IMAGE-IDOLATRY.

The Church of Rome worships God by I­mages, and is therefore guilty of Idolatry by giving to the Creature the worship due only to the Creator. For God having forbidden any such sort of worshiping him by his own law and com­mandments given by Moses, wherein he forbids his people to make any kind of image, pesel the­munah, eikon glypton, sculptile, any thing represented either by carving toole or pensil, ca [...] not own that worship, nor can any such worsh [...] terminate upon God. And the reason of th [...] law of Moses is unchangeable, which is th [...] God's infinite and incomprehensible Deity cann [...] be represented. For which reason the wisest [...] Heathen both particular men and Natio [...] judged all such representations of the invisi [...] [Page 13]Godhead to be incongruous and unbecoming his glory; And if this were inconsistent with Gods nature and will in the old Law much more in the new, where we are taught to worship God in spirit and truth, and to have no low unworthy thought of God. It might therefore seem more rational to worship God in the Sun and Moon which have more of God in them, and to say our prayers to the Sun and Moon then to any image or shadow; the same argument which excuses the one will justifie the other much more. For this reason St. Paul teaches that the Godhead is not like to gold or silver or stone, and blames those who change the glory of the incorruptible God into the image of corruptible man. And the Heathens in doing this did ill: although the wiser sort among them testifie that they did not hold their statues to be Gods, but that they wor­shipped God in them. And yet some antient Fa­thers disputed notwithstanding against that hea­then practice and counted it idolatry. Where­fore Germanus Patriark of Constantinople sayes expresly that Christians make no represen­tation of the invisible Deity; and Damascene that it is madness to go about it. Wherefore the Synode of Constantinople and that of Frankford pleaded hard against the making of any images amongst Christians however the se­cond Council of Nice vainly went about to de­fend them as innocent and useful helps. Finally, [Page 14]Moses himself explicates by his deeds the mean­ing of his own Law when he was so highly dis­pleased with Aaron for the golden Calf he had made the people in his absence. And yet Aaron did not make it to bring the people into heathen idolatry, but to give them only a Symbole of the Angel who was to go before the people: As also the two calves set up by Jeroboam in Dan and Be­thel were set up only to keep the people from go­ing up to Jerusalem, and not to bring them to the idolatry of heathens. And therefore Pri­mitive Christians never used any images, as the learned of the Church of Rome acknowledge.

§ 1. This is the sum of the Doctors Discourse in this his first Chapter. And he cannot but expect his Reader should have a mighty con­ceit of either his most high or most deep Divinity, who hath converst so much with the learned fort of the Church of Rome, the graver sort of Philosophers, and wiser sort of Heathens. Nothing does he here deliver, that was so much as thought of by the common sort, the vulgar sort, the or­dinary sort of Mankind. And O what plea­sure and content of heart will it be unto him, if he could meet with an adversary of his learned sort too, who viewing his airy subtilties should oppose him seriously, as if he were serious himself; and then distin­guish as if he were dealing with some solid [Page 15]Divine; and then ply him with proofs and testimonies, refell him by shorter enthymems and longer syllogismes; subtilly search in what Mood and figure he speaks; and then tell him how his consequence flaggs, or ante­cedent is ambiguous, till he have learendly consumed a hundred pages in refutation of a trifle. Then surely will the Doctor be judged by all parties to be as he would be thought to be, an able man.

§ 2. The Catholick Chruch uses indeed both in their publick and private oratories, some pious representations of our holy Lord, either in his passion, or birth, resurrection, or ascention, or miraculous working of some divine miracle: And these holy figures of his are accompanied commonly with some others of his blessed Virgin Mother, the re­nowned Apostles, valorous Martyrs, holy Confessors, chast Virgins, or other happy followers of our Lord, who through many tribulations and a constant exercise of Chri­stian vertues have passed hence to a blessed life. All which do mightily avail, unto our retiredness and recollection; when we en­ter into the house of prayer, a holy place se­parated and sanctified for Gods service, from our own houses or the streets. And the re­spect or esteem we have for such figures, is nothing but what we bear either unto the sa­cred [Page 16]histories recorded of the same persons or to those good rules of life and promises of Gospel, which those Worthies have im­braced, for the incouragement and imitation of us, who are now strugling in that wicked world, which they overcame before us. For example, as we reverence the history of Christs incarnation, sounding in our ear; so do we look upon the figure of it represented to our eye: As we love the story of St. Ma­ry Magdalens conversion; so do we like her picture. As we honour St. Pauls life and martyrdome; so do we respect his image. And St. Lawrences most cruel passion upon the hot burning Gridiron, when it is repre­sented to us in a picture, we are in the self same manner affected towards it, as we are to the invincible vertue and patience there shown for the Love and honour of Jesus our Lord, whose steps he followed. So that, what authentick history records to us in words, of the vertue and valour of any of our Christi­an Ancestors; or what holy Gospel tells us, of the glory and crown to be rendred un­to the good works of sobriety, charity, cha­stity, purity, patience, and the like: the same is without words painted unto us by these compendious hieroglyphicks, serving more speedily then words can do, to fasten us unto a strict recollection in our prayers [Page 17]by one short glance about us; and to a fea [...] and awfulness of Gods presence in that place where we are met together for his Service, ac­companied with the figures of so many of our pious Ancestours who are gone to Heaven before us; and also to a dissipation of any worldly thoughts, that may, as they are apt enough to do, at that time come along with us there unto our hinderance. All this bene­fit we have by our Pictures, when we have haply no book to look upon, or know not by our ignorance to read, or cannot by darkness or other lettance attend unto that labour. And this is all the whole business of Images, as to Religion. In the Road of Philosophy trodden by School-Divines, where thousands of conclusions over and above faith are ad­vanced and opposed by one another unto the sharpning of their wits, many things are said about every thing, as the creation, resurrecti­on, and thè like, which faith in the same things is silent of; Nor are we in our defence of faith concerned at all in them. And it may be essily discerned by our Catholick practice. what use we make of our Images, when of a hundred people entring into a Church, not one of them ever casts his eye wistly upon them, but contented with a general glance, compose themselves presently unto their prayers and meditations they keep silently in [Page 18]spirit towards God. And when our pictures are so sullied and spoiled, that they will no more serve our use, we put them into the fire, as we would do also a page of sacred Scrip­tures utterly obliterated and fouled.

§. 3. Indeed all the whole business of the use of Images at all, is but a matter of disci­pline and government, for the help of people in the great work of recollection and prayer; as is the use of Churches, and the musick used in them, with the harp, viol, and other instru­ments, the use of beads and prayer-books. All which our Religion could spare, and yet be not at all impaired, as to any its essential or substantial parts. Nay there inconve­niences in any one of these things. Nor do I know any good thing in this world without some inconvenience or other. It is enough for us that the conveniences and benefits of any good we have or use, are more and grea­ter than the inconveniences be. Many wor­thy Prelates in Christianity have at times ex­cepted very strongly against Organs, as some hindrance of the great work of spiritual con­templation which Christian people meet to, practice together in their holy assemblies, the great paramount work of Christianity, espe­cially at Mass. But these men, although mo­ved unto that their exception by a Zeal not evil, yet were they fain to yield at last unto [Page 19]the prevailing reasons of other Prelates which overbore their lesser ones. Some other of our Catholick Doctors and Prelates would have had us to have used no pictures; that Jews and Pagans might not catch at that pre­tence to cavil against our Christianity as they did. But all these submitted at last, unto the prevailing part; by whom they were made to understand that the inconveniences they ur­ged were but imaginary and small, the conve­niences great and real. There have been not a few who have excepted against much vocal prayer; because it took up too much of the time which would be better employed in the more principal work of prayer in spirit. But yet could they not carry it, although their rea­sons were very plausible aad good; because that high and Angelical prayer in spirit, agreed not equally to all men, or to any one consist­ing of flesh and blood equally at all times and places, as vocal prayer does. Some have dis­liked even our material Temples, built up so sumptuously as they are; because God im­mense and incomprehensible, dwells not in buildings made by mans hands; Heaven is his Seat, and Earth his Footstool; Yet could they not obtain, that our Churches should be there­fore pulled down, or not built up. Prayer-books were nothing at all in use amongst Christians in primitive times; when they pray­ed [Page 20]almost altogether in spirit, and used no o­ther vocal prayer but that our Lord taught us. And yet this hinders us not, either to make such books or use them in following times. Instead of our beads in wood or mettal, they used in ancient times a bag of little stones, by the emptying whereof they knew that they had said over our Lords prayer a hundred or perhaps three hundred times, according as any one in his devotion had prefixed to him­self every day of his life to do for Gods glory and service. And there might be inconveni­ences pretended against our present beads, especially those of gold and pearl. But they will not be thrown away for that. Our Church-musick has been more than once op­posed, and that by Prelates most holy and re­nowned men, who deemed it an unsufferable lettance to the spiritual recollection which Christians ought above all things to attend unto, that they may have our Lords good Spirit, and his holy operations in them, espe­cially when they meet together at their holy Synaxis. But Church-musick is kept up to this day, notwithstanding their reason against it, which is very good, for other reasons no. less good and great than it; specified and ur­ged by the far greater number of pious Pre­lates for it. And yet if all or the greater part of Catholick Prelates meeting together [Page 21]should take away all these outward helps from us, beads and books, singing and Church-mu­sick, pictures, and Churches, and all, finding the inconveniences to be now greater than they have been, and weightier than any con­venience we have by them: though the thing would seem very strange to us, yet ought we I think to obey them resignedly, and attend wholly unto our spiritual mediations, either alone, or in our Eucharistian meetings, and to the other good works commanded or coun­selled us in Gospel in expectation of our fu­ture bliss and eternal happiness in God, which can never be taken from us: though all things of discipline or helps in government be alte­rable.

