A defence of the discourse concerning the idolatry practised in the Church of Rome in answer to a book entituled, Catholicks no idolators / by Ed. Stillingfleet ... Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699. 1676 Approx. 1352 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 454 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2005-12 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A61535 Wing S5571 ESTC R14728 12336413 ocm 12336413 59802 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A61535) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 59802) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 879:9) A defence of the discourse concerning the idolatry practised in the Church of Rome in answer to a book entituled, Catholicks no idolators / by Ed. Stillingfleet ... Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699. 2 v. ([28], 347, [2]; 349-877 p.) Printed by Robert White for Henry Mortlock ..., London : 1676. Reproduction of original in Huntington Library. Table of contents: p. [25]-[27] Vol. 2 has title: The second part of the answer to T.G., being a defence of the charge of idolatry practised in the Roman church, in the worship of images. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Godden, Thomas, 1624-1688. -- Catholicks no idolaters. Catholic Church -- England -- Controversial literature. Idolatry -- Early works to 1800. 2004-02 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2004-04 SPi Global Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2005-06 Olivia Bottum Sampled and proofread 2005-06 Olivia Bottum Text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-10 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion Imprimatur , G. Iane R. P. D. Henr. Episc. Lond. à sac . domesticis . June 3. 1676. A DEFENCE OF THE DISCOURSE Concerning the IDOLATRY Practised in the CHURCH OF ROME , In ANSWER to a BOOK Entituled , Catholicks no Idolaters . By ED. STILLINGFLEET , D. D. Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majesty . The two First Parts . London , Printed by Robert White for Henry Mortlock at the Sign of the Phoenix in St. Pauls Church-yard , and at the White-Hart in Westminster-Hall . 1676. TO THE RIGHT REVEREND FATHER in GOD HENRY Lord Bishop of LONDON , One of the Lords of His Majesties Most Honourable Privy Council . My Lord , I Have heard that in some famous Prophetick Pictures pretending to represent the Fate of England , the chief thing observable ( in several of them ) was a Mole ; a creature blind and busie , smooth and deceitful , continually working under Ground , but now and then to be discerned by the disturbance it makes in the Surface of the earth : which is so natural a description of a restless party among us that we need no Iudge of Controversies to interpret the meaning of it . Our Forefathers had sufficient Testimony of their working under Ground ; but in our Age they act more visibly , and with that indefatigable industry , that they threaten ( without great care to prevent them ) the undermining of our Church , and the Ruine of our established Religion . Which since they cannot hope so easily to compass alone , they endeavour to draw in to their Assistance , all such discontented parties , who are so weak , ( if any can be so ) to be prevailed on to be instruments to serve them , in pulling down a Church , which can never fall , but they must be stifled in its Ruins . One would think , it were hardly possible , for any to run into a snare , which lies so open to their view ; or to flatter themselves with the vain hopes of escaping better than the Church they design to destroy . But such is the admirable Wisdom of Divine Providence to order things so above all humane Discretion , that when the Sins of a Nation have provoked God to forsake it , he suffers those to concurr in the most pernicious Counsels for enslaving Conscience , who pretend to the greatest zeal for the Liberty of it . So that our Church of England in its present condition , seems to stand as the Church of Corinth did of old , between two unquiet and boisterous Seas ; and there are some very busie in cutting through the Isthmus between them , to let in both at once upon it , supposing that no strength will be able to withstand the force of so terrible an inundation . It is a consideration that might dishearten those who are engaged in the Defence of our Religion against the common Adversaries , to see that they promise themselves as much from the folly of some of their most seeming Enemies , as from the interest and Power of their Friends : thus like S. Paul in Macedonia , we are troubled on every side , without are fightings , and within are fears . If men did but once understand the things which belong to our Peace , we might yet hope to weather out the storms that threaten us , and to live , as the Church hath frequently done , in a tossing condition , with waves beating on every side . But if through Weakness or Wilfulness , those things should be hid from our eyes , the prospect of our future condition is much more dreadful and amazing than the present can be . If it were reasonable to hope , that all men would lay aside prejudice and passion , and have greater regard to the Common Good , than to the interests of their several parties , they could not but see where our main strength lies , by what our enemies are most concerned to destroy ; And that no men of common understanding would make use of disunited Parties to destroy one Great Body , unless they were sure to master them , when they had done with them ; And therefore the best way for their own security were to unite themselves with the Church of England . That were a Blessing too great for such a People to expect , whose sins have made our Breaches so wide , that we have too great reason to fear the common enemy may enter through them ; if there be not some way found out to repair those Breaches , and to build up the places which are broken down . For my own part , I cannot see , how those who could have joyned in Communion with the Christian Church , in the time of Theodosius the Great , can justly refuse to do it in ours . For that is the Age of the Church , which our Church of England since the Reformation , comes the nearest to ; Idolatry being then suppressed by the Imperial Edicts , the Churches settled by Law under the Government of Bishops , Publick Liturgies appointed , Antiquity Reverenced , Schism discountenanced , Learning encouraged , and some few Ceremonies used , but without any of those corrupt mixtures which afterwards prevailed in the Roman Church . And whatever men of ill minds may suggest to the disparagement of those times , it is really an Honour to our Church , to suffer together with that Age , when the Christian Church began to be firmly settled by the Countenance of the Civil Power , and did enjoy its Primitive Purity without the Poverty and Hardships it endured before . And the Bishops of that time were men of that exemplary Piety , of those great Abilities , of that excellent Conduct and Magnanimity , as set them above the contempt or reproach of any but Infidels and Apostates . For then lived the Gregories , the Basils , the Chrysostoms in the Eastern Church ; the Ambroses , and Augustins in the Western ; and they who can suspect these to have been Enemies to the Power of Godliness , did never understand what it meant . It were , no doubt , the most desirable thing in our State and Condition to see the Piety , the Zeal , the Courage , the Wisdom of those holy Bishops revived among us in such an Age which needs the conjunction of all these together . For such is the insolency and number of the open contemners of our Church and Religion , such is the activity of those who oppose it , and the subtilty of those who undermine it , as requires all the Devotion and Abilities of those great Persons to defend it . And I hope that Divine Spirit which inflamed and acted them hath not forsaken that Sacred Order among us : but that it will daily raise up more who shall be able to convince Dissenters , that there may be true and hearty zeal for Religion among our Prelates ; and those of the Church of Rome , that Good Works are most agreeable to the Principles of the Reformation . Nay , even in this Age , as bad as it is , there may be as great Instances produced of real Charity , and of Works of Publick and pious uses , as when men thought to get Souls out of Purgatory , or themselves into Heaven by what they did . And if it were possible exactly to compare all Acts of this nature which have been done ever since the Reformation , with what there was done of the same kind for a much longer time immediately before it , if the Protestant Charity should seem to fall short in outward Pomp and Magnificence , it would be found much more to exceed it , in number , and usefulness . Which makes me so much the more wonder to hear and see , the ill effects of the Reformation in this kind , so much insisted on of late , to disprove the Goodness of it . If some Great men had sinister ends in it , when was there any great Action of that nature , wherein some Persons did not aim at their own advantage by it ? Who can excuse all the Courtiers in the time of Constantine , or all the Actions of that Great Emperour himself ? Must Christianity therefore be thought the worse , because it did prevail in his time , and very much by his means ? And there were some partial Historians in those dayes , that impute the demolishing of Heathen Temples and the suppressing of Idolatry to the Rapine and Sacriledge of the Times . For even those Heathen Temples were richly endowed ; and it is not to be supposed , that when such a Tree was shaking , there would be no scrambling for the Fruit of it . However , we are not concerned to justifie the Actions or Designs of any particular Persons how Great soever : but that which we plead for , is , that the Reformation it self was a just , pious , prudent , and necessary thing ; and had both sufficient Authority to warrant it , and sufficient Reason to justifie it . We read in the Spanish History a remarkable Precedent , which vindicates the proceeding of our Reformation in England . The Gotthick Nation had been infected with Arianism two hundred and thirteen years , when by the means of Leander Bishop of Sevil , the King Reccaredus being duly informed in the Orthodox Faith , called a Council at Toledo , wherein Arianism was renounced by the declaration and subscription of the King himself , being present in Council ; and afterwards by the Bishops who joyned with him , and the Great men ; which being done , the Council proceeded to make new Canons and Constitutions , which the King confirmed by his Edict , declaring , that if any Bishop , Priest , or Deacon refused to observe them , he was sentenced by the Council to excommunication ; if any of the higher rank of the Laity , the penalty was paying half their estates to the Exchequer , if others , confiscation and banishment . All which is extant in the Records of that Council . The Arian Bishops , as Mariana relates , such as Athalocus and Sunna with others , having the old Queen Goswinda and several of the Nobility to joyn with them , made all the disturbance they could , to hinder the Reformation . But , God not only carried it through , but wonderfully preserved the Life of the King , notwithstanding many conspiracies against him ; after whose death , the Arian faction was very busie , and made several Attempts by Treason and Rebellion to be restored again ; and they once thought themselves sure , when they had gotten Wittericus of their party to the Throne , but his short Reign put an end to all their Hopes . I find some of the latter Spanish Historians much troubled to see all done in this Reformation , by the King , and the Bishops , and Great men , without the least mention of the Popes Authority . Lucas Tudensis therefore saith , that Leander was the Popes Legat , but Mariana confesses , that the very Acts of the Council contradict it . He would have it believed , that they sent Legats to the Pope afterwards to have the Council confirmed by him ; but , he acknowledgeth , that nothing appears in History to that purpose : and if any such thing had been , it would not have been omitted in the Epistles of Gregory , who writ to Leander a Letter of congratulation for the conversion of Reccaredus . But then National Churches were supposed to have Power enough to Reform themselves , provided , that they proceeded according to the Decrees of the Four General Councils . And this is that we maintain in behalf of the Church of England , that it receives all the Creeds which were then received , and hath reformed those Abuses only which have crept into the Church since that Time. This , My Lord , is the Cause , which by Command of my Superiours , I was first engaged to defend ; among whom Your Lordships Predecessour ( whose constant Friendship and Kindness I must never forget ) was one of the Chief . Since that time , I have had but little respite from these ( not so pleasing to me , as sometimes necessary ) Polemical Exercises ; and notwithstanding all the Rage and Malice of the Adversaries of our Church against me , I sit down with that contentment , that I have defended a Righteous Cause , and with an honest Mind ; and therefore I little regard their bitterest Censures and Reproaches . In the midst of such a Croud of Adversaries , it was no unpleasant entertainment to me to see the various methods , with which they have attacked me ; some with piteous moans and outcries , others grinning and only shewing their teeth , others ranting and Hectoring , others scolding and reviling ; but I must needs say , the Adversary I now answer , hath shewed more art and cunning than all the rest put together ; and hath said as much in Defence of their Cause , as Wit and Subtilty could invent ( I wish I could speak as freely of his Fair dealing , and Ingenuity . ) Him therefore I reserved to be answered by himself , after I had shaken off the lesser and more barking Creatures . What I have now done , I humbly present to Your Lordships hands ; and I am very glad of this opportunity to declare what satisfaction the Members of Your own Church , and the Clergy of this great City have to see a Person of so Noble Birth , so much Temper and Prudence , so firm an Assertor of the Protestant Religion and Church of England , appointed by his Majesty to have the Conduct and Government of them . That God Almighty would assist and direct Your Lordship in those things which tend to the Peace and Welfare of this Church , is the hearty Prayer of My Lord , Your Lordships most dutiful and obedient Servant , ED. STILLINGFLEET . May 30. 1676. TO THE READER . IT hath been long expected that I should have published an Answer to T. G. as the most considerable Adversary that appeared against me ; but it is very well known , that before his Book came out , I had undertaken the Answer of several others ; which when I had set forth , a Person of Honour , who had been pleased to defend me against one of my keenest Antagonists , was assaulted by him ; whom I was in the first place obliged in gratitude , to ease of any farther trouble . Since that time I have applyed my self to the consideration of T. G.'s Book , as much as health , and other business would permit . And finding such confusion in most Discourses about Idolatry , and that till the Nature of it were fully and clearly Stated , men would still dispute in the dark about these matters , in my last Summers retirement , I set my self to the strict examination of it , by searching with my utmost diligence into the Idolatries practised in all parts of the world , by the help of the best Authors , I could meet with , either ancient or modern ; when I had done this , I compared those observations I had made with the Sense of the Scriptures , and of the Fathers of the several Ages of the Christian Church , who had managed the Charge of Idolatry against Heathens , or Hereticks . From hence I framed the First Part of the following Book , wherein I have not only examined and confuted T. G.'s false notion of it , but endeavoured to settle the True one in its place . Which being dispatched , and the main principles of his whole Book thereby weakned and overthrown ; I betook my self to the particular Defence of the Charge of Idolatry practised in the Roman Church in the Worship of Images ; and I apprehended nothing of greater consequence in this Debate , than to give a true Account of the state of the Controversie between us ; which T. G endeavoured with all his art to blind and confound . After which , I have given a distinct Answer to every thing material or plausible in that part of his Book . Which swelling this Discourse beyond my expectation , I must respite the other part to a farther opportunity ; which I may the better do , because the Remainder of T. G's Book hath already received a sufficient Answer from a learned and worthy Person . THE CONTENTS . PART I. A General Discourse concerning the Nature of Idolatry . CHAP. I. T. G's notion of Idolatry examined and confuted . page 1 CHAP. II. Of the Nature of Divine Worship . p. 184 PART II. Being a particular Defence of the Charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome in the Worship of Images . CHAP. I. The State of the Controversie about the Worship of Images , between Christians and Heathens . p. 349 CHAP. II. The State of the Controversie about Images in the Christian Church . p. 487 CHAP. III. Of the Sense of the second Commandment . p. 670 CHAP. IV. An Answer to T. G 's charge of Contradictions , Paradoxes , Reproach of the second Council of Nice , School disputes ; and to his parallel Instances . p. 784 PART I. A General Discourse concerning the Nature of Idolatry . CHAP. I. T. G's notion of Idolatry examined and confuted . TO make good the Charge of Idolatry against the Roman Church , which is my present business , there are two things necessary to be done , 1. To lay down the right notion of Idolatry . 2. To examine what T. G. and others have said , to justifie themselves , from the particulars of this Charge . I begin with the consideration of the Nature of Idolatry , not only because my Adversary calls me to it in these words , Here the Ax is laid to the root , and if ever the Dr. will speak home to the purpose , it must be upon this point . He must speak to the Nature of the thing , &c. But because the weight of the whole matter in debate depends upon it , and whosoever reads through T. G 's answer to me , will find the only strength of it to lie in a very different notion of Idolatry which he sets up , which if it prove true , the main of my charge must fall to the ground ; although however by his way of writing he can hardly answer the character I had given him , either of a Learned or ingenuous Adversary . The notion of Idolatry which T. G. lays down may be gathered from these assertions of his , That , God being the only supreme and superexcellent Being above all and over all , to him therefore Sovereign honour is only to be given , and to none beside him ; That as no command of God can make that to be not Idolatry which is so in the nature of the thing ; so no prohibition ( if there were any ) could make that to be Idolatry , which hath not in it the true and real nature of Idolatry ; That , the worship of Images forbidden in the Commandment , is the worshipping Images instead of God ; and the reason of the Law was to keep the people in their duty of giving Sovereign worship to God alone , by restraining them from Idolatry . That this Law was made particularly to forbid Sovereign worship to be given ( as he saith , it was at that time given by the Heathen ) to graven Images , i. e. representations of imaginary Beings ; or to any similitude , i. e. the likeness of any thing , which although it had a real being , yet was not God : That , the Image-worship condemned by S. Paul , was the worshipping Images for Gods , or as the Images of false Gods : That , evil Spirits or false Gods did reside in their Images by Magical incantation : That , the supreme God of the Heathens was not the true God but a Devil , and that the Poets who call him the Father of Gods and men , were those whom Horace confesseth , that they took the priviledge to dare to feign and say thing . From these assertions , it is no hard matter to form T. G 's notion of Idolatry , viz. That it is , The giving the Soveraign worship of God to a creature , and among the Heathens to the Devil . And now who dares charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry ? I do not wonder that he calls this so foul , so extravagant , so unjust a charge ; and parallels me with no meaner a person than Iulian the Apostate , saying , That surely a more injurious Calumny scarce ever dropt from the pen of the greatest enemy of Christianity , except that of Julian the Apostate . But I am so used to their hard words , that I can easily pass them over , and immediately apply my self to the debate of these things , which will tend very much to the clearing the true notion of Idolatry , 1. Whether Idolatry be not consistent with the acknowledgement of one Supreme Being ? 2. Wherein the Nature of that Divine Worship lies , which being given to a Creature makes it Idolatry ? For if those who acknowledge one Supreme Being , the Creator and Governour of the world , were notwithstanding this , guilty of Idolatry , and that Idolatry be , as T. G. confesseth , the giving the worship due to God to a creature ; then if we can prove , that the Church of Rome doth give any part of that worship which is due to God to any thing besides him , we may still justly charge them with Idolatry , although they believe one Supreme God , and reserve some worship which he calls Sovereign to him . 1. Whether Idolatry be not consistent with the acknowledgement of one Supreme Being , Creator , and Governour of the world ? Whom I suppose T. G. will not deny to be the true God. It is agreed by him , that the whole Heathen world was guilty of Idolatry , without excepting the more intelligent and wiser persons among them ; therefore our only business as to them is to enquire , whether they did acknowledge this Supreme Being ; and it is without dispute , that all Christians do acknowledge the True God ; if I can then prove , that such have notwithstanding been charged with Idolatry , by those whose judgement T. G. dares not refuse , I hope these two things being made out , will be sufficient to prove , that those may be guilty of Idolatry , who acknowledge one Supreme God. As to the Heathens , who are confessed to be Idolaters . I have such plenty and choice of evidence in this matter , that it is not easie to know which to leave out ; for , if either the Testimony of the Heathens themselves may be taken ; or the Testimony of the Writers of the Roman Church concerning them ; or the Testimonie of the Scriptures ; or of those Fathers who disputed against their Idolatry , or of the Roman Church it self , I do not doubt , to make it evident , that those Heathens who are charged with Idolatry , did acknowledge one Supreme God. In so great store I have reason to consider the temper of the person I have to deal with ; For , if I produce the Testimony of the Heathen Writers themselves , it may be he may suspect , that the Devil dwelt in their Books as well as in their Images ; and being a very cunning Sophister that he might perswade their Philosophers to write for one God , that he might have the worship belonging to him : as O. C 's Instruments were for a single Person , that the Government might be put into his hands . But , I have a better reason than this , viz. that this Work is already undertaken , by a very learned Person of our Church . The Testimony of Scripture is plain enough in this matter to any unbyassed mind ; as appears by S. Pauls saying to the men of Athens when he saw the Altar to the unknown God ; Whom ye ignorantly worship , him I declare unto you ; Did S. Paul mean the Devil by this ? Did he in good earnest go abroad to preach the Devil to the world ? yet he preached him whom they ignorantly worshipped , i. e. the Devil , saith T. G. Although S. Paul immediately saith , it was the God that made the World , and all things in it : and afterwards quotes one of their Poets for saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , For we are his offspring ; and it is observable that the words immediately going before in Aratus are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and he useth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 twice more in the verses before , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which is the very word that T.G. saith doth signifie an Arch-Devil . Doth S. Paul then say , we are all the Devils off-spring ? and not an ordinary one neither , but the very Arch-Devils ? Was this his way of perswading the Athenians to leave the worship of Devils , to tell them , that they were all the Devils off-spring ? No : it was far enough from him , for he infers from that saying of Aratus , that they were the offspring of God , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . So that if Saint Paul may be credited rather than T. G. their Iupiter was so far from being the Arch-Devil , that he was the true God , blessed for evermore . And it is observable , that S. Paul quotes one of their Poets for this saying ; notwithstanding T. G 's sharp censure of them out of Horace ; with which , the force of S. Pauls testimony is overthrown . But he was not alone in making this to be the Poets sense , for Aristobulus the Iewish Philosopher produces it to the same purpose , and adds , that although he used the name of Jove , yet his design was to express the true God. Minucius Felix saith wisely in this case , They who make Jove the chief God , are only deceived in the name , but agree in the Power ; so far was he from thinking their Iupiter Father of Gods and men , ( which he applauds the Poets for saying ) to have been the Arch-Devil . But T. G. quotes Origen for saying , that the Christians would undergo any Torments rather than confess Jupiter to be God ; for they did not believe Jupiter and Sabaoth to be the same , neither indeed to be any God at all , but a Devil , who is delighted with the name of Jupiter , an enemy to men and God. I grant , Origen doth say so ; but suppose St. Paul and Origen contradict one another , I desire to know whom we are to follow ? Yet if T. G. had considered Origen as he ought to have done , he would have seen how little had been gained by this saying of his . For when Celsus had said , it was no great matter whether they called the Supreme God Jupiter , or Adonai , or Sabaoth , or Ammon as the Aegyptians did , or Pappai as the Scythians . Origen answers . 1. That he had spoken already upon this subject , which he desires may be remembered ; now in that place he saith , that by reason of the abundance of filthy and obscene fables which went of their Jupiter , the Christians would by no means endure to have the true God called by his name ; having learnt from Plato to be scrupulous about the very names of their Gods. 2. Origen hath a particular conceit about the power of the Hebrew names ; and hath a very odd discourse , unbecoming a Philosopher and a Christian , about the power of words in enchantments , and that the same words had great force in their Originals , which they lost being translated into other Languages ; and if it be thus , saith he , in other names , how much more ought we to think it so in the names of God ? And therefore he would by no means have those powerful names of Adonai and Sabaoth to be changed for any other . By which for all that I can see , Origen would as much have scrupled calling the Divine Being God , as Iove , If Vossius his conjecture be true , that God is the same with the old German Gode , or Godan , and according to the common permutation of those letters , Wodan , who was the chief God among the Germans . 3. He saith , that it was no fault at all for any persons to call the Supreme God by the names used in their own language ; as the Aegyptians might call him Ammon , and the Scythians Pappai : and then why not the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ? and I do not see he finds much fault with them for it ; but he would not have those names brought into the Christian Religion , which had been defiled by such impure stories and representations among the Heathens : which is the best thing that he saith to this purpose : But we see that Origen himself doth not deny that either the Greeks , or Aegyptians , or Scythians did own a Supreme God , or that they had proper names to express him by : but he would not have the Christians bring those names into their Religion ; And that Origen grants that the Heathens did acknowledge the Supreme God , will be proved afterwards . But whatever his opinion was , we are sure S. Paul by the God that was known among the Heathens , did not mean the Devil : For was the believing the Devil to be the Supreme God , that holding the truth in unrighteousness , which S. Paul charges the Heathens with ? Was this indeed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which is known of God , which he saith , not only was manifest in them , but , that God himself had revealed it to them ? Was this that eternal Power and God-head which was to be seen by the things that were made , so as to leave them without excuse ? Was this their knowing of God , and that incorruptible God whose glory they turned into the Image of a corruptible man , & c ? Was all this , nothing but Iupiter of Crete , and the Arch-Devil under his name ? But what will not men say , rather than confess themselves Idolaters ? Although these Testimonies of Scriture , be never so evident ; yet I am not sure but T. G. may be the Polus mentioned in Erasmus now , ( whom he mentions for my sake , more than once ) and may espy a red fiery Dragon , even the old Serpent there , where I can see nothing but the discovery of the True God. Therefore supposing that the Testimony of Heathens or the Scriptures may not weigh much with him , methinks he might have considered what the Learned men of their own Church have said to this purpose . Th. Aquinas confesseth , that the most of the Gentiles did acknowledge one Supreme God , from whom they said all those others whom they called Gods did receive their being ; and that they ascribed the name of Divinity to all immortal substances , chiefly by reason of their wisdom , happiness , and Government . Which custom of speaking , saith he , is likewise found in Scripture , where either the holy Angels , or Men , and Iudges are called Gods ; I have said Ye are Gods , and many other places . Franciscus Ferrariensis in his Commentaries on that place saith , that Aquinas his meaning was , that the Scripture only agreed with the Heathens as to the name , but that they called their Gods properly so , whereas the Scripture speaks of them only by way of participation . And did Aquinas , mean any otherwise of the Heathens , when he saith , that all their inferiour Gods derived their very being from the Supreme ? The same Aquinas , in his Book purposely written against the Gentiles , gives this account of their Principles of Religion ; that some of them held one God the first and universal principle of all things ; but withall all they gave Divine Worship ( Latriam ) next to the Supreme God to intellectual substances of a heavenly nature , which they call Gods , whether they were substances separated from bodies , or the Souls of the heavenly Orbs and Stars : in the next place to intellectual substances united to aerial bodies , which they called Daemons , whom they made Gods in respect of men , and thought they deserved divine worship from men as being Mediatours between the Gods and them ; and in the last place to the Souls of good men , as being raised to a higher state than that of this present life . Others of them suppossing God to be the Soul of the World , did believe , that divine worship was to be given to the whole world , and the several parts of it , not for the sake of the Body but the Soul , which they said was God : as a wise man hath honour given him not for the sake of his Body , but of his mind . Others again asserted , that things below men as Images , might have divine worship given to them , in as much as they did participate of a Superiour nature , either from the influence of heavenly bodies , or the presence of some Spirits , which Images they called Gods , and from thence they were called Idolaters . And so he proves , that they were , who acknowledging one first principle did give divine worship to any other being : because it weakens the notion and esteem we ought to have of the Supreme Being to give divine worship to any other besides him ; as it would lessen the honour of a King , for any other Person to have the same kind of respect shewed to him , which we express to the King : and because this divine worship is due to God on the account of Creation , which is proper only to him , and because he is properly Lord over us and none else besides him : and he is our great and last end ; which are all of them great and weighty reasons , why divine worship should be appropriated to God alone . But , saith he , although this opinion which makes God a separate Being and the first Cause of all intellectual Beings , be true : yet that which makes God the Soul of the World , though it be farther from truth , gives a better account of giving divine worship to created Beings . For then they give that divine worship to God himself : for according to this principle , the several parts of the world in respect of God , are but as the several members of a mans body in respect of his Soul. But the most unreasonable opinion , he saith , is that of animated Images , because those cannot deserve more worship , than either the Spirits that animate them , or the makers of them , which ought not to have divine worship given them ; besides , that by lying Oracles and wicked Counsels , these appear to have been Evil Spirits , and therefore deserve no worship of us . From hence , he saith , it appears , that because divine worship is proper only to God , as the first principle ; and none but an ill disposed rational Being can excite men to the doing such unlawful things , as giving the worship proper to God to any other Being , that men were drawn to Idolatry by the instigation of evil Spirits , which coveted divine honours to themselves : and therefore the Scripture saith , they worshipped Devils and not God. From which remarkable Testimony we may take notice of these things . 1. That he confesseth many of the Gentiles whom he charges with Idolatry ; did believe and worship the Supreme God as Creator and Governour of the world . 2. That divine worship is so proper to the true God , that whosoever gives it to any created being , though in it self of real excellency , and considered as deriving that excellency from God , is yet guilty of Idolatry . 3. That relative Latria being given to a creature , is Idolatry ; for so he makes it to be , in those who supposed God to be the Soul of the world . And I desire T. G. or any other cunning Sophister among them to shew me why a man may not as lawfully worship any part of the world with a relative Latria , supposing God to be the Soul of the world , as any Image , or Crucifix whatsoever ? For if union , contact , or relation , be a sufficient ground for relative Latria in one case , it will be in the other also ; and I cannot but wonder so great a judgement as Aquinas had , should not either have made him justifie the Heathens on this supposition , or condemn the Christians in giving Latria i. e. proper divine worship to the Cross. For there is not any shadow of reason produced by him for the one , which would not held have much more for the other . For , if the honour of the Image is carried to the Prototype ; is not the honour of the members of the Body to the mind that animates them ? If the Image deserve the same worship with the person represented by it ; is not much more any part of the body capable of receiving the honour due to the Person ? as the Popes Toe is of the worship that is given to him . Why should it be more unlawful to worship God , by worshipping Fire or Water or the Earth , or any inferiour creature , supposing God to be the Soul of the World , than it is to shew Reverence to the Pope by kissing his Toe ? which I suppose , can be upon no other reason , but because it is a part of his body , which is animated by the same Soul in all the members of it . 4. That Aquinas doth not therefore say , that the Heathens worshipped Devils , because the Supreme God whom they worshipped was an Arch-Devil , as T. G. saith , but because none but evil Spirits would draw men to give divine worship to any thing but God himself ; and then , that evil Spirits did appear to heighten and encourage this devotion , by acting and speaking in Images . The consequence of which I desire T. G. to consider . And this testimony of Aquinas is the more considerable , not only for his great Authority in the Roman Church ; and because Pius 5. in the approbation of his Works A. D. 1567. very gravely mentions Christs speaking to him from a Crucifix , when he was praying before it , that he had written well concerning him ( it seems the Crucifix was animated too ) ; but because I find this Book so highly applauded by Possevin , and others for the best account of the Christian Religion in opposition to Heathenism . Card. Cajetan in his Commentaries on Aquinas speaking of the Images of God , he distinguishes them into 3. sorts . 1. Some that were to represent the Divinity , which he utterly condemns . 2. Some to set forth the appearances of God mentioned in Scripture . 3. Some by way of Analogy , that by sensible things we may be brought to the veneration of insensible , as the Holy Ghost in the form of an old man holding a globe in his hand , which last way , saith he , comes near to the custom of the Heathens who represented God diversly , as he is the cause of divers effects , as under the form of Minerva by reason of his Wisdom , and the like . Would Cajetan ever have parallel'd the Custome of the Church of Rome , with that of the Heathens , if he had thought they had only pictured the Devil under these representations ? In another place he puts this Question ; how it could be said that all the Gods of the Heathens were Devils , since although they worshipped many Gods , yet withal they worshipped one Supreme God ? To which he answers . 1. That the Devils were the causes of Idolatry , and so they were Devils causally though not essentially . 2. That although those they worshipped were not in themselves Devils , as the heavenly intelligences ; yet they were so as they were the Gods of the Heathens : i. e. as they had divine worship given to them . And the true God himself , he saith , was not worshipped according to what he was , but according to what they conceived of him . But he grants before that they conceived of him , as the Supreme God : which was a right conception of him ; but if he means it was imperfect , is it not so in those who worship him most truly ? Martinus Peresius Ayala a learned Bishop in Spain , treating the Question of the worship of Images ; saith expresly , That S. Augustine condemned all divine worship or Latria to be given to any kind of Images , not , saith he , in regard of their matter , for there was no need to give caution against that , but in regard of their representation , and he calls them Idolaters which give that worship to Images which is due to God ( with T. G 's leave I translate Simulachra Images , for so I am sure Peresius understands it ) Neither saith he , was S. Augustine ignorant , that there were few or none among the Gentiles who thought the matter of their Idols so fashioned to be Gods or God : ( let T. G. mark that ) but on that account he seems to condemn them , that they gave divine honour to their Images , as they represented God : for there were many Idols among them in which there was no Devil who gave answers , but they only represented God as their benefactor : neither did all the things which the Gentiles worshipped signifie a false God. For there was an Altar at Athens to the unknown God. Ioh. Ferus saith , that the intention of the Heathens , was through their Idols to give worship to the true God Now T. G. knows that humane acts d● certainly go whither they are intended ▪ so that according to Ferus , these Heathens did truly worship the true God Athan. Kircher layes it down as a certain principle , that there never was in any Age , any People so rude and barbarous which did not acknowledge and worship one Supreme Deity , the first principle and Governour of all things . But saith he that they might teach the people that the Supreme Being , whom we call God , w●● present in all places , therefore they ma●● abundance of Gods in all places and ov●● all things . So that as Max. Tyrius saith no place was left without a Deity . Petavius not only makes use of the arguments produced by the Heathens to prove one Supreme God , and thinks them considerable : but saith that S. Paul demonstrates ( mark that ) that the Gentile Philosophers attained to the knowledge of God by the works of Creation : and quotes the saying of Max. Tyrius with approbation , that however the several Nations of the world differed from each other in customs and languages and modes of worship , yet they all agreed in this , that there was one God , Lord , and Father of all , and saith , that the Testimony of Orosius is most true , that both the Philosophers and common Heathens did believe one God the authour of all things , and to whom all things are referred : but that under this God they did worship many inferiour and subservient Gods : and he adds that passage of S. Augustin , that the Heathens supposed all their Gods to come at first out of one substance : but I wonder he omitted what is very observable in the same chapter , viz. that Faustus the Manichean holding two first principles , saith , that the Christians joyned with the Heathens in believing but one : and S. Augustin confesseth , that the greatest part of the Heathens did believe the same with the Christians in that point ; but the difference , he saith , lay here , that they worshipped more Gods than one : and therein the Manichees agreed with them , and the Christians only with the Jews : but the Manichees in that were worse than the Heathens , that these worshipped those things for Gods which were , but were not Gods ; but they worshipped those things , which were so far from bein Gods that they were not at all . Faber Faventinus , in his discourse against Atheists , insists upon this as an argument of some weight to prove a Deity , because all mankind had so settled a notion of one first principle in their minds from which all things come , and by which they were governed , and however they differed in other conceptions about this first principle , yet they all agreed in this , that it was immortal , and not only good in it self but the fountain of all good . Which surely was no description of an Arch-Devil . But what need I farther insist on those Authours of his own Church who have yielded this ; when there are several who with approbation have undertaken the proof of this in Books written purposely on this subject : such as Raim . Breganius , Mutius Pansa , Livius Galantes , Paulus Benius Eugubinus , but above all Augustinus Steuchus Eugubinus , who have made it their business to prove , that not only the Being of the Deity , but the unity as a first principle , the Wisdom , Goodness , Power and Providence of God , were acknowledged not meerly by the Philosophers , as Plato and Aristotle and their followers , but by the generality of mankind . But I am afraid these Books may be as hard for him to find as Trigautius was , and it were well , if his Principles were as hard to find too , if they discover no more learning or judgement than this , that the Supreme God of the Heathens was an Arch-Devil . But T. G. saith , that the Father of Gods and men among the Heathens , was according to the Fathers an Arch-Devil . Is it not possible for you to entertain wild and absurd opinions your selves , but upon all occasions you must lay them at the doors of the Fathers ? I have heard of a place where the people were hard put to it to provide God-fathers for their Children ; at last , they resolved to choose two men that were to stand as God-fathers for all the Children that were to be born in the Parish ; just such a use you make of the Fathers , they must Christen all your Brats , and how foolish soever an opinion be , if it comes from you , it must presently pass under the name of the Fathers . But I shall do my endeavour to break this bad custome of yours , and since T. G. thinks me a scarce-revolted Presbyterian , I shall make the right Father stand for his own Children . And because this is very material toward the true understanding the Nature of Idolatry , I shall give a full account of the sense of the Fathers in this point ; and not as T. G. hath done from one single passage of a learned ( but by their own Church thought heretical ) Father , viz. Origen , presently cry out , the Fathers , the Fathers . Which is like a Country Fellow that came to a Gentleman and told him he had found out a brave Covie of Partridges lying in such a Field ; the Gentleman was very much pleased with the news and presently asked him how many there were : what half a score ? No. eight ? No. Six ? No. Four ? No. But how many then are there ? Sir , saith the Country Fellow , it is a Covie of one . I am afraid T. G 's Covie of Fathers will hardly come to one at last . Iustin Martyr is the eldest genuine Father extant who undertook to reprove the Gentiles for their Idolatry , and to defend the Christian worship . In his Paraenesis to the Greeks he takes notice , how hardly the wiser Gentiles thought themselves dealt with , when all the Poetical Fables about their Gods were objected against them ( just as some of the Church of Rome do when we tell them of the Legends of their Saints , which the more ingenuous confess to be made by men , who , took a priviledge of feigning and saying any thing , as well as the Heathen Poets ) ; but they appealed for the principles of their Religion to Plato and Aristotle : both whom he confesses , to have asserted one Supreme God ; although they differed in their opinions about the manner of the formation of things by him . Afterwards he saith , That the first Authour of Polytheism among them , viz. Orpheus , did plainly assert one Supreme God , and the making of all things by him : for which he produces many verses of his : and to the same purpose an excellent testimony of Sophocles , viz. that in truth there is but one God , who made Heaven and Earth and Sea and Winds : but the folly and madness of mankind brought in the Images of Gods , and when they had offered sacrifices and kept solemnities to these , they thought themselves Religious . He farther shews that Pythagoras delivered to his disciples the unity of God , and his being the cause of all things , and the fountain of all good : that Plato being warned by Socrates his death durst not oppose the Gods commonly worshipped , but one may guess by his Writings , that his meaning as to the inferiour Deities was , that they who would have them might , and they who would not might let them alone : but that himself had a right opinion concerning the true God. That , Homer by his golden chain did attribute to the Supreme God a Power over all the rest ; and , that the rest of the Deities were near as far distant from the Supreme as men were : and that the Supreme was he whom Homer calls , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God himself , which signifies , saith Iustin , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the truely existent Deity : and that in Achilles his Shield he makes Vulcan represent the Creation of the world . From these arguments he perswades the Greeks to hearken to the Revelation which the true and Supreme God had made of himself to the world , and to worship him according to his own Will. In his Apologies to the Roman Emperours , Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius , and the Roman Senate and People ( for so Baronius shews , that which is now called the first , was truely the second , and that not only written to the Senate , but to the Emperour too , who at that time was Marcus Aurelius , as Eusebius saith and Photius after him ) he gives this account of the State of the Controversie then so warmly managed about Idolatry : that it was not whether there were one Supreme God or no : or whether he ought to have divine worship given to him : but whether those whom the Gentiles called Gods were so or no ; and whether they or dead men did deserve any divine honour to be given to them ; and lastly , that being supposed , whether this honour ought to be given to Images or no ? For every one of these Iustin speaks distinctly to . As to their Gods , he denies that they deserved any divine worship , because they desired it and were delighted with it ; From whence , as well as from other arguments , he proves , that they could not be true Gods , but evil Daemons : that those who were Christians , did only worship the true God the Father of all vertue and goodness ; and his Son who hath instructed both men and Angels , ( for it is ridiculous to think that in this place Iustin should assert the worship of Angels equal with the Father and Son , and before the Holy Ghost , as some great men of the Church of Rome have done ) and the Prophetick Spirit , in Spirit and truth . In another place he saith , that they had no other crime to object against the Christians , but that they did not worship the same Gods with them ; nor offer up libations and the smoak of sacrifices to dead men ; Nor crown and worship Images ; that they agreed with Menander , who said we ought not to worship the work of mens hands : not because Devils dwelt in them , but because men were the makers of them . And he wondered they could call them Gods , which they knew to be without soul , and dead , and to have no likeness to God : ( it was not then upon the account of their being animated by evil Spirits , that the Christians rejected this worship , for then these reasons would not have held ) All the resemblance they had , was to those evil Spirits that had appeared among men ; for that was Iustins opinion of the beginning of Idolatry , that God had committed the Government of all things under the heavens to particular Angels , but these Angels prevaricating by the love of Women , did upon them beget Daemons , that these Daemons were the great corrupters of mankind ; and partly by frightful apparitions , and by instructing men in Idolatrous rites did by degrees draw men to give them divine worship , the people not imagining them to be evil Spirits , and so were called by such names as they liked best themselves , as Neptune , Pluto , &c. But the true God had no certain name given to him , for saith he , Father , and God , and Creator , and Lord , and Master , are not names , but titles arising from his works , and good deeds : and God , is not a name , but a notion engrafted in humane nature of an unexpressible Being . But , that God alone , is to be worshipped , appears by this , which is the great command given to Christians . Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve , with all thy heart and with all thy strength , even the Lord God that made thee . Where we see , the force of the argument used by Iustin in behalf of the Christians , lay in Gods peremptory prohibition of giving divine worship to any thing but himself ; and that founded upon Gods right of dominion over us by vertue of creation . In his Book of the Divine Monarchy , he shews , that although the Heathens did make great use of the Poets to justifie their Polytheism , yet they did give clear testimony of one Supreme Deity , who was the Maker and Governour of all things ; for which end he produces the sayings of Aeschylus , Sophocles , Orpheus , Pythagoras , Philemon , Menander , and Euripides ; all very considerable to this purpose . In his works there is extant the resolution of several Questions by a Greek Philosopher , and the Christians reply , in which nothing can be more evident , than that it was agreed on both sides that there was one Supreme God infinitely good , powerful and wise . Nay the Greek Philosopher looks upon the ignorance of God as a thing impossible , because all men naturally agree in the knowledge of God. But there are plain evidences in that Book that it is of later date than Iustins time ; therefore instead of insisting any more on that , I shall give a farther proof , that in his time it could be no part of the dispute between the Christians and Heathens , whether there were one Supreme God , that ought to be worshipped by men ; and that shall be from that very Emperour to whom Eusebius saith , Iustin Martyr did make his second Apology , viz. M. Aurelius Antoninus . It is particularly observed of him , by the Roman Historians , that he had a great zeal for preserving the Old Roman Religion : and Iul. Capitolinus saith , that he was so skilful in all the practices of it , that he needed not , as it was common , for one to prompt him , because he could say the prayers by heart ; and he was so confident of the protection of the Gods , that he bids Faustina not punish those who had conspired against him , for the Gods would defend him : his zeal being pleasing to them ; and therefore Baronius doth not wonder that Iustin and other Christians suffered Martyrdom under him . But in the Books which are left of his writing we may easily discover , that he firmly believed an eternal Wisdom and Providence which managed the World ; and , that the Gods , whose veneration he commends , were looked on by him as the subservient Ministers of the Divine Wisdom . Reverence the Gods , saith he ; but withal , he saith , honour that which is most excellent in the world , that which disposeth and Governs all : which sometimes he calls the all-commanding reason , sometimes , the Mind and Soul of the World , which he expresly saith is but one . And in one place he saith , that there is but one World , and one God , and one substance , and one Law , and one common reason of intelligent beings , and one Truth . But the great objection against such Testimonies of Antoninus and others lies in this , that these only shew the particular opinions of some few men of Philosophical minds ; but they do not reach to the publick and established Religion among them , which seemed to make no difference between the Supreme God and other Deities ; from whence it follows , that they did not give to him any such worship a● belonged to him . Which being the most considerable objection against the design of this present discourse , I shall here endeavour to remove it , before I produce any farther testimonies of the Fathers For which we must consider , wherei● the Romans did suppose the solemn and outward acts of their Religion to consist , viz. in the worship appropriated 〈◊〉 their Temples , or in occasional prayers and vows , or in some parts of divination , whereby they supposed God did make known his mind to them : If I can therefore prove , that the Romans did in an extraordinary manner make use of all these acts of Religious worship to the Supreme God , it will then necessarily follow , that the controversie between the Fathers and them about Idolatry , could not be about the worship of one Supreme God , but about giving Religious worship to any else besides him . The Worship performed in their Temples , was the most solemn and frequent among them ; in so much that Tully saith , therein the people of Rome exceeded all Nations in the world ; but the most solemn part of that Worship was that which was performed in the Capitol at Rome , and in the Temple of Iupiter Latialis in Alba ; and both these , I shall prove were dedicated to the Supreme God. The first Capitol was built at Rome by Numa Pompilius , and called by Varro the old Capitol , which stood at a good distance from the place where the foundations of the great Temple were laid by Tarquinius Priscus , the one being about the Cirque of Flora , the other upon the Tarpeian Mountain . There is so little left of the memory of the former , that for the design of it , we are to judge by the general intention of Numa as to the worship of the Deity : of which Plutarch gives this account ; That he forbad the Romans making any Image of God , either like to men or beast ; because the First Being is invisible , and incorruptible , and can only be apprehended by our minds . From hence , saith he , it was that the Romans , although they built Temples and holy places , yet for 160. years had no graven or painted Image of God ; accounting it a prophane thing to represent the more excellent by what was below it ; and because we cannot come near to God any other way than by our understanding . I do not deny , that Numa did allow the worship of inferiour Deities , as of Iuno , Minerva , and of Deified men , as of Quirinus , as Dionysius Halicarnassaeus saith ; but since it is plain from hence that he acknowledged a First , invisible , incomprehensible Being , since he deduced the reason of Divine worship from considerations proper to him , since he appointed a Flamen Dialis as the chief of all the rest , as Livy tells us , and erected a Capitol to Iove , it is incredible that he should design it for any other than the Supreme Deity . What force was there in Numa 's reason against Images , if the First , and invisible Being were not worshipped by him ? to what end were reasons framed against a thing never intended ? and which would not hold against the worship of Deified men , unless the worship of them were supposed to be carried at last to the Supreme God ? But not only Plutarch attested this , but Varro saith that for 170. years the Romans worshipped their Gods without Images : i. e. till the New Capitol were erected : which was vowed by Tarquinius Priscus in the Sabine War ; but he was only able to prepare the place and lay the Foundations ; Servius Tullius carried it on , Tarquinius Superbus was at vast charge upon it , designing , saith Livy , a Temple of such a capacity as might become the King of Gods and men ; which was the common phrase whereby Ennius , Plautus and Virgil did set forth the Supreme Deity . This magnificent Temple which , according to Dionysius , stood upon 800. foot of ground , was not finished till after the expulsion of Tarquin , and was then dedicated with great solemnity by Horatius Pulvillus being both Consul and Pontifex . And from that time this was accounted the great seat of God and Religion among them ; it was sede● Iovis , in Livy ; Iovis Summi arx , in Ovid ; terrestre domicilium Iovis , in Cicero ; Sedes Iovis Opt. Max. in Tacitus ; which are all as plain Testimonies that this Temple was designed for the Supreme God among them , as can be desired ; bu● if any thing more can be added , it is only what Pliny saith in his Panegyrick that God was as present there as he w●● in the heavens . To this Temple th● greatest resort was made especially by the Magistrates on all solemn occasions hither the Consuls came and made thei● vows and offered sacrifices before the● went into their Provinces , on the ver● day they entred upon their Office , sait● Livy , for it was one of the charges again Flaminius , that he went away witho●● doing it ; hither those that triumphe●● came and offered up their Laurels an● laid them in the lap of Iupiter O. M. here the great Souldiers consecrated the●● Arms , and hung up the Spoils of the Enemies , by which means it came to incredible riches ; Here , the great Scip●● was observed to be very often conversant in the night in cella Iovis ; an● Alexander Severus never missed attending the service of the Capitol , if he were in the City , every seventh day , as Lampridius saith in his Life ; by which we see in what extraordinary esteem the service of Iupiter O. M. in the Capitol was among the greatest persons in Rome : from whence , Lactantius saith , it was summum caput Religionum suarum publicarum ; the very top of their Religion ; and Isidore thinks it was called Capitolium , because it was Romanae urbus & Religionis caput summum ; so that it was not only the worship of the Supreme , but a higher degree of worship than was used at any other Temple in Rome . If any worship can be supposed more solemn than this , it was that of Iupiter Latialis upon the Mountain of Alba , whither the Roman Coss. went upon the Feriae Latinae , and there met the Ambassadours sent on purpose from the whole Society of the Latins ; where they all joyned together in a common sacrifice to the same Iove , as Dionysius , Strabo , and Livy relate . I con foresee but 2. Objections against this evidence for the worship of the Supreme God among the Romans . 1. That Jupiter was not worshipped alone in the Capitol , but Juno and Minerva too . 2. That this Jupiter was not the Supreme God , but Jupiter of Crete . To these I answer . 1. I confess that Iuno and Minerva had their Images in the Capitol ; but we are to consider that it was a rule in their Pontifical Law , that a Temple could be consecrated only to one God ; and therefore M. Marcellus could not dedicate the same Temple to Honour and Vertue , because the Pontifices , saith Livy , told him , unum Templum , duobus numinibus non rectè dedicari . But there might be Images or little cells , of other Gods besides ; as T. G. knows , in a Church dedicated to God or the B. Virgin , there may be Chappels to Saints , which do not hinder the main design of the worship being to God : and so it was in this ( and many other things among the old Romans ; ) as Diana and the Muses were in the Temple of Apollo ; and the Graces of Phidias in the Temple of Iupiter Olympius ; but Livy particularly saith , as to this Temple of the Capitol , that they cleared the ground as much as they could of all worships besides , ut area esset tota Jovis , that it might wholly belong to Iove . The only question then is , whether by this Jove they meant the Supreme God , or Jupiter of Crete ? For which we are to observe , 1. That the Poetical Fables were rejected at Rome . 2. That the character given of Jupiter by the Romans can belong only to the Supreme God. That the Poetical Fables were rejected at Rome . I do not mean only that they were rejected by their Wisemen as Varro , Seneca , and others , but by their most ancient Laws about Religion . Marlianus mentions a Table of the Laws of Romulus preserved in the Capitol , among which this is one , DEORUM FABULAS NE CREDUNTO . And that this was no invention of his own , appears by what Dionysius Halicarnassaeus at large discourseth on this subject : where he shews , that although the customes and rites of Religion instituted by Romulus were agreeable to the best among the Greeks ; yet he utterly rejected all their Fables concerning their Gods ( which are indeed so many blasphemies and reproaches of them ) as wicked , unprofitable and indecent , and not becoming good men , much less those which were worshipped for Gods : And that he disposed the minds of men to speak and think things worthy of that blessed nature they supposed them to have . And he particularly instances in the Fables of Saturn and Iupiter , and the Mysteries of Ceres and Bacchus , and the madnesses and wickedness of the Greeks in celebrating their Religious mysteries ; but , he saith , all things that concerned Religion were said and done among the Romans , with greater gravity than among the Greeks or Barbarians . By this he would not have any think him ignorant , that some of the Greek Fables might be useful to some persons , either for natural or moral Philosophy or other purposes ; but upon the whole matter he did much more approve the Roman Theology , because the benefit of those Fables was very little to any , and those very few ; but the common people who are not versed in Philosophy , are apt to take these things in the worst sense , either from thence to learn to contemn their Gods , or to follow their examples . I do not undertake to defend all the Roman Theology , nor can it be said that the Romans did in all things maintain that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or decency of worship which Dionysius magnifies them for , as appears by the many indecencies which the Fathers charge the practice of their Religion with ; but as they were not to be excused in other things , so we ought not to charge them with more than they were guilty of ; I mean when all the Poetical Fables of Iupiter are applyed to Iupiter O. M. that was worshipped in the Capitol at Rome . But some Writers are to be excused , who having been bred up in the Schools of Rhetoricians , and practising that art so long before , when they came to be Christians , they could not easily forbear giving a cast of their former employment . As when Arnobius had been proving the natural notion of one Supreme God in the minds of men , he brings in the Romans answering , that if this were intended against them , it was a meer calumny , for they believed him and called him Jupiter O. M. and built a most magnificent Temple to him in the Capitol ; which he endeavours to disprove because God is eternal , and their Jupiter was born and had a Father and Mother and Uncles and Aunts , as other mortals have . Which indeed was an infallible argument , that Iupiter of Crete could not be the Supreme God ; but for all that , might not the Romans call the Supreme God by the name of Iupiter O. M ? The Question is not , whether they did wisely to make use of a name so corrupted and abused by abominable Fables ; but whether under this name they meant the Supreme Being or no ? and they thought it a sufficient distinction of him from that infamous Iupiter of the Poets , that they called him Optimus Maximus : which Lactantius confesseth , were the titles the Romans alwaies gave him in their prayers ; Quid horum omnium Pater Iupiter , qui in solenni precatione Opt. Max. nominatur ? Which not only shews the titles they gave him , but the supplications they made to him , and the believing him to be the Father of Gods and Men : and yet after this , Lactantius rips up all the extravagancies of the Poets ; as though the Romans at the same time believed him to have done all those things , and to have been the Supreme Governour of the world , as he confesses they did . Regnare in coelo Iovem vulgus existimat , id & doctis pariter & indoctis per suasum est ; quod & Religio ipsa & precationes , & hymni & delubra & simulacra demonstrant ; Which words are a very plain testimony , that they not only believed him to be Governour of the world , but that they did intend to give solemn worship to him by prayers and hymns and sacrifices . But when he immediately adds , that they confess the same Jupiter to have been born of Saturn and Rhea ; he might have done well to have explained himself a little more , for not long after he acknowledges , that many did reject the Poets in these matters , as guilty not only of lying but of sacriledge ; and besides these , the Philosophers he saith , did make two Ioves , the one natural , the other fabulous , i. e. in truth , they made but one , rejecting the other as a figment of the Poets . But he saith , they were to blame in calling him Iove ; and what then ? this is only a dispute about the name , whereas the question is , whom they understood by that name ; and some think it was the most proper name they could have used , Iove being only a little varied from the name the Supreme God was called by in the Scripture . And Lactantius himself confesses , they had the knowledge of the Supreme God among them , and what other name had they to call him by ? especially when they joyned those two attributes of Power and Goodness , as sufficient to prevent any mistake of him . That the character given of this Iupiter O. M. by the Romans can belong only to the Supreme God , S. Augustin confesses , that they believed him , whom they worshipped in the Capitol , to be the King of the Gods as well as men ; and to represent this , they placed a Scepter in his hand , and built his Temple upon a high hill ; and that it is he of whom Virgil saith , Iovis omnia plena ; and the same in Varro 's opinion that was worshipped by some without any Image , by whom he means the Iews , saith S. Augustin . Luc. Balbus in Cicero saith , by Iove they understood Dominatorem rerum & omnia nutu regentem , & praesentem ac praepotentem Deum : which are a full description of Gods infinite power and presence and Government of the world . When we call Iupiter Opt. Max. and Salutaris , and Hospitalis and Stator , we mean , saith Tully , that the safety of men depends upon his protection . And that they gave him the titles of Opt. Max. to express his Power and Goodness ; but first Opt. then Max. because it is a greater thing to do good , than to exercise power . You may safely , saith Seneca , call God by the titles of Jupiter Opt. Max. and Tonans and Stator , not from stopping the Roman army , but because all things do stand by him . And you may give him what names you please , while you thereby express his divine power and efficacy , as Liber Parens because he is the Authour of all things , Hercules because of his irresistible force , Mercury for his Wisdom . If you had received a kindness from Seneca , and you should say you owed it to Annaeus , or Lucius , you would not change the person but his name : for what name soever you call him by , he is the same person still ; you may use what name you please , while you mean the same thing . And lest we should think this only a Philosophical subtilty in Seneca , he tells us elsewhere , that their Ancestors were not such Fools to imagine that Jove , as they worshipped him in the Capitol and elsewhere , did send forth thunderbolts from his hand , ( as his Image was there placed sitting in a chair of State with sometimes a Scepter , sometimes a Globe in one hand , and a Thunderbolt in the other ) but by Jove they meant the same that we do , the preserver and Governour of the Universe , the Soul and Spirit , and Lord and Maker of the world : which is as full a testimony as can be wished for , to our purpose . The title of Iupiter Omnipotens is so frequent in Virgil , that it is needless to cite any places for it ; and he was particularly observed by the ancient Criticks , to be so nice and exact in all matters that concerned their Religion , as if he had been Pontifex Max. as Macrobius observes : He is called in the known verses of Valerius Soranus produced by Varro Iupiter omnipotens Regum Rex ipse , Deusque Progenitor , genitrixque Deum , Deus unus & omnis . And this man was accounted the most learned among the Romans before Varro ; on which account his testimony is the more considerable . But besides the Poets , we find others attributing omnipotency to their Iove ; Tacitus disputing what God Serapis was , says , some called him Iove , ut rerum omnium potentem ; whereby it appears that they looked on omnipotency as proper to him : So in the speech of young Manlius in Livy to Geminius , when he asked him , when the Roman Army would come out , he said , very speedily , and Iupiter would come with them , as witness of their Falseness , Iupiter qui plus potest polletque : which signifies no less than an Almighty power . When the miraculous victory was obtained by M. Antoninus over the Marcomanni by the prayers of the Christians ( as Tertullian and Apollinaris say upon good grounds , although the Heathen historians attribute it to the vertue of Antoninus , or to some Magicians with him ) the whole Army made this exclamation , saith Tertullian , Deo Deorum & qui solus Potens , whereby they did , saith he , in Iovis nomine Deo nostro testimonium reddere : by which it is evident they intended this honour to their own Iove ; for in the whole Army only the Legio Fulminatrix are supposed to have been Christians ; and besides this upon Antoninus his Column at Rome , Baronius tells us there is still to be seen the Effigies of Iupiter Pluvius ; destroying men and horses with thunder and lightning . Dio Chrysostome who lived in Trajans time , saith that by Jupiter whom the Poets call the Father of Gods and men , was meant the first and greatest God , the Supreme Governour of the world , and King over all rational Beings ; and that the world is Jupiters house , or rather his City , being under his care and government ; and that in their prayers to him they called him Father : which shews not only their esteem of him , but the particular worship they gave to him as Supreme God. Besides the worship of him in the Temple , they made solemn addresses , and prayers , and vows to him on special occasions . Livy mentions Romulus his prayer to Iove with his Arms lifted up to Heaven , when his Army was flying , Iupiter tuis jussus avibus , &c. At ●● Pater Deûm hominumque hinc saltem arc●● hostes ; and then makes a vow to him of building a Temple in that place Statori Iovi : and presently he speaks to his Souldiers , as if he were sure his prayers were heard , Iupiter Opt. Max. resistere atque iterare pugnam jubet : upon which Livy saith , they stopped as if they had heard a voice from heaven . Dionys Halicarnassaeus mentions his prayer he made when the people chose him King 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , to King Iupiter and the other Gods : as Iulius Caesar when M. Antony would have pu● the Diadem on his head , sent it to th● Capitol to the Statue of Iupiter O. M with this saying , solum Iovem Regem Romanorum esse . When Numa Pompilius was to be inaugurated , the Augur made this prayer in Livy , Iupiter Pater , si est fas hunc Numam , &c. When some were applauding the felicity of P. Camillus upon the taking of Veii , Plutarch saith , he made this appeal to heaven , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . O mighty Jove , and ye Gods that behold the good and evil actions of men , &c. When Manlius Torquatus found Annius , after his insolent speech against the Romans in the Senate , lying dead at the foot of the steps of the Temple of Iupiter Capitolinus ; he cryed out , Est coeleste Numen , Es Magne Iupiter ; haud frustrate Patrem Deum hominumque hac sede sacravimus . There is a God in heaven , Thou art O mighty Jove . It is not in vain that we have consecrated this Temple to thee the Father of Gods and Men. Plautus affords us many instances of prayers to the Supreme God ; so Hanno the Carthaginian in his Poenulus , Magne Iupiter restitue certas mihi ex incertis opes : and the Punick Nurse cryes out at the sight of him , Proh Supreme Iupiter ! and more fully Hanno in the following Scene , Iupiter qui genus colis alisque hominum , per quem vivimus , Vitale aevum : quem penès spes , vitaeque sunt hominum omnium : Da diem hunc sospitem quaeso rebus meis agundis . And in his Capteivi , Iupiter Supreme servas me . and again , Serva Iupiter Supreme & me & meum gnatum mihi . It was a custome among the Romans , as Turnebus observes , to lift up their eyes to heaven , and by way of amplification to cry ille Iupiter . So Plautus in Amphitryo , Quod ille faciat Iupiter ; and in his Mostellaria , Ita ille faxit Iupiter : in his Curculio , nec me ille sirit Iupiter Virgil likewise hath many prayers to the Supreme God with the acknowledgement of his Almighty Power ; as in the prayer of Anchises , Iupiter omnipotens , precibus si flecteris ullis , Aspice nos , hoc tantum : & si pietate meremur , Da deinde auxilium Pater , atque haec omina firma . And in the prayer of Aeneas , Iupiter omnipotens , si nondum exosus ad ununo Trojanos , si quid pietas antiqua labores Respicit humanos , da flammam evadere classi Nunc Pater , & tenues Teucrûm res eripe letho . So in the prayer of Ascanius , Constitit ante Iovem , supplex per vota precatus ; Iupiter omnipotens audacibus annue coeptis . In the prayer of Venus , O Pater , ô hominum Divúmque aeterna Potestas , ( Namque aliud quid sit quod jam implorare queamus ? ) Which is after explained in these words Tum Pater omnipotens rerum cui summa Potestas Infit . And in the prayer of Turnus , Omnipotens genitor tantón me crimin● dignum Duxisti ? But besides Virgil ( who was so Critical in the rites of Religion that he would never have brought in such prayers as these , if they had not been agreeable to the Roman customs ) we have the like instances in others , as in Silius It●licus , — Nosco te summe Deorum , Adsis ô firmesque tuae Pater alitiomen . And in Persius , Magne Pater Divûm , saevos punire Tyrannos Haud aliâ ratione velis — But this was not only the custom of their Poets , whom T. G. may imagine to have been as extravagant in their prayers as in their Fables ( although the Theatre and Poets have seldom erred on the right side in Religion ) , yet it will appear to have been the practice of their Oratours upon solemn occasions to make a particular address to Iupiter O. M. especially in the beginning ; as not only appears by Pliny 's Panegyrick , but by the Testimony of Valerius Maximus , Nam si prisci oratores à Iove Opt. Max. bene orsi sunt ; and Cicero quotes it as the old formula of beginning their Orations , Iovem ego Opt. Max. which himself practises in his Oration pro Rabirio ; but in other places reserves it for an extraordinary occasion . Quo circa te Capitoline Iupiter , quem propter beneficia P. R. Optimum , propter vim Maximum nominavit ; and at the conclusion of his Orations against Verres , Nunc Te Iupiter Optime Maxime , &c. but most emphatically pro Milone , Tuque ex tuo edito monte Latiari Sancte Iupiter , &c. ( where the Feriae Latinae were kept . ) And a little before , where he speaks of those that seemed to question a divine Power , he breaks out into those admirable words . Est , est profecto illa vis , &c. And to confute Servius his observation , that they only invocated Jove in their exordiums , because they attributed the beginnings of things to him , we see they made their solemn addresses to Iove likewise in the conclusion ; Well : Paterculus concludes his Book , Iupiter Capitoline & auctor & stator Romani nominus ; and Pliny both in the beginning and end , To praecipuè Capitoline Iupiter precor , as he speaks at the conclusion of his Panegyrick . But this was not only practised by Orators , but by their Commanders in the Field , as appears by that prayer of Vocula in Tacitus when he was in a great streight . Te Iupiter Opt. Max quem per octingentos viginti annos , to triumphis coluimus , &c. Thus we see that solemn addresses were made to the Supreme God , by all sorts of person upon great ocasions : but this was no● the only way whereby they testified there devotion to him . For they erected Altars to him , as in that inscription which Manutius transcribed from the Marble . HANC . TIBI . ARAM. JUPPITER . OPT. MAX. DICO . DEDICO QUE . UTI . SIS . VOLENS . PROPITIUS . MIHI . COLLEGISQUE MEIS . &c. As King Antiochus in Cicero dedicated his rich Candlestick made with admirable workmanship of Gold and Jewels in these words , Dare , donare , dicare , consecrare Iovi Opt. Max. testemque ipsum Iovem suae voluntatis ac Religionis adhibere . In the old Roman inscriptions we find several vows made to Iupiter O. M. for the safety of the Emperours , as in these : I. O. M. PRO. SALUTE . IMP. &c. Sometimes they made vows for the return of the Emperours , as in those of the Coss. Cl. Nero , and Quintilius Varus for Augustus : LUDOS . VOTIVOS . PRO. REDITU . IMP. CAESARIS . DIVI . AUGUSTI . PONTIFICIS . MAXIMI . JOVI . OPTIMO . MAXIMO . FECIT . EX S. C. They made these inscriptions to Iupiter O. M. in behalf of their Emperours , because they believed them to be under his particular care , tibi cura Magni Caesaris fatis data , saith Horace . Thence in the inscriptions , JUPPITER . CUSTOS . DOMUS . AUG . And , NUMINI . DEORUM . AUG . JOVI . OPT. MAX. AEDEM . VOTO . SUSCEPTO . Q. LEPIDUS . It were endless to repeat the Inscriptions that were made to him alone ; or to him under his several attributes that were peculiar to him , as DEO . QUI . EST. MAXIMUS . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Or his other titles , as CONSVERATOR , CUSTOS . STATOR . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Or to him , where he is distinguished from the rest of the Gods : as in this , I. O. M. ET . CONSESSUI . DEORUM . DEARUMQUE . PRO. SALUTE . IMPERII . ROMANI . But these are sufficient to my purpose , which was to shew , that the Romans did express their devotion to the Supreme God , in all their solemn Acts of Religion . Of which there is but one part remaining , viz. in the way of enquiring into the mind of God , which they supposed was to be done by Divination . And that they looked on this as a part of Religion , is seen by Tullies dividing their Religion in Sacra , & in Auspicia , & in Monita . Thence there were three chief Colledges of Priests ; the Pontifices , who looked after the rites of sacrificing , the Augures and Aruspices , who were the Judges in Divination . But the Colledge of Augures as appears by many passages in Tully , had a very great esteem and authority in the Common-wealth , so that nothing of moment was done without them : and the younger Pliny calls it sacerdotium priscum , religiosum , sacrum & insigne : but the great reason of this seems to be , that they were sacred to Iove ; thence they are said by Tully , to be interpretes , internuntiique Iovis Opt. Max. and Iovis consiliarii & administri ; and the birds were said to be aves internuntiae Iovis ; and they who refused to hearken to them , nolle moneri à Iove ▪ So that this sort of Priesthood was peculiar among them , to him whom they believed to be the Supreme God. And from hence we may understand the passage in Arrian , where he blames the persons that came to the Augury with so much sollicitude of mind , which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , coming to God to know his pleasure as to particular events ; which they did , saith he , observing the Augury trembling , and crying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Lord have mercy upon me : which is so plain a form of supplication to the Supreme God , that Cardinal Bona brings this as a particular instance of the addresses they made to Him : and as the common Litany of mankind . Thus much I have thought necessary here , to clear not only the acknowledgement but the worship of the Supreme God among the Romans . I now proceed to other testimones of the Fathers in their disputes against the Heathen Idolaters . Athenagoras made an address to the same Emperour M. Aurelius Antoninus in the behalf of the Christians , wherein he doth at large assert the concurrence of the Heathens with the Christians in the belief of one Supreme God ; and proves it from the Testimonies of Euripides , Sophocles , Philolaus , and other Pythagoreans ; and from Plato and Aristotle , and the Stoicks ; concerning whom he adds , that although they seemed to make many Gods , by the several names they gave according to the difference of matter which the divine Spirit did pass through , yet in truth they did assert but one God : nay he saith farther , that the generality of mankind , were agreed in this whether they would or no , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that there was but one God. But then to the question why the Christians did refuse to worship Images ? He gives this considerable answer ; If God and matter were but several names for the same thing , we might be charged with impiety , if we did not believe stone , and wood , and silver and Gold to be Gods ; and consequently give divine worship to them ; but if these are infinitely distant from each other ; as far as the clay is from the Potter which forms and fashions it , why are we charged with impiety for not giving the same honour to the Clay that we do to the infinitely wise Framer of these things ? And if the artificer shews his skill in the vessels he makes , the honour is given to him and not to the vessels ; so it is here , the honour and glory is not to be given to the matter , but to the wise contriver , who is God himself : therefore if we look upon any of the several parts of matter as Gods , we shall thereby discover how little sense we have of the true God , by making things corruptible equal to him that is eternal . But wherein could they make them equal ? not believing them to be equal in Power and Wisdom , for he supposed before , that one Supreme God was allowed on both sides ; it could be therefore no otherwise than by giving divine honour to the creature as well as to the Creator : and that not for their own sakes , for he still supposeth them to be thought the Works of God ; but although it were designed to give honour to the Supreme Architect by falling down before any parts of matter , he thought it as senseless and unreasonable a thing , as for a man to honour an artificer by falling down before his Work. It was not then we see the supposing evil Spirits to dwell in Images , which made the Christians so peremptorily deny divine worship to them ; but because in so doing they should make the creature equal to the Creator . Although , saith he , the beauty , and greatness , and capacity , and figure and order of the world , deserve our admiration ; yet we ought not to worship the world but only the Maker of it . As when any of your Subjects make their addresses to you , would it be well taken for them to pass you by , and turn themselves to your Palaces ? but men are not so foolish as to do so , but they admire the beauty and excellency of them in passing by , and pay their whole respect and service to your selves . If we look upon the World as a Musical instrument , well tuned and harmoniously struck , we ought not therefore to worship the instrument , but him that makes the Musick : and those who are the Iudges at the Musick exercises , do not crown the Vial , but him that plaid upon it . If it be said , that all this proceeds upon the supposition , that the Supreme God is passed by and hath no peculiar honour given to him . I answer , 1. The contrary appears , by what I have already said ; for they did give particular honour to the Supreme Deity as such . 2. It is unreasonable to suppose that those who believe one Supreme God to be the Maker of all things , should in their inward intention wholly pass him by in the worship they give to his creatures . Mr. Thorndike indeed saith , suposing in a man as uncorrupted opinion of the incomparable distance that indeed is found between God and the most excellent of his creatures , it is impossible for him to attribute the honour due to God alone to that which he conceiveth to be a meer creature : Which would be true , if all the honour due to God , did lie only in the inward esteem of our minds ; but as Card. Tolet well observes , although Idolatry do suppose an errour in the mind , yet that errour lies in judging that to deserve divine honour which doth not : which may be consistent with the belief of the Supreme excellency of God. And I do not deny that those who acknowledge one Supreme God , may have their minds so corrupted as to judge it fit to give that divine worship to a Creature which is only due to the Creator ; but I say , it is unreasonable to suppose that as long as they acknowledge them to be creatures , they should not give at least that relative Latria to them , which T. G. saith , is carried to the Creator at last . But of these things afterwards . 3. The reasons which Athenagoras gives do equally hold , supposing the true God not to be wholly passed by : for the creatures are still at as great a distance from the Creator ; which is the main reason he gives against the the worship of them . 4. It is possible to suppose , that those who believe a Supreme excellent Being may yet give him no eternal adoration at all not out of any disrespect to him , but out of the great esteem they have of his excellency ; looking upon him , as far above all our service and adoration . And that this is not a bare supposition of a thing only possible , appears by that testimony of Porphyrius produced by S. Cyril against Iulian ; Let us sacrifice , but a● becomes us , to the God over all , i. e. as a Wise man said , by offering up no sensible thing to him . For every material thing is impure when compared with an immaterial : Therefore the best sacrifice to God is to offer up our Lives to him ( for even our words and thoughts are below him ) which is the most proper Hymn to him , and the most beneficial to ourselves . And the same S. Cyril observes out of Dionysius Halicarnasseus , that a● Numa would allow no Image of God in the Temples , because unsuitable to his nature ; so he would not have any material sacrifices to be offered up to him on the same reason : and some of the Platonists are quoted by him , saying , tha● the Supreme God being incorporeal , stand in need of nothing without him ; but the other Gods , especially those that are visible , ought to be pleased with inanimate sacrifices . Therefore we ought not to conclude , that the Heathens did not believe one Supreme God , if we do not find any peculiar and external sacrifices that were offered to him ; for we see they might forbear them out of the opinion they had of his supereminent excellency . Aquinas supposeth this to have been one of the principles of the Heathens , that only visible sacrifices belonged to other Gods , and internal acts of the mind as being better , to the Supreme God ; And the Supreme and Invisible God's being so far above any need of our service , was the reason given by the Mandarins in China , and the Ynca's of Peru , why they shewed so little outward Reverence towards him whom they believed to be the Supreme God. Were these persons Idolaters for the worship they did not give to the Creator , or for the worship they did give to his Creatures ? and it is plain by Athenagoras the latter was the matter of their dispute : for they did not quarrel with the Christians about the worship of the Supreme God ; but for not worshipping those things they looked on as his Creatures ; and if their fault only had been , that they wholly passed by the Creator , this would have been no reason against the Christians , who might have worshipped the Creator and the creatures together , and consequently have freed themselves from the force of the Laws , which required no more but giving divine worship to the Deities publickly worshipped , without any declaration of their minds concerning them . For they might understand them as they pleased ; as we see the wise men among them did , without any censure or reproach from others . If it were lawful then for Christians to give a relative Latria to any creatures with an intention to honour God thereby , I cannot see how the Christians were excusable in their sufferings ; for all that was required from them was only , to obey their Laws and offer incense to their Gods. Nothing being expressed by the Laws as to the disowning the true God , nor as to declaring in what sense they did intend to worship them ; the Emperour declared , he was for the Laws being observed , and himself in his own writings had expressed his mind as to one God ; what was it then made the Christians refuse obeying the Laws , when so many Philosophers had said , that these Gods were only parts of the Universe , and deserved divine worship because of Gods presence in them ? If they had not thought it Idolatry to give divine worship to any creature , it is very hard to make out their title to Martyrdom . For if we look over the Acts of the Martyrs , we shall find it came to this pinch with them ; will you obey the Laws in offering incense , or will you not ? When Iustin Martyr was summoned before Rusticus the Praefect of the City , after some previous discourses , Let us come , saith he , to the business in hand ; Come you Christians hither and sacrifice with one consent to the Gods ; Iustin answers , No true Christian will forsake his Religion , and return to errors and impiety : and the rest agreeing with him ; the Judge pronounced their sentence , that because they would not sacrifice to the Gods and obey the Emperours Edict , they should be scourged , and have the punishment of death inflicted upon them : which was accordingly executed . When Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria was summoned before Aemilianus , he gives this account himself of the passages between them ; that he told Aemilianus plainly , that he would worship none but the true God , and that he would never depart from this resolution ; the Governour dismisses him for that time ; the next time he lets him know the Emperour had so great a regard to their safety , that if they would but act according to reason , and worship the Gods that preserved the Empire , they might be safe . Dionysius answers , We , saith he , worship the one true God the Maker of all things , who hath bestowed the Empire on Valerianus and Gallienus ; and to him we pray continually for the safety of the Empire . But , saith Aemilianus again , who forbids you , to worship that God you speak of , and the other Gods too ? Dionysius then gave that as his final answer , we worship none else besides him . I might bring multitudes of instances to the same purpose , but I instance in these two , because they were men of eminency for their learning as well as piety . Now I appeal to the conscience of T. G. whether upon the principles of worship which he delivers , these men could have suffered for conscience sake any otherwise than as weak Brethren that wanted good information . For they might have reserved the Sovereign worship due only to God , on the account of his Supreme excellency , and have given only a Relative Latria to those whom they called Gods , but in truth were only Gods creatures and Subjects ; and what harm was there in all this ? O , but , saith T. G. they were called Gods , but in truth were Devils whom they were to worship ; how doth that appear to have been the cause , when they say no such thing , and give no such reason of their refusals ? besides they might make them Gods by giving them absolute Latria , for that is due only to God himself ; but no more was required of them , than to sacrifice to them , and they never debarred them of the freedom of directing their intention to the Supreme God ; and T. G. knows , acts go whither they are intended , and those whom they called Gods , they might understand them only by way of participation , or as some Analogical representations of the true God. O but sacrifice was required of them , and that is the worship peculiar to God : but how comes sacrifice alone to belong to God ? and what sacrifice ? burning of Incense : and that T. G. knows , is allowed to be done to creatures with a respect to God , by the Rules of their Church . So that for all that I can see , if relative Latria may be allowed to creatures , the Primitive Christians were not so wise , as they might have been ; and the Modern doctrines of worship in the Roman Church , would have saved the lives of thousands of the Primitive Martyrs , and not only of the common sort but of the best , and wisest of them ; Who sacrificed their lives on this principle , that , Divine worship ( and not meerly Sovereign worship ) is to be given to none , but to the Supreme God. But if that pass for good Divinity , that they who believe one Supreme God , cannot possibly give the honour due to him to any creature : I do not see why the Christians needed to have been so afraid of giving divine worship to any thing besides God , for upon this principle they were afraid of impossibilities : For as long as they preserved in their minds a just esteem of the incomparable excellency of God above his creatures , they were uncapable of any real Idolatry . But I think it is hard to pitch upon a principle more repugnant to the sense of the Primitive Church than this is ; as I hope to make it clear before I have done with this argument . Athenagoras proceeds to dispute against the worshipping any of the parts of the Universe , how beautiful or useful soever they be ; for why should we seek that from matter which it self hath not , and can do nothing but in obedience to a higher Cause ? And let the things be never so beautiful , yet they retain the nature of matter still ; for Plato confesses that the heavens and the Frame of the world are corporeal , and therefore subject to mutability . But , saith he , if I refuse to worship the Heavens and Elements as Gods whose workmanship I so much admire , because I know them to be corruptible ; how can I be perswaded to do it to those things , which I know to be made by men ? and thence shews not only the novelty of the Poetical Gods , but of the art of framing Images ; which was so late , he saith , that they were able yet to name the first makers of them . But , Because it was pleaded by some among them , that all the worship they gave to their Images was only a relative worship , and that they looked on them only as representations of their Deities ; therefore he begs leave of the Emperours , to search into the Nature of their Poetick Theology , which he derives from Orpheus , as the rest do ; and overthrows the worship of the Poetical Gods upon this principle , because they were not eternal , and were confessed to be at first made out of matter ; and why should we worship them which are material , and generated , and lyable to all sorts of passions , according to the Poets description of them ? But , it may be , this was nothing but Poetical figments , and they ought all to be understood of the natures of things , as Empedocles explains them , why then , saith he , should we attribute the same honour to matter which is subject to corruption and mutation , as to the eternal , unbegotten , and immutable God ? Jupiter according to the Stoicks was the most active and fiery principle of matter , Juno the air , Neptune the water ; but they all agreed that by their Deities were understood the several parts of the Universe , although with different manners of explication . Now , saith he , against the Stoicks I thus argue , ( and here Athenagoras knew , that the Emperour M. Aurelius would think himself particularly concerned ) If you own one Supreme God , eternal and unbegotten , and all other things to be made up of matter , and the Spirit of God to receive different names as it passes through the various changes of matter ; then these several kinds of matter will make up one body , whereof God is the soul , and consequently upon the general conflagration , ( which the Stoicks acknowledged ) all the several names of matter will be lost by the corruptions of the kinds , and nothing will be then left but the Divine Spirit ; why should we therefore look on those as gods , that are lyable to such a change ? And so he proceeds to argue against the other hypotheses , as the Egyptians and others , whereby all their Deities were reduced to the principles of nature too , from the same principle , viz. that because these things were made and corruptible , they were not capable of receiving divine honour from us . By all which we see , that the fundamental principle which Athenagoras went upon in this elaborate discourse of his to one of the Wisest Emperours Rome ever had , was this , that nothing but the eternal God ought to receive Divine Worship from men ; whether they called it Soveraign or Relative , or what name soever they gave it ; nay , although they did acknowledge one supreme God , yet if they gave divine worship to his Creatures , as the Stoicks did , the Christians thought it so unlawful , that they would rather die than comply with them in it . And here I appeal again to T. G 's conscience ( for since he hath shewed me the way , I hope I may follow him in it ) whether he think so Wise and Vertuous an Emperour as Antoninus was , would not have preserved the Christians from suffering persecution , ( as they did very smartly in his days ) if they would have declared themselves to have understood the principles of the Roman Religion , after the Emperours own way , viz. by believing one Supreme God ; and worshipping the several parts of the Universe under the names of those Deities , that were commonly received : and they might have directed this worship as they had thought fit , and have disowned all the ridiculous and prophane stories of their Poetical Gods , as the Stoicks did ; and what principle then could hinder the Christians from complying with the Laws but this , that they accounted it Idolatry to give divine worship to any created Being ? From Athenagoras I proceed to Clemens Alexandrinus , who understood the principles of the Heathen Theology as well as any ; and exposes all their Poetical Fables and Greek Mysteries with as much advantage as any Christian Writer , in his Admonition to the Greeks . After he hath sufficiently derided the Poetical Theology and the Vulgar Idolatry , he comes to the Philosophers who did he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , make an Idol of matter , ( the Images whereof were not surely the representation of a thing not existent , as a Centaur , or Sphinx , and yet called an Idol ) and after reckoning up Thales , Anaximenes , Parmenides , Hippasus , Heraclitus and Empedocles , he calls them all Atheists , because with a foolish kind of Wisdom they did worship Matter ; and scorning to worship Wood and Stones did Deifie the Mother of them . And so runs out , after his way , into a discourse about the several Nations that despised Images and worshipped the several parts of the Universe and the symbols of them , as the Scythians , Sarmatians , Persians and Macedonians , who , he saith , were the Philosophers Masters in the worship of these inferiour Elements which were made to be serviceable to men . Then he reckons up other Philosophers that worshipped the Stars , as animated beings ; others , the Planets and the World , and the Stoicks who said , God passed through the meanest parts of matter : yet after all this , he confesseth , that there is a certain divine influence distilled upon all men , especially on those who apply themselves to learning ; by vertue of which they are forced to acknowledge one God , incorruptible and unbegotten ; who is the only true Being , and abides for ever above the highest Heavens , from whence he beholds all the things that are done in Heaven and Earth : who , according to Euripides sees all things without being visible himself . And for the proof of this , he brings the Testimonies of Plato , Antisthenes and Xenophon , who all acknowledge Gods incomparable excellency , as well as unity ; and then adds the Testimonies of Cleanthes , and the Pythagoreans ; and not contented with the Philosophers he heaps the testimonies of the Poets to the same purpose , as Aratus , Hesiod , Orpheus , Sophocles , Menander , Homer and Euripides , In the fifth Book of his Miscellanies ( for so his Stromata truely are ) he falls upon this subject again ; and then saith to the same purpose , that there is a natural knowledge of one omnipotent God , among all considering men : he grants , the Stoicks opinion about God to be agreeable to the Scriptures ; and shews , that Thales confessed Gods eternity and omnisciency ; that Epicharmus attributed omnipotency to him ; and Homer the creation of the world , which he described in the shield of Achilles ; and then makes this observation ( as though it were purposely intended for T. G. ) he that is called both in Verse and Prose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Iupiter , carries our apprehension to God , ( not to the Arch Devil as T. G. saith ) and therefore he is said to be all things , and to know all things , and to give and take away all things , and to be King over all : that Pindar the Baeotian being a Pythagorean , said , there was one maker of all things whom he called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Wise Artificer , and then he repeats several of the Testimonies which he had produced before ; to which he adds that of Xenophanes Colophonius proving God to be one and incorporeal ; and of Cleanthes , reproving the opinion of the vulgar about the Deity ; and of Euphorion , and Aeschilus about Iupiter , which for T. G 's better information I shall set down , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Iupiter is aether and Earth and Heaven and all things , and if there be any thing above all , Jupiter is it ; and Clemens is so far from thinking this an improper speech , that he saith it was spoken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . with a great deal of decency and gravity concerning God. By this it appears , that they who boast so much of the Fathers , are not over conversant with them : but Father Bellarmine , or Father Coccius , serves them , for a whole Iury of them . But I commend T. G. for his modesty , for when he had said , this was the sense of the Fathers , he produces no more but good Father Origen ; and he is so kind hearted to him , that though I believe he hath heard how he hath been condemned for a Heretick , yet he with great judgement supposes , that what he said was the common sense of the Fathers . But besides this , Clemens quotes a saying of Heraclitus approved by Plato , wherein the only Wise Being is called by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or Iove . And to shew that one Supreme Being was received among the Greeks , he cites farther an express testimony of Timaeus Locrus , wherein he saith , there is one unbegotten principle of all things ; for if it were begotten it were no first principle , but that out of which it were begotten would be that principle : which Clemens parallels with that saying of Scripture , Hear , O Israel , the Lord thy God is one God , and him only shalt thou serve . I omit the testimonies of Authors cited before , but to them he adds Diphilus the Comaedian , who was a little younger than Menander , and lived in the time of the first Ptolemy ; who speaks plainly concerning the omniscience , providence and justice of God in the verses cited out of him ; and calls God the Lord of all , whose very name is dreadful : and whose words afterwards are so full of Emphasis , that I cannot forbear setting them down ; ( although I beg pardon for mixing so much of a foreign language in an English discourse ) he bids those men look to it , who presume upon Gods patience because he doth not at present punish them . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Look to it , you that think there is no God. There is , there is ; if any man do ill , Let him think time is gain ; For certainly , Suffer he shall for what he hath done amiss . But withal he quotes a saying of Xenocrates Chalcedonius , wherein he calls God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Supreme Iove , and another of Archilochus Parius a very ancient Poet , ( in the 23 Olympiad saith S. Cyril of Alexandria ) wherein he begins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O Iove , thy Power is in Heaven , and thou seest all that is done there , whether good or evil ; and Menander saith , that God is in all things good : and Aeschylus celebrates the mighty power of God to this purpose . Think not that God is like to what thou seest ; Thou knowest him not , for he is like to that which cannot be touched or seen . He makes the mountains tremble , and the Sea to rage , when his commanding eye doth on them look , For the great God can do what he thinks fit : But Diphilus saith yet farther , Honour him alone that is the Father of all good things . From all which Clemens concludes , that the East and West , the North and South have one and the same anticipation concerning the Government of one Supreme Disposer of things ; because the knowledge of his most common operations have equally reached to all ; but especially to the inquisitive Philosophers of Greece , who have attributed a wise Providence to the invisible , and only , and most powerful , and most skilful contriver of all things . Although these things might be sufficient to convince a modest man , that the Gentiles who were charged with Idolatry by the Primitive Fathers , did agree in the acknowledgement of one Supreme Deity , and were so thought to do , by those who managed that charge against them ; yet I shall proceed from Clemens to Origen his disciple : and see if the state of the Controversie were altered in his time . The dispute between Celsus and him did not at all depend on this , whether there were one Supreme God or no , or whether Soveraign worship did belong to him ; for Celsus freely acknowledged both these . I know Origen several times charges him with being an Epicurean , but whatever his private opinion was , he owns none of the Epicurean principles about Religion in his Book against the Christians , wherein he declares himself to be both for God and Providence . He calls God the universael Reason , he acknowledges him to be the maker of all immortal beings , and that all things are from him , and saith , that God is common to all , good , and standing in need of nothing , and without envy : nay he calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the great God : and saith , that men ought to undergo any torments rather than to think or speak any thing unworthy of him , that he is at no time to be forsaken by us , neither night nor day , in publick or private , in our thoughts or actions ; but our soul ought always to be intent upon him . Thus far Celsus seems a good Christian ; what is the matter then between Origen and him , that they could not agree about Divine Worship , since Celsus doth acknowledge the supreme excellency of God , and consequently that Soveraign Worship is only due to him ? Why , the dispute lay in this point , Celsus contended with great vehemency , that since God made use of inferiour spirits to govern the World , that those ought to have divine honours given to them , according to the customs of their several Countries ; that this tended more to the honour of the supreme Deity : for that devotion , saith he , is more perfect which passeth through all to him ; that it was not to be conceived that God should envy the honour of his own Ministers ; but we ought rather to suppose that the Great God is better pleased with it . So that all that Celsus pleaded for , was either an inferiour service of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or at the utmost but a Relative Latria , a divine worship which was to fall after an inferiour manner upon the lower Gods , but to be finally terminated upon the supreme . To this Origen answers two ways . 1. By shewing that these inferiour Deities were not good Angels , but Daemons , i. e. evil Spirits ; which he proves many ways , but chiefly by this , that they seemed so covetous of divine worship from men . 2. By insisting on this as the fundamental principle of worship in the Christian Religion , that divine worship is to be given only to God himself ; and to his Son Christ Iesus . This he inculcates upon all occasions ; this he lays down in the beginning of his Book , that God alone is to be worshipped , all other things whether they have beings or have not , are to be passed by , and although some of them may deserve honour , yet none of them do worship or adoration : and elsewhere , that only the Maker of all things ought to be worshipped , admired and adored by us , that neither the work of mens hands , nor those assumed to the honour of Gods can be decently worshipped by us , either without the Supreme God , ●r together with him : where the Latine Interpreter hath apparently shuffled , rendring that place only thus , nihilque praeter eum aut pari honore cum eo ; as though all that Origen condemned were only giving equal divine worship to other things besides God. Whereas Celsus never pleaded for that , but that men should give 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , i. e. in the very terms of the Council of Trent , due veneration : To which Origen answers , we desire only to be followers of Christ who hath said , Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God , and him only shalt thou serve . It is true , saith he , several Nations have avoided the worship of Images , some for one reason and some for another ; but the Christians and Iews do it because of that Law , Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve , and several places to the same purpose , so that we ought rather to die than to defile our selves with these impieties . And they who did forbear Images , did worship the Sun or Gods Creatures which we are forbidden to do . This he so frequently insists upon throughout his Books , that it would be to no purpose to bring all the places ; these being sufficient to shew that the state of the Controversie abou● Idolatry , did not depend upon their giving soveraign worship to any thing besides God , but any divine worship although they did acknowledge the Supreme God. As Origen himself doth very often declare , that the Heathens did . S. Paul , he saith , spake truly of some of the Wise-men of Greece , that they knew God , and that God was manifested to them ; and elsewhere , we testifie truly concerning them that they knew God ; but their fault was , that after their grave disputations they worshipped Idols and Daemons as the rest did . We cannot but assent , saith he , to what Plato hath said concerning the chief Good ; for God hath manifested this to them and whatever else they have said well : but therefore they deserved punishment , because when they had a right apprehension of God , they did not give him the worship which was worthy of him : and he quotes a little after Plato 's epistle to Hermias and Coriscus , wherein he appeals to God as the Lord of all things : and several other passages , wherein his Government , and Power , and Iustice , and Excellency are truly set forth : and after several other passages of Plato and Celsus about the ways of knowing God , which he allows , he concludes with this , that God is so great a lover of mankind that he made known his Truth and the knowledge of himself not only to his own people , but to those who were strangers to the sincere worship and service of him . Judge now Reader , whether Origen himself , T. G. 's single witness , doth make the Supreme God of the Heathens an Arch-Devil ; and what reason he had upon so slender a Testimony to cry out , The Fathers , the Fathers ? But I have not yet done with him ; for if we come down lower into the times of the Christian Church when this controversie of Idolatry was again revived in the days of Iulian the Apostate , we shall find the very same acknowledgements made by the most learned and judicious Fathers of the Christian Church S. Cyril of Alexandria who undertook to answer the three Books of Iulian agains● Christianity , saith , that the Greeks di● speak admirable things concerning God and that they did exceed themselves in those discourses ; and that they could not have attained to such a knowledge of God without some particular manifestation of himself unto them . And afterwards h● produces the Testimonies of Orpheus , and Homer , and Sophocles concerning him Thales , he saith , made God the Soul of the World ; Democritus , an active mind within a sphere of fire ; Aristotle , a separate form resting upon the sphere of the World ; the Stoicks , an active fire passing through the parts of the world . Of these things , he saith , Plutarch and Porphyrius speak , but above all he commends what Pythagoras and Plato and Hermes have said of God : with several of the Testimonies before mentioned ; some of which are repeated by Theodoret to the same purpose . But these things will be made more clear by considering the state of the Controversie between Iulian and S. Cyrill about Idolatry . Iulian confesseth , that there is a natural knowledge of God in the minds of men , from whence comes that common inclination of all mankind towards a Deity ; and that supposition among all men , that he who is the King over all hath his Throne in Heaven : He acknowledgeth with Plato , that God is the maker of all things , that he is the Father of the Gods too ; ( and S. Cyril never quarrels with him for giving the title of Gods to those Superiour and Intelligent Beings : for , saith he , we grant that there are some in Heaven that are called both Gods and Lords ; nay men are called Gods in Scripture ) Of these Gods ' according to Plato , Iulian saith , some are visible , as the Sun , and Moon , and Stars , and the Heavens , but these are only images of the invisible , and therefore Plato calls these later 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , being invisible Deities represented by visible : but one God is the Maker of them all . But Iulian utterly rejected the Poetical Fables concerning the Gods , and that for T. G 's reason , because the Poets took the liberty to feign and say any thing ; nay he calls them incredible and monstrous Fables ; and this was the Scheme of his Theology , That there was one Supreme God the common Father and Lord over all , who had distributed the several Nations and Cities of the World to particular Gods as Governours over them : but although all perfections were in the Supreme God , yet they were scattered and divided among the inferiour Deities : and so Mars had the care of Wars , and Minerva of Counsels , and Mercury of things that required cunning more than courage : and every particular Nation followed the humour of the Gods that were set over them ; as he goes about to prove by the different tempers of Nations . To which Cyril answers . That great Princes do choose some of the Wisest of their Subjects to be Governours of Provinces , but they who are so imployed do not Govern them by their own Laws , but by their Princes , and on all occasions set forth their greatness , and pay all duties to them ; but these Deities assume those honours to themselves which are due only to God ; and by bringing in Images into Temples of several forms and figures they endeavour to cast dishonour upon God ; and by degrees draw men to the neglect of him . Either then , God despises the service of men , or these are not faithful servants to him ; by bringing in visible objects of worship by setting up Images , and perswading men to make oblations , and offer sacrifices to them . And because it was so hard a matter to choke those natural motions of mens minds towards the Supreme God and Father of all , therefore they endeavour'd to draw men farther from him , by tempting them to all manner of impiety . Whereas the good Angels we read of in Scripture , always directed men to pay their honours and adoration , not to themselves , but only to the Supreme God : and teach men that it is not fit to give them to any of his Ministers and Servants : but these Deities of Iulian are willing to receive worship from men , and their prayers , and acknowledgements , and praises , and gifts , and sacrifices ; ( where we see he joyns them all together as parts of that divine worship which is proper only to God : ) But Iulian is very much displeased at the Second Commandment , and would have been glad to have seen it struck out of the number of ten ( as some in the World have done ) because God therein expresses so much jealousie for his own honour ; Cyril in answer to him shews that this is no way unbecoming God to be so much concerned for his honour , because mens greatest happiness , ( as Alexander Aphrodisiensis said in his Book of Providence ) lies in the due apprehension and service of God. By which we see , that the controversie about Idolatry , as it was hitherto managed between Christians and Heathens , did suppose the belief of one Supreme God in those who were charged with the practise of it . After these , it may not be amiss to consider , what the ancient Author of the Recognitions under Clemens his name saith upon this subject of the Heathen Idolatry ; he lived , saith Cotelerius , in the Second Century ; if that be true , his Authority is the more considerable ; however it is certain Ruffinus translated this Book , and th●● makes it ancient enough to our purpose . He brings in the Heathen Idolaters pleading thus for themselves , We likewise acknowledge one God who is Lord over all , but yet the other are Gods too ; as there is but one Caesar who hath many Officers under him , as Praefects , Consuls , Tribunes and other Magistrates ; after the same manner we suppose , when there is but one Supreme God , he hath many other inferiour Gods , as so many Officers under him , who are all subject to him , but yet over us . To this , he brings in S. Peter answering , that he desires them to keep to their own similitude ; for as they who attribute the name of Caesar to any inferiour Officers , deserve to be punished ; so will those more severely , who give the name of God to any of his Creatures . Where the name is not to be taken alone , but as it implies the dignity and Authority going along with it , and the professing of that subjection which is only due to that Authority ; for what injury were it to Caesar for a man only to have the name of Caesar ? but the injury lies in usurping the Authority under that name ; so the nature of Idolatry could not lie in giving the name of Gods to any Creatures , but in giving that worship which that name calls for ; and yet this worship here is supposed to be consistent with the acknowledgement of the supreme excellency of God. If we now look into the sense of the Writers of the Latine Church against the Heathen Idolaters , we shall find them agreeing with the other . Tertullian appeals to the consciences of men for the clearest evidence of one true and Supreme God ; for in the midst of all their Idolatries , they are apt upon any great occasion to lift up their hands and eyes to Heaven , where the only true , and great , and good God is ; and he mentions their common phrases , God gives , and God sees , and I commend you to God , and God will restore ; all which do shew the natural Testimony of conscience , as to the unity and supreme excellency of God : and in his Book ad Scapulam , God shewed himself to be the powerful God by what he did upon their supplications to him under the name of Iove . Minucius Felix makes use of the same arguments , and saith , they were clear arguments of their consent with the Christians in the belief of one God , and makes it no great matter what name they called him by , as I have observed already , and afterwards produces many Testimonies of the Philosophers , almost all , he saith , that they acknowledged one God , although under several names . Arnobius takes it for granted , that on both sides they were agreed , that there was one Supreme God , eternal and invisible and Father of all things , from whom all the Heathen Deities had their beginning : but all the dispute was about giving divine worship to any else besides him . Lactantius saith , there was no wise man ever questioned the being of one God , who made and governed all things ; yet because he knew the World was full of Fools , he goes about to prove it at large from the testimonies of Poets and Philosophers , as so many had done before him : and for T. G 's satisfaction , he saith , that Orpheus ( although as good at feigning as any of the Poets ) could not by the Father of the Gods mean Jupiter the Son of Saturn ; yet who can tell , but such a Magician as Orpheus is said to have been , might mean an Arch-Devil by him ? But I am sure neither Lactantius , nor any of the Fathers ever thought so ; for if they had , they would not so often have produced his Testimony to so little purpose . And to the Greek Testimonies mentioned before by others , Lactantius adds those of Cicero , and Seneca , who calls the infeririour Gods the children of the Supreme , and the Ministers of his Kingdom . Thus far we have the unanimous consent of all the Writers of the Christian Church against the Heathen Idolatry , that the Heathens did acknowledge one Supreme God. S. Augustin tells us , that Varro thought , that those who worshipped one God without images , did mean the same by him that they did by their Jove , but only called him by another name ; by those , S. Austin saith , Varro meant the Iews , and he thought it no matter what name God is called by , so the same thing be meant . It is true S. Augustin argues against it from the Poetical Fables about Saturn and Iuno ; but withal he confesses , that they thought it very unreasonable , for their Religion to be charged with those Fables which themselves disowned : and therefore at last he could not deny , that they believed themselves , that by the Jove in the Capitol they understood and worshipped the Spirit that quickens and fills the world , of which Virgil spake in those words , Iovis omnia plena . But he wonders that since they acknowledged this to be the Supreme if not only Deity , the Romans did not rather content themselves with the worship of him alone , than run about and make so many addresses to the petty and Inferiour Deities ? This indeed was a thing to be wondred at ; and yet no doubt , they thought they had as good reasons for it , as T. G. gives why incontinent persons should rather make their addresses to S. Mary Magdalen in Heaven , than to her Sister Martha , or to God himself . So the Roman women thought Lucina and Opis better for a good hour , than Ceres or Minerva ; and Levana and Cunina for new born Children , than Vulcan or Apollo ; and yet S. Augustin tells us , many of them did not esteem these , as any distinct Deities , but only as representations of the several powers of the same God suitable to the conditions of persons : but T. G. will not say , that by S. Mary Magdalen , he only understood the power of Gods Grace in converting incontinent persons ; but if he had , he had given a much better reason of their praying to her : yet even in such a case S. Austin thinks it were better to pray directly to God himself . And the old Roman Matrons would have thought they could have directed such persons to Temples proper for them , viz. those of Virtue and Chastity , the one of which stood ad Portam Capenam , the other in vico longo . But I need not give such particular directions , for I am afraid their Ruines are scarce left in Rome : for neither Marlianus , nor Alexander Donatus in their accurate descriptions of Rome can tell where to find them . For our better understanding the controversie about Idolatry as it is represented by S. Augustin , we are to consider that not only Scaevola and Balbus in Cicero , but Varro and Seneca , and the rest of their wiser men , did with great indignation reject the Poetical Theology as they called it ; and wished several things reformed in the popular Religion ; and thought themselves as unjustly charged with the practises of the People , as T. G. doth for their Church to be charged with all the ridiculous addresses that some make to Saints among them ; for Varro confesses that the People were too apt to follow the Poets , ( as in the Church of Rome they are to pray by their Legends ) but they thought the people were better let alone in their fopperies , than to be suffered to break loose from that subjection which their Superstition kept them in ; and with these S. Austin reckons the Philosophers ; with whom , he saith , the Question to be debated was this , whether we are bound only to worship one Supreme God the Maker of all things ? or whether it be not lawful to worship many Gods , who are supposed to be made by him ? And after he hath discoursed against Varro and those of his opinion , who reduced all their Theology to Nature , and made God to be the Soul of the World , and the several parts of the world capable of divine Worship on that account ; in his eighth Book , he undertakes those who asserted one Supreme Deity above Nature and the Cause of all things , and yet pleaded for the worship of inferiour Deities ; he confesses , that they had the knowledge of the true God , and brings the several places of S. Paul mentioned in the entrance of this discourse to prove it : and enquiring how the Philosophers came to such knowledge of him , he first propounds the common opinion of the Fathers that they learnt it in Egypt , meeting with the Books of Scripture there , but he rather ( and with good reason ) resolves it into the natural knowledge of God ; for , saith he , that which was known of God was manifest to them , for God had revealed it to them . But it seems by S. Augustin , that there were two opinions among them at that time about divine worship ; for some , of whom he reckons Apuleius the chief , were for the worship of Daemons , although they acknowledged them to be subject to evil passions ; yet they looked on them as intercessors between men and the Gods , and therefore to be worshipped ; but others who kept closer to the doctrine of Plato , believed none to be Gods but such as were certainly good ; but were shy of declaring their opinion against the worship of Daemons for fear of displeasing the people by it : and with these S. Augustin declares he would have no controversie about the name of Gods , as long as they believed them to be created , immortal , good and happy not by themselves , but by adhering to God ; which , he saith , was the opinion either of all , or , at least , the best of the Platonists . And now we are come to the true state of the Controversie , as it is managed by S. Augustin in his tenth Book : which is , whether those rites of Religious worship which are used in the service of the Supreme God , may be likewise used toward any created Being , though supposed to be of the highest excellency , and as near to God as we can suppose any creature to be ? And that this , and this only is the state of the Controversie , I appeal to his own words , which I shall set down in the language he writ them , that I be not blamed with artificial turning them to my own sense : Hoc est , ut apertius dicam , utrum etiam sibi an tantum Deo suo , qui etiam noster est , placeat eis ut sacra faciamus , & sacrificemus ; vel aliqua nostra seu nos ipsos Religionis ritibus consecremus ? i. e. That I may speak plainly , whether it be pleasing to them , viz. good spirits , that we offer divine worship and sacrifice to them ; or that we consecrate our selves , or any thing of ours to them by Religious rites ? And this , saith he , is that worship which is due to the Deity , which because we cannot find one convenient word in Latin to express it by , I would call Latria , as that service which is due to men is called by another name , viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : and he gives this reason why he made choice of Latria to signifie divine worship in the Latine Tongue , because the Latine word colere is so very ambiguous , it being applied to the tilling of land , inhabiting of places , and therefore cultus could not so properly be applied only to divine worship ; nor yet Religiō , because that according to the custom of the Latins is applyed to other senses ; and the same reason he gives as to other names . For my part , I quarrel not at all with S. Augustins use of the word , and think it proper enough to apply it in his sense : which comprehends in it , not meerly sacrifice , but all those Religious Rites , whereby we give Worship to God. And nothing can to me appear more senseless than to imagine that S. Augusti●● should here speak only of Soveraig● Worship proper to God in regard of his Supreme Excellency , distinguishing that from an inferior kind of Religious Worship due t● created Excellency , when it was agreed on both sides , that there was one Suprem● Excellency , which was incommunicable to any creatures , so that the dispute abou● Worship must suppose those to be created and dependent Beings ; which being supposed , it was impossible for them to believe they had supreme Excellency in them . B●● if it be said that the dispute was , whethe● Sacrifice did not belong only to God ? ● shall hereafter shew , that there is no reason in the world to appropriate divine worship only to sacrifice ; my present business is only to prove , that the Controversie of Idolatry did on both sides suppose one Supreme God , which I think is manifest from S. Augustin , if any thing can be made so . But if this be not full enough to our purpose , we may add the plain testimony of Maximus Madaurensis to S. Austin , who saith , that none but mad-men could deny that there was one supreme and eternal God who was the great Father of nature , whose influences diffused through the world , they worshipped under different names . This man seems to have been of Varro 's way , and not of the Platonists , for he makes God sine prole ; and so understood all the Heathen Deities but as several titles of the same God. In the same time with S. Augustin Orosius lived , who saith , that not only the Philosophers found out one God the maker of all things , to whom all things ought to be referred ; but that the Pagans of their times , without distinction , when they were disputed with by Christians , did confess that there was but one Great God , who had several Ministers under him . After so full and clear evidence of the consent of all the Fathers in this matter , not taken from any single or incoherent passages , but from the series and design of their discourses , I can foresee but one objection against it out of Antiquity , which I shall endeavour to remove . And that is from the testimony of Sanchoniathon mentioned by Eusebius and S. Cyrill concerning the Phoenicians , that they worshipped the Sun , Moon and Stars as the only immortal Gods , among which the Sun was chief , whom they called Beelsamen Lord of Heaven ; and their mortal Gods were men Deified for the kindness they had done to the world . To the same purpose Maimonides speaks of the Zabii , whose sect , he saith , did overrun the earth , that they had no other Gods but the Stars . But although this take not off the force of our former evidence , which lay in this , that those Fathers who did charge the Heathens with Idolatry , did at the same time confess , that they owned one Supreme God ; yet I shall endeavour to prove , that even the Eastern Idolaters did acknowledge one Supreme Deity . Gregorius Abulfarajus , and Sharestanius , both cited by our Learned Doct. Pocock , do expresly contradict Maimonides , for one of them saith , that they have very strong arguments to prove the unity of God ; and the other , that although they call Planets Gods , yet they look on them only as Mediators between the Supreme God and men ; and that Learned and Iudicious Person thinks that we have more reason to believe Gregorius Abulfarajus , because he conversed with many of their writings in their own language , whereas Maimonides only saw the translations of some of them . Sharestanius makes this their great principle , that between the Supreme God and us , there must be some Mediators , which say they , are pure spiritual substances , which because we cannot immediately converse with , therefore we have need of some means of communication with them ; which some make to be the coelestial Houses , and others Images . Those who are for the coelestial Houses , worship the Bodies of the Planets as the habitations of the living , rational and intellectual substances which they suppose to animate them ; and therefore they are very punctual in the observations of them , and accordingly they make their Talismans ; and if they have these about them , and the proper garments on for the Planet , and the day and hour peculiar to him , and say the Forms of prayer fitted for him , they do not question , but they shall be heard in the things which depend upon his influence . And these are the only persons I have heard of , that have discovered the invention of making Astrological Prayers ; which seem to me to be built on as good Reason , as the Predictions are ; and I doubt not , but they were able to produce as many experiments for the hearing of those prayers , as others do to justifie their predictions . But there were others among them , that thought the Planets at too g●eat a distance , and too often out of sight , and therefore they would have more constant and visible Mediators ; for which purpose they made them Images , but they must be sure to be of a Figure and Metal , proper to the Planet , with a due observation of days , hours , degrees , minutes , habits , prayers , and whatever else they knew to be most pleasing to the Wise and Intelligent Planet . Now by the help of these , they hoped to get the favour of the Houses , and by the favour of the Houses they hoped for that of the Intelligencies , and by their favour they hoped for that of the Supreme God. But it seems there were some amongst them who are called Harbanistae , who supposed God to be one in essence , but to be many in regard of the different manifestations of himself to the Planets and other visible beings ; and that he committed the care of this lower world to the celestial bodies whom they called Fathers , the elements Mothers , and all compounds Children . If the former representation of their worship be true , and that they thought there was no approach to the Supreme Deity , but by Mediators ( as it seems to be ) that might give the occasion to Maimonides and others , to say , that they worshipped only the Sun , Moon and Stars , and accounted them for their Gods ; because it seems they gave no immediate worship to the Supreme Deity , but what honour they gave him was by passing through so many to him . And this may be a very probable reason why the Sun in the Phoenician and Chaldean Theology was looked on as the Supreme Deity , i. e. visible , and the highest Mediator to whom any worship was offered : and therefore called by the Chaldeans Baal , by the Phoenicians Beel Samen , by the Ammonites Moloch , by the Persians Mithras ; and by the Moabites Baal Peor and Chemosh : so the Moon was called Astaroth or Astarte , and Malcha , or the Queen of Heaven : and Saturn worshipped under the name of Ciun , or Cevan ; the Pleiades of Succoth Benoth : and it is not improbable , that from worshipping the Host of Heaven this Sect of Idolaters might have their name from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Saba , rather than from Sabius a fabulous son of Seth. Greg. Abulfarajus describes the Religion of the old Arabs much after the same manner , that they all worshipped the Stars , although some Tribes one more than another : and it is an ingenious conjecture of Doct. Pocock 's , that whereas Herodotus saith that the Arabians only worshipped 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is read in the Bodley MSS. