. 6. Now I Aſſume, but the Papiſts Image, and the Formaliſts Sacramentall elements before which they Religiouſly kneel, cannot move out of their place, nor anſwer the Prayers of thoſe who bow to them, nor ſave them out of trouble: Ergo, they cannot be Adored as Images, with Religious bowing▪ nor can they ſay, the Images or Sacramentall elements can teach and repreſent God. I Anſwer, So did the Iewiſh Images repreſent God, and yet God convinceth them of Idolatry, Iſa. 40. 18. Iſa. 46. 6, 7. Ier. 10. They were but Doctrines of Vanity and Lyes, and Hab. 2 19. Woe be to him who ſaith to the Wood, Awake, and to the dumbe ſtone, Ariſe, it ſhall teach. And though the Sacramentall elements be lawfull teaching and repreſenting ſignes, as being the Ordinances of Chriſt Jeſus; yet the office of teaching cannot elevate and extoll them to the ſtate of Religious worſhip, becauſe though the elements be lawfull Images, and in this they differ from Iewiſh and Popiſh Images; yet that which is Adored muſt be ſuch as can hear Prayers, Iſa. 46. 7. though it be the Image of God. But the Sacramentall elements are not ſuch as can hear Prayer, &c.

Alſo, that the Adoring of Images is not forbidden by a CeremoniallThe Adoring of Images not forbidden by the Ceremoniall, but by the Morall Law. Law only, is clear: 1. By Gods Argument, (Iſa. 40. 18.) To whom will ye liken me? That is, no created thing can repreſent God, which is of mans deviſing (for the elements of Gods inſtitution do repreſent Chriſt) and Iſa. 46. 9. I am God, and there is none beſide me: Ergo, no invention of man can repreſent me. This Argument is taken from Gods nature, and therefore is of perpetuall verity. p. 1552. The Apoſtle Paul in the New-Teſtament repeateth this ſame Argument, Act. 17. to the heathen Athenians who were tyed by no Ceremoniall Law of God, ver. 29. We ought not to think that the God-head is like unto Gold; You ſee theſe people are challenged of Idolatry, who did but erect an Altar to the golden likeneſſe and Image of God, and yet they did not worſhip that golden Image, as ſuch; but they worſhipped in, and by the Image, v. 23, 24. The God preached by Paul who made the world.

Hear what aaSuarez tom. 3. q. 25. diſ. 1. in 54. art. 3 Sect. 2.Suarez bbBellar. to. 2. de relig. ſanct. lib. 2. c. 8. The evaſions of Bellarmine and Suarez anſwered.Bellarmine and Papiſts ſay, It is not Lawfull to repreſent God by a proper and formall ſimilitude, which repreſenteth his eſſence; but it is Lawfull to repreſent him by Images Analogically, ſignifying ſuch a forme or ſhape in the which he appeared in Scripture, according to theſe metaphors, and myſticall ſignifications, that are given to him in Gods word.

Anſ. 1. Why ſhould not unwritten Traditions (which to Papiſts are Gods word) expreſſe to us Gods nature in Images, no leſſe then the written word? 2. The Heathen did repreſent God by the Image of a man, with eyes, noſe, tongue, ears, head, hands, feet, heart, underſtanding, all which are given to God in Scripture, yet were they Idolaters in ſo doing, becauſe God ſaith, Iſa. 46. 9. I am God, and there is none like to me. 3. If we may portraict▪ God according to all metaphors given unto him in Scripture, then ye may Portraict him, in the ſhape of a Lyon, a Leopard, a Bear, a Man full of wine, a Theef ſtealing in the night, an unjust Iudge, a Gyant, a man of War on horſe-back, &c. All which were folly; and we might worſhip a Lyon, a Bear, an unjuſt Iudge, a theef ſtealing in the night, a man mad with the ſpirit of jealouſie. 4. The Eſſence and ſpecifick nature of nothing in Heaven and earth, can be portraicted or painted, no more then Gods eſſence; all painted things are but ſuch and ſuch things by externall proportion and ſhape; and it is unreaſonable to ſay that Portraicts and Pictures of God, Phyſically impoſſible to the Art of Craftſmen, are forbidden only (whereas the Lords word ſetteth down to us no precepts for Art, as for painting, Muſick, ſpeaking right Latine) whereas the Lord forbiddeth univerſally Gods pictures in any thing in heaven, on earth, or under the earth, Deut. 4. 15. Take ye therefore good heed to your ſelves, for ye ſaw no manner of Image on the day that the Lord ſpake to you in Horeb out of the midſt of the fire.

p. 156Gregor de Valent. ſaith, We give not divine honour to the creature(c)Joannes Rotnaldus de idolatri… Eccleſiae Roman, lib. 2. cap. 9. as to God, or to Chriſt, for that honour pertaineth to God or Chriſt, which conciliateth to him reverence due to God only, and that opinion of divine honour is conciliated to God, or Chriſt, Coram, & in imaginibus, before, and in, or through the Image.

Anſ. The people of God had not that opinion every way of Egypt, (d) Valent. ibid.and their horſes, that they had of God; and yet when they,(c) Lindſey pretended Biſhop of Edinbrough parth. Aſſembly, pag. 29. Iſa. 31. give that to Egypt and horſes, which is due to God, to wit, their Faith and confidence, that they could ſave in the time of trouble, therefore interpretatively they made Gods of them; otherwayes they knew literally, that Pharaohs horſes were fleſh and not ſpirit: but Morally and ſpiritually they knew them not to be no Gods to ſave them: It is no more abſurd that the Prophets ſay, The Idol hath eyes and ſee not, and that it is not God, though by ſenſe they knew it not to be God, but by repreſentation they truſting in the Idol as in God, then it was for Iſaiah to ſay, The horſes of Egypt are fleſh and not ſpirit: A wife, if ſhe give her body to a ſtranger, though not with that opinion of love and reſpect which is only due to her husband, is yet an harlot, and the people who ſware by Iehovah, and by Malcome, who worſhip Iehovah, and Ieroboams Calves, and thoſe who worſhip the Image of an Aſh-Tree, repreſenting Iehovah, Iſa. 40. 18. Iſa. 46. 6, 7. did not give honour to Malcom, to the Calves, to the Images, Sicut Iehovae, as to God. See Roinalds Anſwer. But (ſaith he) we cannot worſhip God, but we muſt conceive ſome Image of God in our minde, are we therefore Idolaters, becauſe in theſe Images we worſhip God? and Valent. ſaith, and ſo doth the Formaliſt Lindſey ſay, That God may be adored before the Sacramentall elements as Images. Anſ. We are not forbidden to adore God in the inward conception of minde, Deut. 4. Ye ſaw no manner of ſimilitude, but not, yea thought no manner of thoughts of God. 2. The internall image of God in the minde is the objective conception of God as conceived in the minde there is no hazard of Idolatry there, for that Image is not adorable at all, becauſe then it muſt be conceived by a new different Image, and that new different Image muſt be cognoſcible by another new Image, and ſo in infinitum. The externall Image is both made an active object to repreſent God, and when we religiouſly bow to it, it is made an object paſſive, that is adored with God.

p. 157Laſtly, If the Iews and heathen had adored their Images, as they were ſuch creatures conſecrated, and as eſſentially Gods, the Lord would not have rebuked them for making an Aſh Tree the ſimilitude of a God, as he doth, Iſa. 40. 18. Iſa. 44. 9, &c. And all that I ſaid in the former queſtion proveth the ſame. So that though Divine honour in the Act of kneeling before the elements be intended to Chriſt, yet becauſe the elements are there as actuall ſignes, and Vicegerent Images of Chriſt, if we kneel to Chriſt Religiouſly through them, we give them divine honour, though we ſhould intend to honour Chriſt Ieſus only.

SECT. III.

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

I. Con. TO adore Images is to give worſhip to God before Images, or, in, or through the Images without any Faith of a Godhead, or divine power in the Image according to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome. I prove this out of their Councels. aaConcil. triden. Seſſ. 25. Statuimus imagines in templis habendas & retinendas ijſ que debitum honorem & vencrationem impertiendam; non quod credatur eſſe aliqua in his di vinitas, vel virtus propter quam ſint colendae: ſed quoniam honos qui iis exhibetur, refectur ad Prototypa, quae illa repraeſentant, ut per imagines quas oſculamur, et coram qui bus caput aperimus & procumbimus, Chriſtum adorcmus & ſanctos, quorum illaſimilitudinem gerunt.The Councell of Trent ſaith, Due honour and veneration is due to the Images, not becauſe it is believed, that there is any Divinity and vertue in them, for the which they ſhould be worſhipped; but becauſe the honour given to them is referred to the ſamplar, which they repreſent; that by theſe Images vvhichwhich vve kiſſe, and before vvhichwhich vve uncover our head and bow dovvn; vve may adore Chriſt, and the Saints which theſe Images reſembleth: Hence 1. the Image doth but, as a memorative object, excite the affection to give honour to God, in, and through the Images; but 2. Let theſe words be examined, the Councell denyeth any divinity to be in Images, but if they mean no divinity really to be in Images, ſo they ſay nothing againſt us; for we do not aſcribe to Papiſts that they teach there is a reall God-head in the Image, but that all that is really in it, is Wood, Gold, or Mettall, and ſo did the Gentiles believe their Images to be teaching books, Hab. 29. Ier. 10, 8. Deut. 4. 19. Iſa. 40. 18. & 46. 6, 7. Act. 17. 29. and gold and ſilver; but ſay they, What needed the Prophets to prove that gold and ſilver could not ſee, nor hear, nor deliver in time of trouble, reaſon would here convince them to be ten p. 158times blinde, who believed any ſuch thing. Anſ. The Prophets doPapiſts did of old adore before, or at the preſence of the Image as a memorative ſigne, and yet were Idolaters. well to do ſo: Nor that the Heathen believed there was any Godhead in them formally, but becauſe they aſcribed actions to theſe images, that were due to living creatures, and made them to be ſuch as did ſee, hear, move, deliver; So Iſaiah proveth Egypts horſes not to be God, but fleſh, yet they did not believe there was a Godhead in the horſes, but Conſequenter, by good conſequence, when they laid that hope on the horſe, that they were to lay upon God, he had need to ſay the horſe vvas fleſh and not God: So when men give to theſe things, bowing of the body, and ſay unto a ſtock, Thou art my Father: God may prove the ſtock is not a living man, and hath no ſences, to convince them the more, that they can far leſſe be Gods Vicar; for a Vicar or Deputy creature repreſenting the living God, ſhould be ſuch as can do what God doth; elſe we ſhould put on it the honour due to God: But if the Councell mean, They have no divinity in them, but by way of repreſentation, becauſe they be Vicaria dei ſigna, ſignes reſembling the Creator God; Now if this be denyed, the images muſt be naked memorials before which people do adore God, as Mirandula, Durandus and others ſaid, and yet latter Papiſts ſay more of their own Images: But I would have it remembred, that there be two ſorts of deputed or Vicar-Images; ſome that do only ſignifie, as the darkneſſe of the Skie going before the morning light in the Eaſt, that doth nothing at all which the morning light doth, but nakedly ſignifieth that the Sun is riſing: There be other Depute ſignes that can exerciſe acts,Two ſort of ſignes. which the ſamplar would do, if it were preſent, as the deputy is not a naked Vicar or depute ſigne of the King, for he doth not only ſignifie the Kings minde, but can do Royall Acts in the Kings name: Images are depute ſignes of God, of the firſt ſort, that do only rub the memory and underſtanding, and therefore deſerve no honour except the honour due to the means of worſhip, as the Bible, Sacraments, which deſerve not Adoration, but onelyonly a Negative Reverence, or a not diſpiſing or contemptuous handling of them, Images being unlawfull meanes, and not Commanded of God, deſerve no Veneration at all; and though it be true, that the Ambaſſadour deſerve Princely Honour, for the Princes Place, whom he repreſenteth; yet he can act the perſon of the Prince, and is not a naked deputed p. 159ſign, but Images are therefore convinced to be unlawfull deputies repreſenting (as Idolaters made them to be, Iſa. 40. 18. Iſa. 46. 6, 7.) Becauſe they can do no acts at all, nor exerciſe any actions proper to the ſamplar, for Pſal. 115. v. 6. They have mouths, but they ſpeak not, eyes they have, but they ſee not, 7. They have eares, but they hear not; and therefore ſhould not be truſted in, as in means and deputed repreſentations of God, for which cauſe the Prophet inferreth ver. 8. They that made them, are like unto them, ſo are every one that truſteth in them. ver. 9. O Iſrael truſt thou in the Lord. Therefore Religious truſting in them is Idolatry: But the Canon of Trent ſaith this ſame of their Images, to wit, that there be no Godhead or vertue in them. 2. If the worſhip of foreign, the higher ſervice due to God, be given to Images, as I prove hereafter, then alſo ſome deity or Divine vertue; for Gods higheſt honour can no more be communicated to any, ſave to God, then the Godhead it ſelf; for a Relative Godhead is as due to ſtocks, as a relative worſhip. 3. If the Tridentine Canoniſts will have divine Adoration given to God Coram imaginibus, before Images, or at their preſence, as only memorative ſignes, & active objects exciting us to worſhip God, then is our Theſis proved: But if they mean that God is Adored, Coram imaginibus, before images, as not only memorative and active objects, but alſo before them as paſſive objects, that are compartners under God of ſome divine adoration; then I ſay 1. they contradicted themſelves, for Gods higheſt honour called foreign, can not be given to them but by a figure, becauſe they are Gods, & have divinity in them only by a figure, and not really: for Suarez & Vaſquez denieth that we can fix our hope and faith in Images, or make prayers to them, Niſi modo figurativo & tropo duriore, by a figure, and a hard troop, and moſt improperly and by that ſame reaſon muſt be given to ſtocks and ſtones moſt improperly, and that is, men do religiouſly bow before them, as before memorative objects. 2. Gabriel bbVaſquez tom. 1. in 3. art. 3. diſ. 108. cap. 8. In imagine praeter ipſius prototypi excellentiam non poteſt eſſe aliqua virtus, cui cultus debeatureſt enim in imagine ſolum irrationale & inanimatum excellenciae & ſanctitatis exemplar, cui homo nequit digne ſeſe ſubmittere Adoratione.Vaſquez ſaith well, There can be no footſtep of holineſſe in the image, beſide the excellency of the ſamplar, nor any divine vertue wherefore it ſhould be worſhipped; for there is nothing in the p. 160image of it ſelf, but that which is ſenſleſſe, and lifeleſſe, and ſpiritleſſe and no man can in a Religious way ſubmit himſelf to ſuch a creature? Hence it muſt be a naked memorative ſign, and therefore the kiſſing of the Image, though Phyſically it be reall, and not Metaphyſicall, yet moral it is not propper, ſeeing all religious affection in that kiſſing is transferred to God. And we know Vaſquez alloweth, that every thing, as it is a being, and reſembleth God the firſt being, is to be Adored, and ſo ſtones,—Frogs, the Devil, Judas lips that kiſſed Chriſt, are to be Adored.

