CHAP. I.

AMongst the many Evidences that might be easily pro­duced to shew, that the pretended General Councils of the Church of Rome, have, with great vanity, and most apparent falshood, defined, That they re­ceived the Doctrines, which they endeavoured to impose upon the Christian World, from Primitive and Apostolical Tradition; one is, The Veneration, or honorary Worship of the Images of Christ, his Virgin Mother, the Martyrs, and the Saints de­parted: For the second Nicene Council, and the chief Bishops mentioned, or residing in it, do very frequently, but also very falsly say, That the Doctrine and Practice there declared, and required, touching the Adoration of S. Images, is Apostolical from the beginning, and that which hath been always practised by the Church of Christ.

§. 1. Pope Gregory the Second, having, like a true infallible Interpreter of Scripture, told us, That in that Expression of our Lord's, [...]. Concil. Nic. 2. Con. To. 7. p. 12. Where the Carcass is, there will the Eagles be gathered together: by the Carcass was to be understood Christ, and by the Eagles, Religious Men, and Lovers of him. He adds, That [...]. p. 13. these Religious Men flew like Eagles to Jerusalem; and having seen our Lord, and James his Brother, and Stephen the first Mar­tyr, they painted them as they had seen them: And that Men no sooner beheld them, but leaving the Worship of the Devil, they fell immediately to worship these Images; not indeed with Latria, but with Relative Worship.

Pope Hadrian saith, ThatSicut à primordio traditio­nem à sanctis Patribus susceperunt. Act. 2. p. 103. Hoc enim tradi­tum est à sanctis Apostolis. p. 110. & p. 99. In universo mundo ubi Christianitas est, ipsae S. Imagines ab omnibus fidelibus honorantur. p. 106. all Orthodox, and Christian Emperors, all Priests, and religious Servants of God, and the whole company of Chri­stians, observed the veneration of Images and Pi­ctures, for memory of pious compunction, and even till then worshipped them, as they received a Tra­dition from the beginning from the Holy Fathers to do. That the special Honour, Adoration, and Veneration of them, was delivered by the Holy Apostles. And that throughout the whole VVorld, where-ever Christianity was [Page 3]planted, these venerable Images were honoured by all the Faith­ful.

Tharasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, declares, That this of the Venerable Images, was [...]. Act. 5. p. 348, & 388. the Tradition of the whole Catholick Church of God from the beginning.

Gregory Bishop of Possene, cites for it a Synod of the Aposties met at [...]. Act. 1. p. 64. Antioch, command­ing Christians no longer to err about Idols, but in­stead of them, to paint the Image of Christ, God and Man.

And Leo Bishop of Rhodes, adds, That the Holy and Venerable Images were to be in the Church, [...]. Ibid. according to the Custom delivered of old Times from the Apostles.

And at the conclusion of many of their Actions, the FathersAct. 2. p. 132, 133, 136, 152, 153. 3. p. 188. Act. 4. p. 328. 5. 389. 7. 576. generally affirm, That they embraced and practised the worship of Images, [...], according to the Tradition of the Holy Apostles; and [...],Act. 2. p. 145. as they delivered to them, who from the beginning were eye-witnesses of the VVord.

Yea, the whole Synod doth frequently as­sert, they were taught thus to judge of the [...]. Act. 4. p. 321. Adoration of Images by the Holy Fathers, and by their Doctrine delivered by God. That their Tradition concerning it, wasAct. 7. p. 553. [...]. [...], the Divine Tradition of the Catholick Church. And that in defining and asserting it, [...]. p. 556. they followed the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers taught them by God, and the Tradition of the Catholick Church, and knew this was the Do­ctrine of that Holy Spirit which dwelt in her. That they [...]. ibid. item p. 588. followed in observing this Tradition, St. Paul and the whole Apostolical College; and that thus the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers was confirmed, thus the Tradi­tion of the Catholick Church, [...], from one end of the Christian VVorld to the other, held and practised. That this was [...]. p. 581. the Do­ctrine received from the first Founders of the Christian Faith, and [Page 4]their Divine Successors. And lastly, they do often with full Voice [...]. Act. 7. p. 576. Act. 8. p. 592. cry out, [...], this is the Faith of the Apostles, this is the Faith of the Fathers, this is the Faith of the Orthodox, this is that Faith which establisheth the VVorld.

And suitable to this is the Language of the Trent Council, which commands all Bishops, and others, whose Office it is, to instruct the People, to teach them diligently, That the Images of Christ, the Mother of God, and other Saints, are especially to be had and retained in Temples; and that due Honour and Veneration is to be given to them, because the Honour tendred to them, is referr'd to the Prototype; so that by the Images which they kiss, before which they uncover their Heads, and prostrate themselves, they worship Christ, and venerate the Saints, whose Simili­tudes they are: And this, say they, is doneJ [...]xta Catholicae & Aposto­licae Ecclesiae usum, à primae­vis Christianae Religionis tempo­ribus receptum Sanctorumque Patrum consensionem. Sess. 25. according to the custom of the Catholick and Apostolick Church, received from the first Age of the Christian Faith, and the consent of the Holy Fathers.

§. 2. On the other hand, the Council of Constantinople, consist­ing of 338 Bishops, assembled in the Year 754, declares, That [...]. Concil. Nic. 2. p. 452. [...]. p. 508. this evil invention of Ima­ges, neither hath its being from the Tradition of Christ, or his Apostles, nor of the Holy Fathers. And having forbidden all Christians to worship any, or to place an Image in the Church, or in their private Houses, they conclude unanimously thus,Ibid. p. 532. [...], this is the Faith of the Apostles, this is the Faith of the Fathers, this is the Faith of the Orthodox.

The Council of Frankford, consisting of 300 Bishops, assem­bled by Charles the Great, out of Italy, Ger­many, and France, A. D. 794. declares, That theQuia ut hoc facerent, ab A­postolis sibi traditum mentie­bantur. Lib. Carol. l. 2. c. 25, 27. second Nicene Council had offended in two things; (1.) in decreeing that Images should be worshipped: And, (2.) in saying falsly, that this was delivered to them from the Apostles. They add, ThatRelictis priscorum patrum traditionibus, qui imagines non colere sanxerunt, novas conari & insolitas Ecclesiae consuetudines inferre. Praesat. in lib. 1. leaving the Traditions of the Ancient Fathers, who decreed, That Images should not be worshipped, they endeavoured to bring into the Church new and unusual Customs. That [Page 5] they endeavoured to bring into Christian Religion the new Adoration of Images, Absque Sanctorum Patrum doctrina & consacerdotum per diversas mundi partes consensu. L. 4. c. 21. without the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers, and the consent of their fellow Priests throughout the World. That this of Image-Worship, was, Praefat. p. 10. impudentissima traditio, a most impudent Tradition. And that this pretended Tradition was Neque in Evangeliorum tonitruis, neque in Apostolorum dogmatibus, vel quorumlibet Or­thodoxorum Patrum doctrinis uspiam reperimus insertam. L. 4. c. 13. neither to be found in the Oracles of the Prophets, nor in the Writings of the Gospels, nor in the Doctrines of the Apostles, nor in the Relations of the former Holy Synods, nor in the Doctrines of the Ortho­dox Fathers. That it was instituted by them, nullo Antiquitatis documento, vel exemplo, without all Instru­ction, or Example from Antiquity.

A Synod held at Paris, under Ludovicus Pius, and Lotharius, Anno Dom. 824, saith, That the Contra Authoritatem di­vinam & sanctorum Patrum dicta. P. 23. second Nicene Council declared for Image-worship a­gainst the Divine Authority, and the Sayings of the Holy Fathers. And thatEd. Pith. p. 25, 26. they deter­mined against the Worship of them according to Divine Authority, and, juxta sententias sanctorum Patrum, ac­cording to the Judgments of the Holy Fathers.

Agobardus, Bishop of Lions, having declared against all Image-worship, saith,L. de Imag. §. 30. p. 263. This is sincere Religion, is Mos Ca­tholicus, haec Antiqua Patrum Traditio, this is the Catholick Custom, this is the Ancient Tradition of the Fathers, as is easily proved even out of the Book of Sacraments which the Roman Church useth. And again,Nullus Antiquorum Catho­licorum unquam eas colendas, vel adorandas fore existimavit. P. 265. None of the Ancient Catholicks did ever think that Images were to be worshipped or adored.

Hincmarus, Arch bishop of Rhemes, informs us, ThatSecundum Scripturarum tramitem, traditionémque Majo­rum. Opusc. 55. cap. 20. this Nicene Synod was condemned and evacuated by a General Synod call'd by the Emperor Charles the Great, according to the way of the Scripture, and the Tradition of the An­cients. De Gestis Franc. Lib. 5. cap. 28. Aimoinus also complains of them, That they had decreed touching the Adoration of Images, alitèr quàm Orthodoxi Patres antea definierunt, otherwise than the Orthodox Fathers had before de­fined.

In that Synod, saith,In èa Synodo confirmatum st Imagines adorari debere, quod omnino Ecclesia Dei execratur. Annal. Part. 1. ad An. 791. Roger Hoveden, it was confirmed, that Images should be adored; which the Church of God doth wholly exe­crate.

Now in this Matter let the Truth lie where you please, 'tis sure no little Prejudice against receiving any thing as a Tradi­tion, upon the evidence of a few single Fathers, in Matters of meer Speculation, as some Traditionary Doctrines of the Church of Rome most surely are; that in a thing of this Nature, which must be either daily practised, or omitted by the Church, whole Councils, of 300 Bishops at the least, in the same Age, maintain such contradictory Assertions; one saying, frequent­ly and expresly, That this was the Doctrine of the Apostles, and all the Ancient Fathers; the others as expresly, That it never was the Doctrine of either of them. One, That this was the pra­ctice of all faithful Christians; the other, That they never found it practised by any of the Orthodox Professors. But though such contradictory Assertions in another Case, might cause a wary Person to suspend his assent to either of them, yet I am confi­dent, that whosoever is unprejudiced, must in this case give in his Verdict against the Doctrine and Assertions of the Trent and of the second Nicene Council.

§. 3. For notwithstanding all the confident Assertions of these Councils, the Testimonies of the Ancient Fathers are so full and clear against that Honour and Veneration of Images, which by these Councils is imposed upon all Christians, with an Anathema to them who do assert, or even think the contra­ry, that he who doth impartially read them, and doth not conclude that the whole Church of Christ did, for 500 Years and more, condemn this practice; and in plain terms, or by just consequence assert, they had no such Tradition, cannot su­stain much loss, if he quite want the use of Reason.

For, (1.) the Fathers do expresly say, The Church of Christ hath no such Custom, or Tra­dition. [...]. Apud 2 Nic. Concil. Act. 6. p. 492. We Christians, saith Theodotus, have no Tradition to form the Images of Saints in material Colours. [...]. Pro­trept. p. 34. [...]. An Image, saith Clemens of Alexandria, is indeed dead Matter, formed by the hand of the Artificer; but we (Christians) have no sensible Image of sensible Matter. [Page 7]St. Ambrose saith, ThatQuae Ecclesia inanes ideas & vanas nescit simulacrorum fi­guras. De fuga saec. c. 5. p. 246. Rachel who hid the Images, is, or signifies, the Church. Which Church knows no empty Idea's, or vain Figures of Images, but knoweth the true Substance of the Tri­nity. Nos autem unam vene­ramur imaginem, &c. in Ezech. c. 16. p. 189. F. We, saith St. Jerome, have but one Husband, and worship but one Image, to wit, the Image of the Invisible and Omnipotent God. [...]. A­pud Concil. Nic. 2. Act. 6. p. We, saith St. Chrysostom, do by their Writings enjoy the presence of the Saints, having the Ima­ges, not of their Bodies, but of their Souls. [...]. Ibid. p. 484. We have no care, saith Amphilochius, to fi­gure by Colours, the bodily Visages of the Saints in Tables. So certain is it that they had no such Custom in the five first Centuries, That,

2. They plainly tell us, that the first thing they taught their Converts, was the contempt of Images. [...]. In Celsum, l. 3. p. 120. We plainly shew forth the gravity, or decorum, of our Principles, and do not hide them, as Celsus doth imagine, seeing even to those who are first entred among us, we teach the contempt of Idols, and of all Images, saith Origen. [...]. L. 8. p. 412. [...], &c. l. 2. p. 91. God, saith he, cannot wholly over­look the Christians, because they are the Men who despise Images of humane Art, and endeavour to ascend by Reason unto God himself; they trans­cended not only Images, but the whole frame of Creatures to ascend to the God of all the World.

3. They add, that they were taught thus to abandon, and forsake all Images and Statues by the Religion they embraced, and by the Doctrine of the Holy Jesus.

[...]. L. 5. p. 255. The Christian Doctrine, saith Origen, doth not permit them to be sollicitous about Ima­ges and Statues, or about the Works of God, but to transcend them, and to lift up the Soul to the Creator. [...]. L. 7. p. 359. They, by the Doctrine of Jesus Christ, saith he, are moved to relinquish all Images and Statues, and to look up, by the Word, unto the Father. Again, [...]. L. 7. p. 362. The Chri­stian, saith He, doth not look upon Images, for he is taught by Christ to seek nothing which is [Page 8]little or sensible, but only those things which art Great, and truly Divine. He adds, That [...]. the Pro­phets had foretold of the coming of Christ to cause them to desist from the worship of Idols, and of Ima­ges, and of Daemons. [...], &c. L. 7. p. 375. Other Nations, as the Scythians, Africans, &c. abstain from Images, saith he; but they do it not upon the same account upon which we Jews and Christians are averse from it, for we abstain by reason of the Commandment, which saith, Thou shalt not make to thy self an Idol, nor the similitude of any thing in Heaven or Earth; which things do not only cause us to reject Ima­ges, but make us ready to die, rather than we will defile our concep­tion of God with any such Impiety.

Arnobius saith, ThatQui ab signis inertibus atque ex vilissimo formatis luto ad Sydera sublevavit & Coelum. Adv. Gent. L. 1. p. 22. Christ had elevated the Christian from fruitless signs made of vile Earth, to the Stars, and Heaven, and made us to present our Prayers and Supplications to the God of all things.

§. 4. 4. They say, that it was proper to the Heathens to make and worship Images; and it is frequent among the Fa­thers, to call them Worshippers of Images, instead of Hea­thens, and to describe the Christian as one who hath left off, and hath renounced that practice. [...]. Admon. p. 39. A. Clemens Alexandrinus speaks to the Heathens thus; Art hath deceived you with its Delusions, lead­ing you to honour Images and Pictures. [...]. L. 3. p. 131. We are not like the Getae, and Cilicians, and other Nations, to which we are compared by Celsus. For they pro­vide Images for their Gods; but we, saith Origen, remove from God all Honour by such things, as judg­ing them more fit for Devils. And again, he re­presents them as Men, [...]. L. 4. p. 177. who having fallen from the true knowledge of God, under a vain Imagination of Piety, worship Images: And he represents the Christians, as those who by the Conduct of the Word, or Reason, ascended from Wood and Stone, Silver and Gold, and all that was precious in the World, to the Creator of all things. Quid enim insigne pre­ferimus nisi primam sapien­tiam qua frivola humanae manus opera non adoramus: qui vult intelligere qui sunt Christiani istis indiciis utatur necesse est. Ad Nat. l. 1. c. 5. What En­sign do we bear before us, saith Tertullian, but that first Wisdom, which instructs us not to worship the fri­volous Works of Mens Hands, that Abstinence where­by [Page 9]we do refrain from the Goods of others, &c. He that will un­derstand who are Christians, must know them by these Marks and Tokens. Vos simula ra effingitis ex auro, l. 2. p. 98. Quae quidem nos cessamus facere, l. 6. p. 189. You are the Men who make Images of Gold, saith Arnobius, which we Christians cease to do. Isti qui fragilia colunt. L. 7. c. 26. This is the Doctrine of the Holy Prophets which we Christians follow; this is our Wisdom, which they who either worship Images, or defend vain Philosophy, deride. Eorum qui simulacra venerabantur. [...]. L. 4. c. 1. Innumerable of all Nations, saith Ori­gen, are turned to the Christian Faith, not without the great hatred of those who worshipp'd Images; whereas they who have left all Images and Statues, is his description of the Christians.

Accordingly we find the Fathers still representing this as an Heathenish Custom. Ad Auto­lyc. l. 1. p. 76. If you speak of the Greeks, and other Heathens, saith Theophilus, they are the Men who worship [...], the Images of dead Men. Hic enim Gentilis est error. Orat. de obit. Theod. p. 61. Helen, when she had found the Cross, did wor­ship Christ, but not the Wood, because that, saith St. Ambrose, was the Error of the Heathens. [...]. Hist. Eccles. l. 7. c. 18. It is no marvel, saith Eusebius, that those of the Hea­thens, who of old were cured by our Saviour, should do such things, (i.e. erect his Image, as did the Wo­man cured of her bloody Issue) since we have seen the Images of the Apostles, Paul and Peter, yea, and of Christ himself, kept painted with Colours on Tables, for that of old they were wont imprudently, by an Heathenish Custom, thus to honour them whom they counted their Saviours, or Benefactors. This therefore was an Heathenish, and not a Christian Custom: For had Christians customarily had such Statues, and Pictures, why doth Eusebius make this a Badg of Heathenism? Why doth he say, It was no marvel that Heathens should do thus? If the Ima­ges of Christ, and his Apostles, had been then common in all Christian Oratories, why is it mention'd as so rare a thing that he had seen them? Why, lastly, doth he say that this was done [...], that is, according to Valesius, imprudently, and inconsiderately? Adamantius the Manichaean cites those words of the second Commandment,Effigies & I­magines. Con­tra Adam. cap. 13. See that you make no Effigies, or Images, for I am a jealous God, to reprehend the Zeal of the God of the Old Testament; to which St. Austin [Page 10]answers, ThatVult ergo videri favere se simulacris, quod propte­rea faciunt ut miserrim & vesanae suae sectae etiam pa­ganorum concilient benevo­lentiam. Ibid. he only quarrels with God's Zeal, because it forbad Images, and so would seem to fa­vour Images, which, saith he, these Men do to con­ciliate the favour of the Heathens to their mad and miserable Sect, where we learn, not only that Si­mulacra and Imagines, are with St. Austin the same thing, but also that it was only Heathens who then favoured Images, and those who had a kindness for them. Agobardus in the 9th Century, saith, ThatOb religionis honorem aut aliquam venerationem more Gentilium. De Imag. p. 248. to use the Images of the Apostles, or our Lord himself, for the Honour of Religion, or any Veneration, is to use them after the manner of the Heathens, and that if Constantine did adore the Images of St. Pe­ter and Paul,Ex consuetudine Ido­lolatriae pestifera. p. 252. he did it from the pestiferous Cu­stom of Idolatry. So generally and so lately was this esteemed an Heathenish and Idolatrous Custom by the Fathers of the Church.

§. 5. 5. This thing was so notorious to the Heathens, that they object it to the Christians as their Crime, that they had no Images, that they would not make, would not endure, much less venerate them, and that they laugh'd at those who did. Celsus objects, saith Origen, That [...]. L. 8. p. 389, 404. we avoid the making of Images. And again, [...]. L. 7. p. 373. In this, that they will not endure Images, they are like unto the Scythians, &c. and other irreligious and law­less Nations, who dedicate no Image to their Gods, and count them Fools that do so. And a third time; thou laugh'st at our Images. Quod non deorum a­licujus simulacrum constitua­mus aut formam. L. 6. p. 189. For this cause you lay great Impiety to our charge, saith Arnobius, be­cause we make no Images, or shape of any of the Gods. In a word, When Adrian the Emperor had com­manded thatChristo Templum fa­cere voluit [Severus] quod & Adrianus cogitasse fertur, qui Templa in omnibus civi­tatibus sine simulacris jusse­rat fieri. Hist. August. c. 43. Qui consulentes sacra, repere­runt omnes Christianos fieri, si id optato evenisset. ibid. Temples should be made in all Cities without Images, it was by them conjectured that he made them for Christ, saith Lampridius; who adds, That he was forbidden to proceed in this Enterprise, by those who, consulting the Oracles, found that all Men would turn Christians, if this, according to their wishes, should fall out. Whence evident it is that it was not the use of Christians then to have Images [Page 11]in Churches, but that the contrary was according to their wishes.