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , this latter Alilahat signifying Daughters , implies the lesser Deities , and Olla taal the Supreme God , as the words signifie : which he proves from Sharestanius that the old Arabs did acknowledge . Abraham Ecchellensis speaking of the Religion of the old Arabians , saith , that those who were of the Sect of Chaled , went upon this principle , that there was one Creator and Governor of all things , most Powerful and most Wise : Besides these , there were those who worshipped Intelligences , or Celestial Spirits ; and these , saith he , although they confessed one Creator of the World , most holy , wise and powerful , yet they said we had need of Mediators to him ; therefore they invoked those Spirits with all rites of Religious worship , and these , saith he , were called the Daughters of God , as they are in the Alcoran : not much different from these , were the worshippers of Images , whom he describes as we have done before . But he tells us , there was a Sect of Dahritae among them whom he calls Philosophers , who were meer Atheists , and asserted the Eternity of the World , and these being excepted , he saith , that the ancient Arabs did believe the creation of the world ; and he tells out of them , their particular history of it . But Ecchellensis was aware of the parallel between the worship practised in the Church of Rome , and that among the Arabians supposing they acknowledged one true God , and therefore puts the Qustion , whether they did worship their Idols for Gods without relation to any Superiour , or only took them for second causes , and gave them the name of Gods only Analogically ? It was a question seasonably put , but not so wisely answered . For , as if he had quite forgotten , what he had said before , he saith , without all doubt the most of them looked upon the Gods they worshipped as of Supreme Authority , and Majesty , and Independent of any other . What , although they acknowledged but one Supreme God , and called all the lesser Deities his Daughters ! Although all of them , a very few excepted , believed the creation of all things by one most Wise and Powerful Being ! But alas ! he did not think of this Question , when he said the other things ; and he was not bound to remember them now , but to say what served best for his present purpose to clear the Roman Church from Idolatry . I will not deny then , but there might be a Sect of Dahritae who did only in name own any thing of God and Religion , that did assert the Eternity of the world , and that there were no other Gods , but the Sun , Moon and Stars , both among the Phoenicians and Chaldeans as well as Arabians ; but I say , these were Atheists and not Idolaters ; those who where charged with Idolatry among them were such as believed a Supreme Deity , but gave Divine Honours to Beings created by him . The like is suggested by some concerning the Persians , as though they attributed omnipotency and divine worship only to the Sun ; and those who take all things of this nature upon trust meerly from Herodotus , or Iustin , or other Greek and Latin writers , may think they have reason to believe it ; but if we look into those who have been most conversant in the Persian writings , we shall find a different account of them . Iac. Golius in his Notes on Alferganus saith , that the Persians gave the names of their Gods to their Months and Days ; according to the ancient Religion of the Persians and Magi , whereby they did believe their Gods to preside over them ; for it was a principle among them as well as other Nations of the East , that the things of this lower world are administred by Angels : and accordingly they had their particular prayers and devotions according to the several Days and Months ; and not only so , but their very meat , drink , clothing and perfumes were different ; and they had their Tables or Rubricks to instruct them . And what worship they gave to the Planets , was not , saith he , to themselves but to those Intelligencies , which they supposed to rule them ; nay , they supposed particular Spirits to rule over all the material parts of the world ; the Spirit over fire was called Adar and Aredbahist , the Spirit over Herbs and Trees Chordad , the Spirit over Bruits was Bahmen , the Spirit over the Earth was Asfendurmed ; and so they had an Angel of Night , and another of Death ; and the Spirit over the Sun was called Mihrgîan , from Mihr the Sun , ( whence the word Mithras , ) but above all these , they believed there was one Supreme God whom they called Hormuz and Dei ; and the Persian Writers say , that Zoroaster appointed six great Festivals in the year , in remembrance of the six days creation . And to this is very agreeable what the Persees in Indosthan do to this day deliver of the principles of their Religion ; for , they affirm God to be the maker of all things ; but that he committed the Government of the world to certain Spirits ; and they worship the fire as a part of God , and call the Sun and Moon Gods great witnesses ; and the description of them in Varenius fully accords with this , that they acknowledged one Supreme God , every where present , that governs the world , but he makes use of seven chief Ministers for the management of it , one over men , another over bruits , another over fire as is before described ; and under these they place 25 more , who are all to give an account to the Supreme God of their administration . With this account agrees the relation of Mandelslo concerning them , who saith , that the Parsis believe that there is but one God preserver of the Universe ; that he acts alone and immediately in all things , and that the seven servants of God , for whom they have also a great veneration , have only an inferiour administration whereof they are obliged to give account : and after the enumerating these with their particular charges , he reckons up 26 under them with their several names , but they call them all in common Geshoo , i. e. Lords , and believe , he saith , that they have an absolute power over the things , whereof God hath intrusted them with the administration . Whence it comes , that they make no difficulty to worship them , and to invocate them in their extremities , out of a perswasion that God will not deny them any thing they desire on their intercession . Schickard relates a particular story of the Persian King Firutz , or Perozes , which shews the acknowledgement of a Supreme Deity among the Persians ; in his time , which was about the time of the Council of Chalcedon , there happened a mighty drought in Persia , so that it rained not for seven years , and when the Kings granaries were utterly exhausted , and there was no hope of further supplies , he called his People out into the open Fields , and there in a most humble manner he besought the great God Lord of Heaven and Earth , to send them rain , and gave not over praying till a plentiful shower fell upon them : which , saith he , is another example , after the Ninivites , of Gods great mercy after a publick and solemn repentance . But that this Prince was yet a worshipper of the Sun , appears by what follows , when the Emperor Zen● had him at his mercy , and made him promise fidelity to him , by bowing of himself to him ; he to avoid the reproach of it among his People , carried himself so , that he seemed only to them to make his Reverence to the Sun according to the custom of his Country . But it will add yet more to the conviction of T. G. and to the discovery of the Nature of Idolatry , to shew that those Nations , which are at this day charged with Idolatry by the Church of Rome , have acknowledged one Supreme God. And I shall now shew that those Idolaters who have understood their own Religion , have gone upon one of these three principles , either ( 1. ) that God hath committed the Government of the world under him to some inferiour Deities , which was the principle of the Platonists , and of the Arabians , and Persians . Or , ( 2. ) that God is the Soul of the world , and therefore the parts of it deserve divine honour , which was the principle of Varro and the Stoicks . Or , ( 3. ) That God is of so great perfection and excellency , that he is above our service , and therefore what external adoration we pay , ought to be to something below him : which I shall shew to have been the principle of those who have given the least external adoration to the Supreme God. These things I shall make appear , by giving a brief account of the Idolatry of those parts of the world , which the Emissaries of the Church of Rome have shewed their greatest zeal in endeavouring to convert from their Idolatries . There are two Sects in the East-Indies ( if I may call them so ) from whom the several Nations which inhabit there have received what principles of Religion they have ; and those are the Brachmans and the Chineses ; and the giving account of these two , will take in the ways of worship that are generally known among them : For the Brachmans , I shall take my account chiefly from those who have been conversant among them , and had the best reason to understand their Religion . Francis Xaverius , who went first upon that commendable imployment of converting the Indians , saith , that the Brachmans told him they knew very well there was but one God : and one of the learned Brachmans in his discourse with him not only confessed the same , but added , that on Sundays , which their Teachers kept very exactly , they used only this prayer , I adore thee O God with thy Grace and Help for ever . Tursellinus saith , that he confessed this to be one of their great mysteries , that there was one God maker of the world , who reigns in Heaven and ought to be worshipped by men , and so doth Iarricus . Bartoli not only relates the same passages , but gives this account of their Theology ; that they call the Supreme God Parabrama , which in their language signifies absolutely perfect , being the Fountain of all things , existing from himself , and free from all composition : that he committed to Brama the care of all things about Religion ; to Wistnow , another of his Sons , the care of mens rights and relieving them in their necessities ; to a third , the power over the elements and over humane bodies : These three they represent by an Image with three Heads rising all out of the same trunk ; these are highly esteemed and prayed to ; for they suppose Parabrama to be at perfect ease , and to have committed the care of all to them . But the Brachman Padmanaba gave a more particular account of the management of all things to Abraham Rogers who was well acquainted with him , and was fifteen years in those parts . Next to Brama , they make one Dewendre to be the Superintendent Deity , who hath many more under him ; and besides these , they have particular Deities , over the several parts of the world , as the Persians had . They believe both good and evil Spirits , and call them by several names : the former they call Deütas and the other Ratsjaies , and the Father of both sorts to be Brachman the son of Brama . In particular cases , they have some , saith Mr. Lord ( who conversed among them and to whom Mons. Bernier refers us to one who gave a faithful account of them ) whom they honour as Saints and make their addresses to ; as for Marriage they invocate Hurmount , for Health Vagenaught , for success in Wars Bimohem , for Relief Syer , &c. and I suppose incontinent persons may have someone instead of S. Mary Magdalen to pray to . The custom of their daily devotion as the Brachman Padmanaba said , was first to meditate of God before they rise , then after they have washed themselves they repeat 24 names of God and touch 24 parts of their bodies ; upon Su● rising they say prayers and pour down water in honour of the Sun , and then 〈◊〉 down upon their knees and worship him and after perform some ceremonies 〈◊〉 their Idols , which they repeat in the evening . The particular devotion which the● have to their Saints , and Images , a●● Reliques is fully described by Boullaye-le-Gouz in his late Travels into those parts Mandelslo saith , that in the time of the publick devotions , they have long Less●● about the Lives and Miracles of the Saints , which the Bramans make use 〈◊〉 to perswade the people to worship them , Intercessors with God for them . Amo●● their Saints Ram is in very great estim●tion , being the restorer of their Religi●● and a great Patron of their Braman Kircher supposeth him to be the 〈◊〉 with him whom the Iaponese call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and the Chinese Ken Kian 〈◊〉 Kircher , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Kia saith Marini , and those of Tunquin Chiaga , or as Marini Thic-Ca , in all which parts he is in very great veneration ; him they look on as the great propagator of their Religion in the Eastern parts , and they say he had 80000 disciples , but he chose ten out of them , all to disperse his opinions . From whence it is supposed that the Religion of the Brachmans hath spread it self not only over Indosthan , but Camboia , Tunquin , Cochinchina , nay China it self , and Iapan too ; where it is an usual thing for persons to drown , burn or famish themselves for the honour of Xaca . This Sect was brought into China 65 years after Christ from Indosthan , as Trigautius , ( or rather Matthaeus Riccius tells us , for Bartoli assures us , that Trigautius only published Riccius his papers in his own name ) which he supposes , was brought in by a mistake for the Christian Religion , ( and surely it was a very great mistake ) but for all that , Trigautius hath found a ●trange resemblance between the Roman Religion and theirs . For , saith he , they worship the Trinity after a certain manner , with an image having three Heads and one Body ; they extol coelibate 〈◊〉 a high degree so as to seem to condemn marriage ; they forsake their Families , and go up and down begging , ( i. e. the Order of Friers among them , ) their very rites and customs are like ours ; they have Images in their Temples , and their very habits agree with ours . I desire T. G. once more to make use of his Friends kindness for Trigautius , that he may see , whether I have translated him right or no. In all this , he mentions nothing of the Christian Religion , but only the rewards and punishments of another world ; which most Nations of the world have believed ; and for their other resemblances much good may they do themselves with such parts of Christianity . To these Bartoli adds , the worshipping the Mother of God with a Child in her Arms , their Penances , Monasteries , Nunneries , nay their very Beads and Indulgencies ; And Semedo saith of their Priests , that they wear their Head and Beards shaved , they worship Idols ; they marry not ; they live in Convents 4 or 500 together , they beg , mutter prayers ; they sing ; they have several offices and prayers against fire , tempests , misfortunes , and especially for the dead ; in which functions they use sacerdotal garments ; their Caps are like ours , and their sprinkling brushes without any difference at all ; they eat neither flesh , nor fish , nor eggs , neither do they drink wine . But for this last cause of Fish and Wine , I might have imagined he had been describing a sort of men much nearer home . The same resemblances Bartoli finds , and stands amazed at in Iapan ; here again , he finds one Image with three Heads for the Trinity , and forty hands to denote his power , which they call Denix ; ( but he saith , their Philosophers interpret it of the Sun , Moon , Elements and first Matter , ) here they cross themselves , but with a S. Andrewes cross ; and say their prayers exactly with their Beads , of which they have 180 on a string ; and which is yet more observable , they understand not one word of their prayers , and yet they hope for forgiveness of their sins for saying them . They have a kind of Ave-Mary Bell for the times of their prayers : have pilgrimages to certain places , and have great indulgences promised them for visiting them every year : they have a Tribunal of general confession ; and Troops of persons who carry their Images in procession , and have great honour to Reliques ; especially to a Tooth of Xaca at Meaco , which they look upon as of mighty vertue , being brought forth , either to obtain Rain or Fair weather : and which adds yet more cause of admiration , they have a Pope too , the Dairo , whom he calls Zazzus , who hath the chief care of Religion , and of Canonizing whom he thinks fit , and thence have the honour of Cami's or Saints ; he consecrates Patriarchs and Prelates , who make Priests with a power of sacrificing with odors , and of disposing the merits of Xaca and Amida for the benefit of the living and the dead . Besides , saith he , they have multitudes of Religious Orders , Black and Grey , Eremitical and Coenobitical ; and Nuns which are very serviceable and kind to the Bonzii , who shave their Heads , profess coelibate , abstain from flesh and fish , and observe their hours of devotion to Xaca . These things , Bartoli saith , he had from those who were eye-witnesses , and had been long conversant among them . But to increase the admiration yet more , Greuber in his late account of his return from China , A. D. 1661. by the way of Lassa , or Barantola , as Kircher calls it , but Greuber himself Baranateka ( where , he saith , no Christian had ever been ) yet there he found Extreme Unction , Solemn Processions , worshipping of Reliques , Monasteries of men and women , bare-footed Missionaries , and several other things , which caused amazement in him ; but above all he wondred at their Pope , to whom they give divine honours , and worship his very excrements , and put them up in Golden boxes , as a most excellent Remedy against all mischiefs ; and to him all the Kings of Tartary make their solemn addresses , and receive their Crowns from him ; and those that come near him , kiss his Toe , as Kircher saith , and give the same adoration that they do to the Pope at Rome ; and , saith he , is only due to him : which he looks on , as a notable trick of the Devil , to steal these customs from Rome , and to carry them into such a remote part of the world , where he little dreamed of being found out in his villany , had not Greuber chanced to have passed that way from China . I find these Authours very much puzzled , what account to give of all these customs and ceremonies of theirs among Infidels and Idolaters : Kircher runs back to Presbyter Iohn , others to S. Thomas ; when alas ! they all came from the very same fountain , from whence they came into the Roman Church , viz. folly and Superstition . And they do not want wit to defend themselves upon the very same grounds , that they do : as for instance , in their worship of Images , and Saints , ( as they esteem them ) as most proper to our purpose . Nicolaus Pimenta in his epistle to Claudius Aquaviva General of the Iesuits from God , A. D. 1600. saith , that when they disputed with the Brachmans , about their worship , they told them ; And we likewise worship one God as well as you , and refer all the honour to him which we give to other things . I would he had told us what answer he gave them ; but I find not a word of that : neither can I see what it was capable of , unless he told them , that they lied . And we have a considerable Testimony of an understanding Gentleman of Rome , who had the curiosity to enquire strictly into the worship the Gentiles in India gave to their Deities ; that they have no other name to express their Deity but Deu or Deurù , which are likewise given to Princes ; from whence he infers that the Gods of the Gentiles although adored and worshipped both in ancient and modern times , were never looked on in the same degree with God the Creator of the Universe , and wherein almost all Nations of the World have and do hold him , some calling him the First Cause , others the Soul of the World , others Perabrahmi as the Gentiles at this day in India : but the other Gods are and were always with them , as Saints are with us : of the truth whereof I have great arguments at least among the Indian Gentiles ; or at the highest they esteemed them only as men Deified by the Favour of God , as Hercules , Romulus , Augustus , &c. Mons. Bernier when he was at the University of the Brachmans in Benares upon Ganges , discoursing with one of the most learned men among them , he proposed to him the Question , about the adoration of their Idols , and reproaching them with it , as a thing very unreasonable ; they gave him this remarkable answer , We have indeed in our Temples store of divers Statues , as those of Brahma , Mahadeu , Genich and Gavani , who are some of the chief and most perfect Deutas ; and we have also many others of less perfection , to whom we pay great honour , prostrating our selves before them and presenting them Flowers , Rice , Oyles , Saffron and such things with much ceremony ; but we do not believe these Statues to be Brahma or Bechen , &c. themselves , but only their Images and Representations , and we do not give them that honour but upon the account of what they represent . They are in our Temples , because it is necessary for praying well , to have something before our eyes that may fix the mind ; and when we pray , it is not the Statue we pray to , but he that is represented by it . For the rest we acknowledge , that 't is God that is absolute , and the only omnipotent Lord and Master . This , saith he , was his answer without adding or substracting any thing . And I desire to be resolved by T. G. whether upon these principles they were guilty of Idolatry , or no ? I am sure their Church accounts them so ; and yet they neither believe their Images to be Gods , nor terminate their worship upon them ; and if they be guilty upon these principles , T.G. can never clear the Church of Rome . But besides , they have another way of defending themselves , which the same Author gives this account of , viz. that God or that Soveraign being whom they call Achar ( immutable ) hath produced or drawn out of his own substance , not only souls , but also whatever is material and corporeal in the Universe , so that all the things in the world are but one and the same thing which is God himself ; as all numbers are but one and the same unity repeated . If this principle of theirs were true , I hope they might stand upon even terms with T. G. as to the adoration of the Host. For if the belief on one side will justifie his Church from Idolatry , a sufficient object of adoration being supposed to be present , I hope the same supposition on their side may do it too ; so that if men can be but foolish and extravagant enough in their opinion about a thing , they need not doubt the lawfulness of the worship they pay to it . And that this is not a meer supposition not only appears by the Testimony of this inquisitive Person , but by what Trigautius saith of the Chineses , that this opinion is very prevalent among the Learned men there , that makes the world and God to be one substance , of which all particular things are members ; and by what Alexander Valignanus , Provincial of the Iesuits in the Indies for thirty years , hath said upon this subject . In his discourse about the best means of converting the Iaponese , printed by Possevine , he tells us of a Sect among them , who hold but one principle , which they call the first reason , and the true opinion , and the divine truth , and that this principle is all things , and all things are nothing but it extended now and do return into it again upon their dissolution , that the soul of man is the same with it , that men by inward contemplation may now attain to a knowledge of and union with this first principle ; and as one of the Iaponese converts said , after a man hath spent thirty years in this contemplation , he is then fit to be Canonized , and to be worshipped among their Cami's and Fotoques . This first principle they grant to be one , absolutely Perfect and Wise , but not thoughtful , but living in perfect ease and happiness . This , saith Bernier , is the great Cabala of the Brachmans and Persians ; and if Valignanus may be credited , is so of the Iaponeses too : and it seems to be the very same which Orpheus had from the Egyptians , and contains in it the most plausible Reason of giving divine worship to any thing , which is proposed for adoration . Valignanus offers a great many arguments against this opinion , but I dare say not one of them stronger or plainer than those which are daily brought against transubstantiation : and yet T. G. will by no means allow any Idolatry therein , because the object supposed to be present , deserves our adoration . But the generality of the people Valignanus confesses did acknowledge a Supreme Being whom they called Tento , and believed him to be the Governour of the World , and to him in their great distresses they made supplications , believing that all things are well known by him ; but under him they suppose many Cami's and Fotoques to be , whom they acknowledge to have had a beginning , such as Xaca , and Amida , and Canon , and Toranga and many others , to whom they make their daily addresses in their Temples . And the Reasons which Valignanus gives against this way of worship among them deserve our consideration . 1. Because God only hath the power of conferring the blessings of this life or another upon us ; and his argument must hold as to both , or else it doth not reach home ; for the Iaponeses are observed more to pray to their Saints or Deities for riches , and health and honour , than for what belongs to another life . 2. Because Xaca and Amida and the rest of the Cami and Fotoque were once men , and therefore the administration of the world cannot be committed to them , being a thing above humane understanding . Very well again : and if ▪ this argument signifie any thing , it must extend to their incapacity of receiving their addresses for want of divine knowledge ; otherwise they might pray to Amida and Xaca still , as Mediators at least between God and them . 3. Because the world was , before they had a being , and consequently was governed by that Wise Being which made it ; and he that disposed of things then , doth so still ; therefore it is an absurd thing to pray to and adore such beings which did not make the world . All which I grant to be reasonably , and truly said , and only desire they may be remembred against another day : and what he adds about the great affront which is offered to God , when the honour which belongs to him is given to any creatures , either dead men , or Images , or Devils ; and yet he makes no scruple notwithstanding the former pretences , to charge these Gentiles with Idolatry . It remains now , that I consider the Religion of the Chineses ; that I mean , which is properly theirs , and is by Writers commonly called the First Sect among them , and by Martinius the Philosophical Sect. Although he admires them for their morality ; yet , he saith , although anciently they did believe and worship one God , yet that now they have left off to worship him because they do not know how to do it : but Greuber , who came later from thence saith , that they do profess to worship one Supreme Being which they call Sciax-Ti , and adore him by certain sacrifices of paper and incense . They worship no Pagod or Idol , saith Semedo , but acknowledge a Superiority or Deity , who is able to chastise or reward : but they have no Churches wherein they worship him , nor any divine service which they celebrate , nor any prayers that they rehearse , nor any Priests or Ministers which officiate at his service . Yet they speak and write very honourably of him , neither do they attribute any undecent thing to him , as our Ancestors did to their Gods : but they have Temples for Heaven and Earth in Nankin and Pekim , in which the King himself offers the sacrifice ; and in the Cities they have Temples for Tutelar Spirits , to which the Mandarins do sacrifice ; as , to the Spirits of the Rivers , Mountains and four parts of the World , &c. and there are Temples to the honour of great Benefactors to the publick , and therein are placed their Images . Trigautius saith , that he finds in their ancient Books that the Chineses did of old time worship one Supreme God , whom they called King of Heaven , or by another name Heaven and Earth : and besides him they worshipped Tutelar Spirits ; to the same purpose with Semedo : and the same , he saith , continues still in the learned Sect among them , whose first Author was their famous Confutius : to him they have a Temple erected in every City with his Image , or his name in golden letters , whither all the Magistrates every new or full Moon do resort , to give honour to Confutius with bowings , and Wax-candles , and incense : the same they do on his birth-day , and other set times ; there to express their gratitude for the mighty advantages they have had by his Doctrine , but they make no prayers to him , and neither seek nor hope for any thing from him . They have likewise Temples to Tutelar Spirits for every City and Tribunal ; where they make oblations , and burn perfumes , acknowledging these to have power to reward and punish . Bartoli saith , it is not out of any contempt of Religion , but out of reverence to the Deity because of the excellency of his Majesty , that they suffer none but the King to offer Sacrifice to him : and accordingly the larger Power the Tutelar Spirits are supposed to have , the greater Magistrates are to attend their service : and the lesser those of Cities , and Mountains , and Rivers . But that which is more material to our present business , is , to consider the Resolution of a case of Conscience not long since given at Rome by the Congregation of Cardinals de propagandâ fide , after advising with and the full consent of the Pope obtained 12 Sept. 1645. Which resolution , and decree was Printed in the Press of the Congregation the same year , with the Popes Decree annexed to it , and his peremptory command for the observation of it by all Missionaries ; and that Copy of the Resolution I have seen , was attested by a publick Notary to agree with the Original Decree : which case will help us very much to the right understanding the Notion of Idolatry according to the sense of the Church of Rome . The case was this ; The Missionaries of the Society of Iesuits , having had a plentiful harvest in China , and many of the Great men embracing the Christian Religion by their means ; the Missionaries of other Orders , especially the Franciscans , had a great curiosity to understand the arts , which the Iesuits used in prevailing with so many Great persons to become Christians ; and upon full enquiry , they found they gave them great liberty , as to the five Precepts of the Church , as they call them , viz. hearing Mass , annual Confession , receiving the Sacrament at Easter , Fasting at the solemn times , and Tenths and First-fruits : besides , they did forbear their Ceremonies of baptism , their oyl and spittle in the ears , and salt in the mouth , when they baptized Women , and giving extreme Unction to them , because the jealousie of their Husbands would not permit them to use them ; but that which is most to our purpose is the liberty they gave the Mandarins in two things . 1. To go to the Temple of the Tutelar Spirit in every City , as they are bound by vertue of their office to do twice a month , or else they forfeit their places , and there to prostrate themselves before the Idol , with all the external acts of adoration that others used ; and swearing before it when they enter into their office , so they did secretly convey a Crucifix among the flowers , that lay upon the altar , or hold it cunningly in their hands , and direct all their adorations to the Crucifix by the inward intention of their minds . 2. To go to the Temple of Keum-Fucu , or Confucius , twice a year , and to perform all the solemnities there , that the rest did : and the same as to the Temples of their Ancestors which are erected to their honour according to the precepts of Confucius ; because the Chineses declared that they intended only to give the same reverence to the memory of their Ancestors , which they would do to themselves if they were still living ; and what they offer to them is nothing but what they would give them , if they were alive , without any intention to beg any thing from them , when they know them to be dead : and the same allowance they gave , as to the Images of their Ancestors , about which many Ceremonies were used by them . The Missionaries of S. Francis order , being well informed of the Truth of these things , from the Philippines they send a Memorial to the King of Spain concerning them , who by his Ambassador represents it to the Pope , whereupon the Congregation of Cardinals was called , and after great deliberation and advising with the Pope about it , they made their Decree , wherein , they by several resolutions , declare it unlawful upon any of those pretences to use acts in themselves unlawful , and superstitious , although directed by their intention to the worship of the true God. And lest any should imagine it was only matter of scandal , which they stood upon ( as T. G. doth , about worshipping towards the Sun ) they make use of several expressions , on purpose to exclude this , for so they resolve the seventh Quere , nullatenus licere , it is by no means lawful ; and the eighth , nullo praetextu , under no pretence whatsoever , and to the ninth expresly , that it could not be salved propter absentiam gentilium , if there were no gentiles present : from this Resolution we may observe several things to our purpose . That Idolatry is consistent with the belief of the Supreme God , and reserving soveraign worship as due only to him : For the Congregation calls the Image of the Tutelar Spirit an Idol , and consequently the act of adoration must be Idolatry , yet it is very clear that the Chineses ( especially the Christians ) did never intend to give to the Tutelar Spirit the honour proper to the Supreme Deity : And Bartoli hath at large proved , that the Chineses did of old acknowledge the true God , and his Providence over the World : and that their Princes do worship the same God still , to whom they offer Sacrifice : and they call him by two names , Scianti , which signifies supreme Monarch , and Tienciù , Lord of Heaven , and as he tells us , they put an apparent difference between Tienciù and Tienscin , i. e. between God and Angels , and say that the power of forgiving sins belongs only to God and not to them ; that , upon a debate among the Missionaries about the use of these words for the true God , and some scruples raised from some misinterpretations of it by an Atheistical Sect among them , they were satisfied by plain and perspicuous testimonies out of their Books , that they could mean no other than the true God : and that he to whom the King every year offers sacrifice is a pure Mind , free from all mixture , governing all things , and therefore to him all the acts of soveraign worship are performed ; such as Sacrifices , Vows , Prayers and thanksgivings . Therefore the worship they give to the Tutelar Spirits or Guardian Angels , ( as they suppose them ) must be of an inferiour nature , and yet the Congregation of the Cardinals by the direction of the Pope , condemn this for Idolatry . That giving an Inferiour Worship on the account of created excellency , when it appears to be Religious , is utterly unlawful among Christians . For this is the only imaginable reason why the Congregation did so absolutely condemn the worship of Confutius and their Ancestors ; and Hurtado in the explication of this decree , confesses , that the Chineses did not esteem Confutius , as a God , but only looked on him as a holy and vertuous Philosopher ; yet , saith he , because they did those acts to him which are only proper to God , they commit manifest Idolatry in it . For , saith he , they who give to a creature the worship due only to God , do commit Idolatry ; and from hence the Gentiles who acknowledged one God were Idolaters , because they gave to the creatures the honour due to him , in the doing of which they made an acknowledgement of divine excellency in the things they gave it to . By which it appears , that there are some external acts of worship so proper to God , that although a man hath never so clear apprehension in his mind of the Supreme excellency of God above the creatures he worships , yet the giving that worship to them makes his act Idolatry . The Iesuits to excuse these things , speak very high things of Confutius , and of his admirable Life and doctrine , and surely not without great reason , if their relations hold true , as I see no reason to suspect them : but the more Confutius is extolled , the worse they make their own case , for all these acts of external worship towards him , are condemned for Idolatry : and how then comes the worship of Ignatius Loyola to be otherwise , who , I dare say , never was so great a Philosopher , nor did so much good in the world , as the Iesuits say Confutius did ? But at last , they would have all these honours to Confutius to be only civil honours ; although Trigautius confesses , that he hath a Temple in every City , that his Image with that of his Disciples , is set up in it ; that these Disciples are looked on as a sort of Divi , i. e. as Canonized Saints ; that bere they make use of all the rites of adoration , genuflections , wax-candles , incense , oblations , prayers only excepted : but we see , notwithstanding all their pretences , the Pope and Congregation of Cardinals have condemned them as guilty of Idolatry . That the Pope and Congregation of Cardinals were not of T. G 's mind , that acts do certainly go whither they are intended ; For all these acts of worship were directed by the intention of the persons to the secret Crucifix , which lay among the flowers upon the Altar ; but notwithstanding , this in their opinion were a fit object of worship , yet other circumstances did so much alter the nature of it , that they declare these acts to be in themselves unlawful . By actions going whither they are intended , I do not mean , as T. G. suggests , that the Physical act of the mind doth not pass to the object whither the act is directed , i. e. that I do not think of that which I do think of ; but my meaning is , that such a directing the intention of the mind doth not give a moral denomination to the nature of the action , viz. that it becomes lawful or unlawful , by vertue of such an intention of the mind , but that the Law of God may so determine the nature of our acts of worship , as to make them unlawful , whatever the intention of the mind be . And thus the Congregation of Cardinals here resolves the case ; the Persons used only those acts of adoration that may be directed to God , by a secret intention of the mind ; they suppose a Crucifix a fit object for divine worship , and going together into an Idolatrous Temple , and using all the external equivocal acts ( as T. G. calls them ) which the rest did , they direct their acts by vertue of this intention to the Crucifix ; yet although the Congregation thought this intention rightly directed , they condemn the acts as in themselves unlawful . But of these things hereafter ; the first observation being sufficient to my present purpose , viz. to shew that according to the present sense of the Roman Church the practice of Idolatry is consistent with the acknowledgement of one Supreme God. From the Idolatry of the East-Indies , I proceed to that of the Tartars , whose Dominion hath extended it self over that vast Continent from the utmost North-East parts , to the borders of Europe that way ; and this acount I shall give from the least suspected witnesses in this matter , viz. the Emissaries of the Roman Church , who had conversed most among them , and made it their design to understand their Religion . In A. D. 1246. after the horrible devastations made by the Tartars in Poland and Hungary , Pope Innocent 4. sent Iohannes de Plano Carpini as his Legat , or Nuncio to them : and after a year and four months stay among them he gives this account of their Religion , unum Deum credunt , quem credunt esse factorem omnium visibilium , & invisibilium ; & credunt eum tam bonorum in hoc mundo quam poenarum esse factorem ; non tamen orationibus , vel laudibus aut ritu aliquo ipsum colunt . They believe one God , whom they believe to be the maker of all things visible and invisible ; and to be the Author of all worldly goods and punishments ; and yet he saith , they had no manner of worhip of him : but their worship they gave to Images , which he there at large decribes . But there is an inferior Deity , whom he calls Itoga , Paulus Venetus Natagay which they believe to be the God of the earth , and him they worship with great superstition ; and besides they worship the Sun , Moon and Fire , and make oblations to the Image of their first Emperour ; and the same thing is affirmed by Vincentius Bellovacensis . After him , Lewis the ninth of France sent William de Rubruquis , a Franciscan , A. D. 1253. who passed through the several Courts of the Tartarian Princes , and gave an exact account to his Prince of the Religion he found among them . In the conference he had with Mangu-Chan ( who was then Emperour ) about Religion ; the Emperour told him , We Moals ( which is the name they call themselves by , that being the name of the Tribe from whence Iingiz-chan came , the Tartars being another Tribe , but better known to the Europeans , ) We , ( saith he , ) believe that that there is but one God , through whom we live and die ; and we have an upright heart towards him : and he added , that as God had given to the hand five fingers , so he hath given many ways to men . But there was a Sect of Idolaters among them , whom he calls Tuinians , who held two first Principles , and many Gods ; but it seems by their discourse , that they acknowledged the Superiority of one above all the rest . For when the Frier said there was but one God ; the Tuinian who disputed with him before Mangu-Chan , said , Fools say there is but one God , but wisemen day there are many ; are there not great Lords in your Country ? and here is a greater Lord Mangu-Chan . So is it of the Gods , because in divers countries there are divers . And afterwards he acknowledged , that there is one Highest God in the Heavens , whose Generation we know not yet , and ten are under him , and under them there is one Inferiour : and in the earth there are infinite . And of another Sect , called Iugurs , he confesses , that they believe on God , and yet make Idols ; from whom the Tartars had their letters ; and he affirms the same of the Moals or Tartars in general , and yet they make and worship many Images : and their Priests pray by their Beads , having a string with a hundred or two of Nutshels upon it ; and the repeating of certain words with them , they account meritorious at Gods hand . Haithon , the Armenian , agrees with the former , saying of the Tartars , that they confess one immortal God. Gregorius Abul-pharajius brings several examples of Iingiz-Chans acknowledging one Supreme and omnipotent God , ( who laid the foundation of the Tartarian Empire ) as , when he made his prayers to him upon the injury of Gayer-Chan : when he owned his Power to be given him from the God that is King over all and omnipotent ; and therefore , Haithon makes that the first command of Jingiz-Chan to his followers , that they ought to believe and obey the immortal God , by whom he obtained his Empire . And that the Tartars , who have not embraced Mohometism , did still acknowledge and worship one Supreme God maker of Heaven and Earth , is confessed by Iacobus Navarchus among the Indian Epistles ; and the same , Nicephorus Callistus affirms , of the ancient Turks , who were a race of Tartars living beyond the Bactrian Mountains . The like might be easily discovered of the most considerable Nations of the West-Indies , if it would not have swelled this discourse into too great a Bulk ; in general we take this remarkable Testimony of Iosephus Acosta , a learned Spanish Iesuit , who lived seventeen years in those parts . They , ( saith he , speaking of the Indians ) do commonly acknowledge a Supreme Lord and Author of all things , which they of Peru call Viracocha , and gave him names of great excellence , as Pachacamac , or Pachaiackachic , which is the Creator of Heaven and Earth , and Usapu which is admirable , and such like . Him they did worship as the chiefest of all , whom they did honour in beholding the Heaven . The like we see amongst them of Mexico , and China , and all other Infidels . Which accordeth well with what is said by S. Paul in the Acts of the Apostles , where he did see the inscription of an Altar Ignota Deo , To the unknown God : whereupon the Apostle took occasion to preach unto them , saying , Him whom you worship without knowing him , do I preach unto you . In like sort those which at this day do preach the Gospel to the Indians , find no great difficulty to perswade them that there is a high God and Lord over all , and that this is the Christians God , and the true God. As it is therefore a truth conformable to reason , that there is a Soveraign Lord and King of Heaven , whom the Gentiles with all their Infidelities and Idolatries have not denied , as we see in the Philosophy of Timaeus in Plat. in the Metaphysicks of Aristotle , and in the Asclepius of Trismegist , as also in the Poesies of Homer and Virgil : So the Preachers of the Gospel have no great difficulty to plant and perswade this truth of a Supreme God , be the Nations to whom they preach never so barbarous , and bruitish . But it is hard to root out of their minds that there is no other God , nor any other Deity than one : and that all other things of themselves have no power , being , nor working proper to themselves , but what this great and only Lord doth give and impart to them . To conclude , It is necessary to perswade them by all means , in reproving their errours , as well in that wherein they generally fail , in worshipping more than one God , as in particular , which is much more to hold for Gods , and to demand favours and help of those things which are not Gods , nor have any power , but what the true God their Lord and Creator hath given . And in another place he saith , Hoc enim commune apud omnes pene barbaros est , ut Deum quidem omnium rerum Supremum & summe bonum fateantur . This is common among almost all the barbarous nations , to acknowledge one Supreme God , infinitely good . But there is so pregnant a Testimony concerning the acknowledgement of a Supreme Deity among the Yncas of Peru , that it ought not to be slightly passed over . The thing it self is confessed not only by Acosta , but by Eusebius Nierembergius , Augustinus de Zarate , Antonius de Calancha who was himself a Peruan born , and afterwards an Augustinian : and these two mention the conference between Atahuallpa the last of the Yncas , and Vincentius de Valverde , about Religion , wherein , the Ynca told the Spanish Priest , that they believed in Pachacamac the Creator of the World , and after him they worshipped the Sun and Moon for their universal influence on the World. But the most perfect account of their way of worship is delivered by Garcilasso de la Vega , who was himself of the blood of Yncas by the Mother , and he corrects several mistakes of Acosta and other Spanish Authors , which were occasioned by their ignorance of the Peruvian language and Customs . He saith , that Manco Capac , ( who was the founder of the Empire of the Yncas , ) did reduce the barbarous Indians from the promiscuous Idolatry of almost all sorts of creatures before , to the worship of the Sun , as the great instrument of Pachacamac in the Government of the World ; but although they had a great veneration for the Moon , as Wife and Sister of the Sun , yet he cannot find that they did ever worship her as a Goddess ; or offer Sacrifices , and build Temples to her . Thunder and Lightning they called , the Executioners of the Iustice of the Sun ; and did not look on them as Deities , as the Spaniards imagined . But the main thing he discovers as to their Religion is , that they had only two Deities , the one visible , the Sun ; the other invisible , the Creator of the World , whom they called Pachacamac , from Pacha which signifies the World , and Camac from the verb Camar to enliven , and that from Cama the Soul ; so that Pachacamac is as much as , the Soul of the World : which word they had in so great veneration that they durst not pronounce it but with a great deal of ceremonie , and with the most humble posture of adoration : which was the external soveraign worship which they gave to the Supreme Deity , and above what they gave to the Sun , whose name they did usually pronounce : from whence he infers , that although the external worship of Sacrifices was performed to the Sun , yet they had in their Soul a greater adoration to Pachacamac , as an invisible Deity , that gave being and life to the World. He saith , that without all question the Yncas and their Amautas or Philosophers , did intend no other by this word , but the true Soveraign Creator of the World ; however the Spaniards thought some Devil was understood by it : but , saith he , the Indians when they meant the Devil they called him Cupay ; and at the naming him did spit on the ground in token of execration ; but when they mentioned Pachacamac , they did it with all the Reverence and Devotion imaginable . And withall he adds , that whatever Acosta and others say , this is the proper name for God in the Peruvian Language ; and they do not know how to express him otherwise ; and that all other names given by the Spaniards , as Tici Viracocha , Pachaia Chacher , Pacharurac , do not set forth the unexpressible Majesty of God in their Tongue , as Pachacamac doth . He tells us , that it was an inviolable Law of the Yncas , throughout their Empire , that Divine Worship should be given only to Pachacamac as the Soveraign Deity , and to the Sun for the great benefit the world received by him : and that it was held a very reproachful thing among them to attribute the Name , Honour , Authority , Power of God or any other Divine perfections to any sublunary things : but they had an inferiour reverence for the Moon as Wife and Sister of the Sun , and for the Stars , which they called her Daughters and Servants of her House ; and so they had for their Yncas too , whose bodies were set up in the Temple of the Sun in Cozco , on either side his Golden Image ; and in the Chappel of the Moon were the bodies of the Empresses after the same manner : in which he observes , that the Yncas were wont to make their vows to the Moon , and recommend themselves to her as their Mother ; but they offered no sacrifices to her , as they did to the Sun. They have likewise great respect for the Stars , and especially for the Planet Venus , which they call the Page of the Sun ; as they have for the Thunder , and Lightning , and Thunderbolt , which he saith again , they did not hold to be Gods , but to be his domestick Servants ; which the Spaniards , because they represented them as three in one , mistook for the Trinity worshipped among them , which Eusebius Nierembergius from Acosta calls Tangatanga : Garcilasso knew nothing of it , but saith , that they called them Yllapa . They have likewise a great veneration for the Rainbow as the production of the Sun ; and for the City of Cozco ; but as to all these , they give only an inferiour and honorary worship to them ; but they reserve the Soveraign internal worship for Pachacamac , and external by sacrifice for the Sun. This Pachacamac , although he had no Temple erected by the Yncas , yet the same Author tells us , that under the power of Cuysmancu , King of the Yuncas , there was a Valley , called the Valley of Pachacamac , where was a Temple erected to his worship ; and when the Ynca of Peru demanded subjection to him , and to joyn in the worship of the Sun ; he said , Pachacamac was Creator and preserver of all , and therefore greater than the Sun , whom they worshipped , with the utmost expressions of adoration ; the King himself not daring to enter the Temple with his face towards his Image : and besides Him they only worshipped the Oracle of Rimac , and Mamacohca i. e. the Sea ; But for the Sun , they found too great inconvenience by his heat for them to worship him . The Ynca replyed , that they did not only worship the Sun , but Pachacamac too ; but because he was an invisible and incomprehensible Deity , they offered him no sacrifices , nor built him any Temple : but they had the greatest inward veneration towards him , which they expressed by all possible demonstrations as oft as they mentioned his name . At last the difference was composed on these terms , the Yuncas were to retain the Temple of Pachacamac , but to forbear any Image of him , as unworthy of him , and humane sacrifices , and to receive the worship of the Sun ; and the Yncas to admit the Oracle of Rimac . Huayna Capac , one of the Yncas , made use of this argument to the High-Priest his Uncle , that the Sun could not be the Supreme God : who dares , said he , command me to go a long journey and never rest ? But if I command any Officer I have to go to Chili , he dares not disobey : surely then , saith he , our Father the Sun ( so the Yncas still called him ) must needs have a greater Lord than himself , which commands him to take such a journey every day . By these things , it fully appears , that the mighty Empire of Peru , while it was under the Power of the Yncas , did acknowledge one Supreme God , to whom they gave internal worship as most proper for him ; and external adoration at the mention of his name , although they offered their Sacrifices to the Sun. And it is observable what the same excellent Author farther adds , that the Indians worshipped Pachacamac , under the very title of the Unknown God : which was the inscription on the Altar at Athens , from whence S. Paul said , whom ye ignorantly worship , him I declare unto you . Acosta saith , that the Supreme God was worshipped in Mexico with a very magnificent Temple , and after him the Sun ; in Virginia , one that had it from intimate familiarity with the Priests declares , that they believe there are many Gods , which they call Mantoac , but of different sorts and degrees , one only chief and great God , which hath been from all eternity . Who , as they affirm , when he purposed to make the world , made first other Gods of a principal order , to be as means and instruments to be used in the creation and government to follow , and after , the Sun , Moon , and Stars , as petty Gods , and instruments of the other order more principal . And when Tomocomo a principal person of Virginia was here in England , he averred , that they worshipped the God that made Heaven and Earth : who was the Author of all good to them . Creuxius the Iesuit , in his late History of Canada , saith , that when Paulus Juvenaeus discoursed with the Inhabitants about God , and describing him to be of infinite power , and that made Heaven and Earth , they cried out to each other Atoachan , Atoachan , intimating that all things were made by that God whom they worshipped under that name : but they believe the seasons of the year , and the affairs of humane life to be managed by certain Spirits under him , whom they endeavour to propitiate by certain rites of worship . Leo Africanus , testifies concerning some of the ancient African Idolaters , that they worshipped Guighimo , i. e. the Lord of Heaven ; which part of Religion , he saith , was not delivered to them , by any Prophet or Teacher , but was inspired into them by God himself . Varenius takes notice of the false and imperfect description which is commonly given of the Religion of the Negroes , and saith , he understood by those who lived long among them , that although they worship many Gods , yet they acknowledge one Supreme , whom they call Fetisso : and believe him to be the Author both of the good and evil they receive , and therefore endeavour to appease him by many Sacrifices , Ceremonies and Prayers . Mandelslo saith , of the Inhabitants of Madagascar , that he was informed , that they believe there is one God who made Heaven and Earth ; and will one day punish bad actions and reward the good . Ioh. de Barros saith , that the Inhabitants of Monomotapa , believe in one God whom they call Mozimo ; and if we believe him , they worship nothing else besides him : the same others say of the Mordui , a people that inhabit the farther parts of Muscovy , who declare , that they worship only the Creator of the Universe to whom they offer the first fruits of all things , even of their meat and drink , casting some parts of them towards Heaven : but they have no Idols , nor baptism , and say they live according to nature : but Brietius saith , they worship Idols , or are Mahumetans . Texeira and Pimenta say that the Sect of the Baneans called Lon Kah , worship only the Supreme God , without Idols ; but Mexery hath Idols and doth worship them . Iosephus Indus , a Native of Cranganor saith , that the Gentile Idolaters there , did worship the God of Heaven , under the form of a Statue with three faces , and his hands folded , whom they called Tambram : and he saith , the King of Calecut is of the same Religion with them of Cranganor : and Ludovicus Vartomannus saith , that in Calecut , they call the Great God Tamerani , whom they believe to be the maker of the World ; but he adds , that they believe him to live at ease , and that he hath committed the Government of the world to Deumo , whose Image they worship , having on his head , saith Vartomannus , just such a Crown as the Popes of Rome have , only it hath three horns upon it : and the same is confessed by Iarricus . The people of Narsinga likewise believe one Supreme God , but worship Idols as the rest of the Indians do . Linschoten , gives this general testimony of them , that although they worship the Sun and Moon , yet they acknowledge one God , Creator and Governor of all things ; and do believe the rewards and punishments of another life to be according to mens good or bad actions in this life . But withall they worship Idols called Pagodes , after such a terrible representation as we make of Devils , whom they assert to have lived formerly upon earth , and to have been famous for sanctity and miracles , and to whom they address themselves , as Mediators to the Supreme God for them . The Kingdom of Siam is supposed to have been the ancient Seat of the Bramans , from whence the Religion of the Indies did spread it self : and here Schouten , who lived long among them , saith , that the common perswasion of the Gentiles , although different in other points , is , that there is one Supreme God , who created all things , and after him many inferiour Gods in Heaven ; that men shall receive rewards and punishments in another life according to their actions here . And that this Religion hath been delivered down to them by the succession of many ages ; and confirmed by the Testimony of Saints , whose memory they worship in their Images , which they have set up like so many lesser Deities : who have merited Heaven by their good Works . The Ceremonies of their worship , the nature of their Images , the manner of their Oblations , the customs of their Talapois , ( or Friers ) are such , that , some few things excepted , one would imagine no great difference between the Varelles of Siam , and the Iesuits Church and devotions there . M. de Bourges , who hath given an account of the late French Mission into those parts , confesses , that their external devotion to their Images is extraordinary , that they offer no bloody sacrifices , but all their oblations are of the fruits of the earth : and that they free themselves from the charge of Idolatry , because they acknowledge and worship one God , who is Lord over all ; and that their Images are intended to preserve the Memories of their Saints , that by the sight of them the people might be excited to imitate their vertues . And it is very true , saith he , that the Priests of Siam do thus answer the Christians who charge them with Idolatry , and think themselves no more guilty than the Missionaries of the Church of Rome who charge them . But he thinks , he hath cleared the difference between them by saying , that those of Siam are more uncertain in the belief of the Supreme God , and defective in giving any peculiar worship to him : and that they terminate their worship absolutely upon their Idols , and ask of them those things , which God alone can give . As to the former , we have seen the general consent of the Indians in the belief of a Supreme God , ( which is no token of their uncertainty ) and that many of them did think internal worship most proper to him ; and for the latter , if they suppose those Deities to be so by participation , and subordinate to the Supreme , I do not see , how the difference is made appear between the addresses they made to their Saints by their Images , and those made in the Church of Rome ; unless it be sufficient to say , that the Pope at Rome hath only power to Canonize Saints , and not the High-Priest of Siam . And therefore Campanella very wisely confesses upon these principles , the Heathens were no more guilty of Idolatry than themselves , in case the persons they worshipped had real vertues : and he doth not blame the wiser Gentiles , but the common people who forgot the true God , and worshipped their Varelles or Images with the worship of Latria ; which the Church of Rome likewise gives to the Cross : but of these things afterwards . If from the Indies , the model of this Discourse would allow us to search into the Idolatries of these Northern parts , we should find that the Nations which were the deepest sunk into Idolatry , did yet retain a sense of one Supreme Deity . Among whom we may justly reckon our Saxon Ancestors ; and yet from the Gothick Antiquities which have been lately published , we have reason to believe , that there was a Supreme God acknowledged among them too . For in the Edda of Snorro Sturleson which contains the ancient Religion of the Goths ; the first Question proposed is , who was the Supreme , and the most ancient of the Gods ? To which the Answer is , that the most-ancient of the Gods is called Alfader , the Father of all : and he had twelve names which are there enumerated : and after it is said of him , that This God lives for ever , and governs all things , that he made the Heaven , and Earth , and Air , and all things in them ; and which is the greatest of all , he made Man and gave him a Soul that should live for ever , although the body be destroyed ; and that those who were good should be with him in a place called Gimle or Wingulf , but those that were bad to Hela , and from thence to Niflheim . Which Niflheim , they add , was made many ages before the Earth ; and then they proceed to the creation of things , which is there reported after a fabulous manner . It is true , this Tradition came to be corrupted among them , when the attributes and worship belonging to this God were given to that Prince who conducted the Goths from their former Seat about the Palus Maeotis into the Northern Regions , who was called Odin , or Woden ; and so there came in such a confusion in their Idolatry as was among the Greeks between Iupiter Olympius , and him of Creet . But since they do mention this Odin as chief of the Asae , and tell the circumstances of his leading the people first to one place , then to another , they cannot mean by him , the same God whom they assert to have been from eternity , and to have created all things : but all this confusion did arise among them and other Nations , when vain and ambitious men did take upon them the names of the Deity on purpose , that they might have worship given to them ; and such a one this Odin is described to have been by all the Northern Historians ; and from hence likewise the names of Deified men , have been given to him whom they worshipped for the Supreme God. Thus also Thor was the Son of Odin ; yet in some of the Northern parts , they worshipped the Supreme Deity under his name , attributing the power over all things , even the inferiour Deities to him . And accordingly he was worshipped with a Crown on his Head , a Scepter in his hand , and twelve Stars about him ; as he is described by Olaus Magnus and others ; and Ioh. Magnus saith , that Thor was worshipped in the Golden Temple at Upsalia , tanquam potentissimus & summus omnium Deorum ; and to this day among the most barbarous Laplanders the Supreme God is worshipped under the same representation of Thor , ( as we are informed by a late credible Writer ) and to him they give besides , the name of Iumala : under him they worship a Deity , whom they call Storjunkare , or Vice-Roy , like the Tartars Natagay ; under whose care they suppose all inferiour creatures to man to be , and therefore they living much by hunting , make many supplications to him , and worship him under the representation of a rough hollow stone , which as rude and barbarous as they are , they are far enough from thinking to be the Deity it self , but only a Symbol to represent him . And the Idolatrous inhabitants of Samogitia , although they worship a multitude of Gods under several names , and as having a particular care over some things , and a sort of Serpents as Ministers of their Gods , yet they confess a Supreme God : so Lasicius saith , they have one omnipotent God , but many Zemopacii , or terrestrial Gods ; which he there at large enumerates ; and the same is acknowledged by Ioh. Meletius , who lived among them and describes their Idolatrous customs in an Epistle to Georg. Sabinus , A. D. 1553. who saith , that in the first place they invocate Occopirnus , the God of Heaven and Earth ; and then the inferiour Deities who are set over the Sea , Air , Spring , Woods , &c. Thus far I have clearly proved , that the acknowledged Idolatry of the present world , doth not exclude a Supreme God , but either the Idolaters suppose him to be above their worship , or think it not unlawful to worship inferiour Deities with the same external acts of worship which they perform to the Supreme God. The last thing I shall prove the consistency of Idolatry with giving Soveraign Worship to the Supreme God by is , from the Testimony of those Fathers who have charged such Christians with Idolatry , concerning whom there could be no dispute whether they believed and worshipped a Supreme God. Athanasius frequently lays this to the charge of the Arians , that by giving adoration to the Son of God , supposing him to be a Creature , they did bring in the Heathen Idolatry among Christians : 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which words are the more remarkable , because he accuses them of doing the same thing , which S. Paul charges the Gentiles with ; which therefore doth not imply , the passing by the worship of the Creator , but giving the same divine worship to a creature , which they do to the Supreme God. The same words he repeats afterwards in the same Oration , and desires the Arians to shew the difference between the Greeks and them , if they believed Christ not to be the true God , but only by participation , as the Greeks supposed their Gods to be . The force of this argument were wholly lost , if either the Greeks supposed many independent Deities , or Idolatry were inconsistent with the acknowledgement of one True God ; for the Arians might upon either of those grounds have shewed the disparity between them and the Greeks . Afterwards he saith expresly , they fell into the Polytheism of the Greeks ; from whence it unavoidably follows , that their Polytheism did not suppose several Deities of necessary and eternal existence ; but one Original and Supreme God , and the others only made so by participation from him . If it be impossible for a man who hath a right opinion of Gods incomparable excellency above the most noble creatures , to attribute the honour due to God alone , to that which he conceiveth to be a mere creature ; then the Arians were unjustly charged with Idolatry ; for they were supposed to do that , which it seems is impossible to be done : for they asserted , Christ to be a mere creature , and yet Athanasius saith , they were therein guilty of Idolatry , although they believed God to be incomparably above his creatures , in as much as all creatures , and Christ himself had what he had by participation from him : and whatever excellencies are attributed to a mere creature , as to Power , or Wisdom or Goodness , supposing them to be derivative from a Superior Being , they do still suppose an incomparable distance between the Creator and the creature . And it is farther observable in Athanasius , that he doth not lay the force of his argument in any distinction of the degrees of the divine worship , but useth promiscuously the terms of Latria and Dulia , as to the worship given to a creature ; for where he speaks afterwards of the Arians and Gentiles agreeing in giving divine worship to a creature , he thus expresses it , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , giving the worship of Dulia to a creature as well as to the Creator ; not as though he looked on the worship of Dulia as distinct from Latria , but by using these words promiscuously he shews , that he understood by both of them that divine worship which is alone proper to God , and which being given to a creature makes it Idolatry . He farther saith , that supposing what excellencies we please in Christ , although derived from God , yet if we withal suppose him to be a mere man , if we give divine worship to him , we shall be found 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worshippers of man , i. e. such kind of Idolaters as the Heathen were in the worship of Deified men : from which nothing can be more evident , than that the supposing the most real excellencies in a creature to have been by participation from God , doth not take off from the guilt of Idolatry , when that worship is given to the creature , which belongs only to God. S. Athanasius farther argues , that nothing but the divine nature is capable of adoration , and not any created excellency how great soever it be . For saith he , if the height of glory did deserve adoration , then every inferiour creature ought to worship the Superior ; but it is no such matter , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , for one creature is not to worship another , but a servant his Lord , and the creature God. From hence Peter forbad Cornelius who would have worshipped him saying , For I also am a Man. And the Angel S. John saying , See thou do it not , for I am also thy fellow servant ; worship God. Whence he infers , nor that the Angel complemented S. Iohn , not that S. Peter only did it to shew his humility , but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that it is proper only to God to be worshipped , without any distinction of the nature , kinds , or degrees of worship . But how many distinctions would T. G. and his Brethren make before they would grant that proposition ? It is true , say they , of Latria , soveraign and absolute worship , which is proper only to God ; but not of an inferiour kind of divine worship , which may be given to a creature on the account of divine excellencies communicated to it by God : This we may suppose was the Answer of the Arians ; but S. Athanasius was not certainly so weak a man to argue at this rate , if he had supposed this a sufficient answer ; for he could not but foresee it ; and a man of so much understanding , as it is evident he was , would have prevented this answer if he had thought it to the purpose ; but instead of that , he sets himself to prove , that the Angels , knowing themselves to be creatures , have on that account rejected all divine worship ; on the other side the Angels are commanded to worship Christ , and Christ did receive divine worship ; therefore , saith he , let the Arians burst themselves they can never make it appear that Christ would have been worshipped , if he had been a creature . And to prevent all subterfuges in this matter , in his fourth Oration , he argues against joyning Christ together with God in our prayers to him , if he were a creature , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . No man would ever pray to receive any thing from God and Angels ; or from God and any creature . Little did Athanasius think of mens joyning God and the Saints , or God and the B. Virgin in their prayers or praises : little did he imagine , that ever it would have been received in the Christian Church , to conclude their Books with a Doxology to God and the B. Virgin , Laus Deo & B. Virgini , as many of the greatest reputation in the Church of Rome have done : and as Baronius hath done it very solemnly at the end of every Tome of his Annals : as at the conclusion of the First , after the mention of the Father , Son and Holy Ghost , he adds , Nec non & sanctissimae virgini Dei Genitrici Mariae , ut conciliatrici Divini Numinis ; ipsi namque sicut haec omnia nostra accepta ferimus , ita pariter & offerimus ; ut ipsa eadem qualiacunque sint dilecto filio suo porrigut , &c. And in the end of the second he hath these words , Et beneficii memor actura gratias ( oratio ) ex more ad sanctissimae Dei Genitricis Mariae pedes prona se sternat ; ut Cui accepta fert Omnia , dono offerat quicquid à Deo se ejus precìbus intelligit consecutam . Is not this joyning God and the creature together , which Athanasius supposes no Christian would ever do ? but supposing they did it , he doth not at all suppose them to be excused from Idolatry in so doing . But Athanasius goes on shewing , that if the Arians confess Christ to be God , and to be of a distinct substance from his Father , they must bring in Polytheism ; or at least worship two Gods , the one uncreated and unbegotten , the other created and begotten : and in so doing they must oppose one to the other . For , saith he , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , we cannot see one in the other , because of their different natures and operations . Which is an argument I desire T. G. to consider the weight of . He is proving , that supposing Christ to be of a different nature from God , although he had all imaginable excellencies in him communicated from the Father , yet God could not be worshipped in the worshipping of the Son ; but these two worships must be opposite to each other , because the one is the worship of a created , the other of an increated Being . How far was Athanasius then from supposing , that the worship given to any created Being on the account of communicated excellencies , is at last carried to the Supreme , and terminated only upon him ? For , he saith , that these two worships do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fight one against the other : and therefore who ever do give such different worships , they must bring in more Gods than one , which is an Apostasie from one God : where we still observe that Polytheism is consistent as well as Idolatry , with the acknowledgement of one Supreme Being : and that they are said to worship other Gods , who do believe the true , but give divine worship to a Creature . And therefore he would have the Arians to reckon themselves together with the Gentiles : and although they shun the reproach of the name , yet they hold the same opinion with them : And it is to no purpose for them to say that they do not worship Two uncreated Beings , for this is only to deceive the simple : for although they do not worship two uncreated , yet they worship Two Gods of a different nature , the one created , the other uncreated . For , saith he in these remarkable words , if the Heathens worshipped one uncreated and many created ; and they worship one uncreated , and one created , what difference is there between them and the Gentiles ? for that one whom they worship is but as the many which the Gentiles , being of the same created nature together with them : therefore , he saith , they deny Christ and joyn with the Gentiles , giving the same worship to several Gods. I do not think any proposition in Euclid can be made more clear , than it is from these expressions of Athanasius , that he believed Idolatry to be consistent with the belief and worship of one God. The same thing he urges in other places , but if this be not proof enough , I know not what will be . S. Gregory Nazianzen parallels those who worshipped the Son or Holy Ghost , supposing them to be creatures , with those who worshipped Astaroth or Chemosh or Remphan , because they were creatures too : For whatever difference of honour or glory there be , all creatures are our fellow servants , and therefore not to be worshipped by us . Might not the Arians have chared Gregory Nazianzen to have imitated Iulian the Apostate upon as good reason as T. G. doth me ? For however in words they professed to abhor the worship of Ashtoreth , or Chemosh , or Remphan , as much as he did ; yet he did not regard their professions , but thought it reasonable to judge by the nature of their actions . And what profaneness would T. G. have accounted this , to parallel the worship of the Son and Holy Ghost with that of Chemosh and Ashtoreth ? Yet we see Gregory doth not forbear making use of the similitude of the worship , although there were so great a disparity in the objects . Gregory Nyssen saith , that the Devil by the means of Arianism brought Idolatry again insensibly into the world , perswading men to return to the worship of the creature by his sophistry , and that Arius , Eunomius , Eudoxius and Aetius were his instruments in restoring Idolatry under a pretence of Christianity . In another place , he hath this considerable passage . God commands by the Prophet , that we should have no new God , nor worship any strange God ; but that is a new God which was not for ever ; and that is a strange God which is different from our God. Who is our God ? the true God ; who is a strange God ? he that hath a different nature from the true God. He that makes the Son a creature , makes him of a different nature . And they who make him a creature , do they worship him or no ? if not , they joyn with the Iews , if they do worship him , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , they commit Idolatry . Therefore we must believe him to be the true Son of the true Father , that we may worship him , and doing so , that we be not condemned as worshipping a strange God. To the same purpose he argues against Eunomius ; that it is the property of Idolaters to worship the creature , or any new or strange God ; and that they who divide the Father and the Son , must either wholly take away the worship of the Son , or they must worship an Idol ( the very word used by S. Gregory ) making a creature and not God the object of their worship , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , placing the name of Christ upon an Idol : that this was the fault of the Heathen Idolaters that they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , worship those which were not Gods by nature , and therefore could not worship the true God : where it is observable that he uses the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both for the worship given to Idols by the Heathens , and for that which is proper to God : from which it is evident that these Fathers knew of no such distinction of the nature of divine worship , as is understood in the Roman Church under the terms of Latria and Dulia : for if they had , having to deal with subtile adversaries , they would not have failed to have explained themselves in the matter ; which had been absolutely necessary to the force of their own arguments , if any such distinction had been known or allowed in the Christian Church . Again he saith , that he that puts the name of Son to a creature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be reckoned among Idolaters ; for they , saith he , called Dagon , and Bel , and the Dragon God : but for all that they did not worship God ; and therefore he still urgeth against Eunomius , that either with the Iews he must deny the worship of Christ , or he must joyn with the Gentiles in the worship of the creature . S. Basil charges the Arians and Eunomians with bringing in the Polytheism and Idolatry of the Greeks ; for they who say , that the Son of God is a creature , and yet worship him as God , do worship a creature and not the Creator , and so introduce Gentilism again . And against Eunomius , he urges the same places and reasons , which I have already mentioned out of Nyssen , viz. that if Christ be not the eternal God , he must be a new and strange God ; and to worship that which by nature is not God , is the fault S. Paul charges the Heathen Idolaters with . Epiphanius proves , that Christs being a creature , and having divine worship given him , are inconsistent according to the Scriptures : and that those who worship a creature , fall under S. Pauls reprehension of the Heathen Idolaters , who did call the creatures God : but true faith teaches us to worship the Creator and not the creature . He thinks this Rule sufficient against all the arts and sophistry of men , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that no creature ought to be worshipped . For , saith he , upon the same reason we worship one , we may worship all together with their creator , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : where we see he doth not speak of such worship as doth exclude the Creator , but of that which is supposed to be joyned together with his ; nor of a Soveraign Worship to be given to them , but of such as doth suppose the distance between the Creator and his Creatures . Upon this principle , he saith , the Arians made the Son of God like to the Idols of the Heathens : for if he be not the true God , he is not to be worshipped ; nay , he adds , that those who said Christ was to be worshipped although a creature , did build up Babylon again , and set up the image of Nebuchadnezzar , and by their words as by Musical instruments draw men to the worship of an Image rather than of the true God. Is it credible , saith he , that God should make a creature to be worshipped , when he hath forbidden men to make any likeness of things in Heaven or Earth , and to fall down and worship it ? when the Apostle makes this the Idolatry of the Heathen that they worshipped the creature as well as the Creator : wherein they became Fools : for it is a foolish thing to attribute divinity to a creature , and to break the first Commandment of the Law , Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God , and him only shalt thou serve . Therefore , saith he , the holy Church of God doth not worship any creature , but the Father in the Son , and the Son in the Father , together with the Holy Ghost . To the very same purpose , he speaks in his Ancoratus . If the Son of God be a creature , he is not to be worshipped ; for it is folly and wickedness to worship a creature . But these are not the only persons whom Epiphanius charges with such Idolatry as is consistent with the belief of one True God : for he charges those with Idolatry who gave Divine Worship to the B. Virgin ; and saith , that this was that very Idolatry which God condemned in the people of Israel , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there shall be worshippers of the dead : which worship of the B. Virgin , was offering up a Cake to her ( which surely is not so much as mens offering up themselves to be her slaves , and offering up their devotions and services to her ) yet this Epiphanius cryes out upon as rank Idolatry , and destructive to their Souls who did it , and the device of the Devil ; who always brought in Idolatry , saith he , under fair pretences . Which of all the Prophets ever suffered a man to be worshipped , not to speak of a woman ? And although she have never so great excellencies , yet her nature remains the same with others : But neither is Elias to be worshipped , although still alive ; nor S. John , although he received extraordinary favour from Christ ; nor Thecla , nor any other of the Saints . For , saith he , the old deceit shall not prevail over us , to leave the living God , and to worship the things that are made by him : for they , saith S. Paul , served and worshipped the creature more than the Creator , and therein became Fools . But if it be not lawful to worship Angels , how much less to worship the Daughter of Anna ? Of whom our Saviour said on purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; what have I to do with thee ? Lest any should think more than was fitting of her , he calls her Woman , as foreseeing the Schisms and Heresies that would come into the world on her account . We are not to imagine that these people were so silly to take the B. Virgin for the Great God , nor that they did forsake the worship of God and Christ for that of the B. Virgin ; but all that Epiphanius saith of them is , that they brought her in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of a Deity , i. e. that they gave divine honour to her ; and whosoever did give this to a creature , they looked on them as guilty of forsaking the true God , however they might in words still profess and acknowledge him ; So he charges those with Idolatry who worshipped Iephthas daughter , and Thermutis the daughter of Pharaoh ; but it were madness to think that either of these were esteemed by their worshippers , the Supreme Deity . But Epiphanius fully explains himself , when he saith that Idolatry comes into the world through an adulterous inclination of the mind , which cannot be contented with one God alone ; like an adulterous woman that is not satisfied with the chast embraces of one Husband , and wanders in her lust after many Lovers . Therefore as adultery is consistent with the owning of one lawful Husband , so is Idolatry with the profession of one true God. Therefore Epiphanius bids men , have a care of too great an admiration of the Saints , lest it should lead them into this dangerous error ; that the safest way is to honour their Lord ; that those are equally to blame who too much extol the B. Virgin , as those who depress and vilifie her ; too great praises being apt to become an occasion of others falling : and therefore he repeats it twice as the saying he would have all Christians remember , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Honour the Virgin , but worship God ; and lest any should think worship were a part of that honour which was due to her , he saith expresly , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Let no man worship the B. Virgin : for that belongs neither to the Woman , nor to her Husband , nor to Angels , but to God alone . How punctually hath the Church of Rome followed the Counsel of Epiphanius ! But of this at large hereafter . S. Cyril of Alexandria likewise makes those guilty of Heathen Idolatry , of worshipping the creature rather than the creator , who give adoration to Christ supposing him to be a creature : and he undertakes to demonstrate out of Scripture , that no creature ought to be worshipped as God ; and that nothing which doth give adoration to God , ought to receive it from others : which he proves , from the examples of Peter to Cornelius , the Angels to S. Iohn , and Manoe ; and that whatever excellency we suppose in creatures , it doth not make them capable of divine worship ; but although they have different excellencies , yet one sort is not to worship another , but all of them are to worship God alone , and his Son Christ Iesus . Again , if Christ be not God , and we give him worship , we shall be found 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , worshipping the creature rather than the Creator ; ( where we are to observe that S. Cyril applies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to proper divine worship . ) Again , it is written , Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God , and him only shalt thou serve ; how then , if he be a creature , can he be worshipped by us ? And elsewhere , the question being proposed , whether we may worship Christ as man ? he answers , God forbid : for , saith he , this would be vanity , errour and deceit ; and we should differ nothing from those who worshipped the creature rather than the Creator , and be liable to the same charge S. Paul draws up against the Heathen Idolaters , viz. that they changed the Truth of God into a lie , &c. and at large there shews , that this would be relapsing into the old Idolatry . In his Commentaries on S. Iohn he shews , that although Christ had never so divine excellencies communicated to him , yet he was not a fit object for our worship if he were not the true God ; because we are bound to serve and worship God alone : and that if he be not so , not only mankind but the Angels will be guilty of Idolatry in giving him adoration . In his Dialogues about the Trinity , he saith , it is one of the great blessings we have by Christ , to be delivered from the worship of the Creature ; but in case we return to that , the institution of Moses will be found better than that of Christianity ; for that did strictly forbid all worship of creatures , and called men from them to the worship of God alone ; that this was the reproach of the Gentiles , that they worshipped Creatures , and that the Christians returned to Gentilism , if they worshipped a Creature together with God ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : and afterwards , he calls this a falling from Christ ; all which doth fully discover S. Cyrils judgement that Idolatry is consistent with the acknowledgement and worship of one Supreme God. Theodoret saith , he that came to take away the worship of the creature , would never set it up again : for this would be a most absurd thing , to bring them back again , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the worship of creatures , where he uses dulia likewise for the adoration that is due to the Son and Holy Ghost . S. Chrysostom saith , that the Arians and Macedonians making one Great God , and another less and created God , did bring in Gentilism again . For it is that which teacheth men to worship a Creature , and to make one great God , and others inferiour . Such as these S. Paul condemns , for giving worship to a creature : and they are accursed according to the Law of Moses : which saith , Cursed is every one who worships a creature , or any thing that is made . S. Ambrose goes farther and saith , S. Paul foresaw that Christians would be brought to the worship of Creatures , and therefore not only condemns the Gentiles , but warns the Christians by saying , that God would damn those who worship the creature rather than the Creator . Either therefore let the Arians cease to worship him whom they call a creature ; or cease to call him a creature whom they worship ; lest under the name of worshippers they be found to commit the greater sacriledge . S. Augustin saith , that the Arians by giving worship to Christ as God , whom they believed to be a creature , did make more Gods than one , and break the Law of God which did forbid the worship of more than one God ; and set up Idols to themselves , although they acknowledged one Great God , and made the Son and Holy Ghost lesser and inferiour Gods. From this unanimous consent of the Fathers in charging the Arrians with Idolatry , it most evidently follows , that according to them Idolatry is consistent with the belief and worship of one Supreme God ; which is not , the only considerable advantage we gain by those Testimonies , but from them it likewise appears , 1. That it is Idolatry to give divine worship to any creature , how great soever the excellencies of that creature be ; for none can be imagined greater , than those which the Arians attributed to the Son of God. 2. That the Fathers looked on the worship of Dulia as divine worship ; as appears by their applying that term to the worship which was given to Christ. 3. That the name of an Idol doth belong to the most real and excellènt being , when divine worship is given to it ; for they give this name to Christ himself , when he is worshipped as a Creature . 4. That relative Latria is Idolatry , when given to any Creature . For this was all the Arians subterfuge , that it could not be Idolatry to worship Christ as a Creature , because they worshipped him only as the Image of God , and relatively terminating their worship on God the Father through him : notwithstanding which answer of theirs , the Fathers with one consent , declare such worship to be Idolatry ; and that it would make way for the worship of any creature , and was the introducing of Heathen Idolatry under a pretence of Christianity . These things which are here only observed in passage , will be of great use in the following Discourses . CHAP. II. Of the Nature of Divine Worship . I Now come to the second Enquiry , Wherein the Nature of that Divine Worship lies , which being given to a creature makes that Worship Idolatry ? And that I may proceed with all possible clearness in this matter , I shall enquire , 1. What Worship is ? 2. What Divine Worship is , and what are the proper acts of it ? 3. How the applying of these Acts to a Creature , doth make the worship of it Idolatry ? What worship is . Aquinas hath given this distinction between honour and worship ; that honour is quaedam recognitio excellentiae alicujus , an acknowledgement of anothers excellency , but cultus or worship in quodam obsequio consistit , implies subjection to another . The foundation of this distinction doth not lie so much in the force and signification of the words , as in the different effects that excellency alone considered hath upon our minds ; from what it hath when it is joyned with Superiority and a Power over us . Meer excellency doth produce only in our minds a due esteem according to the nature and degrees of it ; which is a debitum morale , as the Schoolmen speak , from us towards it , i. e. something which according to nature and reason we ought to give it , and therefore it is accounted a part of natural justice , to esteem whatever excellencies we apprehend to be in others , although we receive no benefit by them our selves ; and whatever implies a real excellencie , whether it be intellectual or moral , whether infinite or finite , whether natural or acquired , it deserves an estimation suitable to its kind and degree . But the honour which is due to excellencie doth not only lie in an act of the mind ; but in a correspondent inclination of the will to testifie that esteem by such outward expressions as may manifest it to others ; and that either by words , which is called Praise ; or by gestures , as bowings of the body ; or by facts , as gifts , statues , &c. All these Aquinas tells us do belong to honour . But Worship implies something beyond this ; which is subjection to anotheron the account of his Power over us ; for we may express honour and esteem towards equals or inferiours , because the reason of it may be in those as well as others ; therefore there must be a different duty in us with respect to Superiority ; and this is worship . So the Schoolmen define adoration ; adorare non dicimur , nisi in dignitate constitutos , quos nobis Superiores cognoscimus , saith Vasquez . Honor potest esse ad aequalem , saith Suarez , juxta illud ad Rom. 12. honore invicem praevenientes ; adoratio vero respicit alium ut excellentem & superiorem . Ex parte adorantis plane necessarium est , saith Tannerus , ut is rem adorandam concipiat , tanquam aliquo modo se superiorem seu praestantiorem . But more fully Bernardus Pujol , Adoratio est submissio quaedam & quasi humiliatio , quam subditus facit propter excellentiam superioris , & in honorem illius : and Gamachaeus , Adoratio essentialiter includit subjectionem ac submissionem aliquam . Adoratio est inferioris ad superiorem , saith Ysambertus : Cardinal Lugo goes farther , saying of Cultus , se apud probatos auctores videre , semper eam vocem applicari ad significandam reverentiam erga superiores . And although Arriaga thinks Cultus of a larger signification , yet the definition he gives of adoration is , that it is honor exhibitus superiori in signum submissionis & humiliationis . Bellarmine makes the first act of adoration , to be in the mind , and that only the apprehension of the excellencie of the object ; but the second in the will , to be not only an inclination of it towards the object , but a willing by some internal or external act to acknowledge the excellencie of the object and our subjection : and to these he adds , the external act , either of bowing the head , or bending the knee , or some other token of subjection . So that Bellarmine agrees with the rest in making the formal act of adoration to be subjection to a superiour : but withal , he makes the meer apprehension of excellencie to include the formal reason of it ; whereas meer excellencie without Superiority doth not require any subjection but only estimation . For let us apprehend never so great excellencie in a Person that hath no Authority over us , the only effect of it in us , is only a mighty estimation ; whereas the apprehension of Power and Authority in a Person , where there is not that opinion of excellencie doth naturally incline men to submission to him . Nay , although we apprehend a conjunction of Excellencie and Power together , if that power doth not respect us , we find no inclination in our selves by any acts to testifie our subjection to it . As if we apprehend the greatest things in the world of the Emperor of China , or Iapan ; how doth that apprehension move us to express any acts of subjection to either of them ? we are well enough contented for all that to let them govern at home , and think it more our own interest and duty to submit to those who have the Power over our Selves . Nay , yet farther , if according to the Epicurean Hypothesis , we could suppose God himself to be a most excellent being , but to exercise no power or Authority over the world , there would be still reason for a great esteem left ; but not for the subjection of our selves to him : and we might express that esteem by praises , and other testimonies of his honour ; but there would be no ground for any proper service or worship of him ; either in prayers or thanksgivings , or any rites of Religious worship which imply any dependence upon him , or subjection to him . So that the notion of Honour and Worship are in themselves distinct things , the one arising from the apprehension of excellencie , and the formal reason of the other , being Superiority and a Power over us . 2. For the nature of Divine Worship ; it must consist in such a subjection of our selves to God ; as is most suitable to the apprehensions we ought to have of his infinite Power and Soveraignty over us . And because his Soveraignty is supreme , absolute and peculiar to himself ; therefore our worship of him must approach as near to the expression of this , as it is possible for us to come , i. e. it must be of the highest nature , with the greatest submission of our souls to him , it must be entire , not divided between him and others , and it must have such a peculiarity in it , as may not be given to any besides himself . For whatever worship is common to him and others , doth not serve to express the sense of our minds as to his peculiar Soveraignty over us ; and this is one of the inviolable Rights of Soveraignty , to have such acts of Worship appropriated to it , that the giving of these to any other , is a violation of the Royal Dignity : and this hath been looked on as a crimen Laesae Majestatis , and to deserve as high a punishment as any other whatsoever ; because it is an immediate attempt upon the Soveraign Power , and whatever lessens it tends to overthrow it . If then God be acknowledged by all to have the only Supreme Power over us , nothing can be more unreasonable in it self , nor a greater affront to his Majesty , than to make all outward expressions of our duty to him common to himself and his Creatures . I know it is not denied by T. G. or his Brethren , that there is a Soveraign Worship which belongs to God : but we are to consider , that withal they tell us , ( 1. ) That the external acts of adoration or worship are equivocal , and sometimes may signifie the honour which belongs to God , and sometimes that which belongs to the Creature . ( 2. ) That even sacrifice it self , which they look on as most peculiar to God and an acknowledgement of the absolute worship due to him , doth receive the formality of such an act from an intention to profess a total submission of our selves to God as the Supreme Author of life and death ; otherwise T. G. saith , the material action of sacrifice may be done for several ends and intentions . By which it appears that upon the whole matter , the nature of divine worship is not , according to them , to be taken from any external acts , but from the inward intention of the mind . But that there are some peculiar external acts of Divine Worship which ought to be attributed to none but to God himself ; I prove , 1. From the nature and design of Religious worship . 2. From the Law of God appropriating some acts only to God. 3. From the practise of the Christian Church , condemning those for Idolatry , who have given them to any creature . 1. From the nature and design of Religious worship , which is to put a difference between the worship we give to God and to his Creatures . For since God hath appointed Government among men , it is plain that his intention was , that some kind of worship should be given from some of his creatures to others , although of the same nature with themselves ; for where there is a power to punish and to reward , there is the foundation of worship in those who are under that power : which worship lies in expressing a due regard to that power , by a care not to provoke it , and an endeavour to obtain the favour of it ; which being among mankind living in Society with each other , is therefore called civil worship . Which denomination it doth not lose although we give that worship to Superiours upon a Religious account , i. e. though I give worship to my Soveraign with a respect to God , because he hath commanded it , and I intend to honour him by it ; yet the worship doth not take its denomination from my intention , but from the nature of the Act , which being civil , the worship continues to bear that name . By which we see that the external circumstances which do accompany mens acts , are those which do so circumscribe and limit them , that from thence they become either civil or Religious . I cannot therefore but extremely wonder to see men of understanding so much to seek in this matter , because the same external acts are common to divine and civil worship ; but what then ? doth it therefore follow that there is no certain way to discriminate these one from the other ? I grant the same external act of adoration may be used to men which is used to God ; as Abraham bowed to the Children of Heth in token of civil respect , as well as when he worshipped God ; but could not any one that considered the circumstances make a plain difference between these two sorts of adoration ? When the Roman Emperours would have divine honours given to them , were any of the people of Rome so senseless to say they knew no difference between them and the worship given them before , because they might use the same external acts of adoration in both cases ? Suppose the Pope one day to sit on , a throne as a temporal Prince , and on that account summoning his subjects to give homage to him , and another day to be placed upon the Altar , as he is after his election by the Orders of the Roman Church , there to receive adoration from the Cardinals as the Vicar of Christ ; would any man say he could see no difference in these , because the same postures may be used in both ? Although then the outward acts may be the same , yet the signification of those acts may be far from equivocal , because determined by the circumstances which do accompany them . I grant then , that the meer external act of adoration in bowing or kneeling , may be given both on the account of honour and worship , i. e. upon the account of excellencie , and superiority ; as some of the Patriarchs bowed to Angels , as a token of honour of their excellencies , and not out of Religious worship ; and men may bow and kneel to their Soveraign Princes on the account of civil worship ; and Children to their Parents in token of their subjection to them ; as well as creatures to their Creator in their solemn acts of devotion : but I say in all these cases , the different signification of these acts is to be gathered from the circumstances of them . And that acts of Religious , and civil worship might be distinguished from each other , came the appointment of set times and places , and solemn rites for the performance of Religious worship . From hence Cicero gives that definition of Religion , Religio est , quae superioris cujusdam naturae ( quam divinam vocant ) curam ceremoniamque affert : therefore they thought the solemn rites and circumstances of Religious worship were sufficient to discriminate the nature of that worship from any other : and these they thought so peculiar to the divine nature , that whatever Being they gave this solemn worship to , they thought to deserve the name of a Deity although inferiour and subordinate : because these acts of worship were appropriated to a Divine Being . Aquinas cannot deny that there are some external acts of Religion so peculiar to God that they ought not to be given to any other ; and on this account he makes Religion a moral vertue , and a part of justice , because it is its office reddere cultum debitum Deo , to give God the worship which belongs to him ; now , saith he , because the excellencie of God is peculiar to himself , being infinitely above all others , therefore the worship which belongs to him ought to be peculiar . Ad Religionem pertinet , saith Cajetan , exhibere reverentiam uni Deo , secundum unam rationem , in quantum sc. est primum principium creationis & gubernationis rerum . But since this reason of Religious worship , from the creation and government of the world , is so peculiar to God , as to be incommunicable to any else besides him , is there not all the reason in the world that the Acts of this worship should be peculiar to him too ? And upon this ground Aquinas doth grant it in the case of sacrifice ; hoc etiam videmus in omni Republica observari , quod summum Rectorem aliquo signo singulari honorant , quod cuicunque alteri deferretur esset crimen laesae Majestatis ; & ideo in lege divina statuitur poena mortis iis qui divinum honorem aliis exhibent . From whence we infer , not only that there ought to be peculiar external acts of Religious worship appropriated to God , but that the giving the worship done by those acts to any creature , is a crime of the highest nature . The same Aquinas , disputing against the Heathens , saith , that it is an unreasonable thing , to those that hold one first principle , to give divine worship to any other besides him : and we give worship to God , not that he needs it ; but that hereby the belief of one God may be confirmed in us by external and sensible acts , which cannot be done , saith he , unless there be some peculiar acts of his worship , and this we call divine worship . Besides , this external worship is necessary to men , to raise in their minds a spiritual reverence of God ; and we find that custom hath a great influence on mens minds ; but it is a custom among men that the honour or worship given to the Supreme Governour should be given to none else ; therefore it ought to be much more so towards God ; because if a liberty be allowed of giving this worship to others of a higher rank and not only to the supreme , then men and Angels might give divine worship to one another . To which he adds , that the benefits we receive from God are peculiar to him , as that of creation and preservation , and that he is our Lord by a proper title , and Angels and the best of creatures are but his servants , therefore we ought not to give the same worship to them that we do to God as our Lord. In his disputation about Idolatry , he shews , that the command Exod. 20. doth reach to external as well as internal worship ; and he argues against those , who pleaded that all visible and external worship ought to be given to other Gods , and only internal to the supreme God ; as being much better , upon this principle , that the external belongs only to him , to whom the internal belongs ; and he disputes against those Hereticks , who thought it lawful in time of persecution to give external worship to Idols , as long as they preserved the true faith in their minds ; for , saith he , the external worship is a profession or sign of the internal , but as it is a pernicious thing for a man to speak contrary to his mind ; so it is to act contrary to it , and therefore S. Augustin condemned Seneca as so much the more culpable in the worship of Idols , because he acted against the sense of his own mind . In the next article , he shews , that Idolatry is a sin of the highest nature ; for , saith he , as in a commonwealth , it is the greatest crime to give the honour due to the Soveraign to any other ( for this is as much as lies in a man to put all things into disorder and confusion ) so among the sins that are committed against God , that seems to be the greatest , whereby a man gives divine worship to a creature : and saith , that it includes blasphemy in it , because it takes away from God the peculiarity of his dominion ; Cajetan there saith , that the Idolater , as much as in him lies , tollit à Deo suam singularem excellentiam qua solus est Deus ; robs God of that peculiar excellencie whereby he is God alone . Thus we see the necessity of some peculiar external acts of divine worship is asserted by these men in order to the preserving the belief and worship of one God in the world . Suarez grants , that as the excellency of God is singular and above all creatures ; so he ought to have a singular and incommunicable worship , as is plain from those words of Scripture , Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God , and him only shalt thou serve : but then he makes this worship peculiar to God , to consist chiefly in the internal acts of the mind , which only in themselves and of their own nature are such as do belong to the worship of God ; but external acts are not so determined of themselves , but they may be given either to God or to the creature : however , he grants , that although outward acts be in themselves indifferent , yet when sufficient Authority hath apprepriated some acts as peculiar to divine worship , they ought to be used for no other purpose ; and that if these acts of worship be applied to a creature , it makes that worship at least external Idolatry , if it be not done ex animo and out of a false opinion . In this point of the external acts of divine worship , these two things may be observed of the Divines of the Roman Church . 1. That in the general they confess , that there ought to be some peculiar external acts of divine worship , as most agreeable to Gods incommunicable excellencie ; and in particular , when they are pressed with any difficulties from Scripture or Fathers , about not giving divine worship to a creature , then they are sure to tell us , those places are to be understood of the worship that is proper only to God. Thus they think to escape the force of that place which is so evident , that it blinds them with the light of it ; Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God , and him only shalt thou serve ; which was certainly understood of an external act of worship ; for the Devil said to Christ , Fall down and worship me . Yes , say they , that is very true of the adoration proper to God ; but what is that ? for they say there is no outward act of adoration but is common to God and his Creatures . Tannerus excepts no creature , inanimate or animate , but only the Devil ; yet lest he should have gone too far in this , he saith afterwards , that physically speaking God may be worshipped in any creature , but then men must have a care that they do not truely and properly worship the thing it self ; but only use the external signs of divine honour before it , applying them to what is represented . I confess this gives a very slender account of our Saviours answer , for it seems he might physically speaking have worshipped God , by falling down before the Devil ; all the danger was in the scandal and indecencie of it : but being done in a Wilderness , the scandal of it , as to men at least , had not been great . Vasquez resolves the case , that if the Devil appear to a man , he may do all the external acts of adoration before him , provided he be not well assured it is the Devil , and that he direct his worship to God : and that he proves by this demonstrative argument , because all external acts of adoration are to be directed by the inward intention of the mind ; but he confesses many of their Divines allow only a conditional adoration in this case ; however it seems our Saviour spake a little too peremptorily , in utterly refusing it upon any terms . But then they tell us the Devil was too fancy , and demanded the absolute worship proper only to God ; i. e. saith Vasquez , not meerly the external act of adoration , but that inward submission of mind which is only due to God , which is more than appears by the words . Bellarmine and the rest of them say that our Saviour refused to give the worship of Latria to the Devil ; by which it seems , our Saviour did not answer to the purpose , for the Devil expressed no more , than falling down and worshipping him ; which according to them might be done without Latria , by the same external act , but not the same intention of mind : which not being in the power of him that demands , but only of him that gives , nothing had been more necessary than to have expresly required the intention of the mind , otherwise the Devil might have been easily cheated by directing the intention of the external act quite another way ; but for all that we can see , the Devil was then to learn these subtilties . However , this now serves to turn off the plainest places that would seem to prove , that all external acts of Religious worship are to be given only to God. The Hereticks , saith Arriaga , object many things out of Scriptures , and Fathers , and Councils , in which it is said that God only is to be worshipped ; but to all these we answer in one word , that they only speak of the worship of Latria which is proper to God : and so they would have answered thousands of places more , as well as those that are urged against them : so that the reserving this worship as peculiar to God serves them to very good purpose , viz. to turn off as with a wet finger whatever is urged against them . So Bernardus Pujol without more ado sends away all the Testimonies of the Fathers , Ad loca sanctorum Patrum respondemus , illa intelligenda esse de adoratione Latriae quae soli Deo tribuitur ; and so fare them well , without any farther examination . And yet some of these men upon better thoughts have concluded that some of the places of Scripture cannot be understood of the worship of Latria . For although Aquinas , Tannerus and several others , answer the instance of Mordecai refusing to worship Aman , with the common shift , that he would not give Latria to him , yet Cajetan , Suarez , Vasquez , Pujol and Arriaga , all conclude , that this is not to be understood of the worship of Latria ; but that Mordecai refused to use the same external act of adoration , which among the Iews they were wont to give to God : wherein Cajetan thinks , he was not so wise as he might have been , because Jacob worshipped his Brother Esau ; Arriaga , that he did well though he followed an erring conscience : Suarez , Vasquez , and Pujol , that he did prudently , because the constant using of that act of adoration to Aman , which among them did belong to the worship of God , would have tended to the dishonour of God and Religion , and have been a great scandal to the Iews . Neither is Cajetan satisfied with the same answer to the instance of St. Iohn's offering to worship the Angel , for this were , saith he , to charge St. John with committing a very great sin , which the Angel hindred him from the consummation of : but , saith he , St. John intended no more than the greatest external act of Reverence ; but because so great reverence ought to be reserved only to God , that some outward reverence might be appropriated to Him , therefore the Angel forbad him giving it to him . Suarez confesses , that it cannot be understood of Latria , but that the Angel put it off with a complement , as St. Peter did to Cornelius : and with him the rest agree , either as a complement to his Person , or to humane nature since the Incarnation : but Aquinas pertinently saith , it was to avoid the occasion of Idolatry , because the Angel immediately adds , Worship God. Thus far we find they go in the avoiding of difficulties . 2. But when they deliver their minds freely , they reserve no one act of external adoration as proper to God ; and to be performed by all Christians . Bellarmin saith , that fere omnes actus exteriores communes sunt omni adorationi , almost all external acts are common to the adoration of God and the Creatures , excepting sacrifice , and what belongs to that , as Temples , Altars and Priests , which , he saith , God hath reserved to himself . Arriaga saith , that there is no external act of adoration but may be given to creatures , excepting only sacrifice ; Suarez , that sacrifice it self doth not signifie our acknowledgement of Gods soveraignty of it self , but only by custom and imposition ; for the killing of a sacrifice doth not of it self signifie that God is the Author of Life and Death . And for other parts of Religious worship he confesses , that Temples are erected and Festivals kept to the honour of Saints , at least secondarily ; that they are worshipped with Fastings , Vigils , Pilgrimages , and such like ; that their worship is deservedly called Religious worship . 1. Because it consists of Religious actions . 2. Because it is so nearly conjoyned with divine worship . 3. Because it tends to mens improvement in Religion . 4. Because it is founded in sanctity , which is next to Religion . It seems then nothing is left to God , but having the same things done to him in the first place , which may in a secondary respect be done to his creatures ; for we are told , that even Sacrifice it self may be offered to God for the honour of his creatures . But what is this Sacrifice now among Christians , which is peculiar to God ? There is no other , saith Arriaga , but that of the Altar ; and this , as Cajetan observes , cannot reach to all Christians , but only belongs to the Priests to offer it : but instead of this , he saith from Aquinas , that two sorts of spiritual sacrifices do belong to all , viz. the offering up of their minds in devotion to God , and the offering up the acts of other vertues . So that at last we see no one external act of proper Religious worship is by them left as peculiar to God , which all mankind are obliged to perform . And to this purpose we have the plain resolution of Cardinal Lugo , which I the rather mention because of his great Authority , and Eminency , and writing since the rest ; He puts the question , Whether there be any sign , or external act of adoration , which it is not lawful to give to any , but to God alone ? For , saith he , genuflection , and smitting the breast , and such like , are given to Saints . To this he answers , 1. That it is possible such a sign or external act may be instituted by men , as may signifie only that worship which is proper to God. 2. That Sacrifice is not properly an act of adoration , but of another kind distinct from it . 3. That there is no one external act of adoration , which is proper to Latria , or the worship peculiar to God. But to what end were there any such thing as publique Religious Worship among men , on the account of Gods peculiar Soveraignty over us , if the acts of that worship be not appropriated to himself ? For there is no necessity of publique worship for the acts of the mind , which are performed out of the view of others . What is publique must be external ; and if there be any necessity that God be publickly owned and worshipped by us , as our only Lord and Almighty Maker of Heaven and Earth ; the very same natural reason which directs to this , doth likewise shew , that what is intended for his publique worship , ought to be communicated to none else besides him . Neither is it enough , that he have the first and chief place in worship , which only implies a superiority of order and degree ; but since he is acknowledged to be infinitely above all creatures , and to be the sole Creator and Governour of the world , the acts of worship to him as such , ought to be peculiar , and appropriated wholly to himself : For if other Beings come to have a share , although secondarily , with him in the acts of his worship , they ought to have a share with him in the proper reason of that worship , i. e. in the Creation and Government of the world . But if Creation and Providence be the Foundations of divine worship , and those do suppose infinite and incommunicable perfections , on what pretence of reason can beings infinitely distant from God , come to have a share in the Acts of Religious worship , which were purposely designed for the acknowledgement of such a Being , whom the most excellent creatures are bound to adore as well as we ? Is not this joyning subjects together with their Soveraign in the highest expressions of our duty to him ? What Prince in the world would bear such an affront from an Embassadour of a Foreign Prince , as that in a publique Audience , when he is introduced on purpose to express the Honour that is to be given to the Person of the King , he should use all the same expressions of it , to his servants and subjects who stand about him , that he doth to himself ? Would this be a just excuse , that these were done to him in the first place , and only secondarily to his servants ? And if this would not be born by one Prince from the subject of another , how much less from his own ? And if Princes will not bear this from their subjects , who are of the same nature with themselves ; how can men be so vain to imagine the great God will bear it from his creatures , to have no publique Religious act of worship given to himself , but what is given to those who are confessed to be infinitely distant from him ? It is not the supposition of excellency in them will ever justifie this : For let their excellency be never so great , it is still but a created excellency : And their excellency can never make them so much above us , as their being created makes them inferiour to God : and in acts of Religious worship , we ought not so much to consider our distance from them , as their distance from God. Let them be never so much above us , they are creatures still , and that sets them at an infinite distance from him , whereas all their excellencies can make them but finitely distant from us . Let them be never so excellent , they still worship the same God that we do , and with the most profound adoration of Him ; and if their excellency be consistent with their worship of a Being infinitely above them , it is not sufficient to make them an object of adoration to us . We are willing to give them the utmost , their excellency requires from us ( provided , we be well assured of it ) and that is , a mighty esteem of them , and a readiness to express our honour in celebrating their praises , and commending them as Heroick patterns of goodness , and ( supposing them actually present with us ) the expressing our esteem in the highest tokens of respect that are used among men : Thus far we go ; and if those beings are such , as we suppose them , they would not have us to go farther ; but ( as the Angel said to St. Iohn ) they would bid us , Worship God. But we dare not use the same solemn Acts of Religious worship in places and at times set apart for the service of the Great God , to any of his Creatures how excellent soever they be : for this is an encroachment upon the Divine Majesty , and as Cajetan expresses it , A taking away from him , as much as in us lies , that peculiar excellency whereby he is God over all , Blessed for evermore . We dare not apply those things to the worship of his creatures , which God hath ever appropriated to His own worship as the proper acts of it ; such as Sacrifice , Incense , &c. we dare not give that honour to his servants , which God hath forbidden to be given to any creature , such as incurvation to Images , Invocation of Persons , &c. we dare not express our adoration of any created being in such a way as doth suppose those perfections which can be only in an uncreated being , as knowing the desires of our hearts , help in trouble , pardon of sin , strength in Grace , and receiving to Glory ; we dare not make the outward acts of Religious worship common to God and his creatures , for that would be repugnant to the nature and design of Religious worship , which was intended for a publique manifestation of the peculiar service we owe to the Creator and Governour of the World. And herein those of the Church of Rome fall short of the Heathens themselves , who had so great an apprehension of the necessity of some appropriate acts of divine worship , that some of them have chosen to die , rather than to give them to what they did not believe to be God. We have a remarkable story to this purpose in Arrian and Curtius concerning Callisthenes . Alexander arriving at that degree of vanity , as to desire to have divine worship given him , and the matter being started out of design among the Courtiers , either by Anaxarchus , as Arrian , or Cleo the Sicilian , as Curtius saith ; and the way of doing it proposed , viz. by incense , and prostration ; Callisthenes vehemently opposed it , as that which would confound the difference of humane and divine worship , which had been preserved inviolable among them . The worship of the Gods had been kept up in Temples , with Altars , and Images , and Sacrifices , and Hymns , and Prostrations , and such like ; but it is by no means fitting , saith he , for us to confound these things , either by lifting up men to the honours of the gods , or depressing the gods to the honours of men . For , neither would Alexander suffer any man to usurp his Royal dignity by the votes of men ; how much more justly may the gods disdain for any man to take their honours to himself ? Which freedom of speech cost Callisthenes his life , a little after . And it appears by Plutarch , That the Greeks thought it a mean and base thing for any of them , when sent on an Embassy to the Kings of Persia , to prostrate themselves before them , because this was only allowed among them in divine adoration ; therefore , saith he , when Pelopidas and Ismenias were sent to Artaxerxes , Pelopidas did nothing unworthy , but Ismenias let fall his Ring to the ground , and stooping for that , was thought to make his adoration ; which was altogether as good a shift as the Iesuits advising the Crucifix to be held in the Mandarins hands while they made their adorations in the Heathen Temples in China . Conon refused to make his adoration , as a disgrace to his City ; and Isocrates accuseth the Persians for doing it , because herein they shewed , that they despised the gods rather than men , by prostituting their honours to their Princes . Herodotus mentions Sperchies and Bulis , who could not with the greatest violence be brought to give adoration to Xerxes , because it was against the Law of their Country to give divine honour to men . Valerius Maximus saith , the Athenians put Timagoras to death for doing it ; so strong an apprehension had possessed them , that the manner of worship which they used to their gods , should be preserved sacred and inviolable . And yet Artabanus in Plutarch , when he was perswading Themistocles to do it , made use of the very argument of a relative Latria , viz. that he was to do it to the King as the Image of God that preserves all things ; which according to T. G. and his Brethren was a sufficient salvo for it . For why may not a Prince have this relative Latria given him , with far better reason than a senseless Image , in as much as he represents God with much more Authority and Majesty than any Image can do ? I confess Cajetan hath in some measure proposed this objection , but he only puts it as to man in general as made after the Image of God , viz. Why God may not be worshipped in that Image as well as in an inanimate one ? And the answer he gives , shews how much he was troubled with it ; for he distinguishes of a twofold Image , viz. one that is capable of no honour for it self ; and another that is , viz. a rational Image such as man is ; now , saith he , we may give a relative Latria , where the Image is not capable of honour for it self ; but not where it is . For what reason , I beseech him ? I had thought , the more lively the representation had been ; and the more excellent the Image , it had been the greater Motive to worship what was represented by it . Otherwise the more deformed and unlike the Image is , the fitter it were for worship ; and I should think there were no comparison between the representation of God , in the perfections of mens minds , and their dominion over the inferiour creatures , and that which is made of dull and senseless matter : and among men no Image so fit to represent God , as that of a mighty Prince sitting upon his Throne of Majesty , which strikes more awe and terrour into mens minds , than the picture of an old man upon a Church wall : and notwithstanding what T. G. hath admirably said on behalf of pictures ( which I shall consider in its due place ) I am still apt to think , that the nearer any being approaches to God in Majesty and Wisdom , it doth give more lively and powerful representation of him , as an object of worship ; why then may not we worship God in the Person of a great Prince , better than in a curious Image or Picture ? All the sense that I can find by way of answer in Cajetan is this , That we ought not to worship God in a man although he be the Image of God , to avoid the danger of giving divine worship to a Creature : very well ! but is it not a greater fault to give divine worship to mans creature than to Gods ? for a picture at the best is but the work of mens hands . But he cannot deny , that in such a case the Latria passes to God , through such an Image as a man or a Prince is ; but because of the danger men are in of giving divine worship to creatures , they ought to abstain from it . Very good ! but is there not as much danger of mens worshipping Stocks , and Stones , and Images , as there is in worshipping Princes or mankind ? And if a relative Latria will not justifie the one , much less certainly can it do the other . But of this hereafter . The thing I observe now is , how careful even the Heathens have been , notwithstanding they heard of the same pleas that are used in the Church of Rome , to preserve the customs of external adoration peculiar to their Gods. 2. I come now to shew , That God by his Law hath appropriated some external acts of worship to himself , so as to make it unlawful to use them to any other besides him . Maimonides saith , That to make a man guilty of Idolatry by the Law of Moses , it was necessary that he were convicted of one of these two things . 1. Either that he did use the acts of worship proper to the Idol , therefore the Sanhedrin were to enquire not only whom men worshipped , but in what manner . Or , 2. That he made use of any of those acts of worship to an Idol , which God hath appropriated to himself , for which he instanceth in Incurvation , Sacrifice , Incense , and Oblations : and adds , That whatever worship was made proper to God by their Law , the using of that to an Idol , although it were not the proper worship of that Idol , made a man guilty of Idolatry . Here are two things farther to be enquired into . 1. What those acts are which God did appropriate to himself ? 2. How far Gods appropriating them to himself doth now concern us ? i. e. whether the Church hath any liberty to alter the nature of those acts , so as to make any to be common to God and his creatures , which were then peculiar to God ? 1. What those acts are which God did appropriate to himself ? i. e. which he commanded to be used to himself , and did forbid to be used to any other ? 1. And of these , the most indisputable between us and our Adversaries is Sacrifice . For they confess in words , that Sacrifice is so peculiar to God that it ought not to be offered to any else ; because the words of Scripture are so plain to this purpose . He that sacrificeth to any God save unto the Lord only , shall surely be put to death : which words are cited by Aquinas to this purpose ; and my Adversary T. G. doth confess , that the offering of sacrifice not only by the custom of the Church but of all mankind , as St. Austin teacheth , is appropriated to signifie the absolute worship due only to God. It seems so much the more strange to me , that after this he should contend , that Saints may have a share in the honour of sacrifices , but he pretends , that all that their Church means by it , is no more than giving God thanks by a sacrifice offered to him for the vertues and prerogatives ( for instance ) he bestowed on the Blessed Virgin , although the sacrifice be offered to God and not to her . What the sense of their Church is , will be best understood by the practice of it . In the Missal of Sarum , A. D. 1554. and in the Portiforium of Sarum , 1556. and in an old Sarisbury Missal , A. D. 1494. I find this prayer to be used by the Priest , when he offers the Sacrifice , as the express words of the Rubrick are , Suscipe sancta Trinitas hanc oblationem quam ego indignus peccator offero in honore tuo , B. Mariae & omnium sanctorum pro peccatis & offensionibus meis , & pro salute vivorum & requie omnium fidelium defunctorum . In nomine Patris & Filii & spiritus sancti acceptum sit omnipotenti Deo hoc sacrificium novum . In the old and new Roman Missal , and the Missal of Paris , 1520. and the Missal of Lyons , it is thus , Suscipe sancta Trinitas hanc oblationem quam tibi offerimus ob memoriam passionis , resurrectionis , & ascensionis Iesu Christi Domini nostri ; & in honore B. Mariae semper Virginis , & B. Iohannis Baptistae , & sanctorum Apostolorum , Pauli , & istorum & omnium sanctorum , ut illis proficiat ad honorem , nobis autem ad salutem , & illi pro nobis intercedere dignentur in coelis , quorum memoriam facimus in terris , per Christum Dominum nostrum . In the old Monastick Missals , mentioned by Cardinal Bona , the Offertory ran in this Form , Suscipe sancta Trinitas unus Deus , hanc oblationem quam tibi offerimus in memoriam beatae Passionis , Resurrectionis , & Ascensionis Domini nostri Iesu Christi , & in honorem B. Mariae semper Virginis , genitricis ejusdem Domini nostri , & omnium sanctorum & sanctarum , Coelestium virtutum , & vivificae crucis , ut eam acceptare digneris , pro nobis peccatoribus , & pro animabus omnium Fidelium defunctorum . In the Ambrosian Missal , it runs thus , Et suscipe sancta Trinitas hanc oblationem quam tibi offerimus pro regimine & custodia atque unitate catholicae fidei , & pro veneratione quoque B. Dei genitricis Mariae , omniumque simul sanctorum tuorum ; & pro salute & incolumitate famulorum , famularumque tuarum , &c. In the old Missal of Illyricus , published by Cardinal Bona , the form in other things agrees with the Roman Missal , only after Iesu Christi , it hath , & in honorem sanctorum tuorum , qui tibi placuerunt ab initio mundi , & eorum quorum hodie Festivitas celebratur , & quorum hic nomina & reliquiae habentur , ut illis proficiat ad honorem , nobis autem ad salutem , &c I desire to know of T. G. whether this be no more than giving God thanks for their vertues , when a propitiatory sacrifice is offered up to God for their honour ? and that their honour may be increased by it , and at the same time to pray , that they would intercede with God for them . What is joyning creatures together with God in the honour of sacrifice , if this be not ? How comes a propitiatory sacrifice for sin , and that both for the quick and the dead , to be turned into a sacrifice of thanksgiving for the Graces of a particular Saint ? How strangely would it have founded among the Iews , for a man to have offered a sin-offering to give God thanks for the Faith of Abraham , or the meekness of Moses , or the wisdom of Solomon ? And at the same time when this sacrifice was pretended to be offered only to God , to pray that they would intercede with God for him . Is not the address to be made to him to whom the sacrifice is offered ? And yet we find , that this is not only practised but justified and defended in the Roman Church ; for Bellarmin not only saith , that the Mass of St. Peter is so called , because it is offered to God to give thanks for the Glory conferred on him , but because he is at the same time called upon as a Patron and Advocate with God. But saith T. G. Honour is nothing but a Testimony or Protestation of some excellency ; and whether thanks be given to God by words or by sacrifice for the Gifts and Graces he hath bestowed on such a person , it is an evident Protestation of such excellency in that person , and consequently for his honour , though both words and sacrifice be directed to God and not to him . Who denies , that it is for the honour of a Person to praise God for him ? but the Question is , if sacrifice be appropriated to the sole Honour of God , how the Honour of Saints comes to be declared by it ? For a man whose understanding is not shrunk up as Beggars arms use to be , might have stretched it at least so far , as to have considered , that sacrifice being an external sign , there are two things to be looked at in it . 1. The signification of that sign . 