against image-worship among them, will hold good against all ART. image-worship whatsoever.

XXII.

to the end.

But as St. Paul ftaid long enough at Athens to understand their opinions well, and that no doubt he learned their doctrine very particularly from his convert Dionyfius, fo at his coming to Corinth from thence, when he had learned from Aquila and Prifcilla the state of the Church in Rome, and no doubt had learned among other things that the Romans admired the Greeks, and made them their patterns; he in the beginning of his Epiftle to them, having ftill deep impreffions upon his spirit of what he had feen and known at Athens, arraigns the whole Greek philofophy; and especially thofe among them who professed them- Rom. i. 20. felves wife, but became fools; who though they knew God, yet glorified him not as God, nor were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, fo that their foolish heart was darkened. They had high fpeculations of the unity and fimplicity of the Divine Effence; but they fet themselves to find fuch excufes for the idolatry of the vulgar, that they not only continued to comply with them in the groffeft of all their practices, but they ftudied more laboured defences for them, than the ruder multitudes could ever have fallen upon. They knew the true God; for God had fhewed to them that which might be known of him; but they held the truth in unrighteousness, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds and four-footed beafts, and to creeping things: which seems to be a defcription of hieroglyphick figures; the moft excufable of all thofe images by which they represented the Deity. This St. Paul makes to be the original of all the corruption and immorality that was fpread over the Gentile world, which came in, partly as the natural confequence of idolatry, of its debafing the ideas of God, and wounding true religion and virtue in its fource and firft feeds, and partly as an effect of the juft judgments of God upon those who thus difhonoured him, that was to a very monftrous degree fpread over both Greece and Rome. Of these St. Paul gives us fome very enormous inftances, with a catalogue of the vices that sprang from those vitiated principles. These two paffages, the one of St. Paul's preaching, and the other of his writing, being both -applied to those who had the fineft fpeculations among the Heathen, do evidently demonftrate how contrary the Chriftian doctrine is to the worfhipping of images of all forts, how speciously foever that may be disguised.

If these things wanted an explanation, we find it given us very fully in all the writings of the Fathers during their disputes with the Heathens. They do not only charge them with the falfe notions that they had of God, the many Deities they worshipped, the abfurd legends that they had concerning them; but in par

U 3
J3

ticulag

XXII.

ART. ticular they dwell long upon this of the worshipping God in or by an image, with arguments taken both from the pure and fpiritual nature of God, and from the plain revelation he made of his will in this matter. Upon this argument many long citations might be gathered from Juftin Martyr, from Clemens of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, Minutius Felix, Lactantius, Eufebius, Ambrofe, and St. Austin. Their reafonings are fo clear and fo full, that nothing can be more evident, than that they condemned all the use of images in the worship of God: and yet both Celfus, Porphyry, Maximus Tyrius, and Julian, told them very plainly, that they did not believe that the Godhead was like their images, or was shut up within them; they only used them as helps to their imagination and apprehenfion, that from thence they might form suitable thoughts of the Deity. This did not fatisfy the fathers, who infifted on it to the laft, that all fuch images as were made the objects of worship, were idols; fo that if in any one thing we have a very full account of the fenfe of the whole Church for the first four centuries, it is in this matter. They do not fpeak of it now and then only by the way, as in a digreffion; in which the heat of argument, or of rhetorick, may be apt to carry men too far; they fet themfelves to treat of this argument very nicely; and they were engaged in it with philosophers, who were as good at fubtleties and diftinctions as other men. This was one of the main parts of the controverfy; fo if in any head whatsoever, they writ exactly upon those subjects. They attacked the established religion of the Roman empire; and this was not to be done with clamour, nor could they offer at it in a plain contradiction to fuch principles as are confiftent with the Chriftian religion, if the doctrine of the Roman Church is true. Here then we have not only the Scripture but tradition fully of our fide.

Iren. 1. i.