6ly, If we consider what the Fathers answered to this Accu­sation of the Heathens, we shall more fully be convinced, that they did not venerate, but did intirely reject the use of Images, as vain, ridiculous, and inconsistent with the Christian Faith, and the true worship of a Deity. For,

Whereas the Heathens complain'd that Christi­ans laughed at their Images. That Origen replies, [...]. L. 8. p. 404. that they did not laugh at the insensate Statues, but at those who worshipped them. And he justifies this practice of the Christians, by saying, That [...], &c. l. 7. p. 362. any Man of sound Reason could not but laugh at them who look'd upon Images, and by the contemplation of them, thought to ascend from what was seen, and was a Symbol, to what was understood.

2ly, They answer, by distinguishing betwixt such Images as were the work of an Artificer, saying, That these they did reject; and such as were spiritual, consisting in the resem­blance of the Vertues and Persections of their Lord, and these they owned, as acceptable to God, and such as they regarded. [...], &c. L. 8. p. 389. The Images which are agreeable to God, saith Origen, are not such as are framed by servile Artists, but those Vertues which are formed in us by the Word of God, and are the Imitations of the First Born of the Creation, in whom are the Examples of Justice, Temperance, Fortitude, Prudence, and God­liness, and all other Vertues. [...]. Ibid. In all therefore who are furnished with these Vertues, are the Images with which we think it meet to honour the Prototype of all Images, the Image of the Invisible God, his only Son; and [...]. Ibid. they who put off the old Man, with his Works, and put on the New, which is renewed in Knowledg according to the Image of him that created him, by receiving this Image of their Creator, make such Images in themselves as God regards, insinuating, that God liked no other. [...]. In sum, saith he, all Christians do attempt to make such Images, as we have now related, not such as have no Life or Sense, nor such in which wicked Daemons may reside; that is neither such Images as were in use amongst the Heathens, nor such as are now used by the Church [Page 12]of Rome, for theirs, I suppose, have neither Life nor Sense: [...]. Ibid. p. 390, 391. Let therefore any Man that will, saith he, compare the Images I have now mentioned, framed in the Souls of pious Persons, with the Images of Phidias, and Polycletus, and the like, and he will manifestly discern that the latter are void of Life, and corrupted by Time: and therefore he concludes, That there is no compare betwixt the Images of Chri­stians, and of Heathens. So that the Images which are obnoxi­ous to the Injuries of Time, and which are void of Life and Sense, were then accounted Heathen Images, the Images of Christians were then only those which are framed in the immor­tal Souls of Men. According to that of Theodotus Ancyranus, [...]. Apud Conc. Nic. 2. Conc. To. 7. p. 492. We have no Tradition to form the Images of Saints in material Colours, but we are taught to express their Vertues, recorded in the Wri­tings concerning them, as their living Images. And that of Amphilochius, [...]. Ibid. p. 484. We are not concerned to frame the fleshly Persons of the Saints by Colours upon Tables, but to imitate the Vertues of their Conversa­tions.

3. To the Comparison made by Celsus betwixt them and the Scythians, Moors, and Persians in this Matter, Origen replies, [...]. L. 4. p. 374. That it is true, both they and Christians were averse from Images, but then the Christians rejected them on better Grounds than Hea­thens did, viz. because they would not violate the Commandment forbidding the use of them, and because they dreaded to debase the Divine Worship, by bringing it down to Matter shaped in such a Manner and Fi­gure. And [...]. L. 8. p. 391. because finding by the Doctrine of Christ the way of Piety towards God, they avoided those things which by appearance of Piety made Men wicked. Which passages assure us, not only that the Christians of those Times abstained from all religious use of Images, but also that they did it in obedience to the Doctrine of Christ, and the Commandment forbidding it, i.e. upon the very Motives which move us to do so.

4ly, Arnobius in answer to the same Objection of the Hea­thens, That Christians did contemn the Deities, because they [Page 13]had no Images of any of them, nor did they worship their Effigies; whereasSequitur ut de simula­cris dicamus qua multa arte componitis & religiosa ob­servatione curatis. L. 6. p. 194. the Heathens made, and with religious Observation did regard them; gives this reason why the Christians had them not, viz. Honorum hac genera aut risui habere si rideant, aut indignè perpeti. P. 189. Because, (saith he) we do conceive, that if they certainly be Gods whom we worship, and have that eminence which by that name is signified, they will deride, or be offended with such kind of Honour. 2ly, He tells them, that he is not able to deter­mine,Utrumne istud serio & cum proposito faciatis gravi, an ridendo res ipsas. Ibid. p. 194. whether they themselves do this seriously, or with intention to deride what they pretend to wor­ship: For Si enim certum est a­pud vos Deos esse quos vene­remini, at (que) in summis coeli regionibus degere, quae ra­tio est, ut simulacra ista fin­gantur à vobis? p. 195. if it be certain, saith he, they are Gods whom you worship, and that they have their Ha­bitation in the highest Heavens, what reason can in­duce you to frame these Images of them? Which Reason doth as much concern the Roman Images, for they are Images of Christ, the Virgin Mother, and of those Saints and Martyrs whom they sup­pose to live in Heaven. 3ly, He calls upon the Heathens to clear up their Understandings, and consider, ThatSimulacra ista, quae templis in omnibus prostra­ti, & humiles adoratis, ossa, lapides, aera sunt, &c. p 200. those Images before which they lie prostrate, and which they humbly adore, are Wood, Stones, Brass, Silver, or Gold; and such are also all the Images of Roman Catholicks. And ha­ving urged these, and many other Arguments, he concludes,Satis de­monstratum est quam ina­niter fiant si­mulacra, p. 210. He had sufficiently demonstrated how vainly Images were made. Whence evident it is, that Christians then esteemed it a vain ri­diculous thing, and a dishonour to that Jesus whom they owned as God, to worship him by Images, and that they had no Image of any thing in Heaven. And indeed, the very silence of the Christians, as to the Matter of Images, when they professedly reply to this Impeachment of the Heathens, is a sufficient Ar­gument that they allowed no use of Images in their Religious Worship, and that they paid no Veneration to them: For should any Heathen now object against the Church of Rome, That they had no Images, would they not answer, They had the Images of Christ, his Virgin Mother, and of his Blessed Saints and Martyrs? This therefore should in honesty and reason have been the Answer of the Ancient Christians to the like Ob­jection [Page 14]of the Heathens made against them, had it been suitable to the received Principles and Practice of their Times.

Moreover the Heathens, as Lactantius informs us, thought an Image so very requisite to the performance of Religious Wor­ship, ThatNec ullam Religionem putant, ubicunque illa non fulserint. L. 2. c. 6. p. 169. Ed. Leyd. they imagined there could be no Reli­gion where there was no Image. And this induced them to conceive, that albeit they knew not of any Images the Christians used, yet had they some concealed amongst them. And hence Caecilius asks the Christians, Cur occultare quid­quid illud colunt magnopere nituntur? cur nullas aras ha­bent, templa nulla, nulla no­ta simulacra? P. 10. Why is it that you hide and con­ceal the Thing you worship, be it what it will? Why have you no Altars, no Temples, no known Images? not doubting but they had some Images concealed. To this Imagination of the Heathens, Origen thus replies,L. 3. p. 120. We openly declare the venerable Principles of our Religion, and do not hide them as Celsus doth imagine, for we teach our Con­verts the contempt of Idols, and of all Images. Octavius also takes notice of it in these words;Putatis nos occultare quod colimus si delubra & aras non habemus, —quod e­nim simulacrum Deo fingam cum si rectè existimes sit Dei homo simulacrum? p. 36. You think we hide what we worship; if we have not Temples with Images and Altars. And then he answers in behalf of Christians, with a free inunuation that they had no such things, and gives these Reasons why they had them not; What Image shall I make of God, since if you rightly do esteem it, Man is the Image of his Maker? What Temple shall I build, when the whole World cannot contain him? What Sacrifices should I offer, since a good Soul and pure Mind is the Offering that he will accept? Haec no­stra sacrificia, haec Dei Sacra sunt. Ibid. these (and not Temples, Images, or Victims) are the holy Services which we present unto our God. Whence it is evident that Ima­ges were not admitted then amongst the Sacra of the Christians; and that they held it not convenient to make an Image of that Jesus whom they asserted to be God.

Now briefly to reflect upon these things; Can it be reasona­bly imagined, that they who so expresly tell us, They had no Tradition to make the Images of Saints, no sensible Image, no Images of their Bodies; and that they knew no vain Figures of Images; that they who declare that they themselves despised, and taught their Converts the contempt of Images; that their Religion, and their Saviour, taught them not to be sollicitous about them, [Page 15]but to relinquish, abstain from, and to abandon them; that they who teach that it was proper to the Heathens to honour Images and Pictures; that the Custom was Heathenish and Idolatrous, and only fit for Daemons; and that Christians were to be known by this, that they would not adore the Works of Mens Hands; that they had left all Images and Statues, and that this was their wisdom; that they to whom it was continually objected by the Heathens, that they neither had, nor would endure Images; that they avoided the making Statues, and laughed at them who did it: And who in answer to these things, not only do con­fess the thing, but also justify and glory in it, telling their Ad­versaries, That Images were vainly made by him, who was the Image of his Maker, and should make no other Images; that they deservedly laughed at them; and that the Heavenly Powers themselves, if they were subject to that Passion, would laugh at such Votaries; I say, Can it be reasonably conceiv'd, That they who say such things, should make it matter of their Faith, that Images were to be worshipped, and in their constant practice should adore the Images of Christ, and of his Saints?

§ 6. Nor do the Fathers only declare, in their Apologies and Conflicts with the Heathens, they had no Images; but they commend themselves, and others, upon that account, and say, it was a thing to be commended, both in them and others. And,

On this account they mightily commend the Jewish Polity, because it taught them, not only to transcend all Images, but all created Beings, and to ascend to the Creator of the World, saying, That [...]. Orig. adv. Celsum l. 2. p. 91. [...]. L. 4. p. 181. he that doth inspect their Laws and Constitutions, will find, that they were Men who had a shadow of the Heavenly Life on Earth, because they had no Image-makers in their Common-Wealth.

As for themselves, they declared, That they on this account [...]. L. 4. p. 177. were Men, or something more ex­cellent than Men, because they did not venerate, but did transcend all Images, and go immediately to God. AndNonne laudem magis quam poenam merebatur re­pudium agniti Erroris. Apol. cap. 12. if we do not worship Statues, and cold Ima­ges, like to those dead Men which they represent, do we not deserve praise rather than punishment, saith Tertullian, for the refusal of this ancient Error? [Page 16]Yea, they declare their humble confidence, That [...]. L. 8. p. 412. [...]. Ibid. God would not overlook them, but vouchsafe them some manifestation of his Goodness, and give them some Fruit of his Providence, amongst other Reasons for the very Cause, because they, despising Images of Humane Art, endeavoured directly by Reason to as­cend to God.

And lastly, As for those Heathens, who for some time worshipped the Deity without Images, they say, They served GodDicit Antiquos Roma­nos plusquam annos 150, Deos sine simulacro coluisse, quod si adhuc remansisset ca­stius Dii observarentur. Aug. de C. D. l. 4. c. 13. Agob. de Imag. §. 24. more purely when they had no Images; and that their Religion would have been better had they done so still. But as for those who retained them, and looked upon them when they worshipped, or did esteem them Sa­cred, they d [...]clared, they could not but look up­on themOrig. l. 7. p. 362, 367. as Men of a lame and infirm Mind, they could not but laugh at their folly. And they do frequently apply that passage of the Psalmist to them,August. & Theodoret. in Psal. 113. They that make them, are like unto them; as judging it the extremity of Error in them who had the use of Reason, to worship Stocks and Stones. Now sure we cannot reasonably think these Fathers practised themselves what they thus laughed at, and condem­ned in others: That they admired the Jewish Polity, because it did permit no Images in their Sacred Worship, and yet conceived these things not only well consistent with, but even an advantage to the Christian Polity; or that, at the same time, they could conceive themselves praise-worthy for rejecting, and even despising Images of humane Art; and yet not only have them, but think them worthy of their Venera­tion, and by them should ascend unto that Jesus whom they owned as their God: We therefore may be well assured from these Sayings, that the Christians of those times did not look upon Images when they performed their Worship to God the Father, or his Son Christ Jesus. And to assure us yet farther that they did not do it, they inform us, that when they paid their Worship to the due Object of it, they did shut their Eyes, and thought it was their Duty so to do; and that this pra­ctice did enable them the better to lift up their Minds to God.

Origen, in allusion to those words of Christ; I am come into the World, that they who see not, may see; and they who see, may be made blind, saith, That [...]. l. 7. p. 358. the Word makes the Eyes of the Soul to see, but blinds those of the Senses, that the Soul may without distraction behold what it ought: if therefore any Man act after the manner of Christians, the Eye of his Soul is open'd, but that of his Sense is shut; and by how much more he openeth his better Eye, and shuts the Eyes of his Senses, by so much more he seeth, and contemplates better God, and his Son, who is the Word and Wisdom. And again, [...]. p. 362. Even the meanest Christian shut­ting the Eyes of his sense, and opening those of his Soul, transcends all the whole World, and shames the wise Men of the World, who, [...], looking upon Images, by contemplation of them, do endeavour to erect their Minds to God. St. Basil saith thus, [...]. In Psalm. 37. To. 1. p. 208. I do not confess with my Lips, that I may appear to many so to do, but, shutting my Eyes, inwardly in my Heart, I shew my in­ward groanings to him that seeth in secret: They therefore doubtless thought not Images then needful to excite Devotion, or to move compunction in them, though by theAct. 2. p. 103. Second Nicene Council they were afterwards declared useful to these Ends.

§. 7. And therefore whereas Heathens had many of the same pretences for having, and for using Images in their solemn Worship, which that Nicene Council, and the Church of Rome have since took up, the Sayings of the Fathers equally confute them both. For,

1. Whereas the Trent Catechism saith, That the having Images in Churches, and the giving Worship and Respect unto them, tends, maximo Fidelium bono, Part. 3. cap. 2. Sect. 24. to the great benefit of the Faithful. And the Second Ni­cene Council doth frequently in effect declare the same. Theodotus smartly puts this Question to those who used them in his Time; [...]. Conc. Nic. p. 492. Let them say, who do erect such Forms, What profit can redound un­to them by so doing? or to what spiritual Contempla­tion are they led by that remembrance? Strom. 7. p. 714. Clemens of Alexandria expresly saith, That they are, [...], vain, and Prophane. L. 2. §. 5. p. 161. Lactan­tius, [Page 18]that they are, insensibilia & vana, vain and insensate things. Origen and St. Austin, That they were dangerous and hurtful to the Christians, and for that cause avoided by them.

2. Whereas the Heathens said, That they used their Images [...]. porphyr. apud Euseb. praepar. Evang. l. 3. c. 7. only to represent things invisible, by what was visible; and to teach them, as it were, to read the Things concerning the Gods out of these Image-Books; that these Things were as Letters which did instruct them in the Knowledg of God, and by inspection of which they attained unto it: That the Divinity was to be propounded to the Mind, and these Things only to be used, [...],Max. Tyr. dissert. 38. p. 370, 377. to bring God to their remembrance, [...], and, as it were, a Manuduction, or way to bring him to their Minds. That they were butPlutarch. de Iside & Osir. p. 382. as Glasses whereby to represent God to them; and that they ought to be approved, [...], who do not worship them, but by them the Godhead. The Fathers having mentioned these Notions of the Heathen Wisdom, say, That nothing can be more ridiculous, and grea­ter matter of their shame; and that they are more like to [...]. Athanas. contr. Gent. p. 21, 23. Euseb. praepar. Evang. l. 3. c. 13. l. 5. c. 14. writers of Fables, than Divines; that God was not honoured by such Symbols; that they who know the Truth, ought not to think to ho­nour the Divine Vertues by Images made of insensate Matter, but they should openly teach all, not to admire things obvious to Sense, but only the invisible Maker of them, and worship his invisible and incorporeal Vertues, not thinking to honour the Divinity with insensate Statues, which can have nothing well­pleasing to God, nor be the Images of Divine Powers, but with sound Doctrine, and a pure Mind. By all which Sayings, they equal­ly condemn the Symbolical Images of the S. Trinity and God the Father, tacitly allowed by theDoceatur populus non propterea divinitatem figu­rari, quasi corporeis oculis conspici, aut coloribus vel figuris exprimi possit. Ses. 25. Jam enim receptae sunt fere ubique. Trent Council in these words, (When 'tis expedient for the un­learned, in Figures, to express the Histories and Nar­ratives of Holy Scripture, they must be taught, That the Divinity is not therefore pictured, as if it could be seen by a corporeal Eye, or express'd by Colours, or by Figures) andBell. de Rel. Sanct. l. 2. c. 8. received generally in all Roman Churches.

And, 2ly, whereas the [...]. Act. 1. p. 60. Nicene Council, and the Roman Church have introduced Images of Christ, the Blessed Virgin, and the Saints, under the same pretence; as tending, 1. to Instruction, viz. The Images of Christ being framed, say they, that his Incarnation may be made known to all; and the Images of the Apostles, Prophets, Martyrs, to be a short VVriting, and Excitation, and teaching of the People, especially the most simple. And, 2ly, for the remembrance of the Proto­types. I say, whereas these are the Romish and the Nicene Pleas, the Fathers do expresly say, [...]. Amphil. apud 2. Nic. Concil. Act. 6. p. 484. They ca­red not to make any such Images of Saints, because they had no need of them; [...]. Theodot. ibid. p. 482. they knew not to what spiritual contemplation they could be erected by such remembrance of them; they had the Writings of the Saints, which were their living Images, and with them were content. St. Austin, speaking of some who said, That our Lord Christ had written Books of Magick, and committed them to St. Peter and Paul; he conjectures, that they therefore made mentionCredo quod pluribus locis simul cum illo pictos vide­runt. of these two Apostles, because they had in many places, particularly at Rome, seen those two pictur'd with him. And then he adds,Sic omnino errare me­ruerunt qui Christum & A­postolos ejus non in Sanctis codicibus, sed in pictis pa­rietibus quaesierint. De Cons. Evang. L. 1. c. 10. So verily de­serve they to err, who sought Christ and his Apostles, not in the Holy Bibles, but on painted VValls; an Expression which deserves to be considered by them, who have taken from them those Books in which St. Austin judged it fit to seek Christ and his Apostles, and substituted in their room these VVall Lecturers, which it is evident he approved not of. And much less the Council of Frankford, witness these words;Quae vesania est dicere per imaginem ad memoriam veniemus de ejus in terra praesentia. Lib. Carol. l. 4. c. 2. VVhat madness is it to say, That by a painted Image we may come to the memory of Christ's Presence on Earth. Oh unhappy Memory! which, that it may remember Christ, who never should recede out of the mind of a good Man, needs the beholding of an Image.

3. The Heathens say, That by beholding of their Ima­ges and Statues they ascended to the Prototype; and that their Images were invented for this End, confessing, That if any one was able streight to erect his Soul to Heaven, and go [Page 20]directly to God,Max. Tyr. dissert. 38. p 369. [...], such, in likelihood, could need no Images. The Second [...]. Act. 4. p. 320. [...]. Act. 7. p. 556. Nicene Council in like manner saith, That they worship the Images of Christ, his Blessed Mother, and the Saints, That by their Pi­ctures they may be able to ascend, by Memory, unto the Prototype. And because the more they view their Images, the better are they excited to the remem­brance and desire of the Prototype, and to give hono­rary Worship to the Images. Now this, as you have heard, the Fathers have declared to be the very thing for which they laught at the Philosophers, that by looking up­on Images and Symbols, they thought to ascend to what was understood and represented by them, declaring, That Chri­stianity taught them to overlook these things, and to ascend immediately to God, and to his Son; and that the rudest Chri­stian did so, by shutting of his bodily Eyes, and not by looking upon what was sensible. Accordingly theNon cor­poreus nobis visus, sed Spi­ritualis est ne­cessarius. Lib. Carol. l. 2. c. 21. Council of Frank­ford teacheth, That to contemplate Christ, who is the Vertue and Wisdom of God; or to behold the Vertues, which by God were deri­ved upon his Saints, they needed not that corporeal sight which was common to them with unreasonable Creatures, but the Spiritual only.