§ 4. And now it is time to turn back and view the subject of this Chapter; that we may see if any one period in it be true and pertinent. He tells us first, that Papists wor­ship God by Images, which logically is not true; Then that a representation of the invisi­ble Deity cannot be made; which is imperti­nent; Then that the worship given to God by an image does not terminate upon God: which is neither pertinent nor true. And so he pro­ceeds on to the very end of his Chapter, with sounds either empty or false, or both; neither heeding or caring what he says, so he do but mention learned papists, and wiser heathens, [Page 22]which may help to butterress up his reputa­tion. I cannot but remember here, the sha­dow or Ghost in Virgil which Juno made of Aeneas, to draw her beloved Turnus out of the field; It seemed to fight and threaten, and press on and give back. But nothing at all was done really.

And such a shadow of controversie is all this present Chapter, and his whole book also: a foming face and feeble force: big but empty words: rumbling and yet insignificant sounds: quick profers, and no progress: a daring sha­dow or armed Ghost, without either body or bones. And yet such a thing as defies the whole Catholick Church; steps out from the rest of his Camp and defies them all alone defies them both in letters syllables and words▪ And this is all. For he touches no body. Be­cause Catholicks by the advice and allowance [Page 23]of their Prelates do keep amongst them the representation of the divine Founder of their Religion, who appeared amongst us by his unspeakable Love in form of a Man; and of some of his holy followers in the way he chal­ked out for us; therefore he talks of Moloch and Milcom, Osiris and Isis, Chemosh and Astaroth, Baal Peor and Rimmon, golden Bulls and Remphan, the calves of Dan and Bethel. And what is all this for? Wy to over-run Papists, and beat us down; How can it do that? These idols were set up by heathens in opposition to the true God, and in the very place of God, as darkness in the night time is in the place of light. This is true, what then? and therefore I must not forsooth keep the figure of Jesus Christ or of St. Paul or other domestick of my own religion for my own incouragement therein. What likeness, what consequence is there in all this? Which is Remphan and where is Mo­loch? Which is the Calf and where is the Bull? Nay and here it is worth our obser­ving too, that Protestant Gentlemen and La­dies of England, Ministers and Bishops too, have all pictures in their Chambers as well as Catholicks; even those of our holy Apostles and Martyrs as well as others. And there they are good and lawful figures; but in our Chambers they are Bulls of Basan, and Calves [Page 24]of Bethel among us. Catholick pictures are against Moses his Law; but theirs are not so; Although they be representations both in Heaven above and Earth below, and Waters under earth, expressy by the same Law forbid­den; for example Moon and Stars, Dogs and Cats, Whales and Dolphins. The picture of Martin Luther in their Chamber is the lawful effigies of a man. But Saint Stephen in our Closet is a Calf. Can any man who talks at this rate, be thought to be one that has con­versed either with the learned sort of Papists or the wiser sort of Heathens: or one ra­ther that had never any conversation at all ei­ther with reason or men. O but Catholicks worship God by their images, which Protestants do not. I marry, this is a huge fault indeed, that Catholicks take thereby occasion to think of God and his manifold mercies, and bless his name, and trust in him. For they no other way worship God by Images: This is the mortal sin which Catholicks commit. And if that illogical speech of the Doctor, Catho­licks worship God by Images, be drawn into any kind of sence, it can be no other than th [...]s, that Catholicks take occasion by the pious fa­ces of their Martyrs to think of Gods mani­fold graces and mercies towards them, and thereupon trust in him afresh, and bless his name: which great errour the Doctor, it [Page 25]seems, does carefully avoid. The ancient de­v [...]ut Christians thought of God and worship­ped him by any thing, any good thing they en­joyed; the verdant fields and sweet flowers, comfortable air, and pleasing light, moun­tains, valleys and liquid streams; Plumbs, Pears, Apples, and chearful Grapes; by the vertue, charity and devotion of men, the mi­nistry of Angels, &c. But now we must take heed of that. We may taste a Plumb or a Cherry, we may eat a venison Pasty and drink good wine if we can get it; nay we may have fine pictures in our Chambers, even the pi­cture of Jesus Christ crucified, or any of his followers: we may have all this, if we be such good Protestants as Mr. Stillingfleet, and never think of God, or worship God by it. But if we worship God by it, if we think of God by it, then it is all poison to us. All is suddenly turned to Moloch, to Remphan, to Baal Peor, to Ashtaroth, to Aarons golden Steer and the Calves of Bethel. If we do but eat a custard thinking of God, or worshipping God by it, pre­sently it becomes a Remphan or Chiun, the idol of the Arabians. Walking upon Ham­stead-hill, as people use innocently enough to do, if casting our eyes about the prospect we think of G [...]d by it, as Catholicks are wont, the hill before innocent is now become a Baal Peor the idol of the Moabites. A Citizen [Page 26]walking to the Tower, may look harmlesly enough upon the Crown and royal. Robes there. But he must take heed then, that he fall not into a meditation of Heaven, or the glory of its great King, to worship him in his heart by it. For then it becomes to him an Adramelech, the idol of Sepharvaim. And he must beware of the like abuse when he sees the Chamber and Table where his Majesty sits in Council with his Peers, lest it become a Moloch to him, the idol of the Moabites. The very Flags and Banners often seen in London-streets, make some simple soul to think of Je­rusalem above, the peace and happy company there, and the God of all: but then O how suddenly is the Streamer metamorphosed and turned into Nesroch, the idol of Senacherib. Some are so bold, when they either see or hear of any corrupted by the French-pox and lechery, to thank God who has preserved them, and worship God by it. And thereby sin no less grievously than Maacham the Mo [...]her of Asa King of Judah in worshipping her idol Priap or Nimphleseth. A gentleman cal­led upon God not in words onely, but very heartily, when a troublesome Fly got into his Eye, and much afflicted him: but he little thought that by that piety of his he had sin­ned as deeply as they that worship Baalzebu [...] the idol of Acaron. Nothing is more ordi­nary [Page 27]with Country Gentlemen, when walking abroad they behold a goodly fair flock of sheep in pasture of their own, than to thank God and worship God by it; but little do they think good men, they are guilty of Idolatry thereby, as much guilty as they that worship­ped Ashtaroth, the idol of the Philistins. Nay a very cow or calf in the meadows, if we take occasion by it to thank God for his bene­fits, or to worship God by it, is the same thing then, as Aarons Moulten heifer or Jeroboams calves set up in Dan and Bethel. And as it is for substance, so for the figures of things. St. Pauls picture so long as we do not think of God by it, is a lawful picture. But if we come once to think of God, to worship God by it, O then that is a Calf too, Aarons Calf, one of Jeroboams Calves, &c. This think­ing of God, this worshipping of God by any thing, this is the pestilential blast, that spoils all. It turns sweet into bitter, lawful into unlawful, things innocent into sin, and good things to death. The representation of our blessed Lord crucified for us, so long as we think not of him may pass for a good innocent or at least indifferent thing; but if we once think seriously of him, if we worship God by it, then, O Mr. Stillingfleet, what is it then? And yet answer me not. For I will not have those blasphemous words here repeated. [Page 28]Speak them to a Jew in order to Jesus Christ and he will embrace and love you. But a Chri­stian cannot endure to hear them.