So their ſeventh pretended Synod cc7. Synodus, Quo ſcilicet per banc imaginum pictarum inspectionem, omnes qui contemplantur, ad prototyporum memoriam & deſiderium veniant, illiſque Adorationem honorariam exhibeant, non ſecundum fidem noſtram, veram latreiam.faith, That the Honour due to God is not to be given to images, according to our faith, only at the beholding of Pictures we are put in minde of the ſamplar: And the ſame ſaith Mr. Lindeſey, is the way of Adoring God in the Sacrament. But ſo the Gentiles, as ſaith ddArnobius lib. 6. Gentes Adorabans ſtatuas, non quod as, aurum, argentum & ſimiles statuarum materi… dij ſint, ſed quod corum, quae alias inviſibiles ſunt, praeſentia per ſimulachra exhibeatur.Arnobius, and eeLactantius, de inſtitut. ad Conſtantium. lib. 2. cap. 2. Non ipſa (inquiunt Gentes) ſimulachra tim…nus, ſed ea ad quorum imaginem facta, & quorum nominibus conſecrata ſunt. Resp. Lactantius nempe …deo t…metis quod cos in caelis eſſe Arbitramini, cur igitur o…ul…s in caelum non tollitis? Cur ad parictes lig…a & lapides potius, quam e… spectatis, ubi eos eſſe creditis.Lactantius, yea, and the Apoſtle ffAct, 17. 29.Paul …aith Adored images; yea, and God would ggDeut. 4. 15. Iſa. 40. 18. & 46. 6, 7, 8, 9.Deut 4:15Isa 40:18Isa 46:6Isa 46:7Isa 46:8Isa 46:9not forbid ſimilitudes of God to be Adored, except he did teach that the heathen Idolaters worſhipped ſimilitudes, and ſo the Papiſts in that vulgar verſe ſaid, they Adored not the Images, but the thing ſignified by the Images.

Effigiem Chriſti dum tranſis, ſemper Adora:

Non tamen effigiem, ſed quod deſignat, Honora.

Let me adde theſe reaſons to prove they cannot Adore the Image, but as a memorative ſign: 1. The Image and the elements in any conſideration, either as creatures, or as the honourable act of repreſentation is put upon them, are but creatures; for the act of repreſentation is a temporary Godhead, and maketh them but Time-Gods; Ergo, they cannot be Adored. 2. If there be two Adorations here, one given to God, and another to the Image, and if both be divine honour, there muſt be two collaterall Gods; if Adoration prove Chriſt to be God, two divine honours put upon things, one upon God, and another upon the Creature; there muſt be p. 161two Gods, or then the Creature remaining a Creature, muſt have Communion with Gods high honour, which is Idolatry. 3. Images and elements are either worſhipped for themſelves▪ or for ſome other thing; if for themſelves, they are God, for only God for himſelf is worſhipped with Divine honour; if for God they be worſhipped, then it is an inferiotr, and improper worſhip, and therefore they muſt be worſhipped as memorative objects. 4. Images and elements, if they partake of externall worſhip proper to God: Why may not Sacrifices and Incenſe be offered unto them, and faith and hope fixed on Images? They do not partake of internall worſhip: for as Vaſquez ſaith well, inward worſhip conſiſteth in Apprehenſione primi principii, & in motu ad illud; in apprehenſion of the firſt Author and Creator of all things, and in the wills motion toward it. But this apprehenſion cannot be put upon Images or elements, therefore they be here ſignificant objects only.

So their ſecond Councell hhConcilium Nicen. 2. Qu…d ſi in recordationem atquc memoriam, ita quod ſalutari quâdam affectione in ipſa prototypa ferebantur (Catholici) ſalutaverint & honorificè A…oraverint imaggines, non tamen ob id ill is latreiam exhibuera…t, aut Divinam Venerationem adſcripſerunt, abſit haec calumnia.of Nice, as Epiphanius a Deacon, in name of the Synod ſaith, Images were preſent before the kneelers, as our elements are, only as memorative objects. 2. That the ſingular affection of Adoring, was bounded only upon God: And iiConcilium S…nenſe Cap. 14. Definit imagines debere adorari non quia in illis aliquid numinis creditur ineſſe, ſed ob recordationem exemplaris.Concilium Senonenſe ſaith, Images are to be Adored, not becauſe there is any Godhead in them, but for the memory of the ſamplar: And kkConcilium Mogunt. Cap. 41. Paſtores noſtri populum accurate moncant imagnes non ad id proponi, ut adoremus aut colamus cas, ſed ut quod adorare & col…re aut quarum rerum utiliter,—meminiſſe debemus, per imagines recordemur.Concilium Moguntinum, Images are not propounded that we ſhould worſhip them, but that we may call to minde the things which we are to worſhip. If therefore we Adore God at the preſence of the elements, as memorative ſignes we do Adore the elements; but if the kneeler direct all his worſhip before the elements, to Chriſt up at the right hand of the Father: Why then (as Lactantius ſaid well to the Gentiles) do they not turn away their ſenſes and eyes off the elements? For Chriſt is not ſubſtantially incloſed in them, and lift them up toward heaven, where they believe Chriſt to be? But in ſo doing the elements ſhould not be received as Sacraments, for in the act of receiving we are to fixe our ſouls upon the viſible elements: If the Athenians did believe the golden image, Act. 17. 29. p. 162was eſſentially God, and kneeled to it as to God; Paul did in vain rebuke them for believing that the Godhead was like ſilver or gold; and if the men of Lyſtra believed the ſhapes of men, and the likeneſſe of men to be eſſentially God, and in that reſpect gave the honour of Sacrificing due to God, to theſe ſhapes; then the Scripture in vain ſhould bring theſe men of Lyſtra in, as putting a difference betwixt the ſhapes of men, and the Godhead of Jupiter and Mercurius, to which they were about to give Divine Sacrifice. And if Formaliſts kneel before the elements, and give a tranſitive glory to Chriſt through them, they are in the ſame ſenſe Idolaters that the Gentiles were. So the Councel of Moguntine, llConcil. Mogunt. ib. Sect. 2. Codi…m oculis perluſtrans, cum ad venerabile & tremendum nomen, Ieſu devenerit, caput aperit, inclinatur, & ſuspirans in caelum oculos attolit, & ob id omni reprehenſione & Idolatriae ſuspicione caret; ſiquidem non literas qu… vili atramento pinguntur, honorat, ſed cogitatione & veneratione mentis ſuae ad eum honorandum & venerandum rapitur, cujus memoriam hae literae ei ſuggerunt.and Alphonſus de Caſtro mmAlphonſ. de Caſtro heraeſ. 1. denique adoratio ipſa, et ſi coram cruce fi…, meus tamen noſtra ad id ſolum refertur quod crux ipſa repr…ſentat.deny that they Adore the letters of the Name (Jeſus) drawn with baſe ink▪ or the Tree of the Croſſe; but they Adore the ſignified thing: Yea, ſaith nnThom. Waldenſ▪ de ſacram. tom. 3. cap. 156. nu. 6.Waldenſis, He that beholdeth the image, almoſt forgetteth the image, while as he is raviſhed with the thing ſignified: as many ſee a man clothed, and yet being asked, they cannot declare the colour of his clothes, the minde is ſo much ſet upon the man: Yea, the Adorer may hate the painted image of Chriſt, becauſe the rude ignorance of the painter, when he Adoreth Chriſt in the ſame image, though he may love ſome morall repreſentation in it. This Doctrine is taught by ooGrego. lib. 7. Epiſt. ad Secund. q. 53.Gregorius, and by ppAdrianus, de imaginibus, cap. 12.Adrianus, and qqConcilium Romanum ſub Stephano 3. Et nos quidem non quaſi ante Divinitatem, ante illam (imaginem aut elementa ſacramentalia) prosternimur, ſed illam adoramus, quem per imaginem natum, paſſum, aut in throno ſeden…em recordamur.approved by a Councel at Rome under Stephanus the third.

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

Though the creature ſaith rrSuarez; Tom 3. in 1. diſp. 54. Sect. 4.Suarez cannot, Primo, & per ſe, principally, kindly, and of it ſelf be worſhipped or adored with Latreia, the ſupream worſhip due to God, yet it may be co-adored, with the ſame honour that is given to Chriſt, as is the Kings purple Robe: So the firſt Diſtinction is of Adoration and co-Adoration, or Adoration kindely, p. 163and by it ſelf, and Adoration with another. Henriquez ſſHenriquez ſum. Theolog. Moral. lib. 8. cap. 32. Male quidam negant praedican▪ dum populo, quod image Chriſti ſi… adoranda. Latreia.ſaith, It is a fault that it is not preached to the people, that the image of Chriſt is to be adored with ſupream worſhip called Latreia ttCabrera, in 3. pag. Thom. q. 25. Art. 3. diſp. 3.. Crabrera ſaith, many Schoolmen are of this mind; and ſo doth wwAzorius inſtit. Moral. to. 1. l. 9. c. 60.Azorius xxArchangel. Rubeo in 3. ſent. d. 9.Archangelus Rubeo yyJacob de Graphijs, Deciſio. aur. p. i. l. 2. cap. 2. num. 15. Vnamquanque imaginem, eodem cultu, quo illum cujus eſt image, verereremur.Iacobus de Graphiis, Let us worſhip (ſaith he) every Image with that ſame worſhip, with which we worſhip the ſamplar: That is, let us beſtow the worſhip higheſt of Latreia, upon the Image of God and Chriſt, and the ſigne of the Croſſe, as it bringeth us in minde of Chriſts ſuffering: The ſecond diſtinction is, that the Image is truly properly adored, as the materiall object no leſſe then the ſamplar: Hence they reprove Durandus, Picus Mirandula, Hulcot, and others, who ſay that Images are improperly adored, & aaRaphael de la Torres, ſum. Theolog. de relig. to. 1. in 22. q. 84. art. 2. diſp. 5. q. 94. dub. 5. Respondetur modus iſte dicendi (per accidens adorantur) …ic debet intelligi, ideſt per aliud, vel (quod idem eſt) ratione alterius; hoc autem non arguit improprietatem adorationis, ſed nega… adorationem excellentiae proprie & reſidentis in re adorata; ſic adoratur humanitas Chriſti. See alſo Bellarm. de imag c. 21. c. 25. Neque dicendum eas impropre venerandas eſſe, quia quod non dicitur niſi improprie, ſimpliciter negari poteſt.Raphael de la Torres anſwering to that of Durandus and Mirandula, That Images are adored by accident, in respect that before them, and at their naked preſence, as before memorative objects, we adore God and Christ (ſaith he) (are adored by accident) is thus to be underſtood, Images are adored, Ratione Alterius, by reaſon of another, Vel per aliud, by another thing, but this argueth not that Images are improperly adored, hereby onelyonly is denyed that there is any adoration of the proper excellency of the thing adored. Hence he would ſay that the borrowed honour of Adoration given to the Image is truly and properly the Adoration that is due to God, but it is given to the Image in reference to God, and not for any inherent Excellency that is in the Image: For (ſaith he) If we do not properly adore the Image, we do but exerciſe the materiall action of kiſſing and kneeling to the image, without any internall affection of ſubmiſſion to the Samplar: He addeth that it is enough that the intention of ſubmiſſion is referred to the ſamplar, and the external Adoration to the Image, for if any ſhall (ſaith he) kiſſe the earth (as the rude multitude in ſome place doth) upon an intention of inward ſubmiſſion of heart to God, Nequaquam vere & proprie adorat terram, he doth not truly and properly adore the earth, but only he exerciſeth a materiall action p. 164of kiſſing toward the earth: But I anſwer, all this is vanity, for ſuchDiversevaſions of Papiſts touching the worſhipping of images. a one worſhippeth the earth, but referreth the internall ſubmiſſion to God, and all this, is to ſay the Image doth truly partake of the Religious honour (Latreia) due to God only.