4ly, The Fathers of the Second Nicene Council, do not only stile these Images Sacred and Holy, but declare, They salute them in hope of being made partakers of Sanctification by them; asserting, That by paying honorary Worship to them, they expect,Act. 4. p. 265, 321, 453, 492. [...], to be made partakers of some Holiness; and that they really do, [...], derive some Holiness from the Action. And doubtless the Heathens had the same conceit, as is evident from the frequent Assertions of the Fathers against them, and con­sequently against the Second Nicene Council, That there could be nothing Sacred, nothing Holy in an Image, or in any thing made by an Artificer. Accordingly theNec Sanctae dici debent. L. 3. c. 2. Council of Frankford saith, They ought not to be cal­led Holy: And the Synod held atQui—Sanctus nuncupari sanxerunt, & sanctimoniam ab eis se adipisci posse professi sunt. p. 20. Paris, saith, The Second Nicene Council erred not a little, not only in saying, That Images were to be adored, but also in [Page 21]calling them Holy; and saying, That Holiness might be had by them.

Now can it rationally be supposed, that they who thus de­clared, That Images were needless; that they knew no advantage could be received by them; that all Men were to be taught not to admire them; that they deserv'd to err who sought Instruction from them; that as for Christians, even the rudest of them rather chose to shut their Eyes, when they performed their Devotion, than to employ them about sensible Objects, with many other things of a like nature: Can it, I say, be well imagined, that these very Men should judg these very Images fit to instruct, to sanctify, to work compunction in them, yea, to be Objects worthy of their Veneration?

§. 8. Once more the Fathers represent this as a practice proper to the vilest Hereticks: For of the Carpocratian and Gnostick Hereticks, it is related byImagines quasdam de­pictas, quasdam de reliqua materia fabricatas habent, dicentes, formam Christi fa­ctam à Pilato, & has coro­nant, & reliquam observa­tionem circa eas similiter ut Gentes faciunt. Epiph. Haer. 7. p. 108. Iren. l. 1. c. 24. Epiphanius, That they had many Images, some painted, others framed in Gold and Silver, and other Matter, which they said, were the Representations of Christ made under Pontius Pilate. Carpocratians, saithImagines quasdam de­pictas, quasdam de reliqua materia fabricatas habent, dicentes, formam Christi fa­ctam à Pilato, & has coro­nant, & reliquam observa­tionem circa eas similiter ut Gentes faciunt. Epiph. Haer. 7. p. 108. Iren. l. 1. c. 24. Ire­naeus, have some painted Images, some also made of other Matter; saying, That their Images of Christ were made by Pilate; and these they crown and place with the Images of Plato, Aristotle, and Pytha­goras, and perform other Rites unto them as the Gentiles do; that is, they censed and worshipped them, say [...]. Anaceph. p. 140. Epiphanius, andColebat Imagines ado­rando incensumque ponen­do. August. Haer. 7. St. Austin. Thus of Marcellina, a Carpocratian Heretick, it is related by Epiphanius and St. Austin, That she made the Image of Christ, and Paul, and Homer, and Pythagoras, and did cense, worship, or bow down to them. Be­sides, St. Austin doth affirm of Carpocrates, That heHic Iesum hominem tantummodo putasse prohi­betur. Ibid. was reputed to have held, That Christ was only Man, and so could not intend to give him the Worship due to God. And Bellarmine himself confesseth, ThatIsti cum Christum co­lerent proculdubio imaginem ejus propter ipsum colebant. De Imagine Sanctorum, c. 24. §. sexta Ratio. without doubt, they, of whom Irenaeus speaks, did worship the Image for the Rela­tion which it bore to Christ. And thus the Doctors of the Church of Rome allow it worthy of Wor­ship, and so must be condemn'd by Irenaeus as much [Page 22]as are the Carpocratians. Here then is undeniable conviction that what the Second Nicene Council have decreed to be the Worship due unto the Images of Christ, and all the blessed Spi­rits; and what the Church of Rome doth daily practise, was deemed, in the purer Ages of the Church, a practice proper to the vilest Hereticks. They have these Images, say the Fathers; They offer Incense, and bow down to them; and in this they do like Heathens, and therefore not like Christians: Therefore the Christians of those Ages did not so; for what is more absurd, than to reprove these Hereticks for doing that which the best of Christians daily practised?

CHAP. II.

THis will be farther evident, if we consider the Objections which the Holy Fathers make against that worship of Ima­ges which had obtained in the Heathen World. For they produce such Arguments against it, as equally destroy all Image-worship, whatsoever be the Object represented by the Image; and do as fully prove it is unlawful to worship Images of Christ, and of departed Saints, as to adore the Images of Heathen Deities: so that it must be granted, that either in their days Christians did neither bow to, nor prostrate themselves before the Images of Christ, the Blessed Virgin, or the Saints departed; or that they practised that which they themselves most vehe­mently reproved in the Heathens. Now these Arguments of the Fathers are taken; (1.) From the consideration of Images themselves: And here they argue,

§. 1. 1. From the Matter of them, thus, That [...]. Clem. Alex. protrept. p. 38. De simulacris ipsis nihil aliud deprehendo quam ma­terias sorores esse vasculorum instrumentorum (que) communium. Tertul. Apol. c. 12. [...]. Athanas. contr. Gen­tes, p. 15. Quis autem non intelligat nefas esse rectum animal curvari ut adoret terram quae idcirco pedibus nostris subjecta est, ut calcanda nobis non adoranda sit, Lact. l. 2. c. 17. p. 228. Non est dubium quin Religio nulla sit ubicun (que) simulacrum est—Quia nihil potest esse coeleste in ea re quae fit ex terra, Ibid. c. 18. p. 229. Deum cujus sedes illa est, quem oculis non possumus animo contemplemur, quod profectò non facit qui aes, aut lapidem, quae sunt terrena, veneratur, Ibid. cap. 1. p. 140. Stultissimi sunt qui non intelligunt esse mortiferum, relicto Deo vivo, prosternere se, at (que) adorare terrena, qui nesciunt, & illos aeternam poenam manere qui figmenta insensibilia fuerint venerati, Epit. cap. 1. p. 736. Cum vos terrae submittitis humi­liores (que) facitis, ipsi vos ultro ad Inferos mergitis ad mortem (que) damnatis. Lact. l. 2. c. 2. p. 148. the Ma­terials of carved Images were only polished Earth, which Christians were taught to tread upon, and to contemn, and therefore could not, with­out [Page 24]wickedness, adore, what they did trample under feet; and that to humble themselves to what was as to Matter Earth, was to humble themselves to Hell, and to condemn themselves to death. That they who adore them, consider not that they daily burn, and tread upon the like Matter; that they are made of the same Matter with our Common, and perhaps impurer Vessels. That there can be no Reli­gion where there is an Image, because Religion consists in things Di­vine and Heavenly, whereas there can be nothing Heavenly which consists of Earth. That certainly he doth not in his Mind contem­plate God, who giveth Veneration to an Image.

ThatTu ergo adoras insensi­lem, cum unusquis (que) habens sensum, nec ea quidem cre­dat adoranda quae à deo facta sunt, & habent sensum. Cle­mens Recogn. l. 5. §. 16. this Matter is insensate, and that it is a certain Maxim among Christians, [...], that they are not to worship that which hath no sense. That it is great folly to adore what is void of sense, when every one that hath sense, knows those things are not to be worshipped which are made by God, and have sense. That they are Fools, and blind, who know not that they shall everlastingly perish, who worship Figments void of sense.

Nec pon­derare secum unamquam (que) rem potest vulgus indo­ctum, ut intel­ligat nihil colendum esse quod oculis mortalibus cernitur, Lact. l. 2. c. 3. p. 149. Origen. l. 7. p. 362. supra August. contra Acad. l. 1. c. 1. That nothing is to be worshipped, but wholly to be cast away, which is the Object of our Senses, and is seen with mortal Eyes; and that our Saviour came to free God's Worship from these sen­sual Objects.

§. 2. 2ly, Comparing these insensate Images with other things, to wit, with Beasts, and with dead Things, they dis­course thus;

That [...]. Clem. Alexandr. protrept. p. 33, 34. [...]. Athanas. contr. Gent. p. 15. Melior est etiam bestia, ut si pudeat adorare bestiam quam fecit Deus videntem, audien­tem, &c. viderent quam pudendum esset adorare malum & carens vita sensu (que) simulacrum, Au­gust. in Ps. 113. vide Tertul. Apol. l. 12. Minucium p. 26. Arnob. l. 6. p. 202. Theodo­ret. in Ps. 113. Clem. Rom. recog. l. 5. §. 16. Chrysost. in Es. Hom. 2. p. 1037. if it be a most vile and unbecoming thing for Men to worship and bow down to Beasts, it is more shameful for them to [Page 25]worship and bow down to Images, they being more dishonourable than any living Creature; A Mouse, a Worm, a Mole, a Serpent being much better than an Image, because they have sense, which Images have not; The Birds of the Air being more honourable, because they have life and motion, which Images have not; they can frame Voi­ces with their Throats, which Images cannot; they judg Images to be things void of Sense, and therefore nest, and make their Habita­tions in them, and even mute upon them. That they are worse than any dead thing, for that once lived, whereas Images never did enjoy one moment of Life.

§. 3. 3ly, From the consideration of the Artificer, or the efficient Cause of Images, they argue thus;

That theMelior est qui fecit quam illa quae facta sunt, & tamen factorem ip­sum nemo sus­cipit aut vere­tur. Lact. l. 2. c. 2. p. 146. [...]. Athanas. contr. Gent. p. 15. item p. 11, & 23. August. in Ps. 113. Arti­fex melior est eis, quia ea potuit membrorum motu at (que) officio fabricare, quem tamen Arti­ficem te uti (que) puder ct adorare. p. 1305. Artificer who made these Images, must be esteemed better than his own handy-work, because he gave unto it that perfe­ction it enjoys; and 'tis impossible there should be more perfection in the Work, than in the Artificer; that therefore it is much more shameful to adore the Image which he makes, than to adore the Man himself.

That [...]. Clem. Alex. Strom. 7. p. 714, 715. [...]. Orig. contr. Celsum p. 6, 7. nothing can be Sacred which is the Work of Mens hands. That the Works of servile Artists, and Stone-cutters, cannot be Sa­cred. That it is a thing written by God in the Hearts of Men, that nothing is to be esteemed Sacred, or Holy, or of much value, which is the Work of the Mechanick, or Artificer; That Images made by servile Men, of earthly Matter, must be vain, earthly, and pro­phane.

That the [...]. Orig. in Cel­sum p. 367. Heathens had no just reason to quarrel with the Christians, for saying, They were Men of a lame and infirm Mind, [Page 26]who repaired to that which falsly was esteemed Saered, as if it truly were so; and who did not see that nothing could be sacred which was the Work of servile Artists.

That [...]. Orig. ibid. Ti [...]. Euseb. praepar. Ev. l. 5. c. 14. the curiosity of making Statues, hath in it nothing acceptable to God. And that the Heathens ought not to forbid Christians to assert, That they are blind who think that Piety doth appertain to Images, or Statues, made out of Matter by the Art of Man. No, 'twas reserved to a General Council of Chri­stian Bishops to forbid this, and to stile those Ima­ges which were the Work of the Artificer, [...], the Holy, Sacred, Venerable, Adorable Images, a thousand times.

That [...] Justin. M. Dial. 2. p. 66. Vos impii lapides & signa & opera manuum hominum adoratis. Tharacus apud Baron. A. D. 290. §. 5. [...]. Clem. Alex. protrep. p. 29. Non sit nobis Religio humanorum ope­rum cultus. August. de vera Relig. c. 55. vid. Agob. p. 257. it was an impious and foolish custom to adore the works of Mens hands; and that such worship of humane Works, should be no part of the Religion of a Christian.

That it was Summo­pere pensan­dum esse, quia si opera ma­nuum Dei non sunt adoranda & colenda, nec in honorem Dei, quanto magis opera manuum hominum non sunt adoranda & colenda, nec in ho­norem eorum, quorum similitudines esse dicuntur? Agob. §. 28. p. 261. Vid. Clem. R. Recogn. l. 5. §. 16. Claud. Taurin. Bibl. Patr. To. 4. p. 147. seriously to be thought upon, That if the Works of God's Hands were not to be adored and worshipped, no not in ho­nour of that God who made them, much less were the Works of Mens hands to be adored in honour of them whose Similitudes they are said to be.

§. 4. 4ly, From the Dignity, the Quality, [...]e Posture of the Persons worshipping, they plead thus, viz.

ThatEst autem perversum & incongruens ut simulacrum hominis à simulacro Dei co­latur, colit enim quod est deterius & imbeciliius. Lact. l. 2. c. 17. Man is the Image of God, whereas the Images of Heathen Deities and Saints are but the Ima­ges of Men. Now nothing can be more perverse, or more incongruous, than that the Image of a Man should be adored by him who is the Image of his Maker, because he by so doing worships what is worse and [Page 27]weaker than himself. That if any Image was to be adored or wor­shipped, it should be Si ulla I­mago esset a­doranda vel colenda, Crea­toris potius esset quam Creaturae; nempe homi­nem fecit Deus ad Imaginem & similitudinem Dei-Certe si adorandi fuissent homines, vivi ma­gis quam picti; id est, ubi similitudinem habent Dei, non ubi pecorum; vel, quod verius est, la­pidum, five lignorum, vita, sensu, ratione carentium. Agob. de Imag. §. 28. p. 262. that of the Creator, rather than the Crea­ture, viz. Man whom God made according to his Image and Simi­litude. That if Men were to be adored, it should be rather living Men, than painted; that is, when they have the Similitude of God, rather than that of Stones and Wood, void of Life, Sense, and Reason.

That [...]. Clem. Alex. Strom. 7. p. 715. if Holiness is to be ascribed not to God only, but to that which is framed in honour of him, it may fitly be applied to the Church, which to the Honour of God is made holy by the acknowledg­ment of him; or to him whom God doth prize and honour, in whom he dwells, in whose just Soul we may perceive the Divine Character, and Sacred Image, and who is an Image dedicated to the Honour of God; but the word Sacred is not to be applied to that which is made by servile Arts, or is adorned by the hand of a Jugler.

ThatMelior & tu, quamvis ea non feceris, quoniam quae il­la non possent, facis. August. in Ps. 113. p. 1305. Nec in­telligunt homines ineptissimi, quod si sentire simulacra & moveri possent ultro adora­tura homines fuissent à qui­bus sunt expolita. Lact. l. 2. c. 2. p. 146. Velim autem dicerent mihi hi qui idola colunt, si optant similes fieri his quos colunt: vultne ali­quis vestrum sic videre quo­modo illi vident, &c. quales ergo dii habendi sunt isti quorum similitudinem habere contumelia est? Clem. R. Recogn. l. 5. §. 15. Man himself is far more excellent, be­cause he doth what Images cannot; and he hath Sense, and Life, and Reason which they want; and that if Images could move, they would rather adore Men that made them. That Men would think it a re­proach and injury to be compared to them, or to be like them in their want of Life, and Sense, and Mo­tion; and that therefore they should blush to worship that which they would not be like, or compared to: and they who made and worshipp'd them, were, as the Psalmist saith, like unto them, destitute of Manhood, and fallen into such absurdity, that it was just with God to deprive them of sense.

ThatQuid ante inepta simula­cra & figmen­ta terrena cap­tivum corpus incurvas?—ad coelum at (que) ad Deum sursum vultus erectus est, illuc intuere, illuc oculos erige, in supernis Deum quaere, ut carere inferis possis. Cypr. Ep. ad Demetr. Ed. Ox. p. 191, 192. Cum nobis sublimis vultus ab Artifice Deo datus sit, ap­paret istas Religiones Deorum non esse rationis humanae, qui (quae) curvant coeleste animal ad veneranda terrena. Lact. l. 2. c. 1. p. 139. Ipsi ergo sibi renunciant, se (que) hominum nomine abdicant, qui non sursum aspiciunt sed deorsum. p. 140. God had made Man upright, with a face looking up to Heaven, and so would have us to look up to Heaven in the Acts of our Religion; that hence it appeared, that those Religions could not be suitable to humane Reason, which caused this Coelestial Being to bow down and venerate earthly things; and that he renounced the Being, and the very Name of Man, who did not look upward, but downward in his Religious Service of God.

That the Heathens served God more purely when they had no Image, August. de C. D. l. 4. ubi su­pra. and that their Religion would have been better if they had so continued.

§. 5. 5ly, From the consideration of the Object worship­ped by these Images, and in honour of whom by the Heathens they were said to be made, or really were made, they frame these Arguments against the Adoration of them, viz.

That whatsoever deserveth to be called a God, Arnob. l. 6. p. 189. or placed among the Heavenly Powers, if it be capable of laughter, will deride this kind of Honour; or if prone to anger, will be provoked to Indigna­tion by it.

That if the Gods be in Heaven, Ibid. p. 195. supra. it is a folly to direct our Eyes to Stones, and Wood, and Walls, when we address our selves to them; and that we rather ought to direct our Eyes to Heaven where we believe they are. Quanto igitur rectius est, omissis insensibilibus & vanis, oculos eo tendere ubi sedes, ubi habitatio est Dei veri? Lact. l. 2. c. 5. p. 161. vid. p. 148. That it were better, wholly omitting these vain and insensate things, to direct our Eyes thither, where is the Seat and Habitation of the God of Heaven; and that God must be sought in the Heavens, that we may be freed from Hell.

ThatDocui Re­ligiones Deo­rum triplici ratione vanas esse: una, quod simulacra ipsa quae coluntur, effigies sunt hominum mortuorum. Lact. l. 2. c. 17. p. 227. Quid sibi volunt ipsa simulacra quae aut mortuorum aut absentium monimenta sunt? nam omnino fingendarum similitudinum ratio iccirco ab hominibus inventa est, ut posset eorum memoria retineri qui vel morte subtracti, vel absentia fuerant separati: Deos igitur in quorum numero reponemus! si in mortuorum, quis tam stultus ut colat? si in absentium, colendi ergo non sunt, si nec vident quae facimus, nec audiunt quae precamur. Lact. l. 2. c. 2. the Religion of the Heathens is vain, because the Ima­ges they worship are the Effigies of dead Men. That Images are [Page 29]either for the commemoration of the Dead, or of the Absent; it being therefore folly to adore either the Dead or Absent, it must be much more folly to adore their Images.

§. 6. 6ly, From the Form of Images they also gather ma­ny Reasons to condemn them; saying,

ThatOpinio & mens imperi­torum artis concinitate decipitur. Mi­nuc. p. 25. [...]. &c. Clem. Alex. protrept. p. 39. [...]. Strom. 5. p. 559. Species membrorum parit in unoquo (que) sordidissimum erroris af­fectum, ut quoniam in illo figmento non invenit vitalem motum, credat numen occultum, ef­figiem tamen viventi corpori similem; seductus forma, & commotus authoritate quasi sapien­tum institorum obsequentium (que) turbarum, sine vivo aliquo habitatore esse non putat. August. in Psal. 113. p. 1306. Orig. adv. Celsum l. 8. p. 391. the shape of a carved or painted Image, through the gayness of the Art, tends to debase the Soul, and to expose it to er­roneous Opinions of the Deity, to render vile and contemptible the Divine Majesty, and by a shew of Piety to make Men wicked; and that therefore they refused to make or use them, and were by Moses forbidden so to do.

ThatQuis au­tem adorat vel orat intuens si­mulacrum, qui non sic affici­tur, ut ab eo se exaudiri pu­ter? —Hoc enim facit, & quo­dammodo ex­torquet illa fi­gura membro­rum, ut ani­mus vivens in sensibus cor­poris magis arbitretur sentire corpus, quod suo corpori simillimum videt. Illa causa est maxi­ma impietatis insanae, quod plus valet in affectibus miserorum similis viventi forma, quae sibi efficit supplicari, quam quod eam manifestum est non esse viventem, ut debeat à vivente contemni. Plus enim valent simulacra ad curvandam infelicem animam quod os habent, oculos, aures, ma­nus, pedes habent, quam ad corrigendum quod non loquentur, &c. August. in Psal. 113. p. 1307. Images were rejected by them, because they could not without danger use them; For who, say they, adores or prays, look­ing upon an Image, who is not so affected as to think to be heard by it; for the Figure of the Members almost extorts this; and this is the greatest cause of this mad Impiety that the form like unto one living, whose likeness makes it to be supplicated to, doth more pre­vail in the affections of miserable Men, than the evidence that it doth not live at all, doth that it ought to be contemned by him who in­deed is living. For Images prevail more to bow down the unhappy Soul, in that they have a Mouth, Eyes, Ears, Nostrils, Hands and Feet, than these Considerations can prevail to correct the Error of it, that they will not speak, see, smell, or walk.