§ 5. Papists saith he worship God by images, and so are guilty of idolatry, Catholicks may hear this, but can never understand what he means. They are never taught in any of their Catechisms to worship God by Images. None of their spiritual books wherein all religious Duties are importunately urged and pressed upon them ever mention it: and their practice does not infer it. For if it did, they would easiliest understand it who best know what themselves do. They are taught, and do in their practice endeavour to worship God in their heart and soul; and ardent affections streaming forth thence towards him. They worship him with bended knees, lips and voice, hearts and eyes l [...]fted up unto him. They worship him with the assistance of Gods good Spirit, the Priests Sacrifice, and help of mu­tual prayers. They worship him by mortify­ing their sensuality and carnal appetites, by giving alms and relieving the poor and needy for his Love, by observing his Laws and Counsels, by resigning to his good will and pleasure in all things, especially in time of afflicting persecutions, when they suffer all manner of reproach, lies and calumnies, loss of goods and sometimes life it self for his [Page 29]name sake patiently. They worship him in Closets, in Church-assemblies, in the fields, as they are walling, on Land or Sea, where they have opportunity to do it. Thus doth their religion teach them to worship God, as with the right causes and instruments; as by the true effects and operations; as in the times and places seasonable for worship and devo­tion. But how they should worship God by images, or (as he speaketh oftner in the con­text of his discourse) in images; this they do not easily understand. When he lays any thing to Catholicks charge, he ought to speak I should think as Catholicks do, and then he will be understood by them. It is not to be conceived how any one can worship God by images, and in images, but either for the real presence there; or ideal imitation; or some sort of occasion of worship arising thence. And so God must be worshipped by them and in them, either presentially, ideally, or occa­sionally. And it cannot be presentially. For so God is no otherwise present in a picture than in the wall it hangs upon: nor yet ideally; for the picture for example of St. Mary Mag­dalen or St. Paul, is no idea of that invisible and glorious Godhead; nor yet is any other, as the Crucifix for example or Christ our Lord in his Birth or Resurrection; for all these fi­gures are representations of his humanity, and [Page 30]no idea's of his Deity at all. And Mr. Stil­lingfleet must needs mean one of these two ways. For otherwise he could not charge them with idolatry for it. And therefore I say that his charge is false and slanderous. But if he mean that they worship God by images and in their images, occasionally; which is a mo­ral interpretation and the only true one: Then is such a work so far from Idolatry, that it is a sublime piety. For what can they better do, then to give God thanks for so great graces, mercies, helps, and comforts bestowed in Je­sus our Lord upon his Apostles. Martyrs, Confessors, and Virgins, when they look up­on their figures and pictures either in their contemplations, or patience of Martyrdome, or conversion of the world, subduing and bringing flesh, Satan and the world under their feet: especially if Catholicks conceive thereby some pious resolution, as well they may, of doing something the more and pati­ently suffering for God, in imitation of those pious Heroes our Predecessours in religion, and yet naturally but flesh and blood as we our selves are. I say all this is signal piety, and our Christian duty. And according to, this morall meaning Catholicks if they do worship God by their im [...]ges and in their images; do well and like good Christians. But the Doctor will not charge them I sup­pose [Page 31]with a matter of so much truth and great piety as this is, although his words cannot make out any other sence that is true, but only this morall one. And the more logical sence of worshipping God by images and in images; ideally or presentially is false. Let him even take which sence he pleases, either what justifies Catholicks or what salsifies his own assertion; It is all one to me, whether we stand, or he fall.

§ 6. He adds, that the worship of God by images does not terminate upon God; because God has forbid it and so gives Gods honour to the Creature. This is strange gibberish. An act that tends to nothing is no act. If it be some act, it tends and has already tended to something; and it terminates upon that thing unto which it tends, and whose act it is de­nominated. This is clear enough even to a young sophomore, or one who indeed never yet came into the aire of Philosophy, if he do but understand the terms and words here used. For example I cannot see a man in the street, except my vision terminate upon him; nor can my vision terminate upon him, but I must see him. And it is all one whether I see him close by me, or by my window or in a looking glass at home. For I cannot see him any way but my sight must terminate upon him, and if it do not, I see him not. And [Page 32]this course of nature is not hindred, not yet altered at all, because that person may haply have forbidden me to look up­on him either this way or that. For our acts or actions are accomplished within our selves, independently of any acceptance or disacceptance of them. Acceptance or disacceptance, commanding or forbidding is another thing, extrinsecal and quite differ­ing from the substance of the act or action. For they specifie onely, either the motive or event which may make the act either good or evil, either grateful or displeasing, but not make it an act or no act, or not to tend where it has tended. And so must my act of wor­shipping God by images, terminate upon God, or else it is no act of worshipping God by them; however God may have either com­manded or forbid it. God has forbidden blasphemy; and yet the act terminates upon him, otherwise it could not be a sin against him. And if Gods worship by images do not terminate on God, whither on Gods name does it tend; and how is God worship­ed by them? This he does not tell us here, unless he insinuate it is those following words of his, but gives the honour due to God unto the Creature. But how can that be? If God should have forbid us by his law to see a star through a tube; should we not therefore see it [Page 33]but the tube only, or should not our sight then be terminated upon the Sar. So it seems by this Doctors philosophy, who hath conversed with the learneder sort of Papists, and the wiser sort of heathens, but very little with himself. Holy fathers and Doctors have often said, that the honour of an Image re­dounds to the Prototype: but never thought or said, that the honour of the Prototype re­dounds to the image, as it is here affirmed against both art and experience. But let us hear him proceed in his discourse. He will surely let fall some sence or truth ere long.

§ 7. Gods infinite and incomprehensible Dei­ty saith he, cannot be represented. O here it is. This is very true. What a comfortable thing it is to meet with a draught of truth sometimes, when a man is dry and thirsts af­ter it. But to what purpose is this spoken here? Catholicks have no representations of that invisible Deity, nor none they look after. Figures they have of our Lord Christ. born as man amongst us, and made flesh, and crucified, and ascending into Heaven. Fi­gures also of his holy followers and Mar­tyrs: but representations of the invisible De­ity they never yet saw nor heard nor thought of. On then. The wisest of heathens judged any such representations of the Divine nature incongruous and unbecoming his glory. Indeed [Page 34]they were wise heathens, and their judgment very right and good. Nor did I ever hear of any Christian wise or unwise any otherwise minded. O how would this Doctor prevail, if this wise Discourse of his, were as perti­nent as it is true. But he trusts and hopes well, that his good fate will so accompany his reader. that he shall not doubt at all that eve­ry word that is true in his book is also to some purpose. And to some purpose indeed it is: namely to have it thought, that he is victorious in his maine design: although in­deed and truth it belong nothing at all to it. But let me not stop his carreere. If any such figure of the Deity were inconsistent in the old Law, much more in the new where we are commanded to worship God in spirit and truth. O uncontrouleable consequence, arising from remisses most true. No man can or dare deny a [...]l this. Me thinks I love him here for his reason, and cannot but grieve it should be all spilt in vain; so pure it is and pretious. A little more of this, while he is in a good mood. It seems more rational to worship God in the Sun and Moon which have more of God in them then a picture has, and to say our prayers to the Sun and Moon then to any Image. Seems so Sir? It is certainly more rational: what should we doubt of? And what a pitty is it, there should be none to be found, who wor­ship [Page 35]God in a picture either ideally or presen­tially none who say their prayers to a picture that this great blow of his might not beat the aire to the indangering of his elbows. Saint Paul testifies that the Godhead is not like either to gold or silver or stone. Good St. Paul alwaies said well; and his testimony is good at all times; and especially now, when it hits so pat with the wiser heathens. There be many Churches now in England which have since our reformation, the Tetragram name of God written upon the walls within side in golden letters. Unto those men who did this, it would not seem altogether imperti­nent, to tell them, that the Godhead is not like to gold, silver or stone. But to such as use only the effigies of our Lord according to his hu­manity, and his holy Apostles and Martyrs, what a pitty it is it should be impertinent and wholly lost. Let him speak on some more of his truths. Germanus Patriark of Con­stantinople saies expresly that Christians make no representation of the invisible Deity: and St. Damascene affirms it madness to go about it. Marry, God have mercy o'their souls for this their express saying. Catholicks would de­sire no better a testimony for themselves if they wanted any, then this of those two great Catholick Doctors; that no such re­presentation they have, and none they go [Page 36]about to have. O but he hopes, that all this being true will make strongly against the Church of Rome. And will it so? I have heard say, there be a thousand Churches in Rome, which are all Churches of Rome equally. Which of them all are concerned in this talk, that their walls may confute him? But he means Catholick people perhaps, oh, O, then all is well, they are safe enough and unhurt by all this, which is but their own do­ctrine, and faith. At least he has by these fair shreds of truth farced up a dozen pages in his book; And he hopes that his prote­stant reader will believe it all to be most per­tinent and apposite discourse against papishes, though it be nothing less. And if they do so think, he has his end, a happy man no doubt.