A third diſtinction is here, of bbGabriel Bi…l in can▪ miſſae. lect. 49. fol. 92.Gabriel Biel on the Canon of the Maſſe, In the Adoring of images (ſaith he) and of other things which are adored by accident, though there be an externall act of bowing both to the images and the ſamplar, yet there be two internall acts which are different, vvhereof one is terminated and bounded upon the image, not abſolutely as it is ſuch a materiall thing of ſtone, or mettall, but as it is an image: This is an acknowledgement whereby I eſteem the Image a thing ordained to repreſent Chriſt, or a complacency whereby I reſt on ſuch a thing, as to be honoured for Chriſt, and the other i… a recognition, and acknowledgement immediatly terminated and bounded upon the ſamplar, whereby it is acknowledged to be the chiefeſt good. But the truth is, Religious geniculation before the image, or at the preſence of the image (ſaith ccDuran. lib. 3. diſt. 9. q. 2. …. 10. Sed quia loqendum eſt ut plures, ideo commune dictum ſic exponendum eſt, quod protanto dicitur imago ſub ratione imaginis adorari eadem adoratione cum re, cujus eſt imago, quia ad praeſentiā imaginis ſeu ſignifit rem…moratio rei, quam rememoratam adoramus, eadem adoratione ac ſi preſens eſſet in ſe▪ …t ideo concedi poteſt quod ſigna et imagines adorantur.Durandus) as if the ſamplar were there preſent, is one and the ſame adoration given to the image and the ſamplar; and all that ddGreg. …9. de Val…. to. 3. diſ. 6. q. 11. de idol pun. 6.Gregorius de Valentia ſaith againſt this, is, that Durandus minus circumspect… locutus, he ſpake not ſo warily, as need were: And ſo did their eeSept. Syn. ar. 14.ſeventh pretended ſynod ſpeak, as ffL…n. lib. 5. Apol. Syn. 7. ar. 14.Leontius expoundeth them, Non liguorum aut colorum naturam adoro, abſit, and ggVaſq. in 3. q. 25. ar. 3. diſ. 106. c. 1.Vaſquez ſaith, They diſpleaſe ſome in ſo speaking, but they mean well: They meant all that which our Formaliſts do▪ and there is no diſcord (ſaith hhG. Bi… in can. miſ. lect. 49. fol. 94.Gabriel Biel) in re, in the matter it ſelf; for both ſay; 1. that the creature ſhould not be adored with the higheſt honour (Lateria) of it ſelf, as if it were the object of Adoration: 2. Both teach that the minde and affection is carried toward the ſamplar, which is adored: 3. Both mean that the adorer exerciſeth ſome act upon the image, as it repreſenteth the ſamplar, only the diverſity is, if this act terminated on the Image, ſhould be called an adoring of the Image; and all theſe three Formaliſts do to the elements in the ſupper: Hence I require of the Formaliſts, one difference betwixt the objective preſence of the elements before the kneeler, in the act of receiving, and the objective preſence of the Heathens image of God, Iſa. 40. p. 16518. & 46. 6, 7, 8. and the Papiſts image of dumb wood, and blinde ſtone: Mr. Lindſey anſwered me once in a conference, That the elements were preſent as the Ordinances of God, but the Popiſh and Heathen images as the inventions of men. I replied to him, That is no anſwer: for images and elements (I know) do differ, Phyſicâ ſpecie; The Sun adored by Perſians, and Satan by Indians differ. Satan and the Sun, are not Ejuſdem speciei, of that ſame nature, but it is idolatry to worſhip either; images and bread in the kind of means of worſhip differ, but, as touching the objective preſence before the kneeler kneeling to theſe, there is no difference: as 1. To memorative objects: 2. As to objects vicarious and ſtanding in the room of Chriſt: 3. At their preſence and through them God is adored. iiSuarez tom. 1. in 3. queſt. 25 art. 3. diſp. 53. Sect. 3. Qui viſa pulchrae creaturae specie animo inſurgit ad conſiderationem creatoris, & illum laudat acdiligit, non poteſt vere dic… landere ac diligore creaturam, etiam ſi preſentia creaturae excitaverit a…-rem creatoris; ideoque tantum (…ic) propter memoriam retinendae imagines.Suarez, is not content with the doctrine of Durandus here, By this, images are (ſaith he) but occaſions, Vel ſigna excitantia hominem ad prototypum adorandum, non vero …es quae adorantur, or ſignes moving the m…n to adore the ſamplar, but they are not things adored: for (ſaith he) the man, vvho ſeeing a beautifull creature, ariſeth in …is minde to the conſideration of the Creator, and therefore praiſeth and loveth th… Creator, cannot be truly ſaid to praiſe and love that fair creature, thoug… the preſence of that creature have ſtirred up the love of the Creator, and by this means images are reſerved only for memory. Thus he will have images adored with the ſame worſhip that is given to God: But I anſwer: 1. if he ſhall kiſſe that creature and direct Religious bowing toward it, and and through that external Religious act, convey his worſhip to God, and give no other externall adoration and ſigne of heart ſubmiſſion to God, then that which is tyed and alligated of purpoſe to that fair creature, as Papiſts and Jews did of old, who kiſſed the calves, and fell down before the images, as Iſa. 44. 17. which yet were but memorials of Iehovah teaching them of Iehovah, Eſa. 40. 18. Eſa. 46. 6, 7. Hab. 2. 18, 19. Such a one ſhould alſo worſhip that fairSuarez is not content at the hungry and unproper expreſſione of Durandus, Mir…ndula, H…lcot. creature: Our Formaliſts do not make the elements memorative ſignes repreſenting Chriſt, for that they have by divine inſtitution, but upon that ground they kneel before them, and tie, by the Churches Commandment, the externall Religious bowing toward them, and that (ſaith the act of our new Aſſembly at Perth) in reverence of God, and in due regard (Religious regard they muſt mean) of ſo divine a myſtery, and in remembrance of ſo myſticall a union: p. 164duplicate page p. 165duplicate page p. 1662. God hath no other externall bowing made to him in the act of receiving, then is made before theſe elements, in due regard of ſo divine a myſtery, and becauſe of ſo myſticall union; the union is reall, whether it be by conſubſtantiation, or tranſubſtantiation, they wil not define, the Lord Ieſus is preſent in the elements, in a more reall and ſpirituall manner, then he is in any groundleſſe image of mettall or wood; and therefore the image and elements do moſt really partake even by Durandus and Hulcot, and Mirandula their minde of that worſhip of (Latreia) due to God; only Durandus (as Vaſquez, and Gregor. Valent. ſay) spake not ſo warily, but not ſo groſſely, as to ſay, What ever is given to God, is given to the image: 2. It is not in the Adorers power that kneeling ſhould be a ſigne of leſſe worſhip, as referred to the image, and of greater, as referred to God; for the ſame materiall kiſſing, and Religious Proſtration, which would immediatly be conveyed to Chriſt, if he were in perſon preſent in the image and elements, is done to the image and elements, and Religious kiſſing, and Religious kneeling ſignifieth internall divine ſubmiſſion of heart to God, as the firſt author of all, and the laſt end, not by mans will, but by divine inſtitution. 3. Kneeling to God is a proteſtation (ſaith kkGregor. de Valent. to. 3. diſp. 6. q. 11. de idolat. punct. 6. Cum autem per idem officium & motum animi veré etiam dicimus honorem exhiberi imagini, verbo, illi exhiberi, hoc ſub eſt, nos Prototypon ex imagine cogitantes, coram ipſâ actionem honorificam proinde ac ſi prototypon ſimiliter eſſet praeſens, exercentes, velle prototypi excellentia proteſtari, adcoque de ipſo excitare opinionem excellentem, ut eſt quodammodo, nimirum relative in imagine ſuâ.Gregor, de Valent.) That we are willing to raiſe an opinion of excellency in God, as this excellency is in ſome manner, and relatively in the image. If therefore kneeling of its own nature, without any act of mans will, or the Churches inſtitution, wanting Gods Word, do conciliate an opinionWhat need we diſpute? to give that externall knee-worſhip to bread, which we would give to Chriſt ſubſtantially and perſonally preſent, is to adore bread. of excellency; to whomſoever kneeling is directed, in this it muſt conciliate the ſame opinion: if then it it be given to Images and elements, it muſt be a proteſtation that we are willing to conciliate an opinion of Divine excellency in theſe lifeleſſe creatures, which is all we give to God by kneeling. 4. It is not enough that Valentia ſaith, This honour belongeth to Chriſt, in ſo far as it conciliateth p. 167to Chriſt the honour due only to God, and is expreſſed by kneeling, & it belongeth to the images ſo, as Coram, & in illis, before, and in them this opinion is conciliated to Chriſt: But if the image be God only repreſentatively, and by way of ſignification, then is it not God of it ſelf and really, Quod eſt tale tantum ſignificativé, non eſt tale per ſe, & realiter, as a painted man is not of it ſelf, and really a man; the word (Ieſus) as written with baſe ink, is not infinite Ieſus, the mighty God, the Prince of Peace, really, but only in meer ſignification: therefore to give Gods honour and externall Religious bowing (which eſſentially doth note the higheſt excellency of God) to them, is Idolatry: It is a vain thing to ſay, The Ambaſſadour is not really the King; yet the reall honour due to the King, is done to him. I Anſwer, where the King declareth that it is his will, that his Ambaſſadour be really honoured as himſelf; this is not the giving of the Kings glory to another againſt his will: But here expreſly contrary to that (Thou ſhalt not bow down to them) expounded eſpecially of ſimilitudes, Deut. 4. 15. Ye ſaw no manner of ſimilitude. The glory of Religious bowing contrary to Gods will, (Who will not give his glory to another) is given to images, and to Bread. 2. It redoundeth kindely to the King, who is abſent, and to be obeyed in his abſence, that His Vicegerent and Deputy be honoured as himſelf, and preſuppoſeth an infirmity in the King that he cannot be in many places to receive immediately the honour due to him, and therefore will have that due paid to himſelf, mediately, by the honoured perſon of a Deputy. God infinite is in all places, to receive immediately the pay of Religious knee-honour, and it diſhonoureth God to have his glory laid down in the hand of any creature; as it diſhonoureth the Husband that his wife give her body to another, repreſenting his perſon: For this cauſe llBernar. Puiol. de ador. diſp. 3. Sect. 7. Quarto colligitur contra Durandum ipſas imagines proprie adorari.Bernardus Puiol faith, Images are properly to be Adored, contrary to that which Durandus ſaith: And mmAzor. inſtit. moral. tom. 1. lib. 9. c. 6. 4. Diſtin.Azorius ſaith, It is the common opinion that Images are to be worſhipped with (Latreia) the higheſt honour due to God: So (ſaith he) Thomas, Alexander, Bonaventura, Richardus, Albertus, Paludanus, Alman, Marſilius, Capreolus, Cajetanus, & caeteri juniores ſic ſentiunt.

The fourth expreſſion of wit, is this diſtinction of nnVaſquez ut ſupr. diſ. 108. Per totum.Vaſquez, That that internall ſubmiſſion to God, as to the Creator and chief God, is due to God only; and that the image, ſeeing it is a Creature, is not p. 168capable of that high honour. But the externall act of kiſſing and kneeling, he will have due to the image, for the excellency of the Samplar. And ſo he denyeth contrary to Suarez, That the image ſeparated from the Samplar, or the humanity of Chriſt ſeparated from Divinity, can be Adored: But if externall Adoration may be given to images; ſo alſo internall ſubmiſſion: (Thou ſhalt not bow down to them) Religiouſly it is expounded in the ſecond Commandment, (Thou ſhalt not Worſhip them.) It is groſſeneſſe in Vaſquez to ſay, The Worſhipping of images was forbidden the Iews in the ſecond Commandment, as a Ceremoniall inhibition, becauſe of the Iews propenſion to idolatry: But Act. 17. 29. Paul expoundeth the ſecond Commandment, Forbidding the ſimilitude of God: And the Athenians were not under the Law of Ceremonies. Ioannes ooJoannes de Lugo, de myſt. incar. diſp. 34. Sect. 2. n. 29.de Lugo ſaith, This is a probable opinion: But it is clear, Cornelius a devout man, one who feared and worſhipped God, whoſe Prayers were heard in heaven for Chriſts ſake, knew that Peter was a man which lodged in the houſe of Simon a Tanner; yet his Religious externall bowing (though he knew Peter was not God, but a Divine man reſembling God) by Peter is rebuked as idolatry, Act. 10. v. 25, 26. I cannot help Ioan. ppIbid. diſp. 35. Sect. 1. n. 6.de Lugo, to ſay, That Peter forbade Cornelius to worſhip him, not becauſe it was a ſin, but for modeſties cauſe. But 1. Peters Argument ſtriketh againſt idolatry, ver. 26. (Stand up, (he forbiddeth Religious kneeling) for I my ſelf alſo a man) The very Argument that Paul and Barnabas uſeth, Act. 14. …er. 15. We alſo are men &c. and uſed againſt the idolatry of Lyſtra, expreſly condemned in that place: And the Angels Argument againſt the idolatry of Iohn, Rev. 19. 10. I am thy fellow ſervant, Worſhip God; Ergo, externall Religious bowing ſhould not be given to any, ſave to God. 2. Peter and the Angel ſhould have opened the Jeſuits and Formaliſts diſtinction, if worſhipping of Saints and dumbe images be worſhipping of God, and the honour principally of inward acknowledgment of the Supremacy and Soveraignty of God, be intended, in bowing to images, and modeſty ſhould not forbid honouring of God: And whereas Ioannes de Lugo Joannes de Lugo, ibid.ſaith, Iohn was forbidden to Worſhip the Angel, to ſignifie that our nature in Chriſt was advanced to a dignity above the Angels. But 1. then it is unlawfull to any to worſhip Angels. 2. Nor is it Lawfull to give the Virgine Mary Divine worſhip, as Suarez ſaith: p. 1691. For her excellency in touching Chriſt. 2. For her Grace and Sanctity. 3. For her mothers place in bearing Chriſt; becauſe her nature in Chriſt is not exalted above the nature of other believers, for the nature common to all believers, and Eadem ſpecie, was aſſumed by Chriſt. 3. The Angel ſaith, (Worſhip God) he therefore believed the Worſhipping of Angels was not the Worſhipping of God. All theſe fight againſt Religious bowing before the elements, in due regard of ſo Divine myſteries: the Bread would ſay (if it could ſpeak) See thou do it not, for I alſo am a Creature.