§. 7. 7ly, As to the extrinsecal impulsive Cause, or first In­ventor of Images, and Image-worship, they declare expresly, ThatArtifices Statuarum, & Imaginum, & omnis generis simulacrorum diabolus sae­culo intulit. Tertul. de Idol. c. 2. [...]. Theo­dotus Ancyr. apud 2. Nic. Conc. Art. 6. p. 492. [...]. Epiph. Haer. 79. interprete Agobardo. Agit hoc nimirum versutus, & callidus humani generis inimicus, ut sub praetextu honoris sanctorum rursus Idola introducat, rursus per diversas effigies adoretur. De Imag. §. 31. [...]. Euseb. praepar. Evang. l. 4. c. 16. p. 161. the Devil and his Angels were the Inventors and Introdu­cers, both of the Images, and Image-worship of Heathen Gods, and of the Saints. That the Devil brought into the World the Artifi­cers of Images, and Statues: That they were evil Angels who taught Men to make them. That they had clearly proved that the first invention of Images, and Statues, was from the Devil. That it was manifest, that this vain counsel of painting the Visages of the Saints, was one of the Methods of Satan, an Invention of Men acted by the Devil. For which assertions they are frequently Anathematised, and condemn'd to Hell by the Second Nicene Council.

In a word, Lactantius not only laughs at them who kiss, and worship, and bow down to theseFrustra igitur homines auro, ebore, gemmis deos ex­colunt & exornant. Ergo his Iudicris, & ornatis, & grandi­bus pupis, & unguenta, & thura, & odores inferunt, his peplos & indumenta pretio­sa. L. 2. c. 4. p. 154, 157. great Puppits, as he thinks fit to call them, but also at the vanity of such as adorn them with Gold, or Jewels, that cover them with Vails, or precious Garments; that offer Incense, or sweet Odours, or consecrate Gold or Silver to them; and who they are who do these things at present, we are not to learn.

§. 8. And now let any Man of Reason judg, whether all these Considerations do not as much concern the Images of Saints, and even of our Blessed Lord, as they concerned the Images of Heathen Deities? whether their Images, as well as those of Heathens, be not made of Wood like to that we burn; or of polish'd Earth like to that we tread upon, and trample under feet, and of which Vessels are oft made for viler uses? whether they be not sensual Objects, things void of sense, and without Life, Motion, or ability to speak? whether they be not made by the Artificer, are not the work of servile Artists, Stone-cutters, Me­chanicks? [Page 31]whether they be not the Works of Mens hands? whe­ther they be not in the Roman Church adored, and reverenced by Men made upright after God's Image, and dedicated to his Honour, and who have what Images have not, and do what Images cannot do? whether any who adore them, desire to be like unto them? whether the Images which Papists reverence, be not the Images of Heavenly Powers, of Beings now in Heaven, the Images of dead or absent Persons, or made for the Commemoration of such Persons? And being so, Whether these Sayings of the Fa­thers do not equally concern them both? Or, whether they do not equally condemn the Worship of the Images of Saints, and Heathen Deities? If then these very Fathers had themselves made and worshipped Images subject to all, or any of these Characters, and had received a Tradition from Christ and his Apostles so to do themselves, and teach all Christians so to do, who can imagine that they would have spoken such plain and frequent Contradictions, both to their Practice and their Do­ctrine, and talk'd as if they equally intended to condemn, and even ridicule the Christian and the Heathen way of Worship?

§. 9. Again, suppose the Fathers could have been thus de­stitute of common sense, and void of fore-sight, Would not the Heathens have taken this advantage to retort upon them all that they argued against their Image-Worship; and tell them, That which they condemned in them, was only what them­selves did daily practise, and taught all Christians to observe? Could Celsus, Porphyry, Hierocles, Eunapius, Julian, and all the other Heathen Wits, have wholly waved and neglected such a plain Advantage? Put case they heard these Fathers daily telling them, that 'twas a wickedness to adore that which was made of Earth; that it was impious and foolish to adore the Works of Mens hands, or what was void of sense; that they renounced the Name or being of a Man, who bowed down to venerate earthly things; that they could not but judg them impotent and blind, who called such things Sacred, or deemed it piety to adore them; and that they could not chuse but laugh at and upbraid their Folly. Should all the Pagans know, that what they thus objected a­gainst their Image-worship, was of equal force against that which themselves did daily practise; that there were Images in every Christian Church, made by Mens hands of Earth, as [Page 32]void of sense as any they adored; and that the Christians did esteem, and call them Sacred, adore, bow down to, venerate them; could they abstain from saying, in the words of the Apostle, Thou art inexcusable, O Christian, whoever thou art, that judgest us for doing these things; for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thy self, for thou that judgest dost the same things?

When this Corruption began to spread it self through the Eastern Churches, and to be countenanced at Rome; and many had submitted to these superstitious Practices, the Heathens presently began thus smartly to reply upon those Christians who condemned their Image-worship. [...]; 2 Nic. Conc. Act. 5. p. 353. What, have you not also in your Churches Images of Saints; and do not you pay worship to them? What is the practice of you Christians; [...]. Ibid. do not you represent in Images that which you call a God, viz. your Saviour? [...]; Act. 5. p. 373. Why to refore do you complain of us, who are your selves more super­stitiously addicted to the like practices? The Hea­thens, saith Tarasius, Patriarch of C. P. and the great Champion of Image-worship, defended their Idols by condemnation of the Martyrs, saying, [...]. Ibid. p. 376. Why strive you with us, and refuse our Images, when you have Images of your own? Why is it then, that the more Ancient Pagans, Hierocles, and Lu­cian, Porphyry and Celsus, Caecilian and Symmacus, Julian, Eunapius, and others, object such things against the Worship of the Christians, as were most evidently false, viz. the Worship of the Sun, an Asses Head, of the Clouds, and the Priests Genitals; or most apparently impertinent, as the Wor­ship of a crucified Malefactor, b [...]t never mention this; which if the practice of the Christians had given them occasion so to do, had been so proper, and so obvious, that the most rude and unskilful Adversary could scarce neglect to mention, or avoid taking notice of? These Persons, surely, neither wanted skill nor Wisdom to know what made for their Ad [...]antage, and what was proper to retort upon their Adversaries. They had no kindness for the Christians, which might induce them to wave this obvious Reply to these Accusations of the Christians brought against them; nor could they possibly be ignorant of what the [Page 33] Christians practised in this kind, they being some of them Apostates from the Christian Faith, and admitted to their pub­lick Worship. 'Tis therefore certain, that the Practice and Doctrine of those purer Ages, gave them no occasion to re­tort these things.

§. 10. 3ly, Let us reflect a little upon the Language and Deportment of those who have professedly admitted of the Veneration of the Images of Christ and of his Saints, and see if we find any thing resembling these Sayings of the Fathers in their Words or Actions. Since that this Image-worship hath obtained amongst the Latins, who ever heard such Language from them?

What Romanist will say, The Christian Doctrine did not permit them to be sollicitous about Images and Statues, but to relinquish them, to reject them; that Christ came to cause them to desist from the worship of them, and to elevate them from earthly Images to Heaven? Who of them will declare, That all the Images of Christ, and of the Blessed Virgin, which they solemnly adore at Rome, were falsly called Images; that they were worse than Mice, and Worms, and Moles? Who of them will pronounce it an insignificant and needless, a ridiculous, shameful, foolish, incon­gruous, perverse, impious, irreligious, heretical, heathenish, and devilish practice, to adore an Image or a Statue? Where shall we find amongst them these general Axioms, That Christians must not worship that which is a Creature, that which hath no sense; that it is impious and foolish to adore the Work of Mens hands; that this should be no part of the Religion of a Christian; that it is folly to adore the Dead, or Absent, and much more folly to adore their Images; that the Devil brought into the World the Artificers of Images and Statues? Since then the Fathers, without distin­ction, or exception, do frequently assert these things, and ma­ny more of a like nature, it is evident they did not wor­ship or bow down to Images, as do the Members of the Church of Rome: For if no Man would thus speak, who mean­eth as the Papists do, surely these Fathers were far enough from their Opinions. Is any Man so void of understanding, that being only to declare that Earthly Princes are not to be obey'd and reverenced as Gods, he should continually teach, without all limitation and distinction, That Earthly Princes are not to be obeyed or reverenced? since then the Fathers generally say, That [Page 34] Images are not to be admitted or reverenced by any Christians; and that they ought not to bow down to them, and do not limit these Expressions, it is exceeding clear that they intended not only to declare they were not to be worshipped with Latria, but also that no outward and inferior Worship should be given to them.

After the introduction of Image-worship into the Eastern and some Western Churches, we find their Language and their Practice as opposite to these Discourses of the Fathers, as is Light to Darkness. For then we never hear, That whatsoever is the Work of an Artificer, is vain, earthy, and prophane; that nothing of this Nature can be sacred, valuable, pious; but always speaking of their Images, as in the Second Niceno Council, under the Titles of Sacred, Holy, Venerable, adorable Images. Then they professedly deny, condemn, endeavour to con­fute the Axioms so frequent in these Holy Fathers. For in­stance;

1. Nothing is to be worshipped, say the Fathers, which is made with Hands; it is impious and foolish to adore, [...], things made with Hands. This Proposition those good Fathers will by no means admit of, without their Restrictions;Scripsisti non esse ma­nufacta veneranda. 2 Nic. Conc. p. 10. Thou hast written, saith P. Hadrian, to the Em­peror Leo Isaurus, That things made with hands are not to be venerated. And having called himIndoctus, Crassus, arro­gans, superbus, Ibid. Manu­facta diaboli noxia & exe­cranda dicebat, quâ sunt ma­nufacta ad ministerium & gloriam Dei. proud, arrogant Dunce, he very learnedly informs him, That this was only true of the Manufacta Diaboli noxia & execranda, hurtful, and execrable manufacta of the Devil, not of things made with Hands for the Ministry and Glory of God. In his Epistle to the Emperors, Constantinus and Irene, approved by the whole Council, he objects thus;Sed dices, quia ipse Deus interdixit adorare ma­nufacta. Act. 2. p. 114. You will say, That God himself forbids us to adore things made with hands; and answers thus, ThatQuid est supra terram quod non sit manufactum, cum à Deo sit factum. Ibid. every thing upon Earth is made with hands, it being made by God; and then flies to his old di­stinction, betwixt the Images of Daemons and of Saints. Theodorus, Patriarch of Jerusalem, saith, That [...]. Act. 3. p. 185. some contentious Persons urge, That the Images of Saints ought not to be worshipped, as being made with hands. But let them know, saith he, that [Page 35]the Cherubim, the Ark, the Propitiatory, the Table, were by God's Precept made with hands, and were worshipped; and then he rests in the distinction of Pope Hadrian. Leontius tri­umphs over this Objection, thus; [...]. Act. 4. p. 237. Tell me, thou, who thinkest nothing that is made with hands, and nothing created is to be adored; shalt thou kiss thy wicked Wife, and may not I kiss the Image of the Bles­sed Virgin?

These Fathers, many of them clearly say, That Images were the Invention of the Devil: And in that [...]. Act. 1. p. 57. Council is pronounced an express Anathe­ma upon all that say so; and as I shall hereafter shew, they have either expresly, or in effect, de­nounced their Anathema's against all these Fathers, and almost all that they have said.

§. 11. Moreover, in the late Persecutions, in the days of Henry the 7th, the Papists forced Christians to renounce those very things as Heresies, which are so fully and expresly here asserted by the Fathers. For instance;

1. The Renunciations of some of them run thus;Thomas Taylor, Jan. 22. 1490. I have kept, and held, by the space of two Years, one suspect Book of Commandments, written in the same, That no Man should worship any thing graven, or made with Man's hands; whereby, after that Doctrine I have believed, that no Man ought to worship Images.

2. I have misbelieved, and to divers manifestly shewed, Augustine Stere, Jan. 28. 1490. That Images of Saints are not to be worshipped, after the Doctrine of a Book of Commandments, which I have had in my keeping, wherein is written, That no Man shall worship any thing made or graven with Man's hands; attending the words of the same literally, and not in­clining to the sense of the same.

3. I have holden and believed, that the Images of the Crucifix, Thom. Boughton, May 28. 1499. of our Blessed Lady, and of other Holy Saints, should not be wor­shipped; for nothing wrought, or graven with Mens hands, ought to be honoured or lowted to, as I have read divers times in an English Book that we call the Commandment Book.

4. I have believed, and divers times shewed, William Priour, Jan. 28. 1490. that Images of Saints be not to be worshipped, saying, and holding, That no such thing is to be worshipped, that is graven and made with Man's hands.

5. I have spoken against worshipping of Images, John Tanner, Jul. 15. 1491. that we shall worship no Stocks, ne Stones, ne nothing made or graven with Man's hand; no likeness of things in Heaven, in Earth.

6. I have affirmed, Simon Waiver. That Images made of Stocks and Stones are not to be worshipped, or should not be worshipped, nor nothing made with Man's hands.

Some of them renounce and confess after this manner;Thomas Taylor, Ibid. I have said them Foolis which goeth to St. James in pilgrimage; adding, that St. James had no foot to come against them, no hand to welcom them, neither tong to speak to them; so reproving the wor­ship of Images.

I have openly said, Alize Higuel, Feb. 5. 1490. That Images of Saints be not to be worshipped; that when devout Christian People of their Devo­tion, be wont to offer their Candles burning to the Image of St. Leo­nard, I have for their devotion called them Fools: furthermore shewing in this wise, when St. Leonard woll ete a Candle, and blow out an oder, then I will offer him a Candle, else woll not: Also, when I have seen Cobwebs hanging before the Face of the Image of our Lady, I have said, and reputed them Fools that offereth to that Image; but if she would blow away the same Cobwebs from her Face—

I have affirmed, Robert Makam, June 17. 1506. and said, That the Crucifix, and other Images in the Church, made of Stocks and Stones, are but Idols, and ought not to be worshipped; adding, and saying, that Ball the Carpenter, or Pyke the Mason, could make as good as the Crucifix, for it is but a crooked Stick.

I have said, John Bennet, Feb. 7. 1507. That no manner of Image ought to be worshipped, for that they can neither smell, speak, nor hear.

Sometimes their Confessions, and Abjurations, run after this manner, viz.

I have said, Isabel Dort, July 19. 1491. That it were better to give a poor, blind, or lame Man a Penny, than to bestow their Mony in Pilgrimages, and wor­shipping the Images of Saints; for Man is the very Image of God, which ought all only to be worshipped, and no Stocks, ne Stones.

I used to say, Thomas Stochin, March 22. 1498. We should rather worship the Image that God hath made, that is to say, the poor Man, than the Image that Man hath made, and painted, the which standeth in the Church.

All these things they renounce, as contrary to the common Do­ctrine and Determination of the Ʋniversal Church of Christ, and as false Doctrines, contrary to the Christian Faith, as great Here­sies, [Page 37]and false Opinions, reproved, and damned by all Holy Church; and against the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles. And yet these Sayings thus condemned by the Second Nicene Council, and thus renounced as great Heresies, in all parts where the Power of the Church of Rome prevailed in these latter Ages, are ei­ther the express Sayings and Doctrines of the Ancient Fathers, or little different from them in sense; whence any Man may easily discern how great an opposition there must be betwixt the Doctrine of the Ancient, and of the present Church of Rome; the true Catholick Church of Christ in the Primitive Ages, and that which now usurps the name of Catholick.

CHAP. III.

§. 1. THat the Ancients knew nothing of this pretended Tradition, will be still more evident from their Dis­courses touching that Commandment, which so expresly saith, Thou shalt not make unto thy self an Idol, nor the similitude of any thing in Heaven or Earth. For had they generally practised, had they received a Tradition touching the Veneration of the Images of Christ, his Blessed Mother, and the Saints and Mar­tyrs, is it not wonderful that none of all the Fathers ever did that which all Christians, who entertained the Worship of them ever did, viz. That they should never offer any Answer to the obvious Objection from this Commandment against it, or in the least attempt to reconcile this Precept with their Practice; or to propose any of those Distinctions, Limitations, or Ex­cuses, which are so frequent in the Writings of the Romish Do­ctors, and which they judg so necessary to prevent Idolatry, and to inform aright the Minds of them who venerate their Images, and to satisfy the importunity of those who scruple at it, and do suspect it is a breach of this Commandment? The Matter of this Image-worship looks so ill, it seems so manifestly repugnant to the Command, forbidding us to worship any similitude of any thing in Heaven or Earth; it is at least in appearance so like to that very practice which they derided in the Heathens, that it was highly reasonable, if this had been the Doctrine and Pra­ctice of their Times, that these Primitive Fathers should at least have considered, and stated the Question, How far, and in what sense it was lawful; and with what Intention, and in what Degree, and with what Cautions and Distinctions this might lawfully be done. The present Doctors of the Church of Rome, are not so careless now adays, as were the Fathers in this Matter. When they write Catechisms for the Instruction of the People, sometimes theyVid. Dall. de Imag. p. 77. wholly leave out this Command­ment; sometimes they do abbreviate it, and make it only say, Thou shalt not worship Idols: Or if they be so daring as to pre­sent the whole Commandment to the view of Roman Catholicks, they carefully expound, and clog it with many Limitations and Distinctions, that their Proselytes may not be tempted to think the words do mean what in their plain and obvious sense they do import.

Thus was it also with the Bishops of the Second Nicene Coun­cil, who introduced this Image-worship into the Eastern Church. Constantinus, Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, seems to insinuate, That the Reason which moved God to make this Injunction, was not the Evil of Image-worship, but the propenseness of the Jews unto Idolatry; For, saith he, [...]. Act. 4. p. 200. vid. Act. 6. p. 468. when the People were moved to com­mit Idolatry, then God spake thus to Moses, Thou shalt make no similitude to serve them. In other places they affirm, That God doth only here forbid [...]. Act. 7. p. 556, 584. the worship of them with Latria; the worship­ping of Images [...]. Act. 5. p. 355, 376, 412. as Gods, but not the worship of them with Doulia; and often do observe, that [...], or [...]. Act. 7. p. 584. Act. 4. p. 248. outward Worship, by saluting, or bowing of the Body, is not appropriated to God, but is an Honour oft given to the Creatures, and therefore is such Worship as may be given to S. Images. And sure it may be charitably pre­sumed, that the Fathers of the Primitive Church were as heartily concerned for the Instruction of their Flocks, and were as able to perceive as Roman Catholicks, that seeming opposition which the Veneration of Images bears to this Com­mandment; and yet we do not find in all their Writings, for five hundred Years, one Caution to inform the People, that this Law concerned not that Image-worship they are supposed to have practised, and derived down unto Posterity.

Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Tertullian, and other Writers of the Ancient Church, make frequent mention of this Precept, especially when they discourse against that Image-worship which the Heathens practised; but they afford not one Iota to distin­guish that Worship they condemned in the Heathens, from that which they are said to have then given to the Images of Christ, and of his Saints; or to except them from the Censure they so generally pass upon all Image-worship; or to inform us, that the worship of such Images is well consistent with the Second Commandment.

§. 2. To make this Argument yet more convincing, let it be considered, That these very Fathers thought themselves con­cerned to answer those Objections which Papists now, and other worshippers of Images before them, made against that sense of [Page 40]the Commandment which Protestants embrace; viz. That God by it forbids all outward Worship, or Veneration, to be paid to Images.

For whereas they object the [...]. Theo­dorus Patr. Hieros. 2. Concil. Nicen. Act. 3. p. 185. vid. Act. 4. p. 197, 236. Act. 6. p. 468. Act. 2. p. 107, 115- Cherubims pla­ced in the Jewish Temple; Tertullian answers, That when God forbad the making the likeness of any thing in Heaven or Earth; in the next words, Thou shalt not worship them, he shewed the Cause of that Prohibition, was the removal of Idolatry; and there­fore, saith he, the Sic Cherubim & Se­raphim-certe simplex, Or­namentum, longe diversas habendo causas ab Idololatriae conditione, ob quam similitudo pro­hibetur. contr. Marc. l. 2. c. 22. Cherubims seem not here for­bidden, because they were not made for Worship, but for Ornament.

Clemens of Alexandria, to the same Instance an­swers, That [...]. Strom. l. 5. c. 564. the Cherubims were the Symbols of Angels glorified, not the Images of Saints; for he who had advised them to make no graven Idol, would not himself have made the Image of Saints, or Holy Things.

2ly, The framing of the Brazen Serpent by Moses, is also pleaded in favour of Image-worship in the Second [...]. Act. 5. p. 356, 357. Act. 2. p. 108, 109. Nicene Council. Now to this Tertullian an­swers, That this was done by Non in Idololatriae ti­tulum, sed in figuram Reme­dii. Contr. Marc. l. 2. c. 22. Non ad derogatioē Legis, sed ad exemplarium causae suae. L. de Idol. c. 5. Moses, not as an Image of Idolatry, but as a Figure of their Remedy; that it was done, not in derogation to the Law, but as a Figure of the Cross.

