The divine right of church-government and excommunication
The divine right of church-government and excommunication: or a peaceable dispute for the perfection of the holy scripture in point of ceremonies and church government; in which the removal of the Service-book is justified, the six books of Tho: Erastus against excommunication are briefly examined; with a vindication of that eminent divine Theod: Beza against the aspersions of Erastus, the arguments of Mr. William Pryn, Rich: Hooker, Dr. Morton, Dr. Jackson, Dr. John Forbes, and the doctors of Aberdeen; touching will-worship, ceremonies, imagery, idolatry, things indifferent, an ambulatory government; the due and just powers of the magistrate in matters of religion, and the arguments of Mr. Pryn, in so far as they side with Erastus, are modestly discussed. To which is added, a brief tractate of scandal ... / By Samuel Rutherfurd, Professor of Divinity in the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. Published by authority.The divine right of church-government and excommunication: or a peacable dispute for the perfection of the holy scripture in point of ceremonies and church government; in which the removal of the Service-book is justifi'd, the six books of Tho: Erastus against excommunication are briefly examin'd; with a vindication of that eminent divine Theod: Beza against the aspersions of Erastus, the arguments of Mr. William Pryn, Rich: Hooker, Dr. Morton, Dr. Jackson, Dr. John Forbes, and the doctors of Aberdeen; touching will-worship, ceremonies, imagery, idolatry, things indifferent, an ambulatory government; the due and just powers of the magistrate in matters of religion, and the arguments of Mr. Pryn, in so far as they side with Erastus, are modestly discussed. To which is added, a brief tractate of scandal ... / By Samuel Rutherfurd, Professor of Divinity in the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. Published by authority.
Samuel Rutherford 1600?–1661London: printed by John Field for Christopher Meredith, 1646
[28], 656, 103, [1] p. · 334k words · Wing R2377 · ESTC R200646
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Increase righteousness in us, and give remission of sins, O tree cross to guilty sinners. Names at Rome go as men will, but the honour it self is put upon the dumb wood, which is due to Christ. O it is but a figure (say they) yea but (say we) prayers and praises in a bodily manner, and vocally are tendered to the wood, yet if the wife commit adultery with her husbands brother, because he representeth her husband, I think the matter should be washen with Ink, and badly excused to say, O the loving wife for strong love to her husband committeth figurative adultery, and that bodily harlotry is referred to the brother of her husband by accident, and to her husband kindly, and per se, for himself. The same way, if Formalists bow their knee to bread, that such a holy mystery be not profaned. We know they cannot understand civill or countrey non-prophanation, that they intend; for kneeling and evil manners at the Lords table do well consist together. Now religious nonprophanation by knee-worship, is adoring of these mysterious elements. Ergo they make prayers and sing praises, and offer sacrifices to the bread, Let them see to this and answer to it if they can. The sixth evasion of wit, I find in qJohannes de Lugo, who saith, 1. That the image and sampler making one and the same object, by aggregation, the inward affection besides external knee-worship is given to both, but to the Image relatively, and for God or the sampler, and not for proper divine excellency in it, and therefore the Councils (saith he) call it not adoration in spiritu, but it is tendered to God absolutely. ⟨p. 178⟩2. We give adoration of internal submission to God, or the sampler as the debt of potestative justice, but we do not so worship the Image, we have no civill or politic communication with the Image, 2because it is not a reasonable creature, and therefore the worship of the Image is as it were a material and lifeless action; when we uncover our head to the Image, by that action we would say or signify nothing to the Image, but to the sampler, or to God only. 3. The inward submission that we tender to the Image, is not that we submit to it, as to a thing more excellent then we, for that were a foolish lye;