The fifth trick of wit, is a diſtinction of qqSuarez, part. 3. to. 1. diſp. 54. Sect. 3. Actus [Adorandi] respectu prototypi est proprie Latreia &c. Respectu vero imaginis eſt inferior Veneratio.Suarez, That one 5. Diſtin.and the ſame act of Adoration may be given, and is given in externall Worſhip to the image and to God, but in reference to God, it is Latreia, the high Honouring of God, and in reference to the image, it is an inferior Veneration: So do our Formaliſts ſay, as rrBurges, Lawfulnes of kneeling cap. 8. p. 14, 15.Burges ſaith▪ Adoration and Veneration differ not but by mens will; and if it be lawfull to Adore God before the Ark, ssp. 34, 35.Why not at the Sacrament? The Bread and the Wine are Chriſt ſignificative, (as the Ark had the title of Iehovah) by occaſion of the elements, not as they are, but as they ſignify; we may tender a knee-worſhip, not at all to them, but only to God or Chriſt. And again, ttp. 84, 85.he holdeth it lawfull to Adore the elements, but then Adoration as given to the elements, is Veneration, and Adoration in a large ſence, 1 Chron. 29. 20. The people Worſhipped God and the King: The outward Adoration was one, as the word by which it is expreſſed was one; but the Religious and Civill worſhip were diſtinct in the minde and intention of the worſhippers. Edward, the 6. Book wwEdward, 6. book of Engl. ſerv. rubr. 5.ſaith, Kneeling is to eſchew prophaning of the Sacrament. Oppoſit to prophaning is externall Religious honouring, expreſſed by kneeling, and that is Adoring. Hence one and that ſame Adoration and externall bowing, is given to Bread and to Chriſt; but the minde and will of the Adorer maketh the ſame act in reference to Chriſt, Adoration, or Latreia, of the higheſt degree of honour; but in reference to the Bread, lawfull Veneration of an inferior nature. Anſwer 1. If it were poſſible that the Wiſe could tranſmit her body in the act of Harlotry, by, or through a ſtrange Lover to her Husband, her will and minde might change Adultery; if ſhe ſaith, ſhe giveth her body to a ſtranger, but in her minde and will intendeth to bring forth children to her own Husband: So if divers acts of the minde, make Religious p. 170kneeling to a ſtock or Bread lawfull, if one ſhould Adore the man Iudas as a memoriall of Chriſt, his intention of will might ſave his Soul; if he ſay, I give one and the ſame externall worſhip to Iudas and to Chriſt: Or if Cornelius ſhould ſay, I give one and the ſame knee▪ worſhip, to Peter and to Chriſt; but in my intention they be far different: For I Worſhip Iudas and Peter in that act with Civill homage Commanded in the fifth Commandment, as they be Chriſts Apoſtles, and repreſent him; but in that ſame I Worſhip Chriſt with the higheſt honour, called Latreia: Vaſquez and Burges make them one externall Worſhip. The three Children might have kneeled to the Image of Nebuchadnezzer, for their minde and will (as Formaliſts ſay) might have put another ſignification of honouring the Lord Iehovah, upon their knee-worſhip; and externall kneeling could not have been denyed to the Lord Iehovah; and ſo the three Children ſhould not have given Divine honour and kneeglory to the Image, and they were fooles who did hazard their bodies to the fire: But wiſemen think, if they had given knee-worſhip (what ever their heart thought) they ſhould have obeyed the King, yet they profeſſe diſobedience, Dan. 3. 18. We will not worſhip thy graven image. 2. Neither think we the Athenians gave that ſame honour to the ſimilitude Act. 17. 29. of God, that they gave to the God that Paul Preached, who made Heaven and earth, v. 23, 24. Yet in giving Worſhip externall to both, they were Idolaters, ver. 29. Nor did the men of Lyſtra give the ſame heart-honour to the Deities of Iupiter and Mercury, which they gave to the ſhapes of men; yet are they Idolaters in that. 3. Mr. Burges ſaith, Iſrael 1 Chron. 29. 20. in one and the ſame act (externall) Worſhipped God and the King, becauſe one and the ſame word expreſſeth honour both to God and the King. But how ſhall we call that act? Civill, or Religious, or mixt? and did they tranſmit Latreia, divine honour through the King to God? he hath a Metaphyſicall faith who beleeveth ſuch dreames, becauſe one word is uſed to expreſſe both the worſhipping of God and the King, therefore it was one externall act of worſhipping, and differenced in the minde and intention of the worſhippers; the conſequence is moſt weake, 1 Sam. 12. 18. All the people greatly feared the Lord and Samuel, Prov. 24. 21. My ſon, feare the Lord and the King, is it one manner of feare really, that is both religious to God, and to Samuel, and to the Lord, and the p. 171King▪ becauſe one word expreſſeth both? I ſee not but one & the ſame action of bowing may be made to God, to Chriſt, to the water in Baptiſme, to the Bible, to the Sun and Moon, and we might kneel and Adore a Toad, a ſtraw, and Satan, as they repreſent Gods wiſdom and power, and through that ſame externall knee-worſhip alſo Adore God: What, may we not then Religiouſly Adore all things and Creatures, as they repreſent God the firſt being.

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

As for Adoring of the Ark and foot-ſtool of God: 1. Ioan. xxJoan. Giſeniue in …uo Patiſi…o, diſp. 25, n. 40.Giſenius, a Lutheran ſaith, The Iews had precept and promiſe to Worſhip God before the Ark, we have no Command to tye externall Adoration to any place or Creature. 2. yyDidocl. in Altari damaſc. Hospinianus de originc feſtorum Chriſtian. contra. Gretſer. Profeſte corporis Chriſti, fol: 94. 7. Arca non eſt bab…a pro d… vivente,—nec propterea adorata. So anſwereth Molinaus in his buckler of faith of Images, Sect. 118. and Fran. Whites way to the Church, Cap. 9. pag. 3.Didoclavius ſaith, It is lawfull to Adore God before the Ark, and the Symboles of his immediate preſence, becauſe God is there to receive his own Worſhip himſelf, by an immediate indwelling preſence: For ſaith zzWeames 3. Volumn of the Ceremon. Law, Cap. 3. pag. 12.Mr. Weames, He appeared in glory above the Ark, betwixt the Cherubims, and it The place (worſhip at his footſtool) diſcuſſed.was a type of Chriſt who dvvelt in our fleſh; but it is not lavvfull to Worſhip him, before the Symboles of his grace. 3. The Ark was a type in the act of teaching, we grant; but that it was in the act of Adoring, God who was immediately preſent, and a Symboll Vicegerent of God, we reade not. There is no need of mediate ſignes, where God is immediately preſent, and Adored as he was in the Ark; they were to fixe both ſenſes and thoughts immediately upon God. 4. They were to worſhip, not the Ark, but the precept is, & incurvate vos ſcabello, Worſhip tovvard the Ark. aaArias Montanus. foreign.Arias Mont. turneth it, Worſhip to the Ark: The Greek Fathers of the ſecond Nicen. Councel, ignorant of the Hebrew Tongue, would have the Lord Commanding to Adore his foot-ſtool; whereas the Particle (foreign) is a note of the Dative caſe, and often it ſignifieth motion to a thing, or at a place, foreign ad dextram, and doth not abſolutely ſignifie the accuſative caſe. bbMuſculus.Muſculus ad Scabellum, p. 172he maketh it the Ark of the Teſtament. Calvine, ccCalvine comment. in Pſal. 99. 5.Ps 99:5the Temple. Iunius, ddJunius, Annotation ibid. Lyranus a dorandam Deum aute arcam, non ipſam arcam. Tylenus in ſyntag nat. de preca. diſp. 49. th. 2. nu. 29. particula. foreign. Notat idem quod verſus. Vatablus adorate ad ſcabellum, i. e. in templo ante arcam.maketh it well to ſignifie the meaſure of bowing, bow to the foot-ſtool, or ground, or pavement of the Temple where the Lords feet are, as he ſate on the Cherubims, 1 Chron. 28. 1. For there is no ground for Adoring the Ark; but the words are to be read, Exalt the Lord our God, and bow your ſelves, (to wit, to Iehovah, who ſheweth himſelf, or dwelleth at his foot-ſtool) that is, betwixt the Cherubims, 2 Sam. 6. 1. For the word foreign at his foot-ſtool, is not conſtructed with the Verb, foreign incurvate vos: Jeſuits and Formaliſts, deviſed that conſtruction, but it is to be conſtructed with the word, foreign which is to be repeated from the former part of the verſe, Bow your ſelves to Jehovah who dwelleth in the Ark, or in the Temple: A familiar eleipſis to the Hebrews, Pſal. 5. 8. I will bow my ſelf (to the Iehovah dwelling) in the Temple of thy holineſſe, as we are taught, Our Father which art in Heaven: So foreign and it is a deſcription of God from the place where he dwelt, and exhibited his preſence to his rude people. 4. It is ignorance in Burges to prove God may be Adored in the elements, becauſe they are as excellent Symbols of Gods preſence as the Ark: for created excellency is no ground of Adoring the elements, except it be a Godhead, and uncreated excellency: We condemne Pope eeGratian de conſer. diſt. 1. cap. 68. Prayer may as lawfully be given to the Creature as Adoration. There is a Prayer made to the image of the face of Jeſus written in linnen, Salve Sancta facies noſtri redemptoris ſalve vultus domini imago beata,—nos deduc ad propria … felix figura, ad videndum faciem qua eſt Christi pura.Anaſtaſius, who directeth Reverend bowing at the hearing of the Goſpel, and not of the Epiſtles, as if the Goſpel were holier then the Epiſtles.

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

And if the image in externall kneeling, be Adored Per aliud, or co-adored with the Samplar, becauſe it is one with the Samplar; Why may we not pray to the image, and fixe our faith and hope on p. 173the image and elements by co-adoration, or in relative praying and truſting in them? Yet ffConcilium Tridentinum Seſsione, 25.the Fathers of Trent for ſhame deny that we ſhould pray to images, and put our truſt in them: yet do Formaliſts turn the enunciative words of Chriſt (This is my body) in an optative mood, and a Prayer, The body and blood of Chriſt (they mean the elements in their hands) preſerve thee to eternall life: And we are not ignorant, that faith and hope are aſcribed to the Croſſe, and this ſung in the Church of Rome:

O crux ave ſpes unica,

Hoc paſſion is tempore,

Auge pi… juſtitiam,

Reiſ que dona veniam.

A Learned Papiſt, ggRaphael de la Torres in 22. q. 95 art 2. diſp. 6. dub. 5. Euſebius, lib. 3. De praeparat. Evang. teacheth us, that Rudiores tantum ad ligna & lapides reſpiciunt, ſapientes autem (Gentiles) voluerunt Deum & dci virtutes ſenſibus noſtris per imagines nobis familiariter deferri. They made Images books of God. Athanaſius in orat. contr. idolat. Dieunt Philoſophi statuas quidem non eſſedcos, ſed ſimulacbra deorum, ideo baberi ut dys ſub iſtis imaginibus respondeant.Raphael de la Torres ſaith plainly, It is lawfull to pray to images, ſo the inward devotion be directed to God: But if the Iews in their Idolatrous worſhip acknoweledged the image to be but a repreſentation of God, and a Book, Jer. 10. 8. They did no wrong who ſaid Ier. 2. ver. 27. to a ſtock, Thou art my father, and to a ſtone, Thou haſt brought me forth: For condition maketh all, if they ſpeak by a figure; for the Papiſts when they ſpeak to the Croſſe, and call the Croſſe their only hope, the Croſſe is not better born nor a ſtock, it is but timber or dumbe wood: Now how doth not the dumbe wood to which Prayers are made, as if Chriſt himſelf were preſent, partake of Prayers and Gods honour, in an inferior and relative way? For the wood ſtandeth before him who prayeth to it, as God by repreſentation, and as an actuall Vicegerent, and tree-deputy of God and Chriſt; it is no leſſe worſhipfull by mouth-worſhip, by praying to it, as to the paſſive object of Adoration, as capable of knee-worſhip by bowing down to it; and a diſtinction may ſave idolatry in the one, as well as in the other: And our Formaliſts bowing Religiouſly to bread, do not Adore bread, (as our half Papiſts ſay) and ſo may they pray to bread, and not Adore bread, for they are as well maſters of Grammar, to impoſe ſignifications at their will upon words, as they be Lords of geſtures and Ceremonies, to cauſe kneeling expreſſe Veneration to the images, and to elements, and not Divine Adoration.