Just. M. Di­al. cum Tryph. p. 321, 322. Justin Martyr in like manner saith, That it was a Figure of the blessed Jesus, who was to save us from the bitings of the old Serpent; for otherwise, saith he, How can we reconcile it with the Command of the same God, to make no kind of Image?

Tertullian speaks thus to the Christian, Ne facias adversus le­gem simulacrum aliquod, ni­ti & tibi Deus jusserit. De I­dol. cap. 5. If thou observest the same God, thou hast his Law, make no Smilitude; if thou respectest the Precept of the Si­militude that afterwards was made, imitate thou Moses; make no Image against the Law, unless God also do command thee.

3ly, To the Objection made byDe fide Orth. cap. 93. Damascen, and before him by Celsus, That God made Man after his own Image, Origen replies, That [...]. L. 7. p. 376. [...]. Ibid. vid. l. 8. p. 389. it is one thing to be an Image of God, another thing to be made after his Image. And that this Image of God is pre­served in the Rational Soul, made like in Vertue to to him, not in the Lineaments of the Body.

These are the Exceptions made against this Law, which the Ancient Fathers diligently take notice of, and shew not to be Breaches of, or Contradictions to this Precept. Whereas, had then the Christians been accustomed to worship or bow down before the Images of Christ, and of the Blessed Virgin, and the Saints departed, this Practice would have ministred more weighty Scruples to imploy their Pens: And therefore we have reason to conclude, their practice gave them no occasion to an­swer those Objections which Romanists are so industrious to solve, and they, who were concerned about lesser Matters, ne­ver mention.

§. 3. But then if we consider, That these Fathers who are so profoundly silent in the Particulars now mentioned, so un­concerned to shew, that any Veneration of any Images whatso­ever, was any ways consistent with this Precept, are very loud, and frequent in declaring, as many of them do, That this Commandment rendred the very Art of making Images un­lawful to the Christian, that with one Voice they say, That it forbad all outward Veneration, and bowing down to any Images what­soever; and that they do as fully contradict, and overthrow all the Distinctions, Shifts, and Excuses of the Romanists, where­by they do endeavour to avoid the Condemnation of this Law: I say, when we consider this, we cannot have the least suspi­cion left, that they should practise in their Actions, or in Mind approve, what they in words so fully have condemned. And,

1. We find that many of them have declared expresly, That God by this Commandment forbad the very making of an Image, and rendred the very Art of Painting, and engraving Images, unlawful to the Christian.

Clemens of Alexandria stiles it, [...]. p. 30. [...]. p. 41 [...], an evil Art: and adds, That we Christians plainly are forbidden to exercise this deceitful Art, the Pro­phet [Page 42]having said, Thou shalt not make the similitude of any thing in Heaven or in Earth.

Origen declares, That [...], l. 4. p. 181. [...], l. 6. p. 321. the Jewish Polity ad­mitted of no Painter or Statuary, the Law ejecting all such out of it. And all these Arts of graving and of painting Images, he also stileth Arts of Wicked­ness. And again, [...], &c. l. 6. p. 321. As for Painters, Carvers, Image-makers, we think that they who do respect their Evil Arts, not taking off their Minds from all things visible, and sensible, to fix them upon him who is Light, are yet in Darkness.

Tertullian saith,Jam vero ipsum opus personarum quaero, an Deo placeat qui omnem similitu­dinem vetat fieri? De Spect. cap. 23. Et conjungens, ne­que similitudinem, &c. toto mundo ejusmodi artibus in­terdixit servis Dei. De Idol. c. 4. Even of the Work of such Persons, I enquire, Whether it can please that God who forbad any likeness to be made, how much more of his Image? The Author of Truth loves not what is false; whatsoever is feigned, is Adultery with him. The Divine Law proclaims, Thou shalt make no Idol; and adding, neither the likeness of any thing in Heaven or Earth; hath, through the World, for­bidden the Servants of God to exercise such Arts. And to this Objection of the Image-maker, I have no other Trade to live upon: He answers, What hast thou to do with God, if thou wilst live by thy own Laws? Patet Exclesia omni­bus, si nulla exceptio est ar­tium, quas Dei disciplina non recipit, c. 5. The Church permits all Men to labour, but not to labour in those Arts which the Discipline of God receives not.

Chrysostom saith, I [...]; in Matt. Hom. 49. p. 316, 317. condemn the Arts of making Pictures as no Arts, for they only tend to su­perfluous Expence; whereas the Name of Arts is only to be given to those Trades which appertain to things necessary, and belonging to the Life of Man. For God for this cause gave us Wisdom, that we might find out Methods by which we might advantage our Life. But tell me, Where is the profit of making little Images, or Animals on Walls or Garments?

And lastly, TheApud Concil. Nic. 2. Act. 6. p. 425. [...]. Ibid. p. 505. Council of Constantinople, consisting of 338 Bishops, calls this, [...], the unlawful Art of making Pictures. Judge therefore whether the Christians of those five first Centuries, could have any custom [Page 43]received from Tradition, to adore what they declared unlawful for any Christian Man to make, though he did not adore it, Whether they held it necessary that Images should be worship­ped, who held it both superfluous and wicked outward Veneration to any Image what­soever.

Origen, in that very Homily upon Exodus, which Romanists do cite in favour of their Exposition of the word Idol, to signify a thing that hath no real Being in the World, is very clear in this Particular, declaring,Quae nunc fermo Dei universa complectens simul abjurat, & abjicit, & non so­lum Idolum fieri vetat, sed & similitudinem omnium in terra, &c. Hom. 8. in Exod. That the Command forbiddeth not only to make an Idol, but also the similitude of all things; so that if any Man, in any Metal of Gold, Silver, Wood, or Stone, makes the resemblance of any four-footed Beast, Serpent, or Bird, and sets it up to be adored, he maketh not an Idol, but a Similitude; or if he make a Picture to that end, he doth the same: And, that the Word of God comprehending all these things together, casts away, and abjures them; and doth not only forbid an Idol to be made, but also the similitude of all things which are on the Earth, in the Waters, and the Heaven; adding, and saying, Thou shalt not adore nor worship them. Aliud est colere, aliud adorare; potest quis & invi­tus adorare—colere verò est toto his affectu & studio mancipari, utrum (que) ergo re­secat sermo divinus ut ne (que) affectu colas, ne (que) specie a­dores. Ibid. Now, it is one thing to adore, another thing to worship; for a Man may unwillingly adore, as they who flatter Kings, who are addicted to such things, may seem to adore Idols, when in their Hearts they know an Idol is nothing in the World; but to worship, is to be devoted to them with our whole Affection, and Study; both which the Divine Word cuts off, providing, That thou shouldst neither worship them with thy Affection, nor adore them in appearance, or external shew.

The other Author whom they cite to countenance their Exposition of the Word Idol, is Theodoret; who there de­clares indeed, That Idols signify things which have no Exi­stence: but then he adds, That Similitudes here signify the Ima­ges of things subsistent, as of the Sun, Moon, Stars, and Men; [Page 44]which things, saith he, [...], in Exod. q. 38. the Commandment en­joins us neither to worship outwardly, nor with Latria, or with the Worship of the Soul, teaching both these kinds of Worship to be wicked.

Clemens of Alexandria writing against the Anti­tactes, who rejected the God of the Old Testament, and acted in opposition to his Commands, tells them, that if they would act suitably to their Principles, [...]. Strom. l. 3. p. 441. Seeing God, by Moses, had forbid­den to make any graven or molten Images, they should adore them; plainly insinuating, that this Adora­tion was forbidden by this Precept. I have already shew'd, thatL. 7. p. 375. Origen declares, That Christians abstained from the worship of all Images, by virtue of this Command; and that which saith, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve: And Tertullian, That the Cherubims seem therefore not to be forbidden here, because they were not made for Worship, but for Ornament. Epipha­nius saith, That [...]; Haer. 69. p. 759. if the Son of God had been a Creature, God would not have propounded him to be worshipped, he himself having said, Thou shalt not make to thy self any Similitude, and thou shalt not worship it. God, saith Fulgentius, Omni creaturae adora­tio & servitus vehementissi­mè prohibetur. —Prorsus in­terdixit, ne quis auderet creaturam adorare creaturae­que servire. Ad Donat. p. 592, 593. in the first Precept of the Decalogue, most vehemently forbad all the Faithful to give Adoration or Service to any Creature: and commanding himself to be adored, he wholly forbad that any one should dare to adore or serve a Creature. And therefore in the end of that first Commandment he speaketh thus of all things he created, Thou shalt not worship them, nor serve them.

In the sixth and seventh Centuries, when the Historical use of Images began to find admittance in the Church, and Christians were permitted to adorn the Walls and Windows of the Church with them; or to engrave and paint them, the better to express or represent the History of Parables recorded in Scripture, they do excuse themselves from being thereby guilty of the breach of this Commandment, or any other of like na­ture, by this distinction, That they had Pictures only for Re­membrance, not for Religious Veneration.

Thus when Serenus, Bishop of Marseilles, finding his People prone to worship Images, did, after the Example of good Hezekiah, break and remove them from the Church, though Gregory the Great approves not of his breaking of them, yet he commends hisEt quidem zelum vos ne quid manufactum adorari possit habuisse, laudamus, sed frangere easdem imagines non debuisse judicamus. Tua Fraternitas ab earum adora­tu populum prohibere de­buit, l. 7. Ep. 110. Convo­candi sunt, eis (que) sacrae scri­pturae est testimoniis osten­dendum, quod omne manu­factum adorare non licet, quoniam scriptum est, Do­minum tuum adorabis; si quis imagines facere volue­rit, minimè prohibe adora­re, vero omnibus modis veta. Al. de vita Ep. l. 9. c. 9. Zeal against the adoration of what was made with Hands; declaring it the peoples Sin, which was to be forbidden by all means; and bids him, calling them together, shew, from the Testimonies of the Scripture, that it is not lawful to adore any thing that was made with hands, because it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. He adds, That he was moved with an inconsiderate Zeal in breaking of them, to prevent their being wor­shipped, because they were set up in Churches, not to be adored, but only to instruct the Minds of the Simple, and especially the Pagans, which abounded in his Diocess; and that it was one thing to adore a Picture, another, by the History of a Picture, to learn what was to be adored. Where this great Pope, without distinction or limitation, condemns all adoration of an Image, declaring, in opposition to the Fathers of theAct. 4. p. 248. 7. 584. second Nicene Council, That nothing was to be adored which was made with hands: And proving this from that very Testimony of Scripture, which in that Council is twice said to make nothing against the Adoration of them, because the word only is not join'd to Adoration, but to the Service of Latria. He also doth command Serenus to forbid the adoration of them, omnibus modis, by all manner of ways opposing to this forbidden Adoration, the having of them Frangi non debuit, quod non ad adorandum in Ecclesiis, sed ad instruen­das solummodo mentes nes­cientium collocatum. Ibid. only for Instruction; which manifestly proves, that the Adoration rejected and condemned by him, as contrary to the Holy Scriptures, was all kind of Adoration, all that is more than using of them for Instruction only.

To weaken this plain Testimony of so great a Pope, they have since put words into an Epistle writ by him to Secundinus the Monk, in which he is made to speak ac­cording to the late Distinctions of the Schools; and to ad­monish that Monk not to worship the Image of our Sa­viour, [Page 46]viour,Imaginem salvartoris nostri non ideo petis, ut quasi Deum colas. Nos quidam non, quasi ante Divinitatem, ante illum prosternimur. Epist. l. 7. Ep. 54. as a God; and to inform him, That Christians do not prostrate themselves before it, as be­fore the Divinity; concluding hence, that he else­where condemned only the worshipping of Images as Gods: But the gross Forgery is happily detected by the industry ofCorruption of the true Fathers, p. 75, 76. Dr. James, who collated this Epistle with seven good Manuscripts; in all which no such words were to be found.

Apud Gerson. Comp. Theol. Expl. 1. praecept. To. 2. F. 25. No Word of God forbids that Images be made, saith Bede; but it by all means doth forbid that they be made unto this end, viz. that they be worshipped and adored.

This Command, saith Agobardus, Non de solis similitu­dinibus alienorum Deorum, sed & de coelestibus creaturis. Lib. de Imag. p. 221. must not be only understood of the Similitude of false Gods, but also of the Heavenly Creatures, or of those things which humane Fancy hath invented for the Honour of God. And from them, and the 4th of Deute­ronomy, he saith,Quanto magis opera manuum hominum non sunt adoranda & colenda, nec in honore eorum quorum simi­litudines esse dicuntur? p. 222. this chiefly ought to be obser­ved, That if the Workmanship of God's Hand is not to be adored, no not in Honour of that God who made it; much less may we adore the Workmanship of Man in honour of those Persons whose Images they are said to be. And hence, as you have seen already, the Councils of Frankford, and Paris, and the Western Clergy, condemned the Decree of the second Nicene Council, as being, contra Authori­tatem Divinam, & Scripturarum tramitem, against Divine Au­thority, and the course of Scriptures.

§. 5. Moreover, these Fathers clearly and abundantly con­fute all the Distinctions used by the Romanists, and by the Se­cond Nicene Council, to reconcile their Practice with this Pre­cept, and all the specious Pleas they have invented for that end; as v. g.

1. Do they, with Mr. Thorudyke, say, that this Command­ment is notNum De­us primum per naturalia prae­cepta, quae ab initio infixa dedit hominibus, admonens eos, id est, per Decalogum, quae si quis non fecerit non habeat salutem, & nihil plus ab eis exquisivit. Iren. l. 4. c. 28. &c. 31. Decalogi quidem verba ipse per semetipsum omnibus similiter Dominus locutus est, & ideo similiter permanent apud nos, extensionem & augmentum, sed non dissolutionem accipientia per carnalem ejus adventum. perpetual, and moral, and so not obligatory to the Christian?

The Fathers generally assert against them, That all the Pre­cepts of the Decalogue, excepting only the carnal Observation of the Sabbath, oblige all Christians; that the words of the De­calogue Christ spake alike to all, and therefore they remain alike with us, receiving their Augmentation and Extension, but not their Dissolution from our Saviour's Advent, they being natural and common to all. That they were not only spoken to the Israe­lites going out of Egypt, Origen Hom. 8. in Exod. sed multo magis ad te, much more to the Christian. Numquid propterea di­cturi sumus, non ad nos pertinere quod scriptum est, maximé (que) ipsum Decalogum, qui duabus illis lapideis tabulis con­tinetur, excepta Sabbati observatione carnali, quae spiritualem sanctificationem quietém (que) sig­nificat? quis enim dicat non debere observare Christianos, 1. ut uni Deo Religionis obsequio serviant, 2. ut Idolum non colatur, 3. ut nomen domini non accipiatur in vanum, 5. ut Pa­rentes honorentur, ne 6. Homicidia, 7. Adulteria, 8. Furta, 9. falsa Testimonia perpetren­tur, ne 10. Uxor, ne omnino res ulla concupiscatur aliena? Quis est tam impius, ut dicat ideo se ista legis non custodire praecepta, quia est ipse Christianus, nec sub lege, sed sub gra­tia constitutus? Contra duas Epist. Pelag. l. 3. c. 4. p. 899. What shall we say that the Decalogue, ex­cepting the carnal observation of the Sabbath, doth not belong to us? Who is so wicked, saith St. Austin, as to say, That therefore he ob­serveth not those Precepts, because he is a Christian?

Clemens of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, St. Cyprian, Epi­phanius, Vide §. 4. Austin, Fulgentius, do urge this Precept upon Christi­ans; and some of them expresly say, That it concerns not on­ly Jews, but Christians also. And even the Trent Catechism teacheth, That all the Precepts of the Decalogue, except the fourth, are natural and perpetual, and cannot be changed; so that Ut quamvis lex Moysis abrogata sit, omnia tamen praecepta quae duobus tabu­lis continentur, populus Chri­stianus servet. Part. 3. cap. 4. Sect. 4. although the Law of Moses be abro­gated, yet Christian People are to observe all the Commands of the two Tables; not because Moses did command them, but because they are agreeable to Nature, and that constrains them so to do.

2. Do they say, with the secondAct. 4. p. 248. Act. 5. p. 356, 376. Act. 7. p. 556, 584. Nicene Council, That this Precept only forbids the worshipping of Images as Gods, or giving of Latria to them, but not the paying of external honorary Worship, or outward adoration to them? Note the propriety of the words, saithIn Dan. 3. Jerom, neither Worship of the Gods, nor Ado­ration [Page 48]of the Image, is agreeable to the Servants of God. The Com­mand forbids both inward Worship, and external Adoration, say Origen and Theodoret. Thou shalt not worship them with the Vene­ration of thy Body, nor the Affection of thy Mind, saith Gerson. Exhort ad Mart. p. 167. Origen declares, That they who abjured Christianism in times of Persecution, made the same excuse as doth the second Nicene Council in this Matter, viz. That [...], they gave not Latria, but only outward Worship or Veneration to the Idols. But to this Romish shift he thus replies, viz. That this excuse would also free the Jews from the like Guilt in worshipping the Gods of Moab, and the golden Calf; for he observeth, that the Scripture saith, Not of them who went a whoring after the Gods of Moab,Num. 25.2, 3. [...], they gave Latria to their Idols; for it could not be, saith he, after so many Signs and Wonders, which their Eyes had seen, that they should presently be brought, [...], to think the Idols, with which they fornicated, were indeed Gods. Thus also, saith he, very likely did the Jews, [...], outwardly adore the Calf, [...], not giving Divine Worship to that which they had seen then made. And indeed, evident it is, that the similitude of any thing is not the thing it self; and therefore the command forbidding us to worship the Similitude of any thing in Heaven, or Earth, cannot be reasonably supposed only to for­bid us to worship a Similitude of God, as God.

3ly, Do they, to give some colour to this subterfuge, assert, That what we call the Second Commandment, is indeed part of the First? The Jews, and Christian Fathers, excepting on­ly St. Austin, and Fulgentius, do, with one Voice, declare the contrary. [...]. Orig. l. 3. c. 4. The first Command­ment, saith Josephus, teacheth, That God is One, and that he only should be worshipped; the second com­mands us, not to make the Image of any living thing to worship it. [...]. Libr. de Decal. p. 590. The first, saith Philo, is about Monarchy; the second about things made with hands, not suffering us to prepare Images, or Statues, as those hurtful Arts of Painting and Engraving do. Ad Autolyc. l. 3. p. 23. Theophilus reckons these [...], or Ten Commandments, thus; 1. Thou shalt have no other Gods but me. 2. Thou shalt not make to thy [Page 49]self an Idol, or the similitude of any thing, 10. Thou shalt his Wife, &c. &c. not covet the House of thy Neighbour, nor desire Clemens of Alexandria declares, That [...]. Strom. l. 6. p. 682. the first Command shews, That there is one only God Omnipo­tent, and forbids Idolatry; the second, is against giving of his Name to vain things, which Artificers have made. Si ita putetur non com­plebitur decem numerus mandatorum, & ubi jam e­rit Decalogi veritas? Hom. 8. in Exod. Should these two be numbred as one, saith Origen, the number of Ten Commandments would not be compleat; but if you reckon them as we do, the Truth of the Decalogue will remain; wherefore the first Commandment is this, Thou shalt have no other Gods but me; the second, thou shalt not make to thy self an Idol, or any Similitude, &c. Of the Ten Commandments, the [...], &c. Sy­nops. p. 64. first, saith Athanasius, is this, I am the Lord thy God; the second, Thou shalt not make unto thy self an Idol, or the similitude of any thing. Et in secundo prae­cepto repromissionem esse sociatam. Eph. 6. F. 104. St. Jerom reckons four Com­mandments of the first Table, and saith, a Pro­mise was added to the second of them. To all these may be addL. 2. c. 17. Tertullian against Marcion, and against theCap. 2. Jews. TheL. 2.36. l. 7.3. Constitutions under the name of Clement. L. 1. p. 93. Sulpitius Severus, in his Sacred History. P. 554. Pseud-Ambrosius on the 6th Chapter to the Ephesians. The imperfect Work uponHom. 49. p. 175. St. Matthew passing under the Name of Chrysostom. P. 273. Procopius Gazaeus, upon Exodus. To. 1. p. 24. Zonarus in his Annals; with divers others. And if that which we stile the second Command­ment, be only a part and explication of that Precept, Thou shalt have no other Gods but me, it only can forbid what is for­bidden in that Precept, viz. the giving of that Worship which is due to God, to any Image; whence it will follow, That to bow down, to kiss, offer Incense to the Images of Heathen Deities, or of the very Devil, is not a thing forbidden by this Precept, since by such Actions, say the second Nicene Council, and the Roman Doctors, We do not worship Images as Gods: And if the paying this inferior Worship to the Images of Heathen Deities, be not forbidden in the words of this Commandment, I conceive it cannot be reasonably thought to be forbidden in any other Precept, there being only this which speaks of Image-worship; [Page 50]and if it were forbidden in no Precept of the Moral Law, it necessarily will follow, that it was lawfully performed by the Heathens.