§ 8. Moses forbad saith he, the making of any graven thing, and the word which Moses uses in that his law for a graven thing is gene­ral and signifies not an idol only as papists say, but any picture, likeness, image or representati­on, as Moses himself speaks, either in heaven a­bove or in earth below or waters under the earth, pesel, themurah, eikon glypton, sculptile, any kind of thing that may be exprest either with the pencil or graving tool. Believe me Sir if this be true it will undo all our Painters, who come flocking hither into England as the only thri­ving [Page 37]place for them out of Holland, Ger­many, France and Italy too; and here fill the Land with pesels, themunahs, eikons, glyp­tons, sculptile's, and any things they can ex­press with their pencils for our delight; Dol­phins, whales, and other fish of the sea; birds of the Aire, beasts, flowers, woods gallant men and fair women, all that ever Moses forbad to be exprest. Nay I have seen my self in a protestant Church Moses himself painted on the walls with glittering hornes on his head and a pair of law tables in his hand. But it may be Law makers do ex­emp themselves: at least some Protestants may interpret as they seem to do, that Moses for­bad to make the figure of Jesus Christ but not his own. No man in England scruples to have any of these eikons, no not the Doctor himself, notwithstanding this law of Moses so expresly contrary to them all; no man doubts to set any painter or graver on work. And yet must still this law be cast in the teeth of Catholicks as transgressors of it. For Gods sake why is St. Mary Magdalen in her penitential weeds upon her knees, with beads in her hand, and eyes all blubbered and swoln with tears, more against the law of Moses; than one of our delicate Paragons of beauty, in her shining dress, lips of coral and spark­ling eyes. O but Catholicks worship them. Sir [Page 38]this word in the sence and meaning of pro­testants is as great a falshood as was ever ut­tered by man. For Catholicks neither have nor can have any other relative esteem of any picture, than what they have to the peni­tential works they represent, or to the worth and piety of the persons. And an absolute esteem of the picture, this is measured out only by the Materials, and artifice of the painter; according to which one picture shall be worth five hundred pounds, and ano­ther representing the same thing, not worth five shillings. And can we believe that our protestant young Gentlemen have no vene­ration at all to our beauties set thus in their Majesty, nor no kind of affections rising in their hearts towards them? Yea ten to one more of ill affections, and, god wot greater, then any good ones we can have to our cru­cified Je [...]us in our way of piety. And the difference indeed is only this, that our reve­rence and affection is towards holy persons, and unto an imitation of their piety, hope, patience, constancy, and charity: Their's to a concupiscence of flesh and eyes. This and nothing but this if truth may be spoken, makes them so wrathful and furious against our Catholick pictures. Satan hates Jesus Christ and therefore inflames them to tear down his memories and representations: but he loves pride of life; and those portractures [Page 39]must stand that advance this. He is pleased with that which feeds concupiscence of eyes: and concupiscence of flesh brings him in the disciples which Jesus Christ loses.

Moses did forbid Jews who were travelling with him towards Palestine an idolatrous Na­tion, to make to themselves, that is to say on their own heads, without warrant of the Sy­nagogue, or in imitation of the pagan rites, any of the idolatrous images there and else­where to be met withal, or any similitude at all, least seduced thereby, they leave their own God and religion to cleave unto false gods and idolatry. This law of Moses and purpose of the law is so clear, that he must be obstinate­ly blind who sees it not. And what does this concern our holy Catholick figures of St. Paul for example or Christ crucified, more than Protestant figures of young Lords and fine Ladies; save that the one moves us to the love of mortification, prayer, patience, cha­stity, the other allures us from it; the one confirms Religion, the other weakens it. Be­sides our holy pictures are allowed by the Church, the others forbidden. And this in­deed is the onely aim of Moses, when he for­bids the people to make to themselves any gra­ven images whatsoever; to themselves, that is on their own fancies and upon their own authority: For such onely were unlawful, and [Page 40]not those they were commanded by just au­thority and allowed to make. See, saith God by Moses, I have called and named Besaleel, and I have filled h [...]m with the spirit of wisdom and understanding and all knowledge of all manner of workmanship, to devise cunning works to work in gold and silver and brass, and in cutting of stones and in graving of wood, to work all manner of workmanship. And I have appointed Aholiab with him; and in the hearts of all the wise I have put wisdom, that they make all that I have com­manded. And by virtue whereof the said men and others after them wove and graved pomgranets and lilies, and placed Cherubs up­on the Propitiatory, between which graven Cherubims God himself gave out his Oracles to Moses: as he did also heal the people by the figure of a Serpent which Moses comman­ded to be set up. So that here is a vast diffe­rence betwixt figures graven and set up by au­thority, and those which people make to themselves. The one is commanded, the other forbidden. Aarons Calf of gold de­stroyed the people, but Moses his Serpent of brass healed them. These things are not now said afresh. They have been told to Ministers over and again, but they are never the better for it. Indeed they love not to hear of it, be­cause it spoils their sport.

I add yet withal, over and above what is yet said, that neither that law of Moses, nor any of his Ten Commandments, nor any other of his precepts either ceremonial judicial or moral, does any way oblige Christians at all, as it comes from Moses, who is not our Law-maker or master, but ruler and leader of the Jews. Nor do we Christians believe that theft, adultery, homicide or blasphemy, is a sin because Moses forbad it, but because we have receiv'd from Jesus our own Legislator who justified Moses law and ratified it in all the said particulars, that so it is. And it is here to be observed that one of the most so­lemn laws contained in those two tables, that I mean, which ordains the seventh day to be kept holy day, unto which Moses adjoyns an irrefragable and unchangeable reason, namely because God rested that day when he made this visible world, beginning his work saith Moses on the sunday wherein he created light, and the friday following finishing the whole; even this law of his most solemn and impor­tunely urged by Moses, is annulled and abro­gated amongst all Christians even from the beginning of Christianity, for want of ratifi­cation of it from our Lord and Master Jesus who is our Law-maker and Prince. And the same thing do I say of this his present law about figures, images and representations of [Page 42]things by sculpture or pencil, which was only of temporal concernment to the then present Jews against the danger of idols which then filled the earth, and as meer a ceremonial law as the other, and equally concerning a cere­mony of worship. If our own Prelates whom Christ our Lord instituted to oversee his flock should for reasons best known to themselves take from us those little small helps we have by the images of some of our Ancestors, Martyrs, Apostles, Virgins, Confessors, then would we be without them, and yet not think our selves to lose one jot of our Religion for that. But we will not forfeit them for any law made by Moses, except it be established and ratified by our own law-maker or his Pre­lates watching over us under our Lord unto our good, if Moses should have made any law against them, which indeed he did not, but onely against heathen Idols. And if any one should endeavour to have our Christian repre­sentations to be abolished because he thinks and believes that Moses forbad them, then is that man say I, bound to observe all the whole Law of Moses, as it is literally expressed by him, even to the least apex or iota thereof. For the authority of a Legislator being the same in all h [...]s whole law, must oblige equally in all its parts: and the distinction then be­tween judicial, moral, and ceremonial law, sig­nifies [Page 27]nothing; seeing that Moses his com­mands are equally peremptory, and press as strongly in the one as in the other. This is no imaginary opinion of mine own, but what reason and the Spirit of God moved St. Paul to aver as stoutly in the case of circumci­sion, which is another of Moses Laws, as I do here. I testifie to every man, saith he, who is circumcised, that he is bound to keep the whole law. And this must needs be true, most certainly true: for by observing circumci­sion because it was commanded by Moses, he subjects himself to the law and authority of Moses as his Prince and Legislator; and con­sequently is bound to observe him equally in all things which he commands with the same authority and will to be obeyed, which is no less then all his whole law. And cursed is eve­ry one, saith the same Apostle, who is under the law and continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to fulfil them. Although then it should be granted that Moses by his law prohibited all kind of figures and representations, even those used by Christians, which he did not, yet if our Lord ratified it not, it does not touch us at all. And that he did not renew or ratifie it, is sufficiently clear to Protestants, because no such law of his is found among the Evange­lists: and unto Catholicks no less, because [Page 44]there is neither Gospel nor Tradition for it. And if all men would separate themselves from prejudice, which blinds and hardens them in their conceits, they might easily be­lieve that neither Christs immediate Disciples nor any Christians that succeeded them after our Lords departure, would have either fear­ed or hated the figure of our Lords counte­nance, if by chance they would have met with it. But if any one notwithstanding, fully perswaded that Moses made a law against all sort of images and representations, should upon that authority of his abolish ours, he is bound also upon the same authority to sacri­fice an Ox, and observe all the whole law in all and every particular, under the penalty of sin.