p. 174Here two great Ieſuites, Suarez and Vaſquez helpe the matter for hhSuarez, in 3. Tho. q. 25. art. 3. diſp. 54. Sect. 4.Suarez ſaith, There be ſome acts of worſhip as faith and prayer, which preciſely reſpect a reaſonable and intelligent perſon, therefore this prayer (Haile **O crux ave.croſſe) it is a figurative ſpeech, and a Metonymie, continens pro re contenta; and the ſpeech is directed to him who was crucified, and therefore a prayer (ſaith this Idolater) is conſidered ut petitio, vel ut honor quidam, either as a petition, and ſo it is not directed but to God, but as prayer is an honour expreſſed in ſuch words and ſignes, the image alſo is thought to be honoured by praying to it, as the ſamplar to wit Chriſt, is honoured; ſoft words. Anſw. 1. If praying and beleevingWe may pray to Images and the elements in the Supper, as well as we may kneel to them. doe properly reſpect a reaſonable creature, ſo doth poſitive honouring which is eſteemed, by the law of nature, praemium virtutis, a reward of vertue; now vertue morall to be a foundation of honour, is as vainly given to a tree, or a ſtocke, as faith and prayer, but to ſpeak to any in prayer, and make our requeſts known to them may be thought proper onelyonly to a reaſonable perſon, who onelyonly can underſtand our prayer, and in reaſon anſwer our neceſſities, which a ſtock cannot doe: but ſecondly, I anſwer a ſtock is by Analogie, and as it is God repreſentatively, as capable of reaſon to anſwer, and helpe us, and pitty us, in reſpect it can notably well repreſent the Majeſtie of God, who can anſwer, helpe, and pitty, as our Idolaters teach, as it is capable of knee-worſhip, and that honour which is given to God, though in an higher degree; for the formall reaſon why Images and elements are capable of knee-glory, due to him who ſweareth that all knees ſhall how to him, is, becauſe they repreſent God, and not becauſe of themſelves they have any divinity or Godhead in them. Now the ſame formall reaſon holdeth here, for the croſſe, ſtone, tree, or elements that are prayed unto in that religious ſtate, as they are the object of praying, doe repreſent God, therefore they are alſo capable of faith and prayer, glory, as of knee-worſhip, or knee-glory. 2. Faith, hope, and charity (as iiSuarez de tripli. virt. & ſupr. diſ▪ 51. Sect. 1. pag. 757.Suarez ſaith) in ſo farre as they are given to God, for giving of honour to him as to the ſupream Lord, they put on the nature of adoration, and in that ſame place he defineth adoration to be the exhibition of honour due to any in the acknowlegement of excellency and ſubmiſſion and ſervice due to him: Now Suarez reprooveth Durandus and Pic. Mirandula, becauſe they denied that the Image was adored, but would onelyonly have honour given to p. 175God, at the naked preſence of the Image, as a memorable ſigne, but it is certaine, as to truſt in God, and to pray to him is incommunicable to the creature, ſo to adore any in acknowledgement of ſupreame excellencie is incommunicable to the creature, therefore either the image is adored with the ſame knee-worſhip that is given to God, and that improperly and by a figure, as Durandus and Mirandula taught contrary to the mind of Suarez, and idolatrous Ieſuites and F…rmaliſts, or elſe prayers may be made to wood and ſtone, as to God, and that properly and without a figure; as knee-worſhip is tendered to wood and ſtone by Ieſuits doctrine, prope…y and without a figure. 3. Papiſts deny that ſacrifices may be offered to Images, yet they burne incenſe to images; but that is not, ſaith kkAntonius Capellus, adverſusprimatum Regis, Angliae contrav. 2. Cap. 30.a Franſciſcan Antonius Capellus, a ſacrifice, for it is tendred to men, to dead carions, and to things that are bleſſed, and requireth neither Altar, nor Prieſt: It is true, they ſay ſo, but burning incenſe to the brazen Serpent is condemned as Idolatry, and Altar and Prieſt is not of the eſſence of a ſacrifice; but however as ſacrificing is a recognition that we hold all we have of God, and therefore we ſacrifice creatures to him, ſo any adoring of ſtocks is an acknowledgement that theſe ſtocks or ſtones are by way of repreſentation, that God of whom we hold all the creatures: and doe not Papiſts for the honour of God, make oblations to Miniſters, and burn incenſe to Saints? and why may not prayers be offered to them alſo? 4. It is a wild diſtinction where he faith that prayers as honour may be tendered to Images, but not prayers as petitions, whereas the very act of calling upon God in the day of trouble, Pſal. 50. 15. is an honouring and glorifying God, and praying to God is due to God, as he is to be beleeved in, and to be preached amongſt men, Rom. 10. 14. 15. And ſo is he worthy to be glorified as the ſubject of preaching; then it is a vaine thing to difference betwixt peti…ioning to God, and honouring God, becauſe in that I petition God, in my neceſſities, I ſubmit to him as to God, who can anſwer and heare prayers: If therefore the Image and the wood be capable of the honour of praying, it is alſo capable of the honour of petitioning, ſo as we may as properly petition and ſupplicate the ſtocke, as give to it the glory of prayers. 5. If Formaliſts ſay in the third perſon, (the body Sacramentall of the Lord ſave thee,) they may upon the ſame ground ſay, (O thou Sacramentall body of the Lord ſave me) for this p. 176is a prayer to God, (O that God would ſave his people,) no leſſe then this, (O God ſave thy people,) the variation of perſons in the Grammar, maketh not the one to be a prayer, and not the other. Vaſquez llVaſquez to. 1 part. 3. q 25. art. 23. diſp. 109. cap. 4.ſaith, There is not alike reaſon, why praiſes, prayers, and Sacrifices ſhould be tendred to Idols, & knee-worſhip & Adoration, becauſe from the affection of Adoring the ſamplar, there is derived an externall note of ſubmiſſion to the image, which by a common name is called the honour, Worſhip and Adoration tendred to the image in a bodily manner, and being done before the image, tendeth to the honouring of the ſamplar; but the outward action of Praiſing, Praying, Sacrificing, is commonly called Praiſing, Praying, Sacrificing, in relation to the Samplar, to wit, God, and no way in relation to the image, or to things without life; neither are they by accident referred to the images, only they be tendred to God before images, Coram illis. But I Anſwer, This is but to beg the Queſtion, for we deny, that from Adoring the image, there reſulteth any Adoring of God, but a great diſhonouring of his Name. 2. Durandus, Mirandula, Hulcot, deny that Adoring of God, Coram imaginibus tanquam ſignis memorativis, before the images as memorials of God, ſhould be an Adoring of the images: And Suarez ſaith, If images be only remembrances and memorials in the act of Adoration, this taketh much honour from the images, and is, ſaith mmSuarez tom. 1. in 3. q. 25. art. 3. diſp. 54. Sect. 5. Si tantum coram imaginibus Adoratur deus, hoc multum derogat imaginum venerationi, nam …x eo non tantum ſequitur imagines [clementa Sacramentalia] minus coli, quam exemplaria, ſed etiam ſequitur illas non coli omnius,—ſed exemplaria tantum.he, An Adoring of the Samplar, but not an Adoring of the image: Though nnVaſquez, tom. 1. part. 3. q. 25. diſp. 108. cap. 14. Nam iconomachi qui ad ſolam recordationem imaginibus utuntur, ante illas genu… a non flectunt nec ſe proſtemunt; ſic enim ipſas not… exteriore adorarent, ſed erecti abſque ullo corporis geſtu, qui reverentiam indicet, …oram imagine exemplaris recordantur, & ipſum spiritu ſolum adorant.Vaſquez; expounding Gregories minde, (which ſuperſtitious man calleth them, ooGregorius Mag. l. 7. Epiſt. 53. if theſe be his Epiſtles.good books) contradict Suarez in this, yea, and himſelf alſo; for he ſaith, The enemies of images (he meaneth the Reformed Churches) who uſe them only for memorials and books, (it is a lye that we uſe them as books,) will not bow their knee to them, for then (ſaith he) they ſhould Adore them; and therefore (ſaith Vaſquez,) if Chriſt be not in very deed, in his preſence in the Sacrament preſent, the knee-worſhip is tendred to bread and wine, which is (ſaith he) Idolatry; therefore either our Formaliſts are Tranſubſtantiators, or Idolaters, or both; p. 177by this learned Ieſuites judgement, and why by this ſame reaſon may we not ſay againſt ppVaſquez ibid. Hee who adoreth a ſaint (ſaith Ioan. d… lugo de myster. inincarnat diſp. 36. ſect. 3. n. 29.) for friendſhip and grace which hee hath arguitivè, by conſequence hee worſhipeth God of whom the man hath grace, yet it is not needfull that he formally adore God, and in recto in ſo doing for he may honour the ſaint and not formally honour God, for the ſaint and God are two divers objects. Anſw. This proveth our point, that when I adore an Image, intending to adore God, ſome …oule-adoration adhereth to the Image, and that is a taſte of Gods proper glory given to a ſtocke, or a ſtone.Vaſquez, that the bodily offerings of prayers, prayſes, and ſacrifices to God, before the Image as the Image, is an honouring of the Image by prayer, they ſay to the tree of the Croſſe.

Auge piis juſtitiam, reis que dona veniam.

Increaſe righteouſneſſe in us, and give remiſſion of ſinnes, O tree croſſe to guilty ſinners. Names at Rome goe as men will, but the honour it ſelfe is put upon the dumbe wood, which is due to Chriſt. O it is but a figure (ſay they) yea but (ſay we) prayers and praiſes in a bodily manner, and vocally are tendred to the wood, yet if the wife commit adultery with her husbands brother, becauſe he repreſenteth her husband, I thinke the matter ſhould be waſhen with Inke, and badly excuſed to ſay, O the loving wife for ſtrong love to her husband committeth figurative adultery, and that bodily harlotry is referred to the brother of her husband by accident, and to her husband kindly, and per ſe, for himſelfe. The ſame way, if Formaliſts bow their knee to bread, that ſuch a holy myſtery be not prophaned. We know they cannot underſtand civill or countrey non-prophanation, that they intend; for kneeling and evill maners at the Lords table doe well conſiſt together. Now religious nonprophanation by knee-worſhip, is adoring of theſe myſterious elements. Ergo they make prayers and ſing praiſes, and offer ſacrifices to the bread, Let them ſee to this and anſwer to it if they can. The ſixt evaſion of wit, I find in qqIoan. de lugo. de myſt. incar. diſp. 36. ſect. 3. n. 25, 26, 27. & ſeq. Reſpectus imaginis est quaſi materialis & inanimatus, quia ſic ap…rimus caput imagini, ut per illam actionem nihil velimus imagini dicere aut ſignificare, ſed ſoli exemplari, ad quod dirigitur ille actus pro ut ſignificativus & prout civilis communicatio; & ideo reſpectu illius ſolum videtur eſſe actio animata. De Lugo ibid. Hoc enim eſſet ſtultum mendacium, quia abſoluté loquend… meliores ſumus nos quam Imago ſancti Petri. And conforme to this the ſeventh pretended and baſtard Councell calleth them halfe holy, and halfe true, halfe falſe worſhipers of God, Antonius Capellus citeth it, Adverſ. prim. regis Anglia, c. 30. Who will have Images to ſtand onelyonly for memorialls, but not to be worſhipped.Johannes de Lugo, who ſaith, 1. That the image and ſamplar making one and the ſame object, by aggregation, the inward affection beſides externall knee-worſhip is given to both, but to the Image relatively, and for God or the ſamplar, and not for proper divine excellencie in it, and therefore the Councels (ſaith he) call it not adoration in ſpiritu, but it is tendered to God abſolutely. p. 1782. We give adoration of internall ſubmiſſion to God, or the ſamplar as the debt of poteſtative juſtice, but we doe not ſo worſhip the Image, we have no civill or politick communication with the Image, Concil. ſeventh art. 1. p. 458. Qui vero dicunt ſu… …icere uſum imaginum ad memoriam ſolum, non vero ad ſalutationem …as habentes illud quidem recipientes, hoc vero re…icien…es, ſ…miprobi quadantenus, & falſo v…ti [ut ita dicam] deprehenduntur.becauſe it is not a reaſonable creature, and therefore the worſhip of the Image is as it were a materiall and liveleſſe action; when we uncover our head to the Image, by that action we would ſay or ſignifie nothing to the Image, but to the ſamplar, or to God onelyonly. 3. The inward ſubmiſſion that we tender to the Image, is not that we ſubmit to it, as to a thing more excellent then we, for that were a fooliſh lye; yet (ſaith he) (that the man might fulfill the cup of the iniquity of his Fathers) we kiſſe not the Image in recto directly tendring honour to it, but to God and the ſamplar before it. 1. Becauſe then I ſhould adore my owne breaſt when I knocke upon it adoring the Euchariſt. 2. Becauſe ſo I bow to the wall before me. 3. If I have no honourable opinion of the Image, I doe not adore it at all. 4. By kneeling to the Image, I have a will of ſubmitting externally my affection to the Image, I yeeld to it▪ as a thing above me, giving to it the higher place 4. The act of adoration is ſimply terminated upon the Image, as a thing contra diſtinguiſhed from the ſamplar, though it be adored with the ſame action with which the ſamplar is adored. Thus the …e…uite.

Anſw. But here all men may ſee many contradictions, and that he caſteth downe all that formerly he hath ſaid, …. Images even asAnſw. they repreſent God are dead things, and leſſe then a redeemed Saint, Ergo, I can give them no ſubmiſſion of externall honour. 2. I ſignifie and ſay nothing of honour to the Image, even as it reſpecteth God, and repreſenteth him, becauſe the dignity of repreſenting God doth not elevate it to be a reaſonable creature, therefore I cannot honour it, and it were a fooliſh lye to ſay that the Image as repreſenting God, were a reaſonable creature. 3. As it repreſenteth God, it cannot heare payers, nor deliver in trouble, as the Holy One of Iſrael can doe; Ergo by the Holy Ghoſts argument, I cannot bow to a lye, Eſa. 44. 17. and 46. 9. Hab. 2. 19. 20. it made not the heaven and the earth, but by a figure, becauſe it repreſenteth the maker of heaven and earth, wherefore it ſhould have but figurative honour at the beſt, and that is no reall honour, Jer. 10. 8, 11, 12, 4. There is no debt of juſtice due to the dumb wood, or element, honour of externall ſubmiſſion is a debt of poteſtative juſtice due to a ſuperiour, the Images and Elements are not my ſuperiour. p. 1791. They be meanes, I the end. 2. They bee void of life and reaſon which I have. 3. They are not redeemed, ſanctified, and to be glorified as I am. Ioan. de Lugo anſwereth, As I may love Peter for the goodneſſe that is not in Peter but in another, as I may love and deſire good to Peter, for the goodneſſe that is in his father, and not in himſelf, and ſo pay the debt of affection to him for another, ſo I may honour an Image for the debt of honour that I owe to the ſamplar repreſented by the Image, therefore it is not required to the eſſence of adoration, that we acknowledge debt due to every thing adored for another; it is ſufficient a debt be acknowledged, either to the Image, or the ſamplar. Anſw. The debt of love and the debt of honour are not alike. I owe honour to ſuperiours onelyonly as ſuperiours, I owe love to ſuperiours, equals, inferiours. If I truly adore an Image, I truly acknowledge excellency in the Image, I truly yeeld to it, a worthier place then I deſerve to have my ſelfe, (ſaith rrDe Lugo ibid. 39. imagi…s vere cedo exterius, daudo illi meliorē & ſuperiorem lo…um honorifice eam tracta… do.de Lugo) Ergo, by the fifth Commandement according to the debt of juſtice, I owe feare, honour, and reverence to it, elſe I adore it by a figure, which the Ieſuite doth deny.