2. The term to which it is directed . Now the main thing to be regarded in it as to Honour , is not the direction of it to its term by the mind , for that is secret ; but the external signification of it among men . For , saith Aquinas , the reason of sacrifices is , that men by some sensible external Actings should make a Protestation by offering them to God , of the subjection and Honour that is due to him : now if this sign may be made use of to signifie any other thing , it is not a peculiar and appropriate sign only for that purpose to testifie our subjection to God. And to return the kindness of his twitch , by an example far more pertinent to the purpose than his was ; how strange would it have been thought among the Persians , where prostration was appropriated to their King as a sign of subjection to him alone , for a man to have said to him , Sir , I fall down before you in honour of the Captain of your Guards ; or of such and such a Minister of State : would the King have taken this for an appropriate act of Honour to himself ? So that though he falls down only to the King , if he declares he intends it for the honour of another , he takes away by his words , the significancy of his action : Thus if sacrifice be so appropriate to the honour of God , that it cannot signifie any thing else ; then it is nonsense to sacrifice to God for the Honour of another ; if it may signifie any thing else , and be so used in the Church of Rome , then they do not reserve so much as sacrifice for an appropriate sign of the absolute worship of God. 2. Religious adoration is appropriated to God in Scripture ; for so the command runs , as it is explained by our Saviour , Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God , and him only shalt thou serve . They who would make the restrictive particle belong to the latter clause and not to the first , do not attend to the reason of our Saviours using these words , which was to reject the Devils temptation about adoration ; and it would not have had force against the temptation , if men were more at liberty as to worship , than they are as to service . And it is observed by those who have most considered the importance of the Hebrew word , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that it doth not signifie an act of the mind , but of the body , either by incurvation or prostration . Although adoration be sometime taken for all the external acts of Religious worship , as Iohn 4.20 . Acts 8.27 . yet the general signification of it , is that act of Religious Worship which is performed by the motion of the body . And so adoration is accounted in the Schools one particular part of proper Religious worship ; Aquinas , puts it before sacrifice , and makes that place of our Saviour the foundation of it ; and among external signs , he makes this the greatest ; and that it is intended not barely to declare our inward Reverence , but that by the use of this , our inward devotion may be more excited , it being natural for us to proceed from sensible to intellectual acts . And it is observed by Ysambertus , a late Professor of Divinity in the Sorbon , That where ever the Scripture speaks of adoration , it is alwayes expressed by some external sign , as a note of subjection in him that adores towards him that is adored : ( which observation if understood of a corporeal sign , is not intended for Angels , but men , for adoration is in Scripture attributed to Angels . ) And he well observes , as to the sense of Aquinas , That he must make the external sign necessary to the formal act of adoration , because he ranks prayer among the internal acts , which he could do upon no other reason , but because prayer may have its compleat act in the mind , which he supposed that adoration could not ; and withal he proves ( contrary to the opinion of Suarez ) That the internal acts of vertue , though designed by the mind , as a token of submission to God , cannot be the proper acts of adoration , because they are not adequate and proportionable signs to express our submission to God. And therefore Damascen defined adoration to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a sign of subjection , and Anastasius Bishop of Antioch , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , an outward expression of honour , by which , saith Vasquez , he doth not mean any bare honour , but that which implies subjection . But Damascen yet more fully saith , it is a sign , not barely of honour , but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , of submission and humility , not as it is taken for that particular vertue , whereby an inordinate value of our selves is repressed , but as it implies an acknowledgement of Gods superiority and dominion over us . And it is observable that St. Augustine , where he speaks of those things which are most peculiar to the worship of God , he joyns adoration and sacrifice together . Putaverunt quidam deferendum Angelis honorem vel adorando vel sacrificando , qui debetur Deo ; & eorum sunt admonitione prohibiti , jussique sunt haec ei deferre cui uni fas esse noverunt ; whereby we see he makes external adoration as peculiar to God as sacrifice ; and Ludovicus Vives there saith , That he meant by the Angel that refused adoration , the Angel that forbad St. John , and bad him to worship God. Which makes me wonder , that T. G. should make the act of adoration aequivocal , and only sacrifice according to St. Augustin , to be appropriated to signifie the absolute worship of God ; for St. Augustin joyns both together , and makes one as unlawfal to be given to any creature as the other . How then comes St. Augustin's authority to be quitted for the one , and so greedily embraced for the other ? Is it that sacrifice doth of it self more properly signifie our inward and total subjection of our selves to God than the other doth ? But it would become T. G's learning to inform us in this matter : since the best learned of their Divines do confess , That sacrifice doth not naturally signifie any worship of God but only by the imposition of men , and that which it signifies , say they , is Gods being Author of Life and Death , and if we take away this imposition it contains nothing of divine worship in it ; so Suarez , who saith , he follows St. Augustin in it . How comes the destruction of any creature under our command to signifie the inward subjection of our selves to God ? What pleasure can we conceive the Almighty should take in seeing us to destroy his creatures for his sake ? Our minds may be as far from submitting to God , as these things are of themselves from signifying such a submission . Nay how comes a sacrifice to stand so much in our stead , that because we take away the life of that , therefore we own God as our Lord ? It might rather of it self signifie that we have the power of life and death over Beasts , than that God hath it over us : yet all that Sacrifice signifies , saith Vasquez , is , that God is acknowledged thereby to be the Author of life and death ; and to this end , saith Ysambertus , it is necessary that the thing be destroyed , because the reason of Sacrifice lies in the destruction of a thing offered to God. Be it so : but of all things in the world , it would never have come into my mind , nor I think into any mans well in his senses , to offer up God himself unto God as a Sacrifice , in order to the testifying the devoting of our selves unto him ; and yet this , after all their talk , comes to be that external Sacrifice which is the only appropriate sign of the absolute worship of God , viz. the Sacrifice of the Mass , wherein the Priest is believed , to offer up God himself under the species of Bread and Wine to the Eternal God in token of our subjection to him . Methinks yet it were somewhat more reasonable to offer up brute Creatures that are under us , than God that is so infinitely above us ; and such is the weakness of my understanding , that this seems to be rather an argument of our power over God , than of our subjection to Him. But since the formal reason of a Sacrifice is said to lie in the destruction of it , Good Lord ! what thoughts must these men have in their minds , ( if they have any ) when they think it in their power , first to make their God by speaking five words ; then to offer him up as a Sacrifice ; then to suppose him destroyed , and all this to testifie their submission to God! I want words to express the intolerable blasphemy and absurdity of these things . Yet this , saith T. G. is so appropriate a sign of the absolute worship of God , that that Religion which admits no external visible Sacrifice , must needs be deficient in the most signal part of the publick worship of God. What external visible Sacrifice have you that we have not , besides that of God himself whom you believe to be personally present as the object of divine worship under the species of Bread and Wine ? and yet when you have pleaded so much for this presence to justifie your Adoration , you then make a Sacrifice of Him ; and that he may be so , you grant it is necessary there be some destruction of what was before , i. e. ( if to the purpose ) of him that was the Sacrifice , otherwise the species are made the Sacrifice , and not the body and blood of Christ. But suppose you only make him a Sacrifice , as to his body and blood , and not as to his divine nature ; what becomes then of the body and blood of Christ ? for , it must be destroyed to make a Sacrifice ; where , how , by what means comes the body and blood of Christ to be destroyed ? When you say , it is there without the qualities of a body , that it cannot be seen , or felt , or tasted ; and yet is capable of being destroyed : suppose all this be passed over , how comes the offering up the very body and blood of Christ to God to signifie our absolute worship of him ? Will nothing else satisfie to testifie , that we are his subjects , unless we offer up to him the body and blood of his own Son ? Is this indeed the most signal part of divine worship , which we must be deficient in , if we have it not ? We do from our souls praise God for that unvaluable Sacrifice , the Son of God was pleased to make of his own life , when he was incarnate in our nature ; We do frequently commemorate this Sacrifice of his according to his own institution ; and in the doing of that , we offer up our selves unto Him as a reasonable service ; We adore , and magnify Him for all His mercies , especially the sending of His Son to die for us , as the greatest of all : But we dare not let it enter into our thoughts , that we should ever eat or swallow down the very body and blood of Christ ; and then pretend we have offered it up to God as a Sacrifice , and that in token of our absolute worship of Him. But setting aside the nature of this Sacrifice , which is the only external and visible sign of appropriate worship to God , they pretend to have ; I desire yet to know how a Sacrifice doth come to signifie this absolute worship more than adoration ? Not by nature , for the lowly submission of our bodies seems more naturally to signifie the behaviour of our minds , than anything without us can do ? if it be by institution , it must be either Gods or mans ; if mans , then either offering Sacrifice to a creature is Idolatry , or not : if not , then giving absolute worship to a creature is no Idolatry ; if it be , then it is Idolatry to make use of the outward signs of divine worship which mankind have agreed upon , to any thing else but God. If it be said to be Gods institution ; then it follows , that the applying any outward signs of worship which God hath appropriated to himself , to any Creature , is Idolatry ; which is as much as I desire , for then it will equally hold for Religious Adoration ; especially if the principle of Arriaga hold true true , that the value of Sacrifice lies in the act of adoration performed by it . But T. G. pleads , That the act of adoration is equivocal , that is , that we read in Scripture , that it hath been given to men as well as to God , and therefore cannot be such an appropriate sign of divine worship . To this I have already answered , by distinguishing the Act , and the signification of it ; the external act I grant may be performed upon several grounds ; As 1. Civil subjection , as by Nathan to David , 1 Kings 1.23.2 . Civil respect , as by Abraham to the Children of Heth , Gen. 23.7.3 . Religious respect , or as some call it , Moral Reverence , i. e. out of an opinion of great sanctity , without superiority , as Nebuchadnezzar to Daniel , Dan. 2.46 . And so Abraham bowed to the Angels , Gen. 18.2 . if he knew them to be what they were ; but if not , as appears more probable both of him and Lot , by Heb. 13.2 . then it was only an expression of civil respect to them . 4. Out of a sudden transport , as St. Iohn did to the Angel twice , which he would not have done a second time , if he had considered his being checked for the first , Rev. 19.10.22.8 , 9. Now if these things may by their circumstances and occasions be apparently differenced from each other , and from that Religious adoration which God doth require to be given to himself , then there can be no reason from thence to make the signification of external adoration to be equivocal . There is the same nature in these acts that there is in words of different significations ; which being taken in general are of an equivocal sense , but being considered with all their particular circumstances they have their sense so restrained and limited , that it is easie to discern the one from the other . That we call therefore Religious adoration , which is performed with all the circumstances of Religious worship , as to time , place , occasion , and such like ; as if men used prostration to any thing within the Courts of the Temple , ( wherein some of the Iews thought that posture only lawful ; ) if it were done in the time of Sacrifice , or devotion ; if the occasion were such as required no respect of any other kind , as when the Devil demanded of Christ to fall down and worship him ; in these and such like circumstances we say adoration hath the determin'd signification of Religious worship , and is an appropriate sign of it , by Gods own institution . Thence the Psalmist saith , O come let us worship and bow down , let us kneel before the Lord our Maker ; and God forbids bowing down to and worshipping any graven Image , or similitude ; where the bowing down is one act of worship , and was so esteemed by the common consent of mankind , as might be easily made appear by the several customs of external adoration , that have been used in all parts of the world , and it might for the universality of the practice of it , vye with Sacrifice . So that on this account , as well as the proper signification of it , adoration ought to be esteemed as significant and peculiar a sign of absolute worship as Sacrifice . There are only two things that seem yet to make this adoration not appripriate to God , ( for the instances of Balaam and Saul are not worth mentioning ) and those are , Ioshua's Religious adoration of the Angel that appeared to him ; and the adoration that the Iews performed towards the Ark ; the latter is easily answered , the Ark being only a Symbol of the divine presence of Gods own appointing , towards which they were to direct their adoration ; ( but of this at large , when I come to the worship of Images ) ; the other cannot be denied to be Religious worship , but we are to consider , what Aquinas saith to this place , that it may be understood of the absolute worship of God , who did appear and speak in the person of an Angel. And St. Athanasius expresly saith , that God did speak in an Angel to Moses at the burning Bush , when Moses was bid to put off his Shooes ; as Ioshua was now ; and by the description on of him , as Captain of the Host of the Lord , it is apparent Ioshua looked not on him as an ordinary Angel , but as the Angel of whom God said , that he should go before them , and whom they were bound to obey ; and by comparing the places in Exodus together , where God afterwards threatens to send an Angel , and Moses would not be satisfied till God said His Presence should go with them ; it is evident this Angel of His Presence was more than a meer Angel ; and therefore the Fathers generally suppose it was the Eternal Son of God who appeared in the Person of an Angel , as Petavius hath at lage proved : and is sufficiently manifest from hence , that they make use of Adoration as a certain argument to prove , that Christ was not a creature ; which argument were of no force at all , if they did not believe , that adoration was an appropriate sign of that absolute worship which belongs only to God : and therefore they observe that when meer Angels appeared , they refused adoration , as the Angels that appeared to Manoe and St. Iohn ; but when adoration is allowed or commanded , it was the divine nature appearing in the person of an Angel. 3. The erection of Temples and Altars , is another appropriate sign of divine worship which I need not go about to prove from Scripture , since it is confessed by our Adversaries . Ad Latriam pertinent templa & altaria , sacerdotia , sacrificia , festivitates , ceremoniae , & hujusmodi quae soli Deo sunt exhibenda ; saith Durandus Mimatensis from Innocentius 3. and the applying these things to any but God , he makes to be Idolatry . Bellarmin joyns Temples and Altars together with Sacrifice as peculiar to God ; Templum , saith Cardinal Bona , est domus Numini Sacra , a house Sacred to God ; and yet Bellarmin had the confidence to lay down this proposition , Sacrae domus non solum Deo , sed etiam sanctis recte aedificantur & dedicantur : and he is not satisfied with the answer of some Moderns , that say , That Temples cannot properly be erected to any , but God , any more than Sacrifice can be offered to any but him ; but because there are many Temples dedicated to God , that they may be distinguished from each other , they have their denomination from particular Saints , ( which is an answer we find no fault with , if they do not proceed to the worship and invocation of those Saints to whose memory the Churches are dedicated , as the particular Patrons of it , ) but Bellarmin hath found out a subtlety beyond this ; for he saw well enough this would not reach home to their case , and therefore he saith , That sacred places are truely and properly built to Saints ; but how ? not as they are Temples , but as they are Basilicae ; For , saith he , Temples have a particular relation to sacrifice , but Basilicae have not : and he confesses it would be Idolatry to erect them as Temples to Saints , but not as they are Basilicae . This is a distinction without any difference ; for Isidore , who certainly well understood the signification of these words , as used among Christians , saith , Nunc autem ideo divina Templa Basilicae nominantur , quia ibi Regi omnium Deo cultus & sacrificia offeruntur : and that which we insist upon , is not , the names that Churches are called by , nor the preservation of the memories of Saints in them , but the erecting them to Saints as places for the worship and invocation of them . And the vanity of this distinction of Temples from Basilicae , because Temples relate only to sacrifice , will easily appear , if we consider that the proper signification of Templum was Domicilium , as Turnebus observes , which is that which Varro calls Templum naturâ ; and in this sense , he saith , Naevius called the Heaven , Templum magnum Iovis altitonantis ; and from thence it was applyed to any place consecrated by the Augurs , and so by degrees , was taken for any sacred place that was set apart for divine worship ; for that was it which made them sacred , sacra sunt loca , saith Isidore , divinis cultibus instituta . Either therefore they must say , there is no proper worship of God but Sacrifice , or the notion of a Temple cannot be said only to refer to Sacrifice . And among the Iews , our B. Saviour hath told us , that the Temple had relation to prayer as well as Sacrifice , My House shall be called a House of Prayer . Would it not have been a pleasant distinction among the Iews , if any of them had dedicated a Temple to Abraham , with a design to invocate him there , and make him the Patron of it , for them to have said , they built it as a Temple to God , but as a Basilica to Abraham ; for they sacrificed there only to God , ( or to God for the honour of Abraham ) but they invocated Abraham as the particular Patron of it ? This is that therefore we charge them with , upon their own principles , that when they dedicate Churches to particular Saints as the Patrons of them , and in order to the solemn invocation of them there , they do apply that which themselves confess to be an appropriate sign of divine worship to Creatures , and consequently by their own confession are guilty of Idolatry . Neither can it be pleaded by them , that their Churches and Altars are only dedicated to the honour of God for the memory of a particular Saint ; for they confess , that it is for the solemn invocation of that Saint . And with all in the Form of dedication in the Pontifical , there is more implied , as appears by these two prayers at the Consecration of the Altar ; The first when the Bishop stands before the Altar in these words , Deus Omnipotens , in cujus honorem , ac Beatissimae Virginis Mariae & omnium Sanctorum , ac nomen & memoriam Sancti tui N. nos indigni altare hoc consecramus , &c. The other , after the Bishop hath with his right thumb dipped in the Chrism , made the sign of a Cross upon the Front of the Altar , Majestatem tuam , Domine , humiliter imploramus , ut altare hoc sacrae unctionis libamine ad suscipienda populi tui munera inunctam potenter bene . dicere , & sanctificare digneris , ut quod nunc à nobis sub tui nominis invocatione , in honorem Beatissimae Virginis Mariae , & omnium Sanctorum , atque in memoriam sancti tui N. &c. Where we see , besides the memory of the particular Saint to whom the Altar is dedicated ; the honour of the B. Virgin and the Saints are joyned together with the Honour of God in the general dedication of it . By the Pontifical , no Altar is to be consecrated without Reliques , which the night before , the Bishop is to put into a clean vessel for that purpose with three grains of Frankincense , and then to seal it up ; which being conveniently placed before the Church door , the Vigils are to be celebrated that night before them , and the Nocturn and the Mattins , for the honour of the Saints whose the Reliques are ; and when the Reliques are brought into the Church , this is one of the Antiphona's , Surgite Sancti Dei , de mansionibus vestris , loca sanctificate , plebem benedicite , & nos homines peccatores in pace custodite . The form of consecration of the Altar it self , is this , Sanctificetur hoc Altare in honorem Dei omnipotentis , & gloriosae Virginis Mariae atque omnium sanctorum , & ad nomen ac memoriam Sancti N. In China , Trigautius saith in the Chappel they had there , they had two Altars , one to our Saviour , the other dedicated to the B. Virgin , without any distinction at all . In the speech the Bishop makes to the people he utterly overthrows Bellarmins distinction of Templum and Basilica ; for , he saith , nullibi enim quam in sacris Basilicis , Domino offerri sacrificium debet . It seems then Basilica is taken with a respect to sacrifice as well as Templum : and then he declares that he hath dedicated this Basilica in honorem omnipotentis Dei , Beatae Mariae semper virginis , & omnium Sanctorum , ac memoriam Sancti N. So that Basilica is here taken with a respect to God , and not meerly to the Saints ; although they joyn them together with God in the honour of dedication . Let us now compare the practice of the Roman Church in this matter , with the argument which the Fathers made use of , to prove the Divinity of the Holy Ghost , because we are said to be his Temple . If we are said , saith S. Basil , to be his Temple because he is worshipped by us and dwells in us , then it follows that he is God , for we are commanded to worship and serve God alone . Where it is plain S. Basil takes a Temple with a respect to worship and not meerly to sacrifice . A Temple belongs only to God and not to a creature , saith S. Ambrose , therefore the Holy Ghost is God , because we are his Temple . This is peculiar to the Divine nature , saith S. Cyril , to have a Temple to dwell in . If we were to build a Temple , saith S. Augustin , to the Holy Ghost , in so doing , we should give him the worship proper to God , and he must be God to whom we give divine worship , for we must worship the Lord our God , and him only must we serve : the same argument he urges in several other places ; a Temple , saith he , was never erected but either to the true God , as Solomon did , or to false Gods as the Heathens ; and this argument from our being said to be the Temple of the Holy Ghost , he thinks is stronger , than if adoration had been said to be given to it ; for this is so proper an act of divine worship to erect a Temple , that if we should do it to the most excellent Angel , we should be anathematized from the Church of God. Hoc nunc sit quibuslibet Divis , ( saith Erasmus there in the Margin . ) This is every where now done to Saints , at which Petavius is very angry ; and saith , they do it not to the Saints per se & praecipué . But what becomes then of the argument of the Fathers , which supposes the erecting a Temple to be such a peculiar act of adoration , that it cannot be applied to any creature , no not secondarily ? For then the opposers of the Divinity of the Holy Ghost might have easily answered S. Augustins argument after the same fashion , viz. that we were said to be the Temple of the Holy Ghost , not per se & praecipuè , but only secondarily , as it was the divine instrument of purifying the Souls of men . From hence we see , how unanimously the Fathers looked on the dedication of Temples and Altars , as an appropriate sign of that absolute worship we owe to God ; and that not meerly as an Appendix to sacrifice , but as it contains in it such an act of adoration as is peculiar to God. 4. The burning of Incense as a token of Religious worship . For otherwise , it is of the nature of the outward act of adoration , and may be done on meerly civil accounts ; and so far T. G. was in the right when he said , that burning incense is a ceremony of the like nature with bowing , i. e. it may be accommodated to several uses ; but as I have proved that Religious adoration is a peculiar act of divine worship , so I shall now do , concerning the burning of incense when it is used as a token of Religious worship . If there were any difference under the Law between the Altar of burnt offerings , and the Altar of incense , this latter seems to be more particularly appropriated to the worship of God. For the High Priest is not only commanded to burn upon it perpetual incense before the Lord ; but it is said , to be most holy to the Lord ; and it stood in a more holy place . And we see by our Saviours interpretation of the precept of worship , although the restrictive particle were not in the words of the Law , yet he shews us that it was in the sense of it ; and that certainly is to be understood , where a thing is said to be most holy to God , i. e. appropriated to himself after a peculiar manner : and we have seen by Maimonides that incense is joyned with sacrifice ; so that a person is made by their Law as guilty of Idolatry , if he burns incense to an Idol , as if he offered Sacrifice . But we need not depend on the Iews testimony in this matter ; for the Scripture is express in it , where it speaks of Hezekiah's breaking in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made , for in those days the Children of Israel did burn incense to it . Bellarmine cannot deny , that burning of incense was a sacrifice among the Iews , and that was the reason that Hezekiah brake the brazen Serpent in pieces ; but , he saith , it is not a sacrifice now . But how comes it to change its nature ? hath it lost any part of its definition ? if not , hath the Church power to make that which was a sacrifice to become none ? i. e. to take away an appropriate sign of Gods absolute worship ? for so they acknowledge sacrifice to be . Paulus Maria Quarti in his late Commentaries on the Rubricks of the Missal confesses that all the material parts of the definition of a sacrifice agree to the burning of Incense in the Roman Church , for it is an oblation made to God for his honour by the change of a sensible thing , but , he saith , from Suarez that it is not a sacrifice among them , but only an accidental appendix to a sacrifice : and might not the same have been said among the Iews ? and yet himself afterwards grants , that it is a part of Religious worship as honour is thereby given to those that are incensed ; and is to be determined according to the nature of the object ; if it be given to God , it is Latria , if to Saints , it is Dulia , &c. It seems now , it is become more than an appendix , being a proper act of worship ; but all their care is to avoid its being a sacrifice , because they give it to Saints and Images , and when they are off from that difficulty they think they can dispose of it as they please . Catharinus grants , that burning of incense had the proper nature of a sacrifice among the Iews ; and that the reason why Hezekiah brake in pieces the brazen Serpent was because they did not direct their incense to the thing represented by it , but terminated their worship on the sign : but ( 1. ) it seems then , the Scripture gives a very lame account of the reason of it , for that mentions no more but their burning incense before it , which was no fault of it self ; but only that they did not direct their intention far enough . ( 2. ) It seems , that sacrifice it self may be offered to an Image ; for Catharinus grants , that this had the nature of sacrifice , and there was no harm in the meer oblation , but only in the shortness of the intention . Sanders saith , that God commanded the Iews to give Religious worship to the brazen Serpent ; for , he saith , their very looking upon it was such ; and from thence he proves it lawful to worship Images ; but Cope ( or rather Harpsfield ) will not allow it to be of the same nature with Images , easily discerning , that the breaking of it down would make more against the worship of Images , than the setting of it up ever made for them . For Vasquez saith , the peoples looking upon it in order to their being healed , was no part of worship , being no token of submission ; and that God intended no worship should be given to it . And he ingenuously confesses , that when Hezekiah brake it in pieces , it was not because it was worshipped for a God among them , or had the worship terminated upon it , but because the people gave the same kind of worship to it which in the Roman Church they give to their Images : but he thinks that worship was unlawful to the Iews , which is lawful to Christians . And then why not the offering sacrifice to Images , as well as burning of Incense ? But T. G. thinks , that perhaps the smoke of the incense ( when used as a sign of Religious worship ) troubles my eyes so that I cannot distinguish between the use of it , as applied to God , and as applied to his servants , or other things relating to him . It is pity T. G. had not been Hezekiahs Confessor , to have better informed him about the Iews burning of Incense before the brazen Serpent ; for he would in all probability have done his endeavour to have preserved it ; and if Hezekiah had pleaded the Law that appropriated incense to the worship of God , he would have desired him to clear his eyes a little better ; for then he might discern that burning incense was an indifferent ceremony , and may be applied either to God or the creature ; and that the difference of these depends on the intention of the persons who do them ; now how could any man tell by the outward act what the intention of these persons was ? For all that appeared , they intended only to honour God by it in memory of the great miracles he had wrought by means of it ; and then it was so far from being evil , that it was an act of Latria to God. And why should Hezekiah destroy the brazen Serpent , for being an occasion of Gods honour ? This were fitter for Senacherib , or Rabshakeh to do , than one that professed to worship the true God : Is not incense used daily in the Temple , are not the Altar and the vessels of the Temple perfumed by it ? Why then should the brazen Serpent be profaned by that , which sanctifies other things ? Therefore only advise them to direct their intention aright , and there can be no harm in the use of such an indifferent ceremony ; and let the Brazen Serpent stand , to excite the devotion of the people towards God in remembrance of what he did to the people of old by the means of it . But it seems Hezekiah had not looked over Aristotle's threshold so far as to know , that acts go whither they are intended ; and therefore he took the giving of that part of worship which God had appropriated to himself , to the Brazen Serpent , to be sufficient ground for the demolishing of it , without particular enquiry into the intentions of the persons . Yet I must say for T. G. that he doth not seem so confident of the indifferency of this ceremony under the Law ; for he saith , That it is not appropriated , at least in the new Law , to the worship of God , and therefore it is in the freedom of the Church to determine how and when it shall be used . If he means by the new Law , the Rubricks or practise of their Church , he saith true ; for Incense is appointed to be burnt to Images and Crucifixes , and Reliques out of Religious honour to them : but if by the new Law he means the Law of Christ , that doth not , that I can find , make any thing that God had appropriated to himself , as a sign of his own worship , to be common to any creature with him ; but I am sure before , that burning of Incense before Images , was accounted one of the abominations of Israel . 5. Solemn Invocation was an external act of worship appropriated to God himself . My House is the House of Prayer , saith our Saviour of the Temple ; by which it appears that solemn Invocation was then looked on as a peculiar part of divine worship . But I need not prove this , since it is granted by our Adversaries , that one sort of Invocation is so proper to God , that to give it to any besides him were Idolatry ; which is , as T. G. expresseth it , the Prayer we make to God as the Author and Giver of all Good ; but a lower sort of Invocation , he contends , may be given to Saints and Angels . My business here , is not to discuss the point of Invocation , ( which is to be handled at large in its proper place ) but to shew , in what sense it was understood among those to whom God gave the Laws of his worship , and whether this inferiour sort of Invocation were thought consistent with the true worship of God. We will then suppose that in the Temple of Hierusalem , at the hours of prayer , the Iews at the same time , and with the same outward solemnity of worship , should make their prayers first to God , to have mercy upon them ; and then immediately to make their addresses to Abraham and Sarah , Isaac and Rebecca , Iacob and Ioseph , and Moses , and the Prophets to pray for them ; whether would this have been thought agreeable to the command of worshipping God alone ? especially , if these prayers were said before the Images of those persons set up in the Temple : for if the Law did only forbid the worship of Heathen Idols , there would be no repugnancy to the Law in all this . What course can we now take to resolve this Question ? I know but three waies of doing it . 1. By comparing this practice with the precept of worship . For God being to appoint the Laws and Rules of it , we are to enquire in the first place , what his will and pleasure was , as to this matter ; for he best knew what worship was pleasing to him . If he hath therefore appropriated all acts of Religious worship to himself , as it is plain he hath done by that Law , Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God , and him only shalt thou serve , then it is unlawful to give it to any other . If it be said , they do not give the worship proper to God ; I desire to know who shall judge what is the worship proper to God , He by his Law , or we by distinctions of our own making ? Hath God himself made any such distinction as this is ? Hath He bid men to pray to Him as the Author and Giver of all Good , but to Angels or Saints as Mediatours and Intercessors to Him ? Nay hath He not forbidden it , when he commands that all Religious worship without distinction , be given to himself ? And where the Law doth not distinguish , what presumption is it in us to do it ? 2. By the practise of the Iewish Church ; and it is granted by our Adversaries , that there was no Invocation of Saints then used , because , say they , the Saints were then only in Limbo , and not in their perfect happiness , nor placed over the Church as they are now ; but the Iews knew of no such reason as this to hinder them ; for they believed those great Saints to be in a state of perfect Felicity , therefore this could be no ground to hinder them ; and withal they had so mighty a veneration for the Patriarchs , and so great a dread of the Divine Majesty , that if it had been lawful , none would have been more ready to have made use of them as Mediators than they ; for we see how ready they were to entreat Moses to be a Mediator between God and them ; why should not they have continued this after his death , if they had believed one to be as lawful as the other ? But although they did not Invocate Saints , they might do Angels ; and some have attempted to prove they did , although the Iews know of no such practice among them , albeit they attribute so much to the Power of Angels , that nothing but the fear of Idolatry could restrain them ; for they believe one to be a Spirit set over Fire , and another over Water , another over Clouds , &c. as the Eastern Idolaters did . But did not Jacob pray to the Angel , Gen. 48.16 . the Angel that redeemed me from all evil , bless the lads ? No saith Abarbinel , it was only a prayer to God , that had made use of his Angel ; for , he saith , God before whom my Fathers did walk , the God which fed me all my life long unto this day , the Angel which redeemed me , &c. if this were an invocation of the Angel , it was an invocation of him as the Author and Giver of all Good ; which T. G. confesses to be Idolatry : but Abravanel parallels it with that saying of Abraham , The Lord God of Heaven which took me from my Fathers House , He shall send his Angel before thee . But we need not run to the Iews to clear this place , for S. Athanasius supposing it to be an Invocation , from thence proves , that it must be understood of the Eternal Son of God , for , saith he , Jacob would never have joyned a Creature together with God in his prayers : and S. Cyrill , more generally ; who would ever pray in the name of Angels ? And S. Hierome in terms as large and express as may be , Nullum invocare , i. e. in nos orando vocare nisi Deum debemus ; we ought to invocate none by praying to them but God himself : and from thence he proves the Wisdom there spoken of could be no created Wisdom . So that neither Iews nor Christians did believe the Invocation of Angels to have been practised in the Church of Israel . 3. In this case it is reasonable to appeal to the sense of Iewish Writers , who must be presumed to understand their own customs best ; especially in respect to Idolatry , which they have suffered so much for ; and they unanimously declare it to be against the sense of the Law , to make Saints or Angels to be Mediators between God and them . Maimonides makes this to be consequent upon the precept against Idolatry ; and makes it the fifth Fundamental of the Law ; That we ought to worship God alone , and to make no Mediators between God and us ; neither Angels , nor Stars , nor Elements , nor any such things , because we ought to direct all our thoughts to God alone . And Abravanel in his Commentary upon the Fundamentals of the Law , saith , their wise men interpreted that verse , the Lord our God is nigh unto us in all that we call upon him for , that they should only invocate God , and not Michael or Gabriel , &c. and saith presently after , That this sort of worship belongs only to God , and to none else , according to the sense of their Wise-men . Maimonides saith , That none of the Idolaters were ever so mad to think there was no God besides the Idol they worshipped ; or that the Figure they worshipped made and governed the World ; but they worship them as Mediators between the great God and them , and so he interprets that place , Mal. 1.11 . Incense shall be offered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not Nomini meo , but propter me : as though the Incense they offered to their Idols were for his sake , and so it is a meer relative Latria : and he adds , That the Idolaters did believe one God , but offended against the precept which commands Him alone to be worshipped . The Paraphrase of Ionathan upon 1 Kings 18.21 . If the Lord be God , follow Him ; renders it thus , Is not God thy Lord ? therefore serve Him alone : and why do ye wander after Baalim in which there is no profit . But I need mention no more since a Learned person of our Church hath proved in a set Discourse from the several Testimonies of Aben-Ezra , Kimchi , Iarchi , Moses bar-Nachman , R. Bechai , Alschech , and others of greatest reputation among the Iews , that they were guilty of Idolatry by their Law , who believed one true God , but gave Religious worship to other things , as Mediators between God and them . 6. The last I shall mention as an appropriate act of divine worship , is , making Vows to God ; which the Scripture hath so fully declared to belong to God , as a part of divine worship , that our Adversaries do not offer to deny it . For Vows are not only said to be made to God , Numb . 30.2 . Deut. 23.21 , 23. but they are joyned with Sacrifice and Oblations , Isa. 19.21 . And therefore Aquinas makes vowing one of the proper acts of Latria ; and Bellarmin confesses , That it is an act of Religion due only to God. Who could now have imagined , after such confessions to have found them in the Church of Rome making vows to Saints as solemnly as to God himself ; so that if ever men did condemn themselves for Idolatry , they seem to do it by such plain confessions of both parts , viz. that Vows are a part of the worship due only to God ; and that they give this worship to Creatures . Here one would think we had them fast ; yet if we do not look to our selves , they will slip through our fingers , and escape . Is not , say I , a Vow a part of Latria that is due only to God ? Yes , say our Adversaries , it is so . Do not you make Vows to Saints as formally and solemnly as to God himself ; as the Dominicans Vow at entrance into their Order , as Cajetan saith , is made Deo , Beatae Mariae , Beato Dominico & omnibus sanctis ? True , say they , this cannot be denied . Do not you then give to the creature the worship proper to God , which you confess to be Idolatry ? Hold , say they , we distinguish : but about what ? about making Vows to Saints together with God ; for may not we make a Vow to men and to God too , and who will say that is Idolatry ? as for instance , may not a man Vow to A. and B. that he will give a hundred pound to an Hospital ? here the Vow is made both to God , and to A. and B. But here A. and B. are only witnesses to the Vow , but the formality of the Vow lies in the promise made to God to do such things for his service and honour ; and A. and B. have no concernment in this . But may not men Vow obedience to Superiours , and that is more than making them witnesses ? Very true , but then this obedience is the matter of the Vow , or the thing that is vowed ; and in all Vows of obedience , there are many limitations implyed , but there are none in the Vows made to God or the Saints ; but withal they Vow to God and the Saints that they will obey their Superiours . So that their obedience to Superiours is but the matter of the Vow made to God and the Saints . Well then , say they , suppose we do make the Saints the object of our Vows as well as God ; yet we do not consider the Saints as rational creatures ; but as they are Dii participativè , as Cajetan and Bellarmin both say . And is not this the very answer of the Heathens , that they gave divine worship to creatures , not as creatures , but as Gods by way of participation ? Is it indeed come out at last , that we are to look on the Saints as inferiour Deities , and on that account may give to them the worship proper to God ? Votum non convenit sanctis , saith Bellarmin , nisi quatenus sunt Dii per participationem . I see truth may be smothered a long time , and kept under by violence , but it will break out at last , one way or other . I began to suspect something , when I found the Master of Controversies , speak of the Saints being praepositi Ecclesiae set over the Church , but I could hardly have expected to have found them owned for inferiour Deities , for what are Gods by participation but such as derive their power from God , and are employed by Him to take care of these lower things ? So he saith , the Saints do curam gerere rerum nostrarum , take care of our affairs : and now I do not wonder to see them make Vows to them , or perform any other act of Religious worship to them as well as to God. But after all this ado , may we not Vow to God upon a higher account , and to the Saints upon a lower ? Yes , no doubt ; just as a man may swear Allegiance to his Prince upon the account of his Soveraign Authority ; and to one of his Subjects , as a less soveraign . For if Allegiance be peculiar to Soveraign Authority , how can it be given to any one that hath it not ? And in this case , it is confessed that Vows are a part of that worship which is proper only to God ; and how then can they be given to any else besides Him ? And Bellarmin confesseth , That Vows in the Scriptures are alwaies taken for promises made to God ; for when they were written , there was no such custom of vowing to Saints . A very fair confession ! But how then comes that , which all the time when the Scripture was written was peculiar to God , to become common to Him and His Creatures ? why may not sacrifice be made common as well as Vows ? if it be in their power to change those things which God by the acknowledgement of our Adversaries hath throughout the Scripture made peculiar to himself . 2. This therefore will require a farther debate , viz. how far Gods appropriating these Acts of worship to himself doth concern us ? For which we are to consider , 1. That it is granted by T. G. to be reasonable , that there should be some external acts of worship peculiar to God ; because the reason of his worship is peculiar , as he is the supreme Lord and Governour of the world . 2. That acts of worship being designed to honour and please God , he is the fittest to determine what those peculiar acts of worship shall be . For S. Augustin mentions that saying of Socrates as a principle of natural reason ; Unumquemque Deum sic coli oportere , quo modo se ipse colendum esse praeceperit ; that God ought to be worshipped according to His own appointment . To which himself adds , That if men worship God against His Will , they do not worship Him , but their own imagination : and therefore they are to examine what worship this God doth reserve to himself , and what He will allow to any other . Origen embraces that saying of Celsus , That no inferior Being ought to receive any Honour against the Will of the Supream : and therefore he desires Celsus to prove , that those Daemons and Heroes , which had divine worship given them among them , ever had the consent of the Supreme God for it ; but it rather came from the ignorance and barbarism of mankind , which by degrees fell off from the true worship of God. And he insists upon the demonstration of this , as to all their Deities , how they can shew that ever God gave way they should be worshipped . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; but we can prove , saith he , by evident arguments that it was the Will of God that all men should honour the Son , as they do the Father . Dei honorem per Deum docemur , saith Hilary ; we understand how to worship God by himself . S. Chrysostom saith , Let us learn to honour Christ as he would have us , for that is the most pleasing honour , which he would have , and not that which we would give . S. Peter thought to honour Christ by refusing to be washed , but this was not honour , but directly contrary . Which I desire T. G. to take notice of , that he may better understand , that God cannot be honoured by prohibited acts of worship , whatever the intention of the person be . But one would think this were a principle so reasonable in it self , that I need not vouch Authorities for it ; yet we shall soon find that all these Authorities are no more than necessary . 3. Acts appropriated to the worship of God by his own appointment , must continue so , till himself hath otherwise declared . For who dares alter what God hath appointed ? Indeed if the peculiar acts of worship had depended only on the consent of mankind , there might have been some reason for men by common consent to have changed the nature and signification of them . But since God by a Law hath appropriated some parts of worship to himself , we ought in manners to know his mind , before we give away any part of that which was once peculiar to himself , to any of his creatures . 4. Christ hath no where made it lawful to give any Acts that were before appropriate to the worship of God to any creature . We do acknowledge that Christ did take away by the design of his doctrine , that external ceremonial worship that was among the Iews ; but he no where gives the least intimation , that any acts which before were peculiar to God , might now be given to any else besides him . Nay , instead of this , he layes down the same Fundamental precept of worship which was in the Law , Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God , and him only shalt thou serve , and he explains it more clearly to avoid all ambiguity in it , by expressing that restrictive particle only , which was implyed before : His Apostles utterly refused any thing like divine honour being given to them , and when one of them after an ecstatical manner fell down before an Angel , he was severely rebuked for it , and bidden to worship God. So that our Adversaries grant , that since the incarnation the Angels would not receive any adoration from men ; it seems then the Gospel is so far from giving any countenance to it , that it suggests a new argument against it . 5. The notion of Idolatry under the Gospel , doth remain the same that it was before . For we find such a sin often expressed , and condemned , and cautions given against it , Neither be ye Idolaters , as were some of them : wherefore my dearly beloved , flee from Idolatry ; Little Children keep your selves from Idols . What notion of Idolatry could they have , but what was the same , which the Iews had from the Law of Moses ? The notion of Idolatry was a new thing among the Gentiles who knew no harm at all in giving divine worship to creatures ; from whence should they understand the sinfulness and the nature of it , if not from some Law of God ? the Apostles pretended to give no new Law about it , and never corrected any mistake among the Iews concerning it , as they did in other things ; therefore the notion of Idolatry did continue the same , that it was before . 6. It was Idolatry among the Iews to give the appropriate acts of divine worship to any thing but God : which I have already proved from the words of the Law , and the concurrent Testimony of the Iewish Writers ; and from these things laid together , it follows , that it is Idolatry for men now to give any of the fore-mentioned appropriate signs of divine worship to any thing but God : whether it be sacrifice , or adoration , or building Temples and Altars , or burning incense , or invocation , or making Vows ; for if all these were things appropriated to the worship of God by his Law , the using of these to any creature , is not meer disobedience to his Law , but a giving to the creature the worship proper to God ; which on all sides is confessed to be Idolatry . No , saith T. G. this proves only an extrinsecal denomination of Idolatry ; for if , for instance , God hath forbidden external adoration to be given to an Image , his prohibition of such worship may make it indeed to be unlawful , but hinders not the Act from passing whither it was intended ; and consequently if it be intended or directed by the understanding and will to God , though after an unlawful manner , it will not fail to be terminated upon God ; and the act is an act of disobedience , or of some other sin , and called Idolatry only by a Metaphorical denomination , as Idolatry is called Adultery , and the Fields are said to be joyful and sing . For , as he saith elsewhere , as no command of God can make that to be not Idolatry , which is so in the nature of the thing ; so no prohibition ( if there were any ) could make that to be Idolatry which hath not in it the true and real nature of Idolatry . To make this matter the more clear , I shall here take away this cavil of T. G. , because it relates to the right stating of the Nature of Idolatry ; which is agreed on both sides to be , giving to the creature the worship due only to God ; and the controversie between us is this , whether on supposition that God hath prohibited the act of adoration to an Image under the notion of Idolatry ; that act be real Idolatry or no ? The only pretence on their side that it was not , was this , that the intention of the Person being to terminate his worship on God , and not barely on the Image , it could not be real Idolatry ; my business was to remove this pretence ; which I did by this argument , because God himself denyes to receive it , and therefore it must be terminated on the creature : the consequence of this T. G. rejects as utterly false , because humane acts go whither they are intended , and that the prohibition of God only makes the act unlawful , and doth not hinder its going to its object . To take off this , I undertook to shew , that where God hath prohibited any acts of worship , that worship so given cannot be said to be terminated upon him : because worship being as here understood , an outward signification of honour and respect , God making a rule for his own worship , whatever hath disobedience in it , must dishonour God ; and that were a contradiction to honour God by dishonouring him ; and therefore God giving it the denomination of Idolatry , mens intentions could not excuse them from the guilt of it . For I said , whither soever men directed their intention , it is plain from Scripture , that God doth interpret this kind of worship to be terminated on the Image ; and therefore the Israelites are said to worship the molten Image , although they directed their intention to God by it . This is the short and true account of the force and design of that discourse , upon which T. G. makes such clamours of vanity , impertinency , changing the Question , contradiction , downright Sophistry , and what not ? save only answering the argument contained in it . But I beseech T. G. to let me understand the Sophistry of this argument : for he hath not yet discovered any thing like it , but only that he did not , or would not understand the strength and design of it . I will therefore do him the kindness to make it plainer to him . In all Acts of worship there are three things to be explained . 1. The inward intention of the mind . 2. The outward act of worship . 3. The passing of that outward act according to the inward intention ; or the terminating of it . 1. The inward intention of the mind , is either ( 1. ) Actual cogitation of the object intended , or ( 2. ) Directing the outward act to some particular end . As when I see a picture that puts me in mind of a Friend , the inward intention of the mind in the act of seeing is carried to the object represented , which is no more than simple cogitation , or apprehension of the Person by an Idea of him in my mind ; but when I kiss that picture out of the esteem I have for him , the intention of the mind is by that outward act to shew the respect I have for his Person . 2. The outward act of worship may be considered two wayes . 1. Physically , and abstractly from any Law , and so it depends upon the nature of the intention . 2. Morally , as good or evil , and so it receives its denomination from the Law , and not from the bare intention of the Person ; as if a man steals with an intention of charity , the goodness of his intention doth not hinder the act from falling under the denomination of theft . 3. The passing of the outward act according to the inward intention , or the terminating of it , signifies no more out of these terms , than that it was the intention of the person who did it to honour God by doing it ; but whether this be really an act of honour to God or no , is not to be judged by the simple intention of the Doer , but by the Law and Rule of worship which God hath given . And how can God be honoured by a palpable act of disobedience ? and how can that worship be terminated as worship upon him , who hath utterly refused it ? And supposing that God hath appropriated that outward act of worship to himself , which is given to an Image , this is giving the worship to a creature , which is proper to God ; which T. G. cannot deny to be the definition of real Idolatry . This was the meaning and intention of my former discourse , however T. G. lamentably mistakes and perverts it . 1. He saith , this is changing the State of the Question ; how so ? Why , forsooth , my charge was of real Idolatry , and my proof is only of Metaphorical Idolatry , and by extrinsecal denomination . What need is there that men have a care of their words that have to do with such Sophisters ! All that I said of denomination , was no more than this , The Divine Law being the rule of worship all prohibited wayes of worship must receive that denomination which God himself gives them : what is this to Metaphorical Idolatry ? If I say that unjust reproaching ones neighbour , or taking away his Goods , or lying with his wife , must receive that denomination which the Law gives them , doth this imply that it is only Metaphorical Theft and Adultery , and false Witness ? I do assure him , I meant very real Idolatry , under that denomination ; and that upon this reason , which I have now more largely insisted upon , viz. that it belongs to God to appropriate acts of worship to himself , that God having appropriated them , they become due only to him ; and therefore they who do these acts to any besides himself , do give to the creature the worship due to God alone , which is the very definition of real Idolatry T. G. contends for . But the real Idolatry I meant , he saith , was that which was so antecedently to any prohibition , as appears by my contending that the Church of Rome doth require the giving the creature the honour due only to God. What strange arguing is this , for so a subtile a Sophister ! Would not any one that had looked over Aristotles threshold ( to use his own phrase ) discern , that if Idolatry doth consist in giving the creature the worship due only to God , as many wayes as worship may become due , Idolatry may be committed ? Cannot God make any of the former appropriate acts of worship to become due only to himself ? cannot he tye us to perform them to him ? and then they become due to him : and cannot he restrain us from doing them to any other ? and then they become due only to him : and is not then the doing of any of these prohibited acts to a creature , the giving to them the worship due only to God ? Is the outward act of sacrifice due only to God antecedently to a prohibition or no ? If it be due only to God antecedently to his will , it is alwayes and necessarily due to him , and to him alone : and let T. G. at his leisure prove , that antecedently to any Law of God , it was necessary to worship God by sacrifice , and unlawful so to worship any else besides him . If it depends on the will of God , then either it is no Idolatry to offer sacrifice to a creature ; and then the Sacrifice of the Mass may be offered to Saints or Images : or if it be , then real Idolatry may be consequent to a prohibition . But he thinks he hath a greater advantage against me by my saying , that any Image being made so far the object of divine worship , that men do bow down before it , doth thereby become an Idol , and on that account is forbidden in the second Commandment . This is downright trifling ; for if I should say , that taking away a mans goods against his consent is Theft , and on that account is forbidden in the eighth Commandment , would any man imagine , that I must speak of Theft antecedent to the Command ? for it implyes no more , than that it is contrary to the Command . But as it is in the case of Theft , that is alwayes a sin , although the particular species of it , and the denomination of particular acts doth suppose positive Laws about Dominion and Property ; so it is in the case of Idolatry , the general nature of it is alwayes the same , viz. the giving the worship to a creature , which is due only to God , although the denomination of particular acts may depend upon positive Laws , because God may appropriate peculiar acts of worship to himself , which being done by him , those acts being given to a creature , receive the denomination of Idolatry , which , without those Laws they would not have done . So that still the general notion of Idolatry , is antecedent to positive Laws , but yet the determination of particular acts , whether they are Idolatry or no , do depend on the positive Laws which God hath given about his worship . And if T. G. had understood the nature of humane acts , as he pretends , he would never have made such trifling objections as these : For is it not thus , in the nature of the other sins forbidden in the Commandments as well as Idolatry , that are supposed to be the most morally evil antecedent to any prohibition ? Suppose it be murder , adultery , or disobedience to Parents ; although I grant these things to have a general notion antecedently to any Laws ; yet when we come to enquire into particular acts , whether they do receive those denominations or no , we must then judge by particular Laws , which determine what acts are to be accounted Murder , Adultery , or Disobedience ; as whether execution of malefactors be prohibited Murder , whether marrying many Wives be Adultery , whether not complying with the Religion of ones Parents be disobedience . These things I mention , to make T. G. understand a little better , the nature of Moral Acts , and that a general notion of Idolatry being antecedent to a prohibition , is very consistent with the determining any particular acts , ( as the worship of Images , to be Idolatry , ) to be consequent to that prohibition . But I perceive a particular pleasure these men take , to make me seem to contradict my self ; and here T. G. is at it , as wisely as the rest ; thus blind men apprehend nothing but contradictions in the diversity of colours by the different reflections of light ; but the comfort is , that others know that it is only their want of sight , that makes them cry out , contradictions . But wherein lyes this horrible self-contradiction ? Why truly it seems I had said , that an Image being made so far the object of divine worship that men do bow down before it , doth thereby become an Idol , and on that account is forbidden in the second Commandment . Well! and what then ? where lyes the contradiction ? Hold a little , it will come presently : in the mean time mark those words , on that Account : but I say , that the worship which God denyes to receive , cannot be terminated on him but on the Image . Is this the contradiction then ? No , not yet neither . The conceit had need be good , it is so long in delivering ; but at last it comes like a thunder-showre , full of sulphur and darkness , with a terrible crack : either I mean that this worship cannot be terminated on God antecedently to the Prohibition , because on that account the worship of an Image is forbidden in the second Commandment ; or if it cannot be terminated on the account of the Prohibition , then it is not on that account forbidden . What a needless invention was that of Gunpowder ! T. G. can blow a man up with a train of consequences from his own words , let him but have the laying of it . Could I ever have thought , that such innocent words , as on that account , should have had so much Nitre and Sulphur in them ? For let any man read over those words , and see if he can find any thing antecedent to the prohibition in them . For having in that place shewed that the words Idolum , sculptile , imago are promiscuously used in Scripture , I presently add , By which it appears , that any Image being made so far the object of divine worship that men do bow down before it , doth thereby become an Idol , and on that account is forbidden in this Commandment . By which it appears ( mark that ) this T. G. pares off , as not fit for his purpose ; i. e. from the sense of the word in Scripture ; that any Image being made so far the object of divine worship that men do bow down before it ; i. e. if men do perform that act of worship to an Image which God hath forbidden the doing towards it ; what then ? then say I , it becomes an Idol , for whatever hath divine worship given to it , is so ; and on that account , i. e. of its having that act of divine worship done to it by bowing before it , it is forbidden in this Commandment , i. e. it comes within the reach of that prohibition ; the meaning of all which is no more than to shew , that adoration of Images is Idolatry by vertue of that Commandment . But , thus are we put to construe and paraphrase our own words , to free our selves either from the ignorance , or malice of our Adversaries . But with this fetch T.G. stands and laughs through his fingers , at the trick he hath plaid me ; and bids me , with a secret pleasure at his notable invention , to extricate my self out of this Labyrinth . But doth not T. G. remember the old woman in Seneca , that thought the Room was dark , when she lost her sight , and no doubt would have pleased her self to think she left Children in the dark , when the Sun shined ? I would desire T. G. to look for the Labyrinth nearer home ; for I cannot discern any , unless it should be in the perplexity of his own thoughts ; for I am unwilling to believe that he doth this with a design to play tricks ; and to fly-blow my words on purpose to make others distaste them . But what if after all this Sophistry , T. G. very mercifully yields me the thing I pleaded for , viz. that the worship which God hath forbidden , cannot be terminated upon himself ? For , he saith , that if God have forbidden himself to be worshipped after such a manner , the giving him such worship will be a dishonouring of him , though the Giver intend it never so much for his Honour . I see T.G. after all , is a good natured man , and although he will shew a thousand tricks , rather than be thought to have it forced from him , yet let him alone , and he will give as much as a man would desire . For what could I wish for more , than he here grants ? Prohibited worship , he grants , is dishonouring God , though a man intend it never so much for his honour : and worship , he yields to be an external signification of honour ; then God is honoured when he is worshipped ; how then can he be worshipped by the same act by which he is dishonoured ; for so he would be honoured by that by which he is dishonoured ; which comes much nearer to a contradiction , than any thing he charges me with . But all this while he cannot understand , that this is terminating the honour due to God on the Image : I ask him then , where that honour rests ? it must be some where ; not on God , for , he confesses God is dishonoured , and therefore it can be no where else , but on the Image , and consequently it is real Idolatry , and not meerly Metaphorical , or by extrinsecal denomination . 3. I now proceed to shew , that the Christian church hath condemned those for Idolatry who have been guilty only of applying some external appropriate acts of divine worship to other things besides God. What made the Church of Alexandria be so severe with Origen for but holding the incense in his hands , which those about him cast from thence upon the Altar ? yet for this , he was cast out of the Church , saith Epiphanius . In the Acts of Marcellinus , which Baronius produces , he is condemned for offering incense in the Temple of Vesta , out of complyance with Dioclesian ; yet he was only guilty of the external act of Idolatry , saith Bellarmin , having no infidelity in his mind ; and this was the common case of the Thurificati , viz. of those who offered incense only out of fear ; and not with an intention to honour the Idol by it ; yet these were looked on as lapsed persons , and great severities of penance were prescribed them , as appears by the Canons of Ancyra and many others . But if there be no external appropriate acts of divine worship ; if burning in●ense be an indifferent thing , and may be used to God , or the Creature ; if Idolatry depends on the intention of the mind ; I desire to know , what the fault of the Thurificati was ? For if it were lawful to burn incense to a creature , what harm was there in the doing it by Marcellinus at the request of the Emperour , if he intended it for no more than a civil respect to him ? But it was in the Temple of Vesta , and therefore was divine worship . Then , say I , an act in it self equivocal , becomes appropriate to divine worship , being performed with the circumstances of Religion ; which is that I have been hitherto proving . But if external acts receive their denomination from the inward intention of the mind , no doubt the Iesuits in China , were far more in the Right than the primitive Church ; and by this doctrine of directing the intention in outwards acts of worship , the lives of many thousand Martyrs might have been saved . For in the Roman Martyrology Decemb. 25. we find in Nicomedia at one time , many thousand Martyrs destroyed by Dioclesian , being met together in a Church , rather than they would escape by offering a little incense at their coming out : the Greek Menology saith , they were twenty thousand ; too great a number to lose their lives for so indifferent a ceremony , as T.G. accounts it ; might not they , when they were bid to offer incense to Iove , direct their intention to the Supream God ? and then T. G. would assure them , the act must pass whither it was directed ; and it was meer ignorance of the nature of humane acts for men to imagine otherwise . What great pity it is , so saving a doctrine ( to the Lives at least , though not to the Souls of Christians ) had not been known in that age , when so many poor Christians suffered Martyrdom for the want of it ! How admirably would T. G. upon his principles have perswaded those Christians of Nicomedia to resolution and constancy in suffering ! What is it the Emperour requires of you to save your Lives ? [ O Sir say they , it is to burn incense . ] To burn incense ! is that a thing for you to venture your Lives for ? I am ashamed of your ignorance ; what do not you know , that burning incense at least now in the New Law is an indifferent ceremony , and may be used to God or to men ? [ O but we are required to burn incense to Jove . ] What have none of you looked over Aristotles threshold , that you do not know , that actions go whither they are intended ? well , let me give you this advice ; when you burn the incense , direct your intention aright to God , and my life for yours , the act will pass to him , and not to Iove , as surely as an Arrow well level'd hits the mark that is aimed at . I see plainly , this threshold of Aristotle would have done more service to have saved the Christians Lives , than all the precepts of Christ or his Apostles . But I find none of the primitive Christians had peeped through Aristotles Keyhole , much less had they stept over his threshold , unless they were those Philosophical Christians , the Gnosticks ; for they perfectly understood this principle , and ordered their actions accordingly ; for they had a mighty care of their intention , and kept a good sound faith within , and for all the outward acts of worship among the Gentiles , they could do them with the best of them , and only they did by them , as they do with Pigeons in the East , they bound their intention fast about them , and with them then they were sure they would fly to the place they intended them . But why doth S. Augustine find such fault with Seneca for complying with the outward acts of worship among the Heathen Idolaters ? and with the rest of the Philosophers for the same things ? Why doth Aquinas quote these passages with approbation ? Did they know the intention of Seneca , or the Philosophers ? Why doth Cajetan say , that a man that commits only the external act of Idolatry , is as guilty as he that commits the external act of theft ? To both which , he sayes , no more is necessary than a voluntary inclination to do that act ; not any apprehension in the mind that what he worships is God , nor any intention to direct that act only to the Image . Nay , why doth Gregory de Valentia himself say , that outward acts of worship may be so proper to God either from their own nature , or the consent of mankind , that whosoever doth them , whatever his inward intention be , ought to be understood to give the honour proper to God to that for whose sake he doth them ? And this he calls an implicit , Tannerus an indirect intention , but neither of them suppose it to be either an actual , or virtual intention of the mind , but only that which may be gathered from the outward acts . Nay , T. G. himself saith , that on supposition the Philosophers did believe one God , and yet joyned with the people in the practice of their Idolatry , they were worthily condemned by the Apostle , though but for the external profession of praying and offering sacrifice to their Images . Say you so ? and yet do outward acts certainly go whither they are intended ? Suppose then these Philosophers intended to worship the true God by those Images ? where this Idolatry or no ? if not , why were they so much to blame , for giving worship to the true God by an Image ? which T. G. commends , as a very good thing . Was it the figure of their Images displeased him ? that could not be , for the Statue of Iupiter Capitolinus might as fitly represent God to them as that of an old man in their Churches ; and young Iupiter in the lap of Fortune , ( an Image Cicero mentions ) might put him in mind of one of the most common Images in their Church ; and by the help of a good intention might be carryed to a right object . And why might not intention do that , which their Church afterwards did , when it changed the Temple of Hercules to S. Alexius , because he was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; and that of the two Brothers Romulus and Remus , or as Bellarmin saith Castor and Pollux , to Cosmas and Damianus ; and the Pantheon to Omnium Sanctorum ? If there be no harm in the thing , there could be none in the intention . Or was it the scandal of their practice ? but to whom was the scandal given ? it would have been rather scandal among them not to have done it . So that if a secret Intention doth carry that act whither it is intended , and it be lawful to worship God by Images , I do not see , wherein the Philosophers were to blame in complying with those outward acts , whose good or evil according to T. G. depends upon the intention of the doers of them . But if they were really to blame , it was for doing those external acts of worship to creatures , which belong only to the worship of God , and so the Apostle by condemning them , doth prove that which I intended , viz. that there are such peculiar external acts of divine worship , that the doing of them for the worship of a Creature is Idolatry . But my Adversary , thinks to clear the Church of Rome from the charge of Idolatry , by two general answers which serve him and his Brethren on all occasions . viz. 1. That there are two sorts of worship , one called Latria , or Soveraign worship which is proper to God , and another called Dulia or inferiour worship that may be given to creatures on the account of excellencies communicated to them from God. 2. That the worship they give to any inanimate creatures , that have no proper excellencies of their own is not absolute , but a relative Latria , they intending thereby only to worship God. In the examining of these two , I shall clear the last part of this Discourse , viz. 3. How the applying the acts of Religious worship to a creature doth make that worship Idolatry ? 1. I shall consider the different sorts of worship which T. G. insists upon , to clear the Church of Rome from the practice of Idolatry . The Question at present , saith T. G. between Dr. St. and the Church of Rome is not , whether Divine worship be to be given to Saints ( for this is abhorred of all faithful Christians ) but whether an inferiour worship of like kind with that which is given to Holy men upon earth for their Holiness and near relation to God , may not be lawfully given to them , now they are in Heaven ? Again , he saith , if by Religious worship , I mean that honour which is due to God alone , it is true what the Fathers say , that it is not to be given to the most excellent created Beings , but nothing at all to the point in debate between us ; if I mean that honour of which a creature is capable for Religions sake , and that relation which it setleth , he will , he saith , shew it to be false , that the Fathers deny any such honour to be given to the Holy Angels or Saints : and if I prove that this worship ought not to be called Religious , he tells me from S. Austin , that it is but a meer wrangling about words , because Religion may be used in other senses besides that of the worship due to God. And by the help of this distinction between the Religious worship due to God , and that of which a creature is capable for Religions sake , he saith he can clearly dispell the mist I have raised from the Testimony of the Fathers , and let the Reader see that I have perverted their meaning , and yet said nothing to the purpose . Thus he answers the testimonies of Iustin Martyr , Theophilus , Origen , S. Ambrose , ( or the Writer under his name ) Theodoret , S. Austin ; and if they had been a hundred more , it had been all one ; they had been all sent packing with the same answer ; let them say what they would , they must be all understood of Divine worship proper to God , and not of the inferiour worship which creatures are capable of , which from S. Austin he calls Dulia ; as the former Latria . The whole strength of T. G's defence , as to the Worship of Saints and Angels , lyes in this single distinction ; which I shall therefore the more carefully consider , because it tends to clear the nature of Divine worship , which is my present subject . To proceed with all possible clearness in this debate , which T. G. hath endeavoured to perplex , I shall 1. Give a true account of the State of the Controversie . 2. Enquire into the sense of the Fathers about this distinction about Soveraign and inferiour worship , whether those acts of worship which are practised in the Roman Church , he only such as the Fathers allowed . 1. For the true state of the controversie ; which was never more necessary to be given , than in this place . For , any one that only reads T. G. and doth not understand the practice of the Roman Church , would imagine all the dispute between him and me were , whether the Saints in Heaven be capable of receiving any honour from men ; and whether that honour being given upon the account of Religion , might be called Religious Honour or no ? This were indeed to wrangle about words , which I perfectly hate . I will therefore freely tell , him how far I yield in this matter , that he may better understand where the difficulty lyes . 1. I yield , that the Saints in Heaven do deserve real honour and esteem from us ; and I do agree with Mr. Thorndike , whose words he cites , therein , that to dispute whether we are bound to honour the Saints , were to dispute whether we are to be Christians , or whether we believe them to be Saints in Heaven . For on supposition that we believe , that the greatest excellencies of mens minds come from the Grace of God , communicated to men through Iesus Christ ; and we are assured that such persons now in Heaven were possessed of those excellencies , it is impossible we should do otherwise than esteem and honour them . For honour in this sense , is nothing else , but the due apprehension of anothers excellency ; and therefore it must be greater , or lesser according to the nature and degree of those excellencies . Since therefore we believe the Saints in Heaven are possessed of them in a higher degree than they were on earth , our esteem of them must increase according to the measure of their perfections . 2. That the honour we have for them may be called Religious honour , because it is upon the account of those we may call Religious excellencies , as they are distinguished from meer natural endowments and civil accomplishments . On which account I will grant , that is not properly civil honour , because the motive or reason of the one is really different from the other . And although the whole Church of Christ in Heaven and Earth make up one Body , yet the nature of that Society is so different from a Civil Society , that a different title and denomination ought to be given to the honour which belongs to either of them ; and the honour of those of the triumphant Church may the better be called Religious , because it is an honour which particularly descends from the object of Religion , viz. God himself as the fountain of it ; as civil honour doth from the Head of a Civil Society . 3. That this honour may be expressed in such outward acts , as are most agreeable to the nature of it . And herein lyes a considerable difference , between the honour of men for natural and acquired excellencies , and divine graces , that those having more of humane nature in them , the honour doth more directly redound to the possessor of them ; but in Divine Graces which are more immediately conveyed into the souls of men , through a supernatural assistance , the Honour doth properly belong to the Giver of them . Therefore the most agreeable expression of the honour of Saints is solemn Thanksgiving to God for them : for thereby we acknowledge the true fountain of all the good they did or received . However , for the incouragement of men to follow their examples , and to perpetuate their memories , the primitive Christians thought it very fitting to meet at the places of their Martyrdom , there to praise God for them , and to perform other offices of Religious worship to God , and to observe the Anniversary of their sufferings , and to have Panegyricks made to set forth their vertues , to excite others the more to their imitation . Thus far I freely yield to T. G. to let him see what pittiful cavils those are , that if men deserve honour for natural or supernatural endowments , surely the Saints in Heaven much more do so : Who denyes it ? We give the Saints in Heaven the utmost honour we dare give , without robbing God of that which belongs only to him . Which is that of Religious worship , and consists in the acknowledgements we make of Gods supream excellency together with his Power and Dominion over us : and so Religious worship consists in two things . 1. Such external acts of Religion which God hath appropriated to himself . 2. Such an inward submission of our souls , as implyes his Superiority over them : and that lyes , as to worship , 1. In prayer to him for what we want . 2. In dependence upon him for help and assistance . 3. In Thankfulness to him for what we receive . Prayer is a signification of want , and the expression of our desire of obtaining that which we need : and whosoever beggs any thing of another , doth in so doing , not only acknowledge his own indigency , but the others power to supply him : therefore Suarez truly observes from Aquinas , that as command is towards inferiours , so is prayer towards Superiours : now to this , saith he , two things are requisite , 1. That a man apprehends it is in the power of the Superiour to give what we ask . 2. That he is willing to give it , if it be asked of him . The expectation of the performance of our desire is that we call dependence upon him for help and assistance ; and our acknowledgement of his doing it , is Thankfulness . Now if we consider Prayer , as a part of Religious worship , we are to enquire on what account it comes to be so ; not , as though thereby we did discover any thing to God which he did not know before , nor as though we hoped to change his will upon our prayer ; but that thereby we profess our subjection to him , and our dependence on him for the supply of our necessities . For although prayer be looked on by us as the means to obtain our requests , yet the consideration upon which that becomes a means , is , that thereby we express our most humble dependence upon God. It being the difference observed by Gul. Parisiensis between humane and divine prayer ; that prayer among men is supposed a means to change the Person to whom we pray ; but prayer to God doth not change him , but fits us for receiving the things prayed for . This one consideration is of greater importance towards the resolution of our present question than hath been hitherto imagined : for the Question of invocation , doth not depend so much upon the manner of obtaining the thing we desire , i. e. whether we pray to the Saints to obtain things by their merits and intercessions , which is allowed and contended for by all in the Roman Church ; or whether it be , that they do bestow the things themselves upon us , which they deny : but the true State of the Question is this , whether by the manner of Invocation of Saints which is allowed and practised in the Roman Church , they do not give that worship to Saints , which is only peculiar to God ? Now we are farther to consider , wherein that act of worship towards God doth lye ; which is not in an act of the mind whereby we apprehend God to be the first and independent cause of all good ; but in an act of dependence upon him for the obtaining that good we stand in need of . For a man may apprehend God to be the first Author of all good , and yet make no prayer to him , nor use the acts of Religious worship ; because he may suppose that God may have committed the care of humane affairs to inferiour Deities , and therefore all our addresses and acts of worship are to be performed to them : on this account the worship proper to God must lye in dependence upon him as the Sole Author of all Good to us ; and this to be expressed by our Solemn Invocation of him . For although the internal desire be sufficiently known to God ; yet the necessity of external Religious worship , and owning this dependence upon God to the world , doth require the expression of it , by outward duties and offices of Religion , in such a manner , that our sole dependence upon God be understood thereby . Now the Question between T. G. and me is this , whether the doctrine and practice of the Roman Church in the Invocation of Saints and Angels be consistent with the acknowledgement of our sole dependence upon God for all our Blessings ? The doctrine of their Church is thus delivered by himself , in the words of the Council of Trent , It is good and profitable for Christians humbly to invocate the Saints , and to have recourse to their prayers , aid , and assistance , whereby to obtain benefits of God , by his Son our Lord Iesus Christ who is our only Redeemer and Saviour . Where we take notice of the phrase suppliciter invocare , to invocate them after the manner of suppliants , and that not only voce , but mente , with words , but mental prayers as the Council adds , which words seem to be put on purpose to distinguish it from that office of Kindness in one man to another , when he desires him to pray for him ; for this is as much as they would use concerning the Saints in Heaven praying to God , that they do suppliciter invocare ; this phrase then doth not limit the signification of this invocation to be no more than praying to the Saints to pray for us . For a man doth , I suppose , answer the signification of that phrase by praying to them to give , rather than by praying to them to pray ; for the one imports more the humility of a suppliant , than the other doth . And if there had been apprehended any danger of praying to them as the givers of blessings , is is not to be imagined , but so wary a Council would have expressed it , as it was most easie to have done ; and most necessary to avoid that danger , if they had any regard to the good of mens souls . And that man must have an understanding indeed of a very common size , that can apprehend that the Council of Trent disallowed the praying to Saints as the Givers of Blessings , which was known to be practised in their Church , when they commend the humble invocation of Saints without the least censure of that manner of praying to them . Nay farther , which puts the matter out of dispute , with all who do not wilfully blind themselves , the Council of Trent commends the making recourse , not only to the prayers of the Saints , but to their aid and assistance : what doth this aid and assistance signifie , as distinct from prayers , and expressing somewhat beyond them ? ( or else those words were very weakly inserted in such a place , where they are so lyable to misconstruction ) unless it be that which they pray for to them , viz. that they would help , comfort , strengthen , and protect them . Of which sort of prayers I produced several instances in their most Authentick Offices . And what saith T. G. to this ? why truly , these Forms of prayer to Saints cannot be denyed to be in use among them , but yet the sense of them is no more than praying to them to pray for them , and this is only varying the Phrase , to say to the Blessed Virgin Pray for me , or Help me , and comfort me and strengthen me O Blessed Virgin . But I asked him , whence must people take the sense of these prayers , if not from the signification of the words ? He answers , not meerly from Lilly 's Grammar Rules , but from the doctrine of the Church delivered in her Councils and Catechisms , and from the common use of such words and expressions among Christians . I am content with this way of interpreting the sense of these prayers , provided , that a generally received practice , never condemned by their Councils , but rather justified by them , and a doctrine agreeable to that practice , allowed and countenanced in that Church , be thought a sufficient means to interpret the sense of these prayers . And to make the matter more plain , besides the prayers already mentioned , I shall give only a Tast of some few of those , which are recommended to the Use of the devout Persons of their Church , in the Manuals and Offices which are now allowed them in our own language : in which we may be sure , they would be careful to have nothing they thought scandalous , or repugnant to the doctrine and practise of their Church . In the Manual of Godly Prayers , which hath been often printed , ( and once very lately ) I find these words under the title of A Most Devout Commendation to our most Blessed Lady , O most singular , most excellent , most beautiful , most glorious , and most worthy Mother of God , most Noble Queen of Heaven , and most entirely beloved , and most sweet Lady , and Virgin Mary ; so often from the bottom of my heart I do salute thee , as there be in number Angels in Heaven , drops of water in the Sea , Stars in the Firmament , leaves on the Trees , and grass on the earth . I do salute thee in the union of love , and by the blessed and most sweet heart of thy most dear Son , and of all that love thee , I do commend and assign my self unto thee , as to my dear Patroness , to be thy proper and loving Child . And farther , I humbly beseech thee O blessed Lady , that thou wilt vouchsafe to entertain and receive me , and obtain of thy dear Son , that I may be wholly thine , and thou next unto God may be wholly mine , that is , my Lady , my Ioy , my Crown , and my most sweet and faithful Mother . Amen . Lilly's Grammar I confess , will not help us out here ; nor the Construing Book neither : I do not think any Rules will do it . It must be a special gift of interpreting , that can make any one think , that no more is meant by all this , but to pray to the Blessed Virgin to pray for them . In the same Manual I find another Recommendation to the Virgin Mary , in these words , O my Lady , Holy Mary , I recommend my self into thy blessed trust , and singular custody , and into the bosome of thy mercy , this night and evermore , and in the hour of my death , as also my Soul and my Body ; and I yield unto thee all my hope and consolation , all my distress and miseries , my life and the end thereof ; that by thy most holy intercession , and by thy merits , all my works may be directed and disposed , according to thine , and thy Sons Will. Amen . I confess , intercession is here mentioned ; but withal it is plain that is not the only thing relyed upon , for her merits are immediately added ; and whatever ground it be upon , it seems , it is not only lawful , but a devout thing to commit Soul and Body to her trust and custody , both in Life and death . What could have been said more to the Eternal Son of God , than is contained in this Commendation to the Blessed Virgin in all the expressions of it ? In another prayer to her , which is not only in the Manual , but in the Primer , or Office of the Blessed Virgin , and is too long to repeat , we have this beginning . I beseech thee , O holy Lady Mary , Mother of God most full of pity , the daughter of the Highest King , Mother most glorious , Mother of Orphans , the Consolation of the Desolate , the way of them that go astray , the safety of all that trust in thee , a Virgin before Child-bearing , a Virgin in Child-bearing , and a Virgin after Child-bearing , the fountain of mercy , the fountain of health and Grace , the fountain of consolation and pardon , the fountain of piety and gladness , the fountain of life and forgiveness . I am now got from Lilly's Grammar to Aristotles Threshold : and I desire to know of T. G. whether these expressions are true or false ? Is the Blessed Virgin all these things , or not ? If they be not true , they are horrible blasphemies : if they be true , to what purpose is it to talk of praying to her to pray for us ? for why may not I go directly to the Fountain of Mercy , Grace , and Pardon ? what needless trouble were it to pray her , to pray for that which is in her on hands to bestow ? In another prayer following that , are these expressions to the Blessed Virgin , Bow down thine ears O Mother of pity and mercy , unto my poor prayers , and be to me wretched sinner , a pitious helper in all things . And presently after to our Lady and S. Iohn together . O ye two Heavenly Gemms , Mary and John ! O two divine Lamps ever shining before God! drive away with your blessed beams , the dark clouds of my sins . — To you , I most wretched sinner , commend this day , my Body and Soul , that in every hour and moment inwardly and outwardly , ye would vouchsafe to be my sure keepers and pitiful Intercessors to God for me . Here we have intercession again , but that is not all , nor the main thing ; for Custody is more than intercession ; and that is first begged , and then intercession . So that if ever any prayers were made to creatures for those things , which God alone can give , these were ; and so as to imply our dependence on them for the obtaining of them . These may suffice for a taste of their present and allowed devotions among them here at home , in Books of daily use . And now I beseech T. G. to tell me , what there is in the Doctrine of the Church of Rome , which makes it necessary for me to put so forced a sense upon all these expressions , that they do mean no more than praying to the Blessed Virgin to pray for them ? As Lilly's Grammar will not explain the sense , so no Rhetorick I ever saw , will make me understand the Figure . How often have we been railed at , for understanding words in a figurative sense , which cannot be literally understood , without overthrowing the plainest evidence of sense and reason ; and which by the customary modes of speaking among all Nations , attributing the thing signified to the sign , and by other places of Scripture and Fathers , we prove ought to be no otherwise understood ? But here is a strange figure invented against the plain and natural sense of the words , for by praying to bestow must be understood only praying to pray : and that when those titles are at the same time given , which suppose it in their power to give ; and when there is no imaginable necessity from any doctrine of their Church to put this sense upon those words . For what article of their Creed , what decree of their Church , what doctrine of their Divines doth it contradict , for any man to pray directly to the Virgin Mary , for the destruction of heresies , support under troubles , Grace to withstand temptations , and reception to Glory ? And what can we beg for , more from God himself ? Yet I challenge T. G. to shew , which of all these , such prayers are repugnant to ? and if to none of them , why should not the words be understood as they properly signifie ? nay , it were easie to shew , that such prayers are very agreeable not only to the doctrine of the Council of Trent , but of their most eminent Divines both before , and after it . But this were to go beyond the bounds of this general Discourse ; which is designed only to state the Nature of Divine Worship between us and them . Yet I cannot but take notice of the way T. G. saith , the people are instructed by , to make this to be the sense of praying to give , i. e. praying to pray . 1. He saith , the common doctrine of Christianity , by which they are taught that God alone is the giver of all good things : and doth not the same common doctrine of Christianity , teach men to pray to him alone , for what he only can give ? and not to use such bold and absurd figures in prayer , whose plain sense is contrary to this common doctrine of Christianity . But I wonder that T. G. should think this an effectual way to make them understand the prayers in this sense , when himself hath shewed them the way to reconcile this common doctrine to their practice ; and the form of the words . For may not giving be distinguished as well as worship ? It is true , God alone is the Original Giver of all good things , and this is a Soveraign way of giving peculiar to God ; but there is an inferiour and subordinate way of giving by a power derived from God , and this is all , say they , we attribute to the Saints ; and how now doth the common doctrine of Christianity teach people more effectually , that God alone is the Giver of all things , than that God alone is to be worshipped ? I am sure the Scripture saith one as often , and in as plain terms , as it can do the other . But , 2. He saith , their Sermons , Catechisms and Explications both by word and writing do it ; suppose some persons do it , I ask , by what Authority ? their Church having never declared against an inferiour way of giving in the Saints , and having expresly owned the making recourse to them for their help and assistance , as well as their prayers . I desire T. G. in good earnest to tell me , what makes him so concerned , to have all the prayers understood in that sense , of praying to the Saints to pray for them , against the express sense of the words ? Is there any harm in the other sense or not ? if there be no harm , why may they not be so understood , without so much force and violence offered to them ? if there be any harm , what is it ? Idolatry or not ? if only scandal , why were they not put in other words ? if Idolatry , then T. G. himself charges them with Idolatry that understand their prayers by Lilly's Grammar , unless he thinks it much better for them , not to understand them at all . But I shall beg the Favour of one of their Church-Dictionaries to interpret this late Ode of Rapin to the Lady of Loretto , so as to make me construe it to be only praying to her to pray for them . Ad Divam Virginem Lauretanam . Diva , quam rebus trepidis benignam Rure Piceno veneratur Orbis , Cui suos sternit facilis moveri Adria fluctus : Si qua Pastoris tibi Vaticani Cura , vel Sacri superest Ovilis , Italis Thracem procul inquietum Finibus arce . Si faves totis trepidabit undis Bosphorus , rupes Scyticae pavebunt , Turca pallebit , timidumque cornu Luna recondet . Namque te dudum pelagi potentem Non semel verso tremuere ponto Mersa Threissi , rate dissipata Arma Tyranni . Ne tibi fidam pavor ille gentem Angat , aut saevis male turbet armis Quos tuis laeti meditamur aris , Ponere honores . If this be not making a Goddess of her , surely the Heathen Poets never made one of Minerva ; and yet I hope Rapin , a Iesuit and a Scholar , did well enough understand what was agreeable to the doctrine and practice of the Church of Rome . Yet supposing T. G's sense were all that were understood by the Church of Rome in this matter , it doth not acquit them from giving that Religious Worship , which Invocation imports , to something else besides God. For let us suppose that the Arrians only looked on Christ as a powerful intercessor with God , and on that account did in their publick offices of Religion make their solemn Addresses to him to intercede and pray for them to God ; were this giving him any part of Divine worship or no ? Especially , when performed with all the external acts of adoration which are proper to God. If this were not any part of Divine worship , the Fathers were extreamly out in their proofs that Christ could be no creature , because the external act of adoration was given to him ; if it were a part of divine worship , then those in the Church of Rome do give it to a creature , when with all the solemn Acts of Devotion they pray to Saints , which they use to God himself , although it be only to be intercessors with God for them , especially when they do not only pray thus to them , but rely upon them for their help and assistance , and return thanks to them when they receive the Blessings they prayed for . Would not the Fathers have called this bringing in Polytheism , and reviving the antient Idolatry of the Heathens ? Since the great principle of Christianity they said was , the reserving all parts of Religious worship to God alone . Nay , some of the Writers of the Roman Church have been so ingenuous in this matter to confess , that if the modern practice of Invocation of Saints had been introduced in the Apostolical times , it would have looked too like the introducing of Gentilism again . Franciscus Horantius in his Answer to Calvins Institutions , confesses , that Invocation of Saints was not expresly commanded under the Gospel , nè gentiles conversi crederent se iterum ad cultum terrigenarum trahi , lest the Gentile Converts should believe that they were again drawn to the worship of Creatures : which words he had borrowed from Eccius , and the same are repeated by Harpsfield . Martinus Peresius Ayala a learned Spanish Bishop assigns this for the reason , why he could meet with no footsteps either of the invocation or intercession of Saints , before the time of Cornelius Bishop of Rome ; viz. that the Apostles would have been thought to have made themselves Gods , if they had delivered the doctrine of invocation and intercession of Saints . By which we see , these persons did truly apprehend a great affinity between their practice of Invocation of Saints , and the Heathen Idolatry ; or else there was no danger , one should be mistaken for the other . And although T. G. tells us , he never met with any Catholick so ignorant , as not to understand the sense of their prayers to be to desire the Saints to help them with their prayers ; yet I meet with some men , who understood Catholicks as well as T. G. and yet do give a quite different account of them . For the same Spanish Bishop , thinks the people had great need to be better instructed in this matter of worship , lest , saith he , they make Gods of the Saints , nam multos inveni in hac parte , non satis Christianè institutos ; I have found many not well instructed in this matter : it seems not only the people committed Idolatry , but their Teachers did not instruct them well enough to avoid it . And Ludov. Vives was not so lucky a man as T. G. for he saith , that many Christians do most times offend in a good thing ( i. e. giving honour to Saints ) for , he saith , they worship them no otherwise than they do God ; neither do I find in many things any difference between their opinion of the Saints , and the Heathens of their Gods. T.G. takes notice of this passage of Vives , and blames me for leaving out in re bona , in a thing good in it self ; let him make as much of this , as he please , for it only shews that he was a through Papist , although he charged the people with the downright practice of Idolatry : and if it only implyes an error and abuse in practice , yet he shews both these were too common among them , and that the Catholicks in his time were not so wise as those T. G. hath met with . But it may be he means no more , than that if they be asked the Question in their Catechism , they answer it as he saith ; which is as good a way to free them from the practice of Idolatry , as if a man should be suspected of Adultery , and T. G. should answer for him , that cannot be , for he understands better than so , for when I asked him the Commandments , he said he ought not to commit Adultery . Polydore Virgil , was not so happy as T. G. for speaking of the solemn Rite of Supplication when the Images of Saints are carryed in procession , he saith , I fear , I fear we rather please the Heathen Gods than Christ by such practices ; which without all question , he saith , was taken from the Heathen customs . And what he saith of the worship of Images , is as true of that of Saints , that the people were arrived to that degree of madness , that their worship differed very little from Idolatry . Cassander saith , that the people trusted so much to the Patronage and Intercession of the Saints , whom they worshipped with dull , not to say profane Ceremonies , that they hoped for the pardon of their sins , although they did not amend their lives , on the account of their intercession for them ; and that they trusted more to them , especially to the Blessed Virgin , than to Christ himself . And that what interpretations soever some men put upon those titles of the Queen of Heaven , Mother of Mercy , &c. the common people did not understand them according to their sense of them . Nay , Erasmus goes farther , saying , that their very Preachers worshipped the Blessed Virgin with more Religion , or devotion , than they did Christ himself , or his Holy Spirit , calling her the Mother of Grace . By all which we see , that the doctrine of Divine worship is not so clearly stated by them , but that the more ingenuous men , who have lived and dyed in the communion of that Church , have thought not only the people , but the Teachers very much to blame in it . 2. My business now is , to give an account of the sense of the Fathers in this dispute about the notion of divine worship ; not to handle particularly the Testimonies of the Fathers in dispute between us , which belongs to the Question of Invocation of Saints , but to shew , that they went upon the same principles I have here laid down , in the distinction between the Honour and the Worship of them ; and while they speak most for the Honour of the Saints , they deny any Religious worship to be performed to them . Origen in the beginning of his Book against Celsus , makes that to be the property of the doctrine of Christ , that God only was to be worshipped , but that other might be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , worthy of honour , but not of worship . And in another place he speaks as plainly as words can express his meaning ; although , saith he , we should believe that Angels were set over these things below , yet we only praise and magnifie them ; but all our prayers are only to be made to God , and not to any Angel ; and only Iesus Christ is to offer up our prayers to God ; and lest any should imagine he meant only some kind of prayers , he saith expresly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all prayer , and supplication , and intercession ; and saith that we ought not to pray to them who pray for us . But now what saith T. G. to these places , which ( excepting the first ) I had objected against the practice of invocation of Saints and Angels in my former discourse ? Why truly he saith , that Origens meaning is partly , that we are not to pray to them in the same manner that we do to God : but we may pray to them after another manner . But is that inferiour sort of prayer , prayer or not ? when we desire them to pray for us , is not that desiring their intercession for us ? but Origen denyes , that any prayer is to be made to them , or any one to be prayed to , although it be only to intercede with God for us , but only the Son of God. I remember an answer of a devout servant of the Blessed Virgin much like this of T. G. For when it was objected , that she could not be the Mother of Redemption for mankind , because it is said , Isa. 63.3 . I have trodden the wine-press alone , and of the people there was no man with me . True , saith he , there is no man with thee , but there might be a woman for all that . So doth T. G. deal with the testimonies of the Fathers , let them be never so express against all sorts of prayers and Invocations , they hold only of such a sort of prayer , but there may be another and inferiour sort notwithstanding . But is there any sort that is not comprehended under all ? And that Origen cannot be understood in these passages of such prayer only as supposeth the supream excellency in God , most evidently appears by the dispute between Celsus and him , which was not about the worship of the Supream God , but of Inferiour Spirits and Ministers to him , as hath been fully proved already . The Church of Philomelium in that noble Testimony concerning the Martyrdom of Polycarp , makes the same distinction between honour and worship ; for they utterly deny giving any worship to a creature , as inconsistent with Christianity ; but at the same time , they confess the honour and esteem they had for the Martyrs , which they expressed by meeting at the places of their Martyrdom , keeping their Anniversary dayes , and recommending their examples to the imitation of others . In the former Discourse I produced the Testimonies of Iustin Martyr , Theophilus Antiochenus , and mentioned many others to the same purpose , viz. that all Religious worship was due only to God ; and with this double caution to prevent cavils , 1. That it was without making any distinctions of absolute and relative worship , which they must have been driven to , in case they had given Religious worship to any besides . 2. That when the Christians refused to give adoration to the Emperour , it could not be understood of the adoration proper to the Supream God , for none can be so sensless to imagine they required that , but such kind of Religious worship as they gave to the Images of their Gods. To all this T. G. replyes , ( I. ) That these Testimonies are impertinent , because they are to be understood only of that divine worship which is due to God alone ; and not of the Inferiour worship which belongs to Saints or Angels . Might he not as well have said , that they prove that no man might be worshipped , but a woman might ? For the force of the Testimonies did not lye meerly in this , that they attributed divine worship only to God , but that they made use of the most general terms which signified worship without any distinction of the nature and kind of that worship , supposing it to be on a Religious account . For no men of common sense would have written as they did , if they had believed that some sort of Religious worship were lawful to be given , and another not . Doth T. G. think that he should ever escape censure in his Church , if he should say peremptorily that it is unlawful to give any kind of Religious worship to a creature , when the very Indices of the Fathers cannot escape the Index Expurgatorius for blabbing so great a Truth ? No ; we should have T. G. presently out with his distinctions ; worship is of two sorts , Supream called Latria , inferiour called Dulia : Religious may be taken in two senses . 1. That which proceeds from the vertue of Religion , and that is proper to God. 2. That which tends to the honour of Religion , and that may be given to creatures . And thus would the Fathers have written , if they had ever looked over Aristotles threshold , and been of T. G's mind ; and therefore my argument which proceeded upon the general terms of the Fathers , without intimating any such distinction , doth hold good , that either they did not write like understanding men , or they knew no such distinctions as these . 2. That although Justin Martyr and Theophilus deny divine worship to be given to Emperours , yet they both imply , that lawful worship and honour is to be given to them ; and therefore he cannot but wonder , what I meant by alledging those Testimonies , unless I intend not any worship at all to be due to any besides God ; or that I think it not possible to worship a good man. And afterwards he saith , he would willingly understand yet farther , whether I allow any honour at all to be due to Princes as Gods Vicegerents ; for he doth not remember hitherto any passage in my Book , from whence he could gather that I hold it lawful to give any worship either to Princes Statues or to themselves . Which words have such a venemous insinuation in them , that I could hardly believe they could come from a man of the least common ingenuity . Because I deny Religious worship to be given to any besides God himself ; must I therefore be represented as a man that denyes Civil worship to be given to Princes ? I cannot tell , whether the folly or malice of such an insinuation be the greater . I pray God help his understanding , and forgive his ill will. I hope all acts do not go whither they are intended ; but that which he designs for my dishonour , may notwithstanding his intention , terminate in his own . I do assure him , I am so much for the utmost civil worship to be given to Princes as Gods Vicegerents , as not to think it in the power of any Bishop in the World to depose them , or absolve their subjects from obedience to them ; and I hope T. G. thinks so too , although he may not think it so fit to declare his mind . But what is all this to our present business ? The force of my argument lay in this , the Christians denyed giving Religious worship to Princes , although it were an inferiour kind of Religious worship , therefore they did not think an inferiour kind of Religious worship lawful . Was this argument too hot for his fingers , so that assoon as he touched it , he runs away , and frets and fumes , and vents his spight against me for it ? However , I will urge it again and again , till I receive a better answer . T. G. saith , the Fathers speak only of the Soveraign worship that is due only to God ; and that is the worship they think unlawful to give to any creature . I say it is impossible that should be their sense , for they deny it to be lawful to give Religious worship to Princes , when they were required to do it ; but no men ever took Princes for the Supream God. T. G. tells me , that Tertullian explains Theophilus and Justin , saying , that the King is then to be honoured when he keeps himself within his own Sphere , and abstains from divine honours . Very well ! this is that I aim at : and he need not wonder what I brought these testimonies for ; for it was for this very thing which Tertullian saith , that the Christians did refuse to give divine honours to Princes : and therefore they thought divine worship comprehended under it all sorts of Religious worship . But saith T. G. it is a thing notoriously known , that many of the Heathen Emperours exacted to be worshipped as Gods , that is with divine worship . I grant all this , and say that it still proves what I intend . For did they mean by worshipping them as Gods , that they would have the people believe them to be the Supream God ? that is madness and folly to suppose , for the utmost they required , was to be worshipped with the same worship that Deified men were ; or to have the same worship living , which the Senate was wont to decree to them when they were dead . And can T. G. possibly believe , that this was to suppose them to be the sole Authors of all good to mankind ? which is that kind of divine worship , he saith , the Fathers only condemned . I desire T. G. to think again of this matter , and I dare say he will see more cause to wonder at his own answer , than at my argument , which so evidently overthrows all that he brings to evade the Testimonies of the Fathers . But saith T. G. if Kings may be honoured as Gods Vicegerents , why may not Saints as the adopted Children of God ? Who denyes this , for Gods sake ? but I deny , that either Kings or Saints are to have divine worship given to them . And since T. G. is in the humour of asking me Questions , let me propose one to him ; if Kings may be honoured as Gods Vicegerents , why not with divine honour upon his principles ; i. e. with a relative Latria , though not absolute ? And if that be lawful , what he thinks of the primitive Christians , who chose to dye , rather than to give divine worship to them upon any account ? By this time I hope T. G. is ashamed of what he adds , that on the same principles that I deny any worship to be due to Saints , a Quaker would prove , that it must be denyed to Princes . The worship I deny to Saints , is that which God hath denyed to them , viz. Divine worship ; the worship I say is due to Princes , is that which God hath required to be given them , viz. civil worship . And they that cannot find out a difference between these two , are a fit match for the Quakers . I know not what a Quaker might do in this matter ; I am sure T. G. doth nothing but trifle in it . Was there ever a meaner argument came out of the mouth of a Quaker , that what he urges against me , viz. that in such a Book printed in such a place , and just in such a page , I call a Divine of our Nation Reverend and Learned : and what then ? therefore Saints are to be worshipped : very extraordinary I confess ; and one of T. G's nostrum's ! if he please , let it be writ upon his Monument , Hic jacet auctor hujus Argumenti , for I dare say , no body ever used it before him . If we give men titles of respect according to their Age and Calling , or real worth , therefore we are to give Religious worship to Saints : and why not as well to Princes , because we call the Iudges appointed by them , the Reverend Iudges ? but surely this will prove not only a dulia , but an hyperdulia : because we not only call the Clergy Reverend , but the Bishops Right Reverend , and Archbishops Most Reverend . I am sorry T. G. did not so well consider the force of his argument , to have pressed it home upon me , for he now sees how much more advantage might have been made by it : but it is an easie thing to add to rare inventions . But certainly T. G. ( to use his own words ) must believe his Readers to be all stark blind , who cannot distinguish titles of respect from Religious worship . But is there not a Reverence due to Persons for their Piety , as well as for their Age and Dignity ? who doubts it ? but that Reverence lyes in the due expressions of honour and esteem towards them , which I hope may be done without encroaching upon the Acts of Religious worship ; and I think I have told him plainly enough , what I mean by them , in the foregoing Discourse . But T. G. seems to understand no difference between titles of respect , and acts of worship ; between expressions of esteem and devotion ; between Religious and Civil worship ; for he blunders and confounds all these together , and whatever proves one , he thinks proves all the rest : these are not the best wayes of reasoning , but they are the best the cause would bear . Well , but yet the matter seems not altogether so clear , for the worship we are to give to Princes is as they are Gods Vicegerents , and this is given on a Religious account , because God commands us to give honour to whom honour is due ; the place urged by T. G. , Rom. 13.7 . To this a very easie answer will serve . Worship may be said to be Religious two wayes . 1. As it is required by the Rule of Religion : and so the worship given to Magistrates is Religious . 2. In its nature and circumstances ; as it consists of those acts which God hath appropriated to his worship ; or is attended with those circumstances which make it a Religious performance , and then it is not to be given to Princes , or any Creatures , but only to God himself . This will be made plain by a remarkable instance among the antient Christians ; While Divine honours were challenged by the Emperours to themselves , i. e. the honours belonging to consecrated men ( for they meant no other ) the Christians refused giving to them those external acts of Reverence which might be supposed to have any Religious worship in them ; although they expressed the greatest readiness at the same time to obey their Laws , that did not require any thing against Christianity ; and to pray for their safety and prosperity . This being known to be the general practice of Christians , Pliny in his Epistle to Trajan mentions this as one of the wayes of trying Christians , viz. whether they would Imagini Caesaris thure & vino supplicare , give Religious worship to Caesars Image , by burning incense , and pouring out wine before it ; which were the Divine honours required . This , Pliny saith , all that were true Christians refused to do ; and those who did it presently renounced Christ. Thus , this matter stood as long as the Emperours continued Gentiles , who were presumed to affect Divine honours ; but when Constantine had owned Christianity , and thereby declared , that no Religious worship was to be given to him , the Christians not only erected publick Statues to Emperours , but were ready to express before them the highest degrees of Civil worship and respect . This Iulian thought to make his advantage of , and therefore placed the Images of the Gods among those of the Emperours , that either they might worship the Gods , or by denying Civil Worship to the Emperours Statues , which the custom then was to give , they might be proceeded against as disaffected to the Emperour . And when he sate on the Throne distributing New-years-gifts , he had his Altar of Incense by him , that before they received gifts , they might cast a little incense into the fire ; which all good Christians refused to do , because as Gothofred observes , the burning of incense was the same tryal of Christians , that eating of Swines flesh was of Iews . But after the suspicion of Religious worship was removed in the succeeding Emperors , the former customs of Civil worship obtained again ; till Theodosius observing how these customs of Civil adoration began to extend too far , and border too much upon Divine honours , did wholly forbid it in a Constitution extant to that purpose , and that for this reason , that all worship which did exceed the dignity of men , should be entirely reserved to God. By this true account of the behaviour of Christians in this matter , T. G. may a little better understand what that worship was , which the primitive Christians refused to give to Emperours , and what difference they made between the same external acts , when they were to be done on a Civil and on a Religious account ; which are easily discerned either by the nature of the acts themselves , as the burning incense , or the circumstances that attend them , as in adoration . It were needless to produce any more Testimonies of Antiquity to prove that Divine worship is proper only to God , since T. G. confesses it ; but gives quite another sense of Divine worship than they did , for under this , they comprehended all acts of Religious worship , as appears by the worship they denyed to Emperours . It remains therefore to shew , that those who spake most for the honour of the Saints , did not by that mean any Religious acts of worship , but expressions barely of honour and esteem . Iulian objected this against the Christians ( as it was common with the Heathens to object many false and unreasonable things ) that instead of the Heathen Gods , they worshipped not one but many miserable men . To this S. Cyrill answers , that as to Christ , he confesses they worshipped him , but they did not make a God of a man in him , but he was essentially God , and therefore fit to be worshipped ; but for the Martyrs , they neither believed them to be Gods , nor gave them the worship which belongs to Gods. Which is unquestionably S. Cyrill's meaning , or he doth not answer to the purpose : For Iulian never charged the Christians with giving that worship to Martyrs , which is proper to the Supream God considered as such , but that they gave to them that Religious worship which Iulian pleaded to be due to the inferiour Gods , as appears by the State of the Question between them . This therefore S. Cyrill denyes that they gave to Saints and Martyrs , which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , i. e. to give them the worship which the Heathens gave to their inferiour Deities ; what they gave to the Martyrs was upon another account , it was only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , respectively and by way of honour . And lest any should suspect he meant any kind of Religious worship by this , he presently explains himself , that what he said was only to be understood of those honours they gave to them for their generous suffering for the faith , despising all dangers , and thereby making themselves great examples to other Christians ; and after he let us understand what these honours were , when he brings the instance of the Athenians meeting together at the sepulchres of those who were slain at the Battel of Marathon for the liberty of Greece , and there making Panegyricks upon them , and therefore he wonders why Julian should exclaim so much against these honours done to the Martyrs , since this was all the reward they could give them . And elsewhere he saith , these honours consisted in preserving their Memories , and praising their vertues ; and brings the very same instance of the Athenians again : but for any matter of worship towards them he utterly denyes it ; because they were bound to give it to none but God. And that we might fully understand what he means when he saith , that Christians do not give to Saints the worship the Heathens gave to their inferiour Gods , in another place , he tells us , what that worship did consist in , which he there calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ( by which we are certain what he meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before ) and so he reckons up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the first place , their prayers , or supplications , and then vows , hymns , oblations and sacrifices : the giving of any of these to Saints were to worship them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; and not as the ignorant or wilfully blind Writers of the Roman Church when they meet with this word , they cry out presently , mark that , not with Latria , and presently imagine that what sense a word hath obtained among them , if they meet with it in the Fathers , it must needs signifie the same thing ; when the sense of words hath been so strangely perverted by them ; as will more particularly appear by this very distinction of Latria and Dulia , which they make S. Augustine the Author of , but have carried it far beyond his meaning . I come therefore to consider S. Austins mind in this matter , which I am the more obliged to do , since T. G. so unreasonably triumphs in S. Austins opinion in this matter ; and is not only content to drag me at his Chariot wheels , but he makes a shew of me , and calls people to see by my example , to what miserable shifts and disingenuous arts they are put , who will shut their eyes , and fight against the light of a noon-day truth : when I first read these words , I began to rub my eyes , and to look about me , and to wonder what the matter was ; and I find my self as willing to see light as another , and my conscience never yet accused me of using disingenuous arts in dealing with them ; if T. G. can clear himself as well , it is the better for him ; I am sure by standers have not thought so , as appears at large by Dr. Whitby , especially in his last Chapter against him . But it is not my business to recriminate ; hopeing sufficiently to clear my self in this matter . It seems , I had said that S. Augustine denyes , that any Religious worship was performed to the Martyrs ; this T. G. again saith , I could not affirm without shutting my eyes : and yet I thank God , by the help of my eyes , I find S. Augustin saying the same thing still . For is it not S. Augustin that saith , non sit nobis Religio cultus hominum mortuorum , let not the worship of dead men , be any part of our Religion : for if they have lived piously , they do not desire such honours from us ; but they would have us to worship him , by whom we may become partakers of their happiness : honorandi ergo sunt propter imitationem , non adorandi propter Religionem . Is it possible for any man to speak plainer than S. Austin doth , that they are not to have Religious worship given to them , but such honour as may excite us to an imitation of them ? And this not by chance , or in some incoherent passage , but in a set discourse on purpose , where he argues with strong reason against the Religious worship of Angels , as well as Saints , to the end of that Book . And saith , the utmost they expect from us , is the honour of our love , and not of our service ; ( and therefore S. Augustin did not by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 understand the service of Saints and Angels ) which he there disputes against , from our happiness coming only from God , our being the Temples of God , the Angels prohibiting S. John to worship him , and bidding him to worship God ; and that the very name of Religion , is from tying our Souls to God alone . Whosoever of the Angels loves God , saith he , loves me for worshipping him , and he that hath Gods favour , hath the favour of all that are good . Therefore let our Religion bind us faster to one omnipotent God , between whom and us there is no creature interposed : with much more to the same purpose . Is it not the same S. Austin that saith , Haec est Religio Christiana ut colatur unus Deus ; this is the Christian Religion , to worship one God ; and that for this reason , because God only can make the Soul happy : for , saith he , it is made happy only by the participation of God , and not of a blessed Soul , or Angel. Not , as though this were intended only against the expectation of our blessedness wholly from Saints or Angels ; but he makes use of this as an argument to prove , that we ought to worship God alone , who only is able to make us happy . Is it not the same S. Austin , that saith , this is the character of the true Religion , that it unites us only to one God , without giving worship to any other Being how excellent soever ? and he looks on this as a divine and singular part of the Christian doctrine , nullam creaturam colendam esse animae , that no creature have the worship of our Soul ; what did he then think of praying to creatures not only with our voyce , but our mind too , as the Council of Trent saith , it is profitable for us to do , and not only for their prayers , but for their help and assistance ; but saith good S. Austin , the most wise and perfect man , the most accomplished and happy soul is only to be loved and imitated , and honour given to it according to its desert and order : for thou shalt worship the Lord thy God , and him only shalt thou serve . Could any man speak more plainly and fully against giving any Religious worship to creatures , than he doth ? Is it not the same S. Austin that tells Maximus Madaurensis , that in the Christian Church , none that were dead were worshipped , and nothing adored as God , that is made by God ; but only one God , who created all things ? Here T. G. smiles , and thinks to avoid this presently ; for S. Austin speaks of any thing being adored as God ; which they abhor to do : but his smiling will be soon over , if he considers , what being adored as God there means : for no one ever suspected , that the Christians believed the Martyrs to be the Supream God ; but only that they worshipped them as Gods of a lower rank by participation from the Supream . And is not the very same thing said and defended in the Roman Church , that the Saints are Gods by participation , and they have the care and government of the Church committed to them ; and on that account are worshipped ? and if this be not being adored as Gods in S. Austins sense , I know not what is . Is it not the same S. Austin , that undertakes to prove against the Platonists , that good Spirits are not to be worshipped per tale Religionis obsequium , by such Religious worship ? very right , saith T. G. , not by the worship of Sacrifices ; but S. Austin saith , neither Sacris , nor Sacrificiis , which two comprehend all the Rites of Religious worship which were then used . For he makes use of several phrases to express the acts of Religious worship , sometimes by joyning those two together , sacris & sacrificiis ; sometimes Religione & Sacris ; sometimes Religionis ritibus ; sometimes Religionis obsequio ; by all which he understands the same thing , viz. the acts of Religious worship , which for distinction sake he calls Latria ; as that service or worship that men owe to one another , he saith is called by another name : and I confess I cannot find S. Austin applying the term of Dulia to any service we owe to Saints or Angels in Heaven ; but he avoids the term of Service and denyes it be due to them , and only calls it by the name of Love and Fellowship with them ; and therefore Martinus Peresius had good reason to quarrel with the use of the word dulia , because we are only fellow servants with them ; and Bellarmin gives him no sufficient answer , by bringing that place , Gal. 5. serving one another in love , for that only relates to persons in equal conditions , where the mutual offices may be alike , which cannot be supposed in this case . And therefore I had reason to say , that Dulia is used by S. Austin , as a term expressing the service we owe to God as our Lord ; but T. G. thinks he hath run me down , by producing the foregoing place , which , he saith , I purposely concealed from the Reader , for fear he might infer , that if some degree of the service called Dulia might be given by servants to their Masters , surely a high degree of it may be given to Holy Angels . Very finely argued ! and as much against S. Austins sense as is possible . For , he saith , in plain terms , those Angels that require service from us are Devils : for this he makes the character of them , that they do invite us , ut sibi serviamus ; but , saith he , we honour good Angels by love , and not by service . But T. G. is not more mistaken in S. Austins sense of Dulia , than he is about Latria ; for , he saith , that he understands it of sacrifices , and that when he saith blessed Spirits are not willing we should sacra facere , it ought not be rendered equivocally , as it is by me , to perform any sacred offices , but to dedicate and sacrifice to them , or consecrate our selves or any thing of ours to them by the Rites of Religion ; by which , he saith , it is evident , that he speaks of the worship which is due to God alone , that is , of such dedications and consecrations , as were performed by the Heathens to their Daemons as Gods. To this I answer , that I grant that S. Austin speaks of the worship due to God alone , and of those rites of Religious worship which were performed by the Heathens to their Gods : but the Question is , what he understands by those Religious rites , whether only dedications , and sacrifices , and consecrations , or other acts of Religious worship ? For T. G. cannot be so ignorant , as not to know , that adorations and prayers were as constant , as solemn , as proper acts of Religious worship both by the Law of God , and the Heathen customs , as those he mentions : thence orandi causa fanum adire , in Cicero ; Deos immortales precari , venerari , atque implorare debetis , ut urbem defendant ; and scarce any Greek or Latin Writer that mentions their Religious rites , but under them they take notice of adoration , and prayers ; and not only so , but some of them give an account of the Forms of them , and the manner and order of Invocation in their Litanies ( for the word is as old as Homer ) wherein they invocated their Gods in order , that they would be favourable and propitious to them ; and Pliny saith in general , that no sacrifice was offered without prayers ; and Macrobius , Servius , and Arnobius say , they began their invocations with Janus , not because they looked on him as chief , but as a Mediator who was to carry up their prayers to the superiour powers ; and they ended in Vesta for the same reason : and that these were comprehended under the Sacra , is not only manifest from their conjunction with sacrifices ; but from the old form of obsecration , in which they used ob vos sacro for obsecro . I would now understand from T. G. why he thinks that S. Austin should purposely leave out in these words Adoration and Invocation , which were by all Nations looked on as some of the proper acts of Religious worship , especially when he mentions both these before and after ? For the occasion of the dispute , was about the intercession of created Spirits , and mens addresses to them ; and afterwards he joyns adoration together with sacrifice as a thing peculiar to God : putaverunt quidam deferendum Angelis honorem vel adorando vel sacrificando , &c. in a place already cited . If this be not shutting ones eyes against noon-day light ; it is a drawing a curtain before it , lest it grow too hot . But for all this T. G. is very confident , that S. Austin was for the performing Religious worship to Martyrs , because he saith expresly , that it was the custome of the Christian people in his time , to celebrate with Religious solemnity the Memories of the Martyrs ; and very kindly after his mode , he charges me with corrupting the words of S. Austin , by translating them thus , that it was the custome of the Christians in his time to have their Religious Assemblies at the Sepulchres or Memories of the Martyrs : I did not pretend to translate , as T. G. knew well enough by the character ; but ill will never speaks well ; but I still say , and stand to it , that this is his sense ; as will appear by considering the design of his words . Faustus the Manichean had charged the African Christians with Idolatry in the honour they gave to the Memories of the Martyrs . S. Austin answers , that they did so celebrate the Memories of the Martyrs ; that they erected no Altars to any Martyr , but to the God of Martyrs , although it was for their memories . For who of the Bishops or Priests that officiates at the Altar , in the places of their Sepulchres , ever said , We offer to thee Peter , or Paul , or Cyprian ; but that which is offered , is offered to God who crowned the Martyrs , but it is done at their Sepulchres , whom he hath crowned , that by the very places our affections may be raised , and our love quickned , both to those whom we may imitate , and to him by whom we are enabled to do it . Now I desire to know , what part of Religious worship was here performed to the Martyrs ? If the Christian Sacrifice , that were Idolatry according to T. G. and would have justified Faustus to purpose ; but S. Austin utterly denyes this to be performed to them . All that the Martyrs are concerned in as to the Religious Solemnity , was no more than that the offices of Religion were performed at their Sepulchres : this was an Honour to them I grant , but no part of Religious worship . And although the design of the worship was only to honour God , yet the place of doing it was out of honour to the Martyrs . But S. Austin saith afterwards , we worship therefore the Saints with that worship of love and society , &c. What means this &c. here ? let us have all or nothing : with which holy men in this life are worshipped , whose heart is prepared to suffer as much for the truth of the Gospel : he that hath but an eye open , saith T. G. must see that S. Austin speaks here of the worship which the Christians of his time gave to the Martyrs themselves . And he that hath but one corner open cannot but see , that he doth not speak of Religious worship , which Faustus objected ; but having denyed that to be given to Martyrs , he now shews what they did give them , viz. such a kind of worship as we give to holy men alive : and is that the Religious worship either Faustus or S. Austin meant ? S. Austin calls it worship , but he means no more by it , than when he said before , that they are to be loved for their goodness , and honoured for their examples ; but what is all this to Religious worship or Invocation of them , when S. Austin in another place expresly denyes , that the Saints are invocated by him that offers the sacrifices at the Altar ; nay , although that Altar were in the place of their sufferings ? And here , saith T. G. I think I have done their work for them ; and he is not mistaken ; whatever he cites from Bishop Forbs , that S. Austin was only to be understood of Invocation at the Altar ; I shall make it appear that the argument holds good , and that those who speak against it , it is because they do not understand the strength of it . Bishop Forbs in this place , and several others , takes occasion without reason to find fault with Bishop Andrews , a man of far greater Learning than himself , and of better judgement in these matters ; and it is he , and not Bishop Montague ( as T.G. mistakes ) whom Bishop Forbs introduces Iohn Barclay charging with leading King James aside . But I still say the argument clearly proves , that S. Austin denyed Invocation of Saints ; and I am sorry to see Bishop Forbs so weakly led aside by Bellarmin and others upon this ground , because in the Canon of the Mass the Saints are not directly prayed to in the Roman Church ; but they are in the Missa Catechumenorum , and in the Litanies ; therefore thus it was in the African Church in S. Austins time . Who knows not what great alterations have been in the Liturgies of the Church since that time ? Yet thus wisely doth T. G. speak upon this subject : if I speak of that part of the Mass , which was antiently called the Mass of the Catechumeni , the Priest indeed before he ascends to the Altar desires the Blessed Virgin , and the rest of the Saints , &c. to pray for him : but in the Missa Fidelium there is no Invocation of them . If there had been none any where else , there had been a far greater conformity between the Church of Rome , and the Church in S. Austins time : we plainly prove , there was no Invocation at the Altar , let T. G. shew any other part of publick worship at that time , wherein they were invocated . But all these mistakes arise from not considering the mighty difference of the Liturgy in S. Austins time , in the African Church , from what hath since obtained in the Roman Church . But to give T. G. some better light in this matter , and withal to shew the invincible strength of this argument , I shall prove these two things . 