Since therefore by the order of God and Moses many graven things were made; repre­sentations and similitudes both in Heaven and Earth notwithstanding the said law; as the Serpent of brass (which must either be made by melting or graving) pomegranates, lilies and various such-like things both graven in stone and interwoven in silks, Cherubins or Angels in the Propitiatory, even in Moses time and afterwards more fully and plentifully in Solomon's Temple; it is not rationally to be doubted, but that this law of his was intended onely to keep those people close and constant [Page 45]to their own God and to their own Religion, which was inconsistent with the idols of the Nations; and not for any purpose of keep­ing Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, either out of their chamber hangings or ours. I know the Jews do urge this Precept of Moses very ea­gerly against Christians ever since Jesus Christ our Lord was rejected by them, whose image and figure they cannot abide to see. But we must have patience with all men.

§ 9. Moses saith he, grounded this law of his upon a reason unchangable, namely that Gods infinite and incomprehensible Deity cannot be re­presented. O profound invention! This is such a law and ground of a law, as was never before thought of. The ground and reason of making a law must be this, an impossibili­ty of breaking it. They must not make any representations of God, because God cannot be represented. And the same motive or rea­son will be equally proper for all the rest of the Commandments: They must keep the se­venth day of the week a holy day. The reason and motive; because there is not an eighth day to keep holy and sanctifie. They must ho­nour their Parents. The ground and reason of this; because none of the whole Camp had any Fathers or Mothers alive to dishonour. They must not kill. The motive and reason is; because they were all shot-free, and so firmly [Page 46]inchanted that none could hurt them. They must not commit adultery. The ground and reason is; because there was never a woman in the camp, which any man though provok'd with the highest lust could pessibly come near or touch with a pair of tongues. They must not steal. The great cause thereof is, that there is noth [...]ng at all in the Camp for any man to take away. Thus the Doctor imagi [...]es Mo­ses to forbid any representations of God be­cause God cannot be represented. And such another discreet mounsieur was he who so­lemnly commanded his bowyer not to make him any shafts at all of a piggs ta [...]le: and he gravel [...] gave him the reason for it, because quoth he of a piggs tail no shaft can be made. Truth is, Moses never thought of any such law, nor any such reason of it much less; but provided for the security of the He­brews religion, that it might remain un­changable and firm in the mids of those ma­ny Nations round about them who worship­ed false Gods and idols: as Moses very fre­quently interprets himself and all the Pro­phets after him. Therefore saith God by Moses, thou sh [...]lt have no other Gods but me, thou shalt not make to thy self any fi­gures, as the Gentills do, nor worship them. For I am a jealous God and will have no in­termingling of devillish idolatry with my [Page 43]service; And all the reason given by Moses is gods jealousie not induring any divine wor­ship but his own. This is the very truth and all the truth of this business, which this Do­ctor would turn another way, thereby to make Moses seem as simple a ma [...] as himself. And those idols forbidden by Moses did so involve an opposition to the true God and his divine worship, that people could not possibly betake themselves to one, but they must leave the other. Therefore did Moses forbid both other Gods besides their own one God, and all idols together: which was by antient Christians very rationally and wisely reckoned all one and the same com­mandement: whereof no less a man, then St. Austin himself is witness. But the me­mories of Abraham Isaac and J [...]cob could bring no such danger with them. And that is our care, for we are not in danger of loosing the faith of Jesus Christ by keeping the image of him our crucified Lord among us; or forsaking the communion of Saints, by re­taining their portraictures before our eyes. We should ipso sacto renounce our Lord and all his whole Religion, should we set up Moses his forbidden i [...]ols and make it our religion to worship them as heathens did. But we are heartened incouraged and con­firmed in our Christian Religion by looking [Page 48]on the faces of so many our glorious Mar­tyrs, holy Anchorets, and Hermits, pious Virgins and Confessours, who profest this our Religion before us, bravely triumphing by the power of Christs love and divine faith, over sins allurements, and deaths ugliest ter­rours; though incompassed themselves with the like passions and infirmities we are our s [...]lves invironed round about. And when we are entred into a Church amongst so many of our worthy predecessors, we compose our selves more heartily to our devotion then otherwise we should do, in imitation of them; remembring now that we are come up to Mount Sion, to the City of our li­ving God, to celestial Jerusalem, and society of Angels, to the Church of Primitive Chri­stians conscript in the Heavens. to God the Judge of all, to the Spirits of just men per­fected, to Jesus the mediator of a new Testa­ment, and to the aspersion of blood speaking better things then Abel.

§ 10. The Heathens, saith he did ill in their idoll worship, and yet the wiser sort among them testifie that they did not hold them to be Gods but worshiped God in them. Our acute di­v [...]ne having now by his fine wit so clarified Moses law, that it might not so much con­cern Idolaters as our vulgar painters; he now begins so to purifie idolaters practice [Page 49]too, that they may seem but in the same con­dition with our Catholick and best Christi­ans. And who would not give his penny to hear him act and speak. The heathens all in general are so excused in their idolatry, Aaron in his act of apostacy, and Jeroboam in his great sin; that they are all and each of them no otherwise faulty then the Church of Rome in his books. Thus doth Mr. Stilling­fleet convert idolatrous Nations, while he sits dreaming in his closet. Here he dimi­nishes and there he exaggerates, here he blacks with his pen and there he whitens; and then he cryes out all is one, all of the same measure, all of the same colour. And truly I believe the great Gyant Goliah and little David might thus be made equal, if the Gyant were beheaded and cut off by the knees, on one side; and David on the other s [...]de, set upon a high pair of stilts. While Catholicks are made to do what they do not, and heathens not to do what they do, on a supposal that all this is true, there can be no great difference Let us then hear him what he tells us of Heathens in general. The wiser sort among them, testifie quoth he, that they worshiped not the idols as gods but worshiped God in them. O very good? Thus the wiser sort among the heathens say. But first who are these wiser sort? It behooved him to let [Page 50]us know this. But yet for his own pocket-rea­sons he does not. But 2ly what says he himself to it? O that is needless: for his reader will understand well enough what he ought to think, when such a Doctor as Stillingfleet tells him what the wiser sort have thought. No body would think with fools, but with the wi­ser sort alwayes. And his whole discourse pro­ceeds on this supposed knowledge of the wi­ser sort and according to it concludes. We cannot therefore doubt of his mind. But have we no wise sort of antient beleevers who li­ved among the heathens, to testifie unto us what the heathens did? Have we no Apostles and Prophets to hearken to, no renowned and infallible persons to inform us? Surely we have, and those so many, that we need not have recourse either unto persons unknown amongst the heathens for their testimony, or to Mr. Sillingfleet the ingenious tr [...]fler. He tells us that the heathens did not worship their Idols as Gods, but worshiped God in them. But our Apostles and Prophets tell us contrary things. Hear Moses speak, who lived among the thickest of the Heathens, To whom did they sacrifice, O Moses, whom did the hea­thens worship? Imm [...]laverunt Demoniis & non Deo, Deut. 32. They worshiped not God but de­vils, they sacrificed to devils saith he, and not to God. The Nations change their gods, and [Page 51]indeed they are no Gods, saith Jeremy ch. 2. but my people have changed their glory unto an Idol. Baruch another Prophet brings in his testimony chap. 4. You have provoked him who made you, saith he, even the eternal God, sacrificing to Devils and not to God. The ho­ly Psalmist he tells us no less peremptorily, That they immolated their Sons and Daugh­ters to Devils, and sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, Ps. 105. and that all the gods of the Heathens are Devils, Ps. 95. Saint Paul our own Christian Doctor is bold, and expresly, te­stifies both against Stillingfleet and his wiser heathens; That the things which Centiles immolated they sacrificed to Devils and not to God, 1 Cor. 10. And yet after all this our Doctor is not ashamed to justifie those his clyents the heathens. They did not worship their idolls saith he, for Gods, but worshiped God in them. And whom shall we here believe? Moses, Jeremy, Baruch, David, St. Paul and all our Christian Doctors, or Stillingfleet rather and his wifer heathens unknown to himself? They sacrificed to devils and not to God; they changed their glory into an Idol: they irritated the eternal God, im­molating to devils and not to God; they sacri­ficed their sons and daughters to devils, not to God. Thus speak our Prophets and Apostles. But Mr. Sillingfleet affirms, they sacrificed to [Page 52]God, they imolated to God, they worshiped god and not devils, they worshiped not the idols but God in them. But I discern well enough the cause of his mistake. Because they abstracted the general notion of God, and applied it, each one to his own idols; therefore he thinks he may say they worship­ed God in them. But this is a gross mistake. For to worship God in a thing and to wor­ship a thing for God who is no God, are two very differing cases. Christians worship God in Christ, and they do well; heathens who worshiped their Idols for God did ill. Crom­well our late Usurper after he had murd [...]re [...] our good King and set the Crown upon his own head, would have taken it well, if his Ar­my had to [...]d him they honoured him for their King; but not, if they had said they worship­ped the King in him. The first word had soun­ded in his ears as a grateful slattery, the other as treason to himself. To [...]bstract the Deity and apply it to another subject unto whom it does not belong, is as far as we are able to behead the true God and set h [...]s Crown upon the shoulders of usurping devils. And be­cause the true real Deity cannot be removed, either by the pleasure of the Usurper or wor­shiper, therefore are these idols devi [...]s and false Gods. God cannot be worsh [...]ped in them because he is not in them; and if they [Page 53]be worshiped as Gods it is Idolatry; or else there is no such thing as idolatry upon earth