I am not afraid that they ſay, Damaſcen, ssOrat. 5. d… imagin.a ſuperſtitious Monke alloweth Images to be adored. So doeth tt7. Synod act. 4.that pretended ſeventh Synod, or (u) the ſecond Nicene Synod, and xxIuo 4. part. ſui decret. c. 38.Stephanus and Adrianus, as we may read in Juo. yyNicephorus hiſt. lib. 2. c. 17.Nicephorus ſpeaketh many fables for Images, he ſheweth us that Luke the Evangeliſt ſhould have painted the Images of Chriſt and the Virgin Mary. zzNicephorus hiſt. li. 2. c. 43. lib. 6. c. …6.And that aaLib. 7. c. 33.holy Silveſter had the Images of Peter and Paul, and ſhewed them to the Emperour Conſtantine, and bbCaniſius lib. 5. De Beata virgine, c. 22. Divers Fables touching Images.Caniſius a fabulous man ſaith, there appeared to Silveſter at the dedication feaſt of Saint Salvators church the picture of Chriſt in the Wall, but the originall of Images ſeemeth to be the vanity of man, ſaith ccS…p. 14.the Wiſeman. 2. The keeping of the dead in memory, ſaith ddDe idolo vanit.Cyprian, ad defunctorum vultus per imaginem detinendos expreſſa ſunt ſimulachra, inde poſteris facta ſunt ſacra quae primitus aſſumpta fuerunt ſolatia, in aliis codicibus ad ſolatia. 3. The blinde heathen wanting the light of Scripture, began to worſhip Images. eeEuſeb. lib. 7. c. 8.Euſebius ſaith it began firſt foreign, from the Heatheniſh cuſtome it came that Peter and Pauls Images were firſt made. Men did it ſaith ffAuguſt. contra Adamant c. 13.Auguſtine, ut Paganorum concilient benevolentiam, to conciliate the favour of Pagans, it may bee ſeene out of Gregorius

p. 180ggGregor. mag. Epiſt, ad Serenum Maſsilien ſem lib. 7. Ep. 109.Magnus, ſaith hhVoetius in deſper. cauſ. papat. lib. 3. c. 6. ſect. 2.Voetius, that the worſhiping of Images crept in but the ſixt age. In the firſt three hundred yeeres, Images were not admitted (ſaith our Country-man iiSympſon 6. Century of the worſhipping of Images, p. 38.Patrick Sympſon) into the place of worſhip, in the fourth, fifth and ſixt Centurie, they were admitted into temples, but for the moſt part without opinion of adoration. In the ſecond Nicene Councell, an obſcure age, (ſaith kkPet. Molin…us Buckler of Faith of Images, Sect. 118. pag. 308.Petrus Molinaeus) when the ſcriptures were taken away, it is ordained that Images ſhould be adored, but not the Images of the Father. Quoniamquis ſit non novimus, dei que natura ſpectanda proponi non poteſt ac pingi. But onelyonly the Image of the Son. This Councell was Anno 787. as ſaith llBellarm de ſcrip. in Chron.Bellarmine. But this wicked Fathers argument proves alſo that the Image of God the Father may be painted, while they prove worſhipping of Images, becauſe the Pſalmiſt ſaith, The Lord aroſe as a mighty man after Wine. But mmGenebrard …hron. an. 794. p. 308.Genebrard ſaith this Councell of Nice, was controuled by a Councell in the Weſt. nnBarronius An. 726. Obſerve that Aeneas Sylvius epiſt. 301. ſaith, ante▪ Nicenam Synodum unusquiſ que ſibi vivebat, quemadmodum ſibi viſum eſt, & paro…s reſpectus ad Romanam eccleſiam …abe…atur, a Metropolitan Biſhop, a ſtep to the Popedome, was firſt created here in Romes Car…bage, Conſtantin…ple, Antiochia.Barronius mentioneth two Epiſtles written by Gregorious 2. a defender of Images, wherein he ſaith, the Sonne may be painted, not the Father. This Councell was approved by Conſtantine, Ireneus, and a Greeke copie of the Synod ſent to ooPontific.Adrian the Pope. But 1. this wicked Synod did not maintaine adoration of Images, ſuch as Suarez, Bellarmine, Vaſquez, Peri…rius, &c. now hold, but onelyonly veneration. 2. Images were placed in the Churches, ſaith ppPaulus diaconus lib. 13.Paul. Diaconus, multis contra dicentibus, many ſpeaking againſt i…. And qqBergomenſis lib. 10.Bergomenſ. ſaith, the Emperour Conſtantine himſelfe not long after did abrogate the Acts of this Synod, and rrSynod Franckford.the Synod of Franckford condemned this Synod. See ssAventinus lib. 4.Aventinus; ttHincmarus cap. 20. contra Iandu…nſ…m.Hincmarus ſaith it is true they of Franckford allowed Images to be in Churches, but not to be adored. wwVrſpergenſ. in Hiſtor.Vrſpergenſis ſaith that this ſynod did write a book againſt the ſecond Councell of Nice, called otherwiſe the ſeventh generall Councell. A booke came out▪ in France, and after in Germany under the name of Charles the Great, condemning by ſtrong reaſons the adoration of Images, and anſwereth all the arguments of the Nicene Fathers on the contrary, Tannerus the Ieſuite ſaith this was a forged Booke. But againſt famous p. 181and learned Authors ſaying the contrary, and ſo xxHincmarin. Archiepiſcopus Remorum c. 10. cont. Hincmarin. …andunenſem Epiſcop.Hincmarius and yyEccius in E…chirid.Ectius make mention of this book, and Pope Adrianus (as zzHoſpin. d… orig. imag. p 197.Hoſpinianus doth well obſerve) doth approve of this Synod of Francford by his Letters written to the Emperour of Constantinople, and the Patriarch Tharaſius.

The firſt five hundred years (ſaith aaCalvin. juſtit. lib. 1. cap. 11. Sect. 13.Calvin) images were not worſhipped. Caj…s Caligula a proud Tyrant, commanded the Iews to ſet up his image in the Temple: the Iews anſwered they ſhould rather die then pollute the Temple of God with images, as …aith bbIoſephus antiq lib. 18. cap. 11.Ioſephus and ccEuſe…. biſtor. lib. 2. cap. 6.Euſebius, and this fell out while the Apoſtles lived.

Ann. 108. Plunius 2. writeth to Trajanus under the third Perſecution, That Chriſtians were men of good converſation, and deteſted vices, worſhipped Christ, and would not worſhip Images ddEpiſt. Plinii. 2 ad Imporat Trajan., as that Letter beareth: and eeEuſeb. Hiſtor. lib. 3. cap. 33.Euſebius, reporteth Adrian had a purpoſe, (as ſaith ffBucol…. in Alexand. ſevero.Bucol.) to build a Church for the honour of Chriſt void of Images. See ggSymſon 1. Century cap. 1.Symſon that ancient Writer: hhJuſtin. Martyr. in Dialog. cum. Trypho. & apolog. 2.Juſtine Martyr in this Age; Omnes imagines ad cultum propoſit as ſimpliciter damnant Chriſtiani. iiTertullian. apo. cap. 30.Tertullian, a moſt ancient writer, who lived under Severus in time of the fifth Perſecution, as kkMagdeburgenſ. cent. 3. cap. 10.the Magdeburgenſes teſtifie; ſaith, Nos adoramus oculis ad caelum ſublatis, non adimagines ſeu picturas, and, indignum ut imago Dei vivi imagini idoli, & mortu: fiat ſimilis, (ſaith llApol. 1. 9. 11.he alſo) and not only thinketh it unlawfull to repreſent God by an Image, but alſo ſaith, that Craftſmen, who profeſſe themſelves Chriſtians, ought no… to make Images of God. An ancient Writer mmClemens Alexand. in Paraenetico.Clemens Alexandrinus, Non eſt nobis imago ſenſibilis de materiâ ſenſibili, niſi quae precipitur intelligentiâ. Deus enim qui ſolus eſt verè Deas, intelligentiâ precipitur, non ſenſu: We have no ſenſible Image of ſenſible matter, becauſe God is taken up by the underſtanding, not by the ſenſe: and nnin s. Stromat.Nihil in rebus genitis poteſt referre Dei imaginem. This ancient Writer flouriſhed, ſaith ooCatolog. teſtium veritat. lib. 2. pag. 87.Catolog. Teſtium veritat. Anno 150. or as ppHospinian. d… origine imag. cap. 10. pag. 155▪Hoſpinian ſaith Ann, 200. and qqIren…us, l. 1. cap. 24.Ireneus, the diſciple p. 182of Polycarpus, an hearer of John the Apoſtle maketh it the Hereſie of the Gnoſticks, that they held that Pilate made the Image of Ieſus: Et quod imagines baberent Chriſti, Apoſtolorum atque Philoſophorum▪ eaſque coronarent, ac colendas propo…erent. aaCyprian cont. de▪metrianum. 1.Cyprian ſaith, Idols, or Images, be not only againſt the Law of God, but againſt the nature of man; bbOrigen. cont. cel. ſum. l. 8.Origen ſaid, The Images of Chriſtians are Chriſtians indeed, with Gods Image: and, Nos veno ideo non honor amus ſimulachrá, quia quantū poſſumus, cavemnus, ne in…idamus in eam crudelitatem, ut et iis tribuamus divinitatis aliquid. ccAthanaſ. adverſ. gentes.Grave Athanaſius ſaith, foreign The invention of Images is from an evil fountain, and not from good, and whatſoever hath a bad beginning, cannot be deemed in any thing good, being altogether bad: The Papiſt Harding bringeth in a counterfeit Dialogue of Athanaſius, betwixt Chriſt and his Church; and Chriſt comforting his Church, becauſe ſhe was perſecuted for worſhipping Chriſts Image; but when and where this perſecution was, none knoweth, for many times hath the Church been perſecured for not worſhipping Images; but ſee the anſwer of the learned ddJewell againſt Harding 14. art. of adora…. pag. 506, 507.Jewell thereunto; eeEpiphanius lib. 3. cont. Collyridianos.Epiphanius, who lived, Anno 370. proveth againſt the[f] Idem ibid. Collyridiams, That Mary nor no creature ſhould be adored. Ʋnde eſt ſimulachrificum hoc ſtudium et diabolious conantus? praetext… enim (g) Lactantius, inſtitut. l. 2. cap. 2. Etenim hominis imago neceſſaria tum videtur, cum procul abeſt, ſupervacua futura cum presto eſt, dei autem cujus spiritus ac numen ubique diffuſum, abeſſe nunquam poteſt, ſemper utique imago ſupervacua eſt. The Arguments of the ancients againſt Images.juſtitiae ſemperſubiens hominum, mentem drabolus, mortalem naturam in hominum oculis deificans, Statuas humanas, imagines pre ſe ferentes per artum, veritatem expreſſit, et mortui quidem ſunt qui adorantur: Item, Revera ſanctum erat corpus Mariae, non tamen Deus, honorata, non in adorationem data. Mary was not God, and therefore is not to be adored: He profeſſeth that he did rive a vail, that had painted in it the Image of Chriſt, or of ſome man▪ Cum ego videſſem in Eccleſia Chriſti▪ contra authoritatem ſcripturarum, hominis pendere imaginem, ſcidi illud, &c.