Increase righteousnesse in us, and give remission of sinnes, O tree crosse to guilty sinners. Names at Rome goe as men will, but the honour it selfe is put upon the dumbe wood, which is due to Christ. O it is but a figure (say they) yea but (say we) prayers and praises in a bodily manner, and vocally are tendred to the wood, yet if the wife commit adultery with her husbands brother, because he representeth her husband, I thinke the matter should be washen with Inke, and badly excused to say, O the loving wife for strong love to her husband committeth figurative adultery, and that bodily harlotry is referred to the brother of her husband by accident, and to her husband kindly, and per se, for himselfe. The same way, if Formalists bow their knee to bread, that such a holy mystery be not prophaned. We know they cannot understand civill or countrey non-prophanation, that they intend; for kneeling and evill maners at the Lords table doe well consist together. Now religious nonprophanation by knee-worship, is adoring of these mysterious elements. Ergo they make prayers and sing praises, and offer sacrifices to the bread, Let them see to this and answer to it if they can. The sixt evasion of wit, I find in qJohannes de Lugo, who saith, 1. That the image and samplar making one and the same object, by aggregation, the inward affection besides externall knee-worship is given to both, but to the Image relatively, and for God or the samplar, and not for proper divine excellencie in it, and therefore the Councels (saith he) call it not adoration in spiritu, but it is tendered to God absolutely. ⟨p. 178⟩2. We give adoration of internall submission to God, or the samplar as the debt of potestative justice, but we doe not so worship the Image, we have no civill or politick communication with the Image, 2because it is not a reasonable creature, and therefore the worship of the Image is as it were a materiall and livelesse action; when we uncover our head to the Image, by that action we would say or signifie nothing to the Image, but to the samplar, or to God onely. 3. The inward submission that we tender to the Image, is not that we submit to it, as to a thing more excellent then we, for that were a foolish lye;
qJoan. de lugo. de myst. incar. disp. 36. sect. 3. n. 25, 26, 27. & seq. Respectus imaginis est quasi materialis & inanimatus, quia sic ap•rimus caput imagini, ut per illam actionem nihil velimus imagini dicere aut significare, sed soli exemplari, ad quod dirigitur ille actus pro ut significativus & prout civilis communicatio; & ideo respectu illius solum videtur esse actio animata. De Lugo ibid. Hoc enim esset stultum mendacium, quia absoluté loquend• meliores sumus nos quam Imago sancti Petri. And conform to this the seventh pretended and bastard Councell calleth them half holy, and half true, half false worshippers of God, Antonius Capellus citeth it, Advers. prim. regis Anglia, c. 30. Who will have Images to stand only for memorials, but not to be worshipped.Ioan. de lugo. de myst. incar. disp. 36. sect. 3. n. 25, 26, 27. & seq. Respectus imaginis est quasi materialis & inanimatus, quia sic ap•rimus caput imagini, ut per illam actionem nihil velimus imagini dicere aut significare, sed soli exemplari, ad quod dirigitur ille actus pro ut significativus & prout civilis communicatio; & ideo respectu illius solum videtur esse actio animata. De Lugo ibid. Hoc enim esset stultum mendacium, quia absoluté loquend• meliores sumus nos quam Imago sancti Petri. And conforme to this the seventh pretended and bastard Councell calleth them halfe holy, and halfe true, halfe false worshipers of God, Antonius Capellus citeth it, Advers. prim. regis Anglia, c. 30. Who will have Images to stand onely for memorialls, but not to be worshipped.
2Concil. seventh art. 1. p. 458. Qui vero dicunt su• nicer usum imaginum ad memoriam solum, non vero ad salutationem •as habentes illud quidem recipientes, hoc vero re•icien•es, s•miprobi quadantenus, & falso v•ti [ut ita dicam] deprehenduntur.Concil. seventh art. 1. p. 458. Qui vero dicunt su••icere usum imaginum ad memoriam solum, non vero ad salutationem •as habentes illud quidem recipientes, hoc vero re•icien•es, s•miprobi quadantenus, & falso v•ti [ut ita dicam] deprehenduntur.
yet (saith he) (that the man might fulfil the cup of the iniquity of his Fathers) we kiss not the Image in recto directly tendering honour to it, but to God and the sampler before it. 1. Because then I should adore my own breast when I knock upon it adoring the Eucharist. 2. Because so I bow to the wall before me. 3. If I have no honourable opinion of the Image, I do not adore it at all. 4. By kneeling to the Image, I have a will of submitting externally my affection to the Image, I yield to it▪ as a thing above me, giving to it the higher place 4. The act of adoration is simply terminated upon the Image, as a thing contra distinguished from the sampler, though it be adored with the same action with which the sampler is adored. Thus the •e•uite.