4ly, Do they pretend that Idols only are forbidden to be adored in this Precept, but not Images; this indeed is the con­ceit of Romish Doctors, and of the second Nicene Council; but this also is plainly opposite unto the general Tradition of all the Fathers of the Church, who constantly observe, what is as evident in the Commandment as words can be, viz. That it forbids not only Idols to be worshipped, but also the similitude of any thing whatsoever; As besides the express Testimonies of Clemens of Alexandria, Theophilus, Tertullian, Origen, Athana­sius, Epiphanius, St. Austin, and Fulgentius, produced already, is farther evident from the express Assertions ofP. 321, 322. Justin Mar­tyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho: OfC. 59. Cyprian, in his third Book to Quirinus: OfP. 39. Julius Firmicus, in his Treatise of Prophane Religion: OfCarm. p. 99. Nazianzen, in his Verses: Of theP. 554. Pseud-Ambrosius, upon the 6th Chapter to the Ephesi­ans: OfQu. 38. Theodoret, in his Questions upon Exodus; and of innumerable other Authors.

To all which add that of Tertullian, ThatOmnis forma, vel for­mula Idolum. De Idol. c. 3. every Form, or little Representation, is an Idol; and all Service performed about it, is Idolatry. That of the Council of Frankford, Sed ne Idola nuncu­pentur, adorare eas & cole­re Recusamus. Lib. Car. l. 4. c. 18. We do not call the Images placed in Churches, Idols; but we refuse to worship and adore them, lest they should be called Idols. That of Agobardus, ThatPuto quod videretur eis non tam Idola reliquisse quam simulacra mutasse. De Imag. p. 248. if they who have left the Worship of Daemons, should be com­manded to venerate the Images of Saints, I think they would seem to others, not so much to have left Idols, as to have changed their Resemblances. Add lastly, the Complaint of all the Fathers against the Arians, That by introducing the Adoration of a Creature, they brought in [...], an Idol-making Heresy; under the pretext of Christianity, they secretly introduced the Worship of Idols, and transgressed that Precept which forbad the Adoration of an Idol, or of any Similitude, clearly insinuating, That by worshipping any Creature, it was made an Idol.

Since then the Fathers of the second Nicene Council, and the Romish Doctors, do with such diligence and industry incul­cate [Page 51]these Distinctions and Limitations of this Precept, see­ing they were so much concerned to blanch, and colour over the seeming opposition of their practice to it: And since the Fathers must have had the like Occasions, Reasons, and in­ducements so to do; if they had practised the same custom, of making and adoring the Images of Christ, and of his Saints, and yet they never in the least concern themselves about this Matter, never use any of these Limitations or Distinctions, nor any other of like Nature in their own defence, but do as manifestly reject, condemn, and overthrow them all, as any Protestant could do.

Since, 2ly, they thought themselves obliged to shew, that which comparatively concerned them little, viz. That the making of the Cherubims, and of the Brazen Serpent by Moses, and the making Man after his Image by God himself, did no way thwart this Precept, but yet were wholly unconcerned, to add, That the making, and adoring of the Images of Christ, and of his Saints, was also well consistent with it, since they do often say, That, notwithstanding this Command, it might be lawful for the Jew to make an Image, where there was no peril of worshipping, or bowing down to it; and it was al­so lawful for the Christians to haveAugust. in Psalm 113. their Cups, and Dishes, for the Sacramental Bread and Wine, and other Ʋtensils; and that such things were not condemned by this Commandment, or to be ranked with what was here forbidden; but yet they never go about to prove, That it was lawful, notwithstanding this Command, to have, or worship Images of Christ, or any of his Saints, since even in the following Ages, when Images be­gan to be received into Churches, they still declare they did not violate this Precept, because they had them not for Adora­tion, but only for commemoration; and that this Precept forbad them not to make, though it by all means forbad them to adore an Image.

3ly, Since many of them have declared expresly, That God by this Command forbad the very making of an Image, and rendred the very Art of Painting and Ingraving, unlawful to the Christian; and they more generally do assert, That He by it, forbad even all outward adoration of them, and consequently expresly must declare themselves transgressors of it, and pra­cticers [Page 52]of wicked Worship, if they both made and gave exter­nal Adoration to the Images of Saints.

And, 4ly, since they plainly argue against all honorary Worship of them, thus, That if the Workmanship of God's Hands is not to be adored, no not in honour of that God that made it; much less may we adore the Workmanship of Man, in honour of those Persons whose Images they are said to be. Declaring, This, should it be done by Christians, would rather look like changing, than leaving of their Idols.

And, lastly, since they solemnly profess, That by Reason of this Precept, they had rather die than worship any graven I­mage, with many other-like Expressions; it is, upon all these accounts, extreamly evident, that then they had no I­mages of Saints, erected or painted in the House of God; and that when they were once admitted, they neither paid to them any outward Worship, nor did they think it lawful so to do.

CHAP. IV.

§. 1. AND suitably to these Declarations, we find the Fa­thers, as occasion served, either forbidding of the People to make, or at the least to worship Images, and shew­ing [Page 53]of their Zeal against them, that did so both in Word and Action.

Epiphanius speaks thus to the Christians of his Time; [...]. 2. Nic. Conc. Act. 6. p. 473. Attend to your selves, and remember that you bring not Images into the Church, or into the Dormitories of the Saints, nor yet into your common Houses, for it is not lawful for a Christian to wander after them with his Eyes. [...]. Hom. de Div. & Laz. p. 565. Picture not Christ, saith Asterius, Bishop of Amasa, but bearing him in thy Soul, carry the incorporeal Word in thy Mind. The Council of Eliberis decrees,Placuit in Ecclesiis pi­cturas esse non debere, nè quod colitur & adoratur in parietibus depingatur. Can. 36. That Pictures should not be in the Church; not because in times of Persecution they may be abused by Heathens, as Baronius; nor because they haply may be defaced by the moisture of the Walls, as others descant on that Canon; but, least that which is worshipped and adored (by Christians) should be painted upon Walls. This Canon was made by the Orthodox Fathers, saithOb hujusmodi evacu­andam superstitionem. De I­mag. p. 266. Agobardus, to evacuate the Superstition of Image-worshippers. And whatsoever is the import of it, it manifestly doth forbid the introduction of any Image into the Church to be adored; for saying, That it is our Pleasure, or our Judgment, that Images ought not to be in Churches, it must by consequence forbid the giving any adora­tion to them, since what we must not have, we cannot wor­ship; and what we are forbid to have, to that we are forbid to exercise those Actions which presuppose the having of it. It also doth apparently forbid the introducing the Image of our Blessed Lord and Saviour, and painting that on the Church Walls, for he was surely adored and worshipped by Christians; and that this is indeed the meaning of the Canon, will be very probable, if we consider, that about that time some supersti­tious People, in imitation of the Heathens, who were accustomed to paint within theirBochart de l' Orig. des Images, des Saints. p. 598, 599. Temples, the Images of those Gods they worshipped, began to paint upon the Walls of Churches, theEuseb. de Vit. Const. l. 3. c. 48. Go­spel Parables, viz. our Lord [...]. Conc. Nic. 2. p. 121. Concil. Trull. Can. 82. carrying a Sheep upon his Shoulder, to represent the Parable of the Lost Sheep; the Gospel Histories, as our Lord in the form of a Lamb, with the Forerunner pointing [Page 54]to him. Which Picture was afterwards approved of by the sixth Synod, though the Council of Eliberis, thought it not fit thus to paint what was by Christians worshipped.

§. 2. And suitable to these Declarations of their Judgment, and these Exhortations, hath been the practice of the most Learned Fathers of the Church. Even to the days of Jerom, saithUs (que) ad atatem Hiero­nymi erant probatae Religio­nis viri, qui in templis nul­lam ferebant Imaginem, ne Christi quidem. Vol. 5. Sym­bol. Catech. p. 989. Erasmus, Men of approved Religion, would not suffer any painted, carved, gra­ven Image, no not of Christ himself. And there­fore when Constantia, the Sister of the Emperor Constantine, being in Palestine, desired Eusebius to send her the Picture of our Saviour Christ. To this Request [...], &c. Apud 2. Nic. Conc. Act. 6. p. 494, 496. Eusebius returns this Answer; What Image is it you would have? That of his Di­vinity. This I suppose you did not ask for, since no Man knows the Father but the Son, and no Man know­eth the Son but the Father; or is it the Image of his Humane Nature, that servile Form, which, for our sakes, he took upon him? This certainly is that whose Image you desire; but we have learned, this is now temper'd with the Glory of the Godhead; and that this mortal is swallowed up of Life. And if his Dis­ciples in the Mount were not sufficient to endure the lustre of it, when transfigured, who shall be able to express the splendor of his Glorious Body in dead and sensless Colours and Adumbrations? now that put­ting off Corruption and Mortality, the similitude of the Form of a Servant, is changed into the Glory of the Lord. Whence it is evident, he judged Christ's Humane Nature was not then to be painted, or represented to the Eye, and therefore knew of no such custom then approved by the Church. For had such Images then been common in all Churches, and all private Oratories; had they then been received by all Christians, from one end of the World to the other, as the second Nicene Council saith, Why did Constantia send as far as Palestine for what was every where to be had? Or, why should Eusebius refuse to sa­tisfy her in a Request so reasonable? Why doth he put her off with an Excuse, which was as opposite to the Opinion of the [Page 55] Church of Christ confirmed, saith that Council, by their daily practice, as it was opposite to her Request?

Olympiodorus being to build a Church in honour of Christ and of the Martyrs, writes to Nilus, a celebrated Monk, and a Disciple of St. Chrysostom, to know whether he should set up any Images of them in the Choire, or Sanctuary; or any other Images in the House of God, for the gratification of the Eyes of the Beholders. To this Request [...]. Conc. Nic. 2. Act. 4. p. 228. [...]. Ibid. Ni­lus returns this Answer, That it was a very childish Business, to cause the Eyes of the Faithful to wander after the aforesaid Things; and that it was the Indi­cation of a strong and manly apprehension, to have in the Sanctuary only one Cross framed, that the Church might be filled indeed with Histories of the Old and New Testament, done by the Hand of an excellent Painter, that they who could not read the Scriptures, might by the sight of these Pictures, have the memory of the courageous Actions of the Servants of God, and might be provoked to an emulation of their glorious Actions. So that he clearly shews, that then no Pictures were allowed in Churches but for Historical uses; that no Images of Christ, or of the Martyrs, were thought fit to be placed in the Choire; that the use of them, to gratify the Eyes, was childish, and not suitable to Men of strong and Manlike Ʋnder­standings.

§. 3. Thus Matters stood in the middle of the 5th Century, but in the 4th it was thought opposite to Scripture and Religion to admit Images into the Christian Churches: Witness the Epi­stle ofQuando venissem ad Ecclesiam, quae dicitur Ana­blatha, inveni ibi velum pen­dens in fori­bus Ecclesiae tinctum, at (que) depictum, & habens Imaginem, quasi Christi, vel Sancti cujusdam; non enim satis memini cujus Imago fuerit: cum ergo hoc vidissem in Ecclesia Christi contra autoritatem Scripturarum ho­minis pendere Imaginem, scidi illud, & magis dedi consilium custodibus ejus loci, ut pauperem mortuum eo obvolverent, & efferrent; illi (que) contra murmurantes, dixerunt, si scindere volue­rat, justum erat ut aliud daret velum, at (que) mutaret; quod cum audiissem, me daturum esse pollicitus sum, & illico esse missurum.—Nunc autem misi quod potui reperire, & precor ut jubeas Presbyteros ejusdem loci suscipere velum à latore,—& deinceps praecipere in Ecclesia Christi istiusmodi vela, quae contra Religionem nostram veniunt, non appendi. Decet enim honestatem tuam hanc magis habere sollicitudinem ut scrupulositatem tollat, quae indigna est Ecclesia Christi, & populis qui tibi crediti sunt. Apud Hierom. Epist. To. 2. F. 58. Epiphanius to John Bishop of Jerusalem, where he saith; When I was come into the Village called Anablatha, and entring into the Church to pray, found there a Veil, dyed and pain­ted, [Page 56]and having the Image, as it were, of Christ, or of some Saint, for I do not well remember whose Image it was. But seeing this, that contrary to the Authority of Scriptures, the Image of a Man was hanged up in the Church of Christ, I rent it, and gave counsel to the keepers of the Place, that they should rather wrap up and bury some dead Body in it. They murmuring, said, That having rent this, he should send them another: Which, saith he, I promised, and have now sent; and I desire you to bid the Presbyters of the Place receive it of the Bearer; and henceforth to command them, That such Veils as these, which are repugnant to our Religion, should not be hung up in the Church of Christ; for it becomes you to be the more careful, for the taking away that Scrupulosity which is unworthy of the Church of Christ, and of the People committed to your charge. This Epistle is extant in the Works ofEp. To. p. 58. Jerom, both Manuscript & printed: It is owned as genuine byIn Concil. Narbon. p. 616. Sirmondus and Petavius: It was long since cited against Image-worship by the Councils ofLib. Car. l. 4. c. 25. Frankford andSynod. Paris. c. 6. Paris; and so the Truth of it cannot be reasonably disputed. This being thus premised, I observe;

1. That he declares it contrary to the Authority of Scripture, to hang up in the Church of Christ the Image of a Man: He doth not say the Image of a wicked Man, but simply, and without all distinction, Imaginem Hominis, the Image of a Man.

2. He clearly doth insinuate, That, for any thing he knew to the contrary, the Image which he rent was the Image of Christ, or of some Saint; for whether it was so or no, saith he, I do not well remember: Whence evident it is, that had it been the Image of Christ, or any of his Saints, he would have rent it. He therefore did not think, that to destroy those Images which were erected for his Worship, was to offer a most vile Affront unto his Saviour, as afterwards the second Nicene Council did, and now the Papists do conceive.

3. He positively declares, That all such Veils so hung up in the Church, were contrary to the Religion of the Chri­stians.

4. He desires the Bishop of Jerusalem to charge his Presby­ters, that they should suffer no such thing hereafter to be done; i. e. no painted Images to be hung up in the Church of Christ, and that because it was unworthy of the Church of Christ, the Peo­ple [Page 57]committed to his charge, to be scrupulous or concerned about such Trifles.

5. Observe; That when he rent this Veil, and counselled the Men of Anablatha, to wrap and bury some poor Body in it; they did not say, for ought appears; and he did not regard it if they said so, that this was to prophane the Sacred Image, or that he offered an Affront to Christ, or to his Saints, by rending of it; but they say only this, That having rent that, he should provide another: Whence it is evident, that they had then no Custom or Doctrine of the Church, which could maintain the hanging up, or could condemn the rending of this Veil.

§. 4. The Aversation which all good Christians had to Images, was so well known to the Enemies of the Church, that they made their advantage of it, to withdraw her Subjects from Communion with her. For the Donatists well knowing how detestable a thing it was unto the Christians of that Time, to see an Image set up in the Church, and more especially upon the Altar, they framed this Calumny, the more effe­ctually to draw them off from her Communion,Dicebatur illo tempo­re venturum esse Paulum & Macarium, qui interessent Sa­crificio, ut cum Altaria solent niter aptarentur, proferren illi Imaginem quam primo in Altari ponerent. Sic Sa­crificium offerretur, hoc cum acciperent aures & animi perculsi sunt, ut omnis qui haec audierat diceret, qui in­de gustat de Sacro gustat. Optat. l. 3. p. 75. That the Catholicks, Paulus and Macarius, would bring an Image, and place it on the Altar whilst the Sacrifice was offered. This Rumor startled the Faithful; for when the fame of it was spread abroad, the Ears and Minds of all Men, saith Optatus, were much troubled at it; and all that heard it, began thus to speak, Whosoever tasts of any thing from thence, doth tast of a forbidden thing.

Whence we withMasius in Josh. Cap. 8. v. 31. Masius, a Learned Romanist, observe, how much the Ancient Christians did de­test the sight of any Image on the Altar; that is, how much they did detest the present practice of the whole Church of Rome.

2ly, Observe the Answer of the Christians of those Times unto this Calumny. They do not say, true it is, we do set Pictures upon our Altars, and that not only for Ornament and Memory, but for Veneration also: And we do well to do so, and suitably to the Tradition of the Church of Christ, so that you ought not to be troubled at it, or frighted from our Communion by it; which is the only Answer the Church of Rome can make to this Objection, and which the Fathers ofthat they should be made?

§. 4. But, 2ly, these Fathers do with one Voice declare, That by this Precept the Christian is forbidden to worship, to bow down, or to give [Page 58]that Age would have made, had they then practised as the Church of Rome doth now; but they do utterly deny the Thing, rejecting it with detestation and abhor­rence. Optatus doth confess, ThatEt rectè dictum erat, si talem famam similis veri­tas sequeretur; at ubi ven­tum est à supradictis nihil tale visum est, nihil viderunt oculi Christiani quod horre­rent—visa est puritas, & ritu solito solennis consuetudo perspecta est, cum viderent divinis Sacrificiis nec muta­tum quicquam nec additum. Ibid. had the Thing been true, the Separation of the Donatists would have been just; that this use of Images would have been a pollution of Divine Service, and a thing alien from the Custom of the Church, and which the Eyes of Christians could not have be­held without horror. Clearly condemning, by this Answer, the practice of the Church of Rome, and justifying the separation of Protestants from her Communion, had it been only made on this account.

You have already seen, from the Testimony of Nilus, That in the East they admitted nothing in the Sanctuary but the Cross, and in particular, no Image. In the West likewise, the placing of an Image on the Altar was forbidden, in the 9th, 10th, and 11th Centuries.

Regino cites a Constitution of a Council held at Rhemes, in which it is commanded,Nihil (que) super eo po­natur, nisi capsae cum San­ctorum Reliquiis, & quatuor Evangelia. De disc. Eccles. l. 1. cap. 60. That no­thing shall be placed upon the Altar, but a Chest, con­taining the Reliques of the Saints, and the four Evan­gelists. And this Constitution seemeth to forbid the placing Images upon the Altar, saith Baluzius upon that Canon; And this, saith he, seems also to have been the Sen­tence of the French Council held at Tours, A. D. 567. And there­fore in the old form of Synodal Admonitions, which was read in Churches by the Deacon after the Gospel, one Admonition is this,Nihil ponatur, nisi cap­sae & reliquiae aut fortè 4 Evangelia, aut pyxis cum corpore Domini. Adm. An­tiq. apud Baluz. ib. p. 603. That nothing shall be placed on the Altar, but the Chests and Reliques, or perhaps the four Gospels, or the Pyx, with the Body of the Lord for the viaticum of the Sick. But in the two new Forms of Admonition published by Baluzius, the last of which is used at present in the Romish Church, the Admonition runs in these words,Et desuper nihil po­natur nisi reliquiae, ac res Sacrae, & pro Sacrificio op­portunae. Adm. Nov. p. 607, 611. Let nothing be placed upon the Altar, but Reliques, and things Sacred and fit for the Sacrifice. The In­troduction of Images upon the Altar, making it necessary to make this Alteration in their Admo­nition. [Page 59]Even in like manner as the defalcation of the Cup in the 14th and 15th Centuries, made it necessary to change the old form of Admonition, in which they warned all the FaithfulOmnes fideles ad Com­munionem Corporis & San­guinis Domini accedere ad­monete. Adm. Antiq. p. 605. to come to the Communion of the Body and the Blood of Christ, on Christmass, Easter, and Whit-sunday, into that now extant in the New, and only inviting themOmnes fideles ad com­munionem Corporis Domini Nostri invitate. Admon. Nov. p. 609. Admonete. p. 613. to come to the Communion of the Body of Christ. By which, and by an hundred Instances of a like Nature, we may learn how impossible it is for them, who have made that the present practice of their Church, which was forbidden by, and was detestable to their Fore-fathers to innovate in any Matter, or alter the re­ceived Customs of the Church; and what a goodly Argument is brought from the present Customs, Traditions, Doctrines of the People of that Church, to provethey always held the same Doctrines, and practised the same Religious Rites.