Aaron, saith he, made the golden calf, not to reduce the people unto heathen idolatry, but for an embleme of the good Angel who was to go before them. Here is another excuse of Aaron his small fault; which drove Moses his brother and Prince into a great a passion of wrath as perhaps he ever felt: even so prevalent a grief and anger, that it dashed in pieces the very rables of the Law he had in his hands; though he was by the testimony of holy writ the mildest of men: and all this it seems for an embleme: And why that emb [...]em? since they had such an emblem be­fore in the pillar of cloud by day and fire by night; which was a more significant emblem of the angel who went before them, then any calf of gold could be. The holy Prophets test [...]fie of those people and Aaron, that in Moses absence this figure was melted and founded by them to be set up in place of the God, who had hitherto conducted them w [...]th Moses now as they thought vanished, out of Egypt into Arabia; and to lead them on the rest of their way, as their supream conduct, after the manner of Egyptian Dei­ties. They made a ca [...]f in Horeb and adored the figure, they changed their glory into the [Page 54]likeness of a Calf eating nay and forgot their God, Psal. 125. Now if they forgat their own God, and slighted him, and cast him from them, and changed his glory into a calf, and worshiped the very figure: then must that sculptil or statue be now accepted for their God. The like testimony gives St. Sephen, Act. 7. They made saith he, a calf in those dayes and offered sacrifice unto the Idol, and made themselves merry in the works of their own hands. What can this import, but that they had now altered their religion, renoun­ced their former God, and made to them­selves a new one after the manner of Egypt. It is pitty Mr. Stillingfleet had not been with Aaron; his confidence would have pleaded for him a little more handsomly then he did for himself. But the excuse perhaps being hypocritical and false would have more offen­ded Moses, then his former fault. Aaron knew well enough what he had done. And although he somewhat minced his fault, yet would he not tell a lye. I cast a little mettal into the fire, saith he to Moses, and there came out this calf, The Doctor adds two pretty reasons, why neither he nor the people, could ever think of declining then to any heathen idolatry, First because they had no pre­tence of doing so. As though the very absence of Moses, whom they had long expected and [Page 55]now thought lost, were not pretence enough, unto some leading men in the Camp to raise a sedition and thereby force Aaron to make them such idols, as they were acquainted with in Egypt. It is well enough known, that by the contagion of those leading men, the Camp was ever and anon in such like tumult and ready disposition to apostacy. His second reason is, because no intimation is made that they sell into heathen idolatry. What intima­tion is given thereof by the Prophet and St. Stephen he takes it seems for no inti­mation at all. When they fell, saith he, into heathen idolatry, mention is made of their Gods, as Baal Peor, Moloch, Remphan; but here Aaron is said to make a feast to the Lord: As though there were not Egyptian idols as well as Syrian; and Osiris and Isis, as well as Mo­loch and Remphan. And a feast made in ho­nour of this their new God and religion, might well be said a feast to the Lord. It was a policy in Aaron, thus to speak, that the common people might not suddainly discern the alteration. And we may easily believe that the leading men, who brought him by perswasion and force unto this apostacy, sug­gested the said stratagem; first to get the people more universally on their side without commotion: and then to put something into their mouths for to say to Moses, if he should [Page 56]chance to come upon them suddainly and take them beyond expectation in the fact. For that it was a meer pretence of policy is evi­dent by this; that they gave to Moses no such account of any feast made unto their antient true God; and secondly because their princi­pal Leaders had no purpose to make any, for they had now forgot and put away their own true God and cast him out of their mind, as holy text speaks, obliti sunt Dei sui.

The Calves set up by Jeroboam in Dan and Bethel, were only to keep the people from going up to Jerusalem and not to bring them to any idolatry of the heathens. Here is another ex­cuse for Jeroboam and his peccadillo. Who would not take Mr. Stillingfleet to be a very charitable man, who can cover such a multi­tude of sins? and yet is it all no other but a secret prodigious malice against Catholicks, who must bear the more and hear the worse for it. Jeroboam saith he did not alter the di­vine worship, or give any occasion of idolatry: No, no. He only kept the people, saith he from going up to Jerusalem, whither they used once a year to resort. And this could be no such great matter; since they had the same service, the same sacrifice and adorati­on at home. But why then is Jeroboam char­ged with idolatry in holy Scripture, as one that had done evil above all that went before [Page 57]him, and made h [...]m other gods and molten images to provoke God to anger, and to cast his own God behind his back, 1 Reg. 14 O, ho, thence we conclude saith our Doctor that an image set up for gods honour is idolatry; as it is amongst papists. And is not this a pretty nimble leiger demaine of a slight man. First who taught him that Papists set up images for Gods honour? I have learned amongst them that they are set up for our incouragement and imitation, and for an honourable memo­ry of their holy Martyrs and Apostles. But what ho [...]our can one of those images be to God? none at all I think, except indirectly, because God is the blessed author of all good, whence the said Apostles & Martyrs received their strength and grace. Secondly where does this confident man find, that Jeroboam set up his images for Gods honour? Even no where at all. His own boldness is so strong in him, that he sayes what he lists without any ground or oc­casion at all any where, either among sacred writers or prophane. Thirdly whence doth he ga [...]her his negative word, that Jeroboam acted none of the heathen idolatry, nor brought the people to it? Even from his own confident brain whence he has the other, expresly con­trary to the testimony of holy writ which speaks, as it were passionatly and very empha­tically of his notorious idolatry, wherein he [Page 58]did evil above all that were before him, wherein he made him other gods and molten images, to provoke God to anger, and cast his own God behind his back. Can he be Justly charged with all this, only because he kept the Israelites from going up to Jerusa­lem, and made them do those devotions at home which they were wont to do in that mother Citty. Can only change of place suffice for the criminous imputation of idola­try, where is the same adoration, same rites, same sacrifice, same Priests, and same God. Is it possible that the same service and Com­mon prayer-book read by Ministers of the same kind in London and Highgate, be Gods service in one place, and idolatry in the other, all other things agreing but only the circum­stance of place? No indeed, it is not possible it should be so. But it is very possible it should be said so. Mr. Stillingfleet here speaks it, and speaks it stoutly, on his own head, even against all Divine authority and upright reason. People may sin against eccle­siastical obedience indeed, by not coming up to their parochial Church when they are commanded. But they cannot, only upon that ground, be charged with idolatry, or making strange gods, or casting their own God be­hind their back. He must be a very passionate Prelate, and extreamly unjust and sinfully in­jurious, [Page 59]who laies that imputation upon peo­ple, upon no other ground or motive then that one circumstantial neglect of place. And yet holy Scripture several times thus charges Jeroboam; and puts such a blot upon his scutcheon both for his own idolatry, and that into which he induced all the people, that he is seldom or never mentioned without his black sirname; Jeroboam who made Israel to sin. If it were true at least, as Mr. Stilling-fleet here speaks, that Jeroboam and Israels sin were only a circumstance of place, and that they and he did in their own tribes but what was done in Jerusalem, then must it needs fol­low, that there were in the Temple of Jeru­salem such like representations, as those calves set up by Jeroboam in Dan and Be­thel, and indeed the very same with them. And thence we may gather for our learning, if this be all true, an axiom of great truth and concernment; namely, that one and the same piece of worship which pleases God in the Catholick Church, is an abomination to him in the waies of heresie and schisme. The very same thing which in Jerusalem and the tribe of Judah were called Cheru­bims; in Samaria and all the rest of Isra­el apostatised from them, was but a calf.