1. That the Prayers of the Church did not begin in S. Austins time till the Catechumens were dismissed : 2. That the prayers after their dismission were performed at the Altar . 1. That the prayers of the Church in S. Austins time did not begin till the Catechumens were dismissed . For which we have a plain Testimony from S. Austin , Ecce post sermonem fit Missa Catechumenis , manebunt fideles , venietur ad locum orationis ; whereby he shews not only , that prayers did not begin , till the dismission of the Catechumens ; but that the Altar was then accounted the proper place of prayer : and elsewhere he saith , that Invocation did begin after the Creed ; ideo non accepistis prius orationem , postea symbolum ; sed prius symbolum , ubi sciretis quid crederetis ; & postea orationem , ubi nossetis quem invocaretis : which words could have no sense , if any solemn invocation were then made before the Creed . So S. Ambrose describes the service of the Church of Millan in his time , Post lectiones atque tractatum dimissis Catechumenis , Symbolum aliquibus Competentibus in baptisteriis tradebam Basilicae : by which it seems , the Service began with the Lessons , then followed the Sermon , after that the Creed , and then when the Catechumens were dismissed , the prayers of the Church begun : so S. Ambrose presently after saith , when he had instructed the Competentes , Missam facere coepi , i. e. the Missa Fidelium , or the Prayers of the Church , when the Missa Catechumenorum was dispatched , or they sent out of the Congregation . So Iustin Martyr describes the Service of the first Christians , that it began with the Lessons of the Prophets and Apostles , then followed the Sermon ; and after that the Prayers began : and then followed the Eucharist : which was then constantly received in the publick Service . The Council of Laodicea mentions prayers beginning after the Sermon : ( i. e. the publick prayers of the Church ) of which that Council mentions , the prayers for the Catechumens before their dismission ( which in the Greek Church were performed by the Deacon in the Ambo making the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the people , to which they joyned their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) after these , followed the prayers for the Penitents , and then the Prayers of the Faithful , or the proper Liturgy of the Church began . The Author of the Constitutions called Apostolical , appoints the Service to begin with the Lessons of the Old Testament , the Psalms , the Epistles and Gospel , after which the Sermon was to follow , then the Catechumens and Penitents being dismissed , they must all rise and go to their prayers for the Catholick Church ; as it is there described : in the eighth Book he mentions the occasional prayers that were made for the Catechumens and Penitents , before their dismission , and then follow the forms of Solemn Invocation , which were not to be used till the other were dismissed the Assembly . To the same purpose the counterfeit Dionysius describes the practice of the Church , that the Catechumens and Penitents were admitted to the Lessons and Psalms , and then were excluded the Congregation . And none were allowed to be present at the Prayers of the Faithful , but such as were allowed to be present at the Eucharist , as the fourth degree of Penitents , which is called communicating in Prayers , by the Council of Nice ; by which we may see T. G.'s skill in Antiquity , when he puts the forms of invocation used by those who were to partake of the Eucharist , into the Missa Catechumenorum ; whereas they were allowed to be present at no prayers of the Church , but only that which was made for them ; and Cardinal Bona could inform him , that the Catechumens were not allowed to joyn so much as in the Lords Prayer , nor in any solemn invocation of God in behalf of others , as he proves from S. Chrysostom , and others . 2. That the prayers that were made after the dismission of the Catechumens were said at the Altar . For which we are to consider that in S. Austins time , the custom of communicating every day was still observed in the African Church , as is evident from his own express Testimony , where he saith , that some understand our daily Bread of the Sacrament of Christs body , quod quotidie sumimus , which we receive every day ; and finds fault with those in the Greek Church who had begun to discontinue that custom ; accipe quotidie , saith he , quod quotidie tibi profit . So that assoon as the Catechumens were dismissed , they immediately began the Communion Service , which was all the Service I can find in the Use of that Church in those times . Nay , the very prayer for the Catechumens was said at the Altar in the African Church , which in the Greek Church was indicted by the Deacon in the Ambo , or Piew for that purpose in the Body of the Church : Et quando audis sacerdotem Dei ad altare exhortantem populum Dei , orare pro incredulis , ut eos Deus convertat ad Fidem , & pro Catechumenis menis ut eis desiderium regenerationis inspiret , & pro fidelibus ut in eo quod esse coeperunt ejus munere perseverent . Where we see the prayers for the Catechumens , as well as the other prayers of the Church were performed at the Altar . And it appears by a passage in his retractations , that the very Hymns out of the Psalms which were sung either before the oblation , or in time of distribution were sung at the Altar ; which custom being found fault with at Carthage by one Hilarius , it gave him an occasion to write in vindication of it . And in another place he reduces all the prayers of the Church to the Communion Service ; and interprets the Apostles words of prayers , supplications , intercessions and giving of thanks , of what was done at the celebration of the Eucharist . And that which very much confirms this , is , that when the African Fathers made a Decree , that no prayers should be used in the publick service , but such as were first seen and approved ; the Title of it is , Of Prayers to be made at the Altar . And the African Writers make praying and going to the Altar to have the same sense ; so Tertullian calls it ascendere ad altare ; and ad aram Dei stare ; and orationem deducere ad altare . All which put together , make it very clear , that if there was no invocation of Saints at the Altar in S. Austins time , there was none at all in the Service of the Church ; which I have the more insisted upon , because it is so pregnant a Testimony against Invocation of Saints , and the force of it hath not been fully understood by any I have seen , from the not considering the Liturgy of the Church in S. Austins time . Which men have fancied to have been according to the practice of following Ages , when the laying aside the Discipline of the Primitive Church , made a great alteration in the publick Offices , ( as might be easily discovered , were this a proper place for it , ) both in the Greek and Latin Churches . But that is not my present business . But this ought farther to be considered , the most proper season for invocation of Saints was at the Altar , for then the commemoration of Saints was made out of the Diptychs of the Church , as appears by multitudes of places in S. Austin ; and the Martyrs were then put in a rank by themselves ; and whereas they prayed for all others , they did not for them ; but they rather believed they received benefit by their prayers for them . For , saith S. Austin , We do not commemorate the Martyrs at the holy Table as we do others , who rest in peace , so as to pray for them , but rather that they may pray for us : and this was all the Office of the Church then towards Martyrs , viz. commemoration of them at the Altar , although S. Austin believed that the Martyrs at such times , especially when the commemorations were made at their own Sepulchres , did joyn their prayers together with the Churches , in behalf of those who there put up their supplications to God , and not to them . And this is the meaning of that place , which T. G. objects to prove Invocation , viz. that when Christians are met at the Religious Solemnity at their Sepulchres , they become partakers of their merits , and obtain help by their prayers : yet he wonders I could not find Invocation here , and imagines I shut my eyes again ; but surely T. G. fancies I play at Blindmansbuff with him , for he thinks I never have my eyes open . I should now come to examine the distinction of an absolute and relative Latria , but of that I shall have occasion to speak so largely in the following Dispute about the worship of Images , that I here put an end to this General Discourse . THE SECOND PART OF THE ANSWER TO T. G. BEING A DEFENCE of the Charge of IDOLATRY practised in the ROMAN CHURCH , in the Worship of IMAGES . By ED. STILLINGFLEET , D.D. Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majesty . LONDON , Printed by Robert White , for Henry Mortlock at the Sign of the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-yard , and at the White-Hart in Westminster-Hall , 1676. PART II. Being a particular Defence of the Charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome in the Worship of Images . CHAP. I. The State of the Controversie about the Worship of Images , between Christians and Heathens . HAving in the precedent Discourse given a general account of the Nature of Idolatry , I now come to the particulars in dispute between us . The first whereof is , concerning the worship of Images ; in which nothing is more necessary , than to give a true account of the State of the Controversie ; which that I may do with the greatest clearness , 1. I shall consider wherein the State of this Controversie lay , as it was managed between the Christians and Heathens . 2. I shall give a just account of the Rise , and progress of this Controversie in the Christian Church . And when by this means , the State of the Controversie is well understood , the difficulty will not be great in giving answers to all the Sophistical Cavils of T. G. 1. For the State of the Controversie about the Worship of Images between the Christians and Heathens . To this purpose I had used these expressions in my former Discourse , That S. Paul dealing with the Athenians , did prove the unreasonableness of their worshipping God by Images , because he was the God that made the world , and is Lord of heaven and earth , and that we are his offspring , therefore we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold or silver , or stone graven by art or mans device ; where I observed , that the Apostle doth not speak meerly against their other objects of worship besides the true God , nor their supposing their Gods to be present in their Images , nor taking their Images for Gods , but against their supposition , that there was any resemblance between God and their Images , or that he was capable of receiving any honour by them . The same argument , I added , S. Paul useth to the Romans , speaking of those in whom that which may be known of God is manifest , even his Eternal Power and Godhead , yet these persons who knew God , did not glorifie him as God , but changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an Image made like to corruptible man , &c. where changing his glory into Images , is , I said , immediately opposed to the glorifying him as God , in respect of his Eternal Power and Godhead , so that these two are inconsistent with each other , to glorifie God by an Image , and to glorifie him as God. For here the Apostle doth not discourse against the most gross and sottish Idolaters of the Heathens , but as S. Chrysostom well observes , against the Philosophers , and the Wisest among them , who , although they differed in their opinions of Religion extreamly from the Vulgar , yet they concurred with them in all the external practices of Idolatry . And therefore the Apostle doth not charge them with false notions of a Deity , for he saith , that they held the Truth in unrighteousness , and that they did know God : but they shewed their vanity and folly in thinking they had found out subtiller wayes of defending the common Idolatries among them ; and instead of opposing them , made use of their Wits to excuse them . To which I added this material observation , That the most intelligent Heathens did never look on their Images as any other , than Symbols or representations of that Being to which they gave divine worship ; for which purpose I produced several Testimonies of Celsus , Porphyrie , Athanasius , Arnobius , S. Augustin , Max. Tyrius , Iulian and Eusebius , from whence I desired to know whether these men , who worshipped Images on those grounds , did amiss or no in it ? I do not ask , as my words are expresly , whether they were mistaken as to the objects of their worship ; but on supposition they were not , whether they were to blame in the manner of serving God by Images , in such a way as they describe ? if not , wherefore doth S. Paul pitch upon that , to condemn them for , which they were at not all to blame in ? He ought , I said , to have done , as the Iesuits in China did , who never condemned the people for worshipping Images , but for worshipping false Gods by them , and perswaded them not to lay them aside , but to convert them to the honour of the true God ; and so melted down their former Images , and made new ones of them . Can we imagine S. Paul meant the same thing , when he blames men , not for believing them to be Gods , but that God could be worshipped by the work of mens hands , and for changing thereby the glory due to God in regard of his infinite and incorruptible Being , into mean and unworthy Images , thinking thereby to give honour to him ? And upon these grounds , I there shew , that the Primitive Fathers disputed against the Heathen Idolatry : for the making use of corporeal representations makes the Deity contemptible , saith Clemens of Alexandria . Origen saith , that Christians have nothing to do with Images , because of the second Commandment ; and on that account will rather dye , than defile themselves with them ; and that it is impossible any one that knows God , should pray to them : That it is no sufficient excuse to say , they do not take them for Gods , but only for Symbols or representations of them , for they must be ignorant , mean , and unlearned persons , who can imagine the work of an Artificer can be any representation of a Deity . I shewed further , that many of the wiser Heathens themselves condemned the worship of God by Images , as incongruous to a divine nature , and a disparagement to the Deity , as Zeno , Xenophanes , Antisthenes , Xenophon , Numa , Varro , and many others . Having thus laid down so much of my former Discourse together , as was necessary to understand the State of the Controversie , I come now to consider what T. G. doth answer to it . 1. To the places of S. Paul , Acts 17.24 . and Rom. 1.19 . he saith , that no one ever denyed the unsuitableness of the worship of such Images to the Divine Nature , as are conceived to be proper likenesses , or representations of the Divinity , of which S. Paul speaks in the first place ; or of the Images of the false Gods of the Heathens , of which he speaks in the latter . In reply to this , I begin with the first place , Acts 17.24 . where , he saith , it is plain from S. Pauls words , that they thought the Divinity to be like to the Images they made of gold and silver : and this was a mighty argument from the mouth of S. Paul to drive that erroneous conceit out of the minds of the Athenians , who believed the Divinity to be like the Images they made ; but none at all from my pen against Catholicks , who detest the thoughts of having or making any such Image . This then is the question between us , whether S. Paul's discourse against the Athenians did proceed only on the supposition of the Divinity being like to their Images , or whether the dissimilitude between them be not made use of by the Apostle as an argument to shew that Images are not a proper suitable means whereby to worship God ? For which we are to consider the Apostles scope and design ; which certainly was to convince them of their Idolatry . For it is said , ver . 16. that his Spirit was stirred within him , when he saw the City wholly given to Idolatry ; and in the beginning of his speech he takes notice of their Bigoterie in the Heathen worship , ver . 22. & 23. that among their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , i. e. Idols , saith Theophylact , he had espied an Altar with this Inscription , To the unknown God : and upon this he takes an occasion more fully to discover him whom they ignorantly worshipped , and withal to shew the unreasonableness of their worshipping God at all by Images . If the Apostles design had been , as T. G. imagines , to drive that erroneous conceit out of the minds of the Athenians , that the Divinity was like to their Images ; his Spirit should not have been moved , at the sight of their Images , but at their discourses about them when he heard them own the Divinity to be like them . For , in case they only looked on their Images as helps to their devotion ; or as Analogical representations of some divine perfections , although they did worship God by them , T. G. must think then S. Paul a little too hasty to be so soon angry at the sight of them ; for upon this ground his Spirit might be stirred within him , at the sight of the Altars and devotions in Rome , as well as Athens . But S. Paul did not wait for any decree of the Areopagus in this matter ; he saw enough to inflame his zeal , in their practices , and publick worship , without looking after any distinctions of their Sophisters and School-Divines ; although there were many upon the place ready to justifie every rite of their worship , and that would not let go one tittle of their grossest superstitions for all the truth and Reason in the world . They could find out as many Analogies and Metaphorical significations as other men ; and thought it as little disparagement to the Deity to worship him under the several representations of Minerva , Ceres or Bacchus , when by these they understood the several effects of Gods Wisdom and Goodness in giving the fruits of the earth , as others can in representing him as an Old man with a Popes Crown on his head ; or with one Head and three Faces , as some that are no Athenians have done . For Gods sake , which of the two are more apt to beget in mens minds such apprehensions of God , that he is like to men ; those who make and expose such Images of the God they worship , or such who made an Inscription upon an Altar to the Unknown God ? And if he were Unknown , how came they to know him to be so like themselves ? What need S. Paul take such pains to drive a conceit out of their heads , which for all that we see , never entered into them ? If indeed S. Paul had seen over that Altar a grave Image of a man in Pontifical Robes , with an hoary head , a long beard , and a Triple Crown ; he would probably have asked them , how the Athenians , that were witty men , could be guilty of such an absurdity , to call that an Altar to the Unknown God , when they were so familiarly acquainted with him as to know the very cut of his beard , and fashion of his Crown ? But , as Superstitious as the Athenians were , they were not so ridiculous ; but yet because they supposed this God might be pleased with the worship of the Idols , that were not only in the Temples , but in the Streets and Forum of Athens ( where Thucydides saith , there were twelve Altars ) therefore S. Paul discourseth of this God after such a manner , as to shew how unsuitable such a way of worship was to his Nature , and Perfections , 1. From his Infinite Power , v. 24 , 25. God that made the world and all things in it , seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth , dwelleth not in Temples made with hands , neither is worshipped with mens hands . Can any thing be plainer , than that here S. Paul disputes against their worship , and not their opinion ? He finds no fault with their opinion about the true God , but only that it was not clear and distinct enough , in that he was too much the Unknown God among them ; he takes it for granted , that one Supream God , Creator of the world was acknowledged by them ; and from the consideration of that Infinite Power of his , he shews how unreasonable it was for them to circumscribe him within their Temples , or to worship him by their Images : For what are all these Images of yours , which you are so fond of , and so unwilling to part with ? although they were the Statues of Phidias or Polycletus , or the Pictures of Xeuxes , or Apelles , yet still they are but the Work of mens Hands : and what are these to the Heavens and the Earth , which he hath made ? If any Image deserve worship , it is one of Gods making , and not of your own ; but since no Image can represent the infinite Perfections of the great Creator , never think to honour him by your foolish Puppets , and Babies of Dirt and Clay . This is the design of the Apostles argument ; but what doth this signifie to their thinking the Divinity to be like themselves ? For whether God were like or unlike to their Images , yet still they were the work of mens hands : as a picture is still the work of the Painter , although never so unlike the person for whom it is intended ; but S. Paul condemns them for worshipping God with the work of mens hands , i. e. with Images and Statues ; as being infinitely below the greatness of that Divine Power , for the sake of which we give divine worship to him . 2. From his infinite perfection ; manifested by his Self-sufficiency , Needing nothing , v. 25. and from his communicating to his creatures what is needful for them , Seeing he giveth to all life and breath and all things . Now what can there be more unsuitable to the honour of such a Being , than to be worshipped by such dull , senseless , contemptible pieces of earth , which have not in them the perfection of the meanest animal , to whom God hath given life and breath ; that are so far from representing the perfection and self-sufficiency of the Divine Nature , that they are not in the least able to help themselves ? But when by the help of Wedges and Beetles an Image is cleft out of the Trunk of some well grown Tree , ( that little dreamt of the honour which was like to come to the dullest part about it , after it should pass through the several refinings of the Carpenters Ax , whose blows it endured with admirable patience , and of the Painters Pencil , whose Miniature adds much beauty and glory to it ) yet after all the skill of Artificers to set forth such a Divine Block , it cannot one moment secure it self from being eaten by Worms , or defiled by Birds , or cut in pieces by Axes ; or , if any of these sail , from decaying through meer standing . Or suppose , this Worshipful Idol be made of a harder substance , and after its being digged out of the earth , and sawed , and carved , and polished , and with much ado brought into the resemblance of a man , and a rude symbol of the Deity , and set up for the adoration of mankind ; yet still it wants the things which are above the utmost power of man , but are given to the least mite , viz. life , and sense , and motion , and an admirable contrivance of the instruments of these ; yet such mean and pittiful things as these , will the folly of mankind find out to represent the greatest and the most perfect Being in the world . Judge now whether things that want life , and breath , and all things , are fit means whereby to worship him who giveth all these things to his creatures ? or whether those things , which need the art of man to make them , and his continual care to preserve them , are fit to represent that Being , which stands in need of nothing ? 3. From his Infinite Presence , v. 27 , 28. That they should seek the Lord , if haply they might feel after him and find him , though he be not far from every one of us : For in him we live and move and have our Being . One of the most plausible arguments of Idolaters in all Ages was , that by the help of Images they did represent the object of their worship as present to them , so as thereby to be put more in mind of him , and to excite their reverence and Devotion ; but S. Paul tells the Athenians , there was no need of any such representations of Gods presence , for he is not far from every one of us , for in him we live and move and have our beings : and that man who will not find God in those admirable effects of his Power , Wisdom , and Goodness we carry continually about us , will hardly find him in the senseless representations of Wood and Stone : and he that will not stand in awe of him , as he governs the World , will hardly fear him , when he is set forth in shape of a man , although he have a Thunderbolt in his hand . 4. From the disparity between God and Images , v. 29. For as much then , as we are the offspring of God , we ought not to think that the Godhead is like to gold , or silver , or stone graven by art or mans device . Upon which words , Lorinus a Iesuit makes this paraphrase , forasmuch as the Athenians following their own Poets , do confess , that we are the living Image of God , they ought to think that material Idols made by the art of men , which fall far short of the perfection of Nature , are infinitely distant from the Divine Power , by which we obtain a dignity far above these material things ; and since we cannot express this Image of God in us by any lines , much less can we the Divine Original , so that it is the grossest ignorance to affirm , that God can dwell , or be included or worshipped in or by their Altars , or Images , ( for so delubra must be understood by him if he speaks pertinently , for although sometime it signifies a Temple with more Images than one , yet Servius withal saith , it signifies a wooden Image , and so Festus understands it ; which things I am forced to explain , to prevent cavilling ; for otherwise T. G. would have complained of my perverting the sense of Authors , as he hath done very unjustly , as will appear in this Chapter . ) But Lorinus , after having brought the several places of Scripture against making any Image of God , thinks to salve all by saying , they are to be understood of such Images , as represent him to the life , ( as though it were possible for any to do it ) or such which they worshipped for Gods , which the Heathens utterly denyed , that they did . Cornelius à Lapide , after several vain attempts , to make out the force of the Apostles argument , at last concludes this to be it ; that since our Soul according to which we are the offspring of God , cannot be painted , or represented in gold , silver , or stone , being incorporeal and spiritual ; much less can the Divinity be painted or represented by them , being a pure Spirit , and the fountain of Spirits . Estius agrees , that this is the force of the Apostles argument , from whence , he saith , he doth not infer , that we ought not to think gold , silver , or stone , to be God ; although he might have done it ( but to little purpose ) because , saith he , he spake to the Athenians , among whom were many Philosophers , learned and wise men , who did not with the Vulgar , think their Images to be Gods , although they worshipped them together with them ; but they believed their Gods to be represented by them , as by their Images . If he speaks of the Epicureans , there is some ground for it ; for what Deity they acknowledged , they supposed to be as-if-coporeal , and of humane shape ; but he is much mistaken , that doth not account them rather Atheists than Idolaters ; and as to the other Athenian Philosophers , I shall make it appear to be a gross mistake , to suppose that they thought their Gods to be of humane shape ; but of that hereafter . The thing I now insist upon is , that the Apostle's shewing the disparity between God and Images , is not meerly to drive out the opinion of Anthropomorphitism , but from hence to shew farther the folly of Idolatry ; for if Images fall so much short of the infinite perfections of God , there can be but this plea left , that they are like to him , and therefore we may worship God by them , for the sake of their resemblance of him ; now this the Apostle shews to be as vain and idle a pretence as any of the rest , there being no manner of resemblance between the workmanship of gold , silver , and stone , and an Infinite and Spiritual Being . 5. From the necessity of repentance , and the consideration of a future judgement , v. 30 , 31. If all the Apostle had aimed at , was only to rectifie an erroneous conceit of the Athenians about the Divinity being like to their Images , he had taken away the force of his exhortation to repentance , from the consideration of a judgement to come : because such an erroneous conceit may possess men of innocent minds and free from Idolatry , as it was the case of the Monks in Aegypt , of whom Epiphanius , and S. Austin speak ; and whom Epiphanius supposeth to have been very harmless men , saving only their separation from the Church : nay , he doth not seem to apprehend any dangerous consequence of their opinion : which we need not wonder at , if that which Nicephorus saith be true , viz. that Epiphanius was an Anthropomorphite himself . And yet Epiphanius is well known to have been as great an enemy to Image-worship , and all kind of Idolatry , as any Person that lived in his Age. The same is observable of Tertullian and Lactantius , whereof the one attributed corporeity to God , and the other shape and figure , as our Adversaries confess ; and yet both these were vehement disputers against the Heathen Idolatry . From whence we see , that there is no necessary connexion between this opinion , and the practice of Idolatry , or the worship of Images : and yet there is altogether as good reason why God should be worshipped by an Image , on that supposition , as why Christ should be by a Crucifix since his Incarnation ; which is T. G's great argument on all occasions . But those who supposed God to be like to men , might yet think it unreasonable to worship God by the work of mens hands ; and if arbitrary representation be a sufficient ground of worship , then natural would be much more so , and consequently it would be more reasonable for men to worship one another , than to worship Images : and all the same distinctions and pleasant evasions would serve for one , as well as they do for the other . I desire now to know of T. G. whether the Athenians were to blame only for this erroneous conceit of theirs , in thinking the Divinity to be like their Images ? If this were all their fault , ( 1. ) I dare undertake to prove , that many among them were wholly innocent , viz. those who followed the Schools of Plato and Zeno , besides those of the people who took their Images for Symbols of the Divinity . ( 2. ) S. Paul takes very needless pains to make use of such arguments against Image-worship , which do not suppose any opinion of similitude between God and the Image ; as the incongruity of Images to the Divine Power , Perfection , and Presence . ( 3. ) Why doth he call upon them so earnestly to repent ? was it only of an erroneus conceit ? and that of such a nature , that the argument made use of by him , to move them to repentance , was rather apt to confirm them in that opinion , viz. that God would judge the world by that Man whom he hath appointed . If a Man be appointed to judge the world , the management of which must imply infinite Wisdom and Power , what absurdity , might they say , is it in us to suppose the Images of men to represent God , as he is the object of worship ? For if the humane nature be capable of union to the Divinity , why might it not be so united alwayes , as well as at the end of the world ? and if it be united , then that humane nature might be represented in an Image , and the Divine Nature honoured by worshipping that representation . Which being supposed to be lawful , the Apostles argument loses its force ; for the subtile Athenians might easily have answered S. Paul , that there was no more repugnancy in supposing God to have assumed a humane body from eternity , than that he should do it so lately in Iudea ; which being supposed , their defence naturally follows , for they could not be so foolish to imagine their Images to be like the Divine Nature in it self , but to that humane body which was assumed by the Divine Nature . And that this is no extravagant supposition , will appear by this , that several of the antient Christian Writers had an opinion very like this , viz. that when God is said to have made man after his own Image , it is to be understood of that humane figure and shape , which God had then assumed , which was the exemplar according to which man was created : thus Prudentius and the Audiani are understood by Petavius ; and some passages of Tertullian look much this way : and Augustinus Steuchus Eugubinus a learned but zealous Papist , contends for the necessity of this opinion , because man saw God walking , and heard him speaking in Paradise , and because of the frequent appearances of God in humane shape , mentioned in the old Testament . And to confirm this , he brings that Verse of Ovid , Et Deus humana lustro sub imagine terras . and those of Catullus , Praesentes namque ante , domos invisere castas Saepius & sese mortali ostendere coetu , Coelicolae , nondum spreta pietate solebant . and he shews that the Fictions of Homer and the rest of the Poets , as to the Appearances of the Gods in humane shape , had their true Original from hence , that God did at first assume the Nature of Man , according to which man was said to be framed after the Image and Similitude of God. But S. Paul , although he asserts the Incarnation of Christ , yet deriving the argument against the worship of God by Images , from the consideration proper to the Divinity , we ought not to think , that the Godhead is like to gold , &c. doth thereby teach us , that that which is disagreeing to the divine nature which is the proper object of worship , cannot be a proper means for us to worship God by : so that although the Images made by men only represent the humane nature assumed by the Divine , yet because the Godhead is not like unto them , we ought not to worship God by them . For otherwise the Athenians were meer Blockheads ( if it were lawful to worship the divine nature of Christ before an Image of his humane , and to give the same worship to one which belongs to the other ) that they did not deny S. Pauls consequence ; For what if the Godhead be not like to our Images , it doth not follow , that we may not give them divine worship as long as God hath often appeared in humane shape among us , and we may give worship to the representation of that Nature wherein he appeared , and the same that belongs to the Divine Nature , which did assume it . And I confess , I cannot see how T. G. could have defended S. Paul upon his supposition ; for according to T. G.'s principles , although before the Incarnation of Christ , the worship which people gave to the Images of Gold , was incongruous to the Divine Nature , and a Disparagement to the Deity ; yet to those to whom the Mysterie of God made man is revealed , it is no disparagement to him to be represented in the likeness of man , and to be worshipped by such an Image . Very well ; say the Athenians , and so say we too . To worship God by any Image , as representing his infinite and invisible Nature is folly and madness ; but to make Images of him according to his several appearances for the good of mankind in the likeness of men , is no disparagement to the Deity ; nor to be worshipped by such an Image . Let T.G. therefore either say , that S. Paul argues inconsequently , or acknowledge that the force of his argument doth hold against the worship of any representations of God. For it is plain to any man that hath any use of his senses , that S. Paul doth not argue against any meer erroneous conceit of the Athenians , but against their Idolatrous worship , which he first shews to be unreasonable by many arguments , and then tells them , God now commanded them to repent , and adds the most forcible motive to perswade them to it , from the proceedings of the future judgement . But I have not yet done with T.G. about this place . Is it not T. G. that , when he fixed his foot , as he saith , and deliberately enquired what the Supream God of the Heathens was , tells us in plain terms it was the Devil , and an Arch-Devil ; and this he doth , he saith , for Gods sake ? saith he so indeed ? And was this unknown God at Athens whom they ignorantly worshipped , and S. Paul declared , the Devil and an Arch-Devil ? No : for here he grants , that the Athenians thought the Divinity to be like their Images ; what Divinity doth he mean ? Surely , not the Divinity of an Arch-Devil . But I see , those that believe Transubstantiation , are capable of speaking as well as believing contradictions . Yet , it is possible T. G. may imagine that the Athenians meant one Divinity , and S. Paul another . So some say S. Paul plaid the Sophister with the Athenians , and when the true inscription was to the Unknown Gods ; he , because it served better to his purpose , reads it in the singular number , to the Unknown God. But as Cajetan wisely answers , the Authority of S. Paul affirming there was such an Inscription , ought to be valued above those who deny it ; and saith he , if there had not been any such , the Athenians who were by , might presently have charged S. Paul with falshood , in saying he met with an Inscription to the Unknown God , when there was none such among them . Lorinus shews from several Testimonies of S. Austin that the Athenians did worship the true God : and that in case the inscription had run only in the plural number S. Paul had drawn a conclusion out of false premises , whereas Isidore Pelusiota admires the irresistible force of S. Pauls reasoning , being built upon premises , which are confessed by the Adversaries ; as he disputed with the Iews out of the Scriptures , so he did with the men of Athens from the inscription on one of their own Altars . This being then taken for granted by S. Paul , that the Athenians did acknowledge and worship the true God , how come they to be charged with Idolatry in worshipping Images , if it be lawful to worship the true God ▪ by an Image ? especially since their intention was , as Ferus saith expresly , by their Idols to worship the true God. I beseech T. G. to reconcile this , if he can , with making Idolatry to consist in taking Images for Gods , or for the representations of false Gods ; for here was neither , and yet the Athenians were condemned for Idolatry ; and Ferus confesses , that those were Idols , whereby they designed to worship the true God ; how can that be , if actions pass whither they are intended ; for how can that worship be terminated on an Image , according to T. G's Divinity , which is designed to pass through it to God ? And that the true God was meant by the Athenians , Corn. à Lapide saith , is manifest from hence , that S. Paul was otherwise bound to shew , that it was not the true God which they worshipped , and to tell them who was the true ; whereas here S. Paul saith , he declared to them the same God whom they ignorantly worshipped ; which had been very unbecoming the sincerity and faithfulness of so great an Apostle , in case he knew , they did not worship the true God when he told them they did : for this was at once to deceive , to flatter , to betray them ; and that in a matter , upon which the salvation of their souls did depend : which of all persons was most unworthy of the Apostle of the Gentiles , whose business it was to turn men from Idols to God , to serve the true and living God. But T. G. asks , to what purpose this place was brought by me ? ( if he did not understand it before , I hope , he will do it now : ) Except I intended , he saith , the Reader to believe the Papists to be no wiser than the Athenians . I wish in this matter they were as wise ; for it were better for them to erect Altars to an Unknown God , than to make those absurd , scandalous , and horrible representations of the Mysterie of the Trinity : from whence some of the Antitrinitarians have taken occasion to expose that sacred Mysterie to scorn and contempt , and have published a Book on purpose , to set forth the Images of the Trinity , which are publickly seen and allowed in the Roman Church . But the Athenians , he tells us from S. Chrysostom , were so possessed with a wrong apprehension of the Nature of God , that when they heard S. Paul speak of Anastasis , they thought her to be some new Goddess . If they had gone much farther , and worshipped this Anastasis , I think the Athenians had done no worse , than those who worship with solemn devotion Saints that never were in the world ; and after so long a time of worship of S. Christopher , and S. George , the wisest among them cannot to this day tell , whether they were Saints , or Allegories : and if T. G. please , he shall take Baronius his Saint Synoris , to joyn with the Athenian Goddess Anastasis ; or if this will not content him , let him take other three Saints which he may find in some old Litanies , of their Church , as I have done , viz. S. Faith , S. Hope , and S. Charity ; all three daughters of a grave Matron , called S. Sapientia ; but which far outgoes the Athenian devotion , every one of these hath an Ora pro nobis added to it ; but what work would T. G. have made with the poor Athenians , if they had cryed Sancta Anastasis ora pro nobis ? yet he may find as gross absurdities nearer home . I now come to the second place , Rom. 1.21 , 23. in which T. G. saith , nothing can be more clear , than that the Apostle speaketh there of the Idols or Images of the Heathens ; for after he had laid down the matter of fact which he condemned , viz. that although they knew God , yet they did not glorifie him as God , but changed the Glory of the incorruptible God into an Image made like to corruptible man , he adds also , And to Birds , and fourfooted Beasts , and creeping things , ( which words , he saith , were clapt under deck by me with an &c. because they plainly declare what kind of Images the Apostle meant ) and then v. 25. tells us , that by so doing , they changed the Truth of God into a lye , and worshipped and served the Creature rather than the Creator : which words , he saith , are so plain , that I had no way to evade them , but by saying that the Apostle discoursed against the Philosophers , and the Wiser Heathens : whom he proves from S. Chrysostom , to have been guilty of the same Idolatry with the people ; and instances in the Aegyptians , and Plato , and Socrates , who commanded a Cock to be offered to Aesculapius . For the clearing the sense of this place , we are to consider , 1. Who the persons were that S. Paul speaks off . 2. What he affirms concerning them . 1. T. G. saith , the words are so plain , that I could find no evasion , but to say . that the Apostle doth not discourse against the most gross and sottish Idolaters , but the Philosophers and the wisest among them ; but doth T. G. in good earnest call this an evasion ? Was it an evasion in Cajetan , when he saith , S. Paul here reproved the sin of the Philosophers ; and that the Philosophers were they who detained the truth in unrighteousness : that the Philosophers did either make , or worship Images , therefore they changed the glory due to God ? Was it nothing but meer evasion in Vasquez , when he saith , the Apostle designs to prove , that the Philosophers , both had the true knowledge of God , and held it in unrighteousness ? or in Estius , when he saith in plain terms , the Apostle speaks of the Philosophers ? and instanceth in Pythagoras , Socrates , Plato , Aristotle , Trismegist , and Seneca , who although they did know the true God , yet none of them worshipped him as they ought to do . I need not mention S. Austin , who in many places applyes this to the Philosophers , as appears by Beda's Commentary , when even the words of S. Chrysostom shew this to be far enough from an evasion ; what is that to the Philosophers ? Marry , I answer , as T.G. translates him , that what hath been said most of all concerns them ; but this doth not fully express his meaning , for his words are , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or as some Copies read it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , all that hath been said doth most of all concern them , or altogether ; and the Greek Scholiast , saith , that it is plain S. Paul strikes at the Wise men among the Greeks , and those who were like them . Origen saith , he speaks of some of the Wise men of Greece . By these and many more Testimonies , if it were needful to heap them in so clear a case , it appears sufficiently , that this was no evasion of mine , but the natural sense , which their own Commentators , and the Fathers agree in . 2. As to what the Apostle affirms of them , viz. that they held the truth in unrighteousness , v. 18. i. e. saith the Greek Scholiast , that they gave the worship of God to Idols ; for the knowledge of God is truth , and the deceitfulness of Idols is unrighteousness . Hear , saith Theophylact , what it is to detain the truth in unrighteousness , The Truth or the Knowledge of God is naturally put into all mens minds from the beginning ; this knowledge or truth the Greeks held in unrighteousness , i. e. they did all the injury to it they could , by giving the glory of God to Idols ; and both herein follow S. Chrysostom , who saith , they did it , by giving the glory of God to Wood and Stone . This the Apostle afterwards inlarges upon , when he saith , that knowing God they did not glorifie him as God , neither were thankful , but became vain in their imagination , and their foolish heart was darkned . Professing themselves to be wise , they became Fools , and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an Image made like to corruptible man , and to Birds and fourfooted Beasts , and creeping things . And for the sense of this charge I am content to appeal to the judgements of the most allowed Interpreters on both sides , that hat have not been parties in the quarrel . They thought themselves wise , saith S. Hierom or the Author of the Commentaries under his name , as those that had found out , quomodo invisibilis Deus , per simulachrum visibile coleretur ; how an invisible God might be worshipped by a visible representation : which is the sense of simulachrum there ; for he supposes the worship to be directed to the invisible God through the Image , and therefore the Image could not be taken either for God , or a representation of a false God ; so that nothing can be more clear ( to use T. G's words ) according to S. Hierom , than that T. G. professing to be wise , doth thereby discover his folly , when he saith , that S. Paul speaks of those who took the Images themselves for Gods ; or worshipped the Images of false Gods. And the Philosophers professing to be Wise , did become Fools , because saith S. Hierom , they did not understand that what is mortal and corruptible , could have no resemblance to what is immortal and eternal . The Greek Scholiast saith , they became vain in their imaginations , when they would represent him in a Figure that had none , and comprehend him in corporeal Images , that was wholly spiritual ; not as though they were such Fools to think to shut up Infinity within the bounds of an Image ; but to comprehend , there is taken with relation to that representation which conveys a thing to the mind ; and so he useth it a little after , they thought themselves wise , because they thought they could comprehend every thing : and so the Image was supposed to be such a species as did convey an intellectual Being to the mind . The same words are used by Theophylact ; which they both borrowed from S. Chrysostom , who condemns the Greeks for their folly , not for comprehending , but for seeking a spiritual and incorporeal Being , in corporeal Images . And what can be more foolish , saith the Scholiast and Theophylact , than to fall down before Stocks and Stones ? And Origen doth express the meaning of the Apostle in this place as fully as I can desire , when he applyes all these expressions to those that had a right notion and conception of God in their minds , but gave divine worship to all sorts of Images , as well of beasts , as of men , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the honour of the Deity . And in truth , the Apostles supposition being allowed , that these Philosophers did know the true God , and his Eternal Power and Godhead , we must suppose them to be turned stark staring Fools , that should take the Images either of men or beasts to be Gods : but it is very agreeable to the Philosophers practice and opinions to give external worship to these Images , when they in the mean time did direct that external worship to the honour of the invisible Deity . But the sense of this and the former place will be made more evident by a diligent enquiry into the State of the Controversie about the worship of Images between the Christians and Heathens . ( 1. ) Whether it was that the Heathens took their Images for proper likenesses of the Deity ? Or , ( 2. ) That they worshipped only the Images of false Gods , or that they took their Images themselves for Gods ? And if the Controversie did not wholly relate to these things , then it will follow , that it was of the same nature with that between us and the Church of Rome . I shall therefore shew , 1. That the Wiser Heathens concerning whom the dispute is , did not suppose their Images to be proper likenesses of their Gods. Which I prove , 1. From the nature and kinds of their Images . 2. From the notions they had of their Gods. 1. From the nature and kinds of their Images . There are three sorts of Images which were worshipped among the Heathens , 1. Such as had no artificial shape or figure . 2. Such as had an artificial shape , but it was of no real being . 3. Such as had the shape either of men or beasts . Of the two first , and those of Beasts , I suppose , no man professing himself to be wise , will shew himself such a Fool to say , that the Heathens thought their Gods to be like them . My business therefore as to them , is to shew that there were such among them to which they did give divine worship . 1. For Images without any artificial shape , or figure . By Images here I mean some external visible things which are designed to represent some other thing to our minds . So Tully calls characters , verborum Imagines , and the countenance , Imaginem animi ; in which no exact resemblance can be understood , but some thing which is intended to represent another thing to us , which doth not depend on the nature of things , but the arbitrary institution of men ; as may be seen by the notes and characters of Tyro and Seneca ; of which no account can be given , why they represent one thing rather than another , but only the Will of the Maker of them . Thus if men agreed that a Spear , a Cymiter , a Trunk , a Mountain , a rude Stone , or a Pyramid should be set up to represent the Deity to them which they worshipped , every one of these did thereby become the Image of that Deity . Herodotus , Solinus , Clemens Alexandrinus , Arnobius , and Ammianus Marcellinus , all agree that the antient Scythians had no other Image of a Deity among them , but only a Scythian Sword , which Herodotus calls the Image of Mars , and he saith , they sprinkled the blood of the Sacrifice upon it . Clemens Alexandrinus and Arnobius tell us from Varro , that the antient Romans worshipped a Spear for Mars , which is also affirmed by Iustin ; and the Thespians a Bough for Cinxia or Iuno ; the Icarians an unhewn piece of Wood for Diana ; the Samii a frame of Wood for Iuno ; the Pessinuntii a Flint for the Mother of the Gods ; which was carried by the Roman Ambassadours from Phrygia to Rome , saith Livy ; called Religiosa silex by Claudian . The Arabians , an unpolished stone ; which was square , saith Maximus Tyrius , of a black colour , saith Suidas , without any shape or figure upon it , four foot high and two broad , to which they sacrifice , and sprinkle the blood upon it . Euthymius charges the Mahumetans with Idolatry for kissing the stone Bracthan ; concerning which , they have several fabulous traditions , of its being one of the stones of Paradise , and coming down from thence with Adam , &c. which is placed in one of the corners of the Caaba , or Temple at Mecca , above two cubits above ground , and was stolen from thence by the Karmatiani , hoping to draw away the Pilgrims ; but finding it would not do , they restored it to the inhabitants of Mecca twenty years after , who knew it to be the genuine stone , as they said , by its swimming above water ; which our learned Dr. Pocock conjectures to have been one of the Idols of the old Arabs , as the Temple at Mecca was one of their Idol-Temples ; but the Mahumetans say they worship it out of a respect to Abraham ; as they do another stone , wherein they say are the footsteps of Abraham to be seen , at which they say their prayers ; as others do at Loretto , before a Madonna of the same complexion with the stone Bracthan ; of which colour I suppose the same reason may be given which the Mahumetans do of the stone Bracthan , viz. that it came purely white out of heaven , but was turned black by the sins of the people . Such another Idol was Manah or Meneth , which was of old worshipped between Mecca and Medina ; which the Arabick Writers call a rock or a stone ; and was probably as the same Author conjectures , the Meni mentioned Isa. 65.11 . and Saad , which he describes to be an oblong stone lying on the shore . The Paphians , Max. Tyrius saith , worshipped Venus under the representation of a white Pyramid : and the Lacedaemonians saith Pausanias , erected after the ancient custome , seven pillars to the seven planets ; and the same Author affirms it to have been the ancient custome of all the Greeks to set up unpolished stones instead of Images , to the honour of the Gods ; which Testimony is very considerable , not only because it makes it the most ancient , but an Universal Custome among the Greeks ; and near the Statue of Mercury , he saith , there were thirty square stones , which the Pharii worshipped , and gave to every one the name of a God. Pausanias mentions many other such Images remaining in Greece after the ancient Mode , as of Hercules in Boeotia , of Cupid among the Thespienses , of the Graces among the Orchomenii , where he saith , the people worship the stones which they believed to have dropt down from heaven . They were wont , saith Hesychius , to have Altars before the Doors in the fashion of a pillar , which was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; some , saith Harpocration , make these proper to Apollo , others to Bacchus , others to both ; these were common at Athens , as appears by the Testimonies of Cratinus , Menander and Sophocles quoted by Harpocration ; and Sophocles , he saith , applyed that Athenian custome to Troy , in his Laocoon , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 &c. whom Suidas follows . Stephanus Byzant . saith , the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were Obelisks erected to the honour of the Gods ; for which he quotes Eupolis . It seems both Pyramids and Altars were called by this name among them , being both designed for the worship of their Gods : and it is not improbable those rude Pyramids in Yorkshire , mentioned by Cambden , called the Devils bolts , and many such in Denmark , by Olaus Wormius , might be first erected for the same purpose , this custome having been so general . Peter della Valle , in his late Travels in the Indies , saith , that at Ahmedabad , there was a famous Temple of Mahadeù , wherein there was no other Image but a little column of Stone , after a Pyramidal form , but ending at the top in a round figure ; which Mahadeù , he saith , in their language signifies the great God , and after this fashion , he saith , it is the custom of the Brachmans to represent Mahadeù ; the like he observes at Manèl . Although that Author takes the liberty to call this an Idol , I do not see with what conscience T. G. could do it ; for an Idol according to him doth signifie either a representation of some imaginary being , or in the utmost sense , something which is falsely esteemed and worshipped as God ; but this Pyramid to represent Mahadeù or the great God , was neither a representation of an imaginary Being , nor was it self taken for God , and therefore was no Idol , nor the worship given to God by it Idolatry : and upon his principles , the worship of the Gioghi is very justifiable by the Law of God , for this is not a representation by which men are in danger of being Anthropomorphites ; but only hath some analogical and metaphorical signification ; and therefore it is no disparagement to the Deity to be thus represented . Thus it falls out , as I foresaw , that T. G. could not justifie the practice of their own Church , but he must unavoidably justifie that which is condemned by it , viz. the Heathen Idolatry . But to proceed , Herodian describing the Worship of Alagabalus at Emesa in Phoenicia , saith , that he had no kind of Image after the Greek , or Roman fashion made by mens hands ; but a great stone round at the bottom , lessening by degrees , after the fashion of a Cone ; and of a black Colour , ( like the stone Bracthan , ) which they say , was not made by mens hands , but fell down from heaven . It is great pity Gretser had not put it into his Book , de Imaginibus non manufactis ; together with that of the Pessinuntii in Herodian ; and of Diana of Ephesus ; and of the Graces among the Orchomenii ; which were all believed to have come from heaven , as well as those mentioned by Gretser ; and the evidence is much alike for them all ; and for the miracles wrought by them , Peter della Valle saith , that the Image of Mahadeù was in great reputation among the Indians for working miracles ; and in another place he saith , there were persons who believed themselves cured of sore eyes by the Idols , and made their presents of silver and golden eyes , and some Iewels ( as they do in other places on occasion of the like miracles ) And notwithstanding what Della Valle intimates of the honesty of Roman Priests in comparison of the Gioghi , in this matter of miracles , a man might venture a great deal on their heads , that they come behind none of them in any thing that tends to deceive the people . And I do not at all wonder , that this Gentleman seeing their solemn processions in mighty numbers , in pilgrimage to certain places of devotion , should so naturally think of the carrying of the Images of Saints by a Fraternity in procession to Loretto or Rome in the Holy year ; any more than that seeing the tricks of Hamant or the holy Apes in the Indies , should bring to his mind those he had seen plaid by some creatures much of the same kind in Europe . But leaving the consideration of Gretsers divine Images to another place , I return to the stone of Alagabalus , whereof there were more than one according to Lampridius , who saith , Lapides qui Divi dicuntur ex proprio Templo , &c. he took out of the Temple of Alagabalus the stones which were called Gods : where the great Criticks are strangely confounded by joyning this clause with that which follows of the Image of Diana from Laodicea , and are very hard put to it , to tell what Image , and what Laodicea this was ; a late Author supposes them to be the same with those stones mentioned in Pausanias , and that it was Laodicea of Achaia which he meant ; but Tristan hath shewn the true sense by dividing the clauses ; for the stones mentioned before , had no relation to Laodicea , but to the proper Temple of the Deity from whom Heliogabalus took his name . Salmasius instead of the lapides qui Divi dicuntur , would have it read lapides qui vivi dicuntur , alluding to the Boetulia , which Philo Byblius calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the animated stones , of which he speaks in his translation of Sanchoniathons account of the Phoenician Idolatry : and the place agrees well enough with it ; and they did suppose a more than ordinary presence of God in those stones , for which reason they attributed Life to them ; and the Arabians called them the Daughters of God , being as it were inspired with life by him , and believed that they could intercede with God for them ; and therefore they gave them Divine Honour ; of which sort , Allat , Alozza , and Manah , are mentioned in the Alcoran ; although some think Alozza to have been the Trunk of a Tree , which was worshipped among the Arabians . Bern. de Breitenbach saith , that they had two stones , one black which they called Camos , and the other white which they called Mercury ; which two they went twice a year to worship ; and the proper rites of their worship , were for the first , the casting of stones behind them , and for the other , burning incense , naked and shaven ; and not only the Arabs , but the Ammonites and Moabites joyned in this worship . Afterwards Mahomet finding this worship among them , which was before designed to the Honour of Saturn and Mars , continues the customes but turns the worship another way , and placed one of the stones in the Corner of the Temple , and the other he pitched in the ground in the middle , and required of all persons that came to Mecca to kiss these stones , with their heads shaven and their backs naked , casting stones backward . Petrus Alphonsus translated out of Arabick a Conference between a Christian and a Saracen ; which is extant in Vincentius Bellovacensis , wherein we have the same account of the worship of the two stones ; but , he saith , the custome came first from the Nations of the Indies which were called Xechiam , and Albarachuma , i.e. saith Scaliger , Brachmani , who were wont to worship their Gods after that manner , by kissing the corners of stones , and casting them behind them . Maimonides saith , that Markolis was worshipped by the casting of stones , and Cemosh by shaving the head , &c. By Markolis many understand Mercury , but Elias Levita saith , he could find no such worship of him among the Romans , but , he saith , it was the name of an Idol whose peculiar worship that was , and was believed to be an intercessour between them , and the Planet Mercury from whom the name was derived . Buxtorf gives this account of the figure of Markolis , that it was after this fashion ; viz. two huge stones standing one against another ; and a third lying cross over them , covering the other two with one half of his bigness ; which , he saith , the Rabbins called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 domum Kolis ; thence , he saith , that the Rabbins in Avoda Zara say , that three stones being placed after that manner are forbidden , because that was the figure of the Idol Markolis . ( What if our Stonehenge were some such thing ? for the stones lye transversely upon each other after this figure , which neither belonged to a Roman Temple , nor the Danish Monuments ? ) Towards these stones they were wont to cast stones , which was the proper rite of worship belonging to Markolis ; and is still performed by the Pilgrims to Mecca , but directing their intention another way . This is done , saith Scaliger on the Mount Arraphoth without Mecca ; they cast them into the Valley of Mena , or Akabah , saith Dr. Pocock from the Arabick Writers ; but they pretend to do it upon quite other grounds than the ancient Idolaters did ; viz. in imitation of Abraham , who they say , in that place sent the Devil packing with a stone in his forehead when he came to interrupt him in the sacrificing of his Jon ; others say , they do it out of opposition to Idolatry , and in contempt of the Idols formerly worshipped there . But the Iews say , that he that useth a rite proper to Idolatrous worship , though by way of contempt , is guilty ; and they instance particularly in this very thing ; however the Mahumetans , having looked over Aristotle 's threshold , do know that acts go whither they are intended , and for their parts , since they intend to knock the Devil in the head with the stones they cast backward , the Devil is like to suffer most by this custome ; especially , if it be true which some of the Arabick Writers say , that those stones do break the Devils back . And what harm can there be in kissing and worshipping the stone Bracthan , as long as they pretend to honour Abraham by doing it ? For this is their pretence for it in Damascen ; if relative worship be lawful , I do not see , why the Mahumetans directing their intention to the God of Abraham , are in any greater fault , than those who worshipping an Image , direct their worship finally to God , but after a relative and inferiour manner , suffer it to fall upon the Image for his sake . But Damascen saith something farther , viz. that they who look more narrowly into this stone ( as some may see farther into a stone than others ) do find the Image of Venus , which they called Chabar in it ; to which Dr. Pocock answers from the Arabick Writers , that this is both a mistake of one stone for another ; and that all the impression in that stone is as like the face of Venus , as a mans heels are like his head ; unless , saith he , the Mahumetans be so blind with superstition , as not to be able to distinguish the head and feet from each other ; for so Abulfeda saith , it hath only the impression of Abrahams feet ; but granting they were mistaken , and that they could not tell Abrahams footstep from an ordinary Pilgrims , yet methinks they should know some difference between the foot of a man , and the face of Venus . And what reason is there to search for the figure of a face upon a stone , when I have already so fully proved it was the custome to worship rude and unpolished stones ; especially in those Eastern parts , where the Boetulia were in so much request , which many learned men do suppose to have come at first from the stone , which Iacob anointed in Bethel , and set up for a pillar there , to which the Jews say , the Canaanites afterwards gave divine worship ; and that from hence came the custome of worshipping such stones , and the name of them . Which makes the conjecture of Bochartus very probable , that Sanchoniathon had written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which the interpreter mistaking but one letter read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and so rendered it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 animated stones , which was no more than anointed stones : which custome of anointing stones for worship , among the Heathens , is mentioned by Clemens Alexandrinus , Minutius , Apuleius and others . S. Augustin hath a passage very observable to our purpose concerning Iacob , viz. that he did not anoint the stone at Bethel after the custome of Idolaters , as if he made it a God ; for , saith he , he did not worship the stone nor sacrifice to it ; where we not only find this custome of Idolaters , but the meaning of that phrase in the Fathers of taking their Images for Gods , by which they meant no more than what S. Augustin here explains it by , viz. giving divine worship to them . Damascius in Photius , mentions many of these Boetulia , that were seen by Asclepiades on Mount Libanus near Heliopolis in Syria ; of which , he saith , some were consecrated to Saturn , others to Jupiter , others to the Sun. Maximus Tyrius shews at large , that similitude to the Deity was not regarded in the things they gave divine worship to , and looked on as symbols of the God they worshipped ; thus they gave divine honour to fountains , trees , tops of Mountains , and Mountains themselves ; as the inhabitants of West-Barbary worshipped Mount Atlas ; and the Cappadocians the Mount Argaeus , and others Mount Casius ; and so Carmel is called in Suetonius the God Carmel : and that Philosopher makes it an arbitrary thing , what kind of representations of the Deity men make use of , as long as they are designed to put them in mind of God , and are worshipped with a respect to him . The ancient Celtae , he saith , had no other Image of Jupiter but a great Oak . The Lacedemoans had some ancient Images of the Dioscuri , which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which , saith Plutarch , were nothing else , but two pieces of timber lying at an equal distance , with two others laid cross over them ; from whom Eustathius repeats it . And Tacitus saith , the old Germans had no Images of their Deities of any humane figure ; and that they attributed the names of their Gods to their Groves : for they had as Claudian expresses it Robora , numinis Instar . T. G. saith , it is evident from Tacitus himself , that they had other Figures and Symbols in their consecrated Groves ; although they had not any in the likeness of men , because they thought them unsuitable to the Celestial Deities ; but I desire to be informed by him , 1. How other figures come to be a less disparagement to the Deity , than humane figures ? Did they indeed think it less dishonour to God to be like a bruit , or a plant , or a cockboat than to be like a man ? Did they who thought the Images of men so much below their Gods , take the others to be more agreeable to them ? 2. How doth Tacitus make it appear , that they had other Symbols and Figures in the consecrated Groves ? It is true that he saith , part of the Suevi did sacrifice to Isis ; but , he saith , this was a foreign Religion , and he knows not how it came there , but he is sure by the Figure it was foreign ? and doth this prove , that the Religion of the Germans did allow of Images , because a Religion was known to be foreign , by its Image ? But this is the very quintessence of ingenuity , when he hath had no more to say against this Testimony , and not a word against any of the rest , to conclude after this fashion , His other citations I took upon his word without examining them ( which I hardly take upon his word , finding him so ready to cavil upon the slightest occasion ) and the Reader may guess by this out of Tacitus , whether it be not likely I did him a kindness in it ; which I am content to leave to the Readers Ingenuity . We are certain it was the custome both of the Germans and Gauls , as well as other Nations , to worship not only stones and fountains , but Trees . Pliny saith in general , that Trees were looked on as Temples of the Gods ; and that the people did not more worship the Images of Gold and Ivory , than they did the Groves ; and the same Quintilian saith , especially of Aged Oakes . Curtius saith , the Indians accounted all things Gods which they worshipped , especially Trees . The Council of Carthage mentions the remainders of Idolatry in Groves and Trees as well as Images . And there was no one custome of Idolatry which the Northern Nations especially , were more hardly drawn from , after they had received Christianity : which was therefore strictly forbidden in the Capitular of Carolus M. and the Priests were severely punished if they did not discover those who did aut arbores , aut fontes , aut saxa venerari , which are the words there used . In the Lombard Laws , there is a constitution of Luitprandus , against those that did worship ad arborem atque ad fontanas , before a certain tree , and at Springs . Othlonus in the Life of Boniface , not only mentions this custome , but that Boniface did cut down a very great tree , which was called Arbor Iovis in a placed called Gesmere ; which is in the lower Hassia saith Serrarius . Agathias saith , that the Germans worshipped Trees and Rivers , and Hills and Groves . In S. Augustins time , we find this custome continued among many called Christians , to pay their vows before certain trees , and to say their prayers at Fountains ; for which he charges them with Idolatry ; which trees , he saith , if they fell , they would not take a stick of them to burn , whereby they give honour to a dead Tree , and contemn the precepts of the living God. The twelfth Council of Toledo produces the second Commandment , and the other severe prohibitions of Idolatry against this practice . The second Council of Arles hath a Canon against the Bishops , who suffer any such Trees or Stones to remain in their Dioceses : the same hath the Council of Braga against Presbyters . The second Council of Tours charges the Priests to excommunicate those who did these things : Le Cointe by the Stones understands the Boundaries , at which the Heathens did celebrate the Terminalia , but without any bloody sacrifice , as he proves from Dionys. Halicarnassaeus , and Plutarch . The Synod of Auxerre forbids Christians paying their vows either before holy Trees , or at Fountains . The Council of Nantes commands the cutting down all such Trees , and casting away the stones ; and that all people be told what a dreadful sin Idolatry is , and that he that worships Trees and Stones , denies God and renounces his Christianity ; with a great deal more to that purpose ; and yet all this while these men pretended to be Christians , and to direct the intention of their worship aright ; which I beseech T. G. to observe ; for all the fault the Council found with them was , that they did those things before Trees and Stones which ought to be done only in the Church , viz. making their oblations and saying their prayers . And in the Canons of Eligius , this is one , Nullus Christianus ad fana , vel ad Petras , vel ad Fontes , vel ad Arbores , aut ad Cellos , vel per trivia , luminaria faciat , aut vota reddere praesumat . Where we see these Canons did respect Christians and not Infidels ; and several of them are inserted in the Collection of Canons by Burchardus and Regino : now I desire to be resolved by T. G. why it is not as lawful to say ones prayers in a consecrated Grove , or at a Fountain , or before a Stone or Pillar , as before a consecrated Image ? Hath God only forbidden Groves and Statues to be worshipped , and not Images at all ? Nay , one would think , that at the same time he had forbidden the one , he had commanded the other ; when we see how scrupulous these Fathers were in the former , and how much the practice of devotion in the Roman Church , where it is openly and publickly allowed , consists in the other . Surely a man is not more apt to think God to be like a Tree , or a Stone , than to the Image of a man ; and if this argument of similitude signifies any thing , it tends to justifie these practises , condemned by so many Councils ; and to condemn the worship of Images in the likeness of men , which T. G. endeavours to justifie . And to let us see , how general this kind of worship was among the Heathen Idolaters , I shall conclude this discourse with a double Testimony to this purpose . The one of Dio Chrysostome , who saith , the generality of the barbarous Nations , called Mountains , Trees , and Stones by the name of Gods , i. e. as the Greeks and Romans did their Images , to which they gave divine worship . The other of Acosta ; who saith , the Indians worshipped Rivers , Fountains , Rocks , or great stones , Hills and the tops of Mountains , which they called Apachita's , and all things in Nature which seemed to have something extraordinary in them . 2. The Heathens worshipped such Images , as had some shape and Figure , but it was not of any real being , but only Imaginary . This I have so little reason to go about to prove against T. G. that he desires me , to take notice , that the Heathens ( as Origen , Hom. 8. in Exod. 20. and Theodoret q. 38. in Exod. tells us , when they expound the second Commandment ) had two sorts of Images ; some of which were purely figments or fictions of their own brain , made to represent what had no existence but in their own imaginations , as Sphinxes , Tritons , Centaures , and the like ; and others which were made to represent such things , as had a real , and substantial Being in the World , as the Sun , Moon and Stars , &c. which they esteemed and worshipped as Gods. I shall not now dispute , whether the Idols forbidden in the second Commandment , be only such representations ; nor whether . Sphinxes , and Centaures be such imaginary Beings , ( for about the latter S. Hierom is uncertain ; and a Sphinx is nothing but an Aethiopian Ape , such as Philostorgius saith himself saw ; ) but that which I insist upon , in this place , is , that this sort of Images was not certainly unlawful on the account of similitude to the Deity ; and those who thought so were not Idolaters , but Atheists ; for then they thought that to be like God , which was like to Nothing . And if the Athenians had any such as these , ( as they were as good at Chimaera's as other people ) S. Pauls argument would not reach to them ; and it seems S. Paul mistook his point : for he , good man , thought he had been talking against Idolatry at Athens ; but it was no such matter ; for saith T. G. he talked against such Images as were proper likenesses and representations of the Divinity ; now the Divinity certainly is a Real Being ; and Idolatry is the worship of Idols ; but an Idol , saith T. G. is a representation of an imaginary Being ; therefore those Images S. Paul spake against at Athens were no Idols ; and consequently S. Paul doth not prove the Athenians guilty of Idolatry . But of these things more at large when I come to the second Commandment . 3. They had artificial Images of real Beings ; in the Likeness of Men. And I shall now shew , that even these Images were not set up or worshipped among the Heathens , because they supposed the Gods to be like them . For which , in the first place I shall produce this remarkable Testimony of Cicero , where he answers the Epicurean argument for the Gods being of humane form , because men are wont to represent them so ; Quis tam caecus , saith he , in contemplandis rebus unquam fuit , ut non videret species istas hominum collatas in Deos , aut consilio quodam sapientum , quo facilius animos imperitorum ad Deorum cultum à vitae pravitate converterent ; aut Superstitione , ut essent simulachra , quae venerantes , Deos ipsos se adire crederent ? Who was there ever so blind in the judgement of things , as not to see that the Figures of men are attributed to the Gods , either by the advice of wise men , the easier to draw rude and wicked people to the worship of them ; or out of superstition , that when they worshipped their Images , they might believe they approached to the Gods themselves ? Where we observe , that these words are brought to disprove the Epicurean opinion of the Gods being like to men ; and he undertakes to give an account how they came to be represented in humane shape , although they were not like to it ; viz. 1. To make the notion of God more familiar and easie to rude and barbarous people , that knew not how to conceive of him , and therefore neglected his worship , which is all one with making them Books for the ignorant Laity . 2. To excite their devotion , that when they made their addresses to these Images , they might believe they made them to the Gods themselves . And according to T. G. what harm was there in all this ? provided that these were declared not to be proper likenesses of the Deity ; and so we see they were , by their best and wisest men . But the people might imagine the Gods to be like them ; and what then ? may they not do the same in the Roman Church , and with as good reason ? when they see God painted like a Pope , with his Crown and Pontifical Vestments ; may they not as reasonably think , that as the Pope is Gods Vicar on earth , God himself is the Pope in Heaven . If they say they take care the people be better informed : not too much of that neither ; but did not Cicero and others do the like by the Heathens ? who argued against the folly of supposing the Gods to be like men , and derided the Epicureans for asserting it ; as men that neither understood the nature of Gods , or Men. And Cicero in the same place is so far from looking on this practice of worshipping the Gods in Images of humane shape as Universal , that he confesses it to be almost peculiar to the Greeks and Romans ; and saith , that the Epicureans who did assert the Gods , to have the members of mens bodies , but made no use of them , did only droll , and in words assert a Deity , which in Truth they denied . Maximus Tyrius debates the case about the several ways of representing God ; and although he makes the manner as indifferent , as whether our words be expressed in Phoenician , or Ionian , or Attick , or Aegyptian Characters , they being all intended only as helps to our understandings and Memories , and as far distant from the Deity as Heaven from Earth ; yet , he saith , they are useful to the duller part of mankind , who like Children are taught to read and understand , by these broader characters ; which are intended only as a Manuduction to them ; yet , he prefers that which he calls the Greek way , of representing the Gods with the most exquisite art in humane Figures ; but he doth it so timorously , that he only saith , it is not unreasonable ; not that he imagined the Gods to be like them ; but only because the Soul of man comes nearest to God ; and that habitation which God had chosen for a divine Soul seemed the fittest to be a Symbol of the invisible Deity . But he does not blame the other Nations which made use of other wayes of representing the Deity ; which he must have done , if he had thought the Greek Images the proper likenesses of God ; for although he disputes against the Persians and Aegyptians , yet he concludes all at last with this saying , whether men worship God by the art of Phidias , as the Greeks ; or by the worship of living Creatures , as the Aegyptians ; or by the worship of Rivers , or of Fire , as other Nations , I condemn not the variety ; let them only understand and love , and remember him whom they worship . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , i. e. in T. G.'s Translation , let a man only direct his intention towards God , and then without doubt the actions go whither they are intended . And upon these grounds none of the Heathens were to blame in the worship of Images , provided they looked on them only as Symbols , or Analogical representations of the Deity , as Maximus Tyrius saith they did , and directed their worship towards the Supreme Being , as he adviseth them all to do . For , saith he , God who is the Father and Maker of all things , elder than the Sun and Heaven , better than Time , and Age , and all Fluid things , a Lawgiver without name , that cannot be expressed with words , or seen with eyes ; whose essence being incomprehensible by us , we make use of all helps from sounds and words , and living Creatures , and Images of Gold , and Ivory , and Silver , and Plants , and Rivers , and Mountains , to bring us to the Conception of him ; and because of our Weakness , those things we account good we attribute to him , as lovers use to do , who delight in any representation of him they love ; and behold with great pleasure , the harp , or the dart , or the seat he sate upon , or the place he ran in , and whatever brings him to mind ▪ What need I say any more concerning Images ? Let God only be in the mind . Is not this a Vindication of Heathen Idolatry , to T. G.'s hearts desire ? For , saith T. G. Is it not an honour to the King to kiss his Picture ? And the very light of nature teaches that the honour or dishonour done to a picture , or Image , reflects upon the person represented by it . Now , saith Max. Tyrius , we look upon Images , and Trees , and Rivers , and Mountains but as so many imperfect pictures and representations of the Deity ; but although they do not come near his beauty , yet we honour them for the sake of him whom they represent ; wherein we do but as great lovers do , we kiss the footsteps where he trod , we embrace , admire , and value things as they represent him , and bring him to our minds . And is there any thing more natural than this ? For is it not an honour to the King to kiss his picture ? or , as the Emperour Iulian more elegantly expresses it , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. He that loves the King , takes pleasure in seeing the picture of the King , he that loves his Child , loves any representation of him , and so doth he that loves his Father ; even so , saith the devout Emperour Iulian by the meer light of Nature , every one that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a Lover of God , loves the representations of the Gods , and beholding their Images doth secretly fear and reverence them , which although invisible themselves do behold him . Wherein we see how admirably Iulian and T. G. have hit not only on the same principle of nature , but the very instance , and almost the very same expressions : It seems , this great man did not corrupt himself in those things he knew naturally , but pursued the light of Nature towards the Defence of Pagan Idolatry ; making the Worship of Images a part of Natural Religion , as T. G. doth . But what spight is this , for me to mention Julian and T. G. together ? whereas it is well known that Julian was against Invocation of Saints , and called that as great Idolatry as the Heathens , as T. G. notably observes against Dr. St. But for all this Iulian , though an Apostate , and great enemy to Christianity was a shrewd understanding man , and found out the very fundamental principle of the worship of Images , and resolved it into the Light of Nature , as T. G. doth . But Julian supposed these Images to be proper Likenesses of the Gods , and consequently the worship of them as such is condemned : no such matter I assure you , Iulian was a more Orthodox man than so , he was no follower of that damnable heretick called Anthropomorphus ( for so I find him in an ancient Catalogue of Hereticks ; ) Iulian detests that opinion , and calls the Gods 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , without any corporeal figure , or shape ; and therefore he proposes the objection of a Christian against him , how it could then be proper to make any corporeal Images of them ? Why , to that , saith Iulian , I answer , the Images of the Gods are placed by our Ancestors , as Signs and Symbols of their presence , not that we should believe them to be Gods , but that we should worship the Gods by giving Reverence to them . For , we living in the body ought to give them a worship suitable to our corporeal state , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; but they are incorporeal . So that Iulian did not look on Images as the proper likenesses of the Gods , but as ancient and venerable Symbols of their presence ; in which , he saith , all Nations of the world were agreed , and in all Ages . Wherein he lashes too far ; but that is at least but a venial sin , to stretch a little for the sake of so good a Cause . And Iulian was not singular in this opinion of his , of the fitness of corporeal Images , although the Gods were not like them ; for Varro was of the same mind ; who gives this account of the first design of making the Images of the Gods like to men , Quorum qui simulachra specie hominis fecerunt , hoc videri secutos , quod mortalium animus , qui est in corpore humano , simillimus est immortalis animi , &c. that the soul of man was most like the Deity ; and men made Images like to their Bodies , just as if a Wine-vessel were put in the Temple of Bacchus to represent him , intending thereby to represent first the Wine , which should be in the Vessel , and by the Wine him that is the God of Wine : so , saith he , by Images of mens shape they signified the Soul contained within the body ; and by the Soul they represented God as of the same nature , viz. the Soul of the World. Porphyrie , such another good Catholick as Iulian was , in this point of the worship of Images , doth not in the least suppose any similitude between the Shape of a Man , and the Nature of God , but he gives this account of representing the Gods in Figures like to men , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , They made the Gods like to men , because the Divinity is a rational Being ; and withall , he saith , that many were wont to represent him by a black stone , to shew that he is invisible . Dio Chrysostome at large debates the case about Images , in his Olympick Oration ; wherein he first shews , that all men have a natural apprehension of one supreme God the Father of all things ; that this God was represented by the Statue made by Phidias of Jupiter Olympius , for so he said , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , before whom we now are ; and then describes him to be the King , Ruler and Father of all both Gods and men ; this Image he calls , the most blessed , the most excellent , the most beautiful , the most beloved Image of God. He saith , there are four wayes of coming to the knowledge of God , By nature , by the instructions of the Poets , by the Laws , and by Images : but neither Poets , nor Law-givers , nor Artificers were the best Interpreters of the Deity , but only the Philosophers who both understood and explained the Divine Nature most truly and perfectly . After this , he supposes Phidias to be called to account for making such an Image of God , as unworthy of him ; when Iphitus , Lycurgus , and the old Eleans , made none at all of him , as being out of the power of man to express his nature ; to this Phidias replies , that no man can express mind and understanding by figures , or colours , and therefore they are forced to fly to that in which the soul inhabits , and from thence they attribute the seat of Wisdom and Reason to God , having nothing better to represent him by : and by that means joyning power and art together , they endeavour by something which may be seen and painted , to represent that which is invisible and inexpressible . But it may be said , we had better then have no Image or representation of him at all ; no saith he , for mankind doth not love to worship God at a distance , but to come near and feel him , and with assurance to sacrifice to him and crown him . Like Children newly weaned from their Parents , who put out their hands towards them in their dreams as if they were still present : so do men out of the sense of Gods goodness and their relation to him , love to have him represented as present with them , and so to converse with him : thence have come all the representations of God among the barbarous Nations in Mountains , and Trees , and Stones . But if the quarrel be , that I have given a humane shape to him ; for that , saith he , the Poets are much more to blame who began those things , especially Homer who compared Agamemnon to God in his head and eyes : but for my statue , no man that is not mad would compare it to a mortal man , much less to the perfection of the Deity : and so Dio proceeds with a great deal of eloquence to shew , how the representation of God by his Image was more decent and becoming God , than that which the Poets had made of him : and how he had endeavoured by the utmost of his skill to represent the perfections of the Divine Nature in the admirable workmanship of his Statue , as to his power , Greatness , and Good Will to Mankind ; and concludes all with saying , that as to his workmanship he thinks he hath gone beyond all others ; but yet no workmanship can be compared to the God that made the whole World. Thus we see from the Testimony of these very considerable Authors , the Wiser Heathens had no such foolish Imagination as T. G. supposes them to be possessed with , viz. that the Images of the Deity which they worshipped were the proper likenesses of him ; and if T. G's Light of Nature and Common sense do sufficiently decide this Controversie , it is very plain on which side the ballance inclines , viz. towards Paganism against Christianity . Macrobius saith , that anciently they made no Image at all of the Supreme God , as being above any representation ; but they made Images of the inferiour Gods although they were formarum talium prorsus alieni , in nothing like to them . The former Clause in Macrobius must be understood of the most ancient times before the Age of Phidias as appears by the foregoing passages ; and yet Porphyrie saith , that the Aegyptians were wont to represent the Creator whom they called Cneph in the figure of a man of a dark blew Colour , holding a girdle and a Scepter in his hand ; out of whole mouth came an Egg , by which they represented the world as his production . Not much unlike to this , is the Image of the Creator in the Temple of Meaco in Iapan , which is all over black , with a Scepter in his hand , and they likewise represent the world by an Egg ; as Arnoldus Montanus observes . In the Itinerary of Alexander Geraldinus to those parts of Africa under the Aequinoctial ( which was written by him to the Pope , when he was Bishop of S. Domingo ) in the account he gives of the Religion of those parts ( which is far more particular than is to be met with elsewhere ) he describes several Images of the Great God which were in mighty veneration among them : as in Bassiana the King with all his people do worship the God of Nature in an Image of Marble , set upon a high Throne , holding the Sun in his right hand , and the Moon in his left , and the other Stars on either side of him ; and wherever the King travels , he carries such an Image along with him , and prays five times a day prostrate before it . In Demnasea upon the top of a wall is placed the Image of God holding all things , before which the people are bound to pray every morning . In Ammosenna , they represent the God of Heaven by four Heads coming out of the body of a Lynx looking towards the four quarters of the world to represent his omnisciency and omnipresence , whom they call Orissa . In Logonsennea , the God of Nature is painted in the Image of a man and all other Images of him condemned Now if T. G. were sent on a Mission into any of those parts where God was worshipped after such a manner , I have a great desire to understand , what his opinion would be concerning this kind of worship ; whether it were Idolatry or no ? If not , they might still continue in it and be saved ; as far as men can be saved by the meer light of Nature , which herein T. G. thinks they follow exactly ; for they honour God by worshipping his Image . If it be Idolatry , how comes it to be so ? for this is neither the representation of some Pigment , but of a real Being ; nor is it of some real thing falsely taken to be God , which is his larger notion of an Idol ; but it is looked on only as the Image of the True God ; and that not as a proper Likeness , but by Analogical representation , and consequently according to T. G. is no disparagement to the Deity . But whatever T. G's opinion in this case is , the Fathers when they discoursed against the Heathen Idolatry , made use of such arguments which held against such Images and representations as these ; and that upon these two weighty considerations . 1. Because such a representation of God , was unsuitable to his Nature . 2. Because it was repugnant to his Will. 1. Because such a representation of God was unsuitable to his Nature . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , saith Clemens Alexandrinus . A visible representation of the Deity lessens his Majesty ; and it is a disparagement to an intellectual Being to worship him by sensible matter : therefore , saith he , Moses forbad any Image to be made of God , that we might ascend above sensible things ; and thereby declaring God to be invisible , and incomprehensible . And from hence Zeno the Stoick said , no workmanship of man could be worthy of God. And in another place , he saith , the reason why Numa forbad any Image of God like to man , or any living creature , was , because the most excellent Being could be represented only to our Minds ; and that Antisthenes learnt that from Socrates , that God was like to no representation we could make of him ; and therefore no man could learn any thing of him from an Image ; and Xenophon , that it is apparent that God is great and powerful , but we know not how to make any thing like him . Is it possible then , that such Athenians as these , should look on any Images as the proper likenesses of God ? These wiser Heathens , T. G. confesses , did mean , that the nature of God being spiritual and invisible , it could not be represented by any thing like unto it ; and yet these were Athenian Philosophers , as well as those whom , he saith , S. Paul condemned for supposing their Images to be proper Likenesses and representations of the Divinity . But T. G. supposes , that the reason why the worship of Images is a disparagement to the Deity , and incongruous to the Divine Nature , is , because the people gave worship to them as Gods , or like unto the Gods they worshipped ; whereas I have now plainly shewed , that those who contended for the Worship of Images among them , did neither look upon them as Gods , nor like to their Gods , but only as Symbolical representations of the Divine Nature . And the Fathers make use of this acknowledgement of theirs of the incongruity of Images to the Deity , from thence to prove the incongruity of the worship of them . So that it is not , the supposing the Images to be like God , which they condemn in them , for none of their wiser men were such Fools ; but the making of such Images and worshipping of them , which in their own nature were so infinitely beneath the divine Being , did tend to the begetting in mens minds mean and unworthy thoughts of God. And therefore they frequently insist upon this , that mens imaginations are easily tainted and corrupted by the daily representations of things , especially when they are proposed as objects of worship : and however , the very manner of worshipping an infinite , and immaterial Being by a gross and material representation is that which the Fathers condemn as most unsuitable to the Divine Nature . For this , Justin Martyr saith , is not only unreasonable , but it is done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the reproach of God , whose glory and form is inexpressible . Athenagoras saith , if God and matter be all one , it is then reasonable to worship God by giving worship to sensible matter ; but if there be an infinite distance between them , why are we accused for not doing it ? And if we refuse to worship the workmanship of God , viz. the Heaven and Elements ; why should we do it to the workmanship of men ? Origen looks on this , as one of the most peculiar characters of the Christian doctrine , that it raises mens minds above Images and all worship of Creatures to the Creator of all things , and that it is one of the first things the Catechumens are instructed in , to despise Idols , and all Images ; He saith , it is not only a foolish thing to pray to Images , as Heraclitus said ; but to seem to do it as the Philosophers did . If they are worshipped , it must be either as Gods , which Celsus denyed , or as representations of God , which cannot be , because God is invisible and incorporeal : and therefore , he saith , that the Christians would not endure the worship of God by Images ; and although other Nations did refuse the worship of Images , ( with whom Celsus parallels the Christians ) yet it was not upon the same ground that the Christians did , viz. because they would not debase and draw down the worship of God towards matter so fashioned and formed . Lactantius shews , how unreasonable it is to worship God by an Image ; since Images are intended to represent the absent ; but God is every where present . But if there ought to be any Image of God ( which he calls simulachrum Dei , and surely doth not signifie an Idol in T. G's sense ; and I hope here he will not charge me with want of fidelity in translating it Image ) it ought to be living and sensible , because God lives for ever : therefore that cannot be the Image of God that is made by the Work of mens hands , but Man himself , who gives all the art and beauty to them which they have ; but poor silly men as they are , they do not consider , that if their Images had sense and motion , they would worship the Men that made them ; and brought them into such a curious figure out of rude and unpolished matter . Who can be so foolish to imagine , there can be any thing of God in that Image , in which there is nothing of man , but the meer shadow ? But their minds have the deepest tincture of folly ; for those who have sense , worship things that have none ; they who think themselves wise , things that are uncapable of Reason ; they that live , things that cannot stir , and they that came from heaven , things that are made of earth . What is this , saith he , but to invert the order of Nature , to adore that which we tread upon ? Worship him that lives , if ye would live ; for he must dye , that gives up his Soul to things that are dead . And after he hath fully shewn his Rhetorick in exposing the folly of worshipping Images , he concludes very severely ; quare nonest dubium quin Religio nulla sit , ubicunque simulachrum est . Wherefore there can be no true Religion , where there is the worship of Images ; no , although it be simulachrum Dei , the worship of God by an Image ; for his reason holds against all ; Religion , saith he , is a divine thing , and whatever is divine is heavenly , but whatever is in Images is earthy , and therefore there can be no Religion in the worship of Images . What sport do Tertullian , Minucius , and Arnobius make with the Images which were consecrated to divine worship ? from the meanness of the matter they are made of , the pains , and art that is used to bring them into their shape , the casualties of fire and rottenness , and defilements they are subject to , and many other Topicks on purpose to represent the ridiculousness of worshipping such things ; or God by them . O , saith Arnobius , that I could but enter into the bowels of an Image , and lay before you all the worthy materials they are made up of ; that I could but dissect before you a Jupiter Olympius , and Capitolinus . Yet these were dedicated to the worship of the Supreme God. Would men ever have been such Fools to have exposed themselves rather than such Images to laughter and scorn , if they had used any such themselves , or thought them capable of relative divine worship ? How easily would a Heathen of common understanding have stopt the mouths of these powerful Orators , with saying but a few such words to any one of them . Fair and soft , good Sir ; while you declaim so much against our Images , think of your own ; what if our Iupiter Olympius , or Capitolinus be made of Ivory , or Brass , or Marble ; what if the Artificer hath taken so much pains about them ; what if they are exposed to Weather , and Birds , and Fire , and a thousand casualties : are not the Images of S. Peter , and S. Paul , or the several Madonna 's of such and such Oratories liable to the very same accusations ? If ours are unfit for worship , are not yours so too ? if we be ridiculous , are not you so ? and so much the more , because you laugh at others , for what you do your selves . So that we must either think the first Christians prodigious Fools , or they must utterly condemn all Images for Religious Worship ; and not meerly the Heathens on considerations peculiar to them . And that we may not think this a meer heat of Eloquence in these men , we find the same thing asserted by the most grave and sober Writers of the Christian Church , when they had to deal not with the rabble , but their most understanding Adversaries . We have no material Images at all , saith Clemens Alexandrinus , we have only one intellectual Image , who is the only true God ; We worship but one Image which is of the Invisible and Omnipotent God , saith S. Hierome . No Image of God ought to be worshipped , but that which is what he is , neither is that to be worshiped in his stead , but together with him , saith S. Augustin . Where it is observable that the reason of worship given to this Eternal Image of God , is not communicable to any Image made of him , as to his humane Nature ; for it cannot be said of the humane nature it self , that it is God , much less of any Image or representation of it . Therefore let T. G. judge whether the worshipping Christ by an Image , be not equally condemned by the Fathers with the worship of God by an Image ; but of that hereafter . Eusebius answering Porphyrie about the Image of God , saith , What agreement is there between the Image of a man and the Divine understanding ? I think it hath very little to a mans mind , since that is incorporeal , simple , indivisible ; the other quite contrary , and only a dull representation of a mans shape ; The only resemblance of God lies in the soul , which cannot be expressed in Colours or Figures ; and if that cannot which is infinitely short of the Divine Nature , what madness is it to make the Image of a man to represent the Figure and form of God ? For the Divine Nature must be conceived with a clear and pure understanding free from all corruptible matter ; but that Image of God in the likeness of man , contains only the Image of a mortal man , and that not of all of him , but of the worst part only , without the least shadow of Life or Soul. How then can the God over all , and the Mind which framed the World be the same that is represented in Brass or Ivory ? S. Augustin , relating the saying of Varro , about representing God by the Image of a mans body , which contains his Soul which resembles God , saith , that herein he lost that prudence and sobriety he discovered in saying , that those who first brought in Images among the Romans , abated their Reverence ( to the Deity ) and added to their errour ; and that the Gods were more purely worshipped without Images : wherein , saith S. Augustin , he came very near to the Truth . And if he durst speak openly against so ancient an errour , he would say , that one God ought to be worshipped , and that without an Image : the folly of Images being apt to bring the Deity into contempt . Is it possible to condemn the worship of God by an Image in more express words than S. Austin here does ? 2. Because the worship of God by Images is repugnant to his Will. Clemens Alexandrinus mentions the Law given by Moses , against the making any Image of God in the place before mentioned ; and which he there asserts to be still obligatory to Christians . But although he there repeats the Command at large against all sorts of Images , yet it is observable that when he goes about to set down all the Commandments , this by some artificial hand is conveyed out of the way ; and the second Commandment is , Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord , &c. which made me not a little wonder , finding Clemens so often in other places expressing his zeal against Images . But it is not hard to guess what hands his Greek Copies have passed through , since the second Nicene Council ; yet we are beholding to them for leaving so much evidence of their foul dealing behind them ; for within few Pages , he saith , the tenth Commandment takes in all sorts of Concupiscence , and therefore the precept against Images must be a distinct Command to make up the number : so that Sylburgius justly complains that the place is mutilated . If Clemens did not think this precept concerned Christians , he would never have objected it as an absurdity against a sort of Gnosticks , that thought themselves bound to oppose the Law , why then , saith he , when God said , Thou shalt not make any Graven Image , you were best go and worship Images . By all which we see , that he thought the precept to be still in force , and that it was intended against the worship of Images , and those Images , such as respect God , and not meerly the Heathen Idols . Origen saith , that for the sake of that Law , Thou shalt not make to thy self any Graven Image , the Christians would rather die than defile their Faith with such impieties as the worship of Images : and therefore their case was very different from that of the Scythians , Numidians , Seres and Persians , with whom Celsus joyned them in the contempt of Images . When Symmachus pleaded with Valentinian for the toleration of the Pagan Religion , on this pretence , that the same God was worshipped by all , and that by several waies men aimed at the same end ; S. Ambrose answers , That God himself was fittest to teach what way he would be served in : You worship the Work of mens hands , we account it an injury to God to call anything by His Name that can be made by man ; Non vult se Deus in Lapidibus coli , God hath declared , He will not be worshipped after such a manner . Whereby we see the Primitive Christians fixed themselves on the Command of God , as upon an immoveable rock , against the Worship of Images . Thus much may suffice to have shewn in this place , that the Controversie between the Christians and Heathens about the worship of Images , was not whether they were proper Likenesses of God , from the apprehensions they had of their Images . I proceed now to shew it . 2. From the Notions they had of their Gods. And here , I must in the first place , exclude those who in Truth were Atheists and not Idolaters , I mean the Epicurean Philosophers , who although they seemed to assert some pleasant Beings , that lived in perfect ease , far from the noise and smoke of the World ; yet they utterly overthrew all foundations of worship in Prayers , or Sacrifices , by denying the Gods to have any regard to the actions of men , for fear of disturbing their sweet repose . These indeed made their Gods like men , but so thin and airy , that they could not bear the least justle of Atoms , and so quiet and still that the least thought of business would destroy their happiness . These were only made for fine Idea's to amuse the people with , but any one might see that they were never intended for the objects of worship ; and therefore Plutarch and Athenaeus say , That Epicurus took away all the worship of the Gods ; however he complyed with the common practises of the people ; and when he lift up his Hands to his Mouth , in token of adoration , he could not but laugh through his Fingers at the Gods they worshipped . But we may see by the discourse of the Academick and Stoick , with the Epicurean in Cicero , how much they abhorred this Epicurean doctrine of the Gods being like to men ; and Velleius the Epicurean doth in effect confess , there were no Philosophers of that mind besides themselves . For he reckons up all the opinions of the other Philosophers concerning the Nature of the Gods after such a manner , as to discover that this opinion was peculiar to their own Sect. He acknowledges , that Thales asserted God to be an Eternal Mind , which framed all things out of Water ; even Anaximander and Anaximenes , who held only Material Gods , or first principles ( for even the Atheist were willing to have matter believed to be a God by them , to avoid the odium of Atheism among the people ) yet these rejected a humane form ; at which the Epicurean is displeased , as though they might have flattered the people , ( as they did ) in the fashion , as well as in the name of a Deity . Some have undertaken to clear Anaximenes ; and to make him of the same opinion with Thales , concerning an incorporeal Deity ; saying that by Air , he meant only a Divine Spirit ; and therefore in Plutarch he compares it to the Soul of Man , which being Air doth animate the body ; and Diogenes Apolloniates his disciple held Air only for matter , and Reason for the efficient cause : as St. Augustin tells us . However , Anaxagoras another disciple of Anaximenes is confessed by Velleius to hold God to be an infinite and active mind ; free from all mixture of matter ; as the words of Anaxagoras in Simplicius do express his meaning : and S. Augustin under takes his vindication against the Epicurean objections , which suppose it impossible for us to understand any such thing as Mind without the conjunction of sense and Matter . Pythagoras said , That God was a quickening Spirit diffused through the World ; which is best expressed by Virgil , in those words after the sense of Pythagoras , Spiritus intus alit , totosque infusa per artus Mens agitat molem , & magno se corpore miscet . Xenophanes falls under the same condemnation with the rest for asserting God to be a Mind ; but he went somewhat farther , for in the Verses cited out of him by the Fathers , he said , That God was like to man neither in body , nor in mind : and for men to make an Image of God like to themselves , was all one as if a Horse should paint him with a long tail and four feet , if he had understanding enough to make a representation of the Deity ; or an Ox or a Lion should draw him by their own Figures . Parmenides made God to be of a circular figure in the fashion of a Crown or Orb of Light compassing about the Heavens . Whatever the opinions of Alcmaeon , Empedocles , Protagoras , Diogenes Apolloniates were , it is certain the Epicurean despises them all ; because they either appeared too doubtful and obscure in their opinion about a Deity , or at least seemed to make him of an inconvenient form to deceive the people . Even Democritus himself doth not please him , for although he makes his Images to be Gods , yet he did not by them understand such as T. G. doth , but he means no other than his Atoms ( which Laertius calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) and that first matter whence they arise ; but , saith Velleius , while he destroys an Eternal Being , Democritus must needs overthrow the very opinion of a Deity ; however he would give the title of it to his Images or matter , or the minds of men . He grants , that according to Plato , God is an incorporeal mind ; but then , he saith , he must want sense , and prudence , and pleasure ( i. e. Epicurean pleasure ) , but withall he adds , that Plato contradicts himself , making the world , and the Heavens and Stars , and Men to be Gods , which are both false in themselves , and inconsistent with each other . This charge against Plato seems to be the most material , and therefore deserves to be more fully cleared , which shall be afterwards done , when I come to the Platonick doctrine about Divine Worship , where it will be made appear , that Plato did assert one supreme and incorporeal Deity , and that the worship allowed by him to inferiour Gods was of the same nature with that which is practised in the Roman Church , and that he no more believed Images to be like the true God than they do . I now proceed to the rest of the Philosophers opinions in this matter : Xenophon is charged by the Epicurean , to be guilty of the same fault with Plato , and that in the Memoires of Socrates written by him , he saith , that men ought not to enquire after the Form of God ; and that it is impossible for us to know it : for we only know , saith he , that he is great and powerful , who makes all things to quake and tremble . Antisthenes acknowledged but one God in Nature , although there were many of the Peoples making ; by which , saith Velleius , he destroyed the force and nature of the Gods : and upon the Epicurean supposition that they were like to men , he thought it necessary for their pleasure , that there should be more than one to keep up good fellowship among them . And because Speusippus said , That the Divine Nature did imply a Governing Spirit , he thought this as bad as the denying his Being ; it being to his apprehension impossible to be happy and to Govern. He grants , that Aristotle affirmed God to be an incorporeal Being ; however , he saith , that he was not constant to himself , sometimes making nothing to be God but only Mind ; at other times attributing Divinity to the Heavens and parts of the World ; but as the late Commentator on that part of Tully observes , the former was only the First , Eternal , Infinite God , the other a secondary , limited , and participative Divinity , and rather an Image of the Divinity than it self : as he proves from comparing several places in Aristotle together , and concludes with that excellent description of God drawn out of Aristotle by Du Vall , God is an Eternal substance , and Act , without potentiality and Matter , without magnitude , parts , division , passion , change , intelligible by himself , the principle of Motion , but immovable , the Cause of Heaven , and , nature , and infinitely happy . Mirare Lector , saith Du Val , hominis Ethnici Theologiam . See how far Aristotle was from thinking the Athenian Images to be proper Likenesses of the Deity . If to these now we add the Stoicks , who asserted God to be a Divine Reason and Spirit actuating the World , we have a full Discovery , that by the confession of those who were of another opinion , all the famous Sects of Philosophers agreed in rejecting that principle that the Gods were of humane shape , and consequently the Idolatry they were guilty of in the worship of Images could not lie in this , that they thought their Images to be proper Likenesses of God. Of the same mind with these were the freer Philosophers of following Ages : among whom Cicero deserves a name , were it only for that excellent description of God , which Lactantius and S. Augustin quote out of him , with great approbation , Neither can God himself be otherwise understood by us , than as a Mind free , and disentangled from all corporeal mixtures , perceiving and moving all thing . The same thing might be proved of Seneca , Epictetus , Plutarch , Alcinous , Plotinus , Proclus , Sallustius , and others ; but I purposely forbear , both because these are sufficient for my purpose , and because it may be said by those who have nothing else to say , in this matter that they came to have truer apprehensions of God only by the means of the Christian Religion . Nay , I might prove that many of the very Poets themselves had much nobler conceptions of the Deity , than to imagine him to have any thing corporeal ; but I shall only mention these Verses out of the ancient Tragoedian , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Think not that God is like to mortal flesh . From whence we see , that if there were any so foolish among the Athenians to imagine their Gods to be just like their Images , they did it not for want of instruction to the contrary ; and if the nature of their Idolatry did lie in this , scarce any understanding man among the Heathens that did really believe a Deity , was guilty of it . 2. But if they did not suppose their Images to be the proper Likenesses of God , yet they worshipped the Images of false Gods , or they worshipped their Images themselves for Gods , and therefore , saith T. G. the Apostle condemns them , Rom. 1. To make my Discourse come home to them I must shew , saith he , that the Images by which they honour Christ and his Saints , are worshipped by them as Gods , or as the Images of false Gods , as those were of which the Apostle speaks in that place . That is it I aim at , to bring my discourse as home to them as may be ; and therefore to give him full satisfaction , I shall enquire whether the Heathen Idolatry condemned by S. Paul , did consist in one of these two things , either , 1. That they worshipped only the Images of false Gods. Or , 2. That they took the Images themselves for Gods. 1. Whether their Idolatry lay in worshipping the Images of false Gods ? If I can prove , 1. That they did intend to worship the true God , either by an Image purposely for him , or to direct the worship through the Gods and Images they worshipped to him ; And 2. That there is no greater repugnancy in the manner of their worship , than is used in the Roman Church , I hope I shall bring my Discourse home enough to T. G. To do this more convincingly I shall give an account of the principles of Divine worship among the Heathens from their own Writers ( which I suppose will be another way of bringing it home to them ) and because T. G. particularly charges Socrates and Plato , I shall make choice of the Platonick principles of Divine worship , and see upon what grounds they become guilty of Idolatry , which will not reach home to themselves . Card. Bessarion hath written an elaborate vindication of Plato against Trapezuntius , wherein he shews that Plato did assert the Unity , Power , and Goodness of God , and the Creation of all things by him ; and that he doth this frequently and constantly , in his Parmenides , Phaedrus , Phaedo , Philebus , Timaeus , Sophista , Laws , Politicks , Epistles , every where . But Trapezuntius charges Plato , that although he did acknowledge God , he did not worship him , and that he sacrificed only to the inferiour Gods ; to this Bessarion answers , that in his Books of Laws , which were made for the People , he doth not expresly prescribe any worship to God under the name of One , or First , or Ineffable , which were the Titles he had given him in his Dialogues , and were not known to the People ; but in his eighth book of Laws , he appoints twelve solemn Feasts to the twelve Gods of whom Iupiter was chief ; under which name the Supream God was known among the People , than which name in the proper importance of it , none could have been more significant of the Nature of the Supreme God ; and that he retained the other common names of the Gods worshipped among them ( that he might not seem to innovate any thing in Religion ) although the Philosophers understood them in another sense than the common people did ; by Iove they meant the First Being or Supreme Deity , by Minerva Wisdom , by Mercury Reason , by Saturn Eternity , by Neptune Form , by Iuno Matter , by Venus Nature , by Apollo the Sun , by Pan the Universe ; but when they spake to the People about the worship of them , they did not mention Wisdom , or Reason , or Eternity , but Minerva , Mercury , Saturn ; and he saith , it would have been folly in them to have done otherwise , the People being accustomed to worship the Gods under these names , and nothing more was requisite but to make them understand them aright . But for Plato himself , he saith , he worshipped the Supreme God after the best manner , i. e. with inward Reverence and adoration ; in Plato's own expressions , by thinking the best and most worthy things of him , which Bessarion interprets in Spirit , and in Truth ; and he adds , that Plato looked on Sacrifices , and Images as unworthy of him who was a pure mind , and could not be represented by any Image to men . But Plato's Adversary charges him , with giving the worship of Latria to inferiour Gods , and Creatures : to which Bessarion saith , that Latria among the Heathens signified only a stricter kind of service which some men paid to others that were above them ; and that the worship by sacrifice by a long custome from the time of Zamolxis and Orpheus was looked on as common to all things worshipped by them ; but , saith he , he referred all that worship which others gave to many and different Gods , to the First and Chief Principle of all things ; and again mentions that saying in his Epinomis , that the most suitable worship of God is to think honourably of him . Which I suppose Plato would have said , was the same thing which those of the Church of Rome call Latria , and that he could by no means understand how sacrifices come to be appropriated to it ; and to this purpose Bessarion quotes the saying of Porphyrius , that God is to be worshipped in Silence , and with a pure mind ; and with the sacrifice of a good life . And as to other Deities which Plato allowed to be worshipped , he saith , that he supposed them to be inferiour and subordinate to the Supreme , and dependent upon him ; and that he did not worship empty Statues , but one God the principle of all . Which being compared with Plato's Law , and practice about worshipping according to the Custome of the Countrey , doth imply that he worshipped Images with a respect to the True God. Let now the Reader judge whether according to the judgement of this learned Cardinal , Plato was guilty of worshipping only the Images of false Gods. But Trapezuntius still urges hard upon Plato , that if he allowed the worship of a second and third Order of Gods , which were but creatures , he might on the same ground worship any creatures , because all creatures are infinitely distant from the Creator . Bessarion like an understanding man , tells him , that this argument would hold as well against the Church of Rome , as against Plato , which worships Angels although they be Creatures ; but yet he doth not think the argument will reach to the worship of all creatures ; because though all creatures be equally distant as to existence , yet some come nearer than others as to perfection . This Trapezuntius takes off , by saying that Plato worshipped Daemons ; which Bessarion grants , but by Daemons he saith , Plato and Aristotle , and other Philosophers did not understand such evil Spirits as we do , but certain aereal Beings , lower than Gods and above men , whom they looked on as Mediators and intercessours between God and men ; but for evil Spirits , he saith , they were not received into their Religion ; and that Lucifer was looked on as accursed by them under the name of Ate. And he shews farther from S. Augustin that all the Poetical Theology was rejected by Plato . So that the whole dispute with Plato about worship must come to these two points . 1. Whether it be lawful to worship the Supreme God , by external and visible representations , supposing that a man direct his intention aright towards the honour of God by them ? 2. Whether it be lawful to give an inferiour worship to any Created Beings , whose excellencies are supposed to be far above mens in order to their intercession between God and Us ? And now let T. G. judge whether I have not brought my Discourse home to their own doors . I omit Marsilius Ficinus as a man that may be supposed too partial to Plato ; but I hope Augustinus Steuchus Eugubinus may pass for a sound Catholick ; being an Italian Bishop , and a Roman Courtier , that had so much zeal as to vindicate Constantines Donation against Valla ; and therefore his Testimony cannot be rejected . He undertakes at large to prove that Plato acknowledged one True and Supreme God ; and that all other Beings are created by him ; and when he seems to attribute Divinity to other things , it is only a Divinity by way of gift and participation , such as Angels and holy men are said to have ; which doth not hinder our believing them to be all at first created by one God. There were three sorts of inferiour Deities , he saith , asserted by the Philosophers , viz. Daemons , or Gods with aërial bodies , who have a particular care of humane affairs ; Intelligences or the Spirits which animate and move the Stars , and Coelestial Deities who converse with the Supreme God ; now all these he makes appear from many passages in Plato , especially the famous one in his Timaeus , to have been made by God. And that when in his Books of Laws , and the Epinomis or Appendix to them , he so much sets forth the Divinity of the Stars and the Heavens , he must either contradict himself , or attribute only an inferiour Divinity to them : and that he did not speak so clearly of the worship of the Supreme God , because he looked on him as incomprehensible , and that he could not so well know in what way it was fit to worship him . However he invocates him in several places ; especially when he was to speak concerning the Gods ; and in his Epistle to Hermias , Erastus , and Coriscus , which he writ when he was grown old ; he calls to witness , the God over all , Governour of all things and times , and Father of the Lord and Cause of things ; but as to the publick manner of worship , he saith , that no man ought to teach unless God himself direct him . He farther shews , that notwithstanding Plato spake so much and so well concerning the true God , yet he attributed the title of Divinity to several ranks of Spirits , to the Heavens , the Sea , to the World , to Zamolxis , to Mercurius Trismegistus , and to good men in general , to whom he commands sacrifices and other acts of worship to be performed , Quod in Religione nostra justissimè fit Sanctis & Divis : which is with great reason done among us to Saints and Deified men . I now appeal to T. G. whether Aug. Steuchus doth not bring this matter very home to them ? when , he saith , that they either worshipped Angels ( so he saith Philo renders their Daemons ) or Saints , as they verily believed , and supposed the honour of these was very well pleasing to the Supreme God , whom they constantly acknowledged ; as he at large proves not only concerning Plato , but Aristotle , and all the Philosophers of any reputation ; and he saith , that Socrates in Plato not only confessed the true God , but that he ought to be worshipped and observed by men , and that for his sake men ought never to forsake the way of righteousness , and therefore he resolved rather to follow God than the advice of his Friends , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which cannot be better rendred than in the Apostles words , It is better to obey God than men . It would be endless to repeat the places wherein he shews at large , that Plato and the rest of the Philosophers , did acknowledge the Unity , Power , Wisdom , Goodness and Providence of the Supreme God ; And after all these acknowledgements is it possible to conceive that they should never intend to refer the honour they gave to inferiour Deities and their Images to this Supreme God ? nay , it is not possible , say some , they should do otherwise , since they believed all the other Deities they worshipped to be created and dependent Beings . But I need not make use of such a way of proving it , Paulus Benius Eugubinus hath made it appear , he saith , that according to Plato the Supreme God is to be worshipped after a singular and peculiar manner . And he gives this account of the Platonick principles of divine worship as to inferiour Deities . 1. That Plato's Gods were no other than our Angels , and that he sets God the maker of them , at a mighty distance from them . 2. That when he speaks so much of the worship of the heavenly Bodies , he doth not thereby intend the worship should be given so much to the bodies , as to those Blessed Minds that moved them ; yea , saith he , to them properly and precisely , and so that they being removed , no honour or worship is to be given to the bodies themselves . Which certainly is no more Idolatry on this supposition , than adoration of the Host is , upon one far more extravagant . But , he saith , by one place in Plato's Epinomis , it may be questioned whether he intended the stars should be worshipped otherwise than as Images of the Gods ; and therefore , saith he , very ingenuously , Plato did scarce at all differ , unless in words , from the doctrine of the Roman Church in this matter . 3. That Plato did put a difference in the nature and kind of the worship which he gave to inferiour Deities , and that which was due to the Supreme God , and the same kind of difference as is made among them ; and that when he acknowledges them to be created by him , he could not give Soveraign worship to them . 4. That when Plato gave worship to Daemons the difference is only about words , because by Daemons he understood an inferiour Order of Angels , whom he supposed to be good and holy , and to have a care of mankind . The only difference then , that this learned man could find , worth taking notice of between Plato's worship and theirs was this , that they worshipped those for Saints and Deified men , and the Images of such , who were not truly Saints ( not being Canonized by the Pope ) but if they had been such , he then confesses , that they did nothing amiss in the worship they gave to them , or their Images . Alioquin , saith he , ea cultus venerationisque ratio cum nostra magnopere congrueret . So that all the dispute comes to this , whether Mercurius Trismegistus were not as good a Saint as Thomas Becket , and as much deserved to be worshipped ; or Socrates as Ignatius Loyola ; not , whether we account them so , but whether they upon their supposition of their excellencies and vertues might not as innocently worship them , as the Papists do the other . P. Lescalopier a late Iesuit , saith , that Plato makes so palpable a distinction between the Supreme God maker of all things , and other Deities , that no one but an Epicurean Backbiter can deny , that Plato did openly and constantly assert one God ; and that he did not give equal honour to any as he did to him ; and delivers this as the substance of his opinion , Unum Deum imprimis adorandum , cujus gratiâ caetera numina colenda sunt . One God to have Soveraign worship given him , and others to have a relative and inferiour worship . And now I hope , I have brought this matter home to T. G. and made it appear from their own Writers , that these Philosophers went upon the same principles of Divine Worship that they do in the Roman Church . The only appearance of difference is about the worship of Deified men , and that not as to the nature and kind of the worship , but only as to the persons ; and yet as to this it ought to be considered , 1. That it was only a mistake , such a one as many may be guilty of in the Roman Church , who it is possible may worship those for Saints in Heaven , who are in a worse place . 2. Many of those worshipped by the Heathens are confessed to have been good men ; so Campanella confesses of Ianus , whom he took to be Noah , and he said , deserved to be worshipped , as well as Moses , and Peter , and Paul and the Prophets : and he saith farther , that many Wise and Vertuous men were worshipped by the Heathens , who did not look on them as essentially Gods. Thus many learned men have shewed that the Veneration of Adam and Eve , of Noah , Shem and Iaphet , of Abraham , Isaac and Iacob , of Ioseph , Moses and Ioshuah , &c. hath been preserved among the Gentiles under the names of the several Deities of Saturn , Tuisto , Mannus , Mercury , Bacchus , Apollo , Hercules , &c. in which case , the Heathens were innocent as to the Persons they worshipped . 3. The Papists ought in reason to allow them all the excuses they make use of for themselves ; such as invincible Ignorance , Oral Tradition , Authority of Teachers , and conditional worship , which alone would justifie them ; for by that the intention of the worship , is to somewhat supposed to be worthy of it , but if they be mistaken in the particular application of it , that general intention is thought sufficient to render the worship lawful . But what saith T. G. all this while ? Why , forsooth , S. Chrysostome saith , that Plato gloried in the worship of Images and Creatures ( of which he speaks before ) so he renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which signifies no more , than setting them off with the best advantage ; of which I have given an account already ; and Socrates commanded a Cock to be sacrificed to Aesculapius : who denyes it ? All the Question is what Socrates understood by Aesculapius . For those who have had the greatest insight into the doctrine of Socrates , and Plato , tell us , ( such as Marsilius Ficinus , and Coelius Rhodiginus ) that by Aesculapius Socrates understood the Divine Beneficence that cures all diseases , to which a Cock was sacrificed as the forerunner of Day and the Sun , thereby acknowledging the Light of Life to be derived from the Divine Bounty , the Daughter of Providence : and that now especially they should do it in token of his deliverance from the diseases of doubt and fear ; and the ancient Oracles say , that Souls returning to Heaven sing an Iô Paean , the fittest Emblem of which was the offering up a Cock. But besides this , Tacitus hath a remarkable passage to explain this sacrificing to Aesculapius , viz. that many called God by the name of Aesculapius as he healed the diseases of Mankind ; of which Seguinus takes notice in some ancient Coynes , wherein the Serpent the proper Symbol of Aesculapius is joyned with the horn of Iupiter Ammon , and the Rays of the Sun ; to shew , saith that learned Antiquary , that the same God was meant by all those several titles . So that hereby appears no contradiction to what I have said as to the Platonick doctrine and principles of Divine Worship . However , T. G. is content to suppose that the Philosophers were as subtil as I would make them ( or rather as honest as their own Writers make them ) yet , saith he , were they not worthily condemned by the Apostle , though but for the external profession of praying and offering Sacrifice to the Statues of Jupiter , Venus , Mercury , &c. as also to those of birds , and fourfooted beasts , and creeping things as the Vulgar did ? I answer , that upon the principles of worship allowed in the Roman Church , they were not to blame in what they did , supposing that to be their meaning , which their own Writers allow ; as appears by the foregoing discourse . But T. G. saith , however they were to blame in two things . 1. Because the Images being instituted by publick Authority for the worship of false Gods , they concurred as I acknowledge with the vulgar in all the external practises of their Idolatry . 