§. 5. Moreover, when Images began to be admitted into Churches, and by some Superstitious People to be adored, the Fathers of the Church, both by their Words and Actions, shewed their dislike and their abhorrence of it. It was the cu­stom of some Christians, to pay some outward civil Worship unto the Images of their Christian Emperors, till they themselves forbad it: This Jerom taking notice of, doth plainly, in his Comment on the Prophet Daniel condemn and reprehend, saying,Cultores Dei eam ado­rare non debent; ergo Judi­ces & Principes seculi qui Im­peratorum Statuas adorant & Imagines, hoc se facere intelligunt, quod tres pueri facere nolentes placuerunt Deo: Et notanda proprie­tas, Deos coli, Imaginem a­dorari dicunt; quod utrum (que) servis Dei non convenit. In Dan. 3. p. 256. Whether we call it a Sta­tue, or a Golden Image, the Worshippers of God ought not to adore it; let the Judges and Princes of the Age, who adore the Statues and Images of the Emperors, understand, that they do that which the three Chil­dren refusing to do, pleased God. And here the propriety of the Words is to be noted; they say, That Gods are to be worshipped, the Image to be adored; neither of which is to be done by any Servant of God.

When the Manichees, upon occasion, ministred by some rude and superstitious People, had charged some Christian Churches with Image-worship St. Austin writing of the Man­ners of the Catholick Church against them, directly severs the Case of those rude Persons, from the approved practice of [Page 60]the Catholicks. Nolite mihi colligere professores nominis Christia­ni, nec professiōis suae vim aut scientes, aut exhibentes, nolite consectari turbas Imperito­rum, qui vel in ipsa vera Religione superstitiosi sunt. De Morib. Eccl. Cath. c. 34. Do not, saith he, mention to me such Professors of the Name of Christ, as either know not, or keep not the Force of their Profession; nor the companies of rude Men, which either in the true Religion it self are superstitious, or so given to their Lusts, as that they have forgotten what they promised to God. Then as an instance of those su­perstitious Persons, he adds, ThatNovi multos esse Se­pulchrorum & Picturarum a­doratores. Ibid. Nunc vos illud admoneo, ut aliquando Ecclesiae Catholi­cae maledicere desinatis, vi­tuperando mores hominum, quos & ipsa condemnat, & quos quotidie tanquam ma­filios corrigere studet. Ibid. he himself did know many who were worshippers of Tombs and Pictures; but how vain, how hurtful, how sacrilegi­ous these Men are, I have purposed to shew in another Treatise. Now this do I admonish you (Manichae­ans), that you cease to speak evil of the Catholick Church, by upbraiding it with the Manners of those Men whom she her self condemneth, and seeketh eve­ry day to correct as naughty Children. These things St. Austin speaks of those who were Professors of the Name of Christ, and Children of the Church; they therefore cannot be supposed worshippers of Heathen Idols such heathenish Persons being never own'd as Christians by the Church of Christ, but still rejected as her Enemies, and publickly condemned by many of her Canons and Decrees. Nor doth St. Austin say, these Persons worshipped Pictures with Divine Worship, or that they esteem them as Gods: Had he conceived this to have been their Crime, he would not have said, That in the True Religion they were su­perstitious, but rather that they were meer heathenish Idolaters; the [...]. Act. 6. p. [...]17. second Nicene Council having told us, That never any Christian Man did give Latria to an Image. Nor can it reasonably be conceiv'd, that many who profess'd the Name of Christ should be such Sots, as to believe an Image, made by their own hands, could be the Great Creator of the World, the Maker of the very Man that made it, and of that very Metal which composed it.

Moreover, St. Austin here requires the Manichees, Not to upbraid the Church of Christ with the practice of these naughty Children, whom he calls worshippers of Pictures, they being only a rude multitude of superstitious People; of such as either did not know, or did not answer their Profession; such as the Church con­demned, and still endeavoured to correct. Had then St. Austin, and all good Christians of his Age, been themselves worshippers [Page 61]of Pictures; had he believed that the Doctrine and Tradition of the Church of Christ, required all good Christians to give them honorary Worship; would he so generally, without di­stinction or exception, have condemned all Worshippers of Pictures as superstitious, rude, and ignorant of what Christianity required? Would he so fully have declared, That the Church of Christ condemned, and did endeavour to correct them for it? Would he have charged the Manichees with great injustice, for im­puting Picture-worship to the Church of Christ, and not have given some of those Limitations and Distinctions with which the second Nicene Council, and the Romish Doctors do so much abound, to put a difference betwixt the avowed and constant practice of the Church, and what both he and she condemned in these Worshippers of Pictures? St. Austin therefore must be a very dolt, or else must here demonstrate the Church of Christ did, in his Time, conceive all Picture-worship to be supersti­tious, and opposite to the Profession of Christianity; and that which she condemned, and did endeavour to correct in those that practised it.

§. 6. And as those Fathers so expresly declared against the Doctrine of the second Nicene Council, before they had decreed it; so afterwards, from the 8th to the 15th Century, it was ex­presly contradicted and rejected by the most Eminent Persons of the Western Church.

In the same Century it was condemned by the Council of Frankford, consisting of three hundred Bishops,A. D. 794. as hath been shew'd already.

It was condemned in the same Century, not only by Albinus, or Alcuinus, Tutor to Charles the Great, and Scholar of Venerable Bede who wrote a Book against the second Nicene Council, and that Assertion of it,Contra quod scripsit Al­binus Epistolam, ex Autho­ritate Divinarum Scriptura­rum mirabiliter dictatam, il­am (que)—in persona Episcopo­rum & Principum nostrorum, Regi Francorum attulit. Ho­ved. Ann. part. 1. F. 232. B. That Images ought to be adored, confuting it from Holy Scripture; but also by the Princes and Bishops of the Church of England, in whose Name that Book was sent to Charles the Great.

It was condemned in the 9th Century, by the Council held at Paris, A. D. 824. It was in the same Century [Page 62]declared to be Pseudo-Synodus. l. contr. Hincmar. Laudan. c. 20. Chron. ad A. 792. ad An. 794. falsly called a Synod, because it decreed for Image-worship, by Hincmarus Rhe­mensis, by Ado Viennensis, and by Regino Abbas Prumiensis.

It was condemned also by Agobardus, Bishop of Lyons, who was made Bishop by the consent of the whole Clergy of that Nation; for in his Book yet extant against this Image-worship, he declares, amongst many other things already cited from him, thus;Nemo se fallar,—qui­cun (que) aliquam Picturam, vel fusilem, five ductilem ado­rat Statuam, non exhibet cultum Deo, non honorat Angelos, vel Homines San­ctos, sed simulacra vene­ratur. Sect. 31. Let no Man deceive, let no Man seduce, or circumvent himself: Whosoever adores any Picture, any molten or graven Statue, he doth not worship God, or honour Angels or Holy Men, but he venerates Idols. And yetEgo crediderim A­gobardum scripsisse, quod omnes tum in Gallia, ut etiam à Sirmundo observatum est, sentiehant. Bal. Not. in Agob. p. 88. Baluzius and Sirmond [...]s, do ingenuously con­fess, that Agobardus hath writ only that which the whole Church of France did then acknowledg. Papi­rius Massonus, who abridged him, saith,Graecorum Errores de Imaginibus & Picturis mani­festissimè detegens, negat eas adorari, quam sententiam omnes Catholici probamus, &c. Praefat. That he did manifestly detect the Errors of the Greeks, (i.e. the Nicene Co [...]ncil) co [...]cerning Images and Pictures, denying that they were to be adored; which Doctrine all we Catholicks approve, and follow the Testimony of Gregory the Great corcerning them; which as you have seen was this, That Images were neither to be broken, nor yet adored

Ecclesiae Gallicanae & Germanicae in hac sententia, constantissime aliquot secu­lis perdurarunt. Cap. de I­mag. p. 173. The German and French Churches, saith Cas­sander, after the Council held at Frankford, most con­stantly continued for some Ages, in that Sentence which they first received from the Church of Rome, viz. That Images were neither to be broken, nor yet to be worshipped. If for some Ages they must assuredly continue in it till the 11th Century; and that they did so, is evident from the Chronicle of Hermannus Con­tractus, who stiles the second Nicene Council a false Synod, on the forementioned account. Chron. ad A. D. 794.

That the Germans continued of the same mind in the 12th Cen­tury, is evident from the plain words ofQuippe a­pud Aleman­nos & Arme­nios S. Imagi­num adoratio aeque interdicta est. L. 2. de Imp. Aug. Angel. p. 199. In qua Synodo de Imaginibus adoran­dis, aliter quam Orthodoxi Patres antea diffinierant, statuerunt. Nicetas Coniates, who saith, That then among the Almains and Armenians, the worship of Holy Images was equally forbid.

That the French Church was still of the same mind, is evi­dent from the Continuator ofDe Gestis Francorum, l. 5. c. 28. Aimoinus, who plainly saith, That the Fathers of the Nicene Synod otherwise decreed concerning Image-worship, than the Orthodox Doctors had before defined. And from the Collection of Decrees made by Ivo, Bishop of Char­tres, who declares the Judgment of the Council of Eliberis to be this, ThatPicturas in Ecclesia non esse adorandas. Decret. Part. 3. c. 40, 41. Pictures ought not to be worshipped, but that they only ought to be Memorials of what is worshipped; and cites the Passage of Pope Gregory to that effect.

In the same Century, Simon Dunelmensis, an Oxonian Do­ctor, and Roger Hoveden their Professor, both as­sert, That in the secondIn quo, proh dolor! multa inconvenientia & verae Fidei cōtraria reperiebantur, maxime quod pene omnium Orientalium Doctorum una­nimi assertione confirmatum fuerit; Imagines adorari de­bere, quod omnino Ecclesia Dei execratur. Hoved. Ibid. Dunelm. ad A. 792. Nicene Synod were many things contained which were inconvenient, and contrary to the true Faith: and that in the said Coun­cil was established a Decree, That Images should be worshipped; which thing the Church of God wholly ab­hors. And here let it be noted, that in these Wri­ters we find not the least hint of a Distinction be­tween due and undue worship of an Holy Image; or betwixt Worship which the Church of Christ allows, and which the Church abhors; but Imagines adorari de­bere, that Images should be worshipped, is declared to be the Do­ctrine which God's Church abhor'd.

In the 14th Century, Robert Holcot, Professor in Oxford, most plainly asserts, ThatIdeo aliter potest dict, quod nulla a­doratio debe­tur Imagini, nec licet ali­quam imaginem adorare.— Quia autem propter Imaginem Christi excitamur ad adorandum Christum, & coram Imagine adorationem nostram facimus Christo; ergo dicitur large loquen­do, N. B. quod Imaginem adoramus. In Ecclus. Lect. 158. c. 13. Vide Reliqua. no Adoration is to be given to any Image; nor is it lawful for any Man to worship Images. And Matthew of Westminster, condemning the Decree of the second Nicene Coun­cil, as Hoveden had done before him, Ad A. D. 793.

In the 15th Century,Omnino prohibentur fieri ad hunc, viz. finem, ut adorentur & colantur; unde sequitur ne (que) adores, ne (que) colas ea; ad adorandum igitur & colendum prohiben­tur Imagines fieri. Sequitur non adorabis ne (que) coles; inter quae sic distingue, non adorabis, sc. veneratione Corporis, ut inclinando eis vel genu-flectendo; ne (que) coles, sc. affectione mentis. Comp. Theol. in Explic. 1. praecepti. Tom. 2. p. 25. Gerson, Chancellor of Paris, saith, We do not worship Images, and that they are forbidden to be worship­ped; that the second Command forbids us to bow the Body, or the Knee to them, or to worship them with the Affection of the Mind.

AndQuod vero Christiana Re­ligio Imagines sustinet in Ec­clesia, & Ora­toriis, non per­mittit eo fine, ut adorentur ipsae sed ut fi­delium men­tes per earum inspectiones excitentur ad reverentiam & honorem exhibendum his quorum sunt Imagines, in quorum cognitionem recordativam ducunt. Et hic modus dicendi videtur esse Rob. Holcot, super illud sapientiae infelices sunt—mihi videtur dicendum, quod ne (que) adoro Imaginem Christi quia lignum, nec quia Imago; sed adoro Christum coram Imagine Christi, quia scilicet Imago Christi excitat me ad amandum Christum: hic modus loquendi originem videtur trahere ex dicto quodam B. Gregorii Sereno Episcopo, &c. Et quidem, quia eos adorare vetuisses omnino laudamus, fregisse vero reprehendimus, &c. In Can. Miss. Lect. 49. F. 127. Gabriel Biel, an Oxonian Doctor, teacheth, That then some of their Doctors held, that any Image is not to be wor­shipped, either for it self, as it is Wood, or Stone, nor yet consider'd as a Sign or Image. And that the Christian Faith permits them to be reserved in the Church, not that they may be worshipped, but that the Minds of Men may be excited to give reverence to them whose Images they are; and that this they said according to P. Gregory.

In the 16th Century,Imagines in Ecclesia i­deo tolerantur ut admoneant, non ut colan­tur, alioquin omnino excusari possunt minime. In Act. Apost. cap. 7. p. 94. Ferus, a Learned Preacher at Mentz, saith, That Images are tolerated in the Church, that they may admonish, not that they may be worshipped, for otherwise they can admit of no excuse.

Yea, a Council held atCan. 14. Mentz, A. D. 1549, during the Session of the Trent Council, speaks thus, Let our Pastors ac­curately teach the People, that Images are not propounded to be worshipped or adored, but that by them we may be brought to the remembrance of those things which we ought profitably to call to mind.

CHAP. V.

MOreover, that Image-worship was no Doctrine delivered to the Church of Christ, either by Writing or Tradition from the Apostles, that it was not practised in the first Ages of the Church, will be apparent from the deportment of the Jews towards the Christians, and the consideration of what they [Page 66]thought of the erection of an Image in the place of Worship, and of the adoration of them.

§. 1. And,Act. 21.20. we know that even the believing Jews were zealous for the strict observance of the Law of Moses, and were much offended at St. Paul, because they apprehended he had taught the Jews to forsake the Law of Moses, and not to cir­cumcise their Children, or walk after the Customs of their Fa­thers.

We also are informed byTum poene omnes Christum Deum sub Legis ob­servatione credebant. Sulp. l. 2. c. 45. Euseb. Chron. Eusebius and Sul­pitius, that this Zeal continued among the Jewish Christians for a considerable time after the death of the Apostles, viz. till the destruction of the City by Hadrian. For till that time the Bishops of Jeru­salem were of the Circumcision; and almost all who believed in Christ, did yet observe the Law.

The Sect of theEp. ad August. & Au­gust. contr. Faust. l. 19. c. 18. Orig. contr. Cels. l. 2. p. 56. l. 5. p. 272. Ebionites and Nazarens, continued till the days of Jerom, they were disper­sed throughout the Churches of the East, and were stiff Assertors of the Obligation of the Law of Moses; and held,Euseb. Hist. Eccles. l. 3. c. 27. That Men were to be saved by the observation of it.

2. We know, that in the Judgment of the Jews, who lived about our Saviour's Time, and after, nothing was more dete­stable, nothing was more repugnant to the Law of Moses, than the admitting of an Image in the place of Worship, much more the bowing down to it.

They constantly declared to Pilate, upon occa­sion of the Roman Eagles, That [...]. Joseph. Halos. l. 2. c. 14. they could not permit any Image to be placed in their City. And that [...]. L. 2. c. 8. l. 18. c. 4. l. 2. c. 17. their Law was violated by the little Images of Caesar annexed to the Roman Standards; and that they would rather die than endure them there. They tell Petronius, That it could not be permitted to have the Image, either of God or Man, in their most sacred Temple, or elsewhere. They perswade Vitellius not to come thither with them, because it was not sui­table to the Laws of their Country to see an Image brought into it.

And they declared to Herod, Son of Anti­pater, That [...]. Archeol. l. 18. c. 7. l. 15. c. 11. whatsoever they endured, they would not suffer the Images of Men within their City.

3. Certain it is, that for a long time no Samaritan, or Jew, ever objected to the Christians their violation of the Second Commandment; or at the least, pretended to be scandalized at their defection from this Law of God. No single instance of this Nature can be produced from all Antiquity, till after the fifth Century, when Images began to be admitted into Chur­ches, provided that they were not worshipped. Then was it that the Jews began to call the Christian Churches, up­on that account, Batte Aboda Zara, the Houses of Idolatry. And from that time they have not ceased to object to them the violation of this Law, and to profess that they were scandalized at it.

In the second Nicene Council, Germanus, Patri­arch of Constantinople, confesseth, That [...]. Act. 4. p. 300. & p. 240. upon this account the Jews did often cast reproach upon them; and that the Saracens did the same.

Gregrory, in his Epistle to him, adds, That [...]. p. 288. if any one do accuse this Image-worship of Idola­try, he is one who calumniates after the manner of the Jews.

In the fifth Action, a Jew is introduced speaking thus; [...]. p. 356, 357, 384, 348. I believe in a crucified Jesus, who is the Son of God; but I am scandalized at you Christi­ans, because you worship Images, whereas the Scrip­tures every where command us not to make any graven Image or Similitude.

The Christians are to be reckoned Idolaters, saithDr. Pocock, Not. Mis­cell. p. 322. R. Kimchi, because they bow down and adore the Image of Jesus of Nazareth.

Catechism. c. 33. p. 68. B. Fabianus Fiogus, a Jewish Convert, informs us, That the Jews dispute after this manner; God in the Decalogue, writ with his own Finger, hath command that no kind of Image or Simi­litude, should be made, &c. but Christians make and worship I­mages, they therefore violate this Precept; this, saith he, is an undoubted thing among them, and therefore they call the Christians Worshippers of Idols.

Joseph King of Cosri, is said to prefer the Jews before the Christians, Buxt. Prae­sat. ad Cosri. because the latter bow themselves to the Works of their own hands.

Had therefore the first Christians received a Tradition from the Apostles to adore Images, and had all Christians practised suitably to this supposed Tradition, both the Believing and the Unbelieving Jews, being such Zealots for the observance of the Law of Moses, and professed Enemies of Images, and of the adoration of them, must have been scandalized at it. We see that they were very much incensed against St. Paul, for teaching,Act. 21.20. That the Gentiles were not obliged to observe their Law; that they would not endure him, unless he also would walk orderly, and keep the Law. If then St. Paul, and Peter, asApud 2. Nic. Conc. p. 101. P. Hadrian averrs; if the rest of the Apostles, as the second Nicene Council saith, had taught and practised this Image-worship, so flatly opposite to their Law, and there­fore execrable to them, this must have stirred up their indig­nation against St. Paul and Peter much more than their as­serting, That the Ceremonial Law did not oblige the Gen­tiles could have done.

'Tis surely difficult to conceive, that they who thought their Law so highly violated, by framing the Picture of a Man, or of an Eagle, and would rather die than admit of them, because they held they were forbidden by their Law, should either, being Christians, continue zealous to assert the Obligation of that Law, and yet admit the Doctrine which did enjoin them both to frame and worship Images; or should, continuing unbelieving Jews, never accuse the Christians of a Crime so execrable in their sight, nor dis­swade any Christian from complying with this great violation of their Law?

§. 2. Yea farther, had this Practice, or Tradition, ob­tained in the days of the Apostles, or the five following Ages, the Apostles, and Primitive Fathers, would likely have endeavou­red to remove this Scandal from the Jews, and to return some Answer to an Objection so very obvious, for their prejudice against Image-worship being greater than against any other thing, they had the greatest reason, upon the supposition of [Page 69]such a practice of the Christians, to labour to remove it. And yet we find not that St. Paul in his Epistles writ partly to sa­tisfy the Jews, that Circumcision was not to be imposed up­on the Gentiles; and partly, to warn the Gentiles not to bear the Yoke of Jewish Festivals and Cerimonies; or in that purposely designed to teach the Jews, that the Priesthood being changed, the Ceremonial Law must also change together with it; or that St. Peter, or St. James, in their Epistles to the disper­sed Jews, take the least notice of so great a Prejudice, or spend one word to reconcile the Jew to this supposed Image-wor­ship.