§ 11. Charles the great a noble Emperour caused Books to be set forth against the Coun­cil of Nice where images had been established, called Carolin Books, and assembled also a Coun­cil at Frankford▪ wherein both the said Nicen Council was condemned, and all their reasons for images confuted, &c. That there were both in the Councill of Frankford and Nice too, some Catholick Prelates who propounded difficulties against images cannot be denied. For when ever any Councill meets together about any affair, they dispute pro and con, [...]oth for and against it; that the Prelates having all things set before their Eyes that can be said on both sides, might be the better in­abled to determine. So doubtless it was done by the Apostles themselves in their great Councill held in Jerusalem about Circumcisi­on, where inquisitio magna facta est, great in­quisi [...]ion, disputation, and examination was made about it. All this is certain enough. But yet, that either in Frankford or any where else, were made after this their dispute any final or conclusive declaration against the use of images amongst Christians; or that Charles the Emperour should either write books or cause any to be written, either a­gainst images or the Council o [...] Nice where­in they had been then established; or sum­mon that Council of Frankford to withstand [Page 61]that other of Nice unanimously concluded by the Pre [...]ates and confirmed by the general Pastour; this is a thing so apparently false and fictitious, that there needs no more but the knowledge of those very persons and times to prove it so. Charles the Great was one that adored the Roman Church where­of he was himself a Member, above all Empe­rours that ever was before or since his time. The Council of Frankford, wherein were little less then three hundred Catholick Pre­lates, was peaceably concluded, and no com­motion followed upon it; which must needs have risen, if they had condemned another Council lately celebrated and confirmed by all pastoral authority. Nor was that Frank­ford Councill ever annulled or any way cen­sured either by P. Adrian or any after him. Add to this, that the said Councill was both begun and finished under the same Po [...]e A­drian, and his Legates Theophilact and Ste­ph [...]nus, who had presided lately in the said Nicen Council, where the lawful use of ima­ges was established. It cannot possibly be imagined that the same Pope and Presidenes should conclude in Frankford quite contrary to what they ordered in Nice but seven or eight years before. It is also certain, that the said Council of Frankford, was summon­ed and assembled, not about images only as [Page 62]the Doctor imagines, but about the question of our Lord Christ his filiation, as all antient histories testifie, against Foelix and Elipand two Spanish Bishops, and Claudius Taurinen­sis, who teaching that our Lord is rather to be called an adoptive than natural Son of God, raised much commotion in Spain and France: and this novelty of theirs was first condemned at Ratisbone, and afterwards at Frankford. For Foelix after his first condemnation, repai­red to the Emperour Charles his Court who then wintered at Rheginum; and there sub­mitting to the Prelates, was sent thence to the presence of Pope Adrian, where in the Ca­thedral of St. Peter he revok'd his Errour. Elipand hearing of his submission grew more violent, and by his books both regained Foelix again, and disturbed all Germany, as he had France and Spain before. And now to pre­vent the infection, the Pope and Charles the Emperour agreed to bring together a conci­liar Assembly of Prelates in Frankford, where­in presided Theophylact and Stephanus, who had lately concluded the second Council of Nice. Whence it clearly appears that Do­ctor Stillingfleet quite mistakes the busi­ness. Now if the same Pope and his very self-same Legates presided first in the Nicen Council, and then in Frankford, as the Doctor acknowledges, we may rationally [Page 63]enough conclude, that the Nicen decrees a­bout images, lately finished in the East, were made known to the West by their acceptation and promulgation at Frankford, where the bu­siness of filiation was decided: For this is indeed very true. But no way can we think that the same Presidents would now undo, what they had done a little before. And that this is indeed the whole truth in this business, may be yet confirmed by the authority of the Council of Senon kept not long after, which in their 14. decree thus speaks, Carolus mag­nus Francorum Rex Christianissimus in Franco­rum furdensi conventu ejusdem erroris iconoma­chorum suppressit insaniam quam inselicissimus quidam Fae'ix in Gallias & Germanias invexe­rit. By this testimony it appears, that Felix over and above his capital errour about Christ our Lords adoption, was an iconoma­chus too or adversary of images, and suffer­ed at Frankford for both his errours: which is not unlikely by the testimony of Platina [...]nd Paulus Emilius: For Platina in the life of Pope Adrian, Biennio post, saith he, Theo­phylactus & Stephanus Episcopi insignes Adri­ani nomine, Francorum & Germanorum Syno­dum habuerunt, in qua & Synodus quam septi­mam Graeci appellabant, & haeresis Feliciana de tollendis imaginibus abrogata est. And P. Emilius [Page 64]in his second book de gestis Francorum speak­ing of that Councill of Frankford, Et ima­ginibus, saith he suns honor restitutus est. The like may be proved out of Blondus, Sabelli­cus and other historians. So that all these things rightly considered and put together, will sufficiently convince his relation of the Frankford Councill to be fictitious and groundiess. If the Councill were assembled by the Agreement of the Pope and Empe­rour, then not of the Emperour against the Pope. If to suppress Elipand, Claudius, and Felix; then not the Nicen Prelates. If un­der the same Pope and Presidents which pre­sided lately in Nice, then not against any thing determined and concluded in Nice. If upon the motive of Elipands errour against our Lords filiation; then was not an image the principal occasion of it. If Felix were there condemned for his opposition to ima­ges then were not images condemned. If Charles the great, one of the devoutest to the Roman Church that ever raigned, so much swaied in that Councill, then would he not suffer the Roman Church to be there affronted and censured. If an upright Ca­tholick, he would not in spiritual affairs gain­say the Prince of Prelates, who had so lately set his hand and seale to Nicen defiinitions. In a word if Charles the Great called that [Page 65]Council at Frankford, as the Doctor affirms, then without all doubt was that ratified there, which was established at Nice a little before. For Charles was as much a Roman Catholick as either Stephen and Theophilact, or the Pope himself, and knew as well as any man, what obedience is due to the definitions of a Council rightly consummated and confirmed, as that of Nice was. Binius the great Col­lector of the Councils proves at large, that all this story of the Carolin books and Frank­ford Synod assembled against that of Nice, is a groundless fiction. And so do Alanus, Surius, Vasquez, and several other Doctors. And they are all amazed, whence the rumour should arise, and by whom, and in what age or time. But I cannot wonder much at it, since I heard lately of a French Gentleman, who affirms and shows in a Book of his, that the English never conquered France, nor ever gave them any one overthrow in battle. And when he was told by a neighbour, of this his notorious falshood; O, quoth he, my book two hundred years hence, may pass for an authority as good as any that speak other­wise. And so I think there may possibly be such impious men, who out of their present malice may furnish out a lie to infect posteri­ty, in after times. But he must be an uncon­scionable wicked man who can do such a deed.