2. Because though in the Schools they denyed them to be Gods , yet as Origen charges Celsus , they worshipped them as Gods , and the people are confirmed in their opinion . But all the question is , how this external worship comes to be Idolatry , supposing they acknowledged one Supreme God , and gave only a relative or inferiour worship to other Beings created by him , or to the Images of them . Wherein I pray did this Idolatry consist ? not in worshipping the true God by Images : that T. G. utterly denyes to be Idolatry . Was it then in giving Soveraign worship to inferiour Gods ? that their own Writers deny that they did , but only a subordinate and relative worship . But it lay , saith T. G. in worshipping the Images of false Gods : these false Gods by the confession of their own Writers , were either good Angels , or Deified men ; and is it at last confessed to be Idolatry to give divine worship to these ? But they concurred with the people in their worship ; and why not upon their grounds ? what scandal did this give among them ? but it was the external profession of Idolatry ; of what Idolatry ? of the worship of false Gods. What! still in a round ? I grant they were false Gods , as they had divine worship given to them ; and so whatever creature it be , that is so worshipped , though never so real or excellent a Being , becomes a false God ; and so doth the Image of that Being so worshipped . But the people had other notions of these false Gods than the Philosophers had , and yet they complyed with the people in external acts of worship . This is just the case of the Roman Church , their Learned men have complained that the people worship the Images for Gods among them ; but doth T. G. think himself guilty of external profession of Idolatry in using the same external acts of worship with the people , though with another intention ? if not , why shall not the same excuse hold for Titius , which holds for Sempronius ? Will they undertake to defend the follies of the ignorant people ? no , they do not think themselves bound to do it , but blame them for their Ignorance and Superstition , and say the Church is free because it hath taken care to instruct them better . Might not the Philosophers have said the very same thing ? We are not bound to answer for the madness of the rabble ; we instruct them better , and our Schools are open for them to learn : but since the nature of such actions depends upon the intention of the Doers ; we declare our intentions to be to honour the Supreme God in the first place ; then the Coelestial Deities , with a worship inferiour to his , but above all other Beings ; next to them we worship the Heavens on the account of the Intelligences that animate and move them ; then the aereal Daemons or Lower Angels which have the nearest entercourse with men ; and last of all the Souls of Deified men , whom some extraordinary excellency hath advanced above the condition of other souls : and according to the worship we give to the Beings represented , we give worship to the Images or representations . And if you allow the distinctions of Divine Worship , into Soveraign and subordinate , into absolute and relative , what harm is there in all that we do ? Indeed , if it be unlawful to worship God by any Image ; if it be unlawful to give any divine worship to any Creature ; we are then to blame , and are justly condemned , otherwise we think we stand upon equal terms , with those who make use of the same distinctions , and only change the names of some , and the persons of others . Thus T. G. may see the parallel is not so extravagant as he would make it to be : and while S. Paul condemned the Philosophers for changing the glory of the incorruptible God , into Images of men or beasts , while they still retained God in their minds , he doth effectually condemn all those who worship the true God by any Images either of himself , or of any of his Creatures . But besides this opinion of the Platonick Philos. there was another currant among the Heathens , viz. that one and the same God was worshipped under different names and titles ; and Simon Majolus an Italian Bishop , and of great reputation as appears by the character given of him by Ferd. Ughellus , is of opinion , that they who began the Poetick Theology among the Heathens were wiser than Pythagoras , Socrates , or any of the Philosophers ; for their design was , saith he , under the representation of a multitude of Gods , to shew to the people that God did see and know all things ; because the common people were uncapable of understanding how one God should be present in all places ; therefore they called that Divine power which Governed the Heavens Jove , the air Juno , the Sea Neptune , &c. And we may observe , saith he , that all the Gods of the Ancients were nearly related to Jove , by which it appears that their design was to signifie but one God that ruled and governed all things , whose power was diffused over the whole World. To which that saying of Plotinus agrees , speaking of God that made the world , bringing the rest of the Gods with him , or rather , saith he , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Who is one and all ; and every one is all agreeing in one ; in powers different , yet in that various power they are all one , or rather one is all . Plutarch saith , that there were not different Gods among the Greeks and Barbarians , in the Northern and Southern parts : but as the Sun , Moon , Heavens , Earth , and Sea are common to all Nations , but called by different names ; so that One Reason and Providence which orders , disposes , and manages all things hath different honours , and Titles and Symbols , some more plain and easie , others more difficult and obscure . So Apuleius saith , the same Deity was worshipped through the whole world , under different names , and Images , and customes . Which Hypothesis makes it yet more difficult for T. G. to charge the Heathens with the worshipping the Images of false Gods ; for if the same God were worshipped only under different titles and representations as they say , if the worship of God by an Image be lawful , all the Heathens which went upon this principle , must be freed from the charge of Idolatry . 2. But T. G. is a man of tricks , and he hath one fetch yet behind ; which is , that the Heathens took the Images themselves for Gods , and therein were guilty of Idolatry . S. Paul , saith he , speaks of such Images , as were worshipped for Gods , or for Images of false Gods. This is the very last reserve , and if this doth not help him , nothing can . Who would not commend the various artifices of my Antagonist , that doth with so much slight of hand convey one distinction after another , to blind the Spectators eye ? If Idolatry be forbidden , and the command be too plain to be denyed ; Yes , saith he , Idolatry is a very naughty thing ; but what is Idolatry ? Idolatry is the worship of an Idol , is it not ? Yea verily . Now pray tell me , what is an Idol ? an Idol is an Idol , in the self-evident and scientifical way . But to be serious , Methinks Sir , saith a Disciple of T. G. to him , my conscience is a little unquiet when I worship an Image of a Madonna , for fear that should be an Idol . Now see what a Fool you are ; is not the B. Virgin in Being ? Yes without doubt in Heaven . Then her Image can be no Idol . Say you so ? but I pray how doth that appear ? Why , saith T. G. to his Scholar , an Idol is a representation of nothing that seems to be something ; as if you imagine a Centaur , or a Triton , or any Chimera . And so farewell the Commandment . But doth not S. Paul condemn the Athenians for Idolatry in worshipping the work of mens hands ? And although Chimera's be the work of mens brains , yet surely Images are the work of mens hands . It is true , saith T. G. but then he condemns not all Images , but such as are the proper likenesses of the Deity . Hold Sir a little , you are too quick for me ; Were these Athenians Idolaters or no ? Why do you ask me that Question ? I will tell you , Sir , an Idol you told me was a Chimera , but the proper likeness of the Deity is no Chimera , unless you suppose the Deity it self to be one ; so that , methinks you free them from that which S. Paul condemns them for , viz. Idolatry . But I pray , Sir , what think you of those S. Paul condemns , Rom. 1. did they believe their Images to be proper likenesses of their Gods ? had they any four-footed and creeping Gods , as they had Images like to such things ? No , saith T. G. these were another kind of Images from those at Athens . " Of what kind were these ? These were the Images of false Gods. " You mean they were Idols , do you not ? Yes , they were Idols . Very well ; then I have them right ; they were Images of Centaures , Tritons , Sphinxes , Chimera's ; but he doth not speak against such Images , but the representations of living and real Beings , as men , or beasts , &c. which are no Chimera's . Therefore it seems , whatever S. Paul saith , these were not guilty of Idolatry ; and so methinks we have done a very good act of charity , for we have freed almost all the Heathens from Idolatry . Hold a little , saith T. G. they were guilty for all this . Of what ? of Idolatry ? when S. Paul saith , They knew God , but did not glorifie him as God , because they worshipped such Images ; then it should seem to be Idolatry to worship God by an Image . You run too fast ; I said they were guilty ; but , do you mark me , I did not say of Idolatry , but of complying with the people in the external practice of Idolatry . Very well ; the people then were guilty of Idolatry , and they only of compliance ; but why doth not S. Paul lay this only to their charge , which was their only fault , as he doth when he blames the Corinthians for eating in the Temple of Idols ? I remember , Sir , a good principle of yours , that actions go whither they are intended : now if these men intended to worship the true God by the publick Images , this action of worship must be free from Idolatry in them , whatever it were in others who had not such intention . But what do you mean by the exteriour practice of Idolatry ? If all external actions be aequivocal , and the nature of Idolatry depends on the intention of the mind , how comes the guilt of Idolatry to be charged upon external acts when you do not know the inward intention ? Suppose among us , a person falls to his prayers before the Image of the Blessed Virgin ; here is all the external profession of Idolatry that may be , for I can see no difference in any outward act between what he doth to the Image , and what he would do to the Person of Christ , if he appeared to him . If this be Idolatry , Wo be to us all ; if it be not Idolatry in us , how came it to be so in the Philosophers , who , I have heard , owned the same true God , and had the same distinctions of the degrees of worship that we have ? But these were false Gods that they worshipped . I hope the true God is not a false God , but I said they worshipped the true God. Suppose that , yet they joyned false Gods with him . Not in the same degree with him , for they supposed him to be far above them all which were created by him , and dependent upon him : and do not we do the very same in the worship of Angels and Saints ? True , but theirs were false Gods , and ours are Saints and Angels . Upon the whole matter then , I find the fault of the Wiser Heathens , did not lie either in the general principles or practises of Divine Worship ; but only that they called these Gods whom we call Angels ( which I have heard S. Cyrill and S. Augustin thought not worth disputing ) and that they did not worship such good Saints as we do , and of whom we have so good assurance that they were ( as S. Christopher , Longinus , the eleven thousand Virgins , the seven Sleepers ) whereas the poor Heathens were bred up with Fables ; and we have such eminent proofs of their Sanctity , as S. Dominick's butchering Hereticks , and S. Ignatius Loyola's founding the Order of Iesuites . I am now very well satisfied , how justly the Philosophers were condemned , and how innocently we give the same kind of worship to those that far better deserve it . Yet , saith T. G. there is another thing behind , which makes the difference so apparent that nothing but malice and blindness can hinder men from seeing it . What is that , good Sir ? for hitherto I have been forced to use my Spectacles ; the difference was so fine and subtle . Why , saith T. G. the Heathens took their Images themselves for Gods , which you know we do not . This I confess is a very notable thing ; but I pray , Sir , tell me , how they did it , and how we do it not ? Did they really believe that the Wood and Stone of their Images did make and Govern the World ? Or that a man by Houghs and an Axe could cut a God out of a Tree ? That were as great a Miracle , as our Priests turning a Wafer into God , by saying five words ; but I hope such Miracles are peculiar to the Roman Catholick Church . What was it then they meant , when they took their Images for Gods ? I suppose it was only , that they believed a more special presence of their Gods in them ; and that by their means Miracles were wrought at them , and that they sometimes spake , and sometimes bowed , and moved themselves . But do not all good Catholicks believe the very same things of our Images ? Do not we know that our Lady is more present in one Image than in another ? and that she works Miracles at some Images more than at others , and that she moves and speaks , and travels too ; Witness the Holy House of Loretto , and the Madonna there ; where was there ever such a thing done in Old Rome ? The bringing the Stone from Phrygia , of the Mater Deorum , or the Serpent from Epidaurus , or the tattling of the Image of Iuno Moneta at Veii were not to be compared to this . Therefore , Sir , give me leave to advise you in this point ; have a care of disparaging our wonder-working Images , while you would charge the Heathens with Idolatry , and free our Church from the guilt of it . I had thought I had said enough in my former Discourse , to make it appear , That the Wiser Heathens did not look on their Images as Gods , but as Symbols and Representations of that Being to which they did give Divine Worship : For I shewed that Celsus said , none but Fools think otherwise of them : that Porphyrie and the Heathens in Athanasius said they were only Books for the Ignorant : that in Arnobius thy denied that they ever thought their Images to be Gods , or to have any Divinity in them , but what only comes from their consecration to such an Use ; and in S. Augustin , that they worshipped not the Images themselves , but through them they worshipped the Deity ; that Maximus Tyrius at large proves , that Images were but signs of Divine honour , and helps to remembrance : that Julian saith , they do not think their Images to be Gods , but that through them they may worship the Deity ; and that Eusebius in general testifies of the Heathens , that they did not look on their Images as Gods. All this put together I thought had signified something to the proving that the Heathen Idolatry did not lie in taking their Images to be Gods : and so it seems it did . For T. G. runs quite off from the business , saying , That all these quotations do only prove ( what I brought them for ) that they did not look on their Images as Gods ; but he saith , it appears from some of them that they looked on them nevertheless as Images or Symbols of false Gods. And did not I say , that I would prove by them , that they looked on them as Symbols or representations of that Being to which they gave Divine worship ? I never said or thought , that the Heathens looked on all their Images as representations of the supreme God ; For I very well considered that they worshipped inferiour Gods by Images made for them . And therefore after the producing these Testimonies I state the Question thus , I desire to know whether these men , who worshipped Images upon those grounds did amiss or no in it ? I do not ask whether they were mistaken as to the objects of their Worship , but on supposition they were not , whether they were to blame in the manner of serving God by Images in such a way as they describe ? And to this T. G. saith not one wise word ; but only talks of scandal and compliance with exteriour practice of Idolatry , and what I have already answered : but he charges me , with misrepresenting the Testimonies , because , forsooth , Celsus adds , that they were Statues erected to the Gods ; and Divinity and Deity are not in the Testimonies of Arnobius and S. Augustin ; and then bids the Reader learn what credit he is to give hereafter to my citing of Authors ; and at the same time receive a farther Testimony of his kindness to me in taking the rest upon my word . Very artificially done , I confess , to pass those by to which no answer was to be returned , and to spend some Pages in most disingenuous cavils about the two Testimonies he insists upon . I desire only the Reader to consider , what I was proving , viz. That the Heathens did not take their Images themselves for Gods , which he yet asserts several times in that Chapter , after I had produced these Testimonies expresly to the contrary . Had it not become him either to have answered these Testimonies , or not to have asserted that , which these Testimonies most fully and clearly denied ? But he is content to take them upon my word ; I thank him for his kindness in it . But doth he take them as true or false ? If as true , then the Heathens did not worship their Images as Gods , which he yet saith , they did : if he took them as false when I quoted them as true , the kindness was very extraordinary , and ought to be acknowledged . If he had produced the Testimonies of Bellarmin , Vasquez , Suarez , Valentia , and others , to shew that the Papists do not take their Images for Gods , and I should say , I took the Testimonies upon his word , and yet asserted the direct contrary to them , without so much as the least answering to what they said , would not any indifferent Reader account me either impudent or ridiculous ? Yet this is exactly the case of T. G. for he saith several times in this Chapter , that the Heathens did worship their Images as Gods , whereas those Testimonies say as plainly as words can express it , that they did not ; and yet these Testimonies he takes upon my word , i. e. in common construction he believes them to be true , and yet the matter contained in them to be false : which is an admirable piece of T. G.'s art and ingenuity . But to add yet more to his kindness , at the same time he takes these Testimonies on my word , he will let the Reader see , what credit he is to give to my citing of Authors . But why then will he take any upon my word , if I have so little credit with him ? Herein ▪ he shews himself either very weak , if he will take my word , when he thinks I deserve no credit ; or very malicious , if he knows I deserve credit , and yet goes about to blast it , as much as in him lyes . But wherein is it , I have exposed my reputation so much in the two Testimonies , he hath fastned his Talons upon ? The first is that of Arnobius , wherein I say , the Heathens deny , that they ever thought their Images to be Gods , or to have any Divinity in them , but what only comes from their consecration to such an Use. That which he charges me with is , that by cogging in the word Divinity in the singular number , I would represent it to the Reader , as though the wiser Heathens intended to worship the true Divinity by those Images , whereas all that they say in Arnobius , is that they did not look on their Images as Gods per se of themselves , but they worshipped the Gods which by dedication were made to dwell in them ; i.e. saith he , by Magical Incantation , by which the Souls of Wicked men were evocated and as it were tied to dwell in those Images , as S. Austin relateth l. 8. de Civ . Dei. c. 23. & 26. Hereupon he charges me very severely , with soul dealing ; in putting Divinity in the singular number , when the Infernal Spirits were meant by it ; as if they intended to worship the true God by these Images , when they declared they worshipped false Gods by them . A very heavy charge ; to which I shall give a distinct answer : 1. To that of translating Divinity in the singular number , T. G. may if he please take it upon my word ( or if not , let him search the place once more ) that I translated these very words of Arnobius , Nihil Numinis in esse simulachris , that the Images have no Divinity in them , and if these words be not in that very place , and but two lines before those quoted by him . Erras & laberis , &c. I will venture my credit in citing Authors upon T. G.'s ingenuity : but if they be there , as most certainly they are , what doth such a man deserve for so notorious fair dealing ? 2. My design was not to represent by this means that the Heathens only intended to worship the true God by Images , but that the worship of Images was unlawful , although men did not take the Images themselves for Gods : so I said in the very beginning of those quotations , that I would prove that the Heathens did look on their Images as Symbols or representations of that Being to which they gave divine worship . Do I say of the True God ? Are not the words so general on purpose to imply that , whatever Being they worshipped , they looked on the Images as symbols or representations of it ? And after , to prevent all such cavils , I purposely added , I do not ask whether they were mistaken as to the objects of their worship ? But what can a man do to prevent the cavils of a disingenuous Sophister ? 3. As to what he saith , that what they plead in Arnobius is only that their Images were not Gods per se of themselves , but by virtue of the Spirits dwelling in them , I answer , that T. G. charges the Heathen Idolaters with worshipping the Images themselves ; and saith , that I deal very disingenuously in affirming that the Wiser Heathens did not worship the Images themselves . Now what could be more pertinent to my purpose , than to produce those very words of Arnobius , You erre and are mistaken O T. G. in what you affirm , for we do not think the matter of Brass , Silver and Gold to be Gods or adorable Deities per se of themselves . Whereby we see T. G's own words as he renders them out of Arnobius do sufficiently vindicate me and contradict him . He saith , they did worship the Images themselves , and they say they did not . What doth he mean else , when he saith in other places , that the Heathens worshipped their Images as Gods ; what is this but to take the Images themselves for Gods ? For he never once supposes it unlawful to worship Images on the account of a Divine Spirit being present in the Images , supposing that spirit of it self to deserve adoration : as suppose upon consecration of an Image of the B. Virgin , she should manifest her self in and by that Image , in speaking , or moving , or working miracles , doth T. G. think it the more unlawful to worship such an Image ? no certainly , but that men ought to shew more devotion towards it . Therefore T. G. could not condemn the Heathens for the worshipping the Images , supposing good Spirits did dwell in them . Setting aside then , the dispute about the nature of the Spirits , all that he could imagine the Fathers had to condemn in those that worshipped Images , was , that they worshipped the Images themselves for Gods ; which the Heathens in Arnobius deny , and which was the thing I produced that Testimony to prove . Bellarmin , whom my Adversary follows , saith , that the Heathens did take the Images themselves for Gods , for which he gives some very substantial Reasons . 1. Because their Priests told them so . 2. Because almost all the world believed it . This one would think were enough to justifie the belief of it , having the Authority of their Teachers , and Consent of Nations for it . 3. The motion , speech , and oracles that came from them . 4. The humane shape it self , which he saith , is a very notable argument to make men think that Images live , because men do ; especially , he saith , if it be said so by Wise men . But whatever the reasons be , he saith , he would prove that the Heathens believed ipsa idola esse Deos , the very Images themselves to be Gods. Now what could be more contradictory to this assertion , than those words of the Heathens in Arnobius are ? So that the Per se which T. G. charges me with leaving out , adds rather more weight and Emphasis to the Testimony . 4. After all this , I say , that Arnobius doth reject the worship of Images on such grounds as do hold against the worship of the true God by an Image . For he brings that as the objection of the Heathens against the Christians , that supposing they had never so right apprehensions of the nature of those Beings which the Heathens worshipped for Gods , yet they were to blame for not worshipping their Images , Nec eorum effigies adoramus , saith Arnobius of the Christians , which I beseech T. G. to remember are the words I translate , for fear he should take the next words , Templa illis extruimus nulla ; and then cry out , there is no such thing as Images in the words , that I have cogged in the word to serve my turn ; that this is setting up a flag in a Fireship — Dolus an Virtus — with such kind of laudable plain-dealing . Nay , Arnobius goes yet farther , For , saith he , what greater honour can we attribute to them , than that we place them there , where the Head and Lord , and King of all is to whom they owe the same acknowledgements that we do ? But do we honour him , delubris aut Templorum constructionibus , with Images and Temples ? So I render it without the fear of T. G's new charge of disingenuity ; for , besides that the delubra were , saith Festus , wooden Images ; it is certain that afterwards , according to Varro , the most learned of the Romans , when delubrum was applyed to a place , it signified such a one , in quo Dei simulachrum dedicatum est : and in the old Glossaries it is rendred into Greek by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , therefore to honour God sine delubris , must be to worship him without Images ; and this was the reason why the Christians denyed they had any Temples because the Heathens supposed there could be no proper Temples without Images ; therefore in S. Hierom , Sanctorum Basilicas in Templa convertere , is all one as turn Churches into Idol Temples : and both in Origen and Minucius , the Heathens joyn those accusations together , that the Christians had no Altars , nor Images , nor Temples ; and Vitruvius in the building of a Temple , takes the greatest care of placing the Images , that they may stand so , that the Images may look on those who come up to the Altars . And it appears by the discourse in Arnobius , that they valued no Temples , where there were no Images ; thence came the suspicion that Hadrian intended to worship Christ , because he commanded Temples to be built in all Cities without any Images ; as Lampridius saith in the Life of Alexander Severus . It is all one to our purpose whether Hadrian had any such intention , or no ; for its being believed that he had from this Reason , because the Temples were without Images , is a most undeniable evidence that the Christians then did not worship God or Christ , by any Images in their Churches . After this , Arnobius argues against the use of Images for this Reason ; if you believe your Gods to be in Heaven , to what purpose do you make Images of them to worship ? cannot you as well pray to the Gods themselves ? But it may be you will say , because you cannot see the Gods themselves , you represent them as present by those Images ? But , saith he , he that thinks he must have Gods to be seen , doth not believe any at all . However , say they , we worship them through these Images . And what , saith he , can be more injurious , or reproachful than to know God to be one thing , and yet to pray to another ? to expect help from the Deity , and yet to fall down before a senseless Image ? which is like a man that should pretend to take advice from men , and to ask it of Asses and Swine . Is not that , saith he , not meer mistake but madness , supplicare tremebundum factitatae abs te rei , to fall down trembling before a thing made by your selves ? Besides this , he argues from the matter , form , and design of them , how ridiculous it is to worship Images ; and after exposing the other pretences of the Heathen Idolaters , in the last place he considers this , that the ancients understood well enough , Nihil habere Numinis signa ; that there was no Divinity in Images , ( T. G. sees I am for the singular number still , and I think Numen is so too ) but that Images were set up to keep the rude people in awe ; which , he saith , they were so far from , that they only made their Gods contemptible , and thereby encouraged them more in their Wickedness . I desire now the Reader to reflect , whether these arguments are peculiar to the worship of false Gods ; and whether they do not with as much force hold against the worship of the true God by Images ? And if it be possible to suppose that a man , that hath not the stupidity of an Image , should object those things against their worship , which would be returned upon his own , and never provide in the least for any defence of it ? So that after all the loud clamours , and insolent charges of T. G. we find that Arnobius himself doth fully prove , that the Divinity cannot be worshipped by Images ; and that what the Heathens plead for themselves in him , doth shew , that they believed there was no Divinity in Images ; but what only comes from their consecration to such an Use. The next Testimony he charges me with foul-dealing in , is that of S. Austin , wherein I say the Wiser Heathens deny , that they worshipped the Images themselves , but they add , that through them they worship the Deity . After this T. G. sets down those words of S. Austin , Videntur sibi purgatiores esse Religionis , &c. And because in the following expressions , mention is made of the Corporeal Creatures , or the Spirits that rule over them as worshipped by their Images , therefore he charges me with great disingenuity in saying , that the Heathens in S. Austin affirmed that through their Images they did worship the Deity : and yet as it falls out , these are the very words I translated in S. Austin , Non hoc visibile colo , sed Numen quod illic invisibiliter habitat ; and I now appeal to men of any common ingenuity , what usage I have met with from this Adversary , who passes by the very words I translated , as near to the signification as possible ; and produces other passages ; and then Hectors , and Triumphs , and cryes out of my disingenuity ; when scarce ever any man discovered greater than in so doing , and I fear against his own conscience . The true state of the case in S. Austin about the worship of Images is this , 1. He exposes the worship of Images in general as a silly and ridiculous thing ; being of things much inferiour to the meanest Brutes ; and if men are ashamed to worship Beasts , that hear and see , and live and move , they ought to be much more ashamed to worship a dumb , stupid , sensless Image ; and they might with greater reason worship the Mice and Serpents which are not afraid of their Images , but shelter themselves within them . Now it is plain this discourse of S. Austin doth reach to all sorts of Images for whomsoever they are intended . For an Image made for the true God hath no more sense , or life , or motion in it , than one of T. G's Idols , or an Image made for a Chimera . But because the Christian Church knew nothing at that time of the worship of Images , therefore he directs his discourse against the Heathens , to consider the pleas and excuses they made for it . 2. He reckons up their several pleas for their Images ; 1. Some said that there was a secret Deity which lay hid in the Image , and which they worshipped through it . 2. Others , that thought themselves of a more refined Religion , said , they neither worshipped Images , nor Daemons , but only beheld in the corporeal Image , the Symbol of that which they ought to worship . Which is the place cited by T. G. Now I appeal to the Reader , whether this very place doth not prove what I intended , viz. that the Heathens did look on their Images as Symbols or representations of that Being to which they gave divine worship . Whereby I see T. G. hath done me a kindness indeed , which I thank him for , i.e. he hath proved that which I did intend , and confuted that which I did not . But there remains yet another charge of disingenuity to be answered , which concerns the quotation of Trigantius ; the occasion whereof was this , I had said , if S. Paul had not thought men to blame in the worship of God by an Image , he would never have condemned them for it ; as he doth Rom. 1. But he ought to have done as the Iesuits in China did , who never condemned the people for worshipping Images , but for worshipping false Gods by them ; and perswaded them not to lay them aside , but to convert them to the honour of the true God , and so melted down the former Images and made new ones of them . Can we imagine S. Paul meant the same thing , when he blames men not for believing them to be Gods , but that God could be worshipped by the Work of mens hands ; and for changing thereby the glory due to God in regard of his infinite and incorruptible Being into mean and unworthy Images , thinking thereby to give honour to him . These are my words . Now observe T. G's ingenuity ; instead of answering the argument he falls to the exercise of his best Talent , cavilling : the force of the argument lay in this , S. Paul condemns the very manner of worshipping God by Images ; the Iesuits in China do not that , but bid them lay aside their old Images , and worship new ones : what is the reason , that the Iesuits vary from S. Pauls method , but only because they differ in judgement , i. e. S. Paul thought the worship of Images in general unlawful , the Iesuits do not , but only the Images of false Gods. This was the thing designed by me , to which he gives no manner of answer ; but only for several pages he tells a sad story how hard it was for him to come by the Book of Trigautius ; & when he had it , he thought he had gotten a mighty advantage against me ; because , forsooth , I render simulachra Images ; for the whole charge comes to this at last ; for whereas Trigautius distinguished the Heathen simulachra from the Images of Christ because I did not in the account of the thing ; ( for I designed no verbal translation , as T. G. knew well enough by the character ) therefore this is charged to be the effect of some very bad design ; and an instance of my want of fidelity , sincerity , honesty , ingenuity , and what not ? I am sorry Trigautius was so hard to come by , for it is possible , if he had not been put to so much trouble in procuring him , I might have escaped better . But is it in good earnest , such a horrible fault to translate simulachra Images ? I see what a good thing it is to have a good Catholick Dictionary , for a hundred to one , but others would have rendred it , as I have done . I had thought Tully's using the words Statuae , Imagines , Signa and simulachra promiscuously might have been sufficient ground for my translating it by Images : But it seems the Ecclesiastical use of the word is otherwise . I had thought Isidore a good Iudge of the Ecclesiastical use of a word ; and he uses it promiscuously with Imagines & effigies ; but I confess Ecclesiastical uses have been much changed since Isidores time . And it seems simulachra is only applyed to Heathen Images , by no means to those among Christians . But why so ? do they not vultum simulare , as Horace expresses it ; bear a resemblance to what they represent ? Do they not pariles line as principali ab ore deducere , which is Arnobius his description of the proper notion of simulachrum ? But for all this , their Images are not simulachra , and shall not be simulachra . It seems when Images were baptized Christian , they lost their former name , and have gotten a new one : and very much good may it do them , and all those that worship them , if the change of name would excuse their guilt . Yet Agobardus was of another opinion when he saith , that if those who forsook the worship of Devils had been bidden to worship the Images of Saints , puto quod videretur eis non tam Idola reliquisse , quam simulachra mutâsse : I think , saith he , that it would have seemed to them , that they had not left their Idols , but only changed their Images . Where we see Agobardus is my Author for making simulachra common to the Images of Heathens and Christians . And S. Augustin calls the Image of the true God simulachrum . But to set aside Authorities , I hope the Images used in China before the Gentiles conversion , and those after did agree in something common to them both : although they were before the Images of false Gods , and after of Christ or the B. Virgin , yet they were all Images still . Might I not be allowed to say , that the Jesuits did not perswade the Converts to lay aside the use of Images ; but to convert them to the honour of the true God ; and so melted down the former Images and made new ones of them ? No , by no means , For them and them , coming after one another , and the first being the Images of false Gods , it was scarce possible for an ordinary Protestant Reader not to avoid being mistaken . In what ? in thinking they did not worship Images after , as well as before their conversion ? no , but in supposing , that they made use of the same Images afterwards , which they did before ? and what if they did ? what harm was there in it on T. G's principles , supposing the intention be directed aright ? Nay , T. G. after all his clamour yields the thing , for saith he , St. Gregory turned the Pagan Festivals into Christian Assemblies , and Heathen Temples to Christian Churches without ever pulling them down to build them up again ; and supposing the worship of Images lawful , why not those to be used as well as Temples ? And yet , I no where say , that they made use of the very same , but they melted them down and made new ones of them ; which is plainly to say , that though they did not allow those particular Images , yet they did not condemn the Use of Images for divine worship ; but of the materials of the former Images they made new ones to be used by them as Christians , after that manner of worship which the Iesuits delivered to them ; which was all that was necessary to my purpose . And now I leave the Reader to Judge whether in all this charge about these citations , T. G. hath not shewed himself to be a man of admirable ingenuity ; and whether he be not well accomplished in the most laudable vertue of a Writer of Controversies , viz. sincerity , and fair dealing ? CHAP. II. The State of the Controversie about Images in the Christian Church . HAving thus far endeavoured to State the Dispute about Image-worship , as it was managed between Christians and Heathens , I now come to the Rise and Progress of this Controversie in the Christian Church . Wherein I shall proceed according to these following Periods , 1. When Images were not used or allowed in the Christian Church . 2. When they were used , but no worship allowed to be given to them . 3. When inferiour worship was given to them , and that worship publickly defended . 4. When the doctrine and practice of Image-worship was settled upon the principles allowed and defended in the Roman Church ; and from thence to shew , wherein lie the main points of difference between us and the Church of Rome , as to this Controversie about the Worship of Images . 1. As to the First Period I had said in my former Discourse , That the Primitive Christians were declared enemies to all worship of God by Images , but I need the less to go about to prove it now , since it is at last confessed by one of the most learned Iesuits they ever had , that for the four first Centuries and farther , there was little or no use of Images in the Temples , or Oratories of Christians : but we need not their favour in so plain a Cause as this ; as shall be evidently proved if occasion be farther given . This T. G. had no mind to ; and therefore saith , Not to Dispute the matter of fact , of which he confesses there was some little use ( much as if I should say , that T. G. hath shewn little or no ingenuity in his Book , and he to his great comfort should infer there was some little ingenuity in it ) but Petavius his words , are supprimi omittique satius visum est , it was thought better to suppress them and let them alone ; was it all one in T. G's sense to use them , and to omit the use of them ? And for the little reason , he saith , he had to doubt my sincerity in relating Petavius his words , from what I did with Trigautius ; in truth there was as little as might be ; but I have great reason to believe from his usage of me about other citations , that if he could have found any words before or after , that he could have interpreted to another sense , he would have made little or no conscience of saying , those were the words I translated thus and thus . But instead of debating the matter of fact as to the Primitive Church , he saith , he will give me the answer of Mr. Thorndike , that at that time there might be jealousie of Offence in having Images in Churches , before Idolatry was quite rooted out , of which afterwards there might be no appearance ; and therefore they were afterwards admitted all over , for it is manifest , the Church is tyed no farther , than there can appear danger of Idolatry . This , he calls Mr. Thorndikes answer , but it is truly the answer of Petavius , from whose words it seems to be translated ; dum periculum erat , saith Petavius , ne offensionis aliquid traheret externa quorundam rituum species , cum iis que ab Ethnicis celebrabantur , similitudine ipsa congruens , &c. Therefore I shall consider it as the answer of Petavius , and here examine , whether this were the ground on which the Primitive Church did forbear the use and worship of Images ? I shall prove that it was not from these two Arguments . 1. Because the Reasons given by them against the worship of Images will equally hold against the worship of Images among Christians . 2. Because the notion of Idolatry , which they charged the Heathens with , may be common to Christians with them . 1. This supposes the Primitive Christians to look on the worship of Images as in it self indifferent , and to be made good or evil according to the nature of the object represented by them : which is a supposition as remote from the sense of the Primitive Church as any thing we can easily imagine . For then all the arguments used by them against the worship of Images must have been deduced only from the objects represented , or the nature of the worship given to them ; whereas they frequently argue from the unsuitableness of Images as a Means of worship , and the prohibition of the Divine Law. Would any man of common sense that had thought the worship of Images in it self indifferent , have said as Origen doth ; that the Christians as well as the Iews abstain from the worship of Images for the sake of the Law of God , which requires rather that we should dye than defile our selves with such impieties ? Yes , it may be said , this is acknowledged that the Law of God did forbid the worship of the Heathen Images ; but they who make this answer never looked into Origen , or have forgotten what they read there ; for Origen doth not there give an account why the Christians did not comply with the Heathen Idolatry ; but why the Christians had no Images in their own worship . For Celsus charges this upon the Christians , that they thought it such a mighty matter , that they had no Images , whereas herein , saith he , they were but like the barbarous Scythians , Numidians , and Seres , and other Nations that had neither Religion , nor civility . To this Origen answers , that we are not only to look at the bare action , but at the reason and ground of it , for those that agree in the same thing , may yet have very different principles ; and they that do it on a good principle do well , and not otherwise ; as for instance , the Stoicks forbear adultery , and so may the Epicureans ; but the former do it , because it is a thing repugnant to Nature , and civil Society ; the latter , because allowing themselves this single pleasure may debar them of many more : so , saith he , in this matter those barbarous Nations forbear Images on other accounts than Iews and Christians do , who dare not make use of this way of worshipping God. Observe , that he doth not say this of the way of worshipping false Gods , or Images for Gods , but of worshippin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Deity . And he gives three principal reasons wherein they differed from those Nations . 1. Because this way of worship did disparage the Deity ; ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 again ) by drawing it down to matter so fashioned . 2. Because the evil spirits were apt to harbour in those Images , and to take pleasure in the sacrifices there offered : which reason as far as it respects the blood of Sacrifices doth relate to the Heathen Images , standing over the Altars at which the Sacrifices were offered . But then Celsus might say , what is all this to the purpose ? my question is , why you have no Images in your own way of worship ; therefore he adds his third reason , which made it utterly unlawful for Christians as well as Iews to worship them , which is the Law of God mentioned before : now I say , if Origen answered pertinently , he must give this as the Reason why Christians used no Images in their own way of worship ; and consequently was so far from thinking the worship of Images indifferent , that he thought Christians ought rather to suffer Martyrdom than to worship them . But to put this beyond possibility of contradiction ; Origen mentions a saying of Heraclitus objected by Celsus , that it is a foolish thing to pray to Images , unless a man know the Gods and Heroes worshipped by them ; which saying Celsus approves , and saith , the Christians were Fools , because they utterly contemned Images , ( in totum , the Latin interpreter renders it ) To which Origen thus answers , we acknowledge that God may be known , and his only Son , and those whom he hath honoured with the Title of Gods , who partake of his Divinity , and are different from the Heathen Deities which the Scripture calls Devils ( i.e. causally if not essentially , as Cajetan distinguisheth ) but , saith he , it is impossible for him that knows God to worship Images . Mark that , he doth not say , it is impossible for him that knows the Idols of the Heathens to worship them ; or the evil spirits that lurk in their Images : but for him , that knows the true God , and his Son Christ Iesus , and the holy Angels to do it . Is it possible after this , to believe that Origen supposed the worship of Images to be indifferent in it self , and that God and Christ and Angels might be lawfully worshipped by them ? Was all this only periculum offensionis , jealousie of offence , before the Heathen Idolatry was rooted out ? Which supposition makes the primitive Christians in plain terms jugglers and impostors , to pretend that to be utterly unlawful even for themselves to do ; and to mean no more by it , but this ; yes , it is unlawful to do it , while there is any danger of Heathenism , but when once that is overthrown , then we may worship Images as well as the best of them . For my part , I believe the primitive Christians to have been men of so much honesty and integrity , that they would never have talked at this rate against the worship of Images , ( as not only Origen , but the rest of them , the best , and wisest among them did , as I have shewed in the foregoing Chapter ) if they had this secret reserve in their minds , that when Heathenism was sunk past recovery , then they might do the same things , which they utterly condemned now . Which would be just like some that we have heard of , who while there was any likelyhood of the Royal Authority of this Nation recovering itself , then they cry'd out upon Kingly Government as illegal , Tyrannical and Antichristian ; but when the King was murdered , and the power came into their own hands , then it was lawful for the Saints to exercise that power , which was not fit to be enjoyed by the Wicked of the World : So these men make the most excellent Christians to be like a pack of Hypocrites . The Heathens every where asked them , as may be seen in Lactantius , Arnobius , Minucius and others , as well as Origen ; what is the matter with you Christians , that you have no Images in your Churches ? what if you dare not joyn with us in our worship , why do not you make use of them in your own ? Is it only humour , singularity , and affectation of Novelty in You ? If it be , you shew what manner of men you are . No truly ; say they , gravely and seriously , we do it not , because we dare not do it ; for we are afraid of displeasing and dishonouring God by it , and we will on that account rather choose to dye than do it . Upon such an answer , the Heathens might think them honest and simple men , that did not know what to do with their lives , who were so willing to part with them on such easie terms . But if they had heard , the bottom of all this was , only a cunning and sly trick to undermine Paganism , and that they meant no such thing , as though it were unlawful in it self , but only unlawful till they had gotten the better of them ; what would they have thought of such men ? no otherwise , than that they were a company of base Hypocrites , that pretended one thing and meant another ; and that the Wicked of the World might not worship Images , but the Saints might , when they had the Power in their hands , although before they declaimed against it , as the most vile , mean , and unworthy way of worship , that ever came into the heads of men ; that there could be no Religion , where it obtained ; that it was worse than the worship of Beasts ; that it was more reasonable to worship the artificers themselves than the Images made by them ; that rats and mice had less folly than mankind , for they had no fears of what men fell down before , with trembling and great shews of devotion . These , and many such things as these , the Fathers speak freely , openly , frequently , on all occasions , in all places against the worship of Images ; and after all this , was no more meant by it but only this , Thou O Heathen must not worship Images , but I may ? And why not as well ( might the Heathen reply ) Thou must not commit adultery , but I may ? Does the nature of the commands you boast so much of alter with mens persons ? Is that indeed lawful for you that is not for us ? Where doth the Law of Moses say , Thou shalt not worship the Images that we worship , but thou maist worship the Images that Christians worship ? And if the Law makes no difference , either leave off your foolish babbling against our Images , or condemn your own . For to our understanding , yours are as much against the Law as ours are . And so the primitive Christians thought , who very honestly and sincerely declared as much in their words and actions ; witness not only the opinions of all the Writers in behalf of Christianity , ( not one excepted ) that ever had occasion to mention this matter ; but the Decree of as good a Council as was to be had at that time ; I mean the Eliberitan , in the famous Canon to that purpose , Can. 36. It pleaseth us to have no pictures in Churches , lest that which is worshipped be painted upon walls . It is a pleasant thing to see what work our Adversaries make with this innocent Canon ; sometimes , it is a meer forgery of hereticks ( I wonder such men do not say the same of the second Commandment ) sometimes , the Bishops that met there were not so wise as they should have been ; ( no nor Moses and the Prophets , nor Christ and the primitive Christians in this matter ) sometimes , that they spake only against pictures upon walls ( because the Salt-Peter of the walls would be apt to deface them ; or because in case of persecution , they could not do as Rachel did , carry their Teraphim along with them ) ; but that which Petavius sticks to , is , that the Memory of Heathen Idolatry was yet fresh , and therefore it was not thought expedient to have Images in the Oratories or Temples of Christians . So that , after all the tricks and shifts of our Adversaries , the thing it self is yielded to us , viz. that this Canon is against such Images , as are now used and worshipped in the Roman Church . But , saith he , the reason doth not hold still , for then the memory of Heathen Idolatry was not out of mens minds . It is a wonderful thing to me , that these Spanish Bishops should be able to tell their own reason no better than so . You say , you will have no Images in Churches : why so I beseech you ? Lest that , say they , which is worshipped be painted upon walls : worshipped by whom ? do you mean by Heathens ? no , we speak of the Churches of Christians . But why may not that which is worshipped be painted ? We think that reason enough to any man , that considers the Being worshipped , and that which is painted , and the mighty disparagement to an infinite invisible Being to be drawn in lines and colours with a design to honour him thereby . This to me seems a reason that holds equally at all times . For was the Being worshipped more unfit to be drawn so soon after Heathen Idolatry , than he would be afterwards ? methinks it had been much better done then , while the skilful Artificers were living . But those were Heathen Idolaters ; suppose they were , you must make use of them , or none , if that which Tertullian and others say , hold true , that it is forbidden to Christians to make Images ; which surely they would never have said , if they had thought the time would come , when the Heathen Idolatry should be forgotten , and then the Christians might worship Images . Well ; but all this is only against Pictures upon walls , but for all that , saith Bellarmin , they might have Images in Frames , or upon Veils . It seems then that which is adored , might be painted well enough , provided it be not upon a wall ; but methinks , it is more repugnant to an infinite Being to be confined within a Frame , than to be drawn upon a wall : and the Decree is , to have no pictures in Churches ; but if they were in Frames , or upon Veils , would they not be in Churches still ? What made Epiphanius then so angry at seeing an Image upon a Veil at Anablatha ? Was not Heathen Idolatry forgotten enough yet ? It seems not , for it was coming in again under other pretences . But that good mans spirit was stirred within him at the apprehension of it , and could not be quiet , till he had rent asunder the Veil , and written to the Bishop of Hierusalem to prevent the like enormity . One would have thought by this time the jealousie of Offence might have been worn out , the Heathen Idolatry being suppressed ; but yet it seems Epiphanius did not understand his Christian Liberty in this matter . Nay so far from it , that he plainly and positively affirms , that such an Image though upon a Veil and not the Walls , was contra autoritatem Scripturarum , contra Religionem nostram , against the Law of God , and the Christian Religion . But it may be , this was some Heathen Idol , or Image of a False God ; no , so far from it , that Epiphanius could not tell whether it was an Image of Christ , or of some Saint ; but this he could tell , that he was sure it was against the Authority of the Scriptures . And was Epiphanius so great a Dunce to imagine a thing indifferent in it self , and applyed to a due object of worship , should be directly opposite to the Law of God ? Men may talk of the Fathers , and magnifie the Fathers , and seem to make the Authority of the Fathers next to infallible ; and yet there are none who expose them more to contempt , than they who give such answers as these , so directly against the plainest sense and meaning of their words . I confess , those speak more consonantly to their principles , who reject the Authority of this Epistle , at least of this part of it ; but there is not the least colour or pretence for it , from any M S. and Petavius ingenuously confesseth , that he sees no ground to believe this part added to the former epistle . God be thanked , there is some little ingenuity yet left in the World : and which is the greater wonder , among the Iesuits too ; for not only Petavius , but Sirmondus owns the Epistle of Epiphanius to be genuine , quoting it to prove the Antiquity of Veils at the entrance of the Church . If it be good for that purpose , it is I am sure as good for ours ; and so it was thought to be , by those who were no Iconoclasts , I mean the Author of the Caroline Books , and the Gallican Bishops who made use of this Testimony , although themselves were against rending of painted Veils . But commend me to the plain honesty of Iohn Damascen , who saith , one Swallow makes no Summer ; and of Alphonsus à Castro , who tells us , that Epiphanius was an Iconoclast , ( i. e. a terrible heretick with a hard name ) materially so but not formally , because the Church had not determined the contrary . It seems it was no matter , what the Law , or Christian Religion had determined ; for those were the things Epiphanius took for his grounds . But he , good man , was a little too hot in this matter , and did not consider , that when the Pagan Idolatry was sufficiently out of mens minds , then it would be very lawful to have Christ or Saints not only drawn upon Veils , or Screens , but to have just such Statues as the Pagans had ; and to give them the very same worship which the Prototypes deserve ; provided , that the people have forgotten Mercury , Apollo , and Hercules ; and put S. Francis , or S. Ignatius , or S. Christopher , or S. Thomas Beckett instead of them . O the Divine power of names ! for that which would have been Idolatry , downright Paganish Idolatry under the former names , becomes good Catholick Worship under the latter . But I do not see that any of the Primitive Christians did ever think , that the change of names , or persons would have wrought such wonders ; but that the worship of Images would have continued the same thing , whatever names had been given to them . And what pleasant stories soever Epiphanius the Deacon tells in the second Council of Nice , concerning the disciples of the elder Epiphanius , placing his Image in a Church dedicated to him in Cyprus , yet Petavius confesses , that in his time there were no Images in the Churches of Cyprus , which he takes to be the reason of his mighty zeal against them . Any thing rather than that which himself gives , viz. the Authority of Scriptures , and the Christian Religion . In the Theodosian Code we find a Law of Theodosius M. against the several parts of the Heathen Idolatry , the sacrifices , libations , incense , lights , &c. and after the rest , it comes particularly to their worship of Images in these words , Si quis vero mortali opere facta , & avum passura simulachra imposito ture venerabitur , ( ac ridioulo exemplo metuens subito quae pro se simulaverit ) vel redimita vitis arbore , vel erectâ effossis arâ cespitibus vanas imagines , humiliore licet muneris praemio , tamen plena Religionis injuriâ honorare temptaverit , is utpote violatae Religionis reus eâ domo seu possessione multabitur in quâ eum Gentilitiâ constiterit Superstitione famulatum . The meaning whereof is , that it was the forfeiture of house and land for any man to offer incense to Images made by men , and that were of a perishing nature ; or that hung their garlands on Trees , or raised Altars of Turf before their Images ; for although the cost were less , yet the violation of Religion was the same . This Constitution I grant doth respect Heathen Images , but I say it proceeds upon such grounds which are common to all Images , unless they be such as drop from heaven ; such as the Image of Edessa , and the rest mentioned by Gretser , or that of Diana of Ephesus , or some few others that were pretended to have a divine Original ; for such as these the Constitution doth not reach , being Divine and immortal , but for all others I do not see how they can escape the Reason of this Law. And it is altogether as ridiculous for Christians to worship the things they have formed , as it was for the Heathens to do it : ( where T. G. may learn the signification and Etymology of simulachrum , à simulando ; for simulare is the same with effigiare , as the Scholiast on that Constitution tells him . ) In the same Constitution , they are called sensu carentia simulachra , which are words put in on purpose to shew how stupid and senseless the worship of them is ; and are not all Images among Christians so ? Have they not eyes and see not , and ears and hear not , as well as the Heathen Images ? Or do they worship only living and sensible Images ? moving I grant sometimes they do ; such as Themistius upon Aristotle tells us that Daedaelus made , that moved by the help of quicksilver ; or springs , such as the Holy Rood of Boxtel in Kent , whose secret engines for moving the eyes and lips were laid open , and an Anatomy Lecture read upon them at Pauls Cross in Henry the Eighths time by Bishop Fisher. 2. That Notion of Idolatry which the Heathens were charged with by the primitive Christians , may be common to Christians with them . Therefore if the fear of Idolatry kept them from the worship of Images , and the same fear may justly continue where ever Images are worshipped , then the Christians rejecting of Images , was not upon any reason peculiar to that Age of the Church . If men by being Christians were uncapable of being Idolaters without renouncing Christianity , there were some pretence for laying aside the fears and jealousies of Idolatry , when the Christian Religion had prevailed in the world . But S. Paul supposes that Christians continuing so might be Idolaters , Neither be ye Idolaters as were some of them . Yet these were the Persons who were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and the Sea ; and did all eat the same spiritual meat , and drink the same spiritual drink ( for they drank of that rock that followed them , and that Rock was Christ. ) Which water they drank of , both before and after their Idolatry ( and since the water followed them , ) at the very time of committing it ; so that those persons are said to be partakers of Christ , who were charged with Idolatry , and therefore S. Paul is far from supposing that Idolatry and the profession of Christianity are inconsistent with each other . But it is said that there can be no Idolatry to the Images of Christ , because the true object of worship is honoured by them ; nor to the Images of Saints , so long as men take them for Saints , that is , Gods Creatures ; and give only an inferiour worship to them . If this be true , there appears to be little danger of Idolatry among those who do not renounce Christianity . But against this plea I put in these exceptions . 1. That upon the same grounds all the Wiser Heathens must be cleared from Idolatry . For , 1. They owned the true Object of Divine worship , viz. One Supreme God , as I have at large proved in the former Discourses : both , those that went on the Platonick hypothesis of one Supreme Deity , and others inferiour ; and those who believed one God to be worshipped under different representations . The former was the principle which Iulian went upon , and the latter Platonists , who opposed Christianity to the utmost : the other was the principle of the Stoicks and others ; and particularly owned by Maximus Madaurensis , who saith , that the Heathens did worship one God under several names , thereby to express his several powers diffused through the World. Now upon this supposition , that where there is a true object of worship represented , there can be no Idolatry in worshipping the representation , I challenge any man to shew how the Heathens that went on these principles were chargeable with Idolatry . For is Christ any otherwise a right object of worship , than as he is believed to be the True God ? if then there can be no Idolatry towards an Image of Christ , neither can there be towards any representation of the True God. 2. The Heathens did assert the difference between God and his Creatures , as I have already proved , that they looked on their inferiour Deities , as dependent on the supreme Being Created and Governed by Him : so that if the acknowledgement of Saints to be Gods Creatures , doth hinder men from committing Idolatry , it must do the same for all those who owned a subordination of Deities ; which takes in the far greatest part of the Heathen World. 3. They allowed the different degrees of worship suitable to the excellencies of the objects ; as Soveraign worship to the supreme God , inferiour worship to the Gods under Him , and so proportionably till they came to their Heroes , or Deified persons to whom they allowed the lowest kind and degree of worship . For it is a palpable mistake in any who think they did give the same degrees of honour and worship to all . Plutarch saith , That Plato did put a difference between the worship of Coelestial Gods and Daemons ; and so did Xenocrates between the worship of Gods and good Daemons , and those sowre and morose , and vindictive Spirits which lived in the Air. Plato , he tells us , made it the office of good Daemons to carry mens Prayers to the Gods , and to bring from them Oracles , and other Divine Gifts : and so their worship must be suitable to their imployment , which is inferiour to that of the Coelestial Deities , whose station and employment was more immediately under the supreme God. Apuleius thus reckons up the order of Deities according to Plato . 1. The supreme God , the Author and Ruler of all . 2. The Coelestial Deities , spiritual , immortal , good , and infinitely happy ; to whom the Government of things is committed next under God ; but because they supposed no immediate communication between these Coelestial Gods and men , therefore they ranked between them and men , 3. Daemons , as Intercessors between the Gods and men , who were subservient to the Coelestial Gods. 4. The lowest sort of Daemons , he saith , are souls discharged of the body ; which if they take care of their posterity , are called Lares , or domestick Gods ( Lar , in the old Hetruscan Language , signifies a Prince , thence the Lares are the Gods of Families ) and those who were good had the Title of Gods for honours sake conferred upon them , as he speaks . But he confesses , That there was a peculiar honour belonging to the supreme God , Cum sit summi Deorum hic honor proprius ; and him they did solemnly invocate , as not only appears by frequent passages in Plato , but by that of Boethius ; For , as Plato saith , we ought to invocate the divine assistance in the least affairs ; therefore in so great a matter , invocandum rerum omnium Patrem , we ought to call upon God the Father of all things . Next after him they prayed to the Coelestial Deities ; which prayers , the inferiour order of Spirits was to carry up , and to bring down answers . So that the addresses were made to the Coelestial Deities , which the Aereal Daemons carried to them , saith Apuleius , to keep a due distance between Gods and men . And although the other Platonists differ from Apuleius in the manner of reckoning up the several orders of inferiour Deities , as may be seen in Alcinous , Proclus , Iamblichus , and others ; yet they all agree in making one Supreme God , the First Author and Cause of all things , and therefore making an infinite distance between him and his Creatures ; and that there are several degrees of the Beings that are to be worshipped under him ; some as the Bestowers of Blessings but subordinate to the supreme , and others only as Intercessors between the Gods and Men. Diogenes Laertius saith of Pythagoras , That he charged his Disciples , not to give equal degrees of honour to the Gods and Heroes . Herodotus saith of the Greeks , That they worshipped Hercules two waies , one as an immortal Deity , and so they sacrificed to him ; and another as a Hero , and so they celebrated his memory . Isocrates distinguisheth between the Honours of Heroes and Gods , when he speaks of Menelaus and Helena : but the distinction is no where more fully expressed than in the Greek inscription upon the Statue of Regilla , wife to Herodes Atticus , as Salmasius thinks , which was set up in his Temple at Triopium , and taken from the Statue it self by Sirmondus ; where it is said , That she had neither the honour of a Mortal , nor yet that which was proper to the Gods. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . If any ask wherein the difference of these honours lay ; Lilius Gyraldus saith , That the Gods were worshipped to the East , the Heroes to the West . Vossius thinks , That among the Greeks and Romans , it lay in having their Images carried in the publick Processions , but without Sacrifices ; and their names put into the Saliar Hymns at Rome ; and inserted into the Peplus of Minerva at Athens . Hesychius makes the honour of a Hero to lie in a Temple , a Statue , and a Fountain ; but Plutarch in the Life of Alexander saith , That he sent to the Oracle of Ammon to know whether Hephaestion should be made a God or no ; the Oracle answered , That they should honour him and sacrifice to him as to a Hero ; whence we observe that the material act of sacrifice , as T. G. speaks , might be common to Gods and Heroes , but the inward intention of the mind made the great difference between their worship , besides that which is expressed in the Inscription of Regilla , viz. that the honour of one sort was looked on as a voluntary Act , but the other was a necessary duty ; they might sacrifice and pray to the Heroes ( who were the Beati amongst them ) but no man was absolutely bound to do it ; but those who were devout and Religious would : as Salmasius there explains the words of the Inscription . And it is observed by the Criticks , that among the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are words of a different importance , i. e. in the Language of the Court of Rome , to Beatify , and to Canonize . For I perceive the Heathen Heroes did stand upon their preferment as well as the Roman Saints , and those who had been Beatified a competent time , came to be Canonized at last : So Plutarch saith , of Isis and Osiris , Hercules and Bacchus , that for their Vertues , of good Daemons they were promoted to Deities ; and of Lampsaca , That she had at first only Heroical honour given her , and afterwards came to Divine . It seems by the Inscription of Herodes , and by the Testament of Epicteta extant in Greek in the Collection of Inscriptions , that it was in the power of particular Families to keep Festival daies in honour of some of their own Family , and to give Heroical honours to them . In that noble Inscription at Venice , we find three daies appointed every year to be kept , and a Confraternity established for that purpose with the Laws of it ; the first day to be observed in Honour of the Muses , and Sacrifices to be offered to them as Deities ; the second and third in honour of the Heroes of the Family ; between which honour , and that of Deities , they shewed the difference by the distance of time between them and the preference given to the other . But wherein soever the difference lay , that there was a distinction acknowledged among them appears , by this passage of Valerius in his excellent Oration extant in Dionysius Halicarnass . I call , saith he , the Gods to witness , whose Temples , and Altars , our Family hath worshipped with common Sacrifices ; and next after them , I call the Genii of our Ancestors , to whom we give 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the second Honours next to the Gods ( as Celsus calls those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the due honours that belong to the lower Daemons ; which he contends ought to be given to them ) From which we take notice , that the Heathens did not confound all degrees of divine worship , giving to the lowest object the same which they supposed to be due to the Coelestial Deities , or the supreme God : So that if the distinction of divine worship will excuse from Idolatry , the Heathens were not to blame for it . 2. If this pretence doth excuse from Idolatry , the Carpocratian Hereticks were unjustly charged by Irenaeus , Epiphanius , and S. Augustin ; for they are said , To worship the Images of Christ together with the Philosophers , Pythagoras , Plato , and Aristotle . Wherein lay the fault of these Hereticks ? was it only in joyning the Philosophers together with Christ ? If that had been all , it had been easie to have said , That they worshipped the Philosophers together with Christ ; but they take particular notice of it as a thing unusual and blame-worthy , that they worshipped the Images of Christ , which they pretended to have had from Pilat : which had been no wonder , if there had been as many Images of Christ then extant , as Feuardentius pretends , viz. the Image of Christ taken by Nicodemus ( not I suppose when he came by night to our Saviour ) that at Edessa , besides those which S. Luke drew of Him ; if there had been so many Images abroad of Him in veneration among Christians , why should this be pitched upon as a peculiar thing of these Gnosticks , That they had some Images painted , others made of other matters , which they crowned and set forth , or worshipped as the Heathens did , among which was an Image of Christ , as Irenaeus reports it ? And supposing they had worshipped the Images of Christ as the Gentiles did worship their Images , wherein were they to blame , if the honour given to the Image be not the honour of the Image , but of that which is represented by it ? And since Christ deserves our highest worship , on this pretence they deserved no blame at all in giving divine worship of the highest degree to the Image of Christ. 3. The Primitive Christians did utterly refuse to worship the Images of Emperors , although they were acknowledged to be Gods Creatures therefore I say , according to their sense , acknowledging the Saints to be Gods Creatures , is not a sufficient ground to excuse the worship of the Images of Saints from Idolatry . As in Pliny's Epistle to Trajan ( mentioned before ) one of the tryals of Christians was , whether they would Imagini tuae thure ac vino supplicare ; use the Religious rites that were then customary , of Incense , Libation , and Supplication before the Emperours Image ; this Minucius calls ad Imagines supplicare , to pray before their Images : which Pliny saith , No true Christian could ever be brought to : but would rather suffer Martyrdom than do it . S. Hierome speaking of Nebuchadnezzars Image , saith , Statuam seu Imaginem cultores Dei adorare non debent ; the worshippers of God ought not to worship an Image ; Let , saith he , the Iudges and Magistrates take notice of this , that worship the Emperours Statues ; that they do that which the three Children pleased God by not doing . By which we see , it was not only the Statues of Heathen Emperours , which the Christians refused to give Religious worship to ; but of the most pious and Christian ; which out of the flattery of Princes , those who expected , or received Honours , were willing to continue under Christian Emperours ; but it was at last absolutely forbidden by a Constitution of Theodosius ; of which I have spoken already , in the Discourse about the Nature of divine worship . But upon what reason came this to be accounted unlawful among Christians ; if it were lawful to worship the Images of Saints , supposing them to be Gods Creatures ? Is it possible they should think the Emperours to be otherwise ? I do not think that the Souldiers who were trepann'd by Iulian , to offer Incense to his Image at the receiving the Donative ( and after they understood what they did , were ready to run mad with indignation at themselves , crying out in the Streets , We are Christians , and ran to the Emperour , desiring they might suffer Martyrdom for the Christian faith , which they were supposed to deny by that act of theirs , as Gregory Nazianzen , and Theodoret relate the story ) did imagine that Iulian was any other than one of Gods Creatures ; or that they had any belief of his being a God ; but the Christians looked on the act it self of offering incense , as unlawful to be done to the Image of any Creature ; or to the Image it self , because it was a Creature , and that of the meanest sort , viz. the Work of mens hands . 4. It is not enough for any of Gods Creatures to be worshipped under the Notion of Saints ; if any worship be given to them , which is above the rank of Creatures , i. e. any of that worship which belongs to God. For none can have greater confidence of the Saintship of any Persons whose Images they worshipped , ( those excepted which are revealed in Scripture ) than many of the Heathens had of the goodness of the Deities which they worshipped . And if we observe the method , which Origen , S. Cyril , S. Augustin and other Christian Writers took to prove them to be evil Spirits which they worshipped , we shall find the great argument was from the Nature of the worship given to them . For , say they , we find in Scripture that good Angels have refused that worship which they seem so desirous of ; and therefore there is just reason to suspect that these are not good Angels ; ( although they firmly believed them to be so , and Hierocles saith , God forbid we should worship any other ; And the Heathens in S. Augustin , say peremptorily , they did not worship Devils , but Angels and the servants of the Great God. ) So say I , as to those who are worshipped under the name of Saints or Angels , if in , or at their Images such things are spoken or done , which tend to the encouraging that worship which the Primitive Christians refused as Idolatry , there is the same reason still to suspect those are not good but evil Spirits ; under whose name or representation soever they appear . For it is as easie for them to play the same tricks among Christians , which they did among Heathens ; for then they pretended to be Good Spirits , and why may they not do the same still ? If we have a fuller discovery of their design to impose upon the world , the folly of men is so much the greater to be abused by them ; and the Gentiles were in that respect far more excuseable than Christians , because God had not discovered the Cheat and artifices of Evil Spirits to them , so as he hath done to us by the Christian Religion . Whatever pretence of miracles , or visions , or appearances there be , if the design of them be to advance a way of worship contrary to the Law of God , we have the same reason to believe that evil Spirits are the Causes of them , as the Primitive Christians had , that evil Spirits were worshipped by the Heathens under the notion of Good. 5. The Arrians believed Christ to be a Creature , and yet were charged with Idolatry by the Fathers . If it be said , that they did give a higher degree of worship to Christ , than any do to Saints ; I answer , that they did only give a degree of worship proportionable to the degrees of excellency supposed to be in him , far above any other Creatures whatsoever . But still that worship was inferiour to that which they gave to God the Father , according to the opinion of those Persons I dispute against . For if it be impossible for a man that believes the incomparable distance between God and the most excellent of his Creatures , to attribute the honour due to God alone to any Creature ; then , say I , it is impossible for those who believed one God the Father , to give to the Son whom they supposed to be a Creature , the honour which was peculiar to God. It must be therefore on their own supposition , an inferiour and subordinate honour ; and at the highest such as the Platonists gave to their Coelestial Deities . And although the Arrians did invocate Christ , and put their trust in him ; yet they still supposed him to be a Creature , and therefore believed that all the Power and Authority he had , was given to him ; so that the worship they gave to Christ must be inferiour to that honour they gave to the Supreme God , whom they believed to be Supreme , Absolute , and Independent . But notwithstanding all this , the Fathers by multitudes of Testimonies already produced do condemn the Arrians as guilty of Idolatry : and therefore they could not believe , that the owning of Saints to be Gods Creatures did alter the State of the Controversie , and make such Christians uncapable of Idolatry . 2. I come to the second Period , wherein Images were brought into the Christian Church , but no worship allowed to be given to them . And I am so far from thinking , that the forbearance of the Use of Images , was from the fear of complyance with the Pagan Idolatry , that I much rather believe the introducing of Images was out of Complyance with the Gentile worship . For Eusebius in that memorable Testimony concerning the Statue at Paneas , or Caesarea Philippi , which , he saith , was said to be the Image of Christ and the Syrophoenician woman , doth attribute the preserving the Images of Christ and Peter and Paul to a Heathen custome , which , he saith , was done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , i. e. saith Valesius , inconsideratè & imprudenter , contra veterem disciplinam , incautè : very unadvisedly , and against the ancient Rules of the Church . And yet ( to my great amazement ) this place of Eusebius is on all occasions produced to justifie the antiquity and worship of Images : if it had been only brought to prove , that Heathenish Customes did by degrees creep into the Christian Church , after it obtained ease and prosperity , it were a sufficient proof of it . Not that I think , this Image was ever intended for Christ or the Syrophoenician Woman , but because Eusebius saith , the people had gotten such a Tradition among them ; and were then willing to turn their Images to the Stories of the Gospel . Where they finding a Syrophoenician Woman making her address to our Saviour ; and a Tradition being among them that she was of this place , and there finding two Images of Brass , the one in a Form of a supplicant upon her Knees with her hands stretched out ; and the other over against her with a hand extended to receive her , the common people seeing these figures to agree so luckily with the Story of the Gospel , presently concluded these must be the very Images of Christ and the Woman ; and that the Woman , out of meer gratitude , upon her return home was at this great expence of two brass statues ; although the Gospel saith , she had spent all that she had on Physitians before her miraculous cure : and it would have been another miracle , for such an Image of Christ to have stood untouched in a Gentile City during so many persecutions of Christians , especially when Asterius in Photius saith , this very Statue was demolished by Maximinus . I confess it seems most probable to me , to have been the Image of the City Paneas supplicating to the Emperour ; for I find the very same representations in the ancient Coines ; particularly those of Achaia , Bithynia , Macedonia , and Hispania ; wherein the Provinces are represented in the Form of a Woman supplicating , and the Emperour Hadrian in the same habit and posture , as the Image at Paneas is described by Eusebius . And that which adds more probability to this conjecture , is , that Bithynia is so represented , because of the kindness done by Hadrian to Nicomedia in the restoring of it after its fall by an earthquake , and Caesarea is said by Eusebius to have suffered by an earthquake at the same time ; and after such a Favour to the City , it was no wonder to have two such brass statues erected for the Emperours honour . But supposing this tradition were true , it signifies no more , than that this Gentile custome was observed by a Syrophoenician Woman in a Gentile City ; and what is this to the worship of Images in Christian Churches ? For Eusebius doth plainly speak of Gentiles when he saith , it is not to be wondered that those Gentiles who received benefits by our Saviour should do these things ; when , saith he , we see the Images of his Apostles Paul and Peter and Christ himself , preserved in Pictures being done in Colours , it being their custome to honour their Benefactors after this manner . I appeal to any man of common sense , whether Eusebius doth not herein speak of a meer Gentile custome ; but Baronius in spight of the Greek will have it thus , quod majores nostri ad Gentilis consuetudinis similitudinem quàm proximè accedentes ; at which place , Is. Casaubon sets this Marginal Note , Graeca lege & miraberis ; but , suppose this were the sense of Eusebius , what is to be gained by it , save only , that the bringing of Images among Christians was a meer imitation of Gentilism , and introducing the Heathen customes into the Christian Church ? Yet Baronius hath something more to say for this Image , viz. that being placed in the Diaconicon or Vestry of the Church of Paneas , it was there worshipped by Christians , for which he quotes Nicephorus ; whom at other times he rejects as a fabulous Writer . And it is observable , that Philostorgius ( out of whom Nicephorus takes the other circumstances of his relation ) is so far from saying any thing of the worship of this Image , that he saith expresly the contrary , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 giving no manner of worship to it ; to which he adds the reason for it ; because it is not lawful for Christians to worship either Brass or any other matter ; no not although this Image were believed to represent Christ after his Incarnation . What shall be said to such an Author who not only omits so considerable a passage , but puts in words of his own directly contrary to his meaning ? The Author of the Caroline Book , saith , that allowing this story to be true ( which by comparing the relation of Asterius in Photius with what Eusebius , Sozomen and the rest say , there seems to be some reason to suspect ) yet it signifies nothing to the worship of Images ; such a Statue being erected by a weak ignorant Woman , to express her gratitude after the best fashion among the Gentiles ; and what doth this signifie to the Church of God ? and supposing the miraculous cures to be wrought by the Herb that grew at the foot of the Statue ; yet that doth not prove any worship of Images , but that men ought to leave their former Idols , and embrace the true Faith ; for , saith he , according to the Apostle signs are not for Believers , but for Unbelievers . But if we allow the story as it is reported by Sozomen , That the Christians gathered up the broken fragments of the Statue , and laid them up in the Church , I grant it proves that those Christians did not abhor the use of Images , although there be no proof of any worship they gave to them : and this seems to be as much as Petavius thinks can be made of this story . But Baronius is not content with the Syrophoenician Womans example in this matter of Images , but he produces the Apostles Council at Antioch , and a venerable decree made by them there , which commands Christians to make Images of Christ instead of Heathen Idols ; but our comfort is , that Petavius discards this as a meer forgery , as most of the things of the latter Greeks , he saith , are ; and yet Baronius saith , this Canon is made use of by the second Nicene Council ; which shews what excellent Authorities that Council relyed upon . Nicolas de Clemangis is so far from thinking there was any Apostolical decree in this matter , that he saith , the Universal Church did decree for the sake of the Gentile Converts , that there should be no Images at all in Churches ; which decree , he saith , was afterwards repealed . I would he had told us by what Authority ; and why other Commandments and Decrees might not be repealed as well as that ? The first authentick Testimony of any thing like Images among Christians , is that of the painted Chalices in Tertullian ; wherein Christ was represented under the Embleme of a Shepherd with a sheep on his back ; ( as it was very usual among the Romans to have Emblematical Figures on their Cups ) but was ever any man so weak among them , not to distinguish between the ornaments of their Cups and Glasses , and their Sacred Images ? How ridiculous would that man have been , that should have proved at that time that Christians worshipped Images , because they made use of painted Glasses ? If this signifies any thing , why do they quarrel with us , that have painted glass Windows in our Churches ? All that can be inferred from hence is , that the Church at that time did not think Emblematical figures unlawful Ornaments of Cups or Chalices ; and do we think otherwise ? This I confess doth sufficiently prove that the Roman Church did think Ornamental Images lawful ; but it doth no more prove the worship of Images , than the very same Emblem often used before Protestant Books , doth prove that those Books are worshipped by us . I cannot find any thing more that looks like any evidence for Images for the first three hundred years ; afterwards , there began to be some appearances of some , in some places ; but they met with different entertainment , according to the several apprehensions of men . For although the whole Christian Church agreed in refusing to worship Images ; yet they were of several opinions as to the Use of them . Some followed the strict opinion of Tertullian , Clemens Alexandrinus , and Origen , who thought the very making of Images unlawful ; others thought it not unlawful to make them , but to use them in Churches , as the Eliberitan Bishops , and Epiphanius ; others thought it not unlawful to have Images there , provided no worship were given to them . It is ridiculous to bring S. Hierom's Saucomariae , for any other purpose , than to prove that the Apostles Images were then seen upon their common drinking cups , of which he speaks ; as any one may easily see that reads the passage , and the sport he makes with Canthelius about it : which will prove as much towards the worship of Images , as having the Apostles pictures on a pack of Cards would do . Whatever the custome was in Tertullians time ( if at least he speaks of the Sacred Chalices ) we are sure in S. Augustines time there were no Images of mankind on the Sacred Vessels . For although these , saith he , are consecrated to a sacred use , and are the work of mens hands ; yet they have not a mouth and speak not , nor eyes and see not , as the Heathen Images had ; and afterwards saith , that the humane figure doth more to deceive mankind , as to their worship , than the want of sense doth to correct their errour ; and the great cause of the madness of Idolatry is , that the likeness to a living Being prevails more on the affections of miserable men to worship them , than their knowledge that they are not living doth to the contempt of them . Is it possible such a man as S. Austin was , could use such expressions as these , if in his time there had been any Images then used or worshipped in Christian Churches ? What need he have so much as mentioned the Sacred Utensils , if there had been Sacred Images ? and how could he have urged those things against Heathen Images , which would altogether have held as well against Christian ? For it was not the opinion of the Heathens he disputed against , so much as the proneness of men to be seduced to worship such representations , which they find to be like themselves . To this Bellarmin answers , that S. Augustin doth not say there were no Images in Churches , but only that the humane shape of Images did tend much to increase their errour who worshipped them for Gods. But would any man of common sense have used those arguments against Images , which do not suppose them already worshipped for Gods ; but imply the danger of being seduced to that worship where ever they are , in case there were such Images in Christian Churches ? The Worship S. Augustin speaks against , is adoring , or praying looking on an Image , ( Quis autem ador at vel orat intuens simulachrum ) which whosoever doth , saith he , is so affected as to think he is heard by that he prays before , and may receive help by it ; and yet these persons S. Augustin disputes against , declare that they did not worship their Images for Gods , but only as the signs or representations of that Being which they worshipped . Which S. Augustin shews to be a most unlikely thing , because the manner of address , and the figure of their Images did shew that they did apprehend something more than meer signs in them whatever they pretended . I do not deny that there were pictures abroad in S. Augustins time , of Christ and Peter and Paul , for himself doth mention them ; but he declares so little reverence for them , that he saith they deserved to be deceived who looked on them as Books to be instructed by ; and it was no wonder to see feigners of false doctrines to be led aside by painters . By which it is plain , S. Augustin did not think Pictures and Images to be such good helps for the Ignorant , as was afterwards pretended . And for those , who worshipped Pictures , S. Augustin doth not deny that there were such in his time , but , he reckons them among the ignorant and superstitious , who by their practises did dishonour their profession of Christianity . So that although we grant in the time of S. Augustin there were several pictures of Holy men mentioned in Scripture in several places , yet there is no clear evidence that they were then brought into the African Churches any more than into those of Cyprus or Palestine ; but they were in the latter end of the fourth Century in some of the more Eastern Churches , as appears by the Testimonies of Gregory Nyssen , and Asterius produced by Petavius and others . And it is a very probable conjecture of Daillè , that in those parts of Pontus and Cappadocia , they were first introduced , out of a complyance with Gentilism ; and in imitation of the practice of Gregory Thaumaturgus , whom Nyssen commends for changing the Heathen Festivals into Christian , the better to draw the Heathens to Christianity ; which seemed a very plausible pretence , but was attended with very bad success , when Christianity came to be by this means , but Reformed Paganism , as to the matter of divine worship . This same principle in all probability brought the Pictures of Martyrs and others into the Churches of Italy , of which Prudentius and Paulinus speak ; and this latter confesseth , it was a rare custome in his time to have Pictures in Churches , — pingere sanctas Raro more domos . and thought it necessary to make an Apology for it , which he doth by saying , he looked on this as a good means to draw the rude and barbarous people from their Heathen Customes , changing the pleasure of pictures for that of drinking at the Sepulchres of Martyrs ; but there is not the least intimation of any worship then given to them . 3. After that the Use of Images had prevailed both in the Eastern and Western parts , men came by degrees to the worship of them : which is the third Period observable in this Controversie . As to which there are these things remarkable , 1. That it began first among the ignorant and superstitious people ; of whom S. Augustin speaks in his time , that they were the worshippers of pictures ; and afterwards in the Epistle of Gregorius M. to Serenus Bishop of Marseilles it is observable , that the people began to worship the Images in Churches in perfect opposition to Serenus their Bishop ; who was so much displeased at it , that he demolished them , and brake them in pieces : which act of his so exasperated them , that they separated from his Communion . The news of this coming to Rome ( probably from some of these Schismaticks , who alwayes loved to take Sanctuary in Rome , and appeal thither against their Bishops , ) the Pope writes to the Bishop about it by one Cyriacus , he slights the Popes Letters , as if he could not believe they were written by him ; Gregory being nettled at this , writes again to him ; and reproves him for breaking down the Images , but commends him for not allowing the worship of them . So that we find the first beginning of the worship of Images in these Western parts to have been by the folly and superstition of the People expresly against the Will of their own Bishop and the Bishop of Rome . Bellarmin saith , that Gregory only reproved the Superstitious worship of Images , i. e. that by which they are worshipped as Gods. Which is a desperate shift in a bad Cause : For if Gregory had intended any kind of worship to be given to Images , could he not have expressed it himself ? He speaks plain enough about this matter in all other things , why did he not in distinguishing what worship was to be given to Images , and what not ? We praised you ; saith he , that you forbad the worship of Images ( so adorari must be rendred , and not according to the modern sense of Romish Authors who would against all sense and reason appropriate that word to Soveraign Worship ) but we reprehended you for breaking them . It is one thing to worship an Image , and another thing to learn by it what is to be worshipped . That ought not to be broken down which was set up in Churches not to be worshipped , but Only to instruct the minds of the Ignorant . Would any man of common sense have said this , that did allow any worship of Images ? Would Bellarmin , or T.G. or any that embrace the second Nicene and Tridentine Council have said that Images are set up in Churches ad instruendas solummodo mentes nescientium ; only to instruct the ignorant ? Nay Gregory goes yet farther , and tells Serenus , he ought to call his People together , and shew them from Scripture that it is not lawful to worship the Work of mens hands , because it is written , Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God , and him only shalt thou serve . Which very place Anastasius Bishop of Theopolis , in his Epistle produced in the second Nicene Council , thus expounds ; Mark , saith he , only is joyned to serve , and not to worship , adorare quidem licet , servire nequaquam , saith the Latin Translation there ; worship of other things is lawful but not the service , which is directly contrary to what Gregory saith , who makes the worship of any other thing unlawful from these words ; and to conclude all , Gregory saith , forbid not those who would make Images ; adorare verò Imagines modis omnibus devita , but by all means avoid the worship of them . What! no kind of worship to be allowed them ? no distinction of an inferiour , honorary , relative worship ? no , not the least tittle tending that way . But our Adversaries run from this Epistle to another to Secundinus to help them out , where they say Gregory approves the worship of Images ; to which no other answer is needful , than that all that passage is wanting in the Ancient M S. as Dr. Iames hath attested upon a diligent examination of them : and however , ought to be interpreted according to his deliberate sentence in the Epistle to Serenus , where he not only delivers his judgement , but backs it with the strongest Reason . 2. That the worship of Images no sooner prevailed , but it was objected against the Christians by the Iews and Gentiles . Thus it appears in the Apology of Leontius Bishop of Neapolis in Cyprus , written against the Iews , and read in the second Nicene Council ( and if the Testimony of Constantinus Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus there extant , may be taken , he flourished in the time of Mauricius ) in which the Iew is introduced , upbraiding the Christians with breaking the Commandment of God in the worship of Images , and Leontius is put to miserable shifts to desend it . And in the dispute between the Iew and the Christian in the fifth Action of that Council ; the Iew saith , I am scandalized at You Christians , because you worship Images , expresly against the Command of God. And in the discourse of Iohn Bishop of Thessalonica , the Gentile saith , Do not You Christians not only paint the Images of Your Saints , and worship them , but even the Image of your God too ? so likewise think , that we do not worship the Images themselves , but those incorporeal powers which are worshipped through them . And this learned Bishop to make out the disparity between the Heathens and them flyes to this lamentable refuge , that they did not believe the Angels to be incorporeal as the Gentiles did , and therefore might better make Images of them . Which is not the thing I now observe ; but only , that as soon as the worship of Images began , the Christians were sufficiently upbraided with it , by their enemies ; and therefore it is most unreasonable to suppose , that if the same worship had prevailed before , the Iews and Gentiles would not have objected the same thing ; when there were men that wanted neither advantages , nor ill will to do it . 3. That when the Controversie about the Worship of Images grew hot , the defenders of them made use of Treason and Rebellion to maintain their Cause . It would make one wonder to see how a late pretended Author of the History of the Iconoclasts in English hath endeavoured to accommodate that History to our Reformation in England , making Henry 8. to be Leo Isauricus and Queen Mary to be Irene , ( which is not much for her honour . ) But suppose Henry 8. to be Leo , on whose side lay the charge of Rebellion , which it is most certain the Pope and his adherents were guilty of towards Leo ? For Gregory 2. confesses in his Epistle to Leo , that the people rebelled against him , out of zeal to their Images ; and Onuphrius saith , that by reason of Leo's opposition to Images , the Pope deprived him of the remainder of the Empire in Italy . And this worthy Historian himself saith , that the Romans and others then subject to Leo did not only throw down his Statues from the high places and pillars whereon they stood , but would no longer pay him any Tribute or obey his Orders ; and he confesses afterwards , that upon the Popes instigation they began a Defensive Conspiracy for Religion ; ( Just such another as the Irish Rebellion ; which that Author hath heard of ) only this was far more bloody and cruel than the other . But P.T. is concerned for the Popes honour , saying , that what the Pope intended only for a defensive Confederacy for Religion , ( sore against the Popes will ) proved an offensive conspiracy against the Emperours temporal Right ; in so much that all Italy renounced his dominion . Was the forbidding the paying Tribute to the Emperour only a defensive confederacy for Religion ? Yet this Anastasius Bibliothecarius , Zonaras , Cedrenus , Glycas , Theophanes , Sigebert , Otto Frisingensis , Conradus Urspergensis , Sigonius , Rubeus and Ciacconius all agree to have been done by the Pope , upon the Emperours declaring against the Worship of Images . But I need go no farther than this * Historian , who delivers this for the doctrine of this Pope in a Synod at Rome on behalf of Images , viz. That it is against reason to believe , God would have a multitude of men , or all mankind to be damned rather than resist with armes , false doctrine favoured by one or a few Soveraigns , seeing Christ dyed rather to save Souls than to humour Soveraigns . Most primitive and Catholick doctrine ! and happily applyed to the Worship of Images . But he goes on , as if he had been giving instructions for another Rebellion ; that the Rule whereby they ought to judge of the time and lawfulness of their resistance , must not be their own fancies , but a real danger of altering the Catholick Faith , and the Soveraigns actual endeavours to do it . So that according to this blessed doctrine , a Rebellion on the account of Religion , is a just and holy War ; and is it not easie to discern what such men would be at , who deliver this as the Doctrine of their Head of the Church in a Council of Bishops ? If Gregory 2. said such things , he did but speak agreeably to his actings ; if he did not , we know at least the mind of this Historian ; who seems to have calculated his history for a Meridian nearer home . 4. It is observable , how great and apparent a change was made in the doctrine and practice of the Roman Church in this matter of Images , between the time of the two Gregories , the first , and the second , i.e. between A. D. 604. wherein the first Gregory died , and A.D. 714. wherein the second was made Pope . It would afford a man some pleasure to compare the Epistle of Gregorius M. to Serenus , with those of Gregory 2. to the Emperour Leo , and yet both these according to the Roman pretence Infallible Heads of the Church . We have already seen what the former Gregories opinion was , let us now compare it with his Name-sakes . He charges the Emperour Leo with using the very same words that his predecessour had done in this matter , viz. that we are not to worship the Work of mens Hands ; whereas , saith he , very wisely , those words were spoken in Scripture for the sake of such Paganish Idolaters , who worshipped golden , and silver , and wooden Animals ( the Pope calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) and said , these are thy Gods , and there is no other God besides : ( as though there ever had been such Fools in the World ! ) and for the sake of these Works of the Devils hands we are commanded not to worship them : but whatever is made by men for the honour of God ought to be worshipped ; in spight of his Predecessours definition to the contrary in the very same case . And then he tells a very worshipful story of the Pictures that were taken of Christ and his Apostles by their Disciples ; and of the Image Christ sent for a present to the King of Edessa ; it is great pity the Veronica was forgotten by him ; but that piece of Antiquity was not yet known . Then , he bids the Emperour go among the boys at School , and if he should say among them that he was an enemy to Images , they would throw their Table-books at his Head ; because Children alwayes love Pictures ; and a little after , he saith , he was like Ozias the King of the Iews that destroyed the brazen Serpent . It seems the Bible was then a Book not much studyed by the Head of the Church : for was it indeed Ozias that demolished the brazen Serpent ? and was this such a reproach to Leo to be compared to good Hezekiah ? And so very learnedly he falls to the commending the brazen Serpent , and inveighing against that insolent King that broke it in pieces ? Was not this a hopeful piece of Infallibility ! After this , our learned Historian saith , the Pope declared him not only an Heretick , but an Heresiarch ; for what I beseech him ? for being of the same opinion as to the worship of Images , that his Predecessour Gregory had been of ? But see how the case is altered in a hundred years ! In my mind , the Emperour Leo asked a very pertinent Question of the Pope ; How comes it to pass that the six General Councils never said a word of Images , if they were such necessary things ? And the Pope made as impertinent an answer ; And why , saith the Pope , did they say nothing of eating and drinking ? it seems Images in his opinion were as necessary to Religion , as meat and drink to our bodies ; for , he saith , the Fathers carried their Images to Council with them , and travelled with them ; and I suppose slept with them too , as Children do with their Babies . 5. The artifices and methods ought to be observed whereby such a cause as the worship of Images , was advanced and defended . For being destitute of any colour from Scripture , Reason , or Antiquity , there was a necessity of making use of other means to supply the want of these . Such as , 1. Representing their Adversaries to the greatest disadvantage ; which is done to purpose in the fifth Action of the second Nicene Council . The demolishing of Images was condemned in Serenus by Gregory as an act only of intemperate zeal and indiscretion ; but now it was become heresie , worse than heresie , Iudaism , Samaritanism , Manichaism , nay worse than all these . This Tarasius offers to prove in the beginning of that Action ; from S. Cyril , he compares them with Nebuchadnezzar , who destroyed the Cherubim ; from Simeon Stylites , to the Samaritans ; and Iohn the pretended Vicar of the Oriental Bishops saith , the Samaritans are worse than other hereticks ; therefore they ought to be called Samaritans ; and Constantinus Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus saith , they are worse than Samaritans . Afterwards the same Iohn saith , see how clearly we have demonstrated that the Accusers of Christians ( in this matter of Images ) are partakers with Nebuchadonosor , and Samaritans , and Iews and Gentiles and Manichees , and those who denyed that Christ was come in the Flesh. Why ? what is the matter ? what article of the Christian Faith have they denied ? what ! have they renounced Christianity , and been circumcised ! No : but worse ; being Christians they call the worship of Images Idolatry . O dangerous heresie , and horrible blasphemy ! But it may be worth our while to consider a little the account which Tarasius desires Iohn to give the Council of the beginning of this most detestable heresie ; viz. that after the death of Solyman Caliph of the Arabs , Homar succeeded him , after whom followed Ezid or Jezid a vain man ; in his time there was at Tiberias one Sarantapechys a Leader of the Iews , and a Magician ; who promised long life to the Chaliph on condition he would do what he would have him ; which he presently undertook with great promises of rewards to him ; then the Iew required an Edict for the demolishing and defacing all the Images in the Christian Churches ; which was accordingly executed by the Iews and Arabs . The news of which excited the Bishop of Nacolia , and those about him to do the same thing ; but Jezid lived not above two years and a half after ; and his Son Ulid destroyed this Iew , and the Images were again restored . This was the story told and approved in the Council ; but Zonaras saith , they were two Iews who perswaded Jezid to publish his Edict against Images , and that he dyed within the year ; and that his Son seeking to punish them , they were fled into Isauria , where they met with Leo then a young man to whom they foretold the Empire , and made him promise them that when he came to is , he would do one thing for them : which one thing proved to be the destruction of Images ; and they challenging their promise when he was now Emperour gave the occasion to the terrible persecution of Images . Cedrenus saith , that a few years before the Reign of Leo , some Iews of Laodicea in Phoenicia went to Jezid , and obtained the Edict against Images , and then he tells the rest of the story , as Zonaras did . Theophanes saith , it was but one Iew of Laodicea , and that Jezid dyed before the Edict was published in all parts of his Dominions , and saith , this was in the seventh year of the Empire of Leo. Constantinus Manasses , and Michael Glycas only mention the Iews foretelling the Empire to him , and putting him upon the destruction of Images , without the other circumstances . Let the Reader now judge whether this be not a probable story ; and purposely invented to cast the odium of rejecting the worship of Images on the Iews and Saracens ? as though it could never have come from any Christian. It was one Iew , saith the Vicar of the Oriental Bishops ; they were two Iews or more , say the Greek historians . It was a Iew of Tiberias , saith Iohn ; no , saith Cedrenus , they were two Iews of Laodicea ; but one saith Theophanes . These Iews met with Leo when he was a young man and foretold the Empire to him , say Zonaras , Manasses and Glycas ; but a few years before the Reign of Leo , saith Cedrenus ; nay , saith Theophanes , it was in the seventh year of Leo ; in the eighth , saith Baronius , for Jozid did not reign before . Was there ever a more consistent story than this ? But the Author of the late history of the Iconoclasts , thinks he hath found out a salvo for these contradictions . For he makes two several Edicts under two Jezids that were Chaliphs ; the former of the two Iews about A. D. 686. who were the men that foretold the Empire to Leo , and the other of Sarantapechys to Jezid the second in the time of Leo ; this he hath borrowed from the French Author , as he hath done all his quotations ( and I much question by his manner of citing them , whether he ever saw the Books he quotes in his Life . ) But this is said without the least shadow of proof ; for no one of all the Historians , ever mention two Edicts of the several Iezids ; but all pretend to tell the very same story . And is it probable that the two Iews who foretold the Empire to Leo , A. D. 686. should come to Constantinople to Leo , after A. D. 723. when Leo began to oppose Images ; meerly with a design to extirpate Images , without proposing any other advantage to themselves by the Emperour , as the Greek historians say ? Credat Iudaeus . They are a sort of people , that know how to improve such an advantage to better purposes ; and their zeal against Images was never so great , as the love of their own Profit . But our English Historian is not content with the Fables of the Greeks ; but he makes more of his own . For , he saith , these were Samaritan Sectaries , who were more precise than the rest of the Iews , and were much troubled at the Cherubims in the Temple , and more at the respect which the Christians tendered to the Images of Christ and his Saints . I never saw a more pittiful pretender to History than this Author ; who , if he offers to add to , or vary from his Original , he makes the matter worse than he found it . For not one of his Authors in the Margin , say they were Samaritans but only Hebrews , as Zonaras , and Cedrenus ; his other Authors Elmacinus , and the Chronicon Orientale have not one word about it , where they mention Iezid the Chaliph of Arabia . And yet granting they were Samaritans , there is not the least ground for his saying , they were more precise in this matter of Images than the rest of the Iews ; for Epiphanius himself , whom he quotes , suspects them of secret Idolatry in Mount Gerizim , and the Iews generally charge them with it : for they say , they worship the Image of a Dove on Mount Gerizim ; which Maimonides affirms of them with great confidence , and Obadias Bartenora , with several others . It was therefore very unhappy for this Historian to pitch upon the Samaritan Sectaries of all others , as the Beginners of the heresie of the Iconoclasts . And was it not luckily done to begin a History with so palpable a falshood ! But this was a pretty artifice to possess his Reader at the entrance , that none but Samaritan Sectaries could be enemies to the worship of Images : which , he knew , to have been the method of the second Council of Nice : only he pursued it with greater Ignorance than they . 2. By fabulous stories and lying Miracles . Of the former we have many instances in the Actions of that famous Council ; but I shall only mention that out of the Limonarion of the pretended Sophronius about the Spirit of Fornication haunting a Monk who had an Image of the Blessed Virgin ; to whom the Devil said , If thou wilt not worship that Image , I will trouble thee no more . But the Devil would not tell him this great secret till he had solemnly promised him , he would reveal it to no body . The Monk next day told it to the Abbot Theodore , who assured him he had better go into all the Stews in the City , than leave off the worship of that Image ; with which the Monk went away much comforted . But the Devil soon after charged him with perjury ; the Monk replyed , he had forsworn to God and not to him . Upon which Iohn Vicar of the Oriental Bishops , said , it was better to forswear ones self , than to keep an oath for the destruction of Images . And concerning miracles , it is observable , that Tarasius confesses , that their Images did work none in their dayes : because miracles were for unbelievers ; and yet Manzo a Bishop there present saith , he was cured of a disease by laying an Image of Christ upon the part affected . Bellarmin and Baronius say , the miracle of the Image at Berytus was done in those times ; and yet after the reading the story ( which made the good Fathers weep ) Tharasius saith those words , which make this story , by comparing these circumstances together , appear a meer Fabulous imposture . For in the Council of Nice , the story is reported as written by S. Athanasius near four hundred years before ; but not only those Authors but Sigebert saith it was done A. D. 765. and Lambecius undertakes to prove that this story was never written by S. Athanasius . But most remarkable is the passage which Eutychius the Patriarch of Alexandria relates concerning the occasion of Theophilus the Emperours extirpating Images out of Churches . One of the Courtiers had told him there was an Image of the Blessed Virgin , from whose breasts there dropt Milk upon her day ; but search being made the Cheat was discovered , the Church officers executed , and all Images prohibited . If all the Impostors of this kind were dealt with after the same manner , there would be fewer pretences to miracles wrought by Images than there are . 3. By crying up those for Martyrs , who suffered for the worship of Images , and opposing the Imperial Edicts for pulling them down . Thus Pope Gregory 2. in his Epistle to Leo magnifies the zeal of the Women who killed the Emperours Officer who was sent to demolish the Image of Christ called Antiphoneta , and afterwards suffered themselves for the tumult they raised in the City . But this was not the only Act of Zeal in the Women in this good Cause ; for as Baronius relates it , out of the Acts of Stephanus extant in Damascens Works , when a new Patriarch was set up in the room of Germanus , they shook off all Modesty , and ran into the Church , and threw stones at the Patriarch , and called him Hireling , Wolf , and what not ? One need not wonder at the mighty zeal of the Women in this Cause , for as Pope Gregory notably observes on behalf of Images , the Women were wont to take the little Children in their arms , and shew them this and the other Image ; which contributed mightily to the infallibility of Oral Tradition : when the Women and Nurses could point with their Fingers to the Articles of Faith elegantly expressed in Pictures , which the Children did delight to look upon . The great number of Martyrs in this Cause , of which Baronius glories , consisted chiefly of Women and Monks , who were the most zealous Champions in it . And the late Historian can hardly abstain from making the Empress Irene a Martyr in this Cause ; for in his Epistle to the Queen ( a Lady of so incomparably greater Virtue and Goodness , that it is an affront to her Majesty to commend such an one to her protection ) he had the boldness to tell her that the only imputation which assaults those Princesses repute ( viz. Irene and Theodora ) was their piety in restoring the Religious use and veneration of holy Images to the Eastern Empire . What can be expected from such an Historian , who durst in the face of the World tell her Majesty so impudent a falshood ? For Zonaras , Cedrenus , Glycas , Theophanes , Constantinus Manasses , although Friends to the worship of Images , yet all accuse Irene of Intolerable Ambition and Cruelty to her Son , the Emperour Constantine , and to all his Kindred . Nay , Baronius himself ( who minceth the matter as much as may be ) saith , That if she used those cruelties to her Son , out of a desire of Empire , as the Greek Historians say she did , she was worse than Agrippina : but Const. Manasses , as zealous as any for Images , makes her worse than a Tigre , or Lion , or Bear , or Dragon for her cruelty ; and he can think of no Parallel for her among women but Medea . And was not this an excellent Confessour at least , if not a Martyr in this Cause ? a Person fit to be commended to her Majesties protection , as one that suffered only under the imputation of her zeal for Images ? But if any be given up to believe lies , some must be first given up to tell them . And if this doughty Historian hath any honour or Conscience left , he ought to beg her Majesties pardon , for offering such an affront to her . But what had Queen Mary deserved at his hands , that in his Key to his History , he should compare her to the Empress Irene ? 4. By pretending to Antiquity . This might justly be wondred at in so clear evidence to the contrary , as I have made to appear in this matter : but however , among the ignorant and superstitious multitude , the very pretending to it goes a great way . Thus the Patriarch Germanus boasted of Fathers and Councils for Image-worship to the Emperour Leo ; but what Fathers , or Councils did the aged Patriarch mean ? why did he not name and produce them to stop the Emperours proceedings against Images ? Baronius confesseth , there were no Councils which had approved the worship of Images by any Canon ; but because they never condemned it , being constantly practised , it was sufficient . All the mischief is , this constant practice is as far from being proved , as the definition of Councils . If the picture Christ sent to Abgarus King of Edessa , or those drawn by S. Luke , or the forged Canon of the Council of Antioch ; or the counterfeit Authority of S. Athanasius about the Image at Berytus ; if such evidences as these will do the business ; they have abundance of Autiquity on their side : but if we be not satisfied with these , they will call us Hereticks , or it may be , Samaritan Sectaries , and that is all we are to expect in this matter . 5. The Council of Nice had a trick beyond this , viz. burning , or suppressing all the Writings that were against them . The Popes Deputies in the fifth Action made the motion , which was received and consented to by the Council : and they made a Canon to that purpose , That all Writings against Images should be brought into the Patriarch of Constantinople , under pain of Anathema if a Laick , or Deposition , if in Orders ( and this without any limitation as to Authors or Time , ) and there to be disposed of among heretical Books . So that it is to be wondred , so much evidence should yet be left in the Monuments of Antiquity against the worship of Images . As to what concerns the matter of Argument for the worship of Images produced in this Age , I must leave that to its proper place ; and proceed to the last Period , as to this Controversie , which is necessary for discerning the History and the State of it , viz. 4. When the Doctrine and Practice of Image-worship was settled upon the principles allowed and defended in the Roman Church . Wherein I shall do these 2 things . 1. I shall shew what additions have been to this doctrine and practice since the Nicene Council . 2. Wherein the present practice of Image-worship in the Roman Church doth consist , and upon what principles it is defended . 1. For the additions that have been made in this matter since the Nicene Council . And those lie especially in two things . 1. In making Images of God the Father , and the Holy Trinity . 2. In the manner of worship given to Images . 1. In making Images of God the Father and the Trinity . It is easie to observe how much the most earnest pleaders for Images did then abhor the making of any Image of God. So Gregory 2. in his Epistle to Leo saith expresly , They made no Images of God , because it is impossible to paint or describe him ; but if we had seen or known him , as we have done his Son , we might have painted and represented him too , as well as his Son. We make no Image or Likeness of the invisible Deity , saith the Patriarch Germanus , whom the highest Orders of Angels are not able to comprehend . If we cannot paint the Soul , saith Damascen , how much less can we represent God by an Image , who gave that Being to the soul which cannot be painted ? What Image can be made of him , who is invisible , incorporeal , without quantity , magnitude , or form ? We should err indeed , saith he , if we should make an Image of God who cannot be seen ; and the same he repeats in other places , Who is there , in his senses , saith Stephanus Junior , that would go about to paint the Divine Nature , which is immaterial and incomprehensible ? For if we cannot represent him in our minds , how much less can we paint him in colours ? Now these four , Gregory , Germanus , Damascen , and Stephanus were the most renowed Champions for the Defence of Images ; and did certainly speak the sense of the Church at that time : To the same purpose speak Ioh. Thessalonicensis , Leontius , and others in the Nicene Council . The Greek Author of the Book of the use of Images according to the sense of the second Council of Nice ( published by Morellius and Fronto Ducaeus ) goes farther , for he saith , That no Images are to be made of God , and if any man go about it , he is to suffer death as a Pagan . By which it appears that according to the sense of this Council , the making any Images of God was looked on as a part of Heathen Idolatry . But when a breach is once made , the waters do not stop just at the mark , which the first makers of the breach designed : Other men thought they had as much reason to go a little farther , as they had to go thus far . Thence by degrees the Images of God the Father , and the Holy Trinity came into the Roman Church , and the making of these Images defended upon reasons which seemed to them as plausible , as those for the Images of Christ upon his appearing in our Nature ; for so God the Father might be represented not in his nature , but as he is said to have appeared in the Scriptures . Baronius , in his Marginal Notes on the Epistle of Gregory , saith , Afterwards it came into use to make Images of God the Father , and of the Trinity ; not that they fall under our view , but as they appeared in holy Writ ; for what can be described , may be painted ; to the same purpose he speaks in another place . It seems then by the confession of Baronius no Images of God the Father were in use then , because they did not think them lawful ; when they first came into use , Christianus Lupus professes , that he knows not ; but , he saith , there were none such in the Roman Church in the time of Nicolaus 1. But Bellarmin , Suarez , and others , produce an argument for the lawfulness of them , from the general practice of their Church , which , they say , would not have suffered such an universal custom , if such Images had been unlawful . Bernardus Pujol Professour of Divinity in Perpignan , saith , not only that the Images of the Trinity are universally received among Catholicks , but that they are allowed by the Council of Trent , and doth suppose the use of them as a thing certain and undoubted : and saith , that such Images are to be worshipped . For , saith he , as the mind is excited by the Image of Christ , or the Saints , so may devotion be raised by such an Image of the Deity . Ysambertus saith , that they who give caution concerning the doing of a thing , as the Council of Trent doth , about the Images of God , are to be understood to approve the thing it self : and he saith , the opinion about the lawfulness of such Images is so certain , that to say otherwise is rashness ; and the common practice of the Church for a long time hath been to have such Images in Churches , and they were never reproved either by the Pope , or so much as a Provincial Synod . Vasquez goes farther , saying , That the lawfulness of Images of the Trinity is proved by the most frequent practice of the Church , which commonly at Rome and other places , doth set forth the Image of the Trinity to be worshipped by the People . Arriaga saith , That it is so certain that these Images are lawful , that to say the contrary is not only rashness , but a plain errour ; for God cannot be supposed to suffer his universal Church to err in a matter of such moment . Tannerus asserts , That it is not only lawful to make Images of God and the Trinity ; but to propose them as objects of Worship ; which , he saith , is the common opinion of their Divines , and he proves it , as the rest do , from the practice of their Church and the Council of Trent . Neither are such Images , saith Cajetan , only for shew , as the Cherubims were in the Temple ; but they are set up that they may be worshipped , as the practice of the Church shews . In the processionale of Sarum , I find a Rubrick for the incensing the Image of the Holy Trinity : which clearly manifests the practice of worshipping the Image of the Trinity . Now in this matter , I say , there is a plain innovation since the second Nicene Council , which thought such Images utterly unlawful , as Petavius proves , from the Testimonies before mentioned . But T. G. saith , That Germanus and Damascen , and consequently the rest , only spake against such Images , as are supposed to represent the Divinity in it self ; with whom they fully agree in this matter , and think all such Images of the Divinity unlawful . To which I answer , ( 1. ) This is plainly contrary to their meaning ; for they shew that it was unlawful to make any Image of God till the Incarnation of Christ , as might be at large proved from all their Testimonies . Now this assertion would signifie nothing , if they thought it lawful to make any Image of God from the manner of his appearances . For then it was as lawful to make Images of God before as after the Incarnation of Christ. And one of the arguments of Damascen and the rest for the Images of Christ , although he were God , was to shew the reality of his humane nature , against those who said he took only the appearance of it . But if an appearance of God were sufficient ground for an Image , then this argument did prove nothing at all . And yet the Council of Nice laies so great weight upon it , as to conclude those who reject Images to deny the reality of Christs humane nature . They went therefore upon this principle , that no meer appearance is a sufficient ground for the Image of a Person ; for in case it be a meer appearance , the representation that is made , is only of the appearance it self , and not of the Person who never assumed that likeness , which he appeared in , to any Personal union ; but , say they , when the humane nature was personally united to the God head , then it was lawful to make a representation of that Person by an Image of his humane nature . How far this will hold , at to an object of divine worship , must be discussed afterwards , but from hence it appears , that they did not speak only against such Images which represent the Divinity in it self , but against such as were made of any appearance of him . And it is observable that the ancient Schoolmen , such as Alexander Hales , Aquinas , Bonaventure and Marsilius , do all agree that any representation of God was forbidden before the Incarnation of Christ ; from whence it follows , that they could not think any representation of God from his appearances to have been lawful under the Law. And there can be no reason given , why the representation of God from an appearance should have been more unlawful then , than under the Gospel . ( 2. ) This would only hold then against Anthropomorphites , or those who supposed the Divinity to be really like their Images ; of which sort I have shewn how very few there were among the Heathens themselves ; and if this had been their meaning , they should not have made all Images of God unlawful , but have given them cautions not to think the Divinity to be like them . But whatever the conceptions of men were , they declare in general , all Images of God to be unlawful ; which the Church of Rome is so far from doing , that the Council of Trent allows some kind of representations of God from his appearances ; and the constant practice of that Church shews , that they picture God the Father as an Old Man , not only in their Books , but in places of worship , and with a design to worship Him under that representation ; which was a thing the great Patrons of Images in the time of the second Council of Nice professed to abhor . ( 3. ) Those Images of God which are allowed in the Roman Church are confessed by their own Authors to be apt to induce men to think God to be like to them . Ioh. Hesselius , a Divine of great reputation in the Council of Trent , confesses , That from the Images of God in humane shape men may easily fall into the errour of the Anthropomorphites ; especially the more ignorant , for whose sake especially those Images are made . It being not so easie for them to understand Metaphorical and Analogical representations ; but it being very natural , for them to judge of things according to the most common and sensible representations of them . And if they were all Anthropomorphites in the Roman Church , I wonder what other representation they could make of God the Father , than that which is used , and allowed , and worshipped among them . If there be then so much danger in that opinion as T. G. intimates , how can that Church possibly be excused , that gives such occasions to the People to fall into it ? He that goes about to express the invisible nature of God by an artificial Image , sins grievously and makes an Idol , saith Sanders ; but how is it possible for a man to express the invisible nature of God by an Image , otherwise than it is done in the Church of Rome ? How did the Heathens do it otherwise according to T. G. than by making the Image of God in the Likeness of Man ? But , T. G. saith , men may conceive the Deity otherwise than it is , and so go about to make an Image to represent it , which is folly and madness ; and so it is to make such an answer : for then all the folly and madness in making the grossest Images of God doth not lye in the Images themselves , but in the imagination of the Persons that make them . Is it not as great in those that worship them with such an imagination ? if it be , then whatever the Design of the makers was , if they be apt to beget such imaginations in those who see and worship them , they are in that respect as unlawful , as T. G. supposes any Images of God among the Heathens to have been . ( 4. ) What doth T. G. mean , when he makes those Images unlawful which represent the Divinity in it self , and not those which represent God as he appeared ? Can the meer essence of any thing be represented by an Image ? Is it possible to represent any being otherwise than as it appears ? But it may be T. G. hath found out the way of painting Essences ; ( if he hath , he deserves to have the Patent for it , not only for himself , but for his Heirs and Executors . ) For he allows it to be the peculiar priviledge of an infinite Being that it cannot be represented as it is in it self ; then all other things may be represented as they are in themselves , in opposition to the manner of their appearance ; or else the distinction signifies nothing . Petrus Thyraeus a man highly commended by Possevin for for his explication of this matter , saith , the meaning is , that an Image doth not represent the Nature but the Person that is visible ; for , saith he , when we see the Image of a man , we do not say we see a Reasonable Creature , but a Man. Very well ! and so in the Image of the Deity we do not see the Divine Nature , but the Divine Person , or in such a way as he became visible . The Invisible Nature of God cannot be represented in an Image ; ( and can the invisible Nature of Man ? ) Therefore , saith he , it is no injury to God to be painted by an Image : no more upon these principles than to a man. Bellarmin proves the lawfulness of making Images of God , because man is said to be the Image of God ; and he may be painted , therefore the Image of God may be too ; for that which is the Image of the Image is likewise the Image of the Exemplar , those which agree in a third agreeing among themselves . To this some answer'd that man was not the Image of God as to his body , but as to his soul which could not be painted ; but Bellarmin takes off this answer , by saying , that then a man could not not be painted , for he is not a man in regard of his outward lineaments ; but in regard of his substance , and especially his Soul ; but notwithstanding the soul cannot be painted , yet a man may truly and properly be said to be painted , because the Figure and colours of an Image do represent the whole man ; otherwise , saith he , a thing painted could never seem to be the true Thing , as Zeuxis his grapes did which deceived the birds . Therefore according to Bellarmines reasoning , that which represents a Being according to outward appearance , although it have an invisible Nature ; yet is a true and real representation , and represents it as it is in it self ; and as far as it is possible for an Image to represent any thing . Wherein then lyes the difference between making the Picture of a man , and the Image of God ? If it be said , that the Image of God is very short , imperfect , and obscure ; is not the same thing to be said of the Picture of a man , which can only represent his outward Features without any description of his inward substance or soul ? If it be farther said , that there is a real resemblance between a Picture of a man , and his outward lineaments , but there is none , between God and the Image of a man ; then I ask , what Bellarmins argument doth signifie towards the proving the lawfulness of making an Image of God ? For if God may be painted because man may , who is the Image of God ; ( for the Image of the Image is the Image of the Exemplar ; ) then it follows that Man is the Image of God , as he may be painted , and so God and man must agree in that common thing which is a capacity of being represented , which cannot be supposed without as real a resemblance between God and his Image , as between a Man and his Picture . But T. G. tells us , that they abhorr the very thoughts of making any such likeness of God , and all that the Council of Trent allows is only making representations of some apparition or action of God in a way proportionable to our Humane Conception . I answer , ( 1. ) It is no great sign of their abhorring the thoughts of any such likeness of God , to see such arguments made use of to prove the lawfulness of making Images of God which do imply it . ( 2. ) Those Images of God which are the most used and allowed in the Roman Church , have been thought by Wise men of their own Church to imply such a Likeness . Molanus and Thyraeus mention four sorts of Images of the Trinity , that have been used in the Roman Church . 1. That of an old man for God the Father , and of Christ in humane nature , and of the Holy Ghost in the Form of a Dove . 2. That of three Persons of equal Age and Stature . 3. That of an Image of the Bl. Virgin in the belly of which was represented the Holy Trinity : this Ioh. Gerson saith , he saw in the Carmelites Church ; and saith , there were others like it ; and Molanus saith , he had seen such a one himself among the Carthusians . 