Lactantius Formianus, Images are to repreſent theſe who are abſent. God is every where preſent, it is vanity therefore to forme an image of God. Alſo hhLactantius lib. 2. cap. 19.There is no Religion, where there is an image: Alſo p. 183iiIb. Cur ad parietes & ſigna, & lapides potiſſimum quam illo ſpectatis, ubi cos eſſe credatis. ib. inſtit. div. l. 2. c. 1.your gods be either in Heaven, or not; if they be not in Heaven, why do ye worſhip them? If they be in Heaven, why do ye not lift your eyes to Heaven while you adore them? Why do you convert your eyes toward walls, ſtocks and ſtones, rather then toward that place where you imagine your gods to be?

kkinſtit. l. 2. c. 2.His Arguments againſt Images be theſe: llIbid.1. They forget reaſon, when they fear the work of their own hands: 2. mmInſtit. l 2. c. 3.God is not abſent, but preſent every where: 3. nnInſtit. l. 2. c. 4.The image is a dead thing void of ſenſe, God is the eternall and everliving God: 4. ooInſtit. l. 2. c. 18.Nothing mortall ſhould be worſhipped. 5. ppIbid.What vanity to hope for protection from theſe things, which cannot defend themſelves … 6. qqInſtit. l. 6. c. 11.The image is leſſe and viler then the worſhipper: 7. rrAmbroſ. officior l. 2. cap. 21.Man according to Gods image, is the image of God. 8. (ſ) God needeth nothing, neither torches becauſe he made the light, nor images. This man lived, Anno 300. Before which time the Church of Chriſt being perſecuted, they had no Churches, nor Images to be ornaments in their Churches, as ſaith (t) Ambroſius, and alſo uuChryſ. l. 2. epiſt. 246.Chryſoſtom, who was diſpleaſed with the fooleries in Temples in his time, and ſaith, They were not like the Templ…s of the Apoſtolick Churches: and xxTertullian apol et c…nt. valent.Tertullian, and yyEuſebius hiſt. ec. l. 9. c 10.Euſebius ſaith, They had then, Simplices domos, Simple houſes, void of paintries and pictures: And the want of Temples was objected againſt Chriſtian Religion, as zzOrigen cont. cleſ. l. 9. c. 4.Origen cleareth in the time of Conſtantine, the ſon of Chlorus, as ſaith, aaSozomen l. 1. c. 8.Sozomen, and bbEuſeb. in vita conſtan. l. ….Euſebius, Temples were builded, but as ccJoan Armitants in explan…io can 5. concilii gangrenJoan. Quintinus expoundeth Tertullian, without the ornaments of images, and ddTertull. lib. de Idol. Plutarch in vitae Numae non dum ingenia Grecorum atque Tuſcorum fingendis ſimulachris urbem inundaverunt, ita Tertullian, Apol. c. 25.Tertullian himſelf maketh building of Altars, and portracts, Idol…tricos cultus, Idolatrous worſhip. In the fourty years ſpace, betwixt the reign of Valerian, and the 19. year of Diccleſian, there were Oratories and Temples builded, but neither painted Pictures, nor Images in them, as ſaith [e] Euſebius: Yea, of thirty Biſhops of Rome, even from Peter and Paul to Sylveſter, and Conſtantine the Emperour; to wit, three hundred years, there were none, who were not perſecuted to blood, or to death, or ſome other way. It is a vain thing to ſay, they had breathing time to build(f) Euſeb. Hiſt. eccleſ. l. 8. c. 1. p. 184Temples, and erect Altars, and golden Images of Chriſt, and the Virgin Mary, and the Saints. It is true, in the two hundreth year after Chriſt, under Alexander Severus, Gordianus, Philippus, Gallienus; Churches were builded, as ffNicephorus l. 7. c. 2.Nicephorus ſaith, but again under Diocleſian they were demoliſhed to the ground, but obſerve well there were no Images of Chriſt broken, which that Tyrant in deſpite of Chriſt, would not have omitted; ſee ggEuſeb. l. 8. c. 2.Euſebius, they were builded again under great Conſtantine, ſo hhSozomen tripart. hiſtor. l. 1. c. 9.Sozomen, iiOtto Phriſingenſis l. 4. c. 3.Otho Phriſingenſis kkNicephorus l. 8. c. 27.and Nicephorus. The dream of Platina, for the building of a Church, by the donation of Conſtantine, with twelve portions of earth, equall to the number of the twelve Apoſtles, and of another Church, with the title of the holy Croſſe at Ieruſalem, which Helena found in that place, and Conſtantine placed in this Church at Rome, is refuted by llHoſpinian d… Orig. Templo cap. 6. pag. 34.Hospinian: yet is there no word of any Images in theſe Churches.

mmArnob. cont. gent. lib. 2.Arnobius An. 330. maintaineth againſt the heathen, that the Chriſtians ought to have no Images: 1. Becauſe the device of images is a novelty, and was not before two thouſand years, but God and Religion are no new things. 2. nnIb. lib. 6. & lib. 7.Becauſe either the Gods dwelleth in their images, againſt their will, or of their own accord; if the former be ſaid, they are compelled, which is abſurd. If the latter, then they do either bide alwayes in their images, and ſo are miſerable, or they go out of the images when they pleaſe, and then the images are empty things.

aaEuſeb. Caeſarienſ. Epiſt. ad Conſtantiam Auguſtam.Euſebius Caeſarienſis who lived, An. 300. when Conſtantia Augusta wrote to him for the Image of Chriſt, anſwered.

That could not be: 1. Becauſe his manhood was joyned with his Godhead, and could not be ſeparated therefrom. 2. Becauſe his Godhead cannot be repreſented, Mortuis, & inanimatis coloribus, with dead and liveleſſe colours. bbHycron. cont. Vigilantium, ad Riparum Presbiter.Hieronimus, who lived, An. 331. under Conſtantine, denyeth that any Creature, Angel, or Virgin Mary ſhould be worſhipped. ccRuffius hiſt. eccl. l. 1. c. 8.Ruffinus faith, Helena the mother of Conſtantine adored crucified Christ, but antiquity ſaith not, that ſhe adored the nails that fixed him to the Croſſe, becauſe they were but creatures.

ddAmbro. in cap. 1. epiſt. ad Rom.Ambroſius, who lived, Anno 370. condemneth Images. 1. Becauſe they change the images of the dead, in the glory of God, who worſhippeth images: 2. The living ſerve the dead. 3. They take from p. 185ſtocks and ſtones what they are, and give to them, what they are not. 4. eeAmbroſ. offices l. 1. c. 26.Idols are unclean. 5. It is undecent ffIbid., to worſhip what men maketh with their hands. 6. Becauſe ggIbid.images are but ſhadows.

hhAug. Epiſt. 49.Auguſtine condemneth Images. 1. Becauſe they infect the vveak mindes of rude people, to worſhip them. 2. They have eyes and ſee not. 3. The creatures are images of God, not ſtocks. 4. Idols iiAug. de doct. Chriſti. lib. 3. c. 7are huskes and empty. 5. Theſe kkDe Civit. dei l. 4. c. 9.who brought in Images, tooke away the feare of God, and increaſed error. 6. Martyrs llDe civi…. dei lib. 22. c. 10.are not gods. 7. Confounded mmAuguſt. in Pſ. 96.Ps 96be they who worſhip ſtones, our living ſtone Chriſt is in heaven.

8. aaAuguſt. in Pſal. 96.Ps 96Though worſhippers of Images ſay, they worſhip God in Images, yet they worſhip devills; for good men, as Paul and Barnabas, Angels, and Cornelius forbade men to worſhip them. 9. It is a ſhame to adore a beaſt endowed with ſenſe and life, farre more to adore a dumbe and liveleſſe creature, Auguſt, pſ. 113. bbChryſoſt. hom. 49. in Math.Chryſoſtome is againſt Images. 1. Becauſe the Law of God forbiddeth them. 2. ccIdem homil. 51. in Math.God muſt be honoured, as he willeth himſelfe. 3. It is ddIdem hom. 33. in Mat.a depreſſing of ſoules to worſhip Images. eeHom. 1. ad pop. an.It commeth from Satan to take Gods glory from him, ffIn 3. c. Iſ.it is mockerie that man ſhould be the creator of God, the Creator of all things.

ggDamaſcen de Imagin. orat. 2.Cyrillus Alexandrin. who lived An. 415. ſaith, We neither beleeve the martyrs to be gods, nor doe we adore them.

hhGregor. lin. 9. ep. 9. Perlatum eſt ad nos, quod inconſider… to zelo ſuccenſus ſanctorum magines ſub bac, quaſi excuſatione, ne adorari debuiſſent, confregeris, & quidem, quia cas adorari, vet…iſſes omnino laudamus, fregiſſe vero reprehendimus.Damaſcen a ſuperſtitious man much for Images acknowledgeth two things. 1. That Images are but foreign unwritten traditions. 2. He ackowledgeth that the brazen Serpent, the Cherubims were made for ſignification, not for imitation or adoration.

(i)Gregorius Magnus, though he be alledged by Papiſts for adoration of Images. Yet in his Epiſtle to Serenus Biſhop of Maſſilia, An. 600. he forbiddeth the adoration of Images, and alloweth onelyonly the Hiſtoricall uſe of them, as is obſerved by kkFran. Whites way to the Church, ch. 9, ſect. 2. p. 114.Fran. White, llHoſpinian de Origen Imag. p. 174.by Hoſpinian and mmCatol. teſt. veritat l. 6. p. 562.Catol. teſtum veritatis, and nnGreg. mag. lib. 9. ep. 9.this man being the firſt who brought Images into the Church hath this Caveat, atque indica (ſaith he to Sirenus) quod non tibi, ipſa viſio hiſtoriae quae, pictura teſte, pandebatur, diſplicueri…: ſed illa adoratio quae picturis p. 186fuerit in competenter exhibita, & ſi quis imagines facere voluerit, minimè prohibe, adorare vero imagines omnibus modis divita, ſed hoc ſolicitè admoneas, ut ex viſione rei geſtae, ardorem conjunctionis percipiant, & in adoratione ſolius Trinitatis proſternantur. It is cleare that this man teacheth an adoration of Images, though he make them onelyonly bookes to the rude. This ſame ooGreg mag. lib. 3. dialo.Gregorius will have the ſigne of the croſſe adored, becauſe when the Devill came to a Iew ſleeping in the night in the Temple of an Idoll, the Iew being afraid, ſigned himſelfe with the Croſſe, and the Divell fled; but when doth Iewes come in any Chriſtian Churches, or Idoll-Temples, who abhorre the name of Chriſt, and ſo hate both the Croſſe and Chriſt, and what can be proved from a fact of Sathan?

In the eighth age, ppBeda l. 2. c. 21. ad peragenda noſtrae ſalutis myſteria nullum penitus officium habere n…ſcuntur.Beda Imaginum cultus & adoratio, the worſhipping and adoring of Images is unlawfull. 1. Becauſe they have no office in the doctrine of the Goſpell. 2. qqBeda l. 1. c. 9. adorare, ſalutare, colare, inhibemur pene in cunctis ſcripturae locis.We are forbidden to adore, ſalute, or worſhip them. 3. The (d) rrIdem. l. 1. c. 21.Church is not taught to ſeeke the Lord by Images, but by faith and good workes. 4. The ſſIdem l. 1. c. 24. Idem l. 6. c. 21.Apoſtolique Church did not worſhip God in Images. 5. Images ttIbid.want, documento antiquitatis, antiquity, example, and the Scripture. 6. We wwCod. l. 8. tit. 12. leg. 20. Theodoſ. Valentinianfruſtrate God of worſhip due to him. 7. Peter uuLib. 2. cap. 2….Paul, Angels forbad to worſhip them, but God only.

We forbid the Church (ſaith the civill Law) to be obſcured with Images. Have the Image of God, (ſaith xxEphrem. ſecunde.Ephrem) in thy heart, non colorum varietate in ligno, not in Images and colours. Who can make (ſaith yyDamaſcen de fid. Orthod. l. 4. c. 17.Damaſcen) a repreſentation of the inviſible God. zzGretſer. lib. 1. de …ru…. c. 44.Gretſerus ſaith, the Iewes would not admit of Enſignes and Trophies of the Romans for fear Images ſhould be hidden under them. So ſaid Joſephus aaIoſeph lib. 18. c. 6.before him. Their own men ſay with us, bbHulcot in lib. ſup. lect. 148. Ioan. Pic. Mirandula concluſ. 3.Hulcot who lived an. 1346. ſaith Latreia, divine worſhip belongeth to God onelyonly, the Image is not God, neither the Croſſe; (ſaith Ioan. Pic. Mirandula, Concl. 3.) nor the Image of Chriſt is to be adored (adoratione Latreia eo modo quo ponit Thomas) with divine worſhip, the guiſe of Thomas Aquinas ccPereſius Ajala de trad. pag. 3. De Imagine que ſcripturam ne que traditionem, ne que communem ſenſum ſanctorum, neque concilium generalis determinationem, ne que etiam rationem adducunt.Pereſius Ajala a Popiſh Biſhop, for adoration of Images, ſaith he, there is neither Scripture, nor Church tradition, nor conſent of Fathers, nor good reaſon to make it good. For ſaith ddGabriel Biel in Can. lec. 49.Gabriel p. 187Biel, The image either conſidered in it ſelf as it is mettall or ſtone, or as it is a holy ſigne, is a ſenſible Creature, to which Latreia, Divine honour ſhould not be given: and the Romiſh ccD…cret. 3. diſt. 3. c. 27. Grego.Decrees ſaith, We commend you that you forbid images of Saints to be Worſhipped: The ddDoway men, Annot. 2 Sam. 5. 8. The blinde and the lame ſhall not enter in the Temple.2 Sam 5:8Doway Doctors ſay, Idols have eyes and cannot ſee, &c. Now if they have Images of God and Chriſt which can ſee, and hear, and ſpeak, we exceedingly deſire to know: eeAlexand. Alenſ. 3. p. q. 30. art. ult.Alexander Allenſis, ffDurand. l. 3. diſt. 9. q. 2.Durandus ſay, That images in themſelves, and properly, are not to be Worſhipped.