§. 12. Primitive Christians never used any images, as the learned of the Church of Rome acknowledge. He had done well to let us kn [...]w who are these le [...]rned of the Church of Rome. But he will not do us that favour. And [...]e must still take his word for the judg­ment of the learned sort always. Nay we must bel [...]eve too, that he is ever on the lear­ned sorts side. It is indeed unlikely that fi­gures of those holy persons, who first spread our Christianity in the world, and made it good both by their lives and death, should be frequent in prim [...]tive times. First, because those same figures, although they be honour­able memories both of their persons and pie­ties, unto whose zeal and goodness we are so much indebted; yet are they not so necessari­ly requisite unto any such perpose, but that the Church can be without them. Secondly, because primitive Christians had not amongst them any such plenty of Artists, as we have now a days to make them. Thirdly, because Pagans would have mis-interpreted the end and meaning of such figures, as this our Do­ctor does in the midst of day-light. But that in those primitive times there was never any Christian so ill affected towards those pious representations as is Mr. Still. appears suffici­ently by the testimony of those ancient Do­ctors, who mention incidentally the customs [...] [Page 67]so those primitive times; especially about the figure of the Cross, which they made conti­nually on the [...]r fore-head and breasts, as a preservative against evil, and kept it all over their houses, particularly in their Bed-cham­bers and closets, either framed in wood or stone, or painted in colours. There be not­withstanding the deluge of time which swal­lows up all things, some monuments yet left among us of the respect which those Christi­ans then bore both to the reliques and figures of their Saints. The very chair of St. James the Apostle and first Bishop of Jerusalem, Eu­sebius in the seventh book of his history at­tests, that it was had in great esteem and ve­neration in all times, even to his own days. Accordingly S. Clement in his six [...]h book of apostolical constitutions gives this general testimony of that kind of piety in those pri­mitive Christians, [...], The very relicks, saith he, of Saints now living with God are not without their veneration. Some remainds there be al­so of an apostolical Council at Antioch, ga­thered out of S. Pamphilus and Origen, wherein caution is given both against the Jews malice and Gent [...]le idols, by opposing the images of Jesus and his holy fo [...]lowers against them both: [...] [Page 68] [...]. Ignati [...]s also that worthy apostolical Prelate, the third from St. Peter the Apostle in the chair at Antioch, thus signally speaks of the sign of the cross in his epistle to Philadel­phia, [...]. &c. The Prince of this world, saith he, rejoices when any one denies the Cross: for he knows the con­fession of the cross to be his own ruin: this is the Standard against his power, which so often as he either sees or hears it spoken of. he shakes and trembles: thus speaks that glorious Prelate. The above named Euse­bius testifies also in the same book of his history, that he saw even in his time the brazen Statue of our Lord Jesus, which was set up in Paneada in Palestin, unto his ho­nour by the woman cured by him of the blood flix; so notable for miracles, that they were spoke of all the world over. This statue o [...] our Lord when Julian the apostate caused it to be thrown down, and his own to be set up in place thereof, a strange sodain fire from heaven consumed the statue of Julian, as Zozomenus in his fist book witnesses. And of the same bra­ [...]en statue of Christ our Lord write also [Page 69]Theophilact, Damascenus and several others. And here we may take notice by the way, that charity & devotion set up statues to our Lord, but apostasy & malice pulls them down. And whether Dr. Stillingfleet, who busies himself so much to cast down the images of Jesus our Lord and his holy followers, would refuse to have his own set up for his great pains, either in Guildhall or Cheapside, he knows best himself. Truly if that were done, I do not believe that any of his neigh­bours or Countreymen would take him then for a calf of Bethel. Of the Images of the virgin Mary made by St. Luke there is much fame amongst the antient writers, in parti­cular Theodorus, Simeon Metaphrastes and Nicephorus: The last of which does also attest in his second book, that the said pre­cious relick was carried up and down the whole habitable world of Christians, who looked upon it with a most greedy and un­satisfied devotion. The same Nicephorus adds moreover, how Constantius the Son of Constantine translated the rel [...]cks of St. Luke from Thebes, of St Andrew from A­chaia, and of St. Timothy from Ephesus, unto Constantinople, with a vast concourse and joy of Chr [...]stian people: and there with all honour and reverential respect in­shrined them in a cathedral Church dedica­ted [Page 70]to the Apostles. Of the image also of Christ our Lord imprinted by himself in a handkercher applied to his own face and sent to King Abagarus who requested his picture, write Evagrius, Metaphrastes and others. Of another image of Jesus Christ made by Nicodemus, which being ignomini­ously crucified by the Jews wrought many wonderous mirac [...]es, we have a solemn testi­mony of Athanasius cited in the fo [...]rth action of the seventh great Synod. And all this testifies that Christians in primitive times were affected towards holy pictures and relicks as Catholicks are at this day: at least not such haters and vilifiers of them as is Dr. Stillingfleet. Nor can I conceive how any of the learned in the Church of Rome should be ignorant of these things. Nay the very Church of England, which this Doctor pretends to defend, hath lately put the images of the Apostles and Primi­tive Saints into their common-prayer-book and Primers printed by authority. So that if the Doctor had opened his eyes, he might have seen clear enough, that all this talk of his is now unseasonable, however it might have passed well enough in the beginning of the furious reformation: when they pulled down all sacred figures, and suffered none to be set up either sacred or common. [Page 71]When husbands broke their wives pictures, and wives their husbands, least they should give ill example to St. Peter and Paul, or in­courage any of the twelve Apostles to creep up again upon their walls. When children in obedience and duty to their parents, spit­ting upon their effigies, said as they were taught to say, I renounce the devil and all his works. When all the people fl [...]cked together in all places to tear down Churches and Chappels, and private oratories in houses, with a Now boys, we are free men, let us eat, drink and play, for to morrow we shall dye. No more duty of any our daily prayers, no more fasting, no more vows, no more troublesome adoration upon our knees, no more pining meditations, no more pennance, no more restitution, no more priest, no more altar, no more cross or holy rood, no more Peter and Paul to be seen, no more languishing memories of Saints, no more obedience to the erring Church, no more self-examination, no more conscience scruples, &c. Those times indeed were mad enough. But now people, as newly awaked from wine, begin to be wiser and look more soberly about them. Even Denmark and Holland consider now in cold blood the many sad mischiefs they acted in hot: nor is our own Countrey wholly [Page 72]ignorant of the irreparable ruins of those mad times. However, our Doctor will not have his sport spoiled, nor yet his game stopt. Punchienella, though Bartholmew fair be ended, may be acted still either in Lincolns Infields or Chairing cross or any where else, both now and then and seven years hence. It will be still new to some body. He may also know that King James a wise and learn­ed Prince in the year 1617. gave order that the pictures of Saints should be set up in his Chappel of Holy-wood house in Edin­borough, as Spotswood attests in his histo­ry of the Church of Scotland. And he can­not be ignorant that several times order and command has been given to Protestant people by our English Bishops, that they bow and do reverence at the name of Jesus, when its spoken or read in the C [...]u [...]ch. Now the name of Jesus and figure of Jesus is all one thing; the one of them repre­senting to the ear, what the other does to the eye. All this he might have consider­ed. But his tongue is hot, and he must speak although it be against himself, and the very Church he justifies, as much as it is a­gainst the Church he arraignes. In­deed his whole discourse is so frivously sub­tile and subtilely fr [...]volous, that no Church needs much to heed what he sayes. This [Page 73] I know and am c [...]tain of, that although he should be confuted at large and confound­ed for ever by any Catholick Writer, yet shall we be never the nearer to any quietness and peace. For the next man that wants a rich benefice, will if he have but this mans confidence, collect another book of popish idolatry out of this book of Dr. Still. as he gather'd this of his out of Henry Moore, Je­remy Ta [...]lor and sundry others his Predeces­sors; not heeding at all any answer that has been given by former Catholicks to the talk, any more than Dr. Stillingfleet does here. They will ever write, one out of another, and never regard what has been said to any one of them in defence of that which they oppose, abecedarian scriblers. Nor can there be any end, so long as there is a bishop­rick or fat benefice to hope for: and Catho­lick hands so tied up, that they can print no­thing unto their own justification without insuperable difficulties and hazard.

I have read in London the Defiances of one Fencer to another, both of them in print. Who accordingly do meet in Bear-garden without any controul, there to baste one ano­ther lustily for the peoples plea [...]ure. And it would be a pastime I think equally delightful, not less profitable, and somewhat more civil, to see two men reason down one another. [Page 74]We poor men should esteem it a great favour to us, if our adversary might read his charge and we our defence, even in Bear-garden. Since neither in Churches, Halls, Universi­ties, or Schools are we permitted to speak; or print any thing to speak for us. And Doctor Stillingfleet who hath made his de­fiance already, may which he hath not yet done, appoint the day. Not men and fen­cers onely, but bulls and bears, cocks and dogs, all are permitted to defend themselves when they are invaded, but onely we poor old Christians whose Religion hath blessed our Land fifteen hundred years. As if it were agreed on all hands that we should ne­ver be rightly understood.

Mr. H. Thorndike a grave Divine and and learned Doctor in our present English Church both affirms and strongly proves in his book called Just weights and measures, that Roman Catholicks are idolaters no way: adding also, That they who separate from the Church of Rome as Idolaters, are thereby schismaticks before God. Thus speaks that learned man, the P [...]aenix of di­vines, who only dares to be honest. And the mere authority of this eminent Prote­stant may suffice to evacuate all the sophistry of this whole chapter of this Doctors book: [Page 75]as also of that which follows in the next place about our holy Host and Saints.

Now Sir, I must bid you farewel. And that you may not think me either idle or neg­lective of my duty and respects to you, pray give me leave to tell you, that what you see here printed but now, was written and ready for the Pre [...]s in August last. And before October ended I had finished all my work up­on Dr. Stillingfleets Book, such-like familiar Commentaries, as these upon his first chapter be. But in all these six months I could get no more printed for you either at home or abroad, than this poor fifth part of the whole, after my many travels, vexations, expences and dangers. Such obstructions are made about the Presses, and so many vio­lences offered here continually, far above any used since we were born, that I can see no possibility for any whole book of ours to shoot that gulf, be our cause never so inno­cent and good. Nay, they will here print our catholick books themselves, as if they were their own, as Thomas a Kempis, Gra­nada, Parsons Resolutions, Drexellius, and the like. But if we be taken printing them, the PRESS is broken, PRINTER punished, and we, if we be found, in danger of our lives. And therefore I beseech you, Sir, be [Page 64]content with thus much, or rather this little▪ The rest you shall have in written hand. In the mean time let Dr. Still. triumph and crow as he pleases. He is made and has made him. self sure enough. Although he hath defied the whole catholick world and all that know of it, having something to say, are both wil­ling and ready, yet will no man come forth into the open field against him, because they cannot. He thinks himself wise no doubt; wiser than millions of men: and may do so still. For my part, Sir, I find him as wise as one man; and no more. Farewel.