4. That of one Head with three faces , or one body and three Heads ; which Molanus saith , is much more common than the other ; and is wont to be set before the Office of the Holy Trinity ; these two latter those Authors do not allow ; because the former of them tends to a dangerous errour , viz. that the whole Trinity was incarnate of the B. Virgin , and the latter , Molanus saith , was an invention of the Devil , ( it seems then , there was one invention of the Devil at least to be seen in the Masse-Book ; ) for , saith he , the Devil once appeared with three Heads to a Monk , telling him he was the Trinity . But the two former , they allow and defend ; Waldensis , saith Molanus , with a great deal of learning defends that of the three Persons from the appearance of the Three to Abraham ; and Thyraeus justifieth the first , and the most common from the Authority of the Church , the Consent of Fathers , and the H. Scriptures . And yet Pope Iohn 22. as Aventinus relates it , condemned some to the Fire as Anthropomorphites and enemies to Religion , for making the very same representation of the Trinity , which he defends , being only of God as an old man , and of the Son as a young man , and of the Holy Ghost under the picture of a Dove . Ysambertus takes notice of this story ; but , he saith , they were such Images as were according to the mind of the Anthropomorphites ; whereas Aventinus saith expresly , they were no other than such as are used and allowed in the Roman Church ; by which Ysambertus saith , there is no more danger of mens being led into a false opinion of God , than there is by the expressions of Scripture . And upon this ground the danger doth not lye in making any representations of God , but in entertaining a false opinion of those representations ; and the Scripture instead of forbidding men to make any similitude of God , should only have forbidden men to entertain any erroneous conceit of any Image of him . But , if the Church take care to prevent such an opinion , as he saith she doth , the other Image with three faces and one Head , or one body and three Heads might be justified on the same reason that the other is . Whereas the Roman Catechism saith , that Moses did therefore wisely say , that they saw no similitude of God , lest they should be led aside by errour , and make an Image of the Divinity , and give the honour due to God to a Creature . From whence it follows , that all Images that tend to such an errour are forbidden , and all worship given to such Images is Idolatry . And it is farther observable , that the Image allowed in the Roman Church for God the Father is just such a one as S. Augustin saith , it is wickedness for Christians to make for God and to place in a Temple , and I would desire of T. G. to tell me , what other Image of God the greatest Anthropomorphites would make , than that which is most common among them ? And if there be such danger in mens conceptions of a Deity from any Images of God , they give as much occasion for it , as ever any people did : So much , that all men of any ingenuity have cryed shame upon them ; but to very little purpose . Abulensis , Durandus and Peresius are cited by Bellarmin himself as condemning any Images of God : and which is observable , they do not condemn such Images as represent God in himself , as T. G. speaks , but such as were in use in the Roman Church . Durandus saith , it is a foolish thing either to make or to worship such Images , viz. of the Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , after the former manner : and which is yet more , he quotes Damascen against this sort of Images , saying , that it was impiety and madness to make them : and so doth Peresius too . Thuanus mentions this passage relating to this matter , that A. D. 1562. the Queen Mother of France by the advice of two Bishops and these three Divines , Butillerius , Espencaeus and Picherellus declared , that all Images of the Trinity should be taken out of Churches and other places , as forbidden by Scripture , Councils and Fathers : and yet these were such Images which T.G. pleads for ; but this soon came to nothing , as all good purposes of Reformation among them have ever done . If it be said , as it is by Ysambertus , that these are not properly Images of God , but of his appearance in a visible form ; I answer , ( 1. ) This doth not mend the matter , for we are speaking of an Image of the Father as a Person in the Trinity ; and whatever represents him as such must represent him as he is in himself , and not barely in regard of a temporary appearance ; and as to such an Image of God the Father , T. G's distinction will by no means reach . ( 2. ) It is the common opinion of the Divines in the Roman Church , that all the appearances of God in the old Testament were not of God himself , but of Angels in his stead . And Clichtovaeus gives that as a Reason why all representations of God were unlawful in the old Testament ; because all appearances were by Angels , and those Angels were no more united to the Forms they assumed , than a mans body is to his Garments : from whence it must follow that all representations of God by such appearances is still unlawful . ( 3. ) Suppose this be a representation only of some appearance of God , and so not of what God is , but of what he did , I ask then on what account such an effect of divine power is made the object of Divine adoration ? For we have seen already by the confession of their most eminent Divines , that the Images of the Trinity are proposed among them as objects of adoration ; now say I , how comes a meer creature , such as that apparition was , to become the object of Divine worship ? Durandus well saw the consequence of this assertion ; for when he had said , that those corporeal Forms which are painted are no representations of the Divine Person which never assumed them , but only of those very Forms themselves in which he appeared ; therefore , saith he , no more reverence is due to them than is due to the Forms themselves . When God appeared in the burning bush , that Fire was then an effect of Divine Power , and deserved no worship of it self ; how then can the Image of the burning bush , be an object of Divine worship ? If God did appear to Daniel as the Ancient of dayes , it must be either by the impression of such an Idea upon his Imagination , or by assuming the Form of an old man ; but either way this was but a meer Creature , and had no such personal Union to the Godhead to deserve adoration ; how much less then doth the Image of this Appearance deserve it ? So that I cannot see how upon their own principles they can be excused from Idolatry , who give proper Divine worship to such Images as these . He commits Idolatry , saith Sanders , that proposes any Image to be worshipped as the true Image of the Divine Nature : if this be Idolatry , what is it then to give the highest sort of worship to the meer representation of a Creature ? for those Images , which only set forth such appearances , are but the Creatures of Creatures , and so still farther off from being the object of adoration . So that notwithstanding all T. G's evasions and distinctions , we find that as to this matter of the Images of God and the Trinity , the Church of Rome is not only gone off from Scripture , Reason , and Antiquity , but from the doctrine and practice of the second Council of Nice too . 2. I now come to the additions that have been made to the Council of Nice by the Church of Rome as to the manner of worship given to Images . For which I must consider , 1. What that worship was , which the Council of Nice did give to Images ? 2. What additions have been made to it since that time ? 1. What that worship was which the Council of Nice did give to Images ? which will appear by these two things . 1. That it defined true and real worship to be given to Images . 2. That it was an inferiour worship , and not Latria . 1. That it defined true and real worship to be given to Images ; i. e. that Images were not only to be Signs and helps to memory , to call to mind or represent to us the object of worship ; but that the acts of worship were to be performed to the Images themselves . The former use of Images doth suppose them to be only of the nature of Books , which represent things to our minds without any act of adoration performed to that which is only an instrument of intellection ; although the thing represented to the mind be a proper object of adoration . As , if by reading a Book an Idea of God is represented to my mind whom I ought to worship , yet no man can imagine that from hence I should fall down upon my knees out of honour to the Book , or with a design to worship it . When a man reads his prayers out of a Book , and makes use of that only as a means or instrument to help his understanding , and direct his expressions ; no man can have any colour of Reason to say that he worships the Book , which he uses for a quite different purpose . It is the same case as to Images , when they are used for no other end but barely to represent to the mind an object of worship ; as a Crucifix may do our Saviour ; then it is no more than an external Note or Character , and hath the same use that words have . But those who go no farther than thus , stand condemned and Anathematized by the second Council of Nice . For that not only determines with a great deal of assurance that Images are to be set up in Churches and houses , and wayes , in order to the worship of them ; but very freely Anathematizes all sorts of dissenters either in judgement or practice . Anathema be to all those who do not Salute the Holy and Venerable Images : Anathema to all hereticks : Anathema to those that follow the Council against Images . Anathema to them that do not salute the Images of Christ and his Saints . Epiphanius in the sixth Session declares this to be the sense of the Council ; Those who say that Images are to be had only for memory and not for worship or salutation , are half-wicked , and partly true and partly false , they are so far right as they are for Images , but they are in the wrong as they are against the worship of them . O the folly of these men ! saith Epiphanius . But this is not all , for as it was not sufficient to have Images for helps to memory , so neither was it to give them some kind of honour or reverence ; nothing but worship would satisfie them . So the Patriarch Tarasius , saith in plain terms , they who pretend to honour Images , and not to worship them , are guilty of Hypocrisie , and self-contradiction . For worship , saith he , is a Symbol and signification of Honour , therefore they who deny to worship them , do dishonour them . This was the Patriarchal way of arguing in this famous Council . And this he proves from the saying of Anastasius Bishop of Theopolis , Let no man be offended with the name of adoration or worship , for we worship men and Angels , but do not serve them , and worship is an expression of Honour . And it would do one good at heart , to see how all the Reverend Fathers clap their hands for joy at the subtle Criticism which it seems that Bishop had discovered , viz. that when our saviour said , Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him Only shalt thou serve , that Only was not applyed to Worship but to Service . Mark that , cryes the Council , Only belongs to Service , and not to worship , therefore although we may not serve Images , yet we may Worship them . If the Devil had been so subtle , might not he have said to our Saviour , Mark that , you are forbidden Only to Serve any else but God , but you may Worship me , notwithstanding that command ? The Patriarch Tarasius in his Epistle to Constantine and Irene expresses this worship by the very same word which is used to God ; for , when God saith , Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God , and him only shalt thou serve ; he restrains Service to himself , but allows Worship to other things ; therefore , saith he , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , without the least doubt or dispute it is a thing acceptable and well pleasing to God , for us to worship and salute the Images of Christ and the B. Virgin , and of the Holy Angels and Saints . If any man think otherwise , and have any doubt in his mind , or any wavering , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , about the Worship of the Venerable Images , the Holy and Oecumenical Synod hath Anathematized him ; and what is an Anathema but a Separation from God ? And thus it becomes no less than damnation to doubt of the Worship of Images . O blessed Change ! from what it was in the primitive times , when it was damnation to worship them . This worship he expresses in the same Epistle by Kissing , by bowing , by prostration ; all which he shews from the signification of the word , and the use of it in Scripture . And in the Definition of the Council , among the Acts of worship , are reckoned the oblation of Incense and Lights , because the honour of the Image passes to the thing represented by it . So that all external acts of adoration were by the Definition of this Council to be performed to Images ; and the same have been practised by the approbation of the Roman Church ; wherein this Council of Nice is received as a General Council , and appealed to by the Council of Trent , supposing the Decrees of that Council to be still in force . In the Constitutions of Thomas Arundel Archbishop of Canterbury made in the Convocation of the Bishops and Clergy begun at S. Pauls , 14 Ian. A. D. 1408. we have a particular enumeration of the several Acts of worship which were required to be performed to Images ; and the places and Reliques of the Saints , viz. processions , genuflections , bowing of the body , thurifications , deosculations , oblations , burnings of Lights , and Pilgrimages , and all other forms and modes of worship which have been practised in the times of our predecessours or in our own ; and this not only the People were required to practise , but the Clergy to teach and preach up the worship of the Cross and other Images with these acts of adoration . And this Constitution is extant in Lyndwood as part of the Canon Law then in force ; who in his Notes upon it , observes , that offering incense was a sacrifice , as it was burnt upon the Altar , and a part of Latria , and therefore he saith , the same incense was not used to the Clergy and people with that burnt upon the Altar , but of another sort which was not consecrated . In the Records of the Tower is extant the Form of Renunciation imposed on the Lollards , wherein are these words concerning the worship of Images , I do swear to God and to all his Seynts upon this Holy Gospell , that fro this day forward I shall Worship Images , with praying and offering unto them in the worschop of the Seynts that they be made after . And yet after all this plain evidence , some have had the confidence to tell us , that they hardly worship Images in the Roman Church , but praying to them they abhorr and detest . What conscientious men were those then who made the poor Lollards swear to do that , which they forbid them to do ? But surely the Bishops and Clergy then understood the doctrine and practice of the Roman Church as well as T. G. and his Brethren do at this day ; and having Authority in their hands were not so cautious and reserved in this matter , as some think it for their interest to be at present . And it is observable , that those learned men in the Roman Church who have been most nice and scrupulous in this matter of the worship of Images , have yet agreed with the rest in the practice of the outward acts of worship towards them . So Vasquez observes concerning Durandus , Holcot , and Picus Mirandula , who speak the most suspiciously among them about the Worship of Images , that they agreed with the Catholick Church in performing all external acts of adoration to Images , and that they differed only in the manner of speaking from the rest : and that the main thing the Council of Nice determined was the real acts of worship to be performed to Images , leaving the several ways of explaining the manner of giving them , and the names of this worship at greater liberty . The same , Card. Lugo saith , that these men differed from Hereticks , because these utterly refuse giving external acts of adoration to Images , which they allowed . Suarez confesses that some of the Hereticks condemned by the Council of Nice did maintain the Use of Images for Memory , which , he saith , appears by the Acts of the Council ; and that all Catholicks agree in this proposition , Imagines esse adorandas , that Imagines are to be worshipped , although some , he saith , do so explain that worship as to differ little or nothing from hereticks . So Durandus , saith he , openly teacheth that Images are not to be worshipped , but only impropriè & abusivè , improperly and abusively , because at their presence we call to mind those objects represented by them , which are worshipped before the Images , as if they were present , and on this account the Images are said to be worshipped . It will contribute much to the understanding the State of this Controversie , to shew a little more particularly , what the opinion of these men was , and how it is condemned by the rest as savouring of Heresie , and repugnant to the Council of Nice , and the sense of the Catholick Church . Durandus goes upon these grounds , 1. That worship properly belongs to him in whom the cause of that worship is , and by accident may be given to that which hath only a relation to that which is the cause . 2. In him to whom proper worship is given we are to consider both the Person to whom it is given , and the Cause for which ; worship is only properly given to the Person , and not to any part of him ; the Cause is that from whence the excellency of the Person arises . 3. That Supreme worship or Latria is due only to God for it self , by reason of his Deity , because the cause of this honour is only in God ; but by accident the honour of Latria may belong to other things ; Now , saith he , a thing may have relation to God two waies , 1. When it goes to make up the same Person , as the Humanity of Christ. 2. When it hath only an extrinsecal relation to Him , as Christs Mother , or His Image . 4. That the humane nature of Christ hath only by accident the honour of Latria given to it , as being part of that Person who is worshipped , who is the Son of God ; but the Humanity it self is not properly that which is worshipped , nor is the Cause or reason of that worship , but only of an inferiour . 5. Of those things which have only an extrinsecal relation to God , this is to be held in general ; that either they deserve no worship at all of themselves , as the Cross , and Images , or other inanimate things : or if they do , as the B. Virgin , it is an inferiour worship ; of the first he determines that no manner of worship doth belong to them , no not to the Cross it self , upon the account of any excellency , or contact of Christ , for which he gives this reason , That which is no subject capable of holiness or vertue , cannot in it self be the term of adoration , but the Cross on which Christ did hang , was not a subject capable of holiness , &c. Nunquam ergo cruci Christi debetur aliquis honor nisi in quantum reducit in rememorationem Christi ; no kind of honour is due to the Cross , but as it calls Christ to our remembrance . 6. That although the conception of the mind be of the thing represented upon sight of an Image ; there is still a real difference in the thing , and in the conception , between the Image and the thing represented ; and therefore properly speaking the same worship is never due to the Image that is to the object represented by it . But , saith he , because we must speak as the most do , the Image may be said to be worshipped with the same worship with the thing represented , because at the presence of the Image we worship the object represented by it as if he were actually present . Holkot in his Lectures on the Book of Wisdom , saith , That in a large sense we may be said to worship the Image , because by the Image we call Christ to mind , and worship him before the Image : and therefore , saith he , I think it fitter to say , that I do not worship the Image of Christ , because it is Wood , nor because it is the Image of Christ , but that I worship Christ before his Image : but he by no means alloweth , that Latria in any sense be given to an Image of Christ. 1. Because Latria is the worship due only to God , but no Image is God : and therefore it is a contradiction to say , that Latria is due only to God , and yet that it is due to the Image of Christ , and to Christ. 2. Then the same worship would be due to Christ and to a Stone , or to Christ and to a creature . 3. He that gives to any thing the worship of Latria , confesseth that to be God ; therefore a man may as lawfully say the Image is God , as that it may be worshipped with Latria ; and consequently that something which is not God is God. Ioh. Picus Mirandula gave this for one of his conclusions , That neither the Cross , nor any other Image is to be worshipped with Latria after the way of Thomas : this conclusion was condemned , and he forced to write an Apology for it : where he saith , That the way of Thomas is dangerous , for the Image as an Image is distinct from the thing represented , therefore if as such it terminates the worship of Latria , it seems to follow that something which is not God is worshipped with Latria : and he declares , that he agrees with Durandus and Holcot : but withal , he saith , that this conclusion of his was condemned as scandalous , and against the Custom of the Universal Church . Yet , he concludes his Apology , with saying , That if he had universally condemned the worship of Images , his proposition had been Heretical . From whence it appears , that these persons who did agree in the practice , yet because they said the Images were to be worshipped only improperly and abusively , were not thought to believe , or do what the Church required . Therefore Suarez saith , ( 1. ) That it is defide , or an article of Faith , imagines esse adorandas , that Images are to be worshipped , and that to be owned not in any limited and improper sense , but absolutely and simply ; which article , he saith , is founded in the Tradition and Definitions of the Church , and he proves it by the constant practice of the Church . ( 2. ) That Images are to be worshipped not abusively and improperly , but verè & propriè , truly and properly , and that the contrary opinion of Durandus is dangerous , rash , and savouring of Heresie . So , he saith , Medina determines it , who reports that Victoria said it was Heretical ; and this conclusion , he saith , is commonly received among the modern Divines ; and he proves it from the Definitions of Councils ; especially the second Council of Nice , which hath defined it under an Anathema . But , he adds , if Images were only to be worshipped abusively and improperly , the worship of them was rather simply to be denied than affirmed ; for an improper and abusive worship is no worship at all ; and they were not to be condemned for Hereticks , who allow the use of Images for memory , and only deny their worship . To which he subjoyns this Reason , either the Image truly and in it self , is at least the material object of worship , total , or partial , or it is not ; if it be , the thing is granted ; if not , then in plain terms , the Image is not worshipped . For it is neither the formal nor the material object of worship ; but only the occasion or sign exciting men to worship the thing represented . And according to this opinion , the Hereticks would speak more properly than the Catholicks . For he that at the sight of a beautiful creature is excited to praise or love the Creator , cannot be said to praise or love the creature , although the presence of the Creature did raise that devotion . Therefore , saith he , the Nicene Council did condemn this opinion , when it condemned those who said that Images did only serve for memory , which in truth is all the use that opinion allows them ; and when the Nicene Council declares the worship given to Images not to be Latria ; for if no more worship be allowed , but only worshipping the object in presence of the Image , then the most perfect Latria may be given to Christ before the Image ; and consequently the worship in that abusive and improper sense may be Latria , which the Council denies : and farther the same Council saith , that not only the exemplar may be worshipped in the Image , but that the Image is to be worshipped for the sake of the exemplar , by which it determines the Image to be the object of worship , although the Reason of it be the thing represented . ( 3. ) Suarez . saith , That not only the external acts of adoration are to be performed towards Images , but the very intention of worship to be directed towards them : For even Durandus himself did allow the external acts to be done towards them , and because the inward intention he said was directed to the exemplar , therefore he said the Images were only said abusively to be worshipped . For which assertion Suarez gives these reasons , ( 1. ) The external act without the intention of the mind is no proper worship , but only counterfeit . And Leontius , quoted in the Council of Nice , saith , In all worship the inward intention is required . ( 2. ) From many passages in that Council , implying that the intention of worship ought to be about the Images , because they are said to deserve worship , and from the sayings of Epiphanius , Basilius , Adrianus , Tarasius there extant , and Elias Cretensis , who saith he did perfectly worship them , which could not be without the inward intention . And from the Council of Trent , which calls it due honour and worship ; but it cannot be any true honour without the inward intention . ( 3. ) To perform the external acts of worship before an Image , is either to worship it , or not : if it be , then the inward intention is granted ; but since there may be a distinction between the intention of worship , and the intention of performing the external acts of worship ; in order to worship it is not only necessary to perform the material acts , but to do them with the intention of giving worship by them . Neither is it enough to say , that there is an inward intention , but the outward acts are towards the Image , and the inward intention to the exemplar , For , saith Suarez , as true worship doth essentially require the intention of worship , so the worship of this or that particular thing doth require a proportionable intention towards that thing : and the worship of one thing cannot be said to be the worship of another thing distinct from it , unless it be some way participated by it ; but the Image is a distinct thing from the exemplar , therefore the worship of the exemplar cannot be said to be the worship of the Image , unless the Image do partake of the worship , and consequently there must be an intention of giving worship to the Image . This , saith he , may be illustrated by an example ; If a man kiss the ground out of a meer intention of giving worship to God thereby , he cannot truly and properly be said to worship the ground about which the material action is conversant , but only God to whom he directed his worship . And all this he confirms by more passages out of the Nicene Council , which , he saith , was not so regardless about the manner and names of worship as Vasquez imagined , but took great care to express it self so that true and proper worship be given to Images ; which it defines under an Anathema ; and although it useth other words , of salutation , honour , &c. yet it makes these aequivalent to that real worship which it doth expresly require . Ambros . Catharinus saith , that the opinion of those who say Images are not truly and properly to be worshipped , but God to be worshipped before an Image , differs very little from those who deny any worship of Images , and is repugnant to the practice of the Church , because we direct our gestures , our words and signs of adoration to the Images , to which likewise we burn incense : And we worship the Cross , saying , O Crux ave , spes unica , &c. And he proves at large by the second Council of Nice , that true and real worship was required to be given to Images ; and concludes that Images are not meerly for instruction , or memory , or exciting devotion , but that they are set up properly for worship . Therefore if any man asks another , Súntne adorandae Imagines ? intrepidè respondeat , adorandae . Are Images to be worshipped ? let him answer without fear , they are . Because , saith he , Images being set apart by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost for such a sacred use , do obtain such a degree of Sanctification , that whoever violates them is guilty of Sacriledge and Treason against the Divine Majesty . For , saith he , God himself is most truly believed to be present in them after a particular manner , and he shews his power and presence by them , using them often for Oracles ; that after this manner our Saviours saying is fulfilled , I am with you to the end of the World. And for the sake of this peculiar presence of God which we sensibly perceive ( and if I should deny that I had done it my self I should be a lyar and ungrateful ) Images do deserve a peculiar adoration , but short of Latria , because they are sanctified for such spiritual offices . Naclantus another Italian Bishop , and an eminent Divine in the Council of Trent as well as Catharinus saith , That it is needless caution for any to say , that they worship before the Image , sed & adorare imaginem sine quo volueris scrupulo , but they may say it roundly , and without the least scruple that they worship the Image . Bellarmine saith , That the Images of Christ and the Saints are to be worshipped , not only by accident and improperly , but by themselves and properly , so that they terminate the worship , as they are considered in themselves , and not barely as they represent the exemplar : which he proves from the definition of the Council of Nice , and the same reasons which are mentioned from Suarez before . Dominicus Soto another great Divine of the Council of Trent , determines positively , That Images are not intended by the Church only for helps to memory ; for we do not worship the Scriptures or names of Saints , which call them to our minds ; but as to Images we ought to think otherwise , for they do not only raise our minds to worship those who are represented by them , sed easdem ipsas debemus adorare , we ought to worship the Images themselves ; for , saith he , the Church doth not say , We worship thee , O Christ , but thy Cross , and O Crux ave , spes unica , &c. whose words are repeated and approved by Ferd. Velosillus . Bernardus Pujol laies down this assertion , The Image truly and properly is the matter of adoration , and the worship truly and properly is terminated upon it : which , he saith , is plain from the seventh Council and from several others , and those are Anathematized who deny it . And the definitions of Councils being absolutely put , are properly to be understood : therefore the worship is truly and properly to be terminated on the Image : and not only the external but the internal worship is , he saith , to be terminated on the Image , which he proves likewise from the second Nicene Council , wherein it is not only required that men do the outward acts of worship , but that they do them with love and affection . And when , saith he , the Council of Trent mentions the external acts , it implies that the internal worship is terminated upon the Images ; for the external acts have not the nature of worship , but as they are signs of internal worship . And to say that the worship is terminated improperly and abusively on the Image , is to make the Councils to speak improperly and abusively ; and those who say that Images are improperly worshipped , do not only err in the manner of speaking , but in the thing it self . Tannerus saith , Absque haesitatione satendum , imagines non solum venerandas & colendas , sed etiam adorandas esse ; that we should say it without hesitation , that Images are not barely to be honoured or reverenced , but to be adored ; which he likewise proves from several passages of the Nicene synod . Ysambertus delivers his sense in these particulars , 1. That the worship of the thing represented before the Image , is not properly worship of the Image , nor agreeable to the Definitions of Councils . For that , saith he , is only properly worshipped , which terminates the worship , and the Councils define such a worship of Images ; which is terminated upon the Images ; which he proves from the Council of Trent as well as Nice , because it requires such acts of worship , which are terminated on the Images . 2. Adoration may be directed to the Image , as to the thing which terminates it ; and to the exemplar as the reason of it ; for which , besides the reasons given by others , he gives this , viz. when there are two things good and lawful , and there is no positive Precept to do them together , then it is lawful to do one without the other : but in the act of worshipping the Image with the exemplar , there are two good acts , viz. the worship of the Image , and of the exemplar , and there is no precept of the Church to joyn those together , therefore it is lawful to do one without the other . Eligius Bassaeus desires it may be observed , That in the worship of the Image , not only the object is worshipped , which is represented by it , but also the Image it self , seeing that is properly worshipped , which is the term of adoration , or the matter to which it is directed . This is the Catholick verity , saith Sylvius , that Images are truly and properly to be worshipped , so that the honour is given not only to the exemplar , but for the sake of that to the Image , and this is defined , he saith , by the second Council of Nice . Arriaga laies down this as a certain principle among Catholicks , That Images are to be truly worshipped , which all the Definitions of Councils do clearly manifest , which being in a dogmatical point , and against Hereticks cannot without danger of errour be explained in an abusive and improper sense : and he adds afterwards , that the opinion of Durandus seems manifestly condemned by all those definitions of Councils which require true worship to be given to Images : and he produces several passages of the seventh Synod to that purpose . And it signifies nothing to their excuse , that they perform the outward signs of worship to Images ; for , saith he , since they allow no proper worship to them , the Images do only serve to excite the memory ; which he thus farther confirms . It is not credible that any hereticks ( supposing the object represented to deserve worship ) should imagine it lawful to worship that object without an Image , and unlawful to do it when the memory of that object is excited upon the view of an Image , upon supposition that no worship is intended to be given to the Image thereby . And it is not credible , that if this had been all the Councils had determined , that they should never think of such an easie way of satisfying dissenters , as the declaring this to have been their sense would have been . But the controversie lay in another point , viz. that Images did not deserve any immediate worship , so as to have any honour done to them , although considered only as the material objects . For , saith he , if all the dispute had been only about a condition exciting men to adoration , it could not have come into mens heads to have said , that because Images were dead and inanimate things , they could not be a meer Physical condition of adoration ; which is all that Durandus allows them . Is any man so sensless to say , that because words are inanimate things , therefore they ought not to be excited to the worship of God at the hearing of them ? and the case is the same of the representation made by the eye or by the ear . But when they denyed the lawfulness of the worship of them , they spake of true and real worship which is immediately carried to the Images themselves , and for this they made use of an argument which hath an appearance of Truth , viz. that Images being dead things have no excellency to deserve any real worship from us . From whence it follows , that when the Fathers condemned these hereticks ; they did not determine that they might be used as a condition of worship ; but that true and real worship was to be given to them . Cardinal Lugo saith , that to the worship of Images , it is not only necessary that the external act be performed to the Image , of kissing , or bowing , &c. but there must be an inward affection too which implyes submission . For , saith he , worship as all agree , is an expression of submission to the thing worshipped ; and it would be ridiculous to say that Peter is worshipped by that token of submission which I shew to Paul ; therefore to the worship of the Image , the outward act must express the inward submission of the mind to it , or else we must deny the common definition of adoration , and make a new one . And this he afterwards proves to have been the definition of the second Council of Nice , who did decree that true and real worship is to be given to Images as they are distinct from the exemplar according to every thing that is required to the Nature of Worship . Thus I have fully proved from the Acts of the Council , and the judgement of so many of the most learned and eminent Divines of the Roman Church , that by the Decree of the Nicene Council , such true and real worship is to be given to Images as is terminated upon the Images themselves . 2. We are now to equire what kind of worship that was , which the second Council of Nice did give to Images : which will appear by shewing these two things . 1. That the worship required was higher than meer reverence . 2. That it was lower than Latria . ( 1. ) That it was higher than meer reverence . T. G. would insinuate , that all the worship required by the Nicene Council , was no more than the Reverence shewed to the Books of the Holy Gospels , or the sacred Utensils of the Altar ; for which he quotes the definition of the Council , wherein those things are joyned together . And so they are in Hadrians epistle extant in the Council , in the Latin translation ( for the Greek hath another sense ) and in Damascens oration ; but to clear yet farther the State of the Question , I shall shew , 1. The difference between the Reverence of these things , and the Worship of Images . 2. That the Council of Nice did put a difference between them . 1. For the difference between the Reverence of these things , and the worship of Images . Although no irrational or inanimate being be capable of that real excellency to deserve any honour from us for its own sake , as Aquinas determines ; yet such things may have a relation to matters of so high a nature as to deserve a different usage and regard from other things ; as the Vessels of the Church , or the Chalices are not to be used for common drinking ; which peculiarity of the use of such things is that degree of honour which belongs to them on the account of their being dedicated to sacred purposes . So S. Augustin saith , of the sacred Vessels , that they are consecrated and do become holy by their Use , being separated from common service and devoted to the ministry of holy things ; but he doth plainly distinguish the respect shewn to them from the worship of Images ; for a little before he speaks of such who did worship or pray looking upon an Image , and that those who did so did behave themselves as if they expected to be heard by the Image ; but do we pray to the sacred Utensils because we make use of them in our prayers to God ? Little did S. Austin think , that praying looking upon Images and the Reverence shewed to sacred Vessels on the account of their use , should have been ranked together . He that prays looking upon an Image , doth either direct his adoration to the Image , or to the Person represented by the Image as if he were actually present , and this is the true reason of the worship of Images ; but no man can pretend this as to the Reverence of Holy things , because all their holiness consists in a bare extrinsecal denomination , which affords no reason for any more than such an esteem as belongs to sacred Things , and not for any act of worship to be done to them . They who make the Images themselves to be the material object or term of adoration , do yet say that the formal reason of that worship is to be taken from the object represented : others say , that the thing represented , and the Image are worshipped with the same act of adoration ; but both sorts do make the representation in an Image to be the ground and reason of the worship given to it . Why then should those things , which do not represent be worshipped as those that do ? Are not Images appointed by the Definition of the Nicene Council to be set up in Churches , and in High wayes , on purpose for worship ? Are they not formed , and set forth with all advantages to allure men to the worship of them ? And after all this , is no more meant by their worship than by the Reverence of Holy things ; which are designed for a peculiar use , and serve for other ends than to be worshipped by us ? If Images were set up in Churches only for memory and instruction , and were as much appointed by God to inform us of his Will , as the Holy Scriptures are ; there were some colour of shewing a like regard to them as to the Holy Bible ; but it is quite otherwise , they were never appointed for that purpose , they are uncapable of doing it , and are set up for adoration ; and yet can the same men who commanded their worship , have any pretence for making the Reverence to the Bible and the worship of Images to be alike ? Besides all this , is there no difference between a Religious respect ( if I may so call it ) to sacred places and things , and all the most solemn Acts of adoration which were ever given to Images by the greatest Idolaters ? such as kneelings before them , prostrations , praying with their eyes fixed upon them , as though they were speaking to them ; burning incense and lights before them : which are as great Testimonies of Worship as were ever used by the grossest and most sottish Idolaters . I may rather say , there is no great difference between them and their Images , that can see no difference between such worship and the Reverence of Holy things . 2. That the Council of Nice did put a difference between these things . For however , to blind the business as much as might be , they put them together in the Definition , yet if we observe the ground on which it established the worship of Images , was such as referred to the things represented by them , and not any sacred use of them : and those expressed in the very same Definition . For , say they , they honour of the Image passes to the Prototype , and he that worships the Image doth in that worship the thing represented . By which they lay the foundation of the worship of Images upon a thing peculiar to them , and that doth not hold for the other things . And this reason here assigned runs through all the several discourses in that Synod , of Hadrian , Theodorus , Tarasius , Germanus , Leontius and Epiphanius ; and the very same reason is assigned by the Council of Trent . It is observed out of S. Augustin , that the most sacred things are only capable of honour , honorem tanquam Religiosa possunt habere , where he speaks of the elements of the Eucharist , but Tarasius in this Council of Nice pronounces them all guilty of hypocrisie , who would only give honour and not Worship to Images : by which it appears that the Council determined more than meer Reverence to be given to Images . 2. That this worship which the Council of Nice determined was lower than Latria , For so it follows in the definition of the Council , that they only meant an honorary adoration and not true Latria , which is only due to God. Tarasius upon reading Pope Hadrians Epistle declares his consent to the worship of Images asserted in it , reserving Latria , and Faith to God alone . To the same purpose speaks Constantinus Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus upon reading the Epistle of Theodorus ; whose words I grant were mistaken by the translatour of the Council into Latin , as appears by what he is charged with in the Caroline Book , and his words in the Acts of the Council ; but it doth not therefore follow , as T. G. would have it , that the Council of Francford did mistake the meaning of the Nicene Synod . For the Author of the Caroline Book particularly observes , that in those words ( as translated ) He did contradict the sayings of the rest , but that unawares he had betrayed that , which the rest endeavoured to conceal , viz. that they gave the worship proper to God to Images : for however they denyed it in words , they did it in their actions . So Epiphanius the Deacon saith , that they often declared that they did not give Latria to Images . Thus we see what the sense of the second Council of Nice was as to the worship of Images . 2. I now come to the additions which have been made to this doctrine , in the Roman Church ; when it was delivered as good Catholick doctrine , that the worship of Latria was to be given to the Images of Christ. So Thomas Aquinas determines in several places , which are collected by Simon Majolus ; and he goes upon these grounds . 1. Because no irrational creature is capable of worship , but with a respect to a rational Being . 2. Because Images are worshipped on the account of their representation , therefore , saith he , they are to be worshipped with the same worship with the thing represented . 3. Because the motion of the mind towards an Image , as an Image , is the same with the motion towards the thing represented . 4. Because the Church in praying to the Cross , speaks to it as if it were Christ himself . O Crux ave , spes unica . But how can this doctrine be reconciled to the definition of the Council of Nice , which determines expresly contrary ? Estius saith , that S. Thomas never saw this definition of the Council ; the same is said by Catharinus , and Sylvius ; for saith Catharinus , if he had seen it he would have endeavoured to have reconciled his opinion with the decree of the Council ; which shews that he thought it inconsistent with it . From whence I argue that the Council of Nice was not then received in the Western Church , for if it had been , is it conceivable that so great a Doctor of the Church as Aquinas , should either not have seen it , or if he had seen it , should have contradicted the Definition of it . But Aquinas was not the first who asserted this doctrine in the Latin Church , for Alex. Hales , who was his Master , saith as much in effect , although he doth not so openly apply the term of Latria to it ; yet putting this question , whether greater worship doth belong to the Cross than to any man ? he determines it affirmatively ; and distinguishes between the dignity of a thing , and the dignity of an Image , and an Image having all its excellency from the object represented , all the worship given to it is to be referred to the Prototype ; now , saith he , man having a proper excellency can deserve no more than Dulia , and therefore the Cross as it represents Christ must have the worship of Latria . And it is considerable that Alex. Hales , as Pitts saith , writ his Summ by the Command of Pope Innocent 4. and in the time of Alex . 4. it was examined by seventy Divines and approved , and recommended to be taught in all Universities . Card. Bonaventure determines it roundly , that as Christ himself from his union to the Divinity is worshipped with Latria , so is the Image of Christ as it represents him ; and concludes thus , proptereà Imagini Christi debet cultus Latriae exhiberi . Rich. de Media Villa who lived in the same Century , asserted the same doctrine . And when Durandus opposed the doctrine of Thomas on this ground , because the Image and Prototype were two distinct things , and therefore what belonged to the exemplar could not be attributed to the Image , however considered as an Image , and so the worship are to the exemplar could not be given to the Image , yet he confesses the other was the common and received opinion ; which was defended against Durandus by Paludanus and Capreolus . Marsilius ab Ingen speaks his mind freely in this matter , saying , that the Cross as a sign representing the object of worship , and as a medium of it is to be adored with Latria ; and for this he appeals to the practice of the Church , O Crux ave spes unica , Auge piis justitiam , reisque dona veniam : which three things , he saith , do properly belong to God , and therefore , saith he , it is properly the worship of Latria which the Church doth give to the Cross as a sign . Iacobus Almain declares , that Images are to be worshipped with the same kind of worship that the things represented are : because no Image is to be worshipped for any sanctity or vertue in it self , but only for the sake of the object represented , otherwise it would be Idolatry . Gabriel Biel likewise agrees , that the Images of Christ which represent him are to be worshipped with Latria : but he found out the distinction of a twofold Latria , 1. Proper Latria , which is the worship given to Christ as the object represented upon the sight of an Image of him , and this is not terminated on the Image , but the exemplar . 2. Improper or analogical Latria , which is the worship of the Image as it represents : so that to the same external act of worship he makes two internal acts , whereof one is terminated on the Image , the other on the Prototype . Thomas Waldensis saith , that the Images considered in themselves deserve no worship at all , but considered in relation to a higher Being and in regard of their representation , so they deserve to be worshipped ; and if the mind passes from the Image to the thing represented , then he saith , the Image and the Prototype are worshipped with the same act ; which must be Latria as to the Image of Christ ; but the Latria condemned by the Nicene Council , he would have to be the worshipping the Images themselves for Gods : which the Heathens themselves , as appears by the Acts of that Synod , utterly denyed that they did in the discourse of Iohn of Thessalonica . We worship not , saith the Heathen , the Images , but through them the Spiritual Powers . Angelus de Clavasio declares , that the Image of Christ is to be worshipped with Latria as well as himself , and that the Cross whereon Christ was Crucified was to be worshipped with Latria both on the account of representation and contact ; therefore , saith he , we speak and pray to the Cross as to Christ himself . The same is said by Bartholomaus Fumus , who was a Dominican , as the other a Franciscan , ( whereby we see it was no opinion peculiar to the Dominican order on the account of the authority of Thomas ) and by Dionysius the Carthusian , as well as Antoninus the Dominican . Franciscus Ferrariensis saith , that when Latria is appropriated to God , it is be understood primò & per se , primarily and for its own sake ; but if it be understood only secondarily and for anothers sakes ; then , saith he , Latria may be given to an Image of Christ ; for considering the Image , as an Image , it is worshipped with the same act , by which the Person represented is , and therefore since Latria is due to Christ , it must be so to the Image of Christ ; and he answers all the arguments of Durandus , Holcot , and Mirandula by the help of the former distinction ( as he might have done a hundred more ) and he asserts , that the Image and the object represented make together one total object of adoration , whereof one part is the Reason why the worship is terminated on the other : and that the act of adoration whereby God and the Image are worshipped together , cannot be Latria in respect of one , and an inferiour worship in respect of the other , because both the internal and external acts are such wherein the worship of Latria doth properly consist : and to shew this to be the Catholick doctrine , he proves it , from the practice of the Catholick Church which makes genuflections , prostrations , supplications . and other acts of Latria to the Cross. Which was the true Reason of introducing this doctrine of Latria to Images contrary to the Definition of the Nicene Council , because they saw the constant practice of the Church in the Worship of the Cross could not be justified upon other grounds . The Church never owning any Prosopopoeia , but expressing its devotions to the Cross , as really distinct from , although representing the Person of Christ. Card. Cajetan saith , that the act of worship towards the Image of Christ , is truly and properly terminated on the Image ; not in regard either of its matter or Form , but as it performs the Office of an Image . So that Christ himself is the Reason of the worship of the Image , and his being in the Image , is the condition , by which the Reason of worship doth excite men to worship and terminate it . But since Christ is not asserted to be really and Personally in the Image , but only by representation , Cajetan ought to have shewn , that an union by meer Imagination between Christ and the Image , is a sufficient condition for performing those acts of worship to the Image which properly belong to God alone which he hath not undertaken ; but he shews against Durandus , that if the Image of Christ were only worshipped , as it puts us in mind of Christ , then any other thing which puts us in mind of him might be worshipped as well as an Image . And the Practice of the Church shews , that it doth not worship the Cross as a memorative sign , but because the Image of Christ is to be worshipped with Latria , therefore it worships it . Thus we see what the judgement of the most eminent and learned Divines of the Roman Church was , concerning giving the worship of Latria to Images before the Council of Trent , and upon what , that judgement was founded , viz. the practice of the Roman Church , in the worship of the Cross. Let us now see whether this matter hath been otherwise determined by the Council of Trent , and whether the contrary opinion hath obtained since . That wary Council knowing very well the practice of their Church and the opinion of Divines , only determines due honour and veneration to be given to Images ; not for the sake of any Divinity , or power inherent in them , for which they are to be worshipped , or that any thing is to be asked of them , or that Trust is to be put in the Images , as it was of old by the Heathens , who placed their hope in Idols ; but because the honour which is done to them , is referred to the Prototypes which they represent , so that by the Images which we kiss , and before which we uncover our heads , and fall down , we adore Christ and worship the Saints which they represent . Which hath been already decreed by Councils against the opposers of Images , especially the second Nicene Synod . Where we observe these things , 1. That all external Acts of Adoration are allowed to be done to Images ; even the very same which were to be done to the Person of Christ , if he were actually present , are to be done to his Image to adore him thereby . 2. That there is not the least intimation against giving the same kind and degree of worship to the Image , which is given to Christ himself . And since the Council allows no proper vertue in the Image for which it should be worshipped ▪ but takes all from the representation , and supposes the honour to pass to the Prototype , Vasquez thinks it is very evident , that the sense of the Council was , that the Image and the Exemplar were to be worshipped with the same Act of adoration , which as to the Image of Christ must be no less than Latria . 3. After the Council of Trent , many of their most Eminent Divines have asserted the worship of Latria to be given to Images . Dominicus Soto a Divine of the Council of Trent determines , that every Image is to be worshipped with the same worship , that belongs to the thing represented ; as the Image of God and Christ with Latria , and of the B. Virgin and other Saints with Dulia . Turrianus , another of the Trent Divines saith , that the same adoration belongs to the Image , and the Prototype ; as that which is called Latria to Christ and his Image , but to Christ properly , and to the Image equivocally . Naclantus a third Divine of that Council saith , that if the object represented ought to be worshipped with Latria , so ought the Image too . And what more reasonable way can we have to understand the sense of the Council , than from the Divines who were present and managed the debates of it ? Gretser hath a whole Chapter to prove , that the Cross is to be worshipped with Latria . Card. Palaeotus saith , that the same worship which is given to the Prototype may be given to the Image , but with the different degrees of Latria and Dulia , &c. When , saith he , the Person of Christ is worshipped without an Image , that adoration is terminated upon his essence and Person as in themselves ; but when he is worshipped in an Image , then his essence and Person is worshipped as represented and being in that Image ; although he be not really there , but according to his figure and similitude . Gregory de Valentia confesses it to be the same Divine worship they give to the Image of Christ that they do to the Prototype , because the Image is worshipped in the stead of Christ , but , he saith , it is given in a different respect to them both : but besides this , he allows an inferiour worship to the Image which is terminated on it self . And in both these Petrus Thyraeus agrees with him . Cornelius Curtius an Augustinian , contends for Latria to be due to the very Nails of Christs Cross , by reason of their Contact of the Person of Christ , which worship , he saith , was approved by the Church , when Innocent 6. appointed the Festival of the Souldiers Launce and the Nails of the Cross. Ludovicus de Paramo the Inquisitour of Sicily determines , that the Cross is to be worshipped with no other worship than that of Latria : and if it be taken as joyned with Christ in the mind , it is to be worshipped with a perfect act of absolute Latria : which belongs to Christ perse and to the Cross concomitanter & per accidens : but if it be taken as the material object of adoration , then it is only a Relative Latria for the sake of Christ. And he adds , that an Image is truly and properly to be adored or coadored with the exemplar : which he proves from the Council of Trent . To which he subjoyns a remarkable story , viz. of one Ioh. Aegidius Canon of Savil , who was forced to make a publick retractation for denying the adoration of the Cross , which was judged to be contrary to the practice of the Church , when it saith , O Crux ave spes unica , and in another place Crucem tuam adoramus ; and for saying that God was to be worshipped with Latria and the Cross with Dulia : which propositions he rejected as heretical ; and asserted that the Cross was to be worshipped with the same worship of Latria that Christ himself is . From whence Lud. de Paramo concludes , that this opinion is the most agreeable to the Catholick Faith. Paulus Maria Quarti a Clericus Regularis , in his late Commentaries on the Rubricks of the Missal agrees exactly with Ludovicus à Paramo in the manner of adoration of the Cross : and for Images of Christ , he saith , that their opinion is more probable who make it to be absolute Latria , and not reductive and Analogical . Gregorius Valentianus in his Commentaries on the Hymns declares his consent with S. Thomas about worshipping the Cross with Latria . Layman saith , that we do not worship the Images of Christ with an absolute Latria , because they have no Divinity or rational excellency in them ; but with a relative worship whereby we worship the Image and Exemplar together , we ought to acknowledge that the Cross and Images of Christ are worshipped with Latria . Eligius Bassaeus a Capuchine agrees with Layman , that this is not absolute , but a relative Latria , but he determines that the Cross whatever matter it be made of , ought to be worshipped with Latria as a sign ; but that very Cross on which Christ did hang , not only as a sign , but in regard of contact of his body ; and so the Nail and Thorns , and Sponge , and other things which touched his body , except only Iudas his Lips , and the Ass he rode on to Hierusalem , because they did not partake of his sanctity , as no doubt the Nails and the Wood of the Cross did . But he hath yet a farther subtilty about this Latria , for , he saith , that when the Image of Christ is the material object of worship , and Christ as represented the Reason of that worship , that is not absolute , but relative Latria ; but when Christ and the Image together make up the same material object of adoration , then it is properly Latria ; which he endeavours to prove both from the Councils of Nice and Trent ▪ Phil. Gamachaeus a late Professour of Divinity of the Sorbon determins , that the Cross and Image of Christ as they represent him , and as they are conceived together with Christ , ought to be worshipped with the supreme worship of Latria : because Christ himself is the Reason of the adoration , and because the Church doth so worship the Cross. O Crux ave spes unica . The same is asserted as to Relative Latria by N. Ysambertus another late Professour of the Sorbon , ( whom I the rather mention , that this might not be thought the particular opinion of any Orders among them , as of the Dominicans or Iesuits ) who asserts , that both the Cross and Images of Christ are to be worshipped therewith , because the Image and the Exemplar make up one complex object , whose soul , as it were , is the exemplar , and whose body is the Image , to which object the adoration is directed , so , as that the worship to the Person of Christ is absolute , and to the Image respective : but yet so , as that the Image is at least the partial terminative object of such adoration . I might produce many more Testimonies not only of Schoolmen , but of Casuists , as Filliucius , Iacobus à Graffiis , Azorius and others ; but I need not do it , since Azorius affirms , that this is the common opinion of their Divine● . All the difficulty is how to reconcile this doctrine with the Definition of the Council of Nice : and about this they have fallen into parties and made a pleasant Counter-scuffle among themselves . Catharinus saith , that none of the Ancients did ever allow Images to be worshipped with Latria ; and if this proposition be true , that an Image as an Image is to be worshipped with Latria , that likewise is true , that an Image is to be worshipped with Latria , for all wise men understand an Image as an Image ; but this is so far from being in any ancient Writer that the contrary is expresly there , and especially in the Decree of the Council of Nice ; and therefore , he hath no way to excuse the doctrine of Thomas , but by saying he had never seen that Decree . But it is plain Thomas Aq. had more regard to the practice of the Church , than to the Definition of that Synod , which he thought could not otherwise be defended . The main argument of Catharinus against this opinion , is , Latria is due to none but God ; but an Image however considered as an Image is not God. And whatever the Imagination of the Person passeth to upon the sight of an Image , that can never make that to be God which is not God. If a man takes the Image for God , that is an abominable errour : if he saith , it is not God and yet worships it with Latria ; this is plainly giving Latria to something else besides God. If it be said , that it is the same act of the mind which passeth from the Image to the Prototype , and consequently the same adoration of both ; this , he saith , will not hold , for if the Image be worshipped , that must be the object of adoration , and the worship of the Image must be terminated on the Image , otherwise it is not the worship of the Image , but of the thing represented ; neither can it be understood how there should be two objects and but one adoration . Some answer that the Image and Prototype make one total object of adoration , and so it is but one Act and that of Latria ; but this , saith he , makes strange confusion that the act of worship should be equally terminated on both . If they say it begins at the Image , and is terminated on the Prototype , that is not , saith he , proper worship of an Image which is not terminated on it ; and how can that be a partial object of adoration , if the worship be no wayes terminated on it ? Others say , there is a twofold Latria per se & per accidens , the former is only due to God , the latter may be given to an Image : this , saith he , contradicts the former , for then the same act of worship would be both per se and per accidens , which is ridiculous ; and that which is per accidens ought not to be looked on as worship , for any thing may be said to be worshipped with Latria per accidens . Others say , that the worship of the Image is not terminated on the Image , but on the thing represented , and yet say it is the worship of the Image as an Image , which as such is distinct from the thing represented , which , saith he , is not intelligible . To say the Image is worshipped improperly , is a saying not fit for Philosophers or Divines , but for Poets and Orators . For it is no more properly said the Image is worshipped with Latria , than that the Image is the thing represented ; which no man in his senses would say properly . To Cajetans saying , that an Image as performing the office of an Image is under that notion , the same with the thing represented , he answers , that such a Metamorphosis is impossible by any act of the Image , or of Imagination : but to defend , saith he , that the Image as an Image , or as representing is the same with the thing represented , and so as that the Latria is any wayes terminated on the Image , is to be mad ones self , and to endeavour to make others so . Therefore others say , that the Images are not truly and properly worshipped , but the things represented at them , before them , or in them ; but this , saith he , destroyes the worship of Images , and is against the practice of the Church , which directs the posture , words , and signs of adoration , ( even incense ) to the Images , as when we say to the Cross , O Crux ave spes unica . This we see is the Burden of the Song , among them all ; the Church practises thus , and thus ; this practice must be defended one way or other , and happy the man that doth it best ; but still the practice must be continued , for Catharinus inveighs bitterly against Erasmus , for saying , he thought it safer and easier to take Images out of Churches than to fix the just bounds of Worship and to prevent Superstition . And he grants at last , that by a fiction of the mind , supposing the Image to be the Person represented , it may be said , that the Image is to be worshipped with Latria , yet he concludes , that no one ancient Writer , that he could ever see , did allow , that Images might any way be worshipped with Latria , but all of them did abominate such an expression . And he adds , that the doctrine of Thomas doth rather take off from Images , that true and real worship , which , he saith , from the Nicene Council ought to be given to them , and terminated on themselves though for the sake of the things represented by them . Martinus Peresius Ayala saith , that the doctrine of giving Latria to Images is repugnant to Fathers and Councils , especially to the Definition of the Council of Nice ; and he adds , that there is no more connexion between a sign and the thing signified , than between two relatives , as between Father and Son , and although the Son represent the Father , yet no man will say , that by the same act of knowledge , whereby I know the Son as a Son , I do know his Father , for then the Relative opposition would be taken away , and the different definitions of correlatives ; so , saith he , although by the Image a conception doth arise of the thing represented , yet it is not the same act of knowledge whereby I apprehend the Image and the thing represented : but suppose it were so , there is not the same reason for worship as for knowledge . For it is not repugnant to an Image as an Image to be apprehended by the same act with the thing represented : but it seems repugnant to an Image as an Image to be worshipped with the same worship with the thing represented ; because an Image , however considered , is an insensible Creature , to which they all grant no worship is due ; and although it represent never so much , it doth not change its nature , but a block remains a block still , and a Stone doth not become rational by it . But , say they , Is not the Kings Robe worshipped with the same worship that his Person is ? I confess , saith he , the whole Person as clothed is worshipped , and his clothes are no more separated , than any other habits or dispositions he hath about him . But , if the Kings Robe be separated from his Person , what reason is there to worship that as the King himself is worshipped ? and the Princes Image is neither substantially nor accidentally the same with the Prince , and therefore is not to be compared with his Robe ; and although some honour be due to the Kings Image , yet no man ever saw , unless by the compulsion of some Tyrant , a Princes Image worshipped after the same manner that his Person is . And S. Augustin gives no other reason for the worship of the humanity of Christ ( which he compares with the Princes Robe ) but because it is united to the Divinity ; which reason cannot hold for such an Imaginary Union , between the Image and the thing represented , and therefore it ought not to be worshipped with the same adoration . Besides , saith he , if this were allowed , we might sacrifice to an Image , as well as do other acts of Latria to it , which cannot be said without blasphemy ; but he concludes , that he defines nothing , and submits all to the judgement of the Church . Estius declares , that although almost all the Schoolmen were for Latria to be given to the Cross , yet that it is point-blank against the definition of the Council of Nice ; and it is an unsatisfactory answer to say , they only were against Latria to be given to Images for themselves or absolute Latria ; for no man ever doubted of that , that they were not to have divine worship for themselves ; and the Council puts a distinction between the worship of the Image and the Exemplar ; and joyns Images with the Gospels and Vessels , which no man ever thought were to be worshipped with any kind of Latria : and that , when S. Basil saith , the honour of the Image passes to the Prototype , he means no more than that the Image is honoured for the sake of the thing represented : and that , if an Image may be worshipped with Latria , then sacrifice may be offered to it , which was condemned in Carpocrates and the Collyridians : and then those things which have a nearer conjunction than an Image may be better worshipped so , as the B. Virgin which bore him in her womb . Neither is it enough to say , they have proper excellencies of their own ; for they might receive a double honour , the one proper , the other relative ; and supposing no danger of errour , then it might be done , and Medina , he saith , yields it of the B. Virgin not absolutely , but by reason of the conjunction between Christ and her while he was in her womb . Thus far in the opinion of these men , the case seems desperate as to the reconciling the doctrine of giving Latria to Images with Reason , or the Council of Nice . But we must not imagine a doctrine so generally allowed and so suitable to the practice of their Church should be thus given up . Therefore Vasquez undertakes the business , and like a generous Adversary , not only proves that this may be the sense of the Councils , but that they could have no other ; because , an Image cannot be lawfully worshipped any other way , than as in and by that the exemplar is made the term and next material object of adoration . This he shews , not only from the common consent of their Divines , but from the Council of Trent it self , where it sayes , 1. That no worship is to be given to Images for the sake of any Vertue inherent in them ; but if Images be worshipped as separated from the exemplar , they must be worshipped for some virtue inherent in themselves ; and whatever impression of Sanctity is supposed to be in them , it is only an inanimate sign of such a sanctity as doth not make it an object of adoration : and if the excellency of the thing represented be the reason moving to adoration , that excellency cannot be conceived as distinct from the exemplar when it makes the Image capable of adoration . If they say the excellency is derived from the exemplar to the Image , then it follows , that there is an inherent vertue in the Images for which they are worshipped , which is contrary to the Council of Trent . 2. That Council makes this to be the only reason of worshipping Images , because the honour passeth to the exemplar , which shews plainly that according to the sense of it , they are to be worshipped only as joyned with the exemplar , and by no means as separated from it . And the same he proves , by expressions to the like purpose , from the Council of Nice ; and from the former Testimony of Basil , which , he saith , cannot be otherwise understood than of the same adoration of the Image and exemplar , or else S. Basils Testimony was very impertinently alledged in the Council of Nice , and doth not serve the purpose for which he used those words himself ; many other Testimonies he produces , and at last concludes that the other opinion is no older than Catharinus and Ayala , and that all those who were for the worship of Images before , viz. Fathers and Schoolmen , were of his opinion . And he proves his opinion from this reason because no inanimate thing is of it self capable of worship ; but an Image considered as an Image , but without the exemplar , is an inanimate thing : the Major he proves , because worship is a token of submission to something on the account of its excellency , and superiority ; but to use such to an inanimate thing , is to make our selves slaves to Images , which would be Idolatry : and on the same account a man uses such a mark of submission , he may as well pray to Images , or beg something of them , as a servant doth of his master , He saith , that Alexander and Thomas , although they never saw the seventh Synod , yet did speak the sense of it , as well as if they had seen it : and when that Council denies Latria to Images , it is to be underderstood only of the inward submission of the Soul , and not of the external acts of adoration ; and so he answers all the arguments from the Councils and Fathers : and he saith , that it may be delivered absolutely , that Images are to be worshipped with Latria , if by that be meant the same worship which is given to the exemplar ; and that the doctrine of inferiour worship tends to folly and superstition , and that his own opinion is the most useful to be preached to the People . Suarez is by no means satisfied with this way , saying , the Author of it must necessarily fall into the abusive and improper way of worship which is condemned in Durandus and Holcot , for he takes away all proper worship of Images , and makes them only seem to be worshipped ; for the external acts of adoration , without the internal is but an appearance of worship , and no real worship . Therefore he proceeds after another method , which is this : 1. The Prototype may be worshipped in the Image , and the Image for the sake of the Prototype , with one and the same act of adoration , both internal and external : to explain this he distinguishes between the esse reale , and the esse repraesentativum of the Prototype ; and although the Image doth not contain the Prototype in the first , it does in the latter sense , i. e. in plain terms , although the Person of Christ be not in the Image , yet we may fancy him to be there ; which being supposed , the mind of him that worships is carried primarily to the exemplar , and by way of concomitancy to the Image ; not believing the Image to be Christ , ( for that were a dangerous thing ) but that it doth represent him as if he were there : and consequently this Imagination is a sufficient ground to perform all acts of adoration to the Image , as if the Person of Christ were actually present . Which is just like a Schoolmaster , whom I knew , who being to come into an unusual presence , he goes into a pit , where there were many Trees , and although every one of them had the esse reale of a Tree , yet he supposed them to have a distinct esse repraesentativum of the several Persons he was to make his Congies too ; and having thus fastned the esse repraesentativum of the Person to the proper Tree , he makes all his approaches and with the same complements he intended to use to the Persons themselves . If one should have surprised him in this act of civil worship to the Trees , and asked him , whether he believed the Trees to be the Persons whose names he called them by , he would no doubt , ( if he had been versed in School Divinity ) have answered to this very subtilly with Suarez , that he was not such an Ass , not to distinguish the esse reale of the Tree , from the esse repraesentativum of the Persons ; and although he bowed and made Leggs to the Trees , he did not consider them in so doing as Trees , but as representing those Persons to whom he was bound to shew all that Reverence , which he shewed to the Trees upon the Imagination that they were those very Persons ; so that the Reverence was primarily and per se shewn to those Persons , and but concomitanter & per accidens , and after an inferiour manner , to the Trees . But saith Suarez , the Image is not so properly adored , as co-adored , as the Kings Robe is with his Person ; and although the Image be really different from the Person of Christ , yet he is worshipped in his true Being as represented by the Image , and as it were vested with it , and so they both become one object , and that Person is worshipped , and the Image together with him with the very same act of adoration . I am glad to hear that , saith the Schoolmaster , for I hope by this means , I may do my Reverences to the Persons themselves , by performing them to them as represented in their true Beings in these Trees ; and I pray Sir do not think me such a Fop that I would do all this to them considered as Trees , in actu signato , for I consider them as Images in actu exercito ; and although you may think I do it to the Trees , you are mistaken ; my mind all that while unites the Person represented and the Tree together ; and although my Reverence be primarily designed to the Person for his own sake , and to the Tree only for the sake of the person represented , yet this is only a co-reverence , such as a man shews to the Person of another , by kissing the hem of his garment , only there the Person is really Vested , and here it is only by Imagination . 2. Suarez saith , since it is agreed among Catholicks ; that the Reason of the worship of the Image is the excellency of the exemplar ; that may be considered two wayes . 1. As the objectum quod or the thing it self worshipped in and by the Image as before . 2. As the objectum quo , i. e. as the Reason of giving worship to the Image it self : and this is that worship which Vasquez charges with folly and superstition ; but Suarez undertakes to prove this to be a possible and lawful Worship , when the Image is truly and properly worshipped non adorato directè ut quod ipso exemplari ; i. e. the worship not fixing immediately on the thing represented but on the Image it self , although on the account of the exemplar : for which he makes use of this notable argument ; because in this act of worship there is nothing omitted but a directing the intention to the exemplar , but there is no precept that requires , that as often as we worship the Image , we ought to direct our intention farther than the Image it self ; and therefore that worship is lawful . And although , an inanimate thing be not , as Vasquez urges , adorabile propter se , yet it may , saith Suarez , with wonderful subtilty , be adorable in se propter aliud : and this second kind of worship he endeavours to prove was established by the Councils of Nice and Trent , as well as the first . Bellar. undertakes to clear the whole matter by these propositions . 1. That the Images of Christ and the Saints are to be worshipped not only per accidens or impropriè , but per se & propriè , so as they terminate the worship , as considered in themselves , and not meerly as they represent the exemplar : which he proves , from the definition of the Nicene Council , which decreed Images to be worshipped and not with Latria : but if the Image were to be worshipped with a respect only to the exemplar , then it could not be denyed that an Image of Christ was to be worshipped with Latria . 2. He would not have it said before the people that Images are to be worshipped with Latria , but rather the contrary , because the distinctions necessary to defend it are too subtle for their noddles , and the truth is , the men that make them do hardly understand them themselves . 3. But if we speak among our selves and of the plain Truth of the case , Images may be worshipped with Latria , but then it is improperly and per accidens : as it is represented in the Image . 4. If we speak of worship per se & propriè , so no Image is to be worshipped with Latria ; because this was condemned by the Nicene Council . 5. Yet , he saith , that the worship which ought to be given to Images per se & propriè , is analogically and reductively the same that is given to the exemplar , i. e. the worship of an Image of Christ is analogical Latria : So that it is , and it is not Latria ; it is so , but we must not say so ; yet if we speak of the proper worship of Images , that is not so and yet it is so , i. e. analogically and improperly ; but if we speak of the proper worship of Latria , then it is not so . But doth not the proper worship of Latria belong to Christs Person ? therefore if Christs Person be worshipped in the Image , it ought to be worshipped with Latria . True , saith Bellarmin , when he is worshipped in his own Person , but not as he is in an Image by participation ; but he that is worshipped in the Image is supposed to be the true object of Latria , and therefore Christ as in the Image must be worshipped with Latria . If representation be a sufficient ground of worship , then his presence being supposed in the Image doth require the same worship , as they say is due to him under the Sacramental species : and the manner of his being represented in the Image would take no more off from the nature of the worship , than the Princes Robe doth from the worship due to his Person . And Bernardus Pujol from thence proves , that it is lawful to worship the Image and exemplar with the same act of adoration as one complex object , because the Church doth worship the Sacrament of the Eucharist with Latria , as it is one complex object made up of the Species and Christ himself as there present . The same Author proves against Bellarmin , that the proper worship given to Images is not meerly analogically and reductively Latria , but properly , although more imperfect , like that which is given to the humanity of Christ , and therefore , he saith , the meaning of the Council was only to exclude absolute Latria , and not relative ; with whom Ysambertus agrees , who likewise saith , that when the Image and Prototype are worshipped with Latria , the Image is a terminative object of that adoration , at least as a part to make one entire object of the exemplar and the Image . Card. Lugo saith , that Vasquez hath not spoken clearly to this point , about the aggregate object , made up of the Image and the exemplar ; for , saith he , if internal adoration were allowed to the Image as a partial object , it would go a great way to the proving that the Image it self may be so worshipped in recto , i. e. without the worship of the exemplar : and he thinks , that the same act of adoration may be terminated in recto , both on the Image and the exemplar : and that this aggregate object hath a sufficient excellency to terminate inward worship upon the Image as a part of that object . Arriaga disputes at large against the opinion of Vasquez ; but after all he concludes , that we may say absolutely , that Latria is due to the Image of Christ , and he makes it the same case as to Images and the humanity of Christ ; and to the Nicene Council , he saith , that they spake not of the Images of God , but of Angels and Saints , to which no doubt Latria is not due ; and he stretches the words of Epiphanius the Deacon , to this sense , that no Images of Creatures are to be worshipped with Latria ; therefore , saith he , they did worship the Image of God with Latria . Very subtle I confess ! and like Epiphanius his own self , who argues in that Council , much after that rate , and with equal probability . Petavius concludes with the generality of their Divines , that the design of the Council of Nice was only to exclude absolute Latria , and not relative : for which he quotes the Greek excerpta , wherein it is said , that the Image doth not differ in Hypostasis from the Prototype but only in nature : from whence he inferrs , that it is the same act of adoration to the Image and the thing represented . But if all the danger lay in supposing Images to be distinct hypostates ; the Heathens in that Council declared , that they did not look on them as such , but only as representations , and therefore in that respect they were no more to blame than the Nicene Fathers in the Worship of them . From all this discourse we see , ( 1. ) That some great Divines in the Roman Church do assert proper and absolute Latria to be given to the Images of Christ , as those who assert , the Image and Christ to make up one entire object of adoration . ( 2. ) That the doctrine of a Relative Latria to be given to Images , and such as is given to the humanity of Christ , hath almost universally obtained in the Roman Church . ( 3. ) That they all agree in this , that the external acts of adoration are to be performed to Images , such as genuflections , prostrations , burning of Lights and Incense , &c. ( 4. ) That those who assert an inferiour adoration to be given to Images , do suppose that adoration to terminate in the Images themselves , although it be given on the account of the thing represented . ( 5. ) That those who differ from each other in this matter , do in effect charge one another with Idolatry : but of that afterwards . Nothing now remains to the full stating of this Controversie , but to consider the practice of the Roman Church in the worship of Images , which may be gathered very much from the former discourse , but will receive somewhat more light by these observations . 1. That the Church of Rome hath determined in her publick Offices , that Latria is due to the Cross of Christ , viz. in the Pontificale , where the Rubrick determines the manner of procession at the reception of the Emperour ; and there it is said , that the Cross of the Legat ought to have the right hand , quia debetur ei Latria , because Latria is due to it ; not only that it may lawfully be given to it , but that it is due to it , without any mention of the exemplar , or any distinctions , or limitations about the nature of this Latria . 2. That solemn prayers are made for the consecration of the Images set up for worship and for virtue to be given to them . In the Office of benediction of a new Cross there is this prayer , Rogamus te Domine Sancte , Pater omnipotens , sempiterne Deus , ut digneris bene ✚ dicere hoc lignum Crucis tue , ut sit remedium Salutare generi humano ; sit soliditas fidei , profectus honorum operum , redemptio animarum ; sit solamen , & protectio ac tutela contra seba jacula inimicorum . Per Dominum Nostrum , &c. Is this prayer made in faith or no ? whereby they pray for such mighty benefits by a new Cross ; and to take away any suspicions of Metonymies and Prosopopoeia's it is said expresly hoc lignum Crucis tuae , this Wood of thy Cross , may be a wholsome remedy to mankind , a strengthener of faith , an increaser of good works , the redemption of Souls , a Comfort , protection and Defence against the cruelty of our enemies . And after such prayers , allowed and used by publick Authority in the Roman Church , with what conscience could the Council of Trent say , that they believed no vertue in Images , nor hoped for any thing from them ? After this , the Bishop consecrates the incense , and prays for many good things to come by that too , then the Cross is sprinkled with Holy Water , and then he incenseth it , saying , Sanctificetur lignum istud , in nomine Pa ✚ tris & Fi ✚ lii , & Spiritus ✚ Sancti ; & benedictio illius ligni in quo membra sancta salvatoris suspensa sunt , sit in isto ligno ; ut orantes inclinanresque se propter Deum ante istam cru●em inveniant corporis & anime sanitatem . Per eundem , &c. Then the Bishop kneels before the Cross , and devoutly adores , and kisses it ; and as many besides as please : after this follows a long prayer for the sanctification of that new sign of the Cross ; then the Bishop kneels , adores and kisses again , and as many as will. Then follow particular Offices for the consecration of an Image of the B. Virgin , and of other Images . In the Ceremoniale Romanum , we find very strange prayers upon the Consecration of the Agnus Dei's , which if there were any ground to hope for any of the advantages there prayed for , by the worship and honour of them , no one that loved either his Soul or Body would be without them . For the Pope himself , good man , prays thus , Tu eos bene ✚ dicere , sanctifi ✚ care , & consecr ✚ are digneris , ut tua larga benedictione sanctificati eandem virtutem accipiant contra omnes diabolicas versutias & fraudes maligni spiritus ; ut illos devote super se ferentibus , nulla tempestas eisdem prevaleat , nulla adversitas dominetur , nulla aura pestilens , neque aeris corruptio , nullusque morbus caducus , nulla maris procella & tempestas , nullum incendium , neque ulla iniquitas dominetur eis , neque prebaleat : homo partus cum matre incolumis conservetur per intercessionem unigeniti , &c. What admirable vertue have these Agnus Dei's in them ! they are , good against the Devil , good against Storms , pestilence , falling-sickness , and Sin ; and what could a man wish for more ? But then it is to be observed that these vertues do not depend meerly on the carrying of these about one , but the worship of them is required too : So in another prayer there extant , Bene ✚ dicas , & benedicta sancti ✚ fices , quatenus ipsorum veneratione & honore nobis famulis tuis crimina diluantur , &c. And there we find the Verses of Urban 5. which he sent to the Greek Emperour with three Agnus Dei's . No Mountebank ever set forth the power of his Medicines with more advantage , than the Pope doth the vertue of his Agnus Dei's . Balsamus , & munda cera cum Chrismatis unda , Conficiunt Agnum ; quod munus do tibi magnum : Fonte velut natum per mystica sanctificatum . Fulgura de sursum depellit , omne malignum Peccatum frangit , ut Christi sanguis : & angit . Pregnans servatur ; simul & partus liberatur . Dona defert dignis ; virtutem destruit ignis , Portatus munde de fluctibus eripi● unde . Stephanus Quaranta having met with a more perfect Copy , adds some more verses of the vertues of these little Images of Wax ; and it is great pity any of them should be lost . Morte repentina servat , Sataneque ruina . Si quis honoret eum , retinet super hoste Cropheum , Parsque minor tantum tota valet integra quantum . Agnus Dei , miserere mei , Qui crimnia tollis , miserere nobis . It is not to be questioned , saith Azorius , but , the Pope himself having made these prayers over them ( to whom alone it belongs to consecrate them the first year of his Popedom , and every seventh year after ) they will have the effects prayed for , if they be used with that due reverence and devotion which is required . I find nothing more ingenuously confessed to have been taken from Heathenism , than the wearing of Agnus Dei's for such uses , by Cardinal Baronius , and Rasponi . Baronius saith , the newly baptized used to have them hanged about their Necks , instead of the little Amulets the Gentiles put upon their Childrens necks against fascination . For , saith he , it being impossible to break off all the Gentile Customes , in those who were become Christians , they were allowed the continuance of them , so they were turned to the worship of the True God. And Card. Rasponi saith , that instead of the little Images of false Gods , these were invented to be worn for the same purposes , viz. the driving away the mischiefs both of body and soul. These were called Bullae , which were worn by Boys , and Pupae , by Girles , being little round Images , that were first hung upon Children , and after used by the greatest Persons , as by those that Triumphed , as Rasponi observes , to prevent the power of enchantment . ( Those that consider this and the saliva lustralis , used upon the dies lustricus among the Heathens , Frontemque atque uda labella Infami digito , & lustralibus ante salivis Expiat — with the great vertues attributed by them to salt , and oile , and holy Water , may easily understand that part of the Roman Rituale , which concerns the ceremonies they have added to Baptism . ) But besides the Bullae , which the Heathens used for Amulets , they had little Images , which they carried about with them ; in which they supposed there were great vertues , and to which they gave divine worship . So Dio saith , Caesar carried a little Image of Venus ; and Suetonius of Nero , that he had Icunculam puellarem , and which he secretly worshipped three times a day ; and Asclepiades did carry alwayes about with him a little Image of the Dea Coelestis , saith Ammianus Marcellinus ; as Apuleius saith , he did himself , a little Mercury which he worshipped , which , he said , ought not to be touched but with pure hands , being a consecrated thing ; just as Azorius determines , that no Laymen ought to touch an Agnus Dei , for the very same reason , because they are consecrated : and the Council of Milan under Carolus Borromaeus ( since Canonized ) declares , that when any Artificer makes a golden or Crystal case to put an Agnus Dei in , he must not presume to touch it either with his Gloves , or with any instrument ; but he must send for one in holy Orders to put it into the case . And after all this , is it possible for any to suppose , that the Heathens did attribute virtue to their Images , and that they in the Church of Rome do not ? when they pray for virtues to be given to them ; and believe great efficacy to be in them , and use them with as much superstition as the Heathens did . Whatever then the Council of Trent hath determined to avoid calumny , the solemn Prayers , and Offices , and Practice of their Church , do sufficiently manifest that they believe virtue to be in Images , and consequently do trust in them for those effects which were pray'd to be given by their means . ( 3. ) We ought to compare the practice of the worship of Images in Heathen and Christian Rome together ; and if either exceed the other , the latter hath done it in some parts of folly and superstition . The solemn rites which concerned the worship of Images in Heathen Rome lay in these things , 1. Consecration . 2. Supplication . 3. Pompous Procession . 1. Consecration of Images for publick worship ; which was to be performed by the Pontifices or Priests . Before Consecration , saith Quintilian ; they are only the Works of Mens hands , it is that which brings God into them , and makes them fit to be set up for worship ; this therefore is not to be permitted to all , but only to those whose hands are pure , and devoted to sacred things . This consecration was generally performed with a certain form of Words , which is now lost with the old Pontifical Books ; but perhaps , saith Gutherius , they had none at all ; no more than they had in the Consecration of Emperours ; which was done only by the solemnity of the action it self . Minucius Felix makes the adorning , consecration , and prayers , to be the necessary things , which make an Image to become a God ; i. e. when it is solemnly dedicated to divine worship . But they had two sorts of consecrated Images , some that were only ornamental , which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; and others that were the proper Images of the Temple , which were set up over the middle Altar , and to that God , whom that Image represented , the Temple was dedicated , and the rest , as Servius tells us , were only to beautifie the Temple . Vitruvius saith , the Images were to be above the Altars , that they who came to pray and sacrifice at the Altar , might look on the Divinity ; as it is fully expressed in one of the Coyns of Domitian mentioned by Gutherius and Gevartius . This was the High Altar , besides which , there were generally two other at least ; the one near the entrance , where the Beasts were sacrificed and burnt ; the other held the Vessels and Utensils and was called Anclabris saith Festus : but the chief Altar was that , over which the Image was placed , and was called altare ab altitudine , i. e. the high Altar . And it is very observable , although it hath been little taken notice of , that the Sacrifices were burnt at the lower Altar ; which the Priests having done , they then went up to the High Altar , and there did adolere , i.e. offer incense and prayers ; for as Arnobius saith , they did cast their incense into the Fire , ante ipsa Numinum signa , before the Images of the Gods , which , he there saith , they believed to be the chief part of worship , and to have the greatest influence on propitiating the Gods. From whence I observe , how unreasonably those of the Church of Rome , meerly to excuse themselves , have made Sacrifice the only external act of Latria , and excluded Incense and Supplication from being peculiar to God ; when among both Iews and Gentiles , these were looked on as the more solemn and diviner parts of Worship . 2. Supplication : which properly relates to the prayers made in great distresses ; but I take it as comprehending all their solemn prayers ; which were wont to be made among the old Romans , with great expressions of devotion , before the Images of their Gods ; which in Arnobius is expressed by Deorum ante ora prostrati ; by Lucretius , Pandere palmas — Ante Deum delubra ; by Caesar , ante simulachra projecti victoriam à Diis exposcerent ; by Lucan , moestaeque tenent delubra catervae ; by Ovid , Summissoque genu vultus in imagine Divae Fixit . which , with many other expressions to the same purpose in Latin Authors , do imply , that they made their prayers before the Images of their Gods ; and not that they took the Images themselves for Gods , any otherwise than those do who suppose some extraordinary presence after consecration ; or by the power of Imagination represented them as present to them in their Images ; which the Romans properly called Adoration : which was orare ad to pray to them as present ; or ad os orare , as Gutherius interprets it ; thence Arnobius , quotidianis supplicationibus adorare . And this on great occasions , was performed through all the Temples for two or three days , as the Senate thought fit , as we find it often in Livy , with solemn processions of the People . 3. Another part of the Divine Honour they gave to Images , was the carrying them in Pomp upon solemn Festivals ( which is largely described by Dionysius : ) For then they carried their Gods from the Capitol through the Forum into the great Cirque ; and after the several Orders of men in the Procession , at last came the Images of the Gods carried upon mens backs ; and when this procession was over , the prayers and sacrifices began . This was looked on as so peculiar to the Gods , that Suetonius reckons it as one of the great instances of Caesars affecting Divine Honours , that he would have his Image carried in this sacred Procession . Let us now see what the Practice of Rome Christian hath been in these particulars . 1. For consecration , we have already seen the set Forms appointed for it in the Roman Pontifical ; although the Nicene Council thought no other consecration necessary , than the setting up the Images for publick worship ; yet the Roman Church would not let People imagine them defective in any thing which the Heathens did towards the more solemn worship of Images . 2. For supplication before them ; let the Images set up for worship over the high Altar speak for them , whether in this point of adoration they come behind Heathen Rome . By the Rubrick of the Missal , in every solemn Mass , the Priest is to go up to the middle of the Altar , and there having kissed the Altar , he puts the incense into the Thuribulum , which he is to do three times with his right hand , and his left hand on his breast ; having done this , he makes a profound Reverence to the Crucifix over the Altar ( as appears by the picture of the Altar in Gavantus ) and three times incenseth that ; then bowing again to the Crucifix he incenseth the Altar ; which is to be done with so much niceness and ceremony , that Gavantus reckons up twenty nine times , with their exact order , wherein the several parts of the Altar and Crucifix are to be incensed by the Priest who celebrates Mass. If there be any Reliques or Images of Saints about the Altar , after the incensing and adoration of the Crucifix , before the Priest goes from the middle of the Altar , he first incenseth those on the right-hand , and then making his Reverence to the Cross , he doth the same to those on the left-hand . Philander in his Notes on Vitruvius , in his Discourse to Paul 3. about the right placing of Images , saith , That the due placing of Images is over the Altars , as the Image of the Madonna at Loreto , hath a holy Altar before it of square stone , saith Tursellinus ; and accordingly Matthaeus Riccius saith , That in China they placed the Image of the B. Virgin on the Altar , where they every day did offer their Devotions . Aloysius Novarinus glories in the invention of a new sort of worship , viz. of the B. Virgin big-bellied , with Christ in her Womb ; which was called , LA MADONNA DELL ' ALLEGREZZA , and he saith , That he caused an Altar to be erected , and an Image to be set up for this worship , first at Verona ; and desires it may be generally received , as the most excellent way of her worship , to promote which , he saith , he had written , ( no doubt , an admirable Book ) Of the Life of Christ in the Womb of the Virgin. And for praying to Images , it is done with as much ceremony and formality as it ever was among the Heathens ; with prostrations , genuflections , looking as devoutly upon the Images , approaching to them , and touching them with as much shew of Reverence as ever was used among them ; insomuch that if an old Roman were revived and saw the modern practices of worship of Images at Rome , he would say they had done by worship as the Stoicks did by Philosophy , viz. only changed the Names , when the things were the same . Nay scarce any superstition can be mentioned so barbarous among the Heathen Idolaters towards Images , but it is practised in the Roman Church ; witness the binding the Image of S. Anthony to get a good Wind , which Peter Della Valle saith , it much used , and not without success among the Portugals ; and Boulaye le Gouz mentions their putting the Images of S. Anthony and the B. Virgin , with their Heads forward into Wells , drawing them up and down there , to procure rain , and for other very useful purposes . But setting aside such barbarous superstition of the People ( which is not condemned by their spiritual Governours that we find ) we need insist on no more than what is either required , or commonly allowed and practised with Approbation . We have already seen by the confession of their best Writers , That their Church does allow praying to the Cross in the most express and formal terms of Prayer , O Crux Ave spes unica , Hoc passionis tempore , Piis adauge Gratiam , Reisque dele Crimina . Wherein Bernardus Pujol confesses that not only the common people , but the Church it self doth speak to the Cross , as the Image of Christ ; and what is this then , but praying to the Image ? Upon the third of May we find this Antiphona to the Cross , O Crux splendidior cunctis astris , mundo celebris , hominibus multùm amabilis , sanctior universis , quae sola fuisti digna portare talentum mundi , dulce lignum , dulces clavos , dulcia ferens pondera ; Salva praesentem catervam in tuis hodie laudibus congregatam . But the most solemn adoration of the Cross is performed upon Good-Friday , which according to the Rubricks of the Roman Missal is after this manner , Prayers being ended , the Priest goes to the Epistle side of the Altar , and there takes the Cross from the Deacon ; and then turns to the People , and by degrees uncovers a little of it from the top , and begins the Antiphona , Ecce lignum Crucis , in qua salus mundi pependit , Then the Choire sings , Venite Adoremus ; at which they all prostrate themselves ( not to the earth saith Gavantus , but with kneeling , and a very lowly Reverence ) Then he goes forward to the Corner of the Altar , and opening the right-hand of the Crucifix , and lifting it up a little , he sings louder , Ecce lignum , &c. and the rest sing and adore again ; then he goes to the middle of the Altar , and uncovers the whole Crucifix , and lifts it up and sings yet louder , and they adore , as before . When this is done , the Priest carries it to a place prepared before the Altar , and there kneeling he places it ; then he pulls off his Shooes , and goes to worship the Cross , three times kneeling , before he kisses it : and after him , the rest do it in their Order . And the Pope himself on that day , laies aside his Mitre , hath his Shooes pull'd off , and goes between two Cardinals ad adorandum , to worship the Cross , before which he kneels three times at a convenient distance , and prays , and then kisses it : and so all the Cardinals two and two , and the rest after them . Several other Ceremonies there are in the Missals of York and Salisbury ; but those which are in the Roman Missal are sufficient to prove that they in the Roman Church are bound to give as solemn adoration to the Cross , as ever any Heathens gave to any Images whatsoever . Besides this , they make solemn supplication to other Images of Christ ; as to that of the Veronica at Rome , in those known Verses , Salve sancta Facies nostri Redemptoris , &c. wherein they pray to the Image , to purge them from sin and bring them to heaven ; which are pretty reasonable requests to be made to an Image , especially so authentick a one as that is ▪ of which Bzovius saith , That it hath supreme honour among Christians , and hath an Altar on purpose for it , which is called Altare sanctissimi sudarii , ( as he shews from Grimaldus ) in S. Peter's Church at Rome , & was in the Oratory of Pope John 7. and the Monuments of the consecration of that Altar are still preserved among other Records of that Church : which had Priests belonging to it . This Image is shewed at solemn times , and then the people fall down and worship it ; the manner whereof is described by Pope Pius 2. relating the procession of the Pope at the translation of the Head of S. Andrew ; The Pope coming in Romp with the Cardinals and Clergy to that part of the Church where the Veronica was , commanded it to be shewn . Forthwith the Cardinal of S. Mark goes up the steps , and shews the venerable and sacred Image , the people three times crying out Mercy . It was , saith he , a wonderful thing at one time to see our B. Saviour ( in this Image ) and the Reliques of the Apostle ; and the Pope and Cardinals and Clergy kneeling and praying with their heads uncovered , viz. to this Image of Veronica ? Gretser saith , That in some Missals there was a Missa de Veronica , with an Indulgence granted by Innocent 4. to those who said that Mass , or but the Collect there mentioned ; after which follows the Sequence , viz. Salve sancta facies , &c. full of devout affections , saith Gretser ; which Bollandus supposes to be the Psalm made by Innocent 3. for the honour of the Veronica , of which Matth. Paris speaks . But we are not to imagine the Veronica to be only thus worshipped at Rome ; for the very same is pretended to be in Spain too , in the Cathedral Church of Iaen in Boetica , where it is likewise shewed and worshipped with mighty Reverence and a kind of Sacred horrour , saith Bollandus , twice a year . Lucius Marinaeus saith , There is so much Divinity in it , that no man can tell what colour it is of ; and that the worship of it hath mightily enriched the place ; to which Clement 7. and Iulius 3. granted large Indulgences , and Litanies are appointed to be used by the people at the shewing of it . There are others of them shewed , and worshipped in other places as both Bollandus and Gretser confess ; at which they seem a little troubled , but think to salve all by saying , that the rest are copies , or that Veronica's handkerchief had three foldings , and every one had a distinct Image , whereof one was kept at Rome , another at Ierusalem , and a third in Spain ; but whether Originals or Copies , whether true or false , they are all worshipped , where ever they are , with mighty devotion , and miracles are said to be done by them . Lucius Marinaeus mentions another Image of Christ which was solemnly worshipped in Spain , viz. one made by Nicodemus , and was found by a Merchant in an Ark floating on the Sea ; Cujus Imaginis invocato Numine , saith he , The Divinity of which Image being pray'd to , abundance of infirm persons were healed . And he saith of Ferdinand King of Spain , That he did most devoutly worship a certain Image of God , which he carried about with him . Ab eâ itaque quicquid & necessario & honestè petebat , facile semper assequebatur ; he obtained easily and alwaies , what ever he duely prayed for to the Image . Another Divine Image of Christ which hath solemn supplications made to it is that imprinted on the sacred Sindon , or Shroud at Besancon , which is shewed twice a year upon a Mountain near the City , where vast numbers of people meet to adore it ; and the Devils roar at the opening of it , and the Skies of a sudden clear , although it rained before , when it is shewed , and doth such mighty wonders , that Chiffletius saith , Presenti Divin● Numine semper affulget ; it hath alwaies a Divine Presence with it ; forty hours prayers , he saith , are often made to it , and in extraordinary necessities it is carried in procession like the Ark , ( but more holy than the Ark ) and in a time of general Pestilence , he saith , they finding no other remedy did fly in S. Sudarii asylum & clientelam , into the Sanctuary and protection of this Divine Image , and thereupon the City instituted a society and solemn procession to the honour of it every year , on the third of May , to which other Cities of Burgundy , as Dole and Salines , joyned themselves ; and Gregory 13. granted an Indulgence to the Altar erected for the honour of this Image : which is called Altare S Sindonis . The like might be shewed concerning other Images , but these are sufficient to my purpose , to prove the common and allowed practice of the worship of Images in the Roman Church , as to the Rites of Supplication and adoration , to be as extravagant , as ever were among the Heathens . 3. For Solemn Processions with Images , we have as great Instances as ever were among them ; witness the Procession with the Image of S. Roch by the grave Fathers of the Council of Constance , Which was done , saith Baronius , by a decree of that Council ; when upon the Plague raging there , his Image was carried through the City in solemn Pomp , upon which the Plague stayed : from this example , saith he , his Images were every where set up , and Altars , Chappels , and Temples erected to him . Witness , The Procession at Rome by Paul 2. wherein the Pope and Cardinals went barefoot , the Image of S. Maria de Populo , and the Image of our Saviour in the Lateran being solemnly carried to gain a victory over the Turks . Cardinal Rasponi saith , That is thought to be the most effectual way to obtain favour and mercy of God , to carry the Image of our Saviour from the Lateran Church in a solemn Procession to S. Maria Major ; for then they think their prayers are most sure to be heard , when the Image of Christ stands by that of the B. Virgin , whose Authority and Favour is so great with her Son. So Stephen 3. found when he carried the Image on his own shoulders barefoot , the people following him , when he was much distressed by Aistulphus . Upon the Feast of the Assumption of the B. Virgin , the Pope and Cardinals keep the Vespers at S. Maria Major ( as Rasponi describes it from Benedictus Canon of S. Peters ) those being ended , the Pope returns to the Lateran ; the Cardinals take from the Chappel of S. Laurence the Image of our Saviour , but first , the Pope and Cardinals , barefoot , make seven bowings , and then open the Image and kiss the feet of it , then this Image is carried with great Pomp and Devotion , with Torches burning , and the People singing through those Streets of the City that have been most troubled with Serpents and Devils ; for which cause Pope Sergius appointed this Procession . But it seems so great wickedness was committed in this nocturnal Procession , ( although Rasponi saith , That a miracle happened of not consuming the wax of the Torches , ) that Pius 5. forbad this Procession . Every year in Rogation Week for three daies the Image of the B. Virgin is carried in a solemn Procession from Mount Gardia near Bononia , with publick supplications ; because one , in a time of great Rain , when no other means would help them , Cardinal Albergati appointed such a Procession against Rain for four daies together , after which it seems the Rain ceased . Upon Tuesday in Easter Week , Sedulius describes a most solemn Procession carrying the Image of the B. Virgin , at Maestricht . First , The Image is taken out of the Chappel , and placed in the middle of the Church for more solemn adoration ; where the People continue at their prayers all night , before the Image ; at which times , he saith , the officers of the Church have given away seventeen thousand little Images of the B. Virgin with Indulgences : where , saith he , it is a pleasant sight to behold children , Boys , Virgins , Matrons , Men , only covered with linnen or flannen shirts , and barefooted to approach , to worship , to kneel , and even to creep about the Image of the B. Virgin ; and watering the very ground with their Tears : Many from the head to the knees having iron Armour next to their bodies ; going upon their bare knees the whole Procession ; and drawing heavy chains of Iron fastened to their Feet . The manner of which procession is thus set down , After Mass performed to the honour of the B. Virgin , and the chords of S. Francis are distributed among the great Persons , ( which they carry upon their garments that day like shoulder belts ) the Procession begins ; first a Crucifix is carried by one of the Friers , whom a great number follows of men , women , and Children ; all barefoot , with only linnen or flanen shifts , with Torches in their hands , in the habit of penitents with great silence praying and weeping as they go . In the year 1608. there were about a thousand in this dress , among whom were not a few men who covered their Heads with Iron Head-pieces that they might not be known . Many women drew their Children after them that could hardly go ; and others carried them sucking at their breasts ; and an old Woman that could not go , was carried in her bed . After these followed the Whippers under the peculiar care of the Iesuits , with their faces covered and barefoot . Then followed another Cross ; after them the Franciscans singing to the Praise of the B. Virgin ; then the chief Citizens , then the Officers of her Chappel , then the Torch bearers immediately before the sacred Image , which the choicest Virgins carried on their shoulders : then followed a Company of armed men , who had vowed this service to the Virgin for several years . In that year 1608. there were 86 persons stark naked ( only where nature would not allow it ) that had iron armour on their bodies from head to foot ; and most of them drawing a heavy chain fastened to their right foot , that they might go more uneasily ; their linnen drawers did shew how the blood dropt from their flesh by the pinching of the Armour ; and the very way was sprinkled with blood ; after these , the Magistrates of the City followed , and the Consuls and Senatours all bearing torches before the Host , which was carried under a silken Canopy , with a most profound Reverence ; then came in the last place , the Governour , the Nobility , and a vast multitude of all sorts of people ; and for eight dayes together many people walked the same round out of great devotion . I do not think this Procession can be matched , by the supplications and the Pompa Circensis of old Rome ; or by any of the Processions with their Idols , which Peter della Valle describes among the Heathen Indians , which , he confesses , to be very like those used among Christians , when the Images of Saints are carried in procession , when any Body or Fraternity go in Pilgrimage to Loreto or Rome , in the Holy Year . The Iesuits boast very much of their zeal in setting up the worship of the Images of the B. Virgin in Flanders , and especially of these solemn processions with her Images ; particularly at Courtray for nine dayes together , wherein there have been nine thousand persons : In the year 1636. the plague raging there , a solemn supplication was appointed with a Procession of the Image through the City , with wonderful devotion ; and at Bruges , A. D. 1633. with an incredible number of people ; and a thousand torches of Virgin wax ; and the like solemnities were set up by their means at Brussels , Antwerp , Mechlin and other places . Otho Zylius a Iesuite sets down the order of the Procession , wherein the Image of the B. Virgin that was before worshipped at Boisleduc was carried to Brussels , upon the shoulders of four Capucins , the Infanta Isabella following it with all the Nobility , and infinite number of people , with the highest expressions of Pomp and Devotion , and at last it was placed in the middle of a Chappel just over the Altar , where it hath solemn worship given to it , and wonderful cures are said to be wrought by it . I cannot conclude this Discourse , without giving some account of another notable Procession at Brussels of an Image of the B. Virgin , the occasion whereof was this ; a new confraternity was instituted in Spain of the Slaves of the B. Virgin , by one Simon Rojas ; whose custome was to salute one another with those words , Ave Maria , instead of Your humble Servant , and this Sodality was established with large Indulgences by Paul 5. and afterwards was begun in Bruges , A. D. 1626. having fetters as the badge of this Slavery , and new Indulgences from Urban 8. ; for the establishing this Society it happened luckily , that an officer of the King of Spain 's Fleet being sick at Dunkirk , pretended to discover a great Secret to Barth . de los Rios then Preacher to Isabella Clara Eugenia , viz. that he had a most admirable Image of the B. Virgin , which had been worshipped for 600 years in the Cathedral Church of Aberdene , and had spoken to the last Catholick Bishop , and had miraculously escaped the Hereticks hands ; and was designed for a present to Isabella ; but he , ( wretch that he was ) upon a promise made by the Franciscans of his own Countrey in Spain , of praying for his Soul and his Families , had intended to have carried it thither , which he found was displeasing to the B. Virgin by his dangerous sickness ; and he hoped upon this confession she would have mercy upon him ; and therefore he desired him to present this Image to her Highness in the name of the Catholicks of Aberdene ; which was received by her with wonderful devotion , and she said her prayers before it morning and evening ; but this did not satisfie her , for she resolved to have this Image carried to Brussels with a solemn procession , and for that purpose obtained an Indulgence from Urban 8. for all those who should attend it ; and a rich and magnificent Altar was erected , over which the Image was to be placed : and banners were made with this inscription , In Nomine Mariae omne genu flectatur , &c. after which on May 3. the Procession was performed with all imaginable Pomp , and kept for eight dayes together : and yet after all this , one Maxwel , a learned Scotchman shewed in a Discourse presented to Isabella , that upon the best enquiry he could make , this famous Image was a meer imposture , and a trick of a crafty merchant to procure some advantage to himself by it ; but the poor man was imprisoned for this discovery , and forced to make a publick Recantation : and the Worship of this Image was advanced , and a solemn supplication , and procession with it observed every year ; as the same Author informs us , and the Confraternity of the slaves of the B. Virgin highly promoted by it . Several other solemn processions are related by him , as of B. Maria de Remediis , B. Maria de Victoriâ , with the Popes Bulls for establishing the Society of slaves of the B. Virgin ; but these are enough to shew , that the Roman Church in its constant , and allowed practises , doth not come behind old Heathen Rome , in this part of the Worship given to Images . CHAP. III. Of the Sense of the second Commandment . HAving endeavoured , with so much care , to give a just and true account of the Controversie between us , as to the Worship of Images , and therein shewed from the Doctrine and Practice of the Roman Church ; 1. That they set up Images in Churches over Altars , purposely for worship . 2. That they consecrate those Images with solemn prayers for that purpose . 3. That they use all the Rites of Worship to them which the Heathen Idolaters used to their Images , such as bowings , prostrations , Lights , Incense , and praying . 4. That they make solemn Processions in honour of Images , carrying them with as much Pomp and Ceremony as ever the Heathens did their Idols ; The Question now is , whether these Acts of Worship towards Images were unlawful only to Heathens and Iews ; but are become lawful to Christians ? But if these Acts of Worship be now equally unlawful to us , as to them , then Christians performing them , are liable to the same charge that the Iews and Heathens were ; and if the Scripture calls that Idolatry in them , it must be so in Christians too , as much as Murder , or Theft , or Adultery is the same in all , for the words of the Law of God makes no more difference as to one , than as to the other . We are therefore to enquire on what account the Sense of this Law is supposed to be consistent with the practice of the same things among Christians , which were utterly forbidden by it to Iews and Heathens : The words of the Law are these , Thou shalt not make to thy self any Graven Image , nor the Likeness of any Thing which is in Heaven above , or in the Earth beneath , or in the Waters under the Earth ; Thou shalt not bow down to them , nor worship them ; for I the Lord thy God am a Iealous God , &c. My Adversary T. G. denies , that God herein did forbid himself to be worshipped by a Crucifix , or such like sacred Image ; and he asserts , that the design of the Law is only to forbid the Worship of Idols . The first part , he saith , toucheth not the worship of Images , nor of God himself by them , but only the making them ; the second forbids indeed in express terms to bow our selves down to the Images themselves , but speaks not one word of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of worshipping God himself by them . To bow our selves down to the Images themselves , without any relation to God , is by the concession of all to worship them instead of God ; The Iews we know did worship God by bowing down before the Ark and the Cherubims , and yet they did not worship them instead of God ; therefore , he asserts , that by Image an Idol is to be understood , and that by Idol such an Image as is made to represent for worship a figment that hath no real Being ; and by similitude , an Image or resemblance of some real thing , but falsely imagined to be a God. This is the sense which T. G. gives of the second Commandment . But if I can make it appear , 1. That there is no reason to take the word he translates Idol here , for the representation of a meer figment set up for worship , and that if it were so taken , it would not excuse them . 2. That the worship of God before the Ark and the Cherubims was of a different nature from the Worship of Images here forbidden , and that the sense of the Law doth exclude all worship of Images ; then this interpretation of T. G. will appear to be very false and groundless . 1. That there is no reason to understand , what we render Image , of such an Idol as represents a meer figment set up for worship . If there were any colour of Reason for such an acception of the word Idol here , it must either be , 1. From the natural importance of the word ; or , 2. From the use of it in Scripture ; or 3. From the consent of the Fathers , or 4. From some Definition of the Church . But I shall shew that there is no ground for affixing this sense to the Commandment from any one of these . 1. Not from the natural importance of the word . He that reads such an express prohibition in a divine Law , of something so displeasing to God , that he annexes a very severe sanction to it , had need be very well satisfied about the sense he gives to the words of it , lest he incurr the wrath of God , and be found a perverter of his Law. If a man should reject all humane Authority , because the First Commandment saith , Thou shalt have no other Elohim besides me ; but in Scripture , Magistrates and Iudges are called Elohim , therefore it is unlawful to own any civil Magistrates ; he would have much more to say than T. G. and his Brethren have in restraining the sense of the Law about Images to such Idols as are only representations of Imaginary Beings . For the Original word hath no manner of tendency that way , it signifying any thing that is carved or cut out of wood or stone ; and as I told T. G. before , it is no less than forty several times rendred by the LXX . by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and but thrice by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and which is very observable , although Exod. 20.4 . they render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , yet in the repetition of the Law , Deut. 5.8 . the Alexandrian MS. hath it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and Deut. 4.16 . in some copies of the LXX . the same word is translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and Isaiah 40.18 . they translate it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which is properly an Image , and the Vulgar Latin it self useth Idolum , Sculptile , and Imago ( Isa. 44.9 , 10 , 13. ) all to express the same thing . To this T. G. replyes , that the LXX . generally translating it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , had some particular reason to render it Idol here ; and because this is a word of stricter signification , it ought to regulate the larger ; and in the other places , he saith , there is still some term or clause restraining the words to such a graven thing or Image , as is made to be compared with God or to be the object of divine worship , that is , to be an Idol . Then it seems a graven Image when it is made the object of Divine worship becomes an Idol in T. G's sense ; and yet an Idol in the Commandment is the representation of a meer Figment ; but might not that be the sense of an Idol in this place , which he grants is meant in another ? where the words are express concerning the representation of God , as in Isaiah 40.18 . And if he allows this to be the meaning of an Idol in the Commandment , I will grant that the LXX had a particular reason to render Pesel by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here . For Aquinas well observes , that this Commandment doth not forbid the making any sculpture or similitude , sed facere adorandam , to make it for worship ; because it follows , thou shalt not fall down to them and worship them . And Montanus expresses the sense of the Commandment after this manner ; simulathrum divinum nullo pacto conflato . Signa cultûs causa ne facito ; and Nicolaus Faber ( both learned men of the Roman Church . ) Sculptilibus nè flecte genu , pictaeve tabellae . and again , Non pictum sculptúmve puta venerabile quidquam . If this be T. G's sense of an Idol , I freely yield to him that the LXX . had very good reason so to render Pesel in this place , where it is supposed to be an object of divine worship . But how can this agree with what T. G. saith , that the Law speaks not one word of the unlawfulness of worshipping God himself by an Image ? For doth not the Law condemn the worship of an Idol ? And doth not T. G. say , that an Image when it is made an object of Divine worship becomes an Idol ? And doth it not then follow that the Law in express terms doth condemn the Worship of God by such an Image ? Nay , is it not the self-same T. G. that saith , that the making such Images as are conceived to be proper Likenesses or representations of the Divinity , is against the Nature and unalterable Law of God ? But what Law of God is there that doth forbid such Images , if it be not this ? And if this Law doth forbid such Images , then the signification of an Idol is not here to be taken for the representation of a Figment , but of the greatest and most real Being in the World. Have not I now far better reason to return his own words upon him , such frequent self contradictions are the natural consequences of a Discourse not grounded upon Truth ; and although the Reader may think I take delight to discover them in my Adversary , yet I can assure him it is a much greater grief to me to see so subtle a Wit so often intangled in them ? But it may be T. G. thinks to escape by saying , that when he saith an Image being made the object of divine worship is an Idol , he doth not understand it of an Image of God , but when the Image it self is taken for God ; which evasion can do him no service ; for , 1. He grants that Images which are made for Likenesses of God are condemned by the Law of God , and that they are an infinite disparagement to the Divine Nature . 2. I have at large shewed that in the Roman Church , Images of God and Christ are made the objects of Divine worship . And 3. That the very Heathens did not take the Images themselves for Gods. 4. The place he answers , Isa. 40.18 . doth imply that the Images of the Divinity are therefore condemned , because nothing can be made like unto God. But of that afterwards . Let us then suppose that the LXX . had particular reason to render Pesel by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Commandment , yet what is this , to the representation of a meer figment for worship ? Doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so properly , so naturally , so necessarily signifie a figment , that it cannot be taken in any other sense ? I see T. G. makes only use of good Catholick Lexicons ( such a one as that called Catholicon which Erasmus is so pleasant with ) that assure him what the sense of a word must be in spight of all use of it by prophane and heretical Authors : thus simulachrum must signifie only Heathen Images , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a Sphinx , a Triton , or Centaure ; and why so ? did it alwaies signifie so ? did all Greek Authors use it only in that sense ? Doth the Etymology of it imply it ? no , none of all these : what then is the reason that a word should be so restrained against the former and common acception of it ? The reason is very plain ; for if it be taken for the representation of real Beings , then for all that we know , the Image of the Trinity , or of the B. Virgin , or of any other worshipped in the Roman Church may prove Idols ; and therefore this must be the sense , because the Church of Rome cannot be guilty of Idolatry . This is the real Truth of the case , but it is too great Truth to be owned . Only Bellarmin ( who often speaks freelier than the rest ) confesses , their design herein is to shew that the Images worshipped in the Church of Rome cannot be Idols , because they are representations of real Beings . A very miserable shift ! as will appear by the examination of it . Let us therefore see whether there be any pretence from the use and importance of the Word , for restraining the sense of an Idol , to an imaginary representation . And I am so far from T. G's opinion , that by the best enquiry I can make , the proper signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is , a representation of something that really is . So Hesychius interprets it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; and the old Greek and Latin Glossaries render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and simulachrum by each other ( and notwithstanding T. G's severity against me for translating simulachra Images , I can make it appear from some of the most authentick Writers of the Roman Church , that they do not scruple calling such Images as they worship simulacra , I leave T. G. then to judge whether they be not Idols too ) Isidore makes Idolum to be properly Simulachrum quod humana effigie factum & consecratum est : an Image made and consecrated in the figure of a man : as Plutarch calls the Image of Sylla 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; and Porphyrie in the beginning of the Life of Plotinus , when Amelius desired a Picture of him , he answered , Is it not enough to carry such an Idolum about me , but I must leave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Image of an Image ? So we find Idolum used in the Chaldaick Oracles , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , where Psellus observes , That according to the Platonists , the mind is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Image of God ; and the rational soul , the Image of the mind , and the irrational , the Image of the rational ; and nature of the irrational soul ; and the body of the Image of Nature ; and Matter of the Body . But Isidore applying Idolum to an Ecclesiastical sense , supposeth not only representation , but consecration to be necessary to it ; wherein he follows Tertullian , who speaking of the created Beings that were worshipped , saith , Eorum Imagines Idola ; imaginum consecratio Idololatria : Their Images were Idols , and the consecration of them is Idolatry : and a little before , he saith , That all service of an Idol is Idolatry , and every representation is an Idol ; Omnis forma vel formula Idolum se dici exposcit ; For , saith he , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies a form or representation of a thing . Or as the Greek Etymologist thinks it comes immediately from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to resemble . Among the Philosophers it was taken for the Image of things conveyed to our sight , so Diogenes Laertius saith , That Democritus held Vision to be performed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the incursion of Images ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Plutarch ; Empedocles saith he , joyned raies to the Images , ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : ) and Democritus and Epicurus said that reflection in a glass was performed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the subsistence of the Images . Cicero , Lucretius , and S. Augustin render these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Imagines ; Catius the Epicurean called them Spectra ; Macrobius Simulacra ; but all of them understood the most proper representations of things to our sight ; which Epicurus was so far from thinking that they represented things that were not , that he made them infallible criteria of the truth of things . The Poets , and some other Authors made use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie Spectres and Apparitions ; but still they supposed these to be the representations of some real Beings ; So Homer calls the soul of Elpenor that appeared to Ulysses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; but Eustathius there observes , That these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were exactly like the Persons they represented as to Age , Stature , Habit , and every thing : and so Homer himself expresses it , saying that Apollo made an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a representation of Aeneas , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . So in another place speaking of Minerva's making a representation of Iphthima , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . By which we see that the very Poetical use of the word , for a Spectre , doth imply an exact resemblance to some real Being which it represents : from whence then hath this signification of an Idol come into the Roman Church , that it must signifie a representation of something that is not ? but from whenceoever it comes , we are sure it is neither from the natural importance , nor the use of the word among Greek Authors . 