ggCaſſand. In Conſultatione ad ferdinandum & maximilianum art. An. 1170.Geo: Caſſander wiſheth, That they had continued (in majorum ſuorum ſententia) in the minde of their forefathers, and that the Superſtition of people in, Worſhipping images had been ſuppreſſed. The Councell convened by hhConcil. Conſtantin… polit. An. 755. of 338. Biſhops. Yea, this ſame ſecond councel of Nice, and the ſeventh Epiſtle to the Synod, condemneth Neſtorius of Idolatry, and condemneth the Arians as Idolaters, who Worſhipped Chriſt whom they believed to be a man onelyonly: And Athanaſius, contr. Arian. Orati. 1. And Nyſſenus in Laud. Baſ. And Nazianzen, Orati. 40. ſay. To Adore a Creature, though in the Name of Chriſt or God, is Idolatry.Conſtantius Capronimus condemneth Worſhipping of Images, or placing them in Churches. 1. Becauſe it is forbidden in the ſecond Commandment. 2. The Picturing of Chriſt is a dividing of the two Natures. 3. It is againſt the Ancients, Epiphanius, Nazianzen, Chryſoſtome, Athanaſius, Amphylocius, Theodorus, Euſebius Pamphili. The Councell of Nice is builded upon lies. Adrian Biſhiop of Rome, writeth to the Councell of Nice, That the Emperour Conſtantine being a Leaper, and labouring to cure his Leproſie by ſhedding of innocent Babes blood; Peter and Paul appeared to him by night, in a Viſion, and bade him go to be Baptized by Sylveſter, and that he, to be cured by Sylvesters Baptizing, builded a Temple with the Images of Peter and Paul. This is as true as the Image of Chriſt ſpake to Tho: Aquinas at Naples, Bene Scripſiſtti de me, Thoma, Why is not all Evangell that Aquinas hath written then? For their own Platina aaPlatina in vita Marci. Papae.ſaith, The ſtory of Conſtantines Leproſie is a fable; and Socrates ſaith, That Conſtantine was ſick when he was 65. years, and he maketh no mention of his leproſie; ſo bbHospin. de orig. perogimatio. pag. 381.Hospinianus ſaith, and our own ccSymſon, Treatiſe of Images, p. 47.Simſon ſaith, That Sylveſter and Marcus his ſucceſſor were both dead before Conſtantine was Baptized: ddGenebrad. in Chron. l. 2. Anno 1794.Genebradus a Papiſt ſaith, p. 188down right, that the Councell of Frankford condemned the ſecond Nicene Councell; But eeBellarm. de Imag. l. 2 c. 14.Bellarmine, ffSuarez in 3. part. Thom. q. 25. art. 3. diſ. 54. Sect. 3.Suarez, ggSanderus l. 2. de Imag. c. 5.Sanderus' hhAlanus Dial 4. c. 18.Alanus, deny that the Doctrine of the ſecond Nicene Councell for Adoring images, is Condemned by the Councell of Frankford; they ſay it is onelyonly expounded, and that the right way of Adoring images is made manifeſt: Yea, ſaith iiNaucl…. in Chron. Vol. 2. gener. 27.Nauclerus, kkSabellicus l. 8. Enead, ad. 8.Sabellicus, and llBlandus decad. 2. l. 1.Blandus: The Councell of Frankford reſerveth due honour to images, and ſaith nothing againſt the Councell of Nice. But this is to deny daylight at Noon-day: For mmAnnonius in Annalib. Francorum. 794. Anno.Annonius is moſt clear in it, and nnAbbot Vspergenſ. in Chron. Anno 793.Abbot Vspergenſ. ooCharles the Great of Images.the Book of Charles the Great ſaith the ſame. The Synod of Frankford was convened An. 794. of purpoſe to condemne the ſecond Synod of Nice, called the ſeventh pretended and falſe Synod: ppAventinus, lib. 4. annal.Aventinus ſaith expreſly, Scita Grecorum (in Synodo Nicena decreta) de imaginibus adorandis in concili… francofurtenſi reſciſſa & abolita ſunt: and aaVſpergenſ. in Chron. Anno 793.Vspergenſis ſaith, in this Synod it was decreed, Ʋt ſeptima & univerſalis Synodus, nec ſeptima nec aliquid diceretur, quaſi ſupervacua ab omnibus abdica tu eſt; and the ſame ſaith bbEginradus in vita Caroli Magni.Eginradus, ccCaſſander in Conſul. ad ferdinand. & Maxmilian imp.Geo… Caſſander: But the very Arguments in the Nicene Councell are ſet down, and diſſolved in the Frankford Councell, as our own Maſter ddSimſon, Treatiſe of Images, pag. 48.Simſon obſerveth: As the Nicene Councell reaſoneth from the Cherubims, and the brazen Serpent. Frankfoord Anſwereth, Theſe were made at Gods Commandment, images not ſo. 2. Yea, ſay they, and with them eeLorinus in Art. 17. ver. 25. Serpentem. Conflari…juſfit non quod adorari vellet, nam poſtea confregit.Lorinus, The Cherubims and brazen Serpent were not made to be Worſhipped; ſee theſe and many other Arguments, ſet down and Anſwered by the Councell of Frankfoord: As alſo ſaith ffCatol. Test. Verit. lib. 8. pag. 882, 883, 884.the Learned Author of Catol. Teſt. Verit. The Arguments uſed by this Councell, proveth that no Adoration is due to Images, as may be hence collected: As alſo out of the book of ggCaroli. lib. 1. cap. 2.Charles againſt the dreames of Taraſius, whoſe entry to the Prieſthood was unlawfull, and was a groſſe Idolater, and againſt the Idolater Pope Adrian; Becauſe 1. There is no holineſſe in images, either as they are figures or colours, or as they are Conſecrated. p. 1892. Becauſe to Adore is to glorifie, hhCarlo. lib. 1. c. 21.but only God is to be glorified. 3. God Commandedus not to love images, but men, and ſent his ſon in the fleſh for men, and not for images; and if iiCaro. lib. 2. cap. 24. Caro. lib. 3. cap. 16.they be not to be believed on, neither are they to be Adored. 4. It cannot be proved that the honour of the image, is the honour of the Samplar: Chriſt ſaid not, What ye do to images, ye do to me, nor he that receiveth images, receiveth me. This Argument proveth, that Veneration is not due to the Images, as to books of the Trinity; becauſe that the Veneration of the Image, is an honouring of God, there muſt be an union betwixt the Images and God or Chriſt, betwixt the Tree and Chriſt. 1. There is no union lawfull, that can be a Warrant of honouring any thing; but an union Warranted of God, betwixt Croſſing in the Air, and Dedication to Chriſts Service, betwixt Surplice and Paſtorall Sanctity; There is no union, nor is there a perſonall union betwixt Chriſt and the Image: Nor 2. an union of parts, as betwixt the ſhoulders and the head. Nor 3. is there a Divine relative union, as betwixt the mean or the end, the Servant or the Lord: for as aaWhite againſt Fiſher, p. 224.John White ſaith well; and bbMatth. 10. 14, 42. 2 Cor. 8. 4. Gal. 4. 14. Act. 10. 34. Pſ. 119. 97. 159. 147. 82. 103. 111. 113. 114. 120. 127. 128. 140. 143. 167. 174.Matt 10:14Matt 10:422 Cor 8:4Gal 4:14Acts 10:34Ps 119:97Ps 119:159Ps 119:147Ps 119:82Ps 119:103Ps 119:111Ps 119:113Ps 119:114Ps 119:120Ps 119:127Ps 119:128Ps 119:140Ps 119:143Ps 119:167Ps 119:174the Scripture proveth, all union betwixt God and the meanes of Worſhip, which are to be reverenced as meanes of Worſhip in relation to God, is by divine inſtitution; now certainly if by divine ordination there had been an union betwixt the Image and God, then had it been lawfull to lay the Image in the heart, to ſay: How love I thy Image? (the painted pictures and wooden portracts of Chriſt, the wood of the Croſſe are my delight) (I hope in the wood) (I have taken images for my heritage, they are ſweeter to me, nor the honey or the honey combe) (hovv pleaſant are the wooden feet of theſe dead and ſenſleſſe Ambaſſadors of Chriſt, who bring to my ſoul news of God, or of my Redeemer Ieſus.)

ccAmbroſ. epiſt. 26.Ambroſe, ddGregor. in reg. l. 5. cap. 1.Gregorius, eeAuguſtine on theſe words, he that receiveth you receiveth me.Auguſtine ffChryſoſ. on theſe ſame wordsChryſoſtom ſaith, The honour of the ſervant redoundeth to the Maſter, when he is a ſervant by appointment of the Maſter, and he that heareth faithfull Paſtors, heareth Chriſt who ſent them: And aaAthanaſ. cont. Arria. orat. 4.Athanaſius, and bbBaſilus de ſpir. ſanct. cap. 18.Baſill, to prove the honouring and adoring of Chriſt, the ſubſtantiall Image of God, to be the honouring of God the Father, ſay; The hearing of the Image, or of the ſervant of the King, is the hearing of the King. But the Image is formally made an Image of God, and the ſaints by mens imagination▪ not by Gods word or his p. 190ordination: Their own ccPereſius Aiala in Trad. 3. de imag.Pereſius ſaith, If the imagination were carried upon the image or ſamplar with one motion, yet it cannot be concluded, that the ſame is to be done in Adoration: And ddAuguſt de …era relig. cap. 55.we are not to worſhip God by our fantaſies, ſaith Auguſtine, nor by our eeIdem epiſt. 85.carnall thoughts. Suarez, Bellarmine, Vaſquez, Gretſerus, buildeth all their Adoration of images, upon the ſaying of Ariſtotle; De memor & remiſcen, cap. 2.

Hence the ffConc. Trident. Seſſ. 25.Fathers of Trent, ggDamaſceu. l. 4. c. 12.dreaming Damaſcene, hhNicephor. in dial. conſtant. de imaginibusdoting Nicephorus; if we believe iiSuarez in 3. part Thom. to. 1. q. 25. art. 3. diſp. 54. Sect. 3.Suarez, make this a principle of their Bible of Idoll worſhip; That God and the Image are one, but we ſee not how they be one, nor can we ſay that God is preſent in the Image as in a place: for if he be preſent in the Image, In loco ut ſic, as in ſuch a place, then he is there as in a conſecrated place, and by promiſe, and ſo they muſt give us the word of God, for Gods preſence in Images; but if God be preſent in Images, as In loco ſimpliciter, non ut in loco ut ſic: As he is in all places, then is he not preſent in images, as in images, but as in all creatures, and then let us ſay Amen, to kkVaſquez in 3. part …om. 1. diſp. …10. cap. 2. God not in the Image as in a place. Vaſquez will have all things to be adored. Joan. de Lugo proveth the ſame by four reaſons.Vaſquez, who ſaith, all things which have a being, A Mouſe and Frog are to be adored, as having reſemblance with God the firſt being: And he ſaith, this is the opinion of aaCajetan. 22. q. …03. art. 3. ad. 4.Cajetanus, and citeth bbLeontius in Dialog. 5. cont. Judaeos. Vt r…fertur in 7. Synod. falſa act. 4.Leontius the dreamer, who was at the Councell of Nice the ſeventh falſe Synod; who ſaith, all Creatures viſible and inviſible are to be adored. And the Popes Profeſſor ccJoan. de Lugo de myſter. incarnat. diſp. 37. Sect. 1. n. 1. 2, 3.Joannes de Lugo proveth by four great reaſons, that all creatures ſhould be adored.

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

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

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

4. Man in a speciall manner is the living image of God. But true it p. 191is, God is to be praiſed for all his creatures; but externall Adoration before them, and laying a part of Gods glory upon them, for that is forbidden by your own, for ddLeo. 1. Serm. 7. De nativita abſtinendum ab ipſa ſpecic offi…ij.Leo the firſt ſaith the contrary, and eeSalmeron in 1 Tim. 2. diſp. 8.1 Tim 2Salmeron ſaith; The body of ffAlex. al…n. 3. p. q. 30. memb. 3. art. 3. ſect. ….Moſes was hidden of old for fear of Idolatry, and the uſe of Images and pictures were by God forbidden to the Iews in the ſecond command, ſaith [f] Alexander Alenſ. ggAlbertus diſt. 9. art. 4.Albertus, hhBonavent. art. 1. q. 2. ad 1. in contrarium.Bonaventura, iiMartuinus de ajala tract. de trad. 3. par.Martinus de Ajala, kkAbulenſ. Deut. 4. q. 4 & 5.Deut 4Abulenſis, who I am ſure have with them in this, Albertus and Bonaventura, that the Images of God, becauſe (ſay they) he is an inviſible Spirit, are forbidden by the Law of nature.

But I return to the Synod of Franckeford: 5. llCarol. lib. 2. cap. 25.Becauſe images are void of ſenſes and reaſon. 6. It cannot be proved by the example of the Apoſtles, mmIbid.Ergo, (ſay I) Images are neither to be teaching books, nor adored creatures: 7. The ancient Fathers nnCarol. l. 4. cap. 27.were ignorant of this worſhip. 8▪ Only the rich aaCarol. l. 4. cap. 27.who are able to ſuſtain Images, ſhould be ſaved, and not the poor. 9. There bbCarol. l. 1. cap. 2….is no profit, but great vanity in adoring Images.

To the Arguments from miracles it is anſwered, ccL. 4. c. 10. l. 3. c. 21.that theſe miracles are lying ſignes: for, Ea miracula, nulla Evangelii lectio tradit. 2. They deny that all things are to be adored, in the which, or by the which ddL. 3. c. 2….God wrought miracles. Gregorius Nyſſenus bowed his knee to the Image of Abraham: What then? the Councell ſaith, theſe books of Nyſſenus are periſhed.

The fable of Agbarus, to whom the Image of Chriſts face painted in a cloath was ſent, was not in the world till the year of God, 700. It is a counterfeit work aſcribed to Athanaſius, in ſtile and phraſe of writing not like to him, where it is ſaid, that it was the image of Chriſt crucified by the Iews in Berythus a Town in Syria, out of whoſe ſide flowed blood and water, which being mixed with water, could cure all diſeaſes; eeSymſon treats of the worſhipping of Images, pag. 50, 51.ſo Symſon.

The Teſtimony ffConcilium Eleherio, cap. 36. Placuit in Eccleſiis picturas, non eſſe debere, ne quod colitur, aut adoratur, in parictibus pingatur.of the Councell of Eliberia is clear, that images ſhould not be in Churches ggCa…us line 5. cap. 4.Canus, hhSurjus 1 Tom. of concell. an in can. 36. cont. Eliber.Surjus and your own men ſay, this Councell condemneth images. For 370. years p. 192there were no Images in Churches; in this age Martyrs were admired, and the Grecians firſt, eſpecially Gregorius Nyſſenus the brother of Baſilus had Images in Churches; iiSozomen l. 5. c. 20.Sozomen ſaith, Chriſtians took into Churches pieces of Chriſts image, broken by Iulian the Apoſtat, in the firſt age, when Religion was born down and holy Paſtors killed.

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

But bbNicephor hiſt. l. 11. cap. 43.Nicephorus ſaith, the creatures of God are the Lawfull Images of God. But it is more then evident, by what I have ſaid, that ancient Papiſts and Synods uſed images to be memorials of God, and not to be adored.