C. 24.

Some pretended Chriftians, it is true, did very early worship images; but thofe were the Gnofticks, held in deteftation by all the orthodox. Irenæus, Epiphanius, and St. Austin tell us, that they worshipped the images of Chrift, together with Pythagoras, Plato, and Ariftotle: nor are they only blamed for worfhipping the images of Chrift, together with thefe of the philoHæref. cap. fophers, but they are particularly blamed for having feveral forts of images, and worfhipping thefe as the Heathens did; and that

Epi, h.

Hæref. 27.
Auguft. de

7.

Juf. Mart. Apol. 2. Clem. Alex. Strom. 1.1. 5. Protr. Orig. cont. Celf. l.ii. 3, 5, 7. Tertull. Apol. Cypr. de Idol. Vanitate. Arnob. lib. v. Minut. Felix Oct. Eufeb. Præp. Evang. 1. iii. Lactan. 1. ii. c. 2. Ambrof. Refp. ad Sym. Auguft. de Civitate Dei, 1. vii. c. 5.

Oriz. con. Celf. 1. vii. Eufeb. Præp. Ev. 1. iii. c. 7. Max. Tyr. diff. 38. Jul, Frag. Ep. Eufeb. Præp. Evang. 1. iv. c. 1.

among

XXII.

among thefe, there was an image of Chrift, which they pre- AR T. tended to have had from Pilate. Befides thefe corrupters of Christianity, there were no others among the Chriftians of the firft ages that worshipped images. This was fo well known to the Heathens, that they bring this, among other things, as a reproach against the Chriftians, that they had no images: which the first apologifts are fo far from denying, that they answered them, that it was impoffible for him who knew God, to worship images. But as human nature is inclined to visible objects of worship, fo it feems fome began to paint the walls of their Churches with pictures, or at least moved for it. In the beginning of the fourth century this was condemned by the Council of Eliberis, Can. 36. It pleafes us to have no pictures in Churches, left that which is worshipped fhould be painted upon the walls. Towards the end of that century, we have an account given us by Epiphanius, of his indignation occafioned by a picture that he faw upon a veil at Anablatha. He did not Epiph. Ep. much confider whofe picture it was, whether a picture of Chrift, ad Joan. or of fome Saint; he pofitively affirms it was against the autho- Hierof. rity of the Scriptures, and the Christian religion, and therefore he tore it, but fupplied that Church with another veil. It seems private perfons had statues of Chrift and the Apostles; which Eufebius cenfures, where he reports it as a remnant of hea- Eufeb. thenifm. It is plain enough from fome paffages in St. Austin, Hist. Eccl. that he knew of no images in Churches in the beginning of the fifth century. It is true, they began to be brought before that pfal. cxiii. time into. fome of the Churches of Pontus and Cappadocia, de Moribus which was done very probably to draw the Heathens, by this Eccl. Cath, piece of conformity to them, to like the Chriftian worship the C 34° better. For that humour began to work, and appeared in many inftances of other kinds as well as in this.

1. vii. c. 18.

c.

It was not poffible that people could fee pictures in their Churches long, without paying fome marks of refpect to them, which grew in a little time to the downright worship of them. A famous inftance we have of this in the fixth century: Serenus Bishop of Marseilles, finding that he could not reftrain his people from the worship of images, broke them in pieces; upon which Pope Gregory writ to him, blaming him indeed for breaking Greg. Epift. the images, but commending him for not allowing them to ix. Ep. 98 be worshipped: this he profecutes in a variety of very plain expreffions; It is one thing to worship an image, and another thing to learn by it, what is to be worshipped: he fays they were fet up not to be worshipped, but to inftruct the ignorant, and cites our Saviour's words, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only fhalt thou ferve, to prove that it was not lawful to worfhip the work of men's hands. We fee by a fragment cited in the fecond Nicene Council, that both Jews and Gentiles took advantages

U 4

XXII.

ART. advantages from the worship of images, to reproach the Chriftians foon after that time. The Jews were fcandalized at their worshipping images, as being exprefsly against the command of God. The Gentiles had alfo by it great advantages of turning back upon the Christians all that had been written against their images in the former ages.