2. Not from the use of it in Scripture . The Author of the Book of wisdom gives this account of the beginning of the worship of Idols , viz. That Fathers having lost their Children , made Images of them , and appointed solemnities to be kept before them , as if they were Gods ; then by degrees , Princes passed these things into Laws , and made men to worship graven Images : and thus either out of affection or flattery the worship of Idols began : where it is observable , that he makes the representation of Persons , that were really in Being , to have been the first Idols : and he distinguishes the bringing in of Idols from the worship of the Elements , or heavenly bodies ; and he thinks these much more excusable than those who worship the Work of mens hands ; the folly of which he there elegantly describes ; but he still supposes these Idols to have the resemblance either of man or some living creature . To the same purpose Diophantus the Lacedemonian in Fulgentius , saith , That Syrophanes the Egyptian , being greatly afflicted for the loss of his son made an Image of him , and all his servants to please him did what they could to adorn this Image , and some when they had offended ran to it as a Sanctuary ; from hence , saith he , came the worship of Idols . And Eutychius gives the like account of the Original of Idols , That when a great man was dead , they set up his Image on his Sepulchre ; from whence the World was filled with Idols , i.e. with Images of Men , Women , and Children : this he thinks began among the Chaldeans and Egyptians ; but Herodotus saies the Egyptians were the first who made Images of their Gods : Lucian , that they borrowed this custom from the Assyrians . Epiphanius makes the beginning of Idolatry to be in the time of Seruch ; but he saith , that it went no farther than to Pictures in his time ; and came to Images and Statues in the time of Nahor . Cedrenus saith , That Seruch and his Companions made Statues for the honour of those who had done any famous action ; which their posterity misunderstanding , worshipped them as Gods. Thus far we find that the first Idols that are supposed to have been in the world , were the representations of things that had real Beings . The only people that could be suspected to be meant in Scripture as those who had such Idols as were representations of what had no real Beings , must be the Phoenicians and Egyptians : who besides the worship of Beasts , and the Images of them , had many extravagant Images . Sanchoniathon saith , Taautus made the Images in Phoenicia with Wings , Saturn with four , and the rest of the Gods with two . And Dagon , and Atergatis or Derceto , is supposed to be an Image , whereof the upper part is of humane shape , and the lower of a Fish ; among the Egyptians , one of their Images had the face of a Ram , and another of a Dog , &c. If these be the Idols T.G. thinks are prohibited in the Second Commandment , I desire him to consider , 1. Whether the Images of humane shape were not prohibited by the Law equally with these ? or whether it were lawful to worship such Images as did represent real beings in that manner , that it was unlawful to worship those Images that were only Chimaera's and fancies of mens brains ? If not , this distinction serves to no purpose at all . To make this more plain , I ask T. G. whether it were unlawful to worship God among the Egyptians under the representation of an Image with the body of a man , and the Head of a Hawk , which was a representation of something that had no real Being just like it ; but it was lawful to worship Him with the Image of a man , as Eusebius saith , that Oneph or the Creator of the world was worshipped under such a representation among them ? It is certain , that both these sorts of Images were among the Egyptians , and according to T. G.'s notion , one of these was an Idol , and the other not . But is it possible for men of common understandings , to suppose that God by the words of the Law hath forbidden the one , and not the other ; when both were intended to represent the same Being ? But according to this sense , the Inhabitants of Thebais , of whom Plutarch saith , That they only worshipped Oneph the immortal God , or the Creator under the Image of a man , were altogether as innocent , as those in the Roman Church , who worship God under a like representation . And can it enter into T. G.'s head , that God should , notwithstanding all the words of this Commandment , allow such a kind of worship of Images as was received among the Egyptians ? But if this were condemned in them , then if the Second Commandment be in force , the like worship must be condemned in the Church of Rome . 2. That there is a distinction to be made between such Images as have no real resemblance in nature , and such Images which represent that which hath no real Being ; for although the Phoenician and Egyptian Images had nothing in nature which answered to their figure , yet there might be something which answered their representation , i. e. they were only Symbolical Images , and the Nature of those Symbols being understood , there was no difference as to matter of worship between these and other Images . As for instance , a Sphinx is one of those Images which T. G. would have to be understood for an Idol in the Second Commandment ; supposing then that I allow him ( as a Sphinx was painted among the Egyptians with wings , and the face a man , and the body of a Lion ) that it was the representation of something that had no real Being agreeable to it ; yet Clemens Alexandrinus saith , That their design was to represent hereby that God was both to be loved and feared ; now this Image did Symbolically represent a real object of worship ; and therefore could be no Idol even in T. G.'s sense . So Kircher saith , one of the chief and most common Images of the Egyptians was a winged Globe with a Serpent passing through the middle of it ; by the Globe , saith he , they represented the Divine nature , by the Serpent , the spreading of life , and by the wings , the Spirit of the World. Here is an Image that hath no real Being correspondent to it , and yet it represents the infinite nature , and power , and goodness of God : Sometimes , saith he , they represented Providence by a Scepter with a Dogs head within a Semicircle ; by which , and innumerable other waies they represented the hidden Mysteries of the Divine Being : and they thought this Symbolical way most pleasing to God ; and was certainly farthest from that danger which T. G. thinks to be most considerable in Images , viz. making men Anthropomorphites . To avoid which , the Egyptians generally mixed the figures of men and beasts together , not so much to shew the communion of nature , as Porphyrie imagines , as that these were meer Symbolical Images , and not intended for any proper Likenesses , and therefore according to T. G.'s principles , those which he calls Idols , were more innocent , than those which he calls Images ; for the one might bring men to erroneous conceits of the Deity ; but the other being Symbolical were not apt to do it . Plutarch saith , That when they represented Mercury by the Image of a man , with the head of a Dog , they only intended thereby to represent Care , Watchfulness , and Wisdom : and that they represented Osiris by a Scepter with an eye in it , by a Hawk , and by the figure of a man ; now by Osiris , he tells us , They meant the most powerful God , and so doth Apuleius ; and Tacitus saith , The same God which was called Jove among others , was called Osiris by them . These Images , and many other of very strange shapes , with a mixture of very different forms , are supposed , in the Mensa Isiaca , and the Egyptian Obelisks , to represent the most true and perfect Being in regard of his nature and production of things ; as Athanas. Kircher hath endeavoured at large to shew . If therefore the Egyptians did make such Symbolical figures with respect to the most real Being ; and yet these Images were Idols properly so called : then it follows , that some representations of the true God are Idols , and condemned in the Second Commandment . 3. The Scripture uses the word Idol for the representation of all sorts of things which are made the objects of worship . Thus in the first place the LXX . makes use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , it is taken for the Teraphim of Laban , Gen. 31.19 , 34 , 35. which are supposed to be of humane shape ; not only from the general opinion of Jewish Writers ; but because of the mistake of the Teraphim for David , 1 Sam. 19.13 . The Images of Baal are called Idols , 2 Chron. 17.3 . Jer. 9 13. and what the LXX . render , 2 Kings 11.18 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Images of Baal ; in the parallel place , 2 Chron. 23.17 . they express by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Idols of Baal . Whether by Baal be understood the Assyrian Belus , or the Phoenician Beel Samen , i. e. whether a representation of a man , or of the Sun , we are sure this was an Image of a real Being , and yet the LXX . call it an Idol . Idols are joyned with Molten Gods by the LXX . Levit. 19.4 . i. e. what ever Images are set up for Divine worship : And all the Gods of the Heathen are said to be Idols , 1 Chron. 16.26 . but they were not all meer figments of mens brains , being either dead men that were worshipped ( as S. Hierome saith , by the Idols of the Heathens we understand imagines Mortuorum the representations of dead men ) or the works of the Creation , especially the heavenly bodies , which was the most early and the most common Idolatry of the Eastern parts , and most frequently condemned in Scripture . If it be said , That although they had real Beings , yet their Deities were fictitious , I answer , 1. That is not to the purpose ; for the question is , whether the proper signification of an Idol be the representation of meer imaginary Beings , Sphinxes , Tritons , Centaures ? but what a ridiculous answer is this to that question , to say that although their being real , yet their Deity is fictitious ? for this is to grant , that Idols are not representations of imaginary Beings , but of imaginary Deities : which I readily grant . 2. This will equally hold against all representations of created Beings that have divine worship given to them ; for by giving them any part of divine worship they are so far made Gods ; but since they are not truly so , they are still but the representations of imaginary Deities , although they be of real Saints , or Angels . In which sense the Scripture calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothings , and vanities , and S. Paul saith , That an Idol is nothing in the world ; not because it represented that which was not ; but because neither the Image nor the thing represented were any real Deity . 4. The far greatest part of the Idols expressly mentioned in Scripture were the representations of real Beings : not only that the things had Subsistence which were represented by them , but that the very Images were of some creatures existing in the world . Lyra saith , That Moloch was in the fashion of a man ; and so Benjamin Tudelensis supposes , when he saith , That two femal Images stood of either side of him . Kircher shews , from Baal Aruch , that Asima was worshipped in the form of a Goat : and from other Jewish Authors , That Nibcas had the figure of a Dog , Thartak of an Ass , Adramelech of a Mule , and Anamelech of a Horse ; Bel and Nebo of Serpents and Beasts ; Succoth Benoth of a Hen and Chickens ; Astaroth of Sheep . Will T. G. say that these were not Idols , because they were Images of real Beings ? If he doth , he must excuse the grossest Idolatry condemned in Scripture ; if he doth not , he must then confess , that this is not the notion of an Idol in the sense of Scripture , viz. a representation of what hath no existence , but in the imagination , as Sphinxes , Tritons , Centaures , and the like . 3. But T. G. would have us believe , that this is the sense of the Fathers ; for he quotes Origen and Theodoret for this interpretation of the second Commandment . It is well known that Origen had a great many of T. G.'s Idols in his head , viz. imaginations of things that were not ; and therefore it is ill fixing upon an interpretation of Scripture of which he was the first Author . But I have proved at large from the unanimous consent of the Fathers in charging the Arians with Idolatry , and the Gnosticks in worshipping the Images of Christ with divine honours , that this could not be their sense . For if this were the notion of an Idol , to represent what hath no existence , neither the Arians nor the Gnosticks could be accused of worshipping an Idol ; but the Fathers do in express terms call Christ an Idol , if he had divine worship given him , and yet were not God. And it is farther observable , ( 1. ) That the second Council of Nice confesses , that the Arrians were justly condemned for Idolatry , not only by one or two Fathers , but by the Catholick Church ; from whence it is evident , that the Catholick Church did declare that T. G.'s sense of an Idol is false . ( 2. ) That when the Fathers repeat the second Commandment , instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , they use other words , which they would never have done , if they had thought there had been any peculiar importance of the word Idol in that place different from Image . Iustin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho the Iew , repeats the words of the Law thus , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Thou shalt not make any Image or similitude . Clemens Alex. makes the thing forbidden to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , to worship graven Images ; and the thing required to be , not to make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , either a graven or a molten Image . And even Origen himself , layes so little weight on his observation about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that when he gives an account of this Law in his Books against Celsus , he never mentions it , but useth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; and saith , the meaning of the Law was to forbid any kind of Images . Tertullian saith , that God hereby did forbid all kind of similitude , quanto magis Imaginis suae , how much more any Image of himself : and elsewhere he makes an Idol and an Image the same thing ; and in another place , that God did prohibit all similitudes to prevent any occasion of Idolatry ; for , he adds , thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them . Therefore , saith he , the brazen Serpent was not against the Law , being not for worship , but for a Remedy ; nor the Cherubim , being meerly Ornaments , and therefore not falling under the Reason of the Law , and afterwards he reckons up the several terms of the Law , by Images , Statues and Similitudes . S. Cyprian interprets the meaning of the word Idols in the Commandment , when he saith , they are such as the Psalmist speaks of , that have mouths and speak not , &c. which is certainly meant of Images of humane shape ; and in another place , he saith , the Heathen Idols were made , ad defunctorum vultus per imaginem detinendos : to preserve the countenances of the dead by Images : which are almost the same words with those of Minucius Felix speaking of the same subject , while they desired , saith he , defunctos Reges in imaginibus videre , to see their Princes Images and to retain their memories in their Statues , that which at first was intended for their comfort , became an object of worship . So Lactantius saith , that their Simulachra , their Idols , in T. G's sense , were either the monuments of the dead , or of the absent ; and he makes the sense of the Law to be nihil colendum esse quod oculis mortalibus cernitur , nothing to be worshipped that can be seen . S. Augustin giving the sense of this commandment saith , that therein any similitude of God is forbidden to be worshipped ; and therefore surely not the meer figments of mens brains , or representations of Sphinxes , and Tritons , and Centaurs . ( 3. ) That those very persons who put that sense upon the word Idol , do yet make the sense of the Commandment to be against the practice of the Roman Church . For both Origen and Theodoret make it unlawful by the force of this commandment , to perform any external act of worship towards any representation whatsoever : and the difference they both put between worship and service is , that the latter is that of the mind , and the former of the body ; but both , they say , are here forbidden ; and therefore I cannot imagine what comfort T. G. can have in supposing their Images are not forbidden under the name of Idols , if they be forbidden under the name of similitudes , and it be as unlawful to worship them under one name as under the other ? Our quarrel is not with them , meerly on the account of the word Idolatry ; but it is on the account of their worships being contrary to the express Law of God ; and whether it be forbidden under the name of Idol , or similitude , it is all one to us , as long as the worship they practise , is as plainly against the sense of this Commandment , as Perjury , Adultery , or Theft is against the other Commandments : and that even in the opinion of Origen and Theodoret themselves . Besides , if we look into the sense of these two Authors , we shall find their meaning was not , as T. G. imagines , to make those only Idols that were made to represent fictions of the brain ; but to shew that God had forbidden all sorts of Images , Symbolical as well as others . For , saith Origen , Moses being skilled in all the Wisdom of the Aegyptians ; did forbid those things which are used in their secret and hidden Mysteries ; i. e. their Symbolical and Hieroglyphical representations : and Theodoret particularly mentions the Aegyptian Images , with the face of a Dog , and the Head of an Ox ; whereby it is plain that they thought Moses by this Law intended to forbid all manner of representations of things in order to worship , whether it were by Hieroglyphicks , or by proper similitudes . So that , neither Origen , nor Theodoret by this interpretation do give the least countenance to the practice of the Roman Church . 4. I shall in the last place shew , that this interpretation of the term Idol is overthrown by the most learned persons of the Roman Church ; who do confess that the Images of real Beings may become Idols . And that in these following cases , 1. When proper Latria is given to an Image ; that is truly Idolatry , saith Bellarmin , when proper Latria is given to any thing besides God ; and it is not only Idolatry when an Idol is worshipped without God , but when an Idol is worshipped together with God ; and from hence he concludes , that no Image ought to be worshipped with proper Latria ; which conclusion cannot be of any force , unless such an Image becomes an Idol : but he goes farther , and saith , that those who worshipped an Image of Christ with divine honours , although it be for the sake of Christ , and not of the Image , did commit Idolatry ; for , saith he , although a man pretends to give these honours for the sake of God or Christ , yet in as much as he gives divine honours to them , he doth really give it for themselves , although he denies it in words , ( which is a very fair confession ) and from hence those were condemned as hereticks , who gave divine worship to the Image of Christ ; as appears by Irenaeus , Epiphanius , S. Augustin , and Damascen . According to which concession , the dispute cannot any longer be , whether the Images of Christ or the Saints be Idols or no , if we can prove that divine honours are given to them by the doctrine and practice of the Roman Church . And even T. G. himself saith , Is not the giving Divine Worship to a Creature the same as to make it a false God ? And is it not Heathen Idolatry to worship a false God ? From whence it follows , that it is the Worship makes any thing an Idol , and not the representation of an Imaginary Being . 2. When Images are worshipped as true representations of the Divine Nature . So Sanders expresly ; He that goes about to represent the invisible Nature of God by an Image , sins grievously and makes an Idol ; and he that proposes such an Image for worship commits Idolatry : but such an Image is no representation of a meer figment of mens brains ; but a vain endeavour to set forth the most perfect Being . If he had only said it had been a foolish and vain attempt , he had only expressed the impossibility of the thing ; but when he makes such an Image an Idol when it is proposed for worship , he doth imply , that an imperfect representation of an infinite Nature when it is worshipped becomes an Idol . This is not to be avoided by saying , that such an Image is a false representation : for it is no otherwise false than every Image of a man is so ; for no Image can represent the invisible Nature of a Man. And it adds much force to this , that the Author of the Greek Excerpta about the use of Images , from the Nicene Council and the Writers of that time , saith , that the design of the second Commandment is against making any Images of God ; which he looks on not only as an absurd but a very wicked practice ; and which , he saith , was then common among the Aegyptians . 3. When an Image is worshipped for the sake of any sanctity , vertue , or Divinity abiding in it . Whosoever doth so , saith Iacobus Almain , is an Idolater ; and so much is implyed in the Council of Trent it self ; when it declares , that no worship is to be given to an Image on any such account ; if so , then the doing it is a thing forbidden and unlawful ; and not only so , but they looked on this as the certain way of putting a difference between Idolatry and their worship ; but men may suppose sanctity , vertue , and Divinity to be in an Image of a real Being ; and therefore such an Image may be properly an Idol : and so Vasquez confesses that this is Idolatry to give worship , although it be inferiour , to any inanimate being ( as an Image is ) for the sake of any thing belonging to it , or inherent in it . Thus I have shewed that there is no pretence to excuse the worship of Images from being Idolatry and a breach of the second Commandment , because an Idol is only a representation , of only imaginary beings , as T. G. saith , such as Sphinxes , Tritons , Centaurs or the like . 2. I now come to shew more particularly what the sense of the Law is , by considering what T. G. saith in answer to what I had formerly said about it : the original Question between us , was , whether God by this Law hath forbidden the giving any worship to himself by an Image ? No , saith T. G. he hath not ; but what he forbids there is only giving his worship to Idols . To resolve this Question , being about the sense of a Law , I proposed three wayes . 1. From the Terms in which the Law is expressed . 2. From the Reason annexed to it . 3. From the judgement of the Law-giver himself . But before T. G. comes to the handling of these , he lays down some arguments of his own to shew , that God did not intend by this Law , to forbid the worshipping of himself by an Image , but only the worship of Idols . 1. Because the Iews did worship God by bowing down before the Ark and the Cherubim . 2. Because S. Austin makes this Commandment to be only an explication of the first . To these I shall give a distinct answer . 1. T. G. on all occasions , lays great weight on the worshipping of God before the Ark and the Cherubims : which he makes to be the parallel of their worshipping God by bowing or kneeling before a Crucifix ; to which instance I had given this Answer , 1. That the Iews only directed their worship towards the place where God had promised to be signally present among them ; which signifies no more to the worship of Images , than our lifting our eyes to heaven doth when we pray ; because God is more especially present there . 2. That though the Cherubims were there , yet they were alwayes hid from the sight of the people , the High-Priest himself going into the Holy of Holies but once a year ; and that the Cherubims were no representations of God , but his Throne was between them on the Mercy Seat ; but that they were Hieroglyphical Figures of Gods own appointing , which the Iews know no more than we do : which are plain arguments they were never intended for objects of worship , for then they must not have been meer appendices to another thing , but would have been publickly exposed as the Images are in the Roman Churches , and their form as well known as any of the B. Virgin. But T. G. still insists upon it , that the Reverence which the Iews shewed to the Ark and Cherubims , was of the same nature with the worship they give to Images ; and he thinks , I have not answered the argument he brought for it . Therefore to give him all reasonable satisfaction , I shall 1. Compare their worship of Images and these together . 2. Examine all the colour of argument he produces for the worship of these among the Iews . 1. For comparing their worship of Images , with the Iews worshipping God before the Ark and the Cherubims . As to their worship of Images , I need only repeat ; 1. That they are publickly set up and exposed for worship in their Churches , and over their Altars . 2. That they are consecrated for this end . 3. That the people in their devotions bow to them , kneel and pray before them with all expressions of Reverence . 4. That the Councils of Nice and Trent have decreed that worship is to be given to them on the account of their representation ; because the honour given to them passes to the exemplar 5. That the Images themselves on the account of their representation are a proper object of inferiour worship , and that considered together with the exemplar they make up one entire object of supreme worship ; in these their Divines generally agree , and condemn the opinion of those who say , That they are only to worship the exemplar before the Image ; as contrary to the Decrees of Councils . But if the Ark and Cherubims were neither set up , nor exposed , nor consecrated as objects of worship ; if the People of the Iews never thought them to be so , nor worshipped them as such ; if the utmost were only that , which the Divines of the Roman Church condemn , viz. making them only a circumstance and not an object of worship , then I hope the difference will appear so great that T. G. himself may be ashamed of insisting so much on so weak a parallel . In external Acts of worship these two things are to be distinguished , ( 1. ) The Object of worship , or the thing to which that worship is given . ( 2. ) The local circumstance of expressing that worship towards that object . That there is a real difference between the object and local circumstance of worship , by our lifting up our hands and eyes towards heaven when we worship God ; but no man that understands our Religion can say , that we worship the heavens , but only God as present in them ; wherefore God is the object , and looking up to heaven , barely the circumstance . When we praise any person for some excellency in him , if he be present , we naturally turn our face towards him , to let others by that circumstance understand , of whom we speak ; but which way soever we looked , the same person would be the object of our praise ; when we do this at anothers mentioning his name , no man of common understanding will say , that the praise is directed to the very name of the Person ; and if a man makes a Panegyrick upon another , and reads it out of a Book , no one suspects that his praise is therefore directed to his Book . Thus it is in the acts of worship , the Object is that Being to which the worship is directed ; but because external Acts must have some local circumstances , by the position of our countenances , and the tendency of our posture either towards Heaven , or towards some place as the more immediate Symbol of a divine presence , the difference is apparent between such a direction of the act towards a place , and the direction of it towards an Object , in case it can be made appear that may be a place of worship , which is not an object of it . For which we must consider , ( 1. ) That the object of worship is that to which the worship is given either for its own sake , or for the sake of that which it represents ; but a local circumstance doth only circumscribe the material act of worship within certain bounds . And the proper object of worship is a Person , either really present , or represented as present . The Idolaters who worshipped their Images as Gods ( if at least any considerable number of them ever did so ) it was upon this account , that they supposed some Spirit to be incorporated in the Image , and so to make together with it a Person fit to receive worship . Those who worshipped the Elements , or heavenly bodies , did it not on the account of the matter whereof they were made ; but of those spirits which they believed to rule over those things they worshipped , as I have already shewed in the general discourse . But it is not necessary in order to an object of worship , that the Person be really present ; for if men by imagination do suppose him present as represented by an Image , that makes those who worship that Image perform the very same acts , as if he were actually present ; and in the Church of Rome they do make this representation by an Image , a sufficient ground for making that an object of worship ; which we say is the very thing forbidden in the Second Commandment , viz. that any Image should be worshipped on the account of what it represents ; and therefore it forbids all kind of representations to be worshipped by men : because an Image seems to have such a relation to the thing it represents , that they may pretend they give worship to it on another account than meerly its matter and form , viz. the thing represented by it . Thus when the Reason of the worship of Images is drawn from the exemplar , as it is both in the Councils of Nice and Trent , they thereby shew , that they do make the Image a true object of worship , although the reason of it be drawn from the Person represented . But suppose men worship God towards the West , as the Iews did , or towards the East , as the Christians did ; what is there in this that doth represent God to us ? what is there that we fix our worship upon , but only himself ; God hath no where forbidden men to worship Him towards the place of His presence ; for even our Saviour hath bid us pray , Our Father which art in Heaven ; and supposing God had promised a more peculiar presence in His Holy Temple , it was as lawful to worship God towards that , as towards Heaven ; but that which God hath strictly forbidden , is the worshipping of any thing on the account of the representation either of himself , or of His creatures ; for this doth suppose that Image to be made the object of worship , although it be on the account of what it represents . 2. Supposing the same external acts to be performed towards an Image , and towards a place of Gods particular presence ; yet the case is not alike in both these , if those who do them , declare they do them not with a design to worship that place . For to the making any thing an object of worship , there must be some ground to believe that they intend to worship it , either from the nature of their actions , or the doctrine and practice of the Church they live in ; but in case it be expressly declared , that what they do , is only intended as a local circumstance , there is no ground to charge them with making it an object of worship . Thus those in the Church of Rome , who declare that they do not worship the Image , but only worship God before an Image , although they perform the same external acts of worship , yet are condemed of Heresie , because hereby they declare they do not give worship to Images , which is contrary to the decrees of their Councils : Much more certainly will those be condemned by them who declare it unlawful to worship any thing on the account of representation ; and that they do only determine the acts of outward worship towards a particular place , without any intention to worship that place , but only to worship God that way . And this was the case of the Iews as to the worshipping of Images , and of God towards the Holy of Holies ; they declared it utterly unlawful to do one because God had strictly forbidden it ; and they though it as lawful to do the other , because he allowed the practice of it : and it was sufficiently known among the people of the Iews , that they had no intention to worship either the Ark or the Cherubims . 3. Where there is only a local circumstance of worship , the same thing would be worshipped , supposing that circumstance changed ; but where any thing is an object of worship , that being changed , the same thing is not worshipped . This makes the difference between these two easie , and intelligible by all . If a Iew should worship towards the East , or Christians towards the West , the same object of their worship continues still ; for they worship the same God both waies ; but if the Image of Christ or the B. Virgin be taken away from the Altar , a Papist cannot be said to worship the same thing there , that he did before . Which plainly shews , that there is a real difference between these two ; which is of great moment to clear the Iewish worship of God towards his holy place , and to shew how different it was from the worship of Images . 2. But T. G. pretends to bring clear Scripture for the Iews worshipping the Ark ; Adore ye the foot-stool of God , for it is holy , Psal. 98.5 . so all the ancient Fathers , he saith , read it without scruple ; and S. Hierome , he saith , confirms it . And why was it placed in the Holy of Holies , and why were the people commanded to adore , or bow down before it , but to testifie their reverence to it ? To this I answer , 1. One might venture odds against T. G. that when he quotes all the Fathers for him , he hath very few of his side : Nothing less will content him here than all the Fathers reading it without scruple , for It is holy , when Lorinus saith , That all the Greek Fathers , not one dissenting that he had seen , read it , For He is holy : and among the Latins he confesses , That S. Hierome and S. Augustine both read it so ; for , saith S. Augustine , Quis sanctus est in cujus honore ador as scabellum pedum ejus ? Genebrard acknowledges likewise , that S. Hierome translates it so , and Suarez yields that not only the Greek , but S. Augustine and S. Hierome read it , For He is holy . 2. Those words do not imply , that the Iews did make the Ark the object of their worship ; for the Chaldee Paraphrast renders them , Worship Him in His Sanctuary ; and the last verse of the Psalm , where the same sense is repeated , interprets this , Worship at his holy hill , for the Lord our God is holy : where , the holy Mountain is the same with the Foot stool before mentioned : and so Muis confesses , who saith withal , That by the phrase of worshipping His Foot-stool , no more is meant than worshipping God at His Foot-stool : and the Sanctuary , he saith , is called Gods Foot-stool , not only by the Chaldee Paraphrast and Kimchi , but Lament . 2.1 . And so Lyra interprets it , Ante scabellum pedum ejus : worship before His Footstool : or worship at His Footstool , as it is Psalm 182.7 . And it would be very strange , if the Psalmist should here propose the footstool for an object of worship to them , when the design of the whole Psalm is to call all Nations to the worship of God , as sitting between the Cherubims , Psal. 99.1 . i. e. in His Throne which is surely different from His Footstool . I will not contend with Suarez about the sense of the Footstool of God here mentioned , ( although he confesses that Basil and Vatablus understand the Temple by it : ) but I will yield him that the Ark is most probably understood by it , because of his sitting between the Cherubims being mentioned before ; in which respect the Ark may properly be called his Footstool . For the Cherubims were the Mercabah , or the Divine Chariot , and so called , 1 Chron. 28.18 . where the Vulgar Latine renders it Quadriga Cherubim : in such a Chariot Pyrrhus Ligorius , the famous Italian Antiquary , saith , The Deities were wont to be drawn : and Livy , and Plutarch take notice of it in Camillus as an extraordinary thing that he made use of such a Triumphal Chariot which had been before looked on as proper to Iove the Father of Gods and Men. Such a Triumphal Chariot , I suppose that to have been in the Holy of Holies , but without any representation of the Divine Majesty , and this Chariot is that we call the Cherubim , and the Ark was a kind of Footstool to the invisible Majesty that sate between the Cherubims , and there delivered his Oracles . Now I appeal to the understanding of any reasonable man , whether God being represented as sitting upon His Triumphal Chariot , without any visible Image of Him , the worship was there to be performed to the invisible Deity , or to the visible Chariot and Footstool ? which is all one as to ask whether persons approaching to a Prince on his Throne , are to worship the Prince or his Footstool , or Chair of State ? But Lorinus and Suarez say , The Hebrew particle being added to a word implying worship , doth not denote the place but the object of worship ; which is sufficiently refuted by those two places before mentioned , viz. the last verse of this Psalm , and Psalm 132.7.3 . Those of the Fathers , who understood this expression of the object of worship , do declare by their interpretation that it was not lawful to worship the Ark after that manner . Therefore Lorinus saith , most of the Fathers understood it of the humanity of Christ , as S. Ambrose , S. Hierome , S. Augustine and others generally after him ; and among the Greeks , he reckons S. Athanasius , and S. Chrysostome . But what need all this running so far from the literal sense , in case they had thought the Ark a lawful object of worship ? Let S. Augustine speak for the rest , The Scripture , saith he , elsewhere calls the Earth Gods Footstool ; and doth he bid us worship the Earth ? This puts me in a great perplexity ; I dare not worship the Earth , lest He damn me who made the Heaven and the Earth ; and I dare not but worship His Footstool , because He bids me do it . In this doubt I turn my self to Christ , and from Him find the resolution of it ; for His Flesh was Earth ; and so he runs into a discourse about the adoration due to the flesh of Christ , and the sense in which it is to be understood . And elsewhere saith , That the humane nature of Christ is no otherwise to be adored than as it is united to the Divinity . Which plainly shews that he did not think the Ark literally understood to be a proper object of worship . But T. G. adds , that S. Hierome saith , That the Iews did worship or reverence the Holy of Holies , because there were the Cherubims , the Ark , &c. It is well he puts in Reverence as well as worship , for Venerabantur signifies no more than that they had it in great veneration ; and that not only for the sake of the Ark and Cherubims , but for the pot of Manna , and Aarons Rod ; and doth T. G. think in his conscience , that the Iews worshipped these too ? But S. Hierom explains himself , when he saith immediately after , That the Sepulchre of Christ is more venerable than that ; which he interprets by saying , It was a place to be honoured by all . And are these the doughty proofs which T. G. blames me for not vouchsafing an Answer to them ? I think he ought to have taken it as a kindness from me . Let him now judge whether I have neither Scripture , nor Father , nor Reason to abet me , in saying , That the Iews only directed their worship towards the place where God had promised to be signally present among them . As to the worship of the Cherubims , all his attempts come only to this , They might be worshipped although they were not seen ; and if it were lawful for the High Priest to worship them once a year , it was alwaies lawful ; but I deny that the High Priest ever worshipped them ; for he only worshipped the God that sate upon His Triumphal Chariot ; and their being hid from the sight of the People , was an argument they were not exposed as objects of worship , as Images are in the Roman Church . Their being Appendices to the Throne of God , he saith , was rather a means to increase than diminish the Peoples Reverence to them . If by Reverence he means worship , we may here see an instance of the variety of mens understandings . For no less a man than Vasquez , from hence argues , That the Cherubims were never intended as an object of worship , because they were only the Appendices to another thing ; but a thing is then proposed as an object of worship , when it is set up by it self , and not by way of addition or ornament to another thing : with whom Lorinus , Azorius , and Visorius agree . And even Aquinas himself grants , That the Seraphim ( he means the Cherubim ) were not set up for worship , but only for the sign of some Mysterie ; nay , he saith , the Iews were expressly forbidden to worship them . Thus I hope I have made it appear , how very little the worshipping of God before the Ark and the Cherubims doth prove towards the lawfulness of the worship of Images in the Roman Church . The second Argument of T. G. is , From the judgement of S. Augustine , who makes that which we call the Second Commandment to be only an explication of the First . Which I thought so weak and trifling an Argument , that I gave a short answer to it in these two particulars , 1. That S. Augustine did not seem constant to that opinion . 2. That supposing he were , yet it doth not follow that according to his judgement , these words are only against Heathen Idols , and not against the worship of God by Images . Here T. G. thinks he hath the bit fast between his teeth , and away he runs , raising a dust to blind the eyes of beholders ; but he must be stopt in his carier , and brought to better Reason . I asked T. G. how he was sure this was S. Austins constant judgement , since in his latter Writings he reckons up the Commandments , as others of the Fathers had done before him ? upon this he insults , and calls it a new way of answering Fathers , and the readiest he ever met with , except it be that of denying them : and if this be allowed , when an express Testimony of a Father is alledged , there is no more to do , than to ask how he is sure , that the Father did not afterwards change his mind ? but , he saith , he is sure he hath his judgement professedly for him in his former Writings ; and that I ought to bring better evidence of his being of another mind than I have done . But if I do evidently prove , that S. Augustine was of our mind in the main point as to the unlawfulness of the worship of God by Images ; then what matter is it , whether it be the first , or second , or third , or fourth Commandment , so we are sure it is one of the Ten ? And I have already produced sufficient Testimonies from him to this purpose ; For doth not S. Augustine declare , That it is unlawful to worship God by an Image , when , he saith , it were impiety for a Christian to set up a corporeal Image of God in a Temple ; and that they who do it are guilty of the Sacriledge condemned by S. Paul , of turning the glory of the incorruptible God into an Image made like to corruptible man ? Doth not St. Augustine commend Varro for speaking so reproachfully concerning the very manner of worshipping the Deity by an Image ? and he saith , That if he durst have opposed so old a corruption , he would have both owned the unity of the Godhead , Et sine simulachro colendum esse censeret , and have thought he ought to be worshipped without an Image . Doth not S. Augustine , when he purposely explains that which he accounts the First Commandment , say , That any similitude of God is thereby forbidden to be worshipped ; because no Image of God is to be worshipped but what is God himself , i. e. his Son ? And can any one speak more expressly our sense than S. Augustine here doth ? Let not T.G. then boast of his possession of S. Augustine , unless it be , as he did lately of all the Fathers ; and in truth , the reason is much alike for both . But as to the division of the Commandments he is of T. G 's side ; and what is that to our business ? If S. Augustine be of our side as to the sense of the Commandment , I can allow him to find out something of the Mysterie of the Trinity in having three Commandments of the First Table ; and I can be contented with this , that the generality of the Fathers were for the other division , and upon more considerable Reasons . But T.G. saith , That S. Augustine translates this Precept , Thou shalt not make to thy self any Idol , and the sense of the Law to be the forbidding the giving the worship of God to Idols . One would think by this , S. Augustine had no other word but Idolum here ; whereas he uses both figmentum and simulachrum , both which words he elsewhere uses about the Images of the True God. But this is their common method , if they meet with a word in the Fathers that sounds their way , they never stay to consider the sense of it , but presently cry out Idolum , Idolum ; and then with the Man at Athens , take all that comes for their own : So doth T. G. boast of the possession of the Fathers upon as slight grounds as he did ; and makes up by the strength of Imagination what is wanting in the goodness of his title ; if at least imagination can sway him so much against the plain evidence of Reason . Having thus cleared the way by removing these mighty difficulties which T. G. had laid in it to obstruct our passage , I now come to consider the several methods I proposed for finding out the sense of this Law. The first whereof was from the general Terms wherein it is expressed , which are of so large and comprehensive a sense as to take in all manner of representations , in order to worship ; and I challenged him to shew where the word Temunah which they render similitude as well as we , is ever used in Scripture to signifie such an Idol as he supposes this Law intends . And to what purpose are words of the largest signification put into a Law , if the sense be limitted according to the most narrow acceptation of one word mentioned therein ? for there is no kind of Image , whether graven or painted , whether of a real or imaginary Being , but is comprehended under the signification of the words set down in the Law. To this T. G. answers , that how large soever the signification of this word Temunah or similitude be when taken by it self , yet in our present case , it is limited by the following words , Thou shalt not bow down to them nor serve them , to signifie something which is made to be worshipped as God , that is , to be an Idol . And so , by the word Idol in the Commandment he understands such an Image as is made to represent for worship a Figment that hath no real Being ; and by similitude an Image or resemblance of some real thing , but falsely imagined to be God ; but , he saith , it was nothing to the purpose to put the word similitude in its largest meaning , that is , as signifying any Image whatsoever though made with respect to the worship of the true God , when God himself commanded the Ark and the Cherubims to be made with that respect : ( doth he mean to represent the true God ? or to be objects of worship ? which I have already shewed to be false . ) That which I am to prove , he saith , is , that the word Similitude is to be taken so here ; whereas , he affirms , that the word similitude is to be restrained to the similitude of false Gods : And to make all sure , he interprets similitude only of the representation of false Gods , and bowing down to and worshipping that similitude is the Worshipping that Similitude as God : i. e. taking the Likeness to be the Thing it self . I cannot blame T. G. for making the thing forbidden in the Commandment , if it be possible , more absurd than their practice in the worship of Images is ; but , whether he hath made the sense of the Law or himself more ridiculous let the Reader judge . By similitude , he saith , is here to be understood , only the Similitude of False Gods , as the Sun , Moon and Stars , and other like things which they worshipped as Gods ; this I confess is intelligible and true , although not the full meaning of the Commandment ; but what then is , bowing down to and worshipping this similitude ? that is , saith he , to worship this similitude as God : How is that ? Is it by believing the Similitude to be the Thing ? as the Image of the Sun to be really the Sun ? this is absurd enough of all Conscience , and they were sottish Idolaters indeed that did so . Or is it , that they thought there was no other God , besides that similitude ? That were strange indeed , they should think the similitude to be God , and not the thing represented by it . But so the wise Pope Gregory 2. interpreted this Commandment in his incomparable Epistle to Leo Isaurus ; The Emperour tells the Pope he durst not allow the Worship of Images , because of this severe Prohibition of any kind of similitude , and he desires him to shew , who it was that since had made it lawful to worship the work of mens Hands . The Pope for this calls him , an Ignoramus , a dull , and insolent Fool ; and bids him lay aside his pride and haughtiness , and come and learn of him the meaning of the Commandment . And now we expect something becoming an Infallible Head of the Church ; This Commandment , saith the Pope , was made for the sake of the Idolaters who lived in the Land of Promise , that worshipped living Creatures of Gold and Silver , and Wood , and all sorts of Creatures and Fowls of the Aire ; and said , These are our Gods , and there is no God besides them ; and for the sake of this workmanship of the Devil , God said that we should not worship them ; but there is other Workmanship for the Honour of God , and this men may worship . Exceedingly well spoken ! The mischief is , Maimonides saith , there never were such Fools in the world to believe there was no other God but their Idols ; but what is Maimonides his saying to the Head of the Church ? I am not yet satisfied about T. G's worshipping a similitude as God , and so making it an Idol . If it be a God , how is it the similitude of a God ? If it be not , how comes it to be worshipped as God ? What is it the similitude of ? of God ? yes . But it is God it self to him that worships it as God ; and so it is the similitude of it self . So that the similitude here forbidden to be worshipped , is a Thing that is like its own self . T. G. in another place saith , the thing forbidden in the Commandment , is bowing our selves down to the Images themselves , and this by the Concession of all is worshipping them instead of God. What is this bowing down to the Images themselves ? Is it supposing them to be really Gods ? then they are not worshipped as similitudes ; and this seems to be his meaning , when he saith , To bow down our selves to the Images themselves , without any Relation to God , is to worship them instead of God. But I am still to seek for his meaning ; is it bowing down to Images themselves , without relation to any other God ? that must suppose that those who do so worship them believe there is no God besides the Images , and that were to make God to forbid a thing , that we never read to be practised in the World. Or , is it to suppose those Images themselves to be Objects of Worship ? if it be , then all those stand condemned for Idolaters who assert that Images themselves are to be worshipped . Which I have shewed to be the common opinion of their Divines , and by them thought to be the Decree of the Councils for the worship of Images . Or lastly , is the worshipping Images themselves , without relation to the True God , the worshipping them instead of God ? but this is both false , and impertinent . It is false , because they who worship Images without relation to the true God , may yet worship them barely as they represent a false God ( as the wisest of the Heathens did ) and therefore not as God ; and Eusebius saith in general of the Heathens , that they did not look on their Images as Gods : it is impertinent , because by the confession of their own Writers ( as I have shewed ) an Image that hath relation to the True God may be worshipped as God , when divine worship is given to an Image of God or Christ. And therefore all this adoe is to no purpose ; for this Commandment must then be so understood , as to exclude the worship of the True God by an Image . Otherwise it cannot be unlawful to give any kind of worship to an Image of the True God ; and so the Gnosticks were not to blame in the worship they gave to the Image of Christ , although they stand condemned in all Ages of the Church for it . If this were unlawful , ( as they all say it is unlawful to Sacrifice to an Image ) then some kind of worshipping the True God by an Image is forbidden by the second Commandment . And now let the Reader judge , how well T.G. hath acquitted himself in his admirable undertakings , when he saith , with so much confidence , that the second Commandment speaks not one Word against the worshipping God himself by an Image ; which is to charge the whole Christian Church with Folly and Ignorance in condemning the Carpocratians , for worshipping the Image of Christ with divine worship ; who saith Bellarmin , sine dubio Imaginem ejus propter ipsum colebant , without all doubt worshipped the Image of Christ with relation to him . But still when T. G. is miserably mistaken , the Fathers must bear the blame of it . Alas poor Fathers ! Must you bear the load of all his miscarriages ? It is but doing you justice , to vindicate your innocency in this righteous Cause . He tells me , that I must prove against these Fathers ( viz. Origen and Theodoret ) and the general sense of the Church of Christ for so many hundred years , that the word similitude is to be taken in the second Commandment for any Image made with respect to the worship of God. A very easie undertaking in it self ; but by no means either against those Fathers , or the sense of the Christian Church for many hundred years , which is as plainly on my side in this case , as it is in the Articles of the Creed ; as may be seen in the foregoing Chapters . But T. G. is again unlucky when he pretends to the Fathers ; for those two Fathers he mentions are point-blank against him in this matter : witness the many citations I there produced out of Origen ; wherein , he saith , the Christians durst have no Images of the Deity , because of this Commandment ; and that they would rather dye than defile themselves with such an impiety . And even Theodoret himself saith , they were forbidden to make any Image of God , because they saw no similitude of him : and which is more to T. G. even the Nicene Council and the great Patrons of Images for a long time after , did yield that the second Commandment did forbid the making or worshipping any representation of God ; as I have already at large proved . If I might advise T. G. I would never have him venture at the Fathers again ; but be contented to bear his own burdens ; and out of meer pity to them , not to load them with the imputation of his own infirmities , if not wilful mistakes . To make it appear that the intention of the Law was not meerly against the Idols of the Heathens , I added these words If this had been the meaning of the Law , why was it not more plainly expressed ? why were none of the words elsewhere used by way of contempt of the Heathen Idols here mentioned , as being less liable to ambiguity ? why in so short a comprehension of Laws , is this Law so much enlarged above what it might have been , if nothing but what he saith , were to be meant by it ? For then the meaning of the two first precepts might have been summed up in very few words , Thou shalt have no other Gods but me , and Thou shalt worship the Images of no other Gods but me . To all this , which is surely something more than saying , that it is ridiculous to imagine the Law means any thing else ; T. G. answers not one word : but instead of that he spends some pages about two similitudes , one of mine , and another quainter of his own ; which must stand or fall according to the Reason given for the sense of the Law ; and therefore I shall pass them over . Only for his desiring me , to make my similitude run on all four , as the Beasts mentioned in it ; it is such a piece of Wit , that I desire he may enjoy the comfort of it . But he hath not yet done with the word Pesel ; which , he saith , the LXX . would never have rendred it here contrary to their custome , Idol , without some particular Reason for it . What particular Reason was there here , more than in the repetition of the Commandment , Deut. 5.8 ? where they translate it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , in the Alex. M S. and in other Copies of the LXX . Deut. 4.16 . Was there not as much reason to have used the same word in those places as in this , since the Commandment is the very same ? And for the other places , he mentions , as Isaiah 40.18 — 44.9 , 10 , 13. I dare leave it to the examination of any man , whether they do not far better prove , that an Idol in Scripture is an Image set up for worship , than that by graven Image is meant an Heathen Idol . This I am certain of , that Pet. Picherellus an excellent Critick , and learned Divine in the Roman Church , was convinced by comparing of these places , that the signification of an Idol in the second Commandment , is the same with that of a graven Image ; and that the using any outward sign of worship before any Image is the thing forbidden in this Commandment , and that the doing so is that Idolatry which God hath threatned so severely to punish : which I beseeth T. G. and those of his Church to consider , and repent . The second way I proposed to find out the sense of the Commandment was from the Reason of it ; which , I said , the Scripture tells us was derived from Gods infinite and incomprehensible nature which could not be represented to men , but in a way that must be an infinite disparagement to it . For which I produced Isaiah 40.19 , 20 , 21 , 22. To whom will ye liken God ? or what likeness will ye compare to him ? The workman melteth a graven Image , and the Goldsmith spreadeth it over with gold , &c. Have ye not known , have ye not heard ? hath it not been told you from the beginning ? Have ye not understood from the foundation of the earth ? It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth , &c. Whence I desired to know , whether this reason be given against Heathen Idols , or those Images which were worshipped for Gods or no ? or whether by this reason , God doth not declare , that all worship given to him by any visible representation of him is extremely dishonourable to him ? And to this purpose when this precept is enforced on the people of Israel by a very particular caution , Take ye therefore good heed to your selves , lest ye corrupt your selves , and make you a graven Image , the similitude of any figure , &c. the ground of that Caution is expressed in these words , For ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you . If the whole intention of the Law had been only to keep them from worshipping the Heathen Idols , or Images for Gods , to what purpose is it here mentioned that they saw no similitude of God , when he spake to them ? For although God appeared with a similitude then , yet there might have been great Reason against worshipping the Heathen Idols , or fixing the intention of their worship on the bare Image . But this was a very great Reason why they ought not to think of honouring God by an Image ; for if he had judged that a suitable way of Worship to his Nature and Excellency , he would not have left the choice of the similitude to themselves , but would have appeared himself in such a similitude as had best pleased him . This Discourse T.G. saith , is apt enough to delude a vulgar Auditory out of the Pulpit ( I with their Pulpits had never any worse before not vulgar Auditories ) but altogether empty and insignificant when brought to the Test of Reason . That is to be tried , whether my Reason or his Answer will be found so : However , he saith , this doth not prove it Idolatry . No! that is very strange , for if the Image of God , when worshipped , be an Idol and forbidden as such in the Commandment , then I suppose the worship of it is Idolatry . But none so blind as they that will not see . Now for the terrible Test of Reason . He saith 1. That all representations of God , are not dishonourable to him ; and for that , he produces a Hieroglyphical Picture of a three corner'd light within a Cloud , and the name Iehovah in the midst of it in the Frontispiece of a Book of Common Prayer , by Rob. Barker , 1642. from whence he inferrs , that the Church of England doth not look on all visible representations as an infinite disparagement to God. As though the Church of England were concerned in all the Fancies of Engravers in the Frontispieces of Books publickly allowed : He might better have proved that we worship Iupiter Ammon in our Churches , because in some he may see Moses painted with Horns on his Forehead ; I do not think our Church ever determined that Moses should have horns , any more than it appointed such an Hieroglyphical Representation of God. Is our Church the only place in the World , where the Painters have lost their old priviledge , quidlibet audendi ? There needs no great atonement to be made between the Church of England and me in this matter : for the Church of England declares in the Book of Homilies , that the Images of God the Father , Son and Holy Ghost are expresly forbidden and condemned by these very Scriptures I mentioned . For how can God a most pure Spirit , whom man never saw , be expressed by a gross body , or visible similitude ? or how can the infinite Majesty and Greatness of God incomprehensible to mans mind , much more not able to be compassed with the sense , be expressed in an Image ? With more to the same purpose , by which our Church declares , as plainly as possible , that all Images of God are a disparagement to the Divine Nature ; therefore let T. G. make amends to our Church of England for this and other affronts he hath put upon her . Here is nothing of the Test of Reason , or Honesty in all this ; let us see whether it lies in what follows . 2. He saith , That Images of God may be considered two waies , either as made to represent the Divinity it self , or Analogically ; this distinction I have already fully examined , and shewed it to be neither fit for Pulpit nor Schools , and that all Images of God are condemned by the Nicene Fathers themselves , as dishonourable to Him. 3. He saith , That the Reason of the Law was to keep them in their duty of giving Soveraign Worship to God alone , by restraining them from Idolatry . This is now the Severe Test , that my Reason cannot stand before . And was it indeed only Soveraign worship to God , that was required by the Law to restrain them from Idolatry ? Doth this appear ( to return his own words ) in the Law it self , or in the Preface , or in the Commination against the transgressors of it ? if in none of these places , nor any where else in Scripture , methinks it is somewhat hard venturing upon this distinction of Soveraign and inferiour worship , when the words are so general , Thou shalt not bow down to them , nor worship them ? And if God be so jealous a God in this matter of worship , he will not be put off with idle distinctions of vain men , that have no colour or pretence from the Law : for whether the worship be supreme or inferiour , it is worship ; and whether it be one or the other , do they not bow down to Images ? and what can be forbidden in more express words than these are ? But T. G. proves his assertion , 1. From the Preface of the Law ; because the Reason there assigned , is , I am the Lord thy God ; therefore Soveraign honour is only to be given to me , and to none besides me . Or , as I think , it is better expressed in the following words , Thou shalt have no other Gods but me : and who denies , or doubts of this ? but what is this to the Second Commandment ? Yes , saith T. G. The same reason is enforced from Gods jealousie of his honor : very well , of His Soveraign Honour ? but provided , that supreme worship be reserved to Him , He doth not regard an inferiour worship being given to Images : Might not T. G. as well have explained the First Commandment after the same manner , Thou shalt have no other Soveraign Gods besides me ; but inferiour and subordinate Deities you may have , as many as you please , notwithstanding the Reason of the Law ; which T. G. thus paraphrases , I am the only supreme and super-excellent Being , above all , and over all , to whom therefore Soveraign Honour is only to be given , and to none besides me . Very true , say the Heathen Idolaters , we yield you every word of this , and why then do you charge us with Idolatry ? Thus by the admirable Test of T. G's reason , the Heathen Idolaters are excused from the breach of the First Commandment , as well as the Papists from the breach of the Second . 2. He proves it from the necessary connexion between the prohibition of the Law on the one side , and the supreme excellency of the Divine Nature on the other ; For from the supreme excellency of God , it necessarily follows that Soveraign Worship is due only to it , and not to be given to any other Image or thing : but if we consider Him as invisible only and irrepresentable , it doth not follow on that account precisely , that Soveraign worship or indeed any worship at all is due unto it . Which is just like this manner of Reasoning . The Supreme Authority of a Husband , is the Reason why the Wife is to obey him ; but if she consider her Husband , as his name is Iohn or Thomas , or as he hath such features in his face ; it doth not follow on that account precisely , that she is bound to obey him and none else for her Husband . And what of all this , for the love of School Divinity ? May not the reason of obedience be taken from one particular thing in a Person ; and yet there be a general obligation of obedience to that Person , and to none else besides him ? Although the features of his countenance be no Reason of obedience , yet they may serve to discriminate him from any other Person , whom she is not to love and obey . And in case , he forbids her familiarity with one of his servants , because this would be a great disparagement to him ; doth it follow that because his Superiority is the general Reason of obedience , he may not give a particular Reason for a special Command ? This is the case here . Gods Supreme Excellency is granted to be the general Reason of obedience to all Gods Commands ; but in case he gives some particular precept , as not to worship any Image , may not he assign a Reason proper to it ? And what can be a more proper reason against making or worshipping any representation of God , than to say , He cannot be represented ? Meer invisibility I grant is no general reason of obedience ; but invisibility may be a very proper reason for not painting what is invisible . There is no worship due to a sound , because it cannot be painted ; but it is the most proper reason why a sound cannot be painted , because it is not visible . And if God himself gives this reason , why they should make no graven Image because they saw no similitude on that day , &c. is it not madness and folly in men to say , this is no Reason ? But T. G. still takes it for granted , That all that is meant by this Commandment , is that Soveraign worship is not to be given to Graven Images or similitudes ; and of the Soveraign worship , he saith , Gods excellency precisely is the formal and immediate Reason why it is to be given to none but him . But we are not such Sots ( say the Heathen Idolaters again ) to give Soveraign worship to our Images of Mercury , or Apollo , &c. therefore the Reason of your Command doth not reach us ; but we may worship our Images , as well as you do yours . 3. He proves it , ad hominem , thus , I grant that no perfect Image of God can be made , and that God need not by a Law forbid an impossible thing ; but from the Divine Natures being invisible it only follows that men ought not to presume to make any Image , or likeness to represent it as it is , i. e. a perfect Image ; and the Law in vertue of it must be to forbid making any such Image ; therefore according to my self , the irrepresentableness of the Divine Nature as precisely considered , cannot be assigned for the proper cause or reason of this Law. Very subtilly argued ! What I said , could not be the sense of the Law , he takes to be the sense of it , and from thence argues against the Reason I had given : which is as if I should say to him ; T. G. denies , That this Commandment doth contain any prohibition of the worship of God by an Image ; but the Law must be understood to forbid worshipping God by an Image ; therefore according to T. G. the Law doth forbid worshipping God by an Image . Call you this arguing ad hominem ! One would think it were to a creature of a lower rank . He saith , I deny that the Law forbids making an impossible thing , i.e. a perfect Image of God ; he asserts , That the Law must be understood to forbid the making of any such Image ; and from hence he infers , that according to my self , that cannot be the reason of the Law which I assigned ; because from that reason that only follows to be forbidden by the Law , which I said could not be the thing forbidden by the Law : and he saith , must be only forbidden by it . Before T. G. had gone about to prove any thing from hence against my self , he ought to have shewed , 1. That Gods irrepresentable Nature doth only hold against making impossibilities , that is , perfect Images of God. 2. That this must be the meaning of the Second Commandment , which he saith , I denied . 3. That when I denied , and he barely affirmed it , he can argue ad hominem from my denial and his affirmation of the same thing , against the Reason alledged by me , viz. I assigned from Scripture , that no Image is to be made of God because He is Infinite and Invisible ; now saith T.G. I will prove from your own words , this cannot be the Reason of this Law. How so ? You say , that the Law doth not forbid making a perfect Image of God , for that is impossible . And what then ? doth it hence follow , that the Law doth not forbid making a possible Image of God ? Hold , saith T. G. Gods infinite Nature doth only hold against a perfect Image , and this must be the meaning of the Commandment ; which I utterly denied . And so if T. G. will argue ex concessis , it must proceed thus , I deny that the Law doth forbid an impossible Image of God , or that Gods infinite Nature doth only hold against such Images ; and therefore according to my self , this infinite Nature of God cannot be the reason why Images are forbidden in the Second Commandment . Can any man in the earth discern the consequence of this ? When I say the Law is made against possible Images , and that the Nature of God is represented so perfect to deter men from making the most imperfect Images of God , because they are a disparagement to Him ; doth it follow from my words that this Reason cannot hold against the making of Images ? T. G. having given us such a Test of his Reason ; I now follow him to the interpretation he gives of the places of Scripture produced by me . To the First , Isa. 40.18 . To whom will ye liken God ? Or what likeness will ye compare unto Him ? He Answers , That there is a likeness of representation and a likeness of Comparison ; if the words be understood of the former , then he saith , it only follows that such a likeness is not to be made . Which is all that I desire . But again he is at it , That I deny the prohibition hereof to be any part of the Law : Is it possible for T. G. to say this , when my design is to prove the contrary ? but By Likeness T. G. understands a perfect representation ; why doth he not say then , by likeness is understood sameness ? which is not representation , but the thing it self . All representation by the art of man must fall very much short of the perfection of the meanest animal ; and no Image can represent a thing as it is , but as it appears ; not in regard of its invisible nature , but of its outward lineaments ; either therefore T. G. must deny any likeness of representation , or he must yield that to be a likeness of representation in an Image of God which doth not perfectly represent him . For if it had the Perfection of God , it would be God. If the words be understood of a likeness of comparison , then the meaning , he saith , is , that none of the Idols of the Heathens are to be compared to Him in Wisdom , Greatness , or Power . But me thinks if not the Hebrew words , nor the Chaldee Paraphrast , nor the LXX , nor other versions , could prevail with T. G. yet the Vulgar Latine should have had Authority enough to let him know , that these words are not spoken of Heathen Idols , but of an Image of God , Cui ergo similem fecistis Deum ? aut quam Imaginem ponetis ei ? which surely ought to signifie more with him , than meerly the Contents of the Chapters do with us . To Deut. 4.15 . he answers , That de facto no manner of similitude was seen at the giving of the Law , by the people ; that afterwards they might not take occasion to conceive it to have been a proper representation of the Divinity , and so entertain an erroneous conceit of God. And doth T. G. think , there was not as much danger of dishonouring God by worshipping any such representation of God , as by entertaining an erroneous conceit of God in their minds ? But why must this be understood only of a proper representation , when the words are , no manner of similitude ; is there no manner of similitude , but a proper representation ? and yet after all this , the Images of God allowed and worshipped in the Roman Church are as much in danger of making men entertain erroneous conceits of God , as any similitude of that time ; and therefore as much against the Reason of this Commandment . But T. G. very modestly denies , these words to contain a Reason of this Commandment ( although they be , For ye saw no manner of similitude , &c. Therefore take heed lest ye corrupt your selves and make a graven Image , &c. ) but the matter of fact was made use of by him as a motive to induce the People to the observance of the Law in a Sermon he makes , Deut. 4. to press them to that duty . I see T. G. is resolved to make just such another Test of Scripture as he did of Reason ; Could it ever enter into a mans head waking , that these words are a general reason of the Whole Law , and not a particular Reason of that Command which immediately follows it , and by the very words relates to it ? Ye saw no similitude , therefore make no similitude ; this is proper , and natural , and easie to all capacities : but ye saw no similitude ; therefore obey my Law ; Hold there , saith T. G. himself ( if he be not in a dream and hath forgotten himself ) to be supremely excellent is the proper reason of Obedience , and not the seeing no similitude , therefore this is no proper Motive to obedience , whatever the Contents of Chapters or tops of the Pages of our Bibles say , which are the pitiful refuges T. G. betakes himself to , to escape down-right sinking . But some men would rather give all for lost , than think to save themselves by such a mean defence . Well ; but T. G. hath something yet to say ; which is , That supposing all this to be true which I have said , as to the Reason of the Law , yet this doth not reach home to them ; for it doth not follow from hence , that Christ according to his humanity cannot be represented but with great disparagement to him : or that to put off our hats when we behold the figure of his sacred body with intent to worship him , must be extremely dishonourable to him . This argument therefore doth not concern Catholicks in making the Image of Christ and his Saints with respect to their honour . This is the last effort of T. G. on this argument , and as weak as any of the rest : For , 1. it is a false and most disingenuous representation of their practises , as may appear to any one that will but look back , on what I have said upon that Subject . One would think , by T. G'S words , they had never used or allowed , or worshipped any Images of God or the Trinity in the Church of Rome ; which he knows to be otherwise ; and I have abundantly proved it already . 2. The force of the second Command , extending to Christians , doth equally hold against the worship of Christ by an Image , as it did under the Law against worshipping God by an Image . For if the Law be perpetual , as the Christian Church alwaies believed , and Christ be only the object of worship as He is God , we are as much forbidden to worship Christ by an Image , as the Iews were to worship God by one . I do not say , there is as great an incongruity in representing the humane nature of Christ , as there was in representing the infinite nature of God ; but I say , there is as great an incongruity still in supposing an Image , of whatsoever it be , can be the proper object of divine worship . For the humanity of Christ is only capable of receiving adoration from us , as it is hypostatically united to the divine nature ; and S. Austin saith , Being considered as separated from it , is no more to be worshipped than the Robe or Diadem of a Prince when it lies on the Ground ; and if the humane nature of Christ be not , what then is the Image of it ? What union is there between the Divine Nature and a Crucifix ? All that can be said is , that imagination supplies the union , and Christ is supposed to be present by representation ; but this overthrows all measures and bounds of worship , and makes it lawful to worship any Creature , with respect to God ; it contradicts the argument of S. Paul , For then God may be worshipped with the Work of mens hands ; it is contrary to the sense and practice of the Primitive Church which interpreted this Commandment , to hold against all Images set up for worship , as well those proper to Christians , as others among Iews or Gentiles . 3. The last way I proposed to find out the sense of the Law , was from the Iudgement of the Law-giver : which was fully manifested in the case of the Golden Calf , and the two Calves of Ieroboam . This he calls a solid principle indeed to work upon ; I am glad to see that we Protestants can fall into the way of Principles ; and more glad that Gods judgement recorded in Scripture is acknowledged for such a Principle : but after all , he calls this meer imagination ; and it must undergo the Test of his Reason . The force of my argument , as he laies it down , is this , That the Israelites were condemned by God of Idolatry , for worshipping the Golden Calf , and yet they did not fall into the Heathen Idolatry by so doing , but only worshipped the true God under that Symbol of His presence . To this T. G. opposes his Opinion , That the Israelites herein fell back to the Egyptian Idolatry . Here then is the state of the Question between us ; to resolve which , and to bring it home to our business , I shall propose these two things . 1. Whether the Israelites did in worshipping the golden Calf , fall back to the Egyptian Idolatry ? 2. Whether it be sufficient to T. G's purpose to prove that they did so ? for in case the Egyptians themselves did worship the true God under Symbols , T. G. falls short of his design , if he could prove that the Israelites did relapse to the Egyptian Idolatry : for it would then appear however to be Idolatry to worship the True God by an Image . 1. I shall examine the evidence on both sides , whether the Israelites did fall back to the Egyptian Idolatry ? I offered several reasons to prove that the Israelites had no intention to quit the worship of that God , who had so lately given them the Law on Mount Sinai . 1. From the occasion of this Idolatry , which was not any pretence of infidelity as to the true God ; or that they had now better reasons given them for the worship of other Gods besides him ; but all that they say is , that Moses had been so long absent ; that they desired Aaron to make them Gods to go before them . To this T. G. answers , that the very text I mention shews their infidelity , viz. in their despair of Moses returning . But if their infidelity had been with a respect to God , it had been far more pertinent to have said , Up make us Gods to go before us ; for as for this God who gave us the Law , we know not what is become of him ; but they only speak of Moses and not of God , and the reason was , because immediately before Moses his going up into the Mount , the last promise God made to the People was of an Angel going before them ; and they understood that there was to be an extraordinary Symbol of his Presence among them ; but what it was they could not tell ; and Moses being so long absent , as the text saith , they grew impatient of having this Symbol , and so put Aaron upon making the golden Calf . T. G. saith , they had forgotten this promise , or thought that God was not able to perform it : for which he hath not the least colour from Scripture or Reason ; as will appear by the following particulars . 2. From the intolerable folly of desiring Aaron to make that God , which before he was made delivered them out of the Land of Aegypt . For so the People say , This is thy God , or these are thy Gods , which brought thee out of the Land of Aegypt . Is it possible to suppose people so extreamly stupid to imagine a God just then made , should before it was made , deliver them out of Aegypt ? But T. G. is a notable man , and hath made a rare discovery , viz. that Calvin said some such thing before me ; I thank him for the discovery , for I do assure him it was more than I had ever read in Calvin ; but T. G. hath a great mind to make Calvin my Master in every thing . I should not be ashamed to learn from a man of so great abilities ; but it falls out unhappily , that I do not find one thing he charges me with following Calvin in , but it is from him that I learn what Calvin said . And if he had pleased he might have quoted an Author of their own for these words ; neque enim tam stupidi erant , saith Ferus , quod crederent Aaron posse facere Deum ; they were not so stupid to believe that Aaron could make a God ; and therefore he saith , very honestly , that the Israelites worshipped the True God , by the Calf . But suppose Calvin did say this , is there ever the less reason in the saying ? But we can imagine as sottish things of them , viz. that they terminate their worship on the Images , although they deny any Divinity to be in them ? Is it indeed so sottish a thing to terminate their worship on the Images ? what becomes then of all their Divines who plead for it , and say that by the Decrees of their Councils , worship ought to be terminated on the Images themselves ? as T. G. may see in the precedent Chapter . But the Scripture , T. G. saith , represents the Israelites as a people void of understanding ; and they were without learning , and oppressed for four hundred years together , by the most Idolatrous Nation in the world ; and served their Gods , Ezek. 20.8 . I grant the Scripture gives that severe character of them , but it was because they did not consider the consequence of their disobedience ; as appears by the next verse Deut. 32.29 . Must we because of this imagine them to be such Fools and Sots , that no Idolaters in the World can be parallel'd with them ; viz. to make a God which did mighty things for them , before it was made ? Therefore the meaning of making a God can be nothing else , but making a Symbol or representation of God ; and the Question then is , whether it were the representation of an Aegyptian Idol , or the God of Israel ? That it was not the former I proved — 3. From the way of worship used by the Israelites , which was an abomination to the Aegyptians , Exod. 8.26 . To this T. G. returns not the least word of Answer ; but he shall not escape so , for from hence I shall make it appear beyond contradiction , that it was not Aegyptian Idolatry , which the Israelites fell into ; for which we must consider the sacrifices that were offered to the golden Calf . And they rose up early on the morrow , and offer'd burnt-offerings , and brought peace-offerings , and the people sate down to eat and to drink , and rose up to play . S. Stephen saith , And they made a Calf in those dayes , and offered sacrifice unto the Idol , and rejoyced in the Works of their own hands . Now the burnt-offerings and peace-offerings , are expressed , Exod. 20.24 . to be their Oxen and their Sheep : and immediately before Moses his going up into the Mount it is said , that they offered burnt-offerings , and sacrificed peace-offerings of Oxen unto the Lord : where the very same words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are used , and the LXX . there render the word we translate oxen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and the Vulg. Lat. Vitulos , the same word which is used for the Golden Calf . Now I shall shew that nothing could be more repugnant to the Aegyptian Idolatry , than such sacrifices as these . For which we have this considerable Testimony of Horus in Macrobius , Nunquam fas fuit Aegyptiis pecudibus aut sanguine , sed precibus & ture solo placare Deos. It was never lawful for the Aegyptians to sacrifice with Cattel and blood , but only with prayers and incense : and from thence he proves that the Worship of Saturn and Serapis were but lately received among the Egyptians , in the time of the Ptolemies ; and after they were received , their Temples were without the Cities , that they might not be polluted with blood within the Cities . And every one knows , that the Feasts were upon their sacrifices ; but the Satyrist says of the Egyptians ; Lanatis animalibus abstinet omnis Mensa ; nefas illic foetum jugulare capellae . Anaxandrides in Athenaeus , saith , that a Greek could have no conversation with an Egyptian ; because the one worshipped an Ox which the other sacrificed : and Herodotus saith , that the Egyptians would not touch so much as the knife , or spit , or pot which the Greeks had used ; so great an aversion had they from those who either eat or sacrificed the Creatures they worshipped . Herodotus indeed saith , that the Thebans abstained from sheep , and offered Goats ; the Mendesians on the contrary abstained from Goats and offered Sheep ; but this was on the account of the particular Religion of those two Provinces ; ( for they differed very much among themselves as to particular animals : ) but all the Egyptians agreed , as Herodotus there saith , in the worship of Osiris and Isis , Now Diodorus Siculus affirms that Apis and Mneuis the Bulls of Heliopolis and Memphis were sacred to Osiris ; Plutarch saith , that the Ox was the Image of Osiris ; and Strabo that Apis was the same with Osiris ; and Mela , that Apis was the Deity of all the Egyptians . Strabo gives the most particular account of the Egyptian worship , and what creatures were worshipped in the several Provinces ; but , he saith , there were three universally worshipped , whereof the first is , the Ox ; and it was an universal practice not to touch or hurt those creatures that were sacred among them ; as the Oxen were quite through Egypt ; from whence Moses desired to go into the Wilderness to sacrifice , for we shall sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians to the Lord our God. Lo , shall we sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians before their eyes , and will they not stone us ? i. e. saith the Targum of Onkelos , because the Egyptians worship Oxen. Because Lambs are the Idols of the Egyptians , saith Ionathan . If we kill , saith S. Hierome , the things which they worship . I leave it now to the consideration of any man , whether the Israelites using their accustomed burnt-offerings and sacrifices , and Feastings upon them , as they did in the Worship of the golden Calf , can be supposed to have returned to the Egyptian Idolatry . 4. I urged this , as an argument that the Israelites intended to worship the true God , because Aaron proclaimed a Feast , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Iehovah . And however the People were void of understanding , I suppose Aaron being High Priest , and Head of the Church at that time , was not so berest of common sense , as to give the incommunicable name of Iehovah to a Calf of his own making . All that T. G. saith to this , is , that Aaron perhaps and some of the wiser men among them might not be so sottish , as to suppose the Calf he made to be the God that delivered them out of Egypt , yet it is certain they were so weak , as to concurr with the people in the external practises of their Idolatry . But this is not the force of my argument , which lies in this , that Aaron said , it was a Feast to Iehovah , when they were to sacrifice to the golden Calf ; either therefore he must suppose that worship was intended for the honour of the True God , or he must give the name of Iehovah to the Calf ; which would shew him to have been more sottish than the People , for they only called the Calf by the name of Elohim , but he gives the name of Iehovah to it , which was that peculiar name God was known by to the people of Israel upon the accomplishment of his promise in bringing them out of Egypt . I appeared unto Abraham , and to Isaac , and to Jacob by the name of God Almighty , but by my name Iehovah was I not known unto them : wherefore say unto the Children of Israel , I am Iehovah , and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians , &c. Therefore when the people say , This is the God that brought us out of the Land of Egypt , Aaron presently proclaims a Feast to Iehovah , i. e. to the God that brought them out of the Land of Egypt . And when afterwards the Ark ( which was the Symbol God himself appointed of his presence among them ) was removed , upon their travelling from the Mount of the Lord , Moses said , Rise up Iehovah ; and when it rested , Return O Iehovah unto the many thousands of Israel . Thus the name of Iehovah was used by Moses himself upon occasion of the appointed Symbol of Gods presence ; but when Aaron proclaimed a Feast to Iehovah upon making the golden Calf , Moses calls it a Golden God , because God saith , they had made a molten Calf , and worshipped it , and sacrificed thereunto , and said , This is thy God which brought thee out of the Land of Egypt . Which therefore by S. Stephen is called an Idol . 5. The expressing it to be the God that brought them out of the Land of Egypt , doth imply , that they did not intend one of the Egyptian Gods. For what reason could they have to think that one of the Gods of Egypt should deliver them out of the Egyptian bondage ; and while their own worshippers were forsaken by them , to preserve those who were so great enemies to them ? And how could they think the Gods of Egypt had wrought all the miracles for them which were seen in that deliverance ? And how unlikely was it they should forsake the God of Israel and return to the Egyptian Gods ; when they make use here of the very Preface of the Law , which God had so lately given them on Mount Sinai : viz. I am the God that brought thee out of the Land of Egypt . To this T. G. returns no manner of Answer . 6. When the Israelites revolted to the Idolatry of their Neighbours , the Scripture punctually sets down the names of the Idols they worshipped , as Baal Peor , Moloch , Remphan ; but here is nothing of that nature mentioned . To this T. G. answers , What then ? Is it the Idols having a name , that makes the worshippers Heathen Idolaters ? If they conceived or believed the Calf to be a God , were they not as much Heathen Idolaters for worshipping it without a name , as the Egyptians for worshipping it under the name of Apis ? But T.G. cunningly dissembles the force of the argument , which was not from their worshipping it without a Name , but from the Scriptures not expressing it , which it doth upon other occasions : and Bellarmin himself tells us , from Abulensis , Cajetan and others , that the Israelites had two sorts of Idols , one without a certain name , as the Idol of Micha , Judges 17. and it may be , the golden Calf which Aaron made , and Jeroboam renewed , for the Scripture doth not call it Moloch or Baal , &c. The other had a certain name , as Baal , Moloch , Ashtaroth , Chamos . Therefore say they not improbably ( mark that ) that it may be allowed of the first sort , that the Iews did worship the True God in the Idol . Then an Image of the true God may be an Idol , and those Idolaters , who worship such an Image . But they erred most grievously , saith Bellarmin , in three things : 1. That they sacrificed to the Idol , i. e. gave divine worship to it . 2. That they believed the Divinity to be in it : how doth that appear ? no more surely , than those who believe Images to speak and to work miracles . 3. That they thought God to be corporeal and like the Idol , i. e. the Israelites thought the great Iehovah to be just of the fashion of the Calf . What prodigious Fools must some men make the Israelites , that they may not appear as great Idolaters themselves ? 7. I argued from S. Stephens words , And they made a Calf in those dayes and offered sacrifice to the Idol : then God turned and gave them up to worship the Host of heaven ; whereby , I said it was observable , that the Idolatry of the Calf was distinct from the other Heathen Idolatry , this being a punishment of the other . To this T. G. saith nothing ; and yet it is a thing which deserves consideration , that that which the Fathers accounted the most justifiable Idolatry of the Heathens , viz. the worshipping the Host of Heaven , is looked upon as the judgement following the worship of the Golden Calf . So Clemens Alexandrinus , and Origen plead for this so much in comparison with other Heathen Idolatries , as hardly to think it a fault in them ; and it is farther observable that in no kind of Idolatry , which the Israelites ever fell into , save only that of Ieroboam , which was of the same nature with this , that expression was ever used , These are thy Gods which brought thee up out of the Land of Egypt ; which shews that this worship had a peculiar respect to that God who brought them in so remarkable a manner out of the bondage they were under there . These are the Reasons which I have to prove , that the Israelites did intend to worship the True God by the Golden Calf : and we have seen what weak answers T. G. gives to some of them , and none at all to others . I must now attend to the Reasons he gives to the contrary , and those are either from Scripture or Fathers . 1. From Scripture , where they are charged with forsaking God , Deut. 32.15 , 16 , 17 , 18. As though the Israelites committed no Idolatry in the Wilderness but that of the Golden Calf : whereas it is well known that they worshipped Baal Peor , Moloch , and Remphan ; of which a blacker character is given than of the other . But the Psalmist saith , that in worshipping the Calf , they did forget God , Psal. 106.19 , 20 , 21. And was not that forgetting the God that appeared with such a terrible Majesty on Mount Sinai , to turn His glory into the similitude of an Ox that eateth grass ? But in the expressions of Scripture to forget God is to disobey Him ; Beware that thou forget not the Lord thy God , in not keeping His Commandments , and His Iudgements , and His Statutes which I command thee this day . And was not this forgetting God in this sense , so openly to break one of the Laws he had so lately given them ? That which seems to come nearest the matter is , the expression of S. Stephen , That our Fathers would not obey , but thrust Him from them ( that is , the true God , saith T. G. whereas the words are plainly meant of Moses ) and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt , saying , Make us Gods to go before us ; which relates not to the object but to the manner of worship by such a Symbol of worship as was in greatest veneration among all the Egyptians . This is the force of all that he brings out of the Scripture . 2. From them he betakes himself to the Fathers : and he quotes two passages of S. Athanasius , and S. Hierome ; and a doubtful place of S. Chrysostom to his purpose . This is the first time I have found T. G. citing the Fathers truly and pertinently ; and it were too hard dealing with him , not to allow him these Testimonies ; especially about the exposition of a place of Scripture ; wherein their best Commentators take so much liberty of receding from them , when they apprehend the scope and circumstances of the place do enforce another sense ; as I have already shewed at large concerning this . And to these Fathers , I shall oppose the Testimony of others , who make the Egyptian Ox to be only a Symbolical representation of the Patriarch Ioseph , and say that on this account the Israelites made choice of the Golden Calf ; so the Author of the Book De Mirabilibus S. Script . in S. Augustins Works , ( as good an Author as the Homilist de Poenit. whom he quotes under S. Chrys. name ) saith , That the Egyptians set up the Image of an Ox by the Sepulchre of Joseph ; and for this cause the Israelites made choice of that similitude , when they made an Idol in the Wilderness . Iulius Firmicus Maternus saith , That the Neocori did preserve in Egypt the Image of Joseph , by which he understands Apis , or the Sacred Bulls ; the same is affirmed by Rufinus and Suidas . From whence it follows , that this being looked on as the Symbol taken up in Egypt in remembrance of the service of Ioseph , it was very unlikely , that the Israelites should look on the Image it self as so powerful a thing , as the Testimonies of Athanasius and S. Chrysostom imply ; to be able even before it was made , to deliver them out of Egypt : which is such a horrible contradiction , that we had need to have better Testimonies than those , to make us think the Israelites such Sots to believe it . But if it were only looked on as a Symbol of Gods presence , this gives a probable account why the Israelites should make choice of this , before any other of the Egyptians Images , because by it , the Kindness of Ioseph ( who by Moses is compared to a young Ox ) was supposed to be remembred by them . But , 2. We are to enquire whether supposing that the Israelites did revolt to the Egyptian Idolatry in the worship of the Golden Calf , that be sufficient to prove that they did not worship the True God under this Symbol ? For if the Egyptians themselves did worship the Supreme God under Symbolical representations of Him , then although the Israelites might return with their hearts into Egypt , yet this doth not prove , that they did not worship the true God by the Golden Calf . Plutarch , who discourseth largely concerning the Egyptian Worship , saith , That the Golden Bull was the Image of Osiris , which was shewed for four daies together , from the seventeenth of the Month Athir ; And it was a common practice in Egypt to have Golden Images ( effigies sacri nitet aurea Cercopitheci ) wherein Lucian saith , The barbarous Nations did exceed the Greeks , who made their Images of Wood , or Ivory , or Stone . For there were two sorts of Images of their Gods among the Egyptians . Those Images and representations which were in their Temples , or places of worship , and those which they accounted the living Images of their Gods , viz. Beasts ; such as the two famous Bulls , Apis and Mneuis : the one at Memphis , the other at Heliopolis ; both in honour of Osiris : which places were as the Dan and Bethel of Egypt ; Memphis being the Metropolis of the upper , Heliopolis of the lower Egypt ; wherein the Israelites lived , and saw the worship of the sacred Bull of Heliopolis . Plutarch saith , The Egyptians looked on Apis as the Image of the Soul of Osiris . Diodorus saith , That they looked on the soul of Osiris as passing by transmigration into Apis ( from which doctrin the worship of Beasts was not only entertained in Egypt , but is so in the East Indies to this day , in which case the Beast is only the material object of worship , but the formal Reason is the Presence of some Divine Soul which they suppose to be there , which on their supposition ought to have divine worship given to it by the principles of the Roman Church , as the Elements of Bread and Wine on a supposition more extravagant , viz. of Transubstantiation . ) But whether the worship of Animals came into Egypt , from the doctrine of transmigration , or from their usefulness , or from some politick Reasons , which are mentioned both by Plutarch , and Diodorus ; this is certain , that Plutarch thinks , Their wiser men did not worship the Animals themselves , but looked on them only as representations of some divine perfection which they discerned in them , and on that account gave worship to them . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Those persons ought to be most esteemed , who did not worship the Animals themselves , but through them did worship the Deity ; and they ought to be looked on as clearer and more natural representations of God , than inanimate things ; and we ought to esteem them , as the Workmanship and Instrument , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the God that orders all things . And there is all the reason to imagine , that what hath a soul and sense , is better than that which hath none , viz. an Image : and the Divine Nature is not seen in colours and Figures , and smooth Superficies ; which are worse than dead creatures , for these never had life in them : but that which hath life , and sense , and motion , hath a greater influence from that Divine Wisdom which governs all things ; therefore , saith he , these ought not to be looked on as inferiour representations of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Divine Being , than those Images which are made of Brass or Stone by the Workmanship of men , and are subject to corruption , and destitute of all sense and understanding . Whereby we see that Plutarch did put a difference between the common practises of the People , and the intention of the wiser men in the Egyptian Idolatry . He before takes notice of the follies of the People , that worshipped the living creatures themselves as Gods , and thereby not only exposed their Religion to the scorn and contempt of others ; but led some men into horrible superstition , and tempted others to turn Atheists ; and then he gives this , as the most reasonable account of the worship of these Animals according to their wiser men , whose opinions ought most to be followed in Religion . From whence it appears that the distinction of the practice of the People , and the Doctrine of Divines hath obtained among the grossest Idolaters ; and if the Peoples Practice be excused because the Divines teach otherwise , the most sottish Egyptian Idolaters are excusable , as well as those in the Roman Church . For what is there in this principle of worship laid down by Plutarch , which may not be defended by the avowed doctrine of the Roman Church ? Here is ( 1. ) a right ultimate object of worship , viz. the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Divine Being , which orders and governs all things . ( 2. ) Here is a representation of that object by the perfections derived from that Being to a Creature . ( 3. ) Here is a right directing the Intention through that representation to the ultimate object . And ( 4. ) the formal reason of worship is the derivation or participation of that perfection which represents God from the divine Being : and therefore this is no Soveraign worship which is given to it . The only difficulty here is to shew that the Egyptians did intend to worship the Supreme God by either sort of their Images : which is not only affirmed by Plutarch , who saith , They understood by Osiris the wise Providence of God , and by Porphyrie , who saith , The Egyptians , by the several animals they worshipped , did express their devotion towards the Almighty power of God ; and by Apuleius , who was initiated in the Egyptian Mysteries , and in the conclusion of his Metamorphosis , Osiris is called , Deus Deum magnorum potior , & majorum summus , & summorum maximus , & maximorum regnator Osiris , which are descriptions of no less than the Supremest God ; but Max. Tyrius yields at last that the Egyptians did worship the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the Deity by the worship of Animals , as the Greeks did by the Statue of Phidias . And there is a considerable Testimony to this purpose in Vopiscus , taken out of an Epistle of the Emperour Adrian , which he wrote to Servianus from Egypt , giving an account of the manners of the Egyptians ; wherein are these words , Unus illis Deus est , hunc Christiani , hunc Iudaei , hunc omnes vener antur & gentes . They had one God , whom Christians and Iews , and all Nations worshipped . Is. Casaubon suspects this passage , but without any reason as Salmasius proves , and is apparent because the same thing is said in the beginning of the same Epistle : Where he saith , that however they differed in other points , yet they all agreed in the worship of Sarapis , by whom Phylarchus in Plutarch understands That God which Governs the World : and Seguinus shews from ancient Coynes and Authors , that Sarapis , and Iupiter Ammon , and Iupiter Pharius , and Iupiter rerum omnium potens were all one . Thence the Inscriptions , D.E.O. I.N.V.I.C.T.O. S.E.R.A.P.I. S.E.R.V.A.T.O.R.I. D.E.O. M.A.G.N.O. S.E.R.A.P.I. and that mentioned by Tristan , I.O.M. S.A.R.A.P.I.D.I. P.R.O. S.A.L.V.T.E. I.M.P. From which it appears that supposing the Israelites did relapse to the Egyptian Idolatry , it doth not from thence follow that they did not worship the true God by an Image . I proceed now to the two Calves of Ieroboam at Dan and Bethel ; which being made in imitation of the Golden Calf must stand or fall by what hath been said already concerning that . But I shall here make good the peculiar arguments to Ieroboam's case , which were brought to prove that he did intend to worship the God of Israel by the Calves of Dan and Bethel . 1. Because Ieroboam manifests no design of taking the people off from the worship of the true God , but only from the worshipping Him at Hierusalem . For all that he saith to the People is , It is too much for you to go up to Ierusalem , behold thy Gods , O Israel , which brought thee up out of the Land of Egypt . If Ieroboam's intention had been to have altered their Religion , he would have spoken against that , and not only against the place of it ; and to shew to them that he had no such intention , he continued the same Feasts and way of worship which were at Ierusalem . To this T. G. answers , That Jeroboam 's end was to secure the Ten Tribes to himself ; and the likeliest way to effect it , was the making them such Idols as their Fathers had worshipped in Egypt and the Wilderness : and yet soon after T. G. represents him as a great Polititian , that would not make any sudden Changes . But could there be any change greater or more sudden , than to change the true God for Molten Gods and Devils ; as T. G. saith he did : which words ( if they be understood in T. G's sense for the Egyptian Idols and Devils in them ) was as great a change as could be made in Religion , and too sudden to be made by such a Polititian . He should have begun the alteration in the smaller matters , if he intended no sudden change ; and first have gained some of the Great men to him to be ready to joyn with him , when opportunity served , with hopes of Preferment and Places at Court ; when these were secured , then put in some of the vilest of the people into the Priesthood ( as he did ) to render that sacred Office mean and contemptible , the better to prepare the people for a change ; then to send Agents abroad to tamper with the most active among them , to allure some and to terrifie others according to their several dispositions ; then to give liberty to those tender consciences that longed for the Onions and Fleshpots and Bulls of Egypt ; and when he had by degrees prepared a considerable party , that would be sure to adhere to him , then by little and little to open the great Design to them , which he aimed at all this while . But it was too great a Change for such a Polititian , to say at the very first to them ; Come , renounce the God of Israel without more ado ; I have set up other Gods for you to worship , and I command you all immediately to obey me : methinks , this would seem too harsh and unpolitick , and too dangerous for so new a Government as his was ; a little Indulgence for tender consciences , for a time , with the sweetest words , had better become such an Achitophel , as T. G. calls Ieroboam . This , this had been the way to have wheadled and drawn in the silly and injudicious multitude , By telling them what an oppression it was for them to be under the jurisdiction of the High Priest and his Brethren at Ierusalem ; and that there was no Reason such a vast number of lazy Priests and ignorant Levites should be maintained out of their labours by Tythes and Offerings ; that all the pretence of the true worship of God being confined to the Temple at Ierusalem , was only out of a design to enrich the Priests and the City ; that it was only zeal for their own interest and revenues , which made them so earnest for that particular way of worship which was so different from the rest of the World. What! could they imagine that God had no other people in the World , but such as went up to Ierusalem to worship ? what would become of the Catholick way of worship , which was in all the Nations round about them ? Was it credible , that God should suffer so great a part of mankind to run on in such Idolatry , as a few Iews accounted it ? If it were so displeasing to God , could it ever be thought that the Wisest King they ever had , viz. Salomon , should in the wisest time of his Life , viz. in his old Age , fall to the practice of it ? Besides all this , they ought to consider , how much the honour and safety of the Nation was concerned in embracing the same Catholick way of worship which prevailed round about them . Their pretending to greater purity of worship than their Neighbours , made them hated and scorned , and reproached by their Neighbours of all sides , viz. by Moab and Ammon , and Amalek , the Philistins , and those of Tyre : but if they returned to the worship of the Neighbour Nations , they might be sure of the assistance of the King of Egypt , with whom Ieroboam had lived many years , who would be ready to help them on all occasions ; and their lesser enemies would then be afraid to disturb them . Thus we see what plausible pretences there were to have drawn the people off from the Law of Moses , to the Idolatries of Egypt ; but we read not the least intimation of this Nature in the whole History of this Revolt : but Ieroboam only saith , These are thy Gods which brought thee out of the Land of Egypt , which was the most unpolitick way of perswading them to return to the Gods of Egypt . Besides he not only appointed a Feast like unto that in Iudah , but it is said , That he offered upon the Altar , and sacrificed unto the Calves which he had made , i. e. according to the custom of the Iewish Sacrifices , than which nothing could be more repugnant to the Egyptian Idolatry , as I have already proved . But T. G. saith , The Text speaks but of one Feast ; it is very true , it mentions but one ; but it is said afterwards in several places , That they departed not from the way of Ieroboam ; and that very Feast being accompanied with so many Sacrifices , was a plain evidence it was not the Egyptian Idolatry , which he then set up . And it is remarkable to this purpose , that every one who was to be consecrated a Priest to the Golden Calves , was to be consecrated with a Sacrifice of a young Bullock , and of seven Rams ; which according to the Rites of the Egyptian Idolatry were enough to have profaned the most sacred Person . And Iosephus , ( who may be allowed to have understood the mind of Ieroboam as well as T. G. ) saith expressly , That in the speech he made to the People , he only pleaded , that God being every where present , he might be worshipped at Dan and Bethel , as well as Jerusalem : and that for their greater conveniency he had set up the Calves at Dan and Bethel , that there they might worship God. Thus we see that in this worship at Dan and Bethel , Ieroboam intended no more than to worship the God of Israel there . I will not deny , that Ieroboam was for Liberty of Conscience , and allowed the practice of Egyptian Idolatry , and appointed Priests to serve at the several Altars , as the People had a mind ; but the established worship , at which himself was present , was at the Calves of Dan and Bethel . For it is said , That he offered on the Altar there . But we read that he appointed Priests , not only for the Calves , but 1. for the High places ; which were of two sorts , 1. Some for the worship of false Gods , as those which Salomon allowed to be built for Chemosh and Moloch on the Mount of Olives . 2. Others were for the worship of the true God in the ten Tribes . For there being some dissenting Brethren among the Israelites , who would neither join with the House of Iudah in the worship at Hierusalem , nor with Ieroboam in the worship of the Calves at Dan and Bethel ; to keep these secure to his interest , he permits them to worship God on the High places , i. e. Altars erected to that purpose upon an ascent of ground . And this I prove from that passage of Elias , They have thrown down thy Altars ; speaking of the Children of Israels demolishing them in the time of Ahab , who was the eighth in succession from Ieroboam . And in the Reformation of Iosiah , he puts a difference between the Priests of the High places ; for some of them were permitted to eat unleavened bread among their Brethren ; and others he slew upon the Altars . Which shews that both in Iudah and Israel there were some who did still worship the true God on the High places . 2. Ieroboam appointed Priests 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pilosis , to the hairy ones ; which I wonder , how it come to be translated Devils both here , and Levit. 17. since in above fifty places of Scripture , it signifies Goats ; and but in one , the LXX . render it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and there Aquila hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and the Vulgar Latine Pilosi , and our translation Satyrs : and since the worship of Goats , and other hairy animals was so frequent among the Egyptians , as of Dogs , Wolves , Cats , Ichneumons , Apes , &c. but especially the Goats , as Herodotus , Strabo , Diodorus , Plutarch , and others relate ( and the Pan , and Faunus , and Silenus , and Silvanus , and Satyri were but a sort of Goats : for the Arabick word Satar is a Goat , and the Egyptian name for Pan is Mendes , which , saith Bochartus , signifies a Goat too . ) And since this worship was so common in Egypt was there not reason to forbid it by a Law , Levit. 17.7 ? and is there not cause where we meet with this word relating to an object of worship , to understand it according to the common practice of Idolaters , and the common sense of the word ? Therefore I grant that Ieroboam did permit the Egyptian Idolatry , but he established the Golden Calves as the Religion of the State. 2. I shewed , that the true God was worshipped by the Golden Calves ; because the sin of Ahab who worshipped Baal is said to be so much greater than the sin of Jeroboam . And it came to pass as if it had been a light thing for him to walk in the sins of Ieroboam , that he took to wife Iezabel , daughter of Baal , King of the Zidonians , and went and served Baal , and worshipped him ; and he reared up an Altar for Baal , in the House of Baal , which he had built in Samaria . Yes , saith T. G. Ahabs sin was greater , because he added this Idolatry to the other . Who denies that his sin might have been greater in that respect ? but that it was not so to be understood , appears by the opposition between God and Baal in the words of Elijah ? How long halt ye , saith he to all the People , between two opinions ? if the Lord be God , follow Him : but if Baal , then follow him . Now there being three several waies of worship among the people , if two of the three had not agreed in the same object of worship , viz. the God of Israel , Elijah could not have said that they halted only between two opinions of God and Baal ; if some were for the God of Israel , others for the Gods of the Egyptians , and others for Beel Samen , or the God of the Zidonians . But , saith T. G. Elijah supposes a general Apostasie of the ten Tribes to Baal in the next Chapter . And what then ? It was but very lately so , and they were not yet so fixed but they might be put in mind that they were lately of another opinion : and some render it , How long will ye pass from one extreme to another ? how long will ye be so uncertain in Religion , now for God , and then for Baal ? So Vatablus renders it , Quousque tandem alternis , &c. Now of one side , then of the other ? or as some imagine , they themselves worshipped the Calves , and sometimes Baal . So that notwithstanding what T. G , saith , the opposition is here plain between the God worshipped by the Calves , which was the publick and established worship of the ten Tribes , and the worship of Baal , which was newly introduced : and so the True God is supposed to be worshipped by those who did not worship Baal . To confirm this , I added , that Iehu magnifies his zeal for Iehovah against Baal , when it is said of him but a little after , That he departed not from the Calves of Dan and Bethel ; which evidently shews the opposition between the God of Israel worshipped by the Calves , and the worship of Baal . No , saith T. G. Iehu's zeal for the Lord doth not acquit him from Idolatry in following Jeroboam , any more than the lawful act of Matrimony acquits a Husband from the Crime of Adultery , who defiles his Neighbours Bed. I perceive T. G. grew very sleepy when he wrote this , and forgot what we were about : for I never intended to clear Iehu from Idolatry by his zeal for Iehovah , but from such an Idolatry as excludes the worship of the True God. For that was my business to shew that he might be guilty of Idolatry , and yet worship the true God , by the Calves of Ieroboam ; as he not only shews by that expression to Ionaedab , but by distinguishing between the Priests of the Lord , and the Priests of Baal ; and yet soon after that character is twice given of Iehu , That he departed not from that worship which Ieroboam had established . To the last instance I brought of the Samaritans , who sent to the King of Assyria for an Israelitish Priest to teach them the accustomed worship of the God of the Land , who accordingly came and dwelt in Bethel , and taught it them , upon which it is said , They feared the Lord ; T. G. returns a strange answer , viz. That there is no mention at all made of his teaching them to worship him in the Calves as Symbols of his presence ; here T. G. nodded again : For if he would but have held his eyes open so long as to have looked back on the 22 , and 23 verses of the same Chapter , he would have found these words , For the Children of Israel walked in all the sins of Ieroboam which he did , they departed not from them : until the Lord removed Israel out of his sight , as he had said by all his servants the Prophets . So was Israel carried away out of his own Land to Assyria ; and then immediately follows this story of the Samaritans , desiring to know the worship of the God of the Land ; what can this refer to , but to the worship established by Ieroboam ? I leave this to be considered by T. G. when he is awake , for he seems to have written these things in a Dream . As to what he saith , of his having confuted my conjectures , or rather Monceius his ; ( when it is apparent I differ from Monceius in his main ground , to any man that hath read him ) I leave it as a fresh token of his kindness , when he will not so much as suffer me to be the Author of such weak conjectures , which he hath so easily , and so pleasantly confuted ; and for the phrase of my plowing with his Heifer , I suppose it hath relation to the Calves of Dan and Bethel ; which I take notice of , that he may not think his Wit is lost upon me . To conclude this point of the meaning of the Second Commandment , I said , That since the Law giver hath thus interpreted his own Law , we need not be solicitous about the sense of any others , yet herein I say we have the concurrence of the Iewish and Christian Church . The Iews have thought the prohibition to extend to all kinds of Images for worship , and almost all for ornament , and the Image worship of the Church of Rome is one of the great scandals to this day , which hinder them from embracing Christianity . All that T. G. answers to this is , That he would gladly know , whether we must stand or fall by the interpretation of the Iews ? Did I bring their Testimony for that purpose ? or intimate the least thing that way ? did I not use so much caution on purpose to prevent such a cavil ? I declared that I did not need their Testimony in so clear a case ; and yet it is no small advantage to our Cause , that we have herein the concurrence of all that had any Reverence to this Law of God , whether Iews or Mahumetans ; and not barely of them , but of the whole Christian Church for so many Ages , as I have fully proved in the precedent Chapters . As to the Prophetical confutation of my opinion about Idolatry and the Second Commandment by Mr. Thorndike , I do assure him if I could have thought what that learned Person had said in this matter , to have been agreeable either to Scripture or Reason , or the sense of the Primitive , or our own Church , it might have prevented my writing , by changing my opinion ; for I was no stranger to his Writings , or his Arguments . But he that can think the Israelites believed the Golden Calf delivered their people out of Egypt before it was made , may easily believe that Mr. Thorndikes Book of 1662. was a confutation of mine , long before it was written ; and upon equal reason at least , I may hope that this Answer will be a Prophetical Confutation of all that T. G. will ever be able to say upon this Subject . CHAP. IV. An Answer to T. G's charge of Contradictions , Paradoxes , Reproach of the second Council of Nice , School disputes ; and to his parallel Instances . UNder these Heads I shall comprehend all that remains scattered in the several parts of his Book , which seem to require any farther Answer . The first thing I begin with is , the Head of Contradictions , for he makes in another Book the charge of Idolatry to be inconsistent with my own assertion ; Because I had said that Church doth not look on our negative articles against the Church of Rome , as articles of Faith , but as infriour Truths ; from whence , he saith , it follows , that their Church doth not err against any article of Faith ; but Idolatry is an errour against the most Fundamental point of Faith , and therefore for me to charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry , must according to my own principles , be the most groundless , unreasonable , and contradictory proceeding in the World. Upon my word , a very heavy charge ! And I must clear my self as I can from it . Had not a man need to have a mighty care of dropping any kind words towards them , who will be sure to make all possible advantages from them to overthrow the force of whatever can be said afterwards against them ? Thus have they dealt with me ; because I allowed the Church of Rome to be a true Church , as holding all the essential points of Christian Faith ; therefore all the arguments I have used to prove them Idolaters , are presently turned off with this , That herein I contradict my self . Thus I was served by that feat man at Controversie , I. W. who thought it worth his while to write two Books ( such as they are ) chiefly upon this argument : and he makes me to pile Contradictions on Contradictions , as Children do Cards one upon another , and then he comes and cunningly steals away one of the supporters , and down all the rest fall in great disorder and confusion . And herein he is much applauded for an excellent Artist , by that mighty man at Ecclesiastical Fencing , E. W. the renowned Champion of our Lady of Loreto , and the miraculous translation of her Chappel ; about which he hath published a Defiance to the World , and offers to prove , it against all Comers ( but especially my inconsiderable self ) to be an undeniable Verity . I must have great leisure , and little care of my self , if I ever more come near the Clutches of such a Giant , who seems to write with a Beetle instead of a Pen ; and I desire him to set his heart at rest , and not to trouble himself about the waies of my attacking him ; for he may lie quietly in his shades , and snore on to Dooms-day for me ; unless I see farther reason of disturbing his repose than at present I do . But this charge being resumed by so considerable an Adversary , as T. G. is , in comparison with the rest , I shall , for his sake , endeavour more fully to clear this whole matter . When I. W. had objected the same thing in effect against me ; the substance of the Answer I made him was this , 1. That it was a disingenuous way of proceeding , to oppose a judgement of charity concerning their Church , to a judgement of Reason concerning the nature of actions , without at all examining the force of those Reasons which are produced for it . This was the case of I. W. but ingenuity is a thing my Adversaries are very little acquainted with : and therefore I said 2. There was no contradiction in it : For the notion of Idolatry as applied to the Church of Rome , is consistent with its owning the general principles of Faith , as to the True God and Iesus Christ , and giving Soveraign Worship to them ; when therefore we say , that the Church of Rome doth not err in any Fundamental point of the Christian Faith , I there at large shew , the meaning to have been only this , that in all those which are looked on by us as necessary Articles of Faith , we have the Testimony and approbation of the whole Christian World of all Ages , and are acknowledged to be such by Rome it self ; but the Church of Rome looks upon all her Doctrines , which we reject , as necessary Articles of Faith : so that the force of the Argument comes only to this , that no Church which doth own the ancient Creeds can be guilty of Idolatry . And I farther add , that when we enquire into the essentials of a Church , we think it not necessary to go any farther than the doctrinal points of Faith ; because Baptism admits men into the Church upon the profession of the true Faith in the Father , Son , and Holy Ghost : but if beyond the essentials we enquire into the moral integrity and soundness of a Church , then we are bound to go farther than the bare profession of the essential points of Faith ; and if it be found that the same Church may debauch those very principles of Faith by damnable errours , and corrupt the worship of God by vertue of them , then the same Church which doth hold the Fundamentals of Faith , may notwithstanding lead men to Idolatry without the shadow of a contradiction . But T. G. saith , That Idolatry is an Errour against the most Fundamental point of Faith. What doth T. G. mean by this ? I suppose it is , that Idolatry doth imply Polytheism , or the belief of more Gods than one , to whom Soveraign worship is due ; then I deny this to be the proper Definition of Idolatry , for although , where ever this is , it hath in it the nature of that we call Idolatry ; yet himself confesses , the true notion of it to be , The giving the worship due to God , to a Creature ; so that , if I have proved that the worship of Images in the Roman Church , is the giving the worship due only to God to a Creature ; then , although the Church of Rome may hold all the essentials of Faith , and be a true Church , it may be guilty of Idolatry without contradiction . But it may be I. W. in his Reply , saith something more to purpose ; ( at least it will be thought so , if I do not answer him : ) I must therefore consider what he saith , that is material , if any thing be found so . However , he saith , that if the Roman Church doth hold any kind of Idolatry to be lawful , she must needs hold an Errour destructive to a Fundamental and essential point of Faith , and by consequence a Fundamental errour inconsistent with the essence of a true Church . And since no kind of Idolatry is lawful , if the Roman Church hold it to be so , she must needs hold an errour inconsistent with some Truth . Most profoundly argued ! He only ought to have subsumed , ( as I think such Logicians as I. W. call it ) but all Errour is Fundamental and inconsistent with the essence of a true Church ; or That Infallibility is necessary to the Being of a Church , and when he proves that , I promise to renounce the charge of Idolatry . Now it is not possible , saith I. W. that the Roman Church should bold any Idolatry lawful ( knowing it to be Idolatry ) unless she holds that some Honour , which is due only to God , may be given to a Creature . I am afraid to be snapt by so cunning a Sophister , and therefore I distinguish in time . The Roman Church doth not hold any Idolatry lawful which it judges to be Idolatry , or the Honour due only to God ; but the Roman Church may give the real parts of worship due only to God to a meer creature , and yet at the same time , tell men it is not a part of the Honour which is due to God. To make this plain even to the understanding of I. W. The Church of Rome may entertain a false notion of Idolatry , or of that worship which is due only to God : which false notion being received , men may really give the worship that only belongs to God to His Creatures ; and the utmost errour necessary in this case is no more than having a false notion of Idolatry , as , that there can be no Idolatry without giving Soveraign Worship to a Creature , or that an Idol is the representation only of an Imaginary Being , &c. Now on these suppositions , no more is necessary to the practice of Idolatry , than being deceived in the notion of it . If therefore T. G. or I.W. will prove that the Church of Rome can never be deceived in the notion of it , or that it is repugnant to the essence of a Church to have a false notion of Idolatry , they do something towards the proving me guilty of a contradiction in acknowledging the Church of Rome to be a true Church , and yet charging it with Idolatry . But I. W. saith , That 't is impossible the Roman Church should teach or hold any kind of Idolatry , whatsoever it be , but she must hold expressly or implicitly , that some Honour due only to God , may be given to a meer Creature . Such kind of stuff as this would make a man almost repent ever reading Logick ( which this man pretends so much to ) for surely Mother Wit is much better than Scholastick Fooling . Such a Church which commits , or by her doctrines and practises leads to Idolatry , needs not to hold , i. e. deliver as her judgment that some Honour due only to God may be given to a Creature ; it is sufficient if she commands or allows such things to be done , which in their own nature , or by the Law of God is really giving the worship of God to a Creature . Yet upon this mistake , as gross as it is , the poor waspish Creature runs on for many leaves , and thinks all that while he proves me guilty of a contradiction . But the man hath something in his head which he means , although he scarce knows how to express it , viz. that in good Catholick Dictionaries , a Fundamental errour , and a damnable errour , and an error inconsistent with the essence of a true Church , are terms Synonymous . Now I know what he would be at , viz. that Infallibility is necessary to the Being of a Church : therefore to suppose a Church to err , is to suppose it not to be a Church : But will he prove me guilty of contradiction by Catholick Dictionaries ? I beg his pardon : for in them Transubstantiation implies none ; but whosoever writes against them , must be guilty of many . If he would prove me guilty of Contradiction , let him prove it from my own sense and not from theirs . Yet he would seem at last to prove that the practice of any kind of Idolatry , especially being approved by the Church , is destructive to the Being of a Church . Which is the only thing , he saith , that deserves to be farther considered , by enquiring into two things . 1. Whether a Church allowing and countenancing the practice of Idolacry can be a true Church ? 2. Whether such a Church can have any power or Authority to consecrate Bishops , or ordain Priests ? For this is a thing which T. G. likewise objects , as consequent upon my assertion of their Idolatry , that thereby I overthrow all Authority , and Iurisdiction in the Church of England , as being derived from an Idolatrous Church . These are matters which deserve a farther handling , and therefore I shall speak to them . 1. Whether a Church may continue a true Church , and yet allow , and practise any kind of Idolatry ? And to resolve this , I resort again to the ten Tribes ; Supposing what hath been said sufficient to prove them guilty of Idolatry , my business is to enquire , whether they were a true Church in that time . This I. W. denies ; saying , I ought to have proved and not barely supposed that the Idolatry introduced by Ieroboam was not destructive to the being of a True Church : and several Protestants , he saith , produce the Church of Israel to shew that a true visible Church may cease . Alas poor man ! he had heard something of this Nature , but he could not tell what ; they had produced this as an instance against the perpetual Visibility of the Church , and he brings it to prove that it ceased to be a true Church ; and the time they fix upon by his own Confession is , when Elias complained that he was left alone in Israel ; which was not when the Idolatry of the Calves , but when that of Baal prevailed among the people of Israel ; i. e. when they worshipped Beel-samen or the Sun instead of God. Now that they were a true Church while they worshipped Ieroboams Calves , I prove by these two things . 1. That there was no time from Ieroboam to the Captivity of Israel , wherein the worship of the Calves was not the established Religion of the ten Tribes ; this is evident from the expression before mentioned , that the Children of Israel departed not from the sins of Jeroboam , till God removed Israel out of his sight . And it is observable of almost every one of the Kings of Israel , that it is said particularly , that he departed not from the sins of Jeroboam . 2. That during that time God did own them for his People , which is all one with making them a True Church . Thus Iehu is said to be anointed King over the People of the Lord. And there is a remarkable expression in the time of Iehoahaz , that the Lord was gracious unto them , and had respect unto them , because of his Covenant with Abraham , Isaac and Jacob , and would not destroy them , neither cast he them from his presence as yet . Would God have such respect to those whom he utterly disowned ? Nay the Prophet Hosea saith , that God was still the Holy one in the midst of Ephraim ; and How shall I give thee up Ephraim ? how shall I deliver thee Israel ? Which shews God had not yet discarded them : and afterwards he saith to Israel , Return unto the Lord thy God ; and Amos saith , prepare to meet thy God O Israel : and both he and Micah , call them still Gods people . From whence it is evident , that they were still a true Church notwithstanding the Idolatry of Ieroboam . 2. Supposing a Church to continue a True Church , what reason can there be to question the Authority of that Church as to the consecration of Bishops , or the ordination of Priests ? I have formerly shewed that no Act of Ordination is invalid in case of any heresie or Crime of the Giver ; and that the contrary doctrine is condemned for heresie by the Church . I now shall particularly shew that the Power of giving Orders is not taken away by the guilt of Idolatry ; which I prove from the case of the Arian Bishops . I have at large made it manifest , that the Arians were condemned for Idolatry by the consent of the Fathers of greatest reputation , S. Athanasius , S. Basil , S. Gregory Nazianzen , Nyssen , Epiphanius , S. Chrysostom , S. Ambrose , S. Augustin , &c. And the second Nicene Council saith , that the Catholick Church looked on them as Idolaters . Now , if I can make it appear , that the Arian Ordinations were allowed , I shall put this matter past dispute , that the charge of Idolatry doth not null the Ordinations of our Church as being derived from those who were guilty of Idolatry . For this purpose , the second Nicene Council affords us plentiful assistance in the First Session ; wherein Peter the Popes Vicar declares , that Meletius was ordained by Arian Bishops , and yet his Ordination was never questioned ; and this was received by the Council as true . Epiphanius , Socrates and Sozomon all agree , that Meletius received his Consecration from the Arian Faction ; and Epiphanius saith , he had it from the hands of Acacius Bishop of Caesarea ; the worst of all the Arians , saith Baronius . Socrates and Sozomen do seem to imply , that the followers of Eustathius at Antioch would not joyn with Meletius and his party , though both consenting in the Nicene Creed , because of his ordination by the Arian faction , and the peoples being baptized by Arian Priests ; but Theodoret mentions no such thing , and saith the first breach began there , when Meletius was banished by the Arian party ; and Euzoius the Arian was made Bishop of Antioch : and Baronius makes the Schism to begin from the ordination of Paulinus by Lucifer Caralitanus ; however this were , we never find the Ordination of Meletius disputed by the Catholick Bishops ; and when S. Athanasius writes a Synodical Epistle to those of Antioch , to compose the differences among them upon the ordination of Paulinus , he gives this direction to the other Catholick Christians concerning Meletius his party , who met 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ( so the place of their meeting was called , being in the old City , which the interpreter of Athanasius renders in veteris Ecclesiae communione ) that they should receive those who came to them from the Arians without requiring any more from them , than the renouncing Arianism and subscribing or owning the Nicene Creed ; Whereby , the Arian Baptism and Orders were allowed . But we have a fuller Testimony of the general sense of the Church of that Age as to this matter of the Arian Ordinations ; Ruffinus saith , that when the Catholick Bishops were returned from banishment , several of them met together at Alexandria to consult what was to be done with those who had received Orders from the Arian Bishops ; and after consultation about it , it was decreed in Council , that only the Heads of the party should be rejected , but others received to the exercise of their Priestly Office : upon which Asterius was dispatched into the Eastern parts to settle the Churches there , and Eusebius into the Western : but he returning to Antioch , found that Lucifer in the mean time had broken his promise in the Consecration of Paulinus , and Eusebius therefore would not own him as Bishop ; which so enraged Lucifer , that he quarrelled with the decree of the Alexandrian Council about receiving the Arian Bishops and Priests upon disowning their Heresie . And so the Luciferian Schism began : for the followers of Lucifer charged the Catholick Church with being the Synagogue of Antichrist for receiving the Arian Bishops , as appears by S. Hierom ; for they yielded to the receiving the penitent Laity but not the Clergy ; allowing the Arian Baptism , but not their Ordinations : upon which S. Hierom triumphs over them . And he saith , that eight Arian Bishops were received in the Council of Nice , although their Arianism were declared before : and that the decree of the Alexandrian Council was universally received by the Church : which is as ample a Testimony to our purpose as can be desired . Next to contradictions , T. G. charges me with maintaining strange Paradoxes , which he puts into the Title of one of his Chapters in these words , A strange Paradox advanced by Dr. St. What can an Image do to the heightning of Devotion or raising affections ? Not finding my self to be any great lover of Paradoxes , but of plain and useful Truths , I was the more curious to find out what Paradox it was I had broached . And searching for the place , I found these words , And can any one imagine , there should be greater irreverence of God shewn in calling him to witness upon every slight occasion , than there is in bowing down before a block or a hewen stone , representing God to my mind by it ? What can SUCH an Image do to the heightening of devotion , or raising affections ? This is the monstrous Paradox advanced by me , viz. that such a gross representation of God by an Image doth tend more to abate than raise our estimation of him : which is so far from being a Paradox , that I have herein the consent , not only of the ancient Fathers , but of the greatest Patrons of Images in the Eastern and Western Churches , till the latter times , as I have shewed already . But T. G. sets himself very industriously to prove that Pictures have an advantage in representation above living Creatures ; which he doth with great force of wit and strength of Reason ; because Ladies sit , ( sometimes to make Madonna 's by ) for their Pictures , and Authors Pictures are set before their Books ; ( it is pitty we want our Authors on so just an occasion ) and men keep the Pictures of their Friends ( and Sign-posts are very useful in London streets , and may suggest many good meditations to men , as the three Nuns or the like ) but to hold the contrary opinion , is the way to undo the company of Picture-drawers ( which would be a great unkindness to all ingenious Artists , ) but the most dismal consequence of my doctrine is , that the Ladies instead of the Pictures of their Friends should wear Ants and Flies in Crystal cases ; and instead of their own pictures the Apes and Asses should be sent them ; which I brought in so lamely , and the Tygers too if they can catch them , as greater resemblances of their Perfections . These passages , I hope , were intended for sallies of Wit ; which do become T. G. as well in this argument , as dancing upon the Ropes would do a Capucin Frier in his habit . But whence comes all this Rage of Wit ? this arming all the Pencils and brushes of the Town against me ? this Appeal to the Ladies against the pernicious consequences of my opinion ? this hurrying of me from the Playhouse and the Scenes there to the Bear-garden , to the Apes , and Asses , and Tygers ? All this ariseth only from this innocent saying , that it seems more reasonable to me to Worship God by prostrating my self to the Sun , nay to an Ant or a Fly , than to a picture or an Image ; for in the other I see great evidences of the Power , and Wisdom and Goodness of God , which may suggest venerable apprehensions of God to my mind ; whereas these can have nothing worthy admiration , unless it be the skill of the Painter or Artificer . Hinc illae lachrymae ! Could I ever have imagined that these words being spoken meerly with a respect to the representation of God in order to Worship , should have raised the Arriereban of all the Ladies and Painters against me ? If nothing will satisfie T. G. but having it under my hand that I had no malicious intention against the ingenious art of Painting , nor any design to ruine the company of picture-drawers , I do hereby give it him , and with this humble acknowledgement I hope the parties concerned will rest satisfied . It is not in the point of bare representation I compare pictures and Gods Creatures ; but it is in representing those perfections which are the ground and Reason of Worship ; and here I stand to it , that the least living Creature is a far better Image of God , than an old Man in Pontifical habits , or the best Crucifix in the world can be : i.e. it represents more those perfections for the sake of which I give divine Worship to God. But T. G. saith , that Atheists will deny the perfections of the Creatures to be any evidence at all of the being we call God ; but cannot deny a Crucifix to represent to their own thoughts that Person whom we believe to be God ? This is very ill put ; for he should have parallel'd blind men and Atheists together ; and I dare say no blind man discerns more of the excellency or likeness of a Picture , than Atheists do of the perfections of God by his Creatures . If men will shut their eyes , what can a Crucifix do to raise affections ? and if their eyes be never so open , it can only represent that which falls infinitely short of being a Reason for Divine Worship . For , as to the meer representation of Christs humanity by an Image , whoever disputed with T. G. about the lawfulness of it ? but if he goes no farther than representation , or a help to memory or apprehension , T. G. knows well enough , he falls short of what is required of him , by the Decrees of their Councils , and the constant practice of their Church , about which our Controversie with them is . To the former paradox I added these words , that I cannot for my heart understand why I may not as well , ( nay better ) burn incense and say my Prayers to the Sun , having an intention only to honour God by it , as to do both those to an Image ? Here T. G. gives me warning not to say my Prayers to the Sun no more than they do to Images ; he needs not give me that warning , for I never intend to do it so much ; for although he would insinuate that I know they do not , I hope he will change his mind when he reads the account I have given of their practises in that particular ; but I only pretended to pray to the Sun having an intention to honour God by it ; and in this sense I am sure T. G. cannot deny , that they pray to their Images . But if I do not say my prayers to the Sun , but only bow down to it , so it be not out of ignorance , or Heathenism , or to give scandal to weak Brethren , he gives as much liberty as I could wish , and he quotes S. Leo for it too ; in that very place where he condemns it , as appears by the last words he cites out of him ; let the Faithful therefore abstain from so perverse and worthy to be condemned a Custome , nor let the honour due to God alone , be mixed with their rites who serve the Creatures , for the Holy Scripture saith , Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve . Where the reason he gives against it , is not as T. G. insinuates , because there were some Reliques of Paganism remaining , but because it was giving the Creature part of that Honour which is due to God alone . But T. G. offers to give me a clear solution to my scruple ; which he does in two particulars . 