Justin Martyr, Origen, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, G. Nyssen, Epiphanius, St. Chrysostom, St. Austin, with many others, have writ on purpose to take off the Objections of the Jews against Christianity; and in these Writings they have been very dili­gent in taking off the Scandal of the Cross, and proving, That the Jewish Festivals, and Sabbaths, were abolished; and that their Laws concerning Circumcision and Sacrifices were abrogated; but they spend not one word to shew that Chri­stians were exempted from that Precept, which forbad the bow­ing down to any Image, or Similitude; or to excuse that Wor­ship of them they are supposed to have practis'd, or to de­clare, as doth the second Nicene Council, that this Command­ment only forbad the worshipping of Idols, or of Images as Gods, or to give any other satisfaction to the Jews in this par­ticular.

The Apostles, and the Fathers, do jointly labour to remove the Scandal of the Cross, and to convince the Jew, that it was reasonable to worship him who was crucified upon it; but they say nothing to remove that which was a greater Scandal to them, as the confession of the Jew now mentioned doth assure us, viz. the worship of the Cross, and of an Image, which was the Work of their own Hands. They tell the Gentiles, That no Man had reason to condemn them for not observing the New Moons, and Jewish Sabbaths, but give them not one Item that they had no reason to condemn them for making and a­doring Images.

The whole New Testament, which takes especial notice,Rom. 2.22. that the Jews abhorred Idols, gives not the least distinction betwixt [Page 70]an Image, and an Idol, nor the least hint of any of those Eva­sions and Limitations, by which the Church of Rome now finds it necessary to reconcile her Practice to the second Command­ment; nor of those Expositions or Retortions used in the second Nicene Council, to refute the Clamours of the Jews. Which is a full conviction, that the Ancient Church had no such Doctrine or Practice, which could make it necessary for them to fly unto these Romish Shifts and Subtilties.

§. 3. To conclude; The Suffrage of Antiquity is so very clear, the Testimonies of it are so numerous, and so convincing, that they have forced many Learned Persons of the Church of Rome, ingenuously to confess, either that in the Primitive Church they had no Images, did not regard them; or that they paid no veneration to them, but rather disapproved and condem­ned it.

The Ʋniversal Church, saithStatuit olim Universa Ecclesia, ut nullae in Tem­plis Imagines ponerentur. Lib. de Nov. Celebrit. p. 151. Nicholaus de Clemangis, being moved by a lawful Cause, viz. on the account of them who were converted from Heathe­nism to the Christian Faith, commanded, That no Images should be placed in Churches.

Quem, non modo no­strae Religionis expertes, sed teste Hieron. omnes fer­mè veteres sancti Patres damnabant, ob metum Ido­lolatriae. De Invent. Rerum, L. 6. c. 13. The Worship of Images, not only they who were not of our Religion; but, as St. Jerom testi­sieth, almost all the Ancient Holy Fathers condemned for fear of Idolatry, saith Polydore Virgil, where the opposition of these Holy Fathers to others not of our Religion; and the mention of Pope Gregory among them, shews the vanity of what theApud White, p. 249. Jesuit Fisher saith, That Polydore speaks this of the Fathers of the Old Testament, not of the New.

Nos dico Christianos, ut aliquando Ro­manos fuisse sine Imaginibus in primitiva, quae vocatur Ecclesia. Syntagm. L. 1. p. 14. This surely I cannot omit, saith Giraldus, that as the An­cient Romans so we Christians were without Images in that Church which is called Primitive.

Saevissimis his tempori­bus de Sancto­rum imaginibus ne cogitârint Episcopi—abstinebant ad tempus. De Concil. Eliber. l. 3. c. 5. The Bishops in these times of Persecution, saith Mendoza, little thought of Images of Saints; they abstained from them for a [Page 71]while, least the Heathens should deride them, and should conceive that Christians worshipped them as Gods. All these are Witnesses against the second Nicene Council, that the Practice was not Apostolical, Ʋniversal, and Primitive.

What Opinion the Fathers had of this Practice, these fol­lowing Persons will inform you.

Petrus Crinitus saith, ThatDe Hon. Disciplin. l. 9. c. 9. Lactantius, Tertullian, and very many others, with too much boldness, did affirm, That it be­longed not to Religion to worship any Image.

Erasm. vol. 5. Symbol. Ca­tech. p. 989. Even to the days of Jerom, who died in the fifth Century, Men of approved Religion, saith Erasmus, would not suffer any painted, or graven, or woven Image, no not of Christ himself.

Certum est, initio prae­dicati Evangelii, aliquanto tempore inter Christianos, praesertim in Ecclesiis, Ima­ginum usum non fuisse. Con­sult. cap. de Imag. p. 163. It is certain, saith Cassander, that when the Gospel was first preached, there was no use of Ima­ges for sometime, among the Christians, as is evi­dent from Clemens of Alexandria, (who flou­rished at the close of the second) and from Ar­nobius, (who flourished at the beginning of the fourth Century.)

And again;Quantum veteres ini­tio Ecclesiae ab omni vene­ratione Imaginum abhorrue­runt, unus Origenes decla­rat, p. 168. How much the Ancients, in the beginning of the Church, abhorr'd all veneration of Images, Origen alone, in his Book against Celsus, shews.

And a third time;Sane ex Augustino con­stat, ejus aetate simulacrorum usum in Ecclesiis non fuisse. p. 165. Truly it is manifest, from the Discourse of St. Austin, on the 113th Psalm, that in his Age, the use of carved Images or Sta­tues, was not come into the Church.

Lastly, he adds, That in the Days of Gregory the Great, (that is, in the sixth Century)Quae fuerit mens, & sententia R. Ecclesiae adhuc aetate Gregorii, satis ex ejus Scriptis manifestum est, viz. ideo haberi Picturas non qui­dem ut colantur & adoren­tur, &c. p. 170. Consuetudo R. Ecclesiae pa­riter consractionem & ado­ratiouem improbat, p. 17 [...]. this was the Mind and Doctrine of the Romish Church, That Images should be retained, not to be adored or worshipped; but that the Ignorant should by them be admonished of what was done, and be pro­voked to piety. That the Roman Church did equal­ly condemn the adoration and the breaking of Ima­ges.

That the second Nicene Council, Graeca illa Synodus qua Parte Imaginēs adorandas censebat damnata fuit, ut quae—consuetudini R. Eccle­siae adversaretur, p. 172. as far as it de­termined for the Adoration of Images, was, by the general consent of the Fathers of the Council of Frankford, condemned, and rejected, as being a Determination which was repugnant, not only to the Holy Scriptures, and the Ancient Tradition of the Fathers, but also to the Custom of the Roman Church. And in a word,Fortasse optandum esset, ut Majores nostri huc us (que) in prisca illa Majorum suorum sententia integrè perstitissent. p. 175, 179, 180. That it were to be wished, perhaps, that our Predecessors (viz.) those of the Church of Rome) had continued in that old Doctrine of their An­cestors; to wit, that Images neither should be bro­ken nor adored.

De Van. Scient. cap. de Imag. The corrupt Custom, and false Religion of the Heathens, saith Cornelius Agrippa, hath infected our Religion, and hath in­troduced into our Church Images and Idols, and many barren pom­pous Ceremonies, none of which was found or practised among the Primitive Professors of Christianity.

And now, from what hath been discoursed in these Chap­ters, I infer,

§.Inference 1. 4. 1. That the Councils received by the Church of Rome, as the infallible Proposers of their Faith, namely, the second Nicene Council, and that of Trent, have erred, and have im­posed a false Interpretation of that Precept which doth com­mand us not to bow down to the similitude of any Thing in Hea­ven or Earth, and therefore they are falsly said to be infalli­ble in Matters of Faith, or true Interpreters of Holy Scrip­ture.

And indeed, whosoever seriously will consider of those Scriptures which are produced, either by this whole Council, or by Pope Hadrian; with approbation of this Council, or of­ferr'd by some Members present, or contained in some of the Citations produced by them for the having Images in Christian Churches, or for the giving Adoration to them, will find them so apparently perverted, and horribly im­pertinent, as that he will be forced to question, not only the Infallibility, but even the common Wisdom or Discretion of [Page 73]those Men who had the confidence to use them to these pur­poses. For,

1. John, the pretended Vicar of the three Oriental Patri­archs, saith, ThatAct. 4. p. 200. Jacob wrestling with him, saw God Face to Face; which yet can do no Service to the Maker, or Worshipper of Images, but by supposing, with the old He­reticks, call'd Anthropomorphites, that God hath Face or Fea­tures like a Man.

Leontius, Bishop of Neapolis, saith,Act. 4. p. 239, 240. If thou accusest me for worshipping the Wood of the Cross, thou must accuse Ja­cob for blessing wicked and idolatrous Pharaoh; which instance will be only pertinent, when it is proved that Pharaoh was an Image, and that Blessing is an Act of Adoration.

Pope Gregory the Second, saith, ThatCum figuram vellet, aut simulacrum videre, ne force erraret, orabat Deum dicens, Ostende mihi teip­sum manifesstò, ut te videam. p. 11. when Moses desired to behold an Image, or Similitude, lest he should be mistaken in the Visien, he said to God, Shew me thy self manifestly, that I may see thee; but doth not prove that Moses desired to see an Image, or material Likeness of God, or that God shewed him any such Similitude.

Germanus, Bishops of Constantinople, argues for Images af­ter this manner;Act. 4. p. 304. In the Book of Numbers, the Lord speaks to Moses, saying, Speak unto the Children of Israel, and bid them make themselves Fringes in the borders of their Garments, and put upon the Fringe of the Border a Ribband of Blue; and it shall be unto you for a Fringe, that you may look upon it, and remember all the Commandments of the Lord, and do them. Now if, saith he, the Israelites were bid to look upon these Fringes, and remem­ber his Commandments; much more ought we, by the inspection of the Images of Holy Men, to view the end of their Con­versation. And yet there seems to be some little diffe­rence betwixt a Fringe and a graven Image, betwixt re­membring God's Commandments to do them, and to break them.

Pope Hadrian finds in Isaiah, a Prophecy concerning Go­spel-Images, as clear as the Nose upon your Face; for, Ecce signum; Quemadmodum Esaias propheta vaticinatus est. Act. 2. p. 110. In that Day there shall be an Altar to the Lord in the midst of the Land of Egypt; and a Pillar at the Border thereof to the Lord, and it shall be for a Sign.

He also finds the sweet Singer of Israel harping oft upon the same String, and prophesying of Ima­ges to be adored in the Gospel-times; saying,Magnoperè vultum e­jus secundùm humanitatis ip­sius dispensationem adorari praemonuit, inquiens, &c. Psal. 4.6. The Light of thy Countenance, signatum est super nos, is signed upon us.

And again;Psal. 25.8. Lord, I have loved the Beauty of thy House, and the place of the Tabernacle of thy Glory.

And a third time;Psal. 27.8. Psal. 44.12. Thy Face, Lord, will I seek.

And a fourth; Even the Rich among the People shall intreat thy Face.

And,Psal. 96.6. lastly, in those words, Honour and Majesty are before him; Strength and Beauty are in his Sanctuary.

And what can be more evident for Image-worship than these Texts, which do so plainly mention the Face and Coun­tenance of God.

Theodosius proves, That we Christians must have Holy and Venerable Images; because 'tis said,Act. 4. p. 213. Whatsoever things were written, [...], aforetime, were written for our Learn­ing; wherefore the venerable Images being written upon Wood, and Stone, Rom. 15.4. and Metal, must be for our Instruction.

Away with those ignorant Fellows, who can derive the Pictures of Christ and his Apostles, no higher than St. Luke and Nicodemus; this Theodosius finds them among the Wri­tings of the Prophets, as clear as the Noon Day; see, [...], they were engraven afore-time, even before Christ's Humane Nature, or his Apostles, had a being; and had it not been thus, we Christians had been void of Hope, for these things were written, that we through comfort, [...], of these Pictures, might have hope.

They have all found it in the Book of Canticles, or some­thing which makes for it; for there it is most appositely said,Act. 6. p. 408. Cant. 2.14. Psal. 48.8. Shew me thy Face, and let me hear thy Voice, for [Page 75]thy Voice is sweet, and thy Countenance is comely. And in that of the Psalmist, As we have heard, so have we seen.

Act. 4.197.Ezekie's Temple was made, say they, with Cherubims, and Palm Trees; so that a Palm Tree was between a Cherub, and a Cherub; and every Cherub had two Faces, so that the Face of a Man was toward a Palm Tree on the one side, and the Face of a young Lion toward the Palm Tree on the other side; and thus it was throughout the House round about. So that it seemeth to them to have been an [...], or an House of Imagery; and yet should you ask them where this Temple was built, or what Exi­stence had these Cherubims, but in the Vision of the Prophet, it will puzzle their Infallibilities to answer you.

Lastly; They argue from the Author to theIbid. Hebrews, thus; Verily, the first Covenant had also Ordinances, and a worldly Sanctuary, there was a Tabernacle made, in which was first the Candlestick, and the Table, and the Shew-bread, which is called Holy; and after the second Veil, the Tabernacle, which is called the Holiest of all, which had the Golden Censer, and the Ark of the Covenant, overlaid round about with Gold, wherein was the Golden Pot that had Manna, and Aaron's Rod that budded, and the Tables of the Covenant, and over it the Cherubims of Glory sha­dowing the Mercy-Seat. If then, say they, [...]. p. 200. The Old Testament had Cherubims shadowing the Mercy Seat; let us have Images of Christ, and of his Holy Mother, shadowing the Altar; for because the Old Testament had such Things, the New received them. This, say the [...]. Ibid. Synod, is the truth; This, say the Princes, is the Command of God. But why did they not conclude also for another Ark and Mer­cy-Seat, another Tabernacle, a Golden Censer, and a Pot of Manna, seeing it was but saying, as in the case of Images they do, because the Old Testa­ment had these things, let us Christians have them too, and it in­fallibly must be so? And tell me now, Can any one who reads these powerful Demonstrations from, and excellent Exposi­tions of the Holy Scripture, doubt of the Truth of that which is so oft asserted by this Synod, ThatAct. 3. p. 157. Act. 7. p. 580, 581, 585. they were certainly as­sisted by the Holy Ghost?

But to be serious; If all, or any of these places, have any strength to prove that Images should be set up in Churches, or adored by Christians, why do not any of their Writers use them to that end? if they do not, Why may not they be taxed with weakness, who use such Proofs as none but the most undiscerning Persons could produce, and which their best Friends are ashamed of?

§.Inference 2. 5. 2. Hence it is evident, that the second Nicene Coun­cil grosly was mistaken in that Determination and Assertion, so frequently repeated in that Council, That Image-worship had been delivered to them by the continual Suffrage and Appro­bation of the whole Church of Christ; and was the Tradition of the whole Church Catholick, even from the Times of the Apo­stles.

And consequently, that this Council hath been actually de­ceived in Matter of Tradition, as well as in her Interpreta­tions of the Holy Scripture: For whereas it is frequently there said, That this was the constant Doctrine and Tradition of the Holy Fathers of the Catholick Church; the opposition is not greater betwixt Light and Darkness, than betwixt the As­sertions of the Fathers, and the Determinations of the Coun­cil. For,

1. The Fathers of that Council do pronounce Anathema [...]. Act. 1. p. 57.4. p. 317.5. p. 389.7. p. 576.8. p. 592. against all Persons who take such places of the Holy Scripture which are spoken a­gainst Idols, as spoken against Holy Images; i.e. who say the second Commandment forbids the Worship, not of Idols only, but of Holy Images. And so they do pronounce Anathema against Ju­stin Martyr, St. Clemens of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, St. Austin, Theodoret, Fulgentius, Agobardus, the Councils of Constantinople, Frankford, and Paris.

2ly, The Fathers of the same Council pronounce Anathema [...]. Act. 1. p. 57. against all Persons who say, That the [Page 77]erection of Images is the Invention of the Devil, and not the Tradition of the Catholick Church; and so they do pronounce Anathema against Clemens of Alexandria, St. Ambrose, Theodotus, Amphilochiùs, St. Jerom, and St. Chrysostom, Agobardus, Hincmarus, and the three foremention'd Councils, who all declare, That this was no Tradition of the Catholick Church. And against Clemens of Alexandria, Tertullian, Lactantius, Eusebius, Theodotus, An­oyranus, and the whole Council of Constantinople, who say ex­presly, That Image-making, or Image-worship, was the In­vention of the Devil.

3ly, These Fathers do pronounce Anathema [...]. Act. 4. p. 317.5. 389.7. p. 576. to all who violate, break, or dishonour S. Images; which Epiphanius, Serenus, and all the Fathers of Constantinople did; and upon all that knowingly com­municate with them, who contumeliously speak of them, or dishonour them.

Now seeing all the Christians of the 4th Century did cer­tainly communicate with Epiphanius; of the 6th Century with Serenus; since all the Fathers mentioned in my second Chap­ter, do in their sense dishonour Images, they in effect pronounce Anathema against them all.

4ly, They pronounce Anathema [...]. Act. 4. p. 317.5. p. 389. against all Persons who detract from, or who speak evil of their S. Images.

Now since the Fathers have declared concern­ing Images in general, That they are worse than Mice and Worms; that they are the Invention of the Devil; with many other things of a like nature, mentioned Chapter the second; they must be all obnoxious to this Anathema.

5ly, They pronounce Anathema [...]. Act. 4. p. 212. against all who do not call them Holy and Sacred Images; that is, against St. Clemens of Alexandria Origen, La­ctantius, Eusebius, and others, who have decla­red, That they cannot be Sacred; and that they are Men of impotent Spirits, and lame Minds, who so esteem them.

6ly, They denounce Anathema [...]. Act. 1. p. 61.7. p. 584. against all those who do not worship Images; or who doubt of, or who are disaffected to the worship of them. Now this Anathema, if what is here produced cannot be re­futed, must certainly be pronounced against the Blessed Apostles, and all the Christians of the five first Centuries.

Lastly; Whereas Origen declares, That the first thing which Christians taught their Converts, was, the contempt of all Images; the Fathers of this Synod pronounce Anathema [...]. Act. 1. p. 61. to all who do not diligently teach all Christian People to adore the Images of all Good Men from the beginning of the World.

§. 6. 3ly, Hence also may be seen how vainly and unjustly Roman Catholicks do boast of the consent of Fathers on their side, and say, That they expound the Scriptures according to that Sense which they received from the Ancients; it being evident, from what hath been discoursed, that in their Expo­sition of these words, [Thou shalt not make to thy self the Si­militude of any Thing in Heaven or Earth, &c. Thou shalt not bow down to them] they do embrace a Sense which no Father, for the first six Centuries did ever put upon them; and do reject that Sense they generally did impose upon these words.

§. 7. 4ly, Hence I infer, That the Religion of the Church of England is, in this particular, much safer than is that of Rome. For if Image-worship be not forbid in this Command­ment; nevertheless we only do neglect that practice which their best Writers deemIllud ante constituendum Imagines, ex carum per se genere esse quae [...] nominantur, hoc est quae ad salutem omninò necessaria non sunt, nec ad sub­stantiam ipsam religionis attinent, sed in potestate sunt Ecclesiae ut ea vel adhibeat, vel able­get, pro eo atque satius esse decreverit. Petav. Theol. dogm. To. 5. l. 15. cap. 13. §. 1. Ea est hujusce miserrimae dissensionis materia, sine qua, sicut multis videtur, salva per fidem, spem, & charitatem incunctanter, & in hoc seculo, & in futuro salvari potest Ecclesia, quo­rum sensus, & sententia talis est, quid fidei, spei, & charitati obesse potuisset, si Imago nulla toto orbe terrarum picta, vel ficta fuisset. Epist. Eugenii P. 2 Act. Synod. Paris. P. 130, 134. indifferent; which no Jew ever did perform to any Patriach or Prophet, nor any Christian for 600 Years to [Page 79]any Apostle, Saint, or Martyr, and which no Scripture hath commanded; and so we only do neglect to do that which nei­ther Example of the Ancients, nor any Precept doth commend to our practice. Whereas if Image-worship should be here for­bid to us Christians, which, to speak modestly, seems highly probable, the Church of Rome must practise and enjoin, that Worship which provokes God to jealousy, exhort and force her Members to perform that Worship from which God doth ex­hort them to abstain, least they corrupt themselves; She must en­join that Action upon pain of her Displeasure, and of the Wrath of God, which he commands us to avoid, because he is a jealous God; she must imprison, and cut off by Excommunica­tion, and by the Sword, Christ's Servants, because they will not, by doing that which God so frequently, and so directly hath forbid, incur the hazard of his Wrath, who saith;Deut. 4.25, 26. If ye corrupt your selves, and make a graven Image of the likeness of any thing, I call Heaven and Earth to Witness this day, that you shall soon utterly perish: And it is easy to determine which we ought most to fear, the Wrath of God or Man.