At laft, in the beginning of the eighth century, the famous controversy about the having or breaking of images grew hot. The Churches of Italy were fo fet on the worshipping of them, that Pope Gregory the Second* gives this for the reason of their rebelling against the Emperor, because of his oppofition to images. And here in little more than an hundred years, the fee of Rome changed its doctrine, Pope Gregory the Second being as pofitive for the worshipping them, as the first of that name had been against it. Violent contentions arose upon this head. The breakers of images were charged with Judaism, Samaritanifm, and Manicheifm; and the worshippers of them were charged with Gentilifm and Idolatry. One General Council at Conftantinople, confifting of about three hundred and thirty-eight Bishops, condemned the worshipping them as idolatrous but another at Nice, of three hundred and fifty Bishops, though others fay, there were only three hundred, afferted the worship of them. Yet as foon as this was known in the West, how active foever the fee of Rome was for establish ing their worship, a Council of about three hundred Bishops met at Francfurt, under Charles the Great, which condemned the Nicene Council, together with the worship of images. The Gallican Church infifted long upon this matter; books were published in the name of Charles the Great against them. A Council held at Paris under his fon did alfo condemn imageworship as contrary to the honour that is due to God only, and to the commands that he has given us in Scripture. The Nicene Council was rejected here in England, as our hiftorians tell us, because it afferted the adoration of images, which the Church of God abhors. Agobard Bishop of Lions, and Claud of Turin, writ against it; the former writ with great vehemence: the learned men of that communion do now acknowledge, that what he writ was according to the fenfe of the Gallican Church in that age and even Jonas of Orleans, who ftudied to moderate the matter, and to reconcile the Gallican Bishops to the fee of Rome, yet does himself declare against the worship of images.

*This is owned by all the hiftorians of that age, Anaftafius, Zonaras, Cedrenus, Glycas, Theophanes, Sigebert, Otho, Frif, Urfpergenfis, Sigonius, Rubens, and

Ciaconius.

Te

6, 7.

We are not concerned to examine how it came that all this ART. XXII. vigorous oppofition to image-worship went off fo foon. It is enough to us, that it was once made fo refolutely; let thofe who think it fo incredible a thing, that Churches fhould depart from their received traditions, answer this as they can. As for the Acta Con. methods then used, and the arguments that were then brought Nic. 2. to infufe this doctrine into the world, he who will read the Action 4, 5, history and acts of the Nicene Council, will find enough to incline him to a very bad opinion, both of the men and of their doctrine; though he were ever fo much inclined to think well of them. After all, though that Council laid the foundation of Aquin. image-worship, yet the Church of Rome has made great im- To. I. provements in it fince. Thofe of Nice expreffed a deteftation quæft. 25. difput. 54 of an image made to reprefent the Deity; they go no higher feet. 2. than the images of Chrift and the Saints; whereas fince that time the Deity and the Trinity have been represented by images and pictures; and that not only by connivance, but by authority in the Church of Rome. Bellarmine, Suarez, and others, prove the lawfulness of fuch images from the general practice of the Church. Others go further, and from the caution given in the decree of the Council of Trent, concerning the images of God, do infer, that they are allowed by that Council, provided they be decently made. Directions are also given concerning the use of the image of the Trinity in publick offices among them. In a word, all their late doctors agree, that they are lawful, and reckon the calling that in queftion to be not only rafhness, but an error; and such as have held it unlawful to make fuch images, were especially condemned at Rome, December 17, 1690. The varieties of those images, and the boldness of them, are things apt to give horror to modeft minds, not accustomed to fuch attempts. It must be acknowledged, that the old emblematical images of the Egyptians, and the groffer ones now used by the Chineses, are much more inftructing, and much lefs fcandalous figures.

As the Roman Church has gone beyond the Nicene Council Con. Nic. in the images that they allow of, fo they have alfo gone beyond 2. Act. 7. them in the degrees of the worship that they offer to them. At Act. 6. Nice the worship of images was very pofitively decreed, with anathema's against those who did it not: a bare honour they reckoned was not enough. They thought it was a very valuable argument, that was brought from those words of Christ to

the Devil, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him_only Con. Nic. fhalt thou ferve; that here fervice is only appropriated to God, Act. 5.