1. That although the Creatures do represent God after their manner , yet it is so rudely , remotely , darkly , and imperfectly , that there is need of a great deal of discourse to discover the analogy or proportion to their Creator ; and they are called the footsteps of God ; whereas an Image ( for example ) of Christ is so apparently representative of him , that upon sight thereof our thoughts fly presently unto him . By which argument S. Paul was strangely mistaken when he talked of the Eternal Power of God being so known or manifest by the things that are seen , that even the Heathens were left without excuse ; no such matter , saith T. G. the Creatures represent God rudely , remotely , darkly and imperfectly ; which make an excellent paraphrase on the words of the Psalmist , The Heavens declare the glory of God , and the Firmament shews his handy-work . Mens handy-work by Images will do it rarely , presently , effectually , inflamingly ; but Gods Work doth it dully , remotely , rudely , and imperfectly . O how much the skill of a painter exceeds the Power of God! Whereas in truth the least work of Nature infinitely exceeds the greatest art of man in curiosity , beauty , strength , proportion , and every thing that can discover Wisdom or Power . But , saith T. G. they are called Gods footsteps , and to gather the height and bigness of Hercules from his footstep was not the Work of every vulgar capacity , which is a very Childish way of reasoning , and taken only from such a Metaphorical expression that Vasquez calls it a frivolous argument that is taken from it . I , but the pretty story of Hercules and that put together make a pleasant jingling : and looks like Reason to those that know not what it means . Must men take the measure of God just by the same Geometrical proportions that he did , that gathered the height and bigness of Hercules by his foot ? This sort of Wit is a delicate thing , and endures no rough handling . But still I say it is not in the meer quickness of representation , but in the perfections represented , that natural things do so far exceed the most artificial Images ; and we are to consider that in all representations of objects of worship , those are the most excellent which best set forth the Nature of that Being as it deserves our worship . Now in this respect , the works of Creation manifest Gods eternal Power , and what is it the Image of an Old man represents ? So that comparing these two , the Sun , Moon and Stars do in regard of real representation of the Divine Being , much more deserve to be worshipped than any Image whatsoever . And Vasquez doth well prove that upon the principles of Worshipping Images , one may lawfully Worship God in any Creature whatsoever . For if the presence of God in the Image by a meer fiction of the mind , be a sufficient Ground to worship that Image ; is not Gods real presence in every creature a far better ground and reason to worship it ? and all the distinctions and evasions which serve in one will equally serve in the other case . How earnestly did T. G. contend for the Worship of Gods Footstool ? and why may not His Footsteps be worshipped as well as His Footstool ? I am sure T. G. himself could not have taken the height and bigness of Hercules from his Footstool , which he saith , was done from his Footsteps ; and therefore one comes nearer to the thing worshipped than the other . Cardinal Lugo gives an excellent answer to this Metaphor of the Creatures being Gods Footsteps ; For , saith he , they may be worshipped for all that ; for do not we worship the Footsteps of Saints in many Churches ? how much more ought we to adore the Footsteps of God ? But T. G. gives another reason against worshipping the Creatures , viz. That there is greater danger of terminating the worship upon them , than upon an Image ; because they are Creatures subsisting of themselves , and are the causes of real benefits to mankind . If there be more danger in the one , there is more folly in the other , in the judgement of the Fathers , who looked on the worship of Images as the most silly and childish thing in the world ; while they thought the worship of the heavens very excusable : Upon this ground , I had said before , it follows , that what deserves most honour should have the least given it , and that which deserves least , should have most ; for the danger is still greater , where the excellency is greater ; and by this reason we ought rather to worship a Beast than a Saint , for there is less danger of terminating the worship on one than on the other , and so the Egyptians were more excusable than the Papists . These words he returns upon me , on a very slight occasion , viz. setting the Sun before an Ant or a Fly ; as though they had been a Reason of my giving , where as I only shew the ridiculousness of this which is the only pretence they have for not worshipping God by a living Old Man , as well as by the Picture of one . And if this be all T. G. hath to say , I see still the distinctions of Soveraign and inferiour , of absolute and relative worship will bear any man out in the worship of any Creature with a respect to God , as well at least as it doth them in the worship of Images . Vasquez saith there are these several grounds for the worship of a Creature among them . 1. Representation , which belongs to an Image . 2. Contact , although long since past ; thence they worship the Cross , Nails , Garments , and other things that had touched the bodies of Christ or the Saints . 3. Union ; thence they worship all Reliques which had been parts of the Saints . 4. Presence : thence God being more present in his Works , than any Saint can be in a Garment he did once wear ; there is more Reason to worship God in His Works , than any Saint in Reliques . Cardinal Lugo assigns these several Reasons for the worship of God in any Creature . 1. Because they worship the work of mens hands , as the hand-writing of any Saint , much more ought we to worship Gods Works with a Relative worship . 2. Becaus they worship the very places where the Saints have been ; as a Stone on which they have sate , for the sake of contact and propinquity ; much more ought we to worship Gods Creatures , to whom He is far nearer than the Body of a Saint to a Stone . 3. Because they receive gifts from Princes with great veneration , although mean in themselves ; therefore since all the Creatures are Gods gifts we may worship them for His sake . 4. Because a man is the living Image of God , therefore as a Wooden Image may be worshipped for the sake of the exemplar , much more , saith he , ought such a lively Image as man is . Thus we see how men of the greatest understanding among them , have discerned the necessary consequence of their own principles of worship , and find there is no defending them , without yielding the lawfulness of worshipping God through any of His Creatures ; and living men rather than dead Images , on the account of a fuller representation of God ; and saith Lugo , With the worship of Latria , in respect of God , and an inferiour worship on the account of His proper excellency . If men had set themselves to oppose the doctrine of the Primitive Church about Divine Worship , they could not have thought of a principle more directly opposite to the general sense of it than this is , of the lawfulness of the worship of Creatures . But there are two cases wherein they will not allow it . 1. In the case of indecency , although there have been a real contact ; thus the lips of Iudas are excepted , although they touched Christ. And Cardinal Lugo with particular caution excepts the Tail of the Ass on which Christ rode to Jerusalem . But saith Arriaga , There was indignitas moralis , that did hinder the worship of Judas his lips ; however he doth not understand , how this can cut off the adorability of them on the principles of Vasquez and Lugo . As to the Ass on which Christ rode ; there are some , saith he , do yield that it might be worshipped ; and the Mule , and the Ass which stood by the Maunger , as well as the Maunger is self : but it may be , it were better denied , because there is , saith he , I know not what meanness in it which hinders adoration ; but he adds , that in all these moral things very much depends on the apprehension of the persons ; and in case the intention be rightly directed , he thinks it very hard ( upon their principles ) to prove that God cannot be worshipped in any Creature . 2. In case of publick scandal they do not allow it . Not from any real hurt in the thing , but because the People have been only hitherto accustomed to worship Images , and Reliques of Saints . The danger , saith Vasquez from Cajetan , would be none to understanding men , but only to the rude and ignorant people , that cannot so easily apprehend God in His Creatures , as in an Image , and withall it would savour of Heathen superstition . But it were well they would consider the Answer they give us in this case , when we urge the same argument against the worship of Images : Hold , say they , a meer scandal is no reason to take away the use of a thing , if it be such as doth not arise from the nature of the thing ; but only by accident through the malice or ignorance of the Persons . So that in this case nothing is wanting , but well instructing the People ; and upon their principles of worship they may revive the worship of the Host of Heaven , the Fire and Water , and Trees , and the Earth it self ; and it is but conquering a little squeamishness of stomach at first , the very Tail of the Ass on which our Savio●r rode , will go down with them . And now I leave the Reader to judge which of us two is guilty of the greater Paradoxes . I now come to the great rock of offence , the second Council of Nice : which , he saith , I most irreverently call that wise Synod ; upon which he falls into a very Tragical exclamation ; that I should dare to reflect so much dishonour on a Council , wherein there were 350. Fathers , with the Popes Legats , and the Vicars of the Oriental Patriarchal Sees ; and yet himself calls the Council of Constantinople a Conventicle , wherein there were 338. Bishops ; ( and doth he think the number of twelve more in one than in the other , makes such a huge difference in point of Wisdom ? ) But the Author of the Caroline Book saith , That by their own confession they were but 306. And the Council of Francford ( which opposed this , and of which T. G. speaks not very honourably , as I shall make appear ) consisted of about ●00 . Bishops , by the confessions of their own Writers : so that if number carries it , I have above 600. Bishops of my side ; and if they were wise , the Nicene Council was not so . It is therefore in T. G's choice to call 300. or 600. Bishops , Fools . But if he be guilty of the same fault , that doth not excuse me for speaking so Ironically , of so lawful , so general , so judicious a Council , as that at Nice was : and therefore he adviseth me to recant , and to follow the example of Gregory of Neocaelarea : I hope he doth not mean in the way of S. German ; although one of that name was a great Patron of Images about that time . But if this Council were neither so lawful , so general , nor so judicious as T. G. pretends , for all that I know , the Rector of a Parochial Church never to be found in the list of any General Council ( which is a shrewd aggravation of my fault ) may have leave to call the Second Council of Nice , a wise Synod . 1. I shall enquire whether this were a lawful General Council , and so received by the Church : There are three things T. G. insists on to make this out . 1. That it was called by the Popes Authority ; which he knows we deny to be sufficient to make a lawful General Council ; for then every Assembly of Bishops at Rome called by the Pope would be a General Council . 2. The consent and presence of the Patriarchs . 3. That it hath been received as such by the Church . But I shall make it appear , that it was just such another General Council as that of Trent was , and managed with as much fraud and collusion ; and that it was not received by the Church as a General Council . 1. As to the presence and consent of the Patriarchs ; this Council in their Synodical Epistle boast that they had the concurrence of East , West , North and South : Which is such an extravagance , that no sober men would have been guilty of , that had any regard to Truth or Honesty ; or did in the least consider the State of the World at that time . The Western Bishops were never so much as summon'd , the Patriarch , of Ierusalem was dead , the Eastern Patriarch , and the Patriarch of Alexandria were neither in condition to appear themselves , nor to send Legats thither ; which Baronius ingenuously confesseth : Because Aaron who was then Chaliph of the Saracens , was a great enemy to the Christians , under whose dominion at that time they were . Although Christianus Lupus , a Professor of Divinity at Lovain , makes him a great Friend to the Christians in Egypt ; which is not only contrary to Baronius , but to the Synodical Epistle , the two Monks carried to the Council , from the Monks of Palestine , and was read and approved by the Council . Theophanes saith , That the Empress and Patriarch , both sent to the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch , while the Peace continued ; but soon after upon Aaron 's being made Chaliph , the peace was broke ; and there was no liberty for the Patriarchs either to go or send . But do we not read in the Acts of the Council that John appeared and subscribed as Vicar of the Oriental Patriarchs ; and Thomas as Vicar of the Patriarch of Alexandria ? Very true : but Baronius gives an excellent account of this notorious cheat . The Legats that were sent to the Patriarchs did never arrive at Antioch or Alexandria ; but coming into Palestine , they there understood what a grievous persecution the Christians suffered under the new Chaliph , and that if it should be discovered what errand they went upon , it would not only hazzard their own lives , but of all the Christians of those parts ; therefore they forbore going any farther , and acquainted the Monks of Palestine with their design ; who met together , and took upon them to send these two , John and Thomas as the Legats of the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria : For Theodorus Patriarch of Ierusalem was lately dead . And these two were the goodly Vicars of the Patriarchal See 's which sate and subscribed in their names in this most Oecumenical Council ; and passed in all the Acts of it for the Legats of the Oriental Patriarchs . For they subscribe themselves Legats of the three Apostolical Sees , Alexandria , Antioch , and Jerusalem : and yet the summons never came to either of the Patriarchs , but they were in truth only the Plenipotentiary Monks of the Patriarchal Monks of Palestine : So both Baronius and Binius confess they were only the Monks that sent them , and they call themselves Eremites in the beginning of their Epistle ; and yet in the Acts of that Council they pass for very great men of the East , and Euthymius Bishop of Sardis calls them the Patriarchs of the East ; and Epiphanius takes it for granted that the Letters were sent by the very same to whom Tarasius directed his ; when the very Letters themselves , which were read in the Council , shew that the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria were never consulted with . And yet Christianus Lupus in his late Notes on the Canons of the General Councils , very fairly tells a formal story of Politian , Patriarch of Alexandria , and Theodoret of Antioch , and Elias of Ierusalem , sending these for their Legats to this Council ( I had thought it had been only the Popes Prerogative to make titular Patriarchs ) and he gravely magnifies the zeal and courage both of the Patriarchs and Legats for venturing so much in such a time of Persecution : and then falls into a mighty Encomium of the two Legats that Tarasius sent , for venturing through a thousand deaths to get to the Patriarchs , when God knows they never came near them . But which is far more to be wondred at , Pope Adrian in his Answer to Charles the Great about the Nicene Synod had the face to say , That the Synodical Epistle of the three Patriarchs , of Cosmus of Alexandria , and of Theodore of Antioch , ( it seems Elias is turned to Theodore again ) and Theodore of Ierusalem was read and approved in this Council of Nice ; than which ( with his Holiness's leave ) there never was a more notorious falshood , unless it were that of Tarasius ; who upon the approbation of these Letters of the Monks , cry'd out , That the East and the West , the North and the South were all agreed ; and the whole Council followed this with an acclamation of Glory be to God that hath united us ; when the Eastern Patriarchs knew nothing of the Council , the Western Bishops opposed it as soon as ever they knew it . And was not this a very hopeful General Council , having as T. G. saith , The Popes Legats for Presidents , and the Vicars of the Oriental Patriarchal Sees assisting in it ? 2. That it was not received for a General Council by the Church . For even in the Greek Church it self , Theophanes only saith , That the Emperour called together all the Bishops within his own Dominions ; which is said likewise by Landulphus Sagax ; only Theophanes would have it believed that the Oriental Patriarchs sent their Legats , which was very false : as not only appears from the very Acts of the Council , wherein the Monks Letter is inserted , but because this Council was not received many years after in those Patriarchal Sees ; which is evident from Photius his Encyclical Epistle to the Patriarch of Alexandria and others , not long since published in Greek from a Ms. brought out of the East ; wherein Photius expostulates the case , why the Nicene Council was not received among them , as the six General Councils were . In that Copy which is extant in Baronius , translated by Metius , and with great diligence compared with two Mss. whereof one was a very ancient one , it is said expresly , That it was reported among them that none of the Churches under the Apostolical See of Alexandria did own the Nicene Synod for a General Council ; which in B. Montagues Copy is mitigated into some ; but by the tenour of his Discourse it appears , it was not published in their Churches , nor received among them as a General Council : and he useth many arguments to perswade them to it ; among the rest he saith , That Thomas was present in it from his See , and others with him ; but he doth not say , he came as Legate . And he hath found out Companions for him too ; which is more than the Nicene Council discovered : and yet he acknowledges that by reason of the persecution of the Saracens , the Acts of that Council never came to them ; which would be very strange , if the Patriarch of Alexandria sent a Legate thither . Baronius ingenuously confesses that this Nicene Council was not received as an Occumenical Council in any of the Eastern Patriarchates , excepting only that of Constantinople ; and he is very hard put to it to prove that it was owned as such even at Rome it self ; because Nicholaus 1. in a Council at Rome in the cause of Photius reckons up but six General Councils , which Photius upbraids him with ; and it is but a pitiful pretence which Baronius hath for it , viz. that they had only a bad Translation of it ; such a one as it was , it was of Hadrians procuring , as Anastasius saith . If they had received it as a General Council , where were the Authentick Acts of it ? or if they did not understand Greek , could they not have procured a better Latine Translation before the time of Anastasius ? But the plain Truth was , although Pope Hadrian joined with it , and would not allow Tarasius his being Patriarch till he undertook to get the worship of Images confirmed , yet the Nicene Council was so very ill received in the Western Church ; that the following Popes were ashamed to call it an Oecumenical Council ; as Binius confesses in the very words of Baronius , according to his custom . And long after their times , it was so little known or esteemed in the Western parts , that Aquinas and the ancient Schoolmen never mention it in the matter of Images , but determine expresly against it . Which either shews it was not known , or had not any value put upon it ; For if Baronius his reason hold good , as soon as Anastasius had finished his Translation , this Council would have been as much known here , as any other ; and so much the more , because so many Schoolmen were concerned to justifie the worship of Images , and they were so much to seek for arguments to defend it , that they would have leaped for joy to have had a Decree of an allowed General Council on their side ; or if they had found it against them , they would some way or other have answered it . But the greatest Testimony against it is the Council of Francford , which expresly condemned it ; and as Sirmondus confesses , Did not look upon it as an Oecumenial Council , because none but Greeks met in it , and other Churches were not asked their opinion ; nay , he saith , that Pope Hadrian himself , did not give it the title of a General Council . To this T. G. answers , That what weight soever that Exception carried at that time , yet it is certain now it hath no force at all , since the Council it self hath for many hundreds of years been accepted as a true and lawful General Council , and its doctrine as Catholick by all the Provinces of Christendom , and the contrary to it condemned for Heresie . This latter is evidently false , as I have shewed before , and there is no reason for the other ; for by the confession of their own Writers the Copies of this Nicene Council lay buried in these Western parts for many Ages , which is the reason they give why the Schoolmen take no notice of it ; and in the former Century , the Copies of it were first published from some Mss. that were very little known . The account whereof was , that this Council meeting with so brisk an opposition from the Council of Francford and afterwards from the Gallican Bishops , and being rejected here in England by the consent of our Historians , the very name of it was almost quite forgotten ; thence it never was once cited either by Ionas Aurelianensis , or Walafridus Strabo , as Spalatensis observes , when they had the greatest occasion to do it in the matter of Images . But when the worship of Images began to be opposed here in England by Wickliffe , the defenders of it finding themselves concerned to find out every thing that made for their advantage , Waldensis having heard of some such thing as a Council against Iconoclasts , by Thomas and Iohn , two Dominicans of his time , from a certain Book ; he adventures to set it down upon their report , but so faintly with ut fertur , as if he had been telling the story of Pope Ioan ; and he saith , it was called under the pious Emperour Constantius the second , and Pascasius : by which we may see what an excellent account they had of this General Council ; but in the last Century , Pet. Crabb , a Franciscan , with indefatigable diligence searching five hundred Libraries for any thing pertaining to Councils , lights upon the old Latin Edition of this Council , and published it A. D. 1551. From that time this was looked on and magnified as the seventh General Council in these Western parts , and its Authority set up by the Council of Trent : and the generality of Divines finding it in the Volums of General Councils and there joyned with them , search'd no farther , but imagined it was alwaies so esteemed . But it may be some will become confident of it , when they see so good an Author as T. G. speaking with so much assurance , That it hath been received for many hundred years as a lawful General Council ; If he speaks from the time of its being published , he might as well have said for many thousand years . For 1. In the Age wherein it was first sent abroad , it was utterly rejected by the Council of Francford ; as not only appears by the Canon it self , but by the confession of some of the most learned and judicious persons of the Roman Church : such as Sirmondus and Petrus de Marcâ were : and Petavius confesses , That the Council meant by the Council of Francford was the Nicene Council , and not the former of Constantinople ; as Surius , Cope , or Harpsfield , Sanders , Suarez , and others were of opinion : nay Labbé and Cossart in their late Edition of the Councils , have most impudently set down this in the very Title of the Council of Francford , That the Acts of the Nicene Council in the matter of Images were confirmed therein : whereas Sirmondus adds this to the Title of his Admonition about the second Canon of that Council , Quo rejecta est Synodus Nicaena : all which Advertisement they have very honestly left out , although they pretend to give all Sirmondus his Notes . But the main pretence for this was , because the words of the Canon do mention the Council of Constantinople ; which Petavius thinks was called so , because Constantinople was the Head of the Eastern Empire ; but the plain reason is , because the Nicene Council was begun at Constantinople upon the 17 of August ; but the Emperours Guards would not endure their sitting there , as Theophanes relates , upon which they were forced to rise ; and the Empress found out a trick to disband the suspected Officers and Souldiers , and brought in new ones ; however it was thought convenient the Council should sit no longer there , but remove unto Nice . And what a mighty absurdity was this to call a Council , which was begun at Constantinople , the Constantinopolitan Council ? And it is observable , that Gabriel Biel , who lived in the latter end of the fifteenth Century , quotes the Decree of this Council of Nice , under the name of a Decree of the Council of Constantinople . And the learned P. Pithaeus speaking of Anastasius his Translation , calls it the Council of Constantinople . The new French Annalist is satisfied with neither opinion , but he thinks , That another Council of Constantinople was called between the Nicene Council , and that of Francford , which did in express words determine that the same worship was to be given to Images , which is due to the B. Trinity , and that this was the Council condemned at Francford : but this New Council is a meer invention of his own , there being no colour for it either from the Greek or Latin Historians ; and in truth he pretends only to these reasons , 1. Because it was a Council of Constantinople which was condemned . 2. Because it is not to be supposed that the Council of Francford should condemn the Council of Nice : For he saith , it is not to be believed that so many Bishops , the Popes Legates being present , should misunderstand the doctrine of that Council : yet this is all the refuge T. G. hath in this matter : and he offers from Petr. de Marca , to give a particular account of it . To which I answer , That the Author of the Caroline Book ( as I have already observed ) takes notice of this passage of the Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus ; and although there were a mistake in the Translation of it , yet it ought to be observed that , he saith , the whole Council meant the same which Constantine spake out , although in words they denied it , and he there quotes the very words of their denying it , Non adoramus Imagines ut Deum , nec illis Divini servitii cultum impendimus , &c. From whence it is plain , that the Western Church understood well enough what they said , and what they denied ; but they judged , notwithstanding all their words to the contrary , that they did really give that worship to Images which was due only to God ; and no man that reads the Caroline Book can be of another opinion . And T. G. is content to yield it of the Author of that Book , from the Testimonies I brought out of him ; but he saith , That Author was not contented with what the Council of Francford had condemned . Which is a lamentable answer ; since Hincmarus saith , That this very Volume was it which was sent from the Emperour to Rome by some Bishops against the Greek Synod ; and he quotes the very place out of it which is still extant in that Book . And is it credible that the Emperour should publish a Book in his own name as a Capitular , as Pope Hadrian calls it , that was different from the sense of the Council of Francford , which was called on purpose to resolve this Question about Images , as well as to condemn the Heresie of Felix and Elipandus ? Petavius indeed would have the main Book to have been written some years before the Council , as soon as the Acts of the Nicene Synod were known in these parts ( and Cassander probably supposes Alcuinus to have been the Author of it ) but when the Council of Francford had condemned the Nicene Synod , only some excerpta were taken out of it and sent to the Pope . I am not satisfied with Petavius his Reason , Because the Pope doth not answer all of it , ( a better cause may be assigned for that ) but in the Preface of the Book the Author declares that it was done with the Advice of the Council ( Quod opus aggressi sumus cum conhibentiâ sacerdotum in regno à Deo nobis concesso Catholicis gregibus praelatorum ) and Bellarmin and Baronius both grant , That this Book contains the Acts of the Council of Francford ; However if the Book were extant before under the name of Charles , it is so much the more improbable that if the Council differed in opinion from it , the Excerpta out of this Book should be sent as the Reasons of rejecting the Nicene Synod . And that passage which Hincmarus cites out of this Book , is very considerable to our purpose ; for the design of it is to shew , That the Greek Synod could have no pretence to be esteemed a lawful General Council , because the doctrine of it was not Catholick , neither were the Acts of it done by the universal Church : and in another place , That Synod is charged with folly and presumption , in that being but one part of the Church , it should dare to impose its Decrees upon the Church without advising and consulting with the other parts of it , ( debuerat enim ad circumjacentium provinciarum Ecclesias legationem sciscitativam facere , utrum imagines adorari aut non adorari deberent . ) For what Rage and Madness is this , for the Church of one part to go about to determine that which was never determined by the Apostles or their Successors , and to endeavour to Anathematize the Churches of the whole World ? But this is cursing without reason , anger without Power , damning without Authority : and therefore they are charged with no less than Luciferian pride for taking upon them to pronounce Anathema's against those who dissented from them . Petavius saith , That when Pope Hadrian sent the Acts of the Council to Charles the Great , and would have a Council called to advise about it ; the Pope had not yet declared it for an Oecumenical Council ! but if it were not then declared to be a General Council , it is very unlikely he should do it afterwards when he found that three hundred Bishops of Germany , France , and Italy , saith Surius , did so stiffly and resolutely oppose the definition of it in spight of the Popes Legats , who were present there . Which contradiction of theirs shews , how very far this Council was from being received by the Church as a lawful General Council ; and from the Answer of Hadrian it appears that it was not then solemnly confirmed by the Pope , nor ever after , that we can find , till the Council of Trent . 2. We have the Testimony of the best Historians of that and several Ages after , that the Nicene Synod was not received as a lawful General Council . In the Annals of Eginhardus , who was Secretary to Charles the Great , we have this Account , that not many years before the Council of Francford , there was a Synod at Constantinople , which was called by themselves , not only the seventh , but a General Council ; but Charles having summoned together a Council of Bishops out of all parts of his dominions , it was there utterly rejected , so as not to be called or thought to be either the seventh , or a General Council . The Annales Tiliani , Loiseliani , Bertiniani , Fuldenses , Metenses , Laurishamenses , Massianenses , Egraismenses being the best Records of that Age , all agree with Eginhardus in the rejecting of the Greek Synod ; and most of them call it the false Synod , others say , that which would be called the seventh and a General Council ; and with these agree Ado Viennensis , Rhegino , Hermannus Contratus and Urspergensis in their several Chronicles , wherein we have a plainer Testimony that this Council was rejected , than we have that any General Council was ever received . 3. That this was not barely the sense of that Age , but continued to be so of succeeding Ages , appears from the Testimony I gave of the Gallican Church in the time of Ludovicus Pius , and the Synod of Paris , A. D. 824. wherein they persisted in condemning the Nicene Synod , and the doctrine therein asserted : which shews evidently that it was no mistake of the Words of the Council which caused the Council of Francford to condemn the Nicene : for Pope Hadrian had now written in Vindication of it , and endeavoured to clear the sense of the Council ; and yet after all this the Gallican Bishops adhered to the sentence of the Council of Francford . To this T. G. returns only this answer , that although they were of this opinion at that time , yet afterwards the doctrine of the Nicene Council was received in the Gallican Church . I proceed therefore to shew , that in the time of the Controversie between Ionas Aurelianensis and Claudius Taurinensis the Gallican Church had not changed its opinion : ( Ionas lived , saith Labbé , to A. D. 842. ) For Bellarmin yields that Jonas denied that any worship was to be given to Images , although he disputed against Claudius Taurinensis who followed the opinion of Serenus and would have them all destroyed . Marg. de la Bigne saith , that Jonas was one of the Heads of those who opposed the Pope and the Orientals , i. e. the Nicene Synod in this point of the worship of Images , and he calls it a superstitious and pernicious practice , from which the Gallican Church was free ; and a detestable and most wicked errour ; notwithstanding the Orientals pretended that they did not worship the Images , but the exemplars by them ; and he prays God they may be at last delivered out of that superstition : with so much more to that purpose , that it were endless to repeat it . Walafridus Strabo who lived some years after Ionas , and mentions the death of Ludovicus Pius , is yielded by Baronius to have been of the same opinion with Jonas in this matter : and he saith , all the honour due to Images is barely negative , not to misuse or destroy them . In the same time with Ionas lived Agobardus Archbishop of Lions , and is at this day reckoned among the Saints and Confessours of that City ; of whose doctrine I had given before an account from the abstract of Papirius Massonus , and from thence I shewed how zealous he was against all worship of Images : and I produced the Testimony of Baluzius to shew that he said no more than the whole Gallican Church in that Age believed . T. G. gives up Agobardus ; but he will not yield that Baluzius saith any such thing , for the French Bishops allowed Images to be kept saith Baluzius , that the faithful seeing them might be excited to the imitation of those holy persons whom they represented : whereas Agobardus went so far as to affirm that they were kept for ornaments to delight the eyes , but not for the instruction of the People ; nay that they were not to be painted upon Church walls . The words of Baluzius are , Ego crediderim Agobardum scripsisse quod omnes tum in Galliâ sentiebant ; and what sense can any man make of these words , if he did not believe , that what Agobardus wrote was the sense of the Gallican Church ? I cannot but pity T. G. in these straights he runs himself into ; he can creep in at a Mouse-hole , but he soon grows too big ever to get out again . For Baluzius saith what I affirmed , and Agobardus saith no such thing , as he affirms of him : and in that very Synopsis of his doctrine by Massonus , to which he referrs , we have just the contrary ; Picturae aspectandae causâ historiae & memoriae , non Religionis ; Images are to be looked on for history and memory sake , but not for Religion ; and what is this but for instruction of the people ? Whosoever it was , that helped T. G. to this citation , I desire him as a Friend that he will never trust him more ; for I would think better of T. G. himself , than that he would wilfully prevaricare . But if this were Agobardus his opinion , why have we it not in his own words ? rather than those of Pap. Massonus , who talks so ignorantly and inconsistently in that very place where those words are , but are not set down by him as the judgement of Agobardus . If T. G. would have taken , no great pains , to have read over Agobardus his discourse of Images , he would have saved me the labour of confuting him about his opinion ; for he delivers it plainly enough against all worship of Images , though for the sake of the Exemplar ; but he expresly allows them for instruction . I am sorry T. G. makes it so necessary for me to give him such home-thrusts ; for he lays himself so open , and uses so little art to avoid them , that I must either do nothing , or expose his weakness , and want of skill . But all this while we are got no farther than towards the middle of the ninth Century , the Church of France might change its opinion after this time , and assert the Council of Nice to have been a General Council , and submit to the Decrees of it . I grant all this to be possible , but we are looking for certainties , and not bare possibilities . Hincmarus of Rhemes , a stout and understanding Bishop of the Gallican Church , died saith Bellarmin , A. D. 882. and he not only calls the Nicene Synod a false General Council , but he makes that at Francford to be truly so : ( And these latter words of his are cited with approbation by Card. Cusanus ) and he condemns both Factions among the Greeks , of the Iconoclasts , and of the Nicene Fathers . In the same Age lived Anastasius Bibliothecarius , who made it his business to recommend all the Greek Canons and Councils to the Latin Church ; ( he was alive saith Baronius , A. D. 886. ) He first translated the eighth General Council , at which himself was present ; and when this was abroad , he tells the Pope what a soloecism it would be , to have the eighth , without a seventh , ( ubi septima non habetur , are his very words ) from whence it appears in how very little Regard that Council was in the Western Church . It is true , he saith , it was translated before ; but it was , almost by all so much contemned , that it was so far from being transcribed , that it was not thought worth reading . This he would have to be laid upon the badness of the translation , ( he hath mended the matter much ) when in his Lives of the Popes , he saith , it was done by the particular Command of Pope Hadrian , and laid up in his Sacred Library . But when he hath said his utmost for the Catholick doctrine of Image-worship , ( as he would have it believed ) he cannot deny that the admirable usefulness of this doctrine was not yet revealed to some of the Gallican Church ; because they said it was not lawful to worship the Work of mens Hands . After this time , came on the Midnight of the Church ; wherein the very names of Councils were forgotten , and men did only dream of what had past ; but all things were judged good , that were got into any vogue in the practice of the Church ; yet even in that time we meet with some glitterings of light , enough to let us see the Council of Nice had not prevailed over the Western Church . Leo Tuscus who was a Secretary to the Greek Emperour , and lived saith Gesner , A. D. 1170. giving an account of the Schism between the Greek and Latin Churches , hath these words , ( saith Cassander ) that among the Causes of the Breach , that Synod was to be assigned which was called by Constantine and Irene , and which they would have called the seventh , and a General Council ; and he adds moreover , that it was not received even by the Church of Rome . About the year 1189. was the Expedition into Palestine by Fredericus Aenobarbus , and Nicetas Acominatus , who was a great Officer under the Greek Emperour , Isacius Angelus , ( and present in the Army saith Baronius ) gives this account of the Germans opinion in those times about the worship of Images . When , saith he , all the Greeks had deserted Philippopolis , the Armenians staid behind , for they looked on the Germans as their Friends , and agreeing with them in Religion , for the worship of Images is forbidden among both of them . Which being a Testimony of so considerable a Person , and not barely concerning the opinion of some Divines , but the general practice of the people , doth shew that in the twelfth Century , the Necene Council had not prevailed all over the Western Church , when T. G. affirms it did for many hundreds of years before the Reformation . Especially , if we consider what the judgement and practice of the Armenians was , as it is delivered by Nicon , ( who is supposed to have been a Saint and Martyr in Armenia , ) who saith , that they do not worship Images , and their Catholick Bishop or Patriarch excommunicates those that do . Which is confirmed by what is said to the same purpose by Isaac an Armenian Bishop , who lived in the same Century , viz. that they do not Worship the Images either of Christ , the B. Virgin , or the Saints . And Pet. Pithaeus a learned and ingenuous Papist , confesses , that it was but very lately that those of the Gallican Church began to be fond of Images : and he writ that Epistle wherein those words are extant , A. D. 1568. Surely he did not think the doctrine of the Nicene Council had been received in the Gallican Church for many hundred years . But suppose the Nicene Synod were not owned for a General Council , yet it might be very wise and judicious Assembly ; to say that , is to reflect on the Emperour Charles the Great and all the Western Bishops in his Dominions . And I am sure their expressions would justifie me , if I had spoken sharper without an Irony : for in the Caroline Book we frequently meet with such expressions as these , concerning those grave Fathers ; ut illi stultissimè & irrationabilitèr putant ; indoctè & inordinatè dicunt ; quam absurdè agant ; quod magnae sit temeritatis dicere ; quod non minus omnibus sed pene plus cunctis Tharasius delirasse dignoscitur ; Deliramento plena dictio Leonis . Ut illi delirant : ut illi garriunt : Ridiculosè & pueriliter dictum ; infaustè , praecipitantèr , sive insipienter : dementia prolatum & risu dignum . Inutile & mendacio plenum . Dementissimum & ratione carens Deliramentum , errore plenum . Falsissimum & risu dignum . Ridiculosissimum Dictum . Superciliosè & indoctè dixerunt . When T. G. hath considered these expressions , and the force and pungency of them , being all applyed to the Fathers of that Nicene Synod , by the Western Bishops under the name of Charles the Great , he may possibly cool and abate his rage towards me for using only that Ironical expression of That Wise Synod . And there is nothing considerable said by the Nicene Fathers which is not answered in that Book , to whom I may therefore better referr him , than he doth me to the Answers of Epiphanius in the Nicene Council for satisfaction of no less than eight arguments ( as himself numbers them ) of the Constantinopolitan Fathers against the Worship of Images . But that he may not think the greatest weight lies in any thing that is passed by , I shall briefly consider the Defence he makes for the Nicene Synod in the particulars mentioned by him . 1. He saith , That the Nicene Fathers did justly plead the continuance of Christ Kingdom against the Idolatry of Christians , because God hath promised that he will take away Idols from the earth , not for four or five hundred years , but to the end of the world . I desire T. G. to consider , whether this argument would not have held as well against the Catholick Bishops who charged the Arrians with Idolatry : and what answer he gives himself about that , will shew the feebleness of his answer in this case . And the prophecies of the Old Testament relating to Events under the New ( supposing that doth so , which is far from being clear ) do certainly shew what the design and tendency of the Christian doctrine is , and what would be if men did observe it . As it is in all the prophecies of the Peace and tranquillity of the World , notwithstanding which , we find the World at the old Rate of quarrelling and Fighting under new pretences : Just so it is with Idolatry , no doctrine in the world would preserve men more effectually from it , if they would observe it ; but if under the colour of Christianity they bring in only a new scheme of it ; it is still the same kind of thing , although it appears in a fresher dress . But then , saith T. G. the Gates of Hell would prevail against the Church . Against what Church ? The whole Christian Church ? whoever said they could , or how doth that follow ? The Church of Constantinople , or the Church of Ierusalem ? Have not the Gates of the Turk been too strong for them ? The Church of Rome ? The Gates of Hell do certainly prevail against that , if it doth Unchurch all other Christians that are not of its communion ? And why may not Idolatry prevail , where Luciferian Pride , and Hellish Cruelty and desperate Wickedness have long since prevailed ? Hath Christ made promises to secure that Church from errour , which hath been over-run with all sorts of Wickedness by the confession of her own members and Friends ? These are gobbets , fit only to be cramm'd down the throats of very implicite believers . 2. He undertakes to shew , that the saying of the Fathers against the Arrians cannot reach to those that worship Images , because Epiphanius saith , the Arrians trusted in Christ , and gave properly Divine Honour to Christ , which they do not to the Images of Christ. To answer this , I shewed that Aquinas and his followers did declare that Latria was to be given to the Images of Christ , therefore this could not , at least , excuse them from being parallel to the Arrians , and if their arguments hold good , then all that worship Images fall under the like condemnation . This he bestows the name of many fallacies upon ; and runs on so briskly with shewing the inconsequence of it , as though he did in earnest believe it were an impertinent answer ; by which he would insinuate , that I had made use of Aquinas his opinion to prove those guilty of Idolatry which were of another opinion . No such matter ; For the question was , whether the saying of the Fathers concerning the Arrian Idolatry can be justly applyed to those that worship Images ? Yes , say I , upon Epiphanius his own ground they may , if they who worship Images give divine Honour to them ; but Aquinas and his Followers contend that Divine Honour is to be given to them ; and therefore they fall under the like censure . And by their argument , all that worship Images must come under it ; For either they worship Images for themselves , and then they all acknowledge it is Idolatry ; or for the sake of the exemplar : which if it be the reason and object of worship as represented by the Image , it must have the same worship which the thing considered in its own being deserves ; which being divine honour , that must be given to the Image . But T. G. supposes the force of all this to depend upon their being of this opinion , and because the Nicene Fathers are not mentioned by me as agreeing with Aquinas , therefore he represents this arguing as ridiculous . Whereas my design was to shew ( that since divine honour being given to Images , was confessed to make the case alike ) that it was confessed by the most prevalent party in the Church of Rome , that such honour was to be given to them , and that others did it , although they would not own the doing it . And whether men acknowledge it or no ; if they give that which is really Divine Worship , they become guilty of Idolatry as well as the Arrians ; and let men call it by what names they will , of Relative or absolute , Soveraign or inferiour Worship , if it be that which God hath forbidden to be given to any Creature , it becomes Idolatry . 3. T. G. saith , that the argument doth not hold , that if the union of the Divine and humane nature be the reason of the worship given to the Person of Christ , then there must be an equal presence or union between Christ and the Image to make that an object of Worship ; for , saith he , not only union , but representation may occasion worship . Who doubts of that ? but may it not as well occasion people to commit Idolatry ? But the question is not , whether representation may occasion the worship of God or no ; for so an Ant or a Fly , or any Creature may occasion it . But this is notorious shuffling to talk of Images being only an Occasion of Worship , whereas I have at large shewed that the doctrine and Practice of their Church makes them Objects of Worship . And since the Christian Church acknowledged the humanity of Christ to be capable of worship only on the account of an Hypostatical Union with the Divine Nature ; I desired to know how a meer Image of that Humane Nature can be an object of lawful worship ? If T. G. saith , That the Image is a fit object of worship , and representation the reason of it ; let him shew how Representation comes to be an equal reason with personal union ; and at last , this Representation is nothing but an act of Imagination , which doth not make the object any more really present there than any where else : against which Imagination we set the positive Law of God forbidding any such kind of worship , as I have already proved . 4. He saith in defence of his Nicene Fathers , That although the Image of Christ can only represent the humane Nature as separate from the Divine , yet the charge of Nestorianism doth not follow ; because the Object of their worship , is that which is conceived in their minds ; and worship being an act of the Will , it is carried to the Prototype , as it is conceived in the understanding ; but their understandings being free from Nestorianism , their Wills must be so too : which is all the sense I can make of T. G's answer . Who doth not seem at all to consider there are two things blamed by the Church in Nestorianism . 1. The heretical opinion . 2. The Idolatrous practice consequent upon that opinion , of the separation of the two Natures in Christ. Now the argument of the Constantinopolitan Fathers proceeds not upon their opinion , as though they really believed the principles of Nestorianism who worshipped Images ; but they were guilty of the same kind of worship ; for since an Image can only represent the humane nature of Christ ; if it were lawful to worship that Image on the account of Christ , then upon the Nestorian principles it would be as lawful to worship the humane nature of Christ , although it had no hypostatical union with the Divine . For could not the Nestorians say that when they considered Christ as a humane Person , yet that humane Person did represent to them the Divine Person , who was the proper object of worship ; and although they were not really and hypostatically united , yet by representation , and an Act of the mind , they directed their worship towards the Divine Person . For if a bare Image of the humane Nature be a sufficient object of worship , much more is the humane Nature it self ; and if on the account of such representation the worship of Christ may be directed to his Image , with much greater Reason it might be towards Christ , as Homo Deiferus , in regard of that humane Nature , which had the Divine Nature present , although not united . And upon this Ground the Constantinopolitan Fathers did justly charge the worshippers of Images with Nestorianism as to their worship ; and that they could not defend themselves , but they must absolve the Nestorians , whom the Christian Church and this Nicene Synod it self would seem to condemn . For there is a greater separation between the Image of Christ and Christ , than the Nestorians did suppose between the Divine and humane Nature ; for they did still suppose a real presence , although not a real Union ; but in the case of Images there is not so much as a real presence , but only by representation ; therefore if the Nestorians were to blame in their worship , much more are those that worship Images . As to the last Answer , being only a desire that I would bear in mind against a fit season , that the Eucharist is called by the Constantinopolitan Fathers an Honourable Image of Christ , I shall do what he desires ; and I promise him farther to shew the Nicene Fathers Ignorance and Confidence , when they said , It was contrary to the Scriptures and Fathers to call the Eucharist an Image of Christ. All the other arguments of the Constantinopolitan Fathers , to the number of eight , T. G. passes over , and so must I. From hence I proceed to the next Charge , which is , That I mix School disputes with matters of Faith ; For I desired seriously to know , whether any worship doth belong to Images or no ? if there be any due , whether is it the same that is given to the Prototype , or distinct from it ? If it be the same , then proper Divine Worship is given to the Image ; if distinct , then the Image is worshipped with Divine Worship for it self , and not relatively and subordinately as he speaks : and which side soever is taken , some or other of their Divines charge the worship with Idolatry ; so that it is in mens choice which sort of Idolatry they will commit when they worship Images , but in neither way they can avoid it . To this T. G. answers several waies . 1. That this is a point belonging to the Schools , and not at all to Faith : which I said , was their common Answer when any thing pincheth them ; but to shew the unreasonableness of that way of answering , I added that both sides charge the other with Idolatry , and that is a Matter of Conscience , and not a Scholastick Nicety . For if the worship of Images be so asserted in the Church of Rome , that in what way soever it is practised , there is by their own confession such danger of Idolatry ; the General Terms of Councils serve only to draw men into the snare , and not to help them out of it . 2. He answers this , by a drolling comparison , about the worship due to the Chair of State , whether it be the same which is due to the King or no ; if the same , then proper Regal worship would be given to something besides the King , which were Treason : if distinct , then the Chair would be worshipped with Regal Honour for it self , and not relatively , which were for a man to submit himself to a piece of Wood. This he represents pleasantly , and with advantage enough : and supposing the Yeomen of the Guard to have done laughing , I desire to have a difference put between the customes of Princes Courts , and the worship of God : and it is strange to me T. G. should not see the difference . But whatever T. G. thinks , we say , that God by His Law having made some Acts of worship peculiar to himself by way of acknowledgement of His Soveraignty and Dominion over us , we must not use those Acts to any Creature ; and therefore here the most material Question can be asked , is , whether the Acts of worship be the same which we are to use to God or no , i. e. whether they are acts forbidden or lawful ? for if they are the same , they are forbidden ; if not , they may be lawful . But in a Princes Court , where all expressions of Respect depend on custom , and the Princes Pleasure , or Rules of the Court , the only Question a man is to ask , is , whether it be the custom of the Court , or the Will of the Prince to have men uncovered in some Rooms and not in others ; no man in his wits would ask , whether that be the same Honour that is due to the King himself ? or who but T. G's Clown could suspect it to be Treason to put off his Hat in the Presence Chamber , or to the Chair of State , let it be done with what intention he pleases ? If the Yeomen of the Guard should see an old Courtier approach with many bowings to the Chair of State , and there fall down upon his Knees , and kiss the Arms of the Chair , and deliver his Petition to it for a good Office at Court , and observe that he doth this frequently , and with great gravity , I am afraid they would hardly hold their Countenances long to see such a solemn Fop ; and yet this pleasant Courtier might pretend , that he did all this as imagining the King to be there present by representation , and that he did not give this Honour to the Chair of State absolutely , considered as a piece of Wood ; but only Relatively , and for the sake of his Master ▪ that he knew better what belonged to the Honour due to Soveraign worship than such rude fellows as they ; that his intention was to shew what esteem he had for his Prince by all this ; and though as to the substance of the act this was the same that was done to the Person of the King , yet it fell upon the Chair of State after an inferiour Manner , as a thing relating to the King , and purely for his sake . I leave the substantial Yeomen of the Guard ( T. G's Iudges in this Controversie ) to determine in a General Council among them , whether T. G's Quaker , or this old Courtier were the more ridiculous By which instance we see that even in Princes Courts men may over-act their Reverence , and make themselves laughed at for their foolish and extravagant Relative worship ; for in all such cases the Rules of the Court are to be observed , where there is no intrenchment upon Divine Laws ; and every man that comes to Court enquires after the Orders of the Court , and he that keeps within them doth his duty , and never fears the Yeomen of the Guard. If the Orders of the Court were for men to pass through the Presence , or other Chambers without any Ceremony , would not the Yeomen of the Guard be as ready to observe those who used it ? Their business is to observe Orders themselves , and to see that others do it . And this is the only way how this parallel can reach to our Case ; all that we plead for , is , that the Rules and Orders be observed which God hath given us for His Worship ; since He hath given Laws we ought to obey them ; and since He hath appointed what He will have done , and what He will not , we must follow His Rule , and not our own extravagant Fancies , pretending that we have pretty devices to honour Him with , which He hath expresly forbidden . In such a case , we have Reason to enquire , whether the Acts of Worship be the same that He hath forbidden or no : but not where the whole matter depends on custom , and general Rules , which every man may easily know ; and no one hath any reason to be scrupulous as long as he keeps within the measures of Decency . But withal , the force of my Question lay in the confession of our Adversaries , who acknowledge on one side , That if the Act of Worship be the same that is given to the Prototype , it is Idolatry ; on the other side , if it be distinct it is Idolatry ; and then I had all the reason in the world to put this Question , because either way they are entangled by the confession of their own party . But as if Yeomen of the Guard should be so senseless , as some of them to tell a poor Countryman , when he is going through the Presence Chamber , that if he gives the Chair of State the same Honour he gives the King , he commits Treason ; and others say , if he does not , he worships the Chair for it self , and so commits Treason ; would not any man say , the Countryman had reason to stand , and scratch his head , and consider what he does , for he doth not care to commit Treason , and if he must do it one way or other , for his part he would go some other way , or be better resolved what he is to do . Thus in our case Bellarmin saith , It is Idolatry to give the same worship to an Image which is due to God : Vasquez saith , It is Idolatry to give distinct worship ; therefore if a man would avoid Idolatry , he must give none at all : especially when there is no necessity at all of doing it ; and therefore it is in no case parallel with the difficulties about sight and motion , which T. G. makes use of , to shew that such subtilties ought not to hinder men from doing things . Not when they are in themselves necessary to be done ; but when it is a doubtful case , and so doubtful that their most learned men say there is danger of Idolatry either way , I do not know a more prudent consideration to keep a man from the Practice of it . Therefore T. G. after all his complaint of mixing these School disputes , and letting me know what edge-tools these School distinctions are ( as any one might guess by his manner of handling them ) yet at last he resolves to venture upon clearing the point . 1. He saith , The Councils declare in this matter that we are not to give Latria to Images , or the worship due only to God ; and this without any distinction of absolute or relative Latria . 2. He confesses , That S. Thomas , and those of his way , do hold that the same worship is to be given to Christ , and to His Image . Can any two things appear with a face of greater opposition than these two ? But , saith T. G. Latria is twofold , one absolute , and that is due to God himself ; and the other relative , that may be given to the Image : or rather , in the same act of worship is a double Notion , the one as it tends to God himself , which is absolute Latria , the other as it reflects on the Image for His sake , which is relative Latria . Which distinction I have already examined , and shewed the vanity of in several places ; and that there are many in the Church of Rome who hold absolute Latria to be given to Images , and that upon the grounds of a Relative Latria any Creature may be worshipped ; therefore I shall keep to what is proper to this place . 1. I said this distinction is just as if an unchaste Wife should plead to her Husband , that the Person she was so kind with , was extremely like him , and a near Friend of his , that it was out of respect to him , that she gave him the honour of his bed ; can any one think that such an excuse as this would be taken by a jealous Husband ? How much less will such pretences avail with that God who hath declared himself particularly jealous of His honour in this Command above others , and that he will not give His glory to another , but hath reserved all Divine Worship as peculiar to himself , and no such fond excuses of Relative , inferiour , and improper worship will serve , when they encroach upon His Prerogative . To this T. G. answers , That the object of Iealousie is a Rival , or what hath relation to or Union with Him , not what may serve to express affection and respect to the Person who ought to be loved . But I have already shewed , from the confession of their own Writers , and the sense of the Christian Church , that even an Image of Christ becomes a Rival when it hath Divine Honour given to it : and T. G. himself will not allow Sacrifice to be offered to an Image ; and he denies from the Catholick Catechism ( although contrary to the Catholick Practice ) that they do pray to Images : let us then suppose that men do pray and Sacrifice to the Image of Christ. Is all this only like the Wifes kissing the Picture for the Husbands sake ? If it be no more , it is lawful and commendable to do them according to T. G's principles ; if it be more , then an Image of Christ may have such honour done to it as makes it an Idol , and consequently a Rival with God for His Honour . And so the dispute comes to this , whether the practices of the Roman Church in the worship of Images do not imply giving Divine Honours to them : of which I have treated at large already . 2. By this distinction men might say the Lords Prayer to Saints , or offer up the Host to an Image , so they were done absolutely to God , and only Relatively to the Saints or Images . T. G. being nettled with this , tells me in some passion ; That I can no where contain my self within bounds of Mediocrity ; he shall see I can by not following his Extravagancy : but he lets me know that the Church of God hath no such custom ; I do not ask whether the Church of Rome have any such Custom ( the Church of God I know hath not ) but whether it may not have that as well as some others , and upon the same grounds of Relative Worship ? But if I must not understand this till I become a Proselyte , I hope I shall be alwaies cntented with my Ignorance ; if I can be no otherwise informed , I am not sorry to see such evidence of their inability to answer who make such put-offs . Having thus passed through the several Charges drawn up against me , I come in the last Place to consider his parallel Instances , by which he hopes to clear and vindicate their Worship of Images . To his first about the Chair of State , and the third about the Iews worshipping towards the Ark and Cherubims , I have answered already , ( the fifth belongs to the Adoration of the Host. ) There remain only three to be examined , 1. The Reverence shewed to the Ground by Moses and Ioshua . 2. The bowing at the name of Iesus . 3. The bowing towards the Altar ; If I can clear these from being of the same Nature with the worship of Images as allowed and practised in the Roman Church , I know no shadow of difficulty which remains throughout his Book . 1. To the Reverence shewed to the Holy Ground where God himself appeared by Moses and Joshua , being commanded to pull off their Shoos . I answered , That , ( whatever T. G. thinks of it ) there is some difference to be made between what God hath commanded , and what he hath forbidden ; for in the case of Moses and Ioshua , there was an express Command , but in the case of Image-worship there is as plain a prohibition : The former part he calls a short Descant on the former erroneous Ground , and the latter , a note above Ela. I am glad to see the second Commandment set to Musical Notes among them , for I was afraid it had been quite cast out of their Churches . 2. That the special presence and appearance of God doth sanctifie a place to so high a degree , that we may lawfully testifie our Reverence towards it , but this will not hold for Images , unless God be proved present in them , in the same manner as he appeared to Moses and Ioshua , and yet even then , the Reverence he required was not kissing it , or bowing to it , much less praying to it , but only putting off their shooes . Upon this T. G. being in a Musical vein , sings his Io Paean ; and cryes out of the wonderful force of Truth , that after long standing out makes all her Adversaries submit to her Power . I wish we could see such effects of the Power of Truth ; for it would soon rid us of many Fears and Iealousies . But what is it I have said so much amiss , to gain T. G's good word ? Enough as he thinks to ruin our own Cause and establish theirs . That were indeed confuting him with a Vengeance . But what 's the matter ? wherein have I given up the Cause ? I yield , that the special Presence and appearance of God doth sanctifie a place to so high a degree , that we may lawfully testifie our Reverence towards it . And what then ? Why then saith T. G. all my darts which I have so spitefully thrown in the face of the Images of Christ ( or the Holy Trinity and the Saints ) recoil with double force on my own Head. How with double force ? nay how doth it appear that they recoil at all ? for to the best of my sight they stick fast where they did ; and I do not by my feeling perceive they recoil upon my Head. Well ; but a subtle Logician would ask me , whether this Reverence be absolute or Relative : and he doth not question my answer would be , that it was not to the Ground for it self , but meerly out of a Respect to God. Is this indeed the fatal blow I have given the Cause of our Church , when I expresly mention a Command of God going before it ? and who doubts but we may give a Reverence to places , with respect to God , especially when God requires it , as he did in this case ? And when T. G. hath made the most of this Ceremony of pulling off the Shooes , he will find , that it was of no other signification in the Eastern parts , than having our heads uncovered is with us ; which is the lowest testimony of Respect that may be . Yet this was all which God himself required when he was present after a signal and extraordinary manner : and what is all this , to the consecrating , bowing , kneeling , praying to Images , as they do in the Roman Church ? and this I say and have proved , against an express Command of God ; and that not upon any real , but Imaginary presence of the true object of worship . He that cannot see the difference of these things , hath some Cataracts before his Eyes , which need couching . But still T. G. demands , is this the same Reverence that is due to God , or distinct from it ? I say , it is distinct from it ; then , saith he , Vasquez comes upon you wish his artillery ; for then you express your submission to an inanimate thing , that hath no kind of excellency to deserve it from you . Alas poor T. G ! how doth he argue like a man spent and quite gone ! That which Vasquez saith is , that for a man to use all the acts of adoration to Images which are performed in the Roman Church without respect to the exemplar , were to express our submission to an inanimate thing , which is Idolatry . Where it is to be observed , that he speaks of all the Acts of Worship which in the Church of Rome they give to Images , and which being given to an Image makes it Idolatry , because those Acts are such which do imply a submission to the thing , i. e. they are the highest expressions of adoration ; and those who assert that inferiour worship , do hold it to be internal as well as external , and to be terminated on the Images themselves ; which is the Reason why Vasquez saith it were Idolatry ; But Vasquez was not a man of so shallow an understanding to charge this upon those who declare they put off their shooes or hats , out of no intention or design to worship the Ground or Place , but meerly to express some outward Reverence to a Place on the account of its being Sacred to God. Those who contended for that worship which Vasquez charges with Idolatry , did agree with him in all external acts of adoration to Images ; and went farther than Vasquez thought fit as to the internal ; for they said , both ought to concurr in the worship of Images , and that this inferiour worship was terminated on the Images themselves ( as I have shewed at large in the stare of the Controversie . ) Now saith Vasquez , to assert and practise worship of Images after this manner is Idolatry , for it is expressing our submission to a meer inanimate thing . But do we say , that all acts of worship are to be performed to the Ground that is holy ; or that any one act of worship is to be terminated upon it ; or that any submission of our minds is to be used towards it ? All these we utterly disavow as to the Reverence of Sacred Places , and these things being declared , we yet say there is a Reverence left to be shewed them on the account of their discrimination from other places and separation for sacred uses ; which Reverence is best expressed in the way most common for men to shew Respect by , which was putting off Shooes in the Eastern parts , and of Hats here ; ( of the difference of Reverence and worship , I have spoken before . ) I hope by this time , T. G. sees a little better the force of the argument of Vasquez , and how very far it is from recoiling on my head , because I assert a Reverence to sacred places to have been shewed by Moses and Ioshua on the account of Gods special presence : and so all that insipid Discourse of Idolatry which follows , sneaks away as being ashamed to be brought in to so little purpose here ; but hath been fully handled in the First part . 2. To his Instance of Bowing at the name of Iesus , I answered , that he might as well have instanced in our going to Church at the tolling of a Bell , for as the one only tells us the time when we ought to go to worship God , so the mentioning the name of Iesus doth only put us in mind of him to whom we owe all manner of Reverence , without dishonouring him as the Object of our worship by any Image of him , which can only represent that which is neither the object nor reason of our worship . At this Answer T. G. is inflamed , and when he hath nothing else to say , he endeavours to set me at variance with the Church of England . This runs quite through his Book , and he takes all occasions to set me forth as a close and secret enemy to it , although I appear never so much in its Vindication . If my Adversaries were to be believed ( as I see no great reason they should be ) I must be a very prodigious Author in one respect ; for they represent me as a Friend to that which I write against , viz. Socinianism ; and an enemy to that which I have defended , viz. the Church of England . But wherein is it , that T. G. thinks me such a back-friend to our Church ? in disavowing all Reverence to the Sacred Name of Iesus , which he saith , our Church hath enjoyned , and hath been defended by Fulk , Whitgift , and B. Andrews . I am glad I know my charge , and I do not doubt to clear my self to hold nothing in this or any other matter , but what the Church of England hath declared to be her sense . Witness , as to this point , the Declaration of the Archbishops and Bishops in Convocation : When in time of Divine Service , the Lord Jesus shall be mentioned , due and lowly Reverence shall be done by all Persons present as hath been accustomed ; testifying by these outward ceremonies and gestures , their inward humility , Christian Resolution , and due acknowledgement that the Lord Iesus Christ , the true and Eternal Son of God is the only Saviour of the World. Is this bowing to the very name of Iesus , and worshipping that as they do Images , when the Convocation declares that only a significant Ceremony is intended by it . Arch-B . Whitgift , in the very place cited by him saith , that the Christians used it to signifie their faith in Iesus ; and therefore they used bodily reverence at all times when they heard the name of Iesus , but especially when the Gospel was read . Dr. Fulk , another of his Authors saith , that the place alledged by T. G. to prove it , pertains to the subjection of all Creatures to the Iudgement of Christ ; however , he saith , the ceremony of bowing may be used out of Reverence to his Majesty ; not to the bare name ; and that their Idolatrous worship is unfitly compared with the bowing at the name of Iesus . Bishop Andrews saith , we do not bow to the name , but to the sense ; which answers and clears all the long allegation out of him . Archbishop Laud calls it , the Honour due to the Son of God at the mentioning of his Name , which are almost the very words I used . And Whittington and Meg of Westminster will altogether serve as well for his expression as that used by me . But T. G. need not be so angry at my mentioning the tolling of a bell , when he remembers the Christening of bells among them , and what mighty Power they have after that , and what Reverend God-fathers they have , and what Saints names are given to them ; so that I should rather have thought he would have drawn an argument from the Bells , than have been so disturbed at the naming of them . For all this T. G. fancies a strange Analogy between Words and Pictures , a picture being a word to the Eye , and a word being a Picture to the Ear : which sounds just like Whittington to my ears : and I desire him to consider , that Suarez tells us , that some of their own Divines say , no worship is due to any Name , because they signifie only by imposition , and do not supply the place of the thing represented as Images do : of which opinion , he saith , Soto and Corduba are : and Suarez himself grants , that a name being a transient sound can hardly be apprehended as conjoyned with the Person , or the Person in it , so as to be worshipped together with it ; And one of their latest Ritualists saith , that when the name of Iesus is mentioned they bow to the Crucifix ; which shews that even among them , they do not think the Name of Iesus equal to an Image of Christ. I am now come to his last Instance , viz. bowing towards the Altar ; he would insinuate , as though the Church of England were for giving some kind of worship to the Altar , although under the degree of Divine Worship due to God alone ; and saith , that as the allowing this would render me a true Son of the Church of England , so the allowing the like to the sacred Images of Christ would make me in this point , a perfect Proselyte of the Church of Rome . Which is in effect to say , that the Church of England , in allowing bowing to the Altar , doth give the very same worship to it , which their Church requires to be given to Images ; and that they who do one and not the other , do not attend to the Consequence of their own Actions . I shall therefore shew , 1. That the Church of England doth not allow any worship to be given to the Altar . 2. That the adoration allowed and practised in the Church of England is of a very different Nature from the Worship of Images . 1. That the Church of England doth not allow any Worship to be given to the Altar . For this I appeal to that Canon wherein is contained the Explication of the sense of our Church in this particular . Whereas the Church is the House of God , dedicated to his holy Worship , and therefore ought to mind us , both of the Greatness and Goodness of his Divine Majesty , certain it is that the acknowledgement thereof , not only inwardly in our hearts , but also outwardly with our bodies , must needs be pious in it self , profitable unto us , and edifying unto others . We therefore think it very meet and behooveful , and heartily commend it to all good and well affected People , members of this Church , that they be ready to tender unto the Lord the said acknowledgement , by doing Reverence and obeysance both at their coming in and going out of the said Churches , Chancels , or Chappels , according to the most ancient Custome of the Primitive Church in the purest times , and of this Church also for many years of the Reign of Q. Elizabeth . The reviving therefore of this ancient and laudable custome , we heartily commend to the serious consideration of all good People , NOT WITH ANY INTENTION TO EXHIBITE ANY RELIGIOUS WORSHIP TO THE COMMUNION TABLE , THE EAST OR THE CHURCH , or any thing therein contained in so doing , or to perform the said gesture in the Celebration of the Holy Eucharist , upon any Opinion of the CORPORAL PRESENCE OF THE BODY OF JESUS CHRIST ON THE HOLY TABLE OR IN THE MYSTICAL ELEMENTS , but ONLY for the advancement of Gods Majesty , and to give him ALONE that honour and glory that is due unto him and NO OTHERWISE . And in the practice or omission of this Rite , we desire that the Rule of charity prescribed by the Apostle may be observed , which is , That they which use this Rite despise not them who use it not , and they who use it not , condemn not those that use it . This is the full declaration of the sense of our Church about it , made by those who met in Convocation , and were most zealous for the practice of it . Agreeably to this Archbishop Laud speaks , when this was charged as an innovation ; To this I answer , saith he , First , That God forbid that we should worship any thing but God himself . 2. That if to worship God when we enter into his House , or approach his Altar be an Innovation , it was a very old one , being practised by Jacob , Moses , Hezekiah , &c. And were this Kingdom such , as would allow no holy Table standing in its proper place , yet I would worship God when I came into his House . And afterwards he calls it , doing Reverence to Almighty God , but towards his Altar : and Idolatry it is not to worship God towards his holy Table . Now with us the People did ever understand them fully and apply them to God , and to none but God. From whence it appears that God is looked on as the sole Object of this Act of Worship , and that our Church declares , that it allows no intention of exhibiting any Religious worship to the Communion Table , or East or Church , or any Corporal Presence of Christ. 2. That the adoration allowed and practised in the Church of England , is of a very different nature from the worship of Images . For , ( as I have fully made it appear in the State of the Controversie ) the Church of Rome doth by the Decrees of Councils , require Religious worship to be given to Images ; and that those who assert this inferiour worship do yet declare it to be truly Religious worship , and that the Images themselves are the Object of it : ( whereas our Church declares point-blank the contrary ) nay , that those Persons are looked on by the Generality of Divines in the Roman Church , as suspected at least , if not condemned of Heresie , who practise all the external acts of adoration to Images , but yet do not in their minds look on them as Objects , but only as Occasions of Worship , which make the difference so plain in these two cases , that T. G. himself could not but discern it . But to remove all scruple from mens minds , that suspect this practice to be too near the Idolatrous worship , which we reject in the Roman Church , I shall consider it not only as to its Object ( which is the main thing , and which I have shewed to be the proper Object of worship , viz. God himself , and nothing else ) but as to the nature of the act , and the local circumstance of doing it towards the Altar . 1. As to the nature of the act , so it is declared to be an act of external adoration of God ; which I shall prove from Scripture to be a lawful and proper act of Divine Worship . I might prove it from the general consent of Mankind , who have expressed their Reverence to the Deity by acts of external adoration , from whence I called it a natural act of Reverence , but I rather choose to do it from Scripture ; and that , both before the Law had determined so punctually the matters of Divine Worship , and under the Law by those who had the greatest regard to it ; and under the Gospel , when the spiritual nature of its doctrine would seem to have superseded such external acts of worship . 1. Before the Law , I instance in Abraham's servant ; because Abraham is particularly commended for his care in instructing his Houshold to keep the way of the Lord in opposition to Heathen Idolatry , and this was the Chief Servant of his House , of whom it is said three times in one Chapter , That he bowed his head worshipping the Lord ; the Hebrew words signifie , and he inclined and bowed himself to the Lord ; for the word we translate worship doth properly signifie to bow , and both the Iews and others say , It relates to some external act of the body , whereby we express our inward Reverence or Subjection to another . So it is said of the People of Israel , when they heard that the Lord intended to deliver them out of Egypt , They bowed their heads and worshipped ; when Moses declared the Institution of the Passeover to all the Elders of Israel , it is said again , The People bowed their heads and worshipped . 2. Under the Law ; when they were so strictly forbidden in the same words to bow down or worship any Image or similitude ; yet the outward act of adoration towards God was allowed and practised . So Moses commanded Aaron and the seventy Elders of Israel to bow themselves a far off ; the very same word which is used in the second Commandment . And when God had so severely punished the Israelites for bowing to the Golden Calf ; yet when He appointed the Pillar of Fire for the Symbol of His own presence , it is said , That when all the People saw the Cloudy Pillar stand at the Tabernacle door , they rose up and bowed themselves every man in his Tent-door . When God appeared to Moses , it is said , That he made hast and bowed his head toward the earth and worshipped . And when Moses and Aaron came to the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation , they are said to fall upon their faces . In the time of David , upon his solemn thanksgiving to God it is said , All the Congregation blessed the Lord God of their Fathers , and bowed down their heads , and worshipped the Lord and the King. And in the time of Hezekiah , When they had made an end of offering , the King and all that were present with him bowed their heads and worshipped . 3. Under the Gospel ; we are to observe the difference between the same external act of worship , when it was used towards Christ and toward His Apostles . When the Syrophoenician woman came to our Saviour , in one place it is said , She worshipped Him ; and in another , That she fell at His feet ; but in no place is there the least mention of any check given to her or any others , who after that manner worshipped Christ : But when Cornelius came to S. Peter , and fell down at his feet and worshipped him , he would by no means permit it , but said , Stand up , I my self also am a man : And when S. Iohn fell down at the feet of the Angel , he would not suffer it , but bade him worship God. That which I observe from hence is , that even under the Gospel the external acts of Religious adoration are proper and peculiar to God , so that men are to blame when they give them to any Creature , but no Persons are condemned for giving them to God. And I desire those who scruple the lawfulness of giving to God such external adoration under the Gospel , how they can condemn those for Idolatry , who give it to any Creature , if it be not a thing which doth still belong to God ? But if all the scruple be about the directing this Adoration , one way more than another , I say still it is done in conformity with the Primitive Church , as our Canon declares , and which every one knows , did worship towards the East ; and this at the most is but a local circumstance of an Act of Worship , which I have already shewed to be very different from an Object of it , when I discoursed of the Nature of the Israelites worshipping toward the Ark and the Cherubims . Thus , through the Assistance of God , I have gone through all the material points of T. G's Book , which relate to the General Nature of Idolatry ; and have diligently weighed and considered every thing that looketh like a difficulty in this Controversie about the Worship of Images , and do here sincerely protest , that I have not given any Answer , or delivered any Opinion which is not agreeable not only to the inward sense of my Mind , but to the best of my understanding to the sense of Scripture , and the Primitive Church , and the Church of England . And if the subtilties of T. G. could have satisfied me , or any other Argument I have met with , I would as freely have retracted this Charge of Idolatry , as I ever made it . For I do not love to represent others worse than they are ; but I daily pray to God to make both my self and others better : and therein I know I have the hearty concurrence of all who are truly Good. FINIS . Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A61535-e160 2 Cor. 7.5 . Concil . Tolet. 3. 〈…〉 Marian. de rebus Hisp. l. 5. c. 14 , 15. Marian. l. 6. c. 1. Greg. Registr . l. 1. ep . 41. Notes for div A61535-e4590 §. 1. T. G. p. 203. p. 64. p. 203. P. 39 p. 63. p. 67. p. 99. p. 103. p. 349. p. 348. p. 350. p. 27. §. 2. Act. 17.23 . v. 24. v. 28. p. 348.349.352 . v. 29. Euseb. Praep. Evang. l. 13. c. 12. Minuc . Felix in Octav. p. 19. Orig. c. Cels. l. 5. Orig. c. Cels. l. 4. p. 196. ed. Cant. Orig. c. Cels. l. 1. p. 19. &c. Voss. de Idolol . l. 1. c. 37. Rom. 1.18 . v. 19. v. 20. v. 21. v. 23. §. 3. p. 37.203 . Th. Aquin. c. Gent. l. 1. c. 42. in fin . Id. l. 3. c. 120. Aquin. Sum. p. 3. q. 25. art . 3. Possev . Biblioth . l. 9. c. 25. Thom. à Iesu de Convers . gent. l. 11. c. 2. Cajet . in Th. p. 3. q. 25. art 3. In Aq. 2.2 . q. 94. art . 4. Mart. Peres . de divin . trad . part . 3. p. 120. Ferus in Act. 17. Kirch . Oedip . Aegy. synt . 3. c. 1. c. 2. Petav. dogm . The. To. 1. c. 1. §. 9. Max. Tyr. dissert . 1 ▪ Oros. l. 6. c. 1. Petav. l. 1. c. 3. §. 3. Aug. c. Faust. l. 20 c. 10. c. 9. Ph. Faber Faven . advers . Atheos disp . 1. c. 2. n. 27. Raim . Bregan . Theolog . Gentil . Mutius Pansa de Osculo Ethnicae & Christianae Philoso . Liv. Galant . Christianae philosoph . cum Platon . comparat . Paul. Benii Eugub . Platon . & Aristot . Theolog . Aug. Steuch . Eugub . de perenni Philo. §. 4. T. G. p. 350. Iustin. Martyr . paraen . p. 4. ed. Paris . p. 6. p. 16. p. 18. p. 19. p. 22. p. 27. Baron . A. 164. n. 14. Euseb. hist. l. 4. c. 17 p. 44. p. 68. p. 66. p. 57. p. 44. p. 55. p. 44. p. 65. p. 160. §. 5. Iul. Capit. vit . Anton. Baron . A. 164. n. 7 , 8 , 9. Anton. l. 6. §. 30. l. 2 , 3. l. 5.33 . l. 5.21 . l. 6.5.42 . l. 5.32 . l. 4.40 . l. 7.9 . l. 9.4 . §. 6. De Aruspic . Resp. c. 9. Euseb. Chronic. p. 118. Varro de Ling. Lat. l. 4. Plutarch . in Numa . Dionys. Halicarn . Antiq. Rom. l. 2. Liv. hist. l. 1. c. 19. Aug. de Civ . Dei , l. 4. c. 31. Dionys. l. 3. Tacit. hist. l. 3. c. 72. Liv. l. 1. c. 53. Varro de Ling. lat . l. 5. Plaut . Capt. Act. 3. sc. 4. Liv. l. 2. Senec. Consol . ad Marciam . Liv. l. 5. c. 50. Ovid. Fast. l. 2. Cic. in Verr. 4. c. 58. Tacit. hist. 3.72 . Plin. Panegyr . Liv. l. 4. c. 32. l. 21. c. 63. Plin. hist. l. 15.30 . Sen. ad Helv. c. 10. A. Gel. l. 7. c. 1. Lactant. l. 1. c. 11. Isidor . Origin . l. 15. c. 2. Dionys. hist. l. 4. Strabo . l. 5. Liv. l. 21. c. 63.22 . c. 1.38 . c. 44.41 . c. 16.42 . c. 35.45 . c. 3.44 . c. 19. Liv. l. 7. Liv. l. 1. c. 55. Marlian . Topogr . Romae , l. 2. c. 8. Dionys. Halicarn . Antiq. Rom. l. 2. p. 90. Arnob. c. gent. l. 1. p. 19. Lact. l. 1. c. 10. c. 11. Aug. de Civit. Dei , l. 4. c. 9. Cicer. de Nat. Deor. l. 2. c. 1. De Finib . Bon. & Mal. l. 3. c. 20. Pro Domo sua . c. 57. De Nat. Deor. l. 2. c. 25. Seneca de Benefic . l. 4. c. 7. Senec. Natur . Quaest. l. 2. c. 45. Virg. Georg. 2.325 . Aen. 1.64.2.689.3.251.4.25.6.592.7.141.770 . &c. Macrob. Saturn . l. 7. c. 1. Aug. de Civ . Dei , l. 7. c. 9. c. 11. Tacit. hist. l. 4. c. 84. Liv. l. 8. c. 6. Tertul. ad● . Scap. c. 4. Baron . An. 176. n. 24. Dio Chrysostom . orat . 36. p. 447. Liv. l. 1. c. 12. Dionys. Halic . l. 2. Su●ton . Caesar . c 79. Plutarch . in Caes. Dio. l. 44. Plut. in Camill. Liv. l. 8. c 6. Plaut . Poenul , Act. 5. sc. 3. sc. 4. Capt. Act. 4. sc. 1. Act. 5. sc. 2. Turneb . Advers . l. 11. c. 17. Amphit . sc. 1. Mostel . Act. 2. sc. 1. Curcul . c. 1. Virgil - Aen. 2.689 . Aen. 5.687 . Aen. 9.625 . Aen. 10.18 . Sili . Ital. l. 4. Pers. Satyr . 3. Valer. Max. Praef. Cic. Divin . in Q. Caecil . Pro domo sua c. 57. Pro Milon . c. 31. Tacit. hist. l. 4. c. 58. Inscript . Antiq. 23.12 . Cicer. in Verr. l. 4. c. 29. Inscrip Ant. 11.3 , 4 , 5. 11.1 , 2. Horat. Od. 1. l. 3. 20.1 . 10.6 . 17.9 . 1064.11 . 2.11 . De Nat. Deor . l. 3. c. 2. De Leg. l. 2. c. 12. De Arusp. Res. c. 9. Plin. ep . l. 9. c. 8. Philip. 13.5 . de Div. l. 1. c. 34. 2. c. 34. c. 37. Arrian . l. 2. c. 7. Card. Bona. Rerum Liturgic . l. 2. c. 4. §. 7. Athenag . legat . pro Christ. p. 6. ed. Iustin. p. 7. p. 14. Of the Laws of the Church , ch . 25. Tolet. Sum. Casuum . l. 4 c. 14. n 2. Cyril . c. Iul. l. 2. p. 60. Cyril . c. Iulian . l. 6. p. 193. l. 9. p. 311. Aquin. 2.2 . qu. 94. art . 2. Baron . A , 165. n. 5. Euseb. l. 7. c. 11. p. 15. p. 17. p. 18. p. 20. p. 22. p. 23. p. 24. §. 8. Protrept . p. 42. Ed. Paris . p. 45. p. 46. p. 590. p. 591. p. 597. p. 597. p. 598. p. 601. p. 603. p. 604. p. 606. p. 604. Cyril . c. Iul. l. 1. p. 609. p. 611. p. 612. §. 9. Orig. c. Cels. l. 5. p. 247. l. 6. p. 320. l. 4. p. 200. l. 8. p. 392. p. 421. p. 419. p. 421. p. 381. l. 1. p. 10. l. 3. p. 158. l. 8. p. 414. p. 415. l. 7. p. 275. l. 3. p. 140. l. 4. p. 181. l. 5. p. 260. l. 6. p. 276. p. 280. p. 285. p. 287. l. 7. p. 360. p. 363. §. 10. S. Cyril . Alex. c. Iul. l. 1. p. 16. p. 26. p. 28. p. 30. Theod. de cur . Graec. serm . 2. Cyril . l. 2. p. 52. p. 58. p. 59. p. 65. Cyril . l. 2. p. 44. l. 4. p. 115. p. 121. p. 122. p. 123. l. 5. p. 155. Clem. Recogn . l. 5. n. 19. §. 11. Tertul. Apolog . c. 17. De Testim . animae . Ad Scap. c. 4. Minut. Fel. in Octav. p. 19. p. 21. Arnob. c. gent. l. 2. p. 67. l. 3. p. 101. Lact. l. 1. §. 3. c. 5 , 6 , &c. S. Aug. de liv . Dei. l. 4. c. 9. De Consens . Evang. l. 1. c. 22. c. 23. De Civ . Dei l. 7. c. 9. c. 11. c. 13. T. G. p. 369. De Civ . Dei. l. 4. c. 11. c. 24. De Civ . Dei l. 4. c. 27 , 30 , 31. l. 6. c. 5 , 6 , 7. c. 10. T.G. p. 368. De Civ . Dei l. 4. c. 32. l. 6. c. 1. l. 8. c. 9. c. 10. c. 11. c. 22. c. 13 , 22. l. 9. c. 1. c. 23. l. 10. c. 1. S. Aug. ep . 43. Paul. Oros. hist. l. 6. c. 1. §. 12. Euseb. Praep. Evang . l. 1. c. 6. c. 9. c. 10. S. Cyrill . c. Iulian. l. 6. p. 205. Maimon . More Nevoch . l. 3. c. 29. Not. in Specim . Histor. Arab. p. 143. p. 140. Not. in Spec. p. 107. Abr. Ecchellens . Histor. Arab. c. 6. in Chron. Orient . c. 9. Gol. not . in Alferg . p. 20. p. 21. p. 40. p. 24. Lords descript . of the Persees , p. 5. p. 8. p. 44. Varen . de divers . gent. Relig . p. 269. Voyage des Indes du Sr. Mandelslo . l. 1. p. 215. Schickard . Tarich . p. 130. §. 13. Xaver . epist. Indic . p. 11. Tursell . vit . Xaver . l. 2.6.9 . Iarric . Rer. Indic . c. 81. Bartoli de vitâ & gest . Xaverii . l. 1. n. 30 , 31. Linda descript . Orbis , p. 1 110. Voyage des Indes du Sr. Mandelslo , l. 1. p. 201. Lords descript . of the Banian Religion , p. 60. Berniers Memoires Tom. 3. p. 157. Linda , p. 1108. Les voyages & observat . du Sieur de la Boullaye-le-Gouz , c. 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18. Voyage des Indes du Sr. Mandelslo , l. 1. p. 202 , 204. Lords descript . of Banyans , c. 14. Kirch . China illustr . l. 3. c. 4. Marini Rolat . du Royaume de Tunquin . c. 9. p. 194. Bartoli de vit . Xaver . l. 3. n. 5. Trigaut . de exped . Christianâ apud Sinas , l. 1. c. 10. Bartoli Histor . Asiat . l. 1. n. 55. Histor. Asiatic . l. 1. n. 75. Semedo Hist. of China , p. 1. c. 18. Bartoli de vita & gestis Fran. Xaverii , l. 3. n. 5 , 6. Kircher . China illustr . part . 2. c. 1. Voyage du Greuber . p. 18. Kirch . China , p. 2. c. 4. §. 14. Epistolae Indic . Antw. 1605. p. 839. Viaggi di Pietro Della Valle parte 3. Letter 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 10. Bernier Memoires , Tom. 3. p. 171. p. 178. Trigaut . de exp . apud Sinas , l. 1. c. 10. Possevine Biblioth . l. 10. c. 2. c. 5. ● . 6. §. 15. Martin . praefat . Atlant . Sinic . p. 7. Voyage du Greuber , p. 6. Semedo hist. of Chinach . 18. Trigaut . de Christ. exped . apud Sinas , l. 1. c. 10. Bartoli Asiat . hist. l. 1. n. 73. T. G. p. 92. Bartoli hist. Asi. l. 1. n. 70. Thom. Hurtado Resolutiones de vero Martyrio Fidei , p. 487. Martin . hist. Sinic . l. 4. p. 151. Bartoli hist. Asiat . l. 1. n. 54. Trigaut . l. 1. c. 10. §. 16. Ioh. à Plano Carpini Libellus historicus de Tartaris , c. 3. Paul. Venel . de Reg. orient . l. 1. c. 58. l. 3. c. 47. Specul . hist. l. 29. c. 72 , 74. Gul. de Rubruquis Itiner . c. 43. c. 42. c. 27. Haithon . Armen . hist. Orient . c. 48. Greg. Abulpharai . hist. Dynast . p. 285. p. 290. Haithon . hist. Orient . c. 16. Iac. Navarch . Epist. Asiatic . p. 344. Niceph. Callisth . l. 18. c. 30. Ioseph . Acosta Natural and Moral History of the Indies , l. 5. c. 8. De procuranda Indorum salute , l. 5. c. 10. Euseb. Nieremb . hist. Natur. l. 8. c. 13. August . de Zárate , l. 2. Anton. de Calancha apud Ioach . Brul . hist. Per●●an . l. 2. c. 9. Le Commentaire Royal Des Ynca 's liv . 2. c. 1. c. 2. c. 3. p. 146. l. 3. c. 20. c. 21. l. 6. c. 30. c. 3. l. 9. c. 9. l. 9. c. 4. Acosta l. 5. c. 4. Hariots descript . of Virgin. Purchas Pilgr . l. 8. c. 6. Creux . hist. Canad . l. 1. p. 78. p. 86. Leo Afric . descrip . Afric . l. 1. Varen . de divers . gent. Relig. p. 304. Mandelslo Voyage l. 3. Barros Dec. 1. l. 10. c. 1. Linda descript . Orbis , p. 1149. Archontolog . Cosmic . de Mosco . §. 44. Briet . Geog. To. 2. l. 6. c. 2. Indiae vera descript . p. 118. Piment . in Ep. Ind. Ioseph . Indi Navig . c. 3. Lud. Vartom . Navig . l. 5. c. 21. Iarric . Rerum Indic . l. 1. c. 4. Linda . p. 1145. Linschot . Navig . c. 33. Schoutens descript . of Siam . p. 141. Relation du voyage de Mons. l' Eveque de Beryte , c. 13. p. 170. Campanel . Atheism . triumph . c. 11. p. 155. Edda Islandorum edita à Resenio Hauniae . A. D. 1665. Mytholog . 304. Olai Magni hist. l. 3. c. 3. Steph. Stephan . Comment . in Sax. Gr. l. 6. Ola. Worm . Mon. Dan. l. 1. c. 4. Alb. Crant . Vandal . l. 1. Ioh. Magn. hist. Goth. l. 1. c. 8. Schesser . Lappon . c. 7. p. 61. c. 10. Ioh. Lasicius de Samogit . p. 46. Ioh. Meletii ep . de Relig. Boruss . §. 17. Athanas. c. Arian . orat . 1. p. 286. ed. Par. p. 296. p. 297. Orat. 3. p. 385. p. 387. p. 394. Orat. 4. p. ●64 . Baron . Ann. To. 1. in Fine . Tom. 2. A ▪ 306. in Fin. Athan. or . 4. p. 468. p. 469. Epist. ad Adelph . p. 157 , 158 , 160 , 161. Greg. Nazian . orat . 40. p. 669. Greg. Nyssen . in laud. Basil. Tom. 3. p. 484. De Fide ad simpl . Tom. 3. p. 38. Greg. Nyssen . c. Eunom . orat . 2. p. 450. p. 437.453 . Orat. 4. p. 563. p. 443. S. Basil. homil . 27. Sabel . & Ari. C. Eunom . l. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Epiph. haeres . 64. n. 8. Haeres . 69. n. 31. n. 36. Ancor . n. 50. Haeres . 78. n. 23. Haeres . 79. n. 4. 78. n. 23. 79. n. 5. n. 4. 78. n. 24. 79. n. 4. 78. n. 23. 79. n. 1. 78. n. 23. 79. n. 7 , 9. S. Cyril . Alex. Thesaur . assert . 15. p. 149. Assert . 32. p. 307. p. 314. De Incarn . unigenit . p. 700. Concil . Ephes. Cyril . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 §. 31. Comment . in Evang. Ioh. l. 2. p. 217. l. 10. p. 850. Dialog . 4. de Trinit . p. 512. p. 528 , 529. Dial. 5. p. 566. Theodor. de haeret . fab . l. 5. c. 3. v. Theod. in Exod. q. 37. in Rom. 1.24 . S. Chrysost. Tom. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 955. S. Ambros. de Fide , l. 1. c. 7. ad Grat. De Fide c. Arian . c. 2. De Incarn . Sacr. c. 8. S. Aug. c. Sermon . Arian . c. 29. c. Max. l. 1. l. 3. c. 4. Ep. 66. §. 1. Aquin. 2.2 . q. 102. art . 2. q. 103. art . 1. Vasquez in 3. part . Tho. disp . 93. c. 1. Suarez . in 3. part . disp . 51. q. 25. sect . 1. Tanner . Theolog . Scholast . Disp. 5. de Rel. q. 2. dub . 1. n. 27. Pujol . de sacro adorat . cultu disp . 1. sect . 1. Gamache . Comment . in 3. p. Th. q. 25. de Adorat . Ysambert . in 3. part . Thom. ad . q. 25. Lugo de mysterio Incarn . disp . 33. n. 2. Arriaga in 3. Th. disp . 50. sect . 1. Bellarm. de sanct . beatit . l. 1. c. 12. §. 2. T.G. p. 178. p. 288. T.G. p. 182. Ceremon . Rom. l. 1. sect . 6. §. 3. De Invent. l. 2. c. 53. Aqu. 2.2 . q. 81. art . 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5. Cajet . Comment . in Aq. 2.2 . q. 81. art . 3. Aq. 2.2 . q. 85. art . 2. Aqu. c. Gentes c. 120. Aq. 2.2 . q. 94. art . 2. art . 3. Suarez in 3. p. q. 25. disp . 51. sect . 4. §. 4. Mat. 4.10 ▪ Tanner . To. 3. disp . 5. de Rel. q. 2 dub . 1. n. 19. Vasquez in 3. p. Thom. disp . 110. ● . 5. disp . 94. c. 1. Bellarm. de sanct . beatit . l. 1. c. 14. Arriag . in 3. p. Th. disp . 54. sect . 1. n. 5. Pujol de cultu Adorat . disp . 2. sect . 3. in fin . Aq. 2.2 . q. 84. art . 1. Tanner . ubi supra . Cajet . in Aq. Suarez in 3. p. disp . 52. sect . 3. Vasquez . disp . 97. c. 3. Pujol . ib. De sanct . beat . l. 1. c. 12. Arriag . ad 3. p. disp . 51. sect . 6. in sine . Suarez in 3. p. quest . 51. sect . 4. quest . 52. sect . 3. T.G. p. 393. Disput. 52. sect . 2. Cajet . in 2.2 . q. 86. art . 4. Lugo de Myst. Incarn . disp . 33. sect . 1. n. 22 , &c. §. 5. Arrian de exped . Alex. l. 4. Curt. l. 8. Plutarch vit . Artaxerx . Aelian . Var. hist. l. 1. c. 21. Iustin. l. 5. Isocrat . Panegyr . Herod . l. 7. Val. Max. 6. c. 3. l Plutarch in Themist . T.G. p. 190. Cajet . in Aq. 2.2 . qu. 103. art . 3. T. G. p. 88 , 89. §. 7. Maimon . de Idol . c. 3. sect . 2 , 3 , 4 , 5. Exod. 22.20 . Aquin. 2.2 . q. 85. art . 2. T.G. p. 389. p. 395. Bona de rebus Liturg. l. 2. c. 9. Bona Append . p. 545. Bellarm. de cultu sanct . l. 3. c. 4. Aqu. 2.2 . qu. 85. art . 1. §. 8. Mat. 4.10 . Concil . Nicen . 2. Leonard Ruben . de Idolol . l. 2. c. 15. n. 1. Bellar. de sanct . Beatit . l. 1. c. 14 Aq. 2.2 . q. 84. art . 1 , 2. Ysambert . in 3. part . Thom. ad q. 25. disp . 1. art . 4. Damascen . orat . 3. p. 775. Synod . 7. Act. 4. Vasq. in 3. p. disp . 93. c. 4. Aug. de Civit . Dei. l. 10. c. 19 Suarez ad 3. p. Th. q. 25 disp . 51. sect . 4. Vasquez ad 3. p. disp . 93. q. 25. art . 5. Ysambert . ad 3. p. q. 25. desp . 1. art . 4. in fine . Tanner . ad 3. p. disp . 5. de Relig. q. 3. dub . 1. n. 8. T.G. p. 391. Arriaga in 3. p. Thom. Disp. 50. sect . 4. n. 45. Psal. 95.6 . Aq. 2.2 . q. 84. art . 1. Athanas. orat . 4. c. Arrian . p. 467. Exod. 3.5 . Iosh. 5.14 . Exod. 23.21 , 22 , 23. 33.2 , 14. Petav. de Trinit . l. 8. c. 2. §. 9. Innocent . 3. de Myst. Missae l. 3. c. 11. Durand . Ration . divin . offic . l. 8. c. ult . Bellarm. de sanct . Beatit . l. 1. c. 12. Bona de reb . Liturg. l. 1. c. 19. Bellarm. de cultusanctorum l. 2. c. 4 Isidor . Origin . l. 15. c. 4. Turneb . Advers . l. 19. c. 5. Varro de Ling. Lat. l. 6. A. Gell. l. 14. c. 7. Isid. Orig. l. 15. c. 4. Mat. 21.13 Mark 11.17 . Luk. 19.46 Trigaut . Exped . Sin. l. 5. c. 15. S. Basil. ep . ad Caesariens . ed. Basil. p. 361 Ambros. desp . sancto . l. 3. c. 13. S. Syril . Thesaur . sid . l. 34. p. 357. S. August . ep . 66. c. Sermon . Arrian . c. 20.29 . c. Maxim. l. 1. c. 11. l. 2. c. 11. l. 3. c. 3. Petav. de Trinit . l. 2. c. 16. n. 11. §. 10. T. G. p. 90. Exod. 30.8.10 . 2 King. 18.4 . Bellarm. de imag . sanct . l. 2. c. 17. Paul. Maria Quarti Comment . in Rubric Missal . part . 2. tit . 4. sect . 1. dub . 2. Catharin . de cultu & adorat . imaginum . p. 126. Sander . de honorat . imaginum adorat . l. 2. p. 138. Alan . Copi Dialog . 5. p. 662. Vasquez in 3. p. disp . 104. art . 3. c. 5. T.G. p. 428. Bellarm. de sanct . beat . l. 1. c. 13. Ezek. 8.9 , 10 , 11. §. 11. Luk. 19.48 . T.G. p. 288. Bellarm. de Sanct. Beatit . l. 1. c. 19 , 20. Perron Replic . l. 5. p. 981. Suarez in 3. p. Th. fo . 2. disp . 42. sect . 1. de orat . l. 1. c. 10. Deut. 5.27 . Reuchlin . de arte Cabalist . l. 3. Vorstius in Maim . de Fund . legis p. 16 , 17. Abarb. de capite fidei c. 12. ad dub . 2. Gen. 24.7 . Athanas. c. Arrian orat . 4. p. 464. Cyrill . thesaur . assert . 20. p. 209. S. Hier. in Proverb . 2. Maimon . ap . Abrav . p. 7. Abrav . de capite fidei c. 12. p. 43. Maim . More Nevoch . l. 1. c. 36. Veri Cultûs unitas , &c. Auct . L.S. Lond. 1643. §. 12. Aq. 2.2 . q. 88.5 . Bellarm. de cultu sanct . l. 2. c. 9. Cajet . in Aq. ib. De sanct . beat . l. 1. c. 20. §. 13. August . de consens . Evangel . l. 1. c. 18. Orig. c. Cels. l. 8. p. 384. Hilar. de Trinit . l. 5. p. 54. Chrysost. hom . 60. ad pop . Antioch . 1 Cor. 10.7.14 . 1 S. John 5.21 . §. 14. T.G. p. 28 , 29. ● 323. T.G. p. 24 , &c. p. 24 , 25 , 26. P. 29. §. 15. Epiphan . haer . 64. Baron . A. 302. n. 90. Bellar. de R. Pont. l. 4. c. 8. B●●on . not . in Martyrol . Rom. Decemb. 25. T. G. p. 420. De Civit. Dei , l. 6. c. 20. De Verae Relig. c. 5. Aq. 2.2 . q. 94. art . 2. Greg. de Valent. de Idolol . l. 1. c. 1. Tanner . to . 3. disp . 5. q. 7. dub . 1. T. G. p. 99. Cicero de Divin . l. 2. c. 41. Bellarm , de' Sanct. Beat. l. 1. c. 20. §. 16. T. G. p. 353. P. 355. P. 386. Suarez de Virtut . Relig . To. 2. l. 1. c. 3. Gul. Paris . Rhet. Div. c. 2. §. 17. T.G. p. 334. T.G. p. 399. p. 407. T.G. p. 407. Renat . Rapini Odarum liber p. 46. Paris . 1670. §. 18. Franc. Horant . Loc. Catholic . l. 3. p. 127. Ed. Ven. Cop. Dialog . 3. Martin . Peres . Ayal . de Tradit . part . 3. p. 105. T.G. p. 399. Lud. Viv. in Aug. de Civ . Dei l. 8. c. 27. T.G. p. 436. Polyd. Virg. de Invent. Rer. l. 6. c. 1 1. c. 13. Cassand . consuit . art . 21. Erasm. Eccles . l. 2. §. 19. Orig. c. Cels. l. 1. p. 10. L. 8. p. 416. L. 5. p. 233. P. 238. T.G. p. 361. Ricard . de Laud. Mariae l. 2. p. 2. Euseb. hist. Eccles. l. 4. c. 15. T.G. p. 340. T.G. p. 341 , 342. p. 347. T.G. p. 341. T.G. p. 348. Plin. l. 10. ep . 97. Greg. Naz. orat . 1. in Iul. Iac. Gothofred . Iulian orat . p. 66. Cod. Theodos . 15. tit . 4. l. 1. §. 20. S. Cyrill . c. Iulian. l. 6. p. 203. c. Iul. l. 10. p. 336. p. 338. L. 4. p. 124. §. 21. T.G. p. 431. Aug. de ver . Rel. c. 55. Tract . 23. in Evang. Ioh. De quantit . an . c. 34. Aug. ep . 45. De Civ . Dei l. 9.23 . L. 10. c. 1. c. 4. De ver . Rel. c. 55. Mart. Peres . de trad . p. 3. cons. 7. Q. in Exod. 61. T.G. p. 386. Cicer. Verr. 6. In Catil . Plin. hist. nat . l. 28. c. 2. Macrob. Saturn . l. 1. c. 9. Serv. in Aeneid . 7. Arnob. c. gent. l. 3. De Civ . Dei , l. 19. T.G. p. 431. C. Faust. Manich. l. 20. c. 21. De Civit. Dei , l. 22. c. 10. Forbs considerat . Mod. p. 317. T.G. p. 448. Aug. serm . de Temp. 237. De divers . serm . 48. Ambr. l. 5. epist. 33. Iust. Apol. 2. p. 98. Concil . Laodic . c. 19. Constit. Apost . l. 2. c. 57. L. 8. c. 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12. Dionys. Hierarch . c. 3. Sect. 6. Concil . Nicen . c. 11 , 12 , 13. T.G. p. 442. Bona de rebus Liturg. l. 1. c. 16. Chrys. hom . 79. ad pop . Antioch . Aug. de ser. Dominî in Monte l. 2. c. 12. De verb. Dom. in Evang. secundum Luc. ser. 28. Aug. ep . 107. Aug. Retract . l. 2. c. 11. Ep. 59. Codex Eccles . Afric . c. 106. Tertull. de orat . c. 10. c. 14. de exhort . cast . c. 11. In Evang. Ioh. tract . 84. Notes for div A61535-e95610 §. 1. Disc. of Idol . ch . 1. sect . 7. Acts 17.24 , 25 , 29. Rom. 1.19 v. 21. v. 23. v. 18 , 21. Trigant . de Christ. Exped . apud Sinas l. 5. c. 16. p. 588 Ch. 1. Sect. 8. Clem. Strom. 5. p. 559. Orig. c. Cels. l. 7. p. 375. Ch. 1. Sect. 6. §. 2. T.G. p. 96. Thucydid . l. 6. Ioh. Lorin . in Act. Ap. c. 17. v. 29. Serv. in 4. Aen. Corn. à Lap. in loc . Est. in difficil . loc . ad loc . Cicer. de Nat. Deor. l. 1. Lactant. de Ira Dei , c. 4. Epiph. haet . 70. Aug. de haet . c. 50. Neceph . hist. l. 13. c. 12. Pamel . de Paradox . Tertull. c. 15. Petav. dogm . Theol . To. 1. l. 2. c. 1. sect . 7. §. 3. Petav. i● . sect . 9. Tertull. de resur . carn . c. 6. Aug. Steuc . Eugub . Cosmop . p. 46. T. G. p. 75. T.G. p. 348. p. 390. Cajet . in loc . Lorin . in loc . Aug. 1. c. Cresc . c. 29. in ep . ad Rom. c. 1. Isid. Pelus . l. 3. ep . 346. Ioh. Ferus in Act. 17. p. 203. Corn. à Lap. in Act. 17.23 . 1 Thess. 1.9 . T. G. p. 97. Horae secundum usum Roman . in Litaniis . §. 4. Cajet . in loc . Vasquez in loc . Esti . in loc . Bed. in loc . Orig. c. Cels. l. 6. p. 277. §. 5. Herod . Melp . p. 276 Solin . Polyhist . Clem. Alex. in Prot. p. 29 , 43. Arnob. l. 6. Am. Marcell . l. 31. Iust. l. 43. Liv. l. 29. Claud. de Raptu Proserp . Max Tyr. diss . 38. Suid. in ver . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euthym. in Saracen . Sylburgii , p. 15. Pocock not . ad spec . Histor. Arab . p. 119. p. 9● , 92. p. 99. Max. Tyr. ib. Paus. Laconic . p. 103. ed. Sylburg . Achaic . p. 228. Paus. Boeot . p. 300. p. 302. p. 311. Hesych . v. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Harpocr . p. 5. Suid. in v. Steph. v. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cambden in Brit. p. 570. Ola. Worm . Monum . Danic . Viaggi . p. 3. Lett. 1. s. 15. p. 107. p. 116. lett . 6. n. 17. p. 382. T.G. p. 48 , 49. p. 61. Herod . l. 5. p. 563. Herod . l. 1. sect . 35. Viaggi p. 108. p. 46. Id. p. 242. Lamprid. vit . Anton. Heliogab . Caroli Putini Numismata p. 331. Tristan Comment . histor . p. 324. Salmas . in Histor. Aug. Script . p. 181. Euseb. Praep. Ev. l. 1. c. 10. Pocock . not . ad Specim . p. 89. Hotting . hist. Orient . l. 1. c. 7. p. 231 , 232 , 233. Vinc. Bellovac . spec . Histor. l. 23. c. 60. Scal. de Emend . Temp. l. 5. ● . 519. Maim . de Idol . c. 3. sect . 7. Pocock . Not. p. 316. Elias in Thisbi p. 106. Buxtorf . Lex . Talmud . in v. Markolis . Scalig. de Emend . Templ . l. 2. & 5. Pocock . not . in spec . p. 315. Maim . de Idol . c. 3. sect . 7. Damasc. de haeres . p. 941. p. 942. Pocock . not . in spec . p. 120. Scallg . not . in Fragm . Vet. p. 39. Id. in Euseb . Chron. n. 2050. Grot. in Gen. 2818. Vossius , Selden . aliíque . Bochart . Canaan . l. 2. c. 2. Clem. Alex. Str. l. 7. Minut. Felix . p. 2. Arnob. l. 1. p. 22. Apul. Florid . l. 1. Theophrast . char . de Superstit . Aug. de Civ . Dei l. 16. c. 38. Phot. Cod. 242. p. 1047. Max. Tyr. diss . 38. Tristan . Comment . histor . Tom. 2. p. 316. Sueton. in Vespas . c. 9. Plut. de frat . amore p. 478. Eustath . ad Iliad . ● . Tacit. de Morib . Germ. c. 9. T. G. p. 75. §. 6. Plin. l. 12. c. 1. Quint. l. 10. Curt. l. 8. Codex Afric . c. 84. Capit. Caroli l. 1. tit . c. 4. l. 7. tit . 236. Leg. Longobard . l. 2. tit . 38. n. 1. Canis . Antiq . Lect. To. 4. p. 421. Serrar . Rer. Mog . l. 3. not . 19. Agath . histor . l. 1. p. 18. S. Aug. Dom. 21. post Trin. ser. 2. Concil . To let . 12. c. 11. Conc. Arelot . 2. c. 23. Conc. Bracar . 3. c. 22. Annales Ecclesiast . Franc. A. D. 566. n. 51. Synod . Autissiod . A. D. 586. c. 3. Concil . Nanuet . A. D. 656. c. 20. Annales Eccles. Franc. A. D. 659. n. 36. Burchard . l. 10. c. 9 , 10 , 32. Regino de Eccles. discipl . l. 1. c. 300. l. 2. c. 5. n. 43. c. 3●8 . Dio Chrysostom . orat . 12. Acosta Natur . & Moral History of the Indies l. 5. c. 5. §. 7. T. G. p. 48. S. Hieron . vit . Pauli . p. 238. ed. Froben . Philostorg . hist. l. 3. c. 2. §. 8. De Nar. Deor. ● 1. c. 27. C. 29. De Nat. Deor. l. 3. c. 1. Max. Tyr. diss . 38. T.G. p. 17. Iulian. oper . p. 539. Gennad . de dogm . Eccles . c. 4. p. 537. Aug. de Civ . Dei , l. 7. c. 5. Euseb. Praep. Evang . l. 3. c. 7. Dio Chrysost . Orat. 12. p. 199. p. 206. p. 207. p. 209. p. 210. p. 211. Macrob. in Somn. Scipion . l. 1. c. 2. Euseb. Praep. Evang . l. 3. c. 11. Montanus . p. 279. Alex. Geraldini Itinerar . l. 4. p. 68. l. 11. p. 171. l. 10. p. 168. l. 8. p. 131. T.G. p. 49. §. 9. Clem. Strom. 9. p. 559. p. 584. Str. 1. p. 304. Protrept . p. 46. T. G. p. 74. p. 96. Iustin. Martyr . Apol. 2. p. 57. Athenag . p. 14. p. 16. Orig. c. Cels. l. 2. p. 91. l. 5. p. 255. l. 3. p. 120. l. 5. p. 375. p. 376. p. 374. Lact. l. 2 , c. 2. c. 18. Tertul. Apol. Minuc . Octav. Arnob. l. 6. Clem. Protrept . p. 34. Hierom. in c. 16. Ezek. c. 4. prope fin . Aug. ep . 119. c. 11. Euseb. Praep. Evang. l. 3. c. 10. S. Aug. de Civ . Dei l. 7. c. 5. L. 4. c. 31. §. 10. Clem. Alex. Str. 5. p. 559. Strom. 6. p. 682. P. 688. Strom. 3. p. 441. Orig. c. Cel. l. 7. p. 375. Symmach . Ep. l. 11. Ep. 54. Ambros. c. relat . Symmac . 2. §. 11. Plut. advers . Colot . Athen. l. 4. c. 27. Cicer. de Nat. Deor. l. 1. c. 25. Lescaloper . ad Cicer. de Nat. Deor. p. 40. Plut. de Placit . l. 1. c. 3. De Civit. Dei l. 8. c. 2. Simplic . in Phys. Aristot. l. 1. p. 33. ed. Aldi . Aeneid . 6. v. 724 , &c. Euseb. de Praep. Evang. l. 13 c. 13. Theodoret. de cut . Graec. serm . 3. Clem. Alex. Str. 5. Xenoph. Mem. 4. Lescaloper . ad Cic. de N.D. p. 55. De Aristot. Theologia , p. 184 , &c. Du-Vall . Synops. Analyt . Doctr. Peripat . ad Metaphyl . l. 14. c. 7. Cicer. Tuscul . 1. Lact. l. 1. c. 5. Aug. de Civ . Dei l. 22. c. 20. §. 12. T.G. p. 99. Bessarion advers . caluminat . Platonis . l. 2. c. 3. l. 3. c. 5. l. 3. c. 4. l. 2. c. 4. l. 3. c. 6. c. 7. c. 8. Aug. Steuch . Eugub . de perenni Philos. l. 5. c. 1. c. 2. c. 3. c. 5. Plato . Epinomis p. 989. ed. Serran . c. 6. c. 11. c. 12. Platon . & Arist. Theolog . Decad . 2. l. 2. p. 213. p. 217. p. 219. p. 220. Comment . in Cic. de Nat. D. p. 51. §. 13. Campan . Triump . Atheism . c. 11. n. 18. T. G. p. 98. Ficin . in Platon . Phaedon . Coel. Rhodig . Antiq. Lect. l. 16. c. 12. Tacit. histor . l. 4. Saguin . select . Numismat . p. 2 , 3 , 4. T.G. p. 108. Ferd. Ughelli Italia sacra Tom. 8. p. 559. Majoli Dies Canicul . par . 2. coll . 1. p. 435. Plotin . Ennead . 5. l. 8. c. 9. Plutarch . de Isid. & Ofirid . p. 377. ed. Francs . Apul. Metam . l. 11. §. 14. T.G. p. 99.106 . §. 15. T.G. p. 100. p. 101. §. 16. T. G. p. 102 , 103. T.G. p. 106. T. G. p. 99.106 . Bell. de Imag. l. 2. c. 13. Arnob. l. 6. p. 190. Macrob. l. 3. c. 4. Hier. ad Ripar . adv . Vigilant . Vitruv. l. 4. c. 5. Lamprid. vit . Alex. Sever. Arnob. l. 6. p. 195. p. 200. p. 208. §. 17. Aug. in Ps. 113. §. 18. Trigaut . l. 5. c. 16. p. 588. T.G. p. 110 , 111 , 112 , 113. Cicer. pro Archia c. 12. Pro domo sua . Isid. Origen . l. 8. c. 11. Horat. ep . l. 2. ep . 1. Arnob. l. 6. Agobard . de Imag. sect . 19. Aug. de Fide & Symbolo c. 7. Greg. l. 9. ep . 72. §. 1. Petav. Dogmat. Theolog. Tom. 5. l. 15. c. 1● . sec● . 3. c. ●4 . sect . 8. T.G. p. 171. Orig. c. Cels. l. 7. p. 375. §. 2. Petav. de Incarn . l. 15. c. 14. sect . 8. Bell. de Imag. l. 2. c. 9. S. Epiph. ep . ad Ioh. Hierosolym . Sirmond . in Concil . Narbon . p. 616. Carol. M. de Imag. l. 4. c. 25. Synod . Paris . c. 6. Damasc. tract . 1. Alphons . à à Castro v. Imago . p. 572. VII . Synod . Act. 6. Cod. Theodos . 16. tit . 10. n. 12. Themist . in Aristot. de an . p. 68. col . 2. Lambards peramb. of Kent in Boxtel . Herberts Hen. 8. p. 432. §. 3. 1 Cor. 10.7 . v. 2 , 3 , 4. S. Aug. Epist. 43. Plut. de Iside & Osiride p. 361. Apul. de Deo Socrat. Boeth . de Cons. Philos. l. 3. p. 139. Diog. Laer. vit . Pytha. Herod . in Euterpe . Isocr . encom . Helen . Salmas . Not. ed. Inscript . p. 81. Lil. Gyrald . synt . Deorum 17. p. 501. Vossius de Idol . l. 1. c. 12. Hesych . v. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Salmas . not . p. 118. Plut. de Isule & Osinide p. 361. Plut. de praecl . fact . Mulier . p. 255. Inscript . Antiq. p. 216. Dionys. Halic . Antiq. Rom. l. 11. p. 696. Orig. l. 8. c. Cels. p. 414. Iren. l. 1. c. 24. Epiph. haer . 27. Aug. de haeres . c. 7. Hieron . in c. 3. Daniel . Greg. Nazianz . invect . 1. in in Iul. Theod. hist. l. 3. c. 16 , 17. Hierocl . in aur . Carm. Aug. in Psal. 96. §. 4. Euseb. Eccles . hist. l. 7. c. 18. Mark 5.43 . Phot. Cod. 271. Imperatorum Numism . collect . à Duce Croyo edit . Gasp. Gevart . Tab. 39. n. 17 , 18 , 21 , 22. Patini Numism . p. 194. Euseb. Chron. n. 2144. Baron . ad A. D. 57. n. 112. Nicephor . l. 10. c. 30. Philostorg . Eccles. hist. l. 7. c. 3. Caroli Lib. de Imagin . l. 4. c. 15. Phot. Cod. 271. Sozom. l. 5. c. 21. Petav. de Incarn . l. 15. c. 13. n. 4 , 5. Baron . ad A. D. 57. n. 111. Pet. l. 15. c. 14. n. 4. Nic. de Clemangis de Novis celebrat . non instituend . p. 151. Tertul. de Pudic. c. 7. & 10. S. Hieron . in Ion. 4. S. Aug. in Ps. 113. Bellarm. de Imag. l. 2. c. 9. Aug. de consens . Evangel . l. 1. c. 10 ▪ Aug. de Moribus Eccles. Cath. c. 34. Petav. d● Incar . l. 15. c. 13. n. 7. Dallae . de Imag. l. 3. c. 4. Nyssen . vit . Greg. Thaumat . Prudent . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . hymn . 9. Paulin. ep . 12. Poem . Nat. 9. p. 614. §. 5. Greg. Ep. l. 9. ep . 9. Bell. de . Imag. l. 2. c. 16. Concil . Nicen . 2. act . 4. Iames Corrupt . of the Fathers , pa. 2. p. 76. Concil . Nicen . 2. act . 4. p. 235. Act. 5. p. 355. p. 354. History of the Iconoclasts pretended to be published A.D. 1671. but written 1674. or rather extracted out of Mai●● bourgs French History . Greg. 2. epist. 1. Onuphr . Annot. in vit . Greg. 2. History of Iconocl . p. 44. p. 47. Anastas . histor . p. 134. Zonar . Annal . To. 3. p. 85. Cedren . hist. To. 1. p. 453. Michel . Glyc . Annal . part . 4. p. 281. Theophan . hist. p. 338. Sigebert . ad A. 728. Otto Frising . l. 5. c. 18. Ursperg . ad A. 718. Sigonius de Regno Ital. l. 3. Rubei Hist. Raven . l. 4. Ciaccon . vit . Greg. * History of the Iconoclasts , p. 54. Greg. 2. epist. 1. ad Leon. History of the Iconoclasts , p. 55. Greg. 2. ep . 2. §. 6. Concil . Nicen . 2. p. 347. ed. Labb . p. 349. p. 370. p. 383. p. 386. Zonar . Annal . Tom. 3. p. 84. Cedren . hist. To. 1. p. 450. Theoph. Chronog . p. 336. Const. Manass . p. 86. Mich. Glyc . Annal. part . 4. p. 281. Baron . A. 723. n. 17 , 21. History of the Iconoclasts , p 28 , 33. Epiphan . l. 1. heres . Samarit . p. 25. Exercit. Anti-Morin . Sect. 16. Concil . Nicen . 2. act . 4. p. 251. p. 223. p. 258. Bell. de script . Eccles . in Athanas. Baron . ad 1.787 . n. 29. Sigeb . Chron. ad A. 765. Lambec . Comment . de Biblioth . Vindobon . l. 1. p. 124. &c. Eutychii An. To. 2. p. 448. Greg. 2. ep . 1. ad Leon. Baron . ad A. 726. n. 12. Greg. 2. ep . 2. History of the Iconoclasts Epistle Dedicat . p. 3.5 . Zonar . Annal . To. 4. p. 97. Cedren . p. 473. Glyc . p. 285. Theoph. p. 398. Manass. p. 90 , 91. Baron . ad A. 796. n. 8. Pref. p. 21. Acta Steph. Iun. apud Damascen . Baron . ad A. 726. n. 6. Concil . Nic. 2. act . 5. p. 387. Concil . Nic. Can. 9. §. 7. Greg. 2. ep . ad Leon. Aug. German . epist. ad Ioh. Synad . in act . 4. Concil . Nic. p. 291. Damascen . orat . 1. de ●mag . p. 747. Orat. 2. p. 759. Orat. 3. p. 767 , 768 Acta Steph. Iun. apud Damas. p. 805. Conc. Nic. 2. act . 4 , 5 , 6 , 7. Biblioth . Patrum Gr. Lat. To. 1. p. 737. Baron . ad A. D. 726. n. Ad A. 765. n. 8. Christian. Lup. not . in Canon . Conc. Sept. dissert . c. 5. p. 1175. Bell. de Imag. l. 2. c. 8. Pujol de sacr . Adora . cultu disp . 3. sect . 4. p. 250 , 252. Ysambert . de Myster . Inc. ad q. 25. disp . 3. art . 6. Vasq. ad 3. Aq. disp . 103. c. 3. Arriaga ad 3. Th. disp . 5. sect . 1. Tann . To. 3. disp . 5. q. 2. dub . 3. Suar. in Aq. 3. p. To. 1. q. 25. disp . 54. sect . 2. Cajet . in Aq. 3. q. 25. act . 3. Procession . secund . usum Sarum 1555. fol. 16. Petav. de Incar . l. 15. c. 14. n. 1. §. 8. T.G. p. 119. Alex. Hales p. 3. q. 30. m. 3. art . 3. Aquin. p. 3. q. 25. a. 3. re●p . adj . Bo●av . l 3. d. 9. q. 2. Mars . l. 3. q. 8. a. 2. Conc. Trident . sess . 25. de Imag. Hessel . in Catech. Sander . de honor . Imag. ador . c. 4. Possevin . biblioth . l. 8. c. 16. Bell. de Imag. l. 2. c. 8. T. G. p. 69. Molanus de Picturis , c. 3. Thyre . apud Possevin . biblioth . l. 8. c. 16. Gerson . serm . in nativit . Dom. To. ● . p. 620. Waldens . To. 3. tit . 19. c. 155. Avent . Annal . Boior . l. 7. p. 751. Ysambert . de Myst. Incarn . ad q. 25. disp . 3. art . 7. Catech. Rom. part . 3. n. 12. Aug. de fide & symb . c. 7. Durand . in sent . l. 3. dist . 9. q. 2. n. 15. Peres . de tradit . part 3. p. 118. ed. Colon. Thuan. hist. l. 28. Ysamb. ad q. 25. disp . 3. art . 4. Vasquez ad q. 25. disp . 103. art . 3. c. 3. Clichtov . in Damasc. l. 4. c. 17. Dan. 7.9 . Sander . de honor . Imag. adorat . c. 4. §. 9. Concil . Nicen . 2. Act. 7. p. 555. p. 577. Act. 6. p. 542. Act. 4. p. 247. Act. 7. p. 785. Act. 7. p. 555. Concil . Trident . sess . 25. Spelman . Concil . To. 2. p. 653.666 . Lyndwood Provinc . l. 5. tit . de heret . p. 160.2 . Claus. 19. R. 2. Spelman . p. 655. § 10. Vasquez disp . 106. c. 1. Lugo de Myster . Incarn . disp . 36. Sect. 2. Suarez in 3. p. q. 25. disp . 54. sect . 1. Durand . in sent . 3. dist . 9. q. 2. n. 14. Holkot in Sap. c. 13 Lect. 138. p. 424. Ioh. Pit. Mirand . Apolog. p. 103. Suarez ●● . Barth . Medina 3. p. q. 25. a. 3. Cathar . de cultu & ador . Imag. p. 133. p. 137 , 138 , 139. Naclant . enarr . in Ep. ad Rom. c. ● p. 171. Bell. de Imag. l. 2. c. 21. Soto de Instit. & jure l. 2. q. 3. art . 2. in fin . Velosill . Advertent . Theol. Scholast . in 2. Tom. Aug. ad 9. quaest . p. 332 ad sin . Pujol de sacro ador . cultu disp . 3. sect . 7. p. 2. p. 311. p. 324. Tanner . To. 3. disp . ● q. 2. dub . 3. assert . 4. Ysamber . de Myster . Incarn . ad q. 25. disp . 4. Eligii Bassaei Flores Theolog. Practic . v. Adorat . n. 10. ed. 1663. ●r . Sylvius in 3. p. Th. q. 25. art . 3. q. 5. Arriag . de Incarn . disp . 56. sect . 1. Sect. 2. Lugo de Myster . Incarn . disp . 36. sect . ● . n. 37. §. 11. T. G. p. 123 , &c. Act. 2. p. 106. Damasc. oral . 1. p. 749. Aquin. 2.2 . q. 103. art . A. ad 3. Aug. in Ps. 113. conc . 2. Concil . Nicen . 2. act . 7. p. 555. Aug. de Trin. l. 3. c. 10. Act. 4. p. 247. Act. 2. p. 127. Act. 3. p. 187. T. G. p. 142 , 145. Lib. Carol. l. 3. c. 17. Act. 6. p. 539. §. 12. Pro desensione sacra . Imagin . Centur. 13. c. 14. Aq. 3. p. q. 25. art . 3. ad lib. sent . 3. dist . 9. q. 2. Est. in sent . l. 3. dist . 9. sect . 3. Cathar . de Imag. p. 137. Sylv. in 3. p. q. 25. art . 3. q. 5. Alex. Hales 3. p. q. 30. m. 3. art . 3. sect . 1● Pitts de Scriptor . Aetat . 13. A. 1245. Bonav . in sent . 3. dist . 9. q. 2. Ric. de Media Villa in 3. sent . q. 9. art . 2. Palud . in 3. d. 9. q. 1. Capreol . 3. d. 9. q. 1. art . 1. concl . 2. & 3. Marsil . l. 3. art . 2. q. 8. concl . 1. & 3. Almain . l. 3. dist . 9. concl . 5. Biel in Canon . Missae lect . 49. Waldens . To. 3. tit . 19. c. 156. n. 6 , 7. Concil . Nic. Act. 5. p. 354. Summa Angelica . v. Adorat . n. 5 , 6. Barth . Fumi Armilla Aurea v. Adorat . n. 7. Carthusianus in sent . l. 3. dist . 9. Antonin . Sum. 3. p. tit . 12. c. 9. sect . 4. Franc. Ferrar . in Th. c. Gentes l. 3. c. 120. Cajet . in Aq. 3. p. q. 25. art . 3. §. 13. Concil . Trident . sess . 25. Vasq. in 3. p. disp . 108. c. 4. Soto de justit . & jure . l. 2. q. 3. art . 2. in fin . Turrian . pro Canon . Apost . l. 1. c. 25. Naclant . in Rom. 1. p. 171. Gretser . de Cruce l. 1. c. 49. Palaeot . de sacr . & prof . Imag. l. 1. c. 32. Greg. de Valent. de Idolol . l. 2. c. 7. Pet. Thyrae . apud Possev . biblioth . l. 8. c. 17. Cornel. Curtius de Clavis Domin . c. 12. Lud. de Paramo de Orig. S. Inquis . l. 2. tit . 3. c. 8. n. 9. n. 19. Rubrice Missal . Rom. Comment . illustr . p. 2. tit . 4. de Introit . sect . 2. dub . 2. & 4. Greg. Valent . in Hymnod . Eccles. tr . 2. Hymn . 13. p. 268. Paul. Lay-man . Theol. Moral . l. 4. tr . 7. c. 5. n. 10. Elig . Bassae . Flores Theol. Practi● . tit . Ador. suppl . n. 6 , 7. Ph. Gamachae . in 3. p. Th. q. 25. con . 2. Ysambert . ad q. 25. disp . 4. art . 1. & disp . 5. art . 1. Azor. I●●lit . Moral . l. 9. c. 6. § 14. Cathaer . de cultu Imagin . p. 137. p. 136. Martin . Peres . Ayal . de tradit . 3. p. de imagin . p. 119.121 . Est. in sentent . l. 3. dist . 9. sect . 3. §. 15. Vasquez disp . ●08 . c. 3. c. 4. c. 3. c. 6. c. 9. c. 13. Disp. 109. c. 1. c. 2. Suarez disp . 54. sect . 4. Disp. 54. sect . 5. Bellarm. de cultu Imag. l. 2 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25. Pujol de cultu ador . disp . 3. sect . 7. assert . 5. assert . 7. Ysambert . ad q. 25. disp . 4. art . 2. Lugo de Myst. Incarn . disp . 36. sect . 3. Arriag . de Incarn . disp . 56. sect . 6. subs . 2. n. 68. l. 70. Petav. de Incarn . l. 15. c. 15. n. 6. §. 16. Pontificale Rom. Ordo ad recip . Imperat. Rubr. 1. Pontific . in Benedict . Novae Crucis . Sacrar . Cerem . l. 1. c. de consecr . Agnus Dei. Quarant . in Sum. Bullar . p. 7. Azor. Instit . Mor. l. 9. c. 9. Baron . ad A. D. 58. n. 76 , 77. Raspon . de Basil. Lateran . l. 2. c. 8. p. 144. Pers. Satyr . 2. Dio l. 43. Sueton. in Neron . c. 56. Ammian . Marcell . l. 22. Apulei . Apolog. Azor. l. 9. c. 9. q. 3. Acta Ecclesiae Mediolan . sub S. Carolo Borrom . l. 2. n. 41 , 42. Quintil. declam . 323. Guth . de Vet. jure Pontific . l. 4. c. 22. Minuc . p. 26. Serv. in Georg. 3. Vitruv. l. 4. c. 8. Guther . de Vet. jure Pontif. l. 3. c. 6. Gevart . Numis . Tab. 32. n. 4. Fest. v. Auclabris . Arnob. l. 7. p. 232. Arnobl . 1. p. 29. Lucret. l. 5. Caesar de bellociv . l. 2 Lucan . l. 2. Ovid. Fast. l. 4. Guth . de Vet. jure Pontif. l. 4. c. 17. Arnob. l. 1. Dionys. Halic . l. 7. p. 475. Suet. in Iul. l. 26. § 17. Missal . de Intr. Part. 2. tit . 4. n. 4. Gavant . in Miss . p. 103. Philand . in Vitr . l. 4. c. 8. Tursel . hist. Lauren. l. 1. Trigaud . de Christian. Exped . apud Sinas l. 4. c. 11. p. 403. Novar . Elect. sanc . l. 4. c. 54. Della Valle Lett. 9. p. 6. Boulay Voyage l. 2. c. 25. Hymn . ad Vesper . Dom. Passion . Pujol de ad orat . disp . 3. Sect. 6. p. 281. Brev. Rom. Fest. Maii 30. invent . S. Crucis . Rubr. Missal . de feria sextâ in Parasceue . Cerem . Sacr. l. 2. de sexta Feriâ , &c. Bzov. A. 1216. n. 16. Aen. Sylv. Comment . l. 8. Gretser de Imag. non manufactis c. 17. Bolland . in 4. Febr. Sect. 3. n. 13 Luc. Marinae . Sic. de reb . Hispan . l. 5. Luc. Marin , ib. Chifflet . de linteis sepulchr . Christi . c. 11 , 15. c. 14. Baron . Martyrol . Aug. 16. Claccon . in Paulo . 2. Bzov. A. 1216. n. 16. Rasponi de Basil. Later . l. 4. c. 19. Gonon . Chronic. Deip. p. 346. A.D. 1433. Sedul . de Virgine Mosae Traject . c. 2 1. Marian. l. 2. c. 14. Pet. della Valle lett . 5. n. 3.18.25 . Imago primisaec . soc . Iesu l. 6. p. 775 , &c. Otho Zyl . histor . B. Mar. Sylvaeduc . l. 4. c. 28. Barth . de los Rios hierarch . Marian. l. 2. c. 7. c. 19. c. 10. c. 11. c. 13. c. 14. c. 16. c. 19. §. 1. T. G. p. 38 , 39. p. 49. §. ● , T. G. p. 54 , 55. Aq. 3. q. 25. art . 3. ad 1. Montan. de Gen. & Regen . Adam . l. 4. c. 9. Fa●ri opuscul . p. 97. T.G. p. 96. T.G. p. 38. T. G. p. ●1 . §. 3. Bellarm. de . Imag. l. 2. c. 5. Catech. Rom. explic . praec . 1. n. 10 Onuphr . de 7 urb . Eccl. de Basil. Lateran . Carol. Borrom . in Concil . Mediol . 8. p. 1. Isid. Orig. l. 8. c. 11. Plut. vit . Syllae . Psell. in . Orac. Chaldaic . p. 53. Tertul. de Idol . c. 4. c. 3. Diog. Vit. Democr . Cicer. ad Attic. l. 2. p. 3. Plut. de placit . Philos. l. 4. c. 13 , 14. Lucret. l. 4. Cic. ep . l. 15. ep . 16. August . ep . 56. Macrob. Sat. l. 1. c. 14. Odyss . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . v. 83. Iliad . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . v. 450. Odyss . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . v. 796. §. 4. Wisd. c. 14. v. 15. Ch. 13. v. 6 , &c. v. 13 , 14. Fulgent . Mythol . l. 1. Eutych . Annal. Tom. 1. p. 56. Herod . l. 2. Lucian . de Deâ Syr. Epiph. l. 1. Sect. 8. Cedren . hist. Comp. p. 45. Euseb. Praep. Evang. l. 1. p. 39. Euseb. Praep. Evang. l. 3. c. 11. Plut. de Isid. & Osiri . p. 357. Clem. Alex. Str. 5. Pignor. exposit . Mensae Isiacae . p. 34. Kircher . Sphinx . Mystagoga par . 2. c. 3. Porphyr . ●e abstin . l. 4. Plut. de Isid. & Osir. p. 355. p. 371. Apul. Metamor . l. 11. Tacit. hist. l. 4. Oedip. Aegypt . Tom. 3. Hieron . in Isai. c. 37. l. 11. Lyra in Lev. 18. Benjam . Itiner . p. 33. ed L' Emper . Kirch . Pantheon Hebraeorum . §. 4. Concil . Nicaen . 2. Act. 6. p. 411. Iust. Martyr . dial cum Tryph. p. 321. Clem. Alex. Str. l. 3. p. 441. Orig. c. Cels. l. 4. p. 182. Tertull. de spect . c. 23. De Idol . c. 3 , 4. C. Marcion . l. 2. c. 22. c. Marcion . l. 4. c. 22. Cyprian . de exh . Martyr . c. 1. De Idol . vanit . c. 1. Minuc . Fel. p. 21. Lact. l. 2. c. 2 , 3. S. Aug. ep . 119. c. 11. Orig. in . Exod. hom . 8. Theod. in Exod. q. 38. Orig. Exhort . ad Martyr . ed. Wetsten . p. 167. §. 5. Bell. de Imag. l. 2. c. 24. T.G. p. 162. Sander . de honor . Imag. adorat . c. 4. init . Biblioth . Patr. To. 4. p. 734. Iacob . Almain . in sentent . l. 3. dist . 9. prope sin . Vasq. q. 108. c. 9. art . 3. § 6. T. G. p. 39 , 40 , T. G. p. 40 , 49 , 50 , 52 , 53 , 56 , 77 , 79 , 81 , 103 , 206 , 207. T. G. p. 206. §. 7. §. 8. T.G. p. 206. Lorin . in Psal. 99.5 . Genebr . in loc . Suarez in 3 ep . q. 54. art . 3. Sim. de Muis in loc . Iacob . Leon. de Cherubinis . Pyrrh . Ligor . de Vehic . Antiq. c. 19. Liv. l. 5. c. 23. Plut. in Camill. p. 132. Aug. in Psal. 98.5 , Aug. de Verbis Dom. secunda Ioh. Ser. 58. T.G. p. 207 Vasquez disp . 104. c. 6. Lorin . in Act. 17.25 . & in Psal. 98.5 . Azor. Instit. Mor. l. 9. c. 6. Visor . resp . ad Moncei . p. 16. Aq. 1.2 . qu. 102. art . 4. ad 6. T.G. p. 46. Aug. de Fide & Symb. c. 7. De Divit . Dei. l. 4. c. 31. Epist. 119. ad Ian. c. 11. T.G. p. 43. §. 10. T.G. p. 47 ▪ 48 , 49 , &c. Greg. 2. Ep. 1. ad Leon. p. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 More Nevoch . l. 1. c. 36. T. G. p. 39. Eusib. Praep. l. 4. c. 1 T.G. p. 38 , 39. Bell. de Imag. l. 2. c. 24. §. 11. T. G. p. 50. Theodor. in Deut. quaest . 1. ● . 168. T. G. p. 51 , 52 , 53. T. G. p. 54. Picherell . Opusc. p. 220 , 221. p. 230 , 231. §. 14. Deut. 4.15 , 16. T. G. p. 58. T. G. p. 59. T. G. p. 60. Homil. p. 3. p. 40. T. G. p. 61. p. 63. p. 57. T. G. p. 64 ▪ p. 65 , 66 , 67. T.G. p. 67. T.G. p. 69. p. 70. p. 71. p. 72. p. 73. p. 74. In. Evang. secund . Ioh. Serm. 58. §. 13. T.G. p. 153. p. 156. p. 154. Exod. 23.20 , 23. Exod. 32 , 1. T.G. p. 160. Fer. in Act. 7. p. 94. T.G. p. 155. p. 165. Exod. 32.6 . Act. 7.41 . Exod. 24.5 . Macrob. Saturn . l. 1. c. 7. Cuperi Harpocrat . p. 105. Iuv. Satyr . 15. v. 11. Athen. l. 7. Herod . l. 2 ▪ c. 41. Herod . l. 2. c. 42. Diod. Sic. l. 1. c. 13. Plut. de Iside p. 366. Mela l. 1. c. 9. Strabo l. 17. Exod. 8.26 . Exod. 32.5 . T.G. p. 159. Exod. 6.3 , 6. Numb . 10.35 , 36. Exod. 32.31 . v. 6. Act. 7.41 . T.G. p. 162. Bell. de Imag. l. 2. c. 13. Acts 7.41 , 42. Clem. Alex. Str. 6. p. 482. Orig. c. Cels. l. 5. p. 238. §. 14. T.G. p. 155. Deut. 8.11 , 14.6.12 . Act. 7.39.40 . T. G. p. De mirab . S. Script . l. 1. c. 15. De errore prosan . Relig. p. ●8 . Rufin . hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. 23. Suid. v. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Deut. 33.17 . §. 15. Plut. de Isid. p. 366. Iuven. Satyr . 15. Lucian in Iove . Tragoed . Marsham . Chronic. Can. p. 60. Plut. de Isid. p. 36● . Diod. l. 1. p. 76. Plut. de Isid. p. 382. p. 379. §. 16. Porphyr . de Abstin . l. 4. sect . 9. Apul. Metam . l. 11. Max. Tyr. diss . 38. in sin . Fl. Vopisc . in Saturnino . Plut. de Isid. p. 362. Seguin . Numism . p. 2 , 3 , 4. Grut. Inscript . p. 85. Tristan . Comment . Histor. To. 2. p. 190. §. 17. 1 Kings 12.28 . T.G. p. 164. p. 165. 1 Kings 12.32 . T. G. p. 165. 2 Kings 17.22 , 23. 2 Chron. 13.9 . Ioseph . Antiq. Iud. l. 8. c. 3. 1 Kings 12.33 . 2 Chro● . 11.15 . 1 Kings 11.7 . 2 Kings 23.13 . 1 Kings 19.10 , 14. 2 Kings 23.9 , 20. Isa. 13.21 . Herod . l. 2. c. 46. Strab. l. 17. Diodor. l. 1. Plut. de Isid. Boch . de Anim. Sacr. l. 2. c. 53 §. 18. 1 Kings 16.31 , 32. T. G. p. 1●● . 1 Kings 18.21 . T. G. p. 167. 2 Kings 10.16 . T.G. p. 166. v. 23. v. 29 , 31. 2 Kings 17.26 , 27 , 28 , 32 , 33. T. G. p. 168. T.G. p. 168. §. 19. T.G. p. 169. T.G. p. 175. §. 1. T. G. p. 13 , 14 , 15. Rational Account , p. 54. Dr. Still . still against Dr. Still . A.D. 1675. Infallibility of the Roman Catholick Church against Dr. Still . by E. W. 1674. Preface . Answer to several Treatises , First part , p. 19 , &c. Dr. Still . still against Dr. Stîll . p. 95. p. 97. p. 101. p. 10● , &c. §. 2. I.W. p. 78. 2 King. 17.22 , 23. 1 Kings 15.26 , 34.16.13 , 19 , 26 , 31. 22.52 . 2 Kings 3.3 . 10.29.13.2.14.23.15.9 , 18.24.28 . 2 Kings 9.6 . 13.23 . Hosea 11.8 , 9. 14.1 . Amos 4.12.8.2 . Micah 6.2 , 3. Answer first part Gener. pres . in sin . Part 1. Ch. 1. sect . 17. Concil . Nicen . 2. act . 6. p. 411. Act. 1. p. 82. Epiph. haer . 73. n. 28. Socr. l. 2. c. 44. Sozom. l. 4. c. 28. Baron . ad A.D. 360. n. 52. Theod. l. 2. c. 31. Baron . ad A. 408. c. 31. Athanas. ap . ad Antioch . p. 575. Ruffin . hist. Eccles. l. 1. c. 28. Hieron . advers . Luciferian . init . §. 3. T.G. p. 76. T.G. p. 86. to 90. T.G. p. 89. §. 4. T.G. p. 90. p. 91. p. 93. Rom. 1.20 . Psal. 19.1 . Vasquez Hisp. 110. c. 2. Lugo de Mysterio Incarn . disp . 37. Sect. 1. §. 5. T. G. p. 93 , 94. T. G. p. 86. Vasq. ubi sup . Lugo ubi sup . n. 8. n. 11. Arriag . de Myster . Incarn . disp . 57. sect . 2. subject . 2. n. 10. Ysamb. de Myster . Incarn . ad Qu. 25. disp . 3. art . 15. §. 6. T.G. p. 118. p. 119. Carol. de Imag. l. 4. c. 13. Act. 7. p. 586. Baron . ad A. D. 785. n. 40. Christian. Lup. in Conc. T. 2. p. 1210. Theoph. Chrongr . p. 388. Histor. Miscell . l. 23. p. 333. Act. 7. p. 558. Bin. not . in Concil . Nic. 2. Concil . Nic. Act. 3. p. 187 , 190. Lup. not . in Can. Concil . Sept. To. 2. p. 1109. Adriani epist. Synod . Nic. To. 7. Concil . p. 924. p. 154 ▪ T.G. p. 118. §. 7. Theoph. Chron. p. 389. Paul. Diacon . l. 23. p. 733. Photii Epist. 2. p. 60. Baron . A. D. 863. n. 33. Ib. n. 6. Anast. vit . Hadrian . 1. p. 119. Concil . Gener. Tom. 8. p. 775. §. 8. Sirmond . adm . de Can. 2. Concil . Francford . T.G. p. 148 Spalat . de Rep. Eccles. l. 7. c. 12. n. 59. Waldens . Tom. 3. Tit. 19. c. 150 ▪ n. 4. §. 9. Sirmond . Admon . To. 2. Concil . p. 191. Pet. de Marcâ de Concord . Sacerd. l. 2. c. 17. n. 2. Petav. de Incarn . l. 15. c. 11. n. 4. Sur. admon . ad Lect. de Concil . Franc. Cop. Dial. 4. c. 18 , 19. Sander . de Imag. c. 5. Suar. in 3. p. Th. disp . 54. sect . 3. Concil . Gener. To. 7. p. 1013. Theop. Chronogr . p. 389. Gab. Biel. in Can. Miss . c. 49. P. Pithei praefat . ad histor . Pauli Diac. Annales Eccles. Franc. ad A. D. 794. n. 26. To. 6. n. 34. T.G. p. 144. Carol. de ●ag . l. 3. c. 17. T.G. p. 146. Hincmar . Opusc. c. 20. p. 457. Carol. l. 4. c. 28. Petav. d● Incarn . l. 15. c. 12. n. 8. Cassan. ep . 15. Bellarm. de Concil . l. 2. c. 8. Baron . ad A. 794. n. 31. Carol. de Imag. l. 3. c. 11. Petav. de Incarn . l. 15. c. 12. n. 4 , 10. Eginhardi Annales A. D. 794. Histor. Franc. Script . Coaetan . Tom. 2. & 3. §. 10. T.G. p. 149. Bell. de Script . Eccles. A. 820. Biblioth . Patr. To. 4. p. 533. p. 538. p. 547. Walafrid . Strabo de reb . Eccles. l. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Baron . A.D. 794. n. 41. T.G. p. 150. Baluz . no● . in Agob . p. 88. Papir . Masson . Synops. Agob . c. 10. Agobard . de Imag. c. 19.32 . Hincmar , ubi supr . Cusan . de Concord . Cathol . l. ● . c. 1. Anast. Biblioth . Praefat . in sept . Synod . Gesner . Biblioth . To. 1. v. Leo. Cassand . Ep. 19. Nicet . Choniat . l. 2. Is. Angeli . Baron . A. 1189. n. 10. Biblioth . Patr. To. 3. p. 151. Auctur . Biblioth . Patr. To. 2.409 . P. Pithaei Praes . ad Pauli Diac . hist. §. 11. Lib. Carol. de Imag. l. 1. c. 16. c. 13. c. 15. c. 19. c. 20. c. 25. l. 2. c. 8.16 . c. 25. l. 3. c. 10.17 . c. 19. c. 23. c. 29.31 . l. 4. c. 1. c. 17. c. 23. T.G. p. 125. Zach. 13.2 . T.G. p. 127. T.G. p. 128. T.G. p. 134. T.G. p. 136. T.G. p. 138. §. 12. T.G. p. 192. T.G. p. 186. T.G. p. 188 , 185 §. 13. T.G. p. 176 , 188. p. 189. p. 190. T.G. p. 180. T.G. p. 182 , 183. T.G. p. 182. T.G. ib. §. 14. T.G.p. 198. T. G. ib. p. 199. T.G.p. 201. T.G.p. 202 , 203. §. 15. T.G. p. 208 ▪ Book of Canons , 1603. c. 18. Defence of the Answ. tr . 21. c. 7. div . 3. Fulk against Rhem. Phil. 2.10 . Andrew's Ser. 9. of Resur . Speech in Star-chamb . p. 50. Suarez in 3. p. Th. q. 25. disp . 2.54 . art . 3. sect . 6. Paul. Maria Quarti in Rubr. Misse p. 264 , 266. §. 16. T.G. p. 218. Canons and Constit . c. 7.1640 . Speech in Star-Chamber . p. 43. p. 46. p. 47. p. 48. p. 52. Gen. 18.19 . Gen. 24.26 , 48 , 52. Pet. Picherell . de Imag. p. 225. Exod. 4.31 . 12.27 . 24.1 . 22.8 . 33.10 . 34.8 . Numb . 20.6 . 1 Chron. 29.20 . 2 Chron. 29.29 . Matth. 15.25 . Mark 7.25 . Acts 10.25 , 26. Revel . 19.10.22.9 .