yet (saith he) (that the man might fulfill the cup of the iniquity of his Fathers) we kisse not the Image in recto directly tendring honour to it, but to God and the samplar before it. 1. Because then I should adore my owne breast when I knocke upon it adoring the Eucharist. 2. Because so I bow to the wall before me. 3. If I have no honourable opinion of the Image, I doe not adore it at all. 4. By kneeling to the Image, I have a will of submitting externally my affection to the Image, I yeeld to it▪ as a thing above me, giving to it the higher place 4. The act of adoration is simply terminated upon the Image, as a thing contra distinguished from the samplar, though it be adored with the same action with which the samplar is adored. Thus the •e•uite.
Answ. But here all men may see many contradictions, and that he casteth down all that formerly he hath said, ••. Images even as1 they represent God are dead things, and less then a redeemed Saint, Ergo, I can give them no submission of external honour. 2. I signify and say nothing of honour to the Image, even as it respecteth God, and representeth him, because the dignity of representing God doth not elevate it to be a reasonable creature, therefore I cannot honour it, and it were a foolish lye to say that the Image as representing God, were a reasonable creature. 3. As it representeth God, it cannot hear payers, nor deliver in trouble, as the Holy One of Israel can do; Ergo by the Holy Ghosts argument, I cannot bow to a lye, Esa. 44. 17. and 46. 9. Hab. 2. 19. 20. it made not the heaven and the earth, but by a figure, because it representeth the maker of heaven and earth, wherefore it should have but figurative honour at the best, and that is no real honour, Jer. 10. 8, 11, 12, 4. There is no debt of justice due to the dumb wood, or element, honour of external submission is a debt of potestative justice due to a superior, the Images and Elements are not my superior. ⟨p. 179⟩1. They be means, I the end. 2. They be void of life and reason which I have. 3. They are not redeemed, sanctified, and to be glorified as I am. Joan. de Lugo answereth, As I may love Peter for the goodness that is not in Peter but in another, as I may love and desire good to Peter, for the goodness that is in his father, and not in himself, and so pay the debt of affection to him for another, so I may honour an Image for the debt of honour that I owe to the sampler represented by the Image, therefore it is not required to the essence of adoration, that we acknowledge debt due to every thing adored for another; it is sufficient a debt be acknowledged, either to the Image, or the sampler. Answ. The debt of love and the debt of honour are not alike. I owe honour to superiors only as superiors, I owe love to superiors, equals, inferiors. If I truly adore an Image, I truly acknowledge excellency in the Image, I truly yield to it, a worthier place then I deserve to have my selfe, (saith rde Lugo) Ergo, by the fifth Commandment according to the debt of justice, I owe fear, honour, and reverence to it, else I adore it by a figure, which the Jesuit doth deny.
Answ. But here all men may see many contradictions, and that he casteth downe all that formerly he hath said, ••. Images even as1 they represent God are dead things, and lesse then a redeemed Saint, Ergo, I can give them no submission of externall honour. 2. I signifie and say nothing of honour to the Image, even as it respecteth God, and representeth him, because the dignity of representing God doth not elevate it to be a reasonable creature, therefore I cannot honour it, and it were a foolish lye to say that the Image as representing God, were a reasonable creature. 3. As it representeth God, it cannot heare payers, nor deliver in trouble, as the Holy One of Israel can doe; Ergo by the Holy Ghosts argument, I cannot bow to a lye, Esa. 44. 17. and 46. 9. Hab. 2. 19. 20. it made not the heaven and the earth, but by a figure, because it representeth the maker of heaven and earth, wherefore it should have but figurative honour at the best, and that is no reall honour, Jer. 10. 8, 11, 12, 4. There is no debt of justice due to the dumb wood, or element, honour of externall submission is a debt of potestative justice due to a superiour, the Images and Elements are not my superiour. ⟨p. 179⟩1. They be meanes, I the end. 2. They bee void of life and reason which I have. 3. They are not redeemed, sanctified, and to be glorified as I am. Ioan. de Lugo answereth, As I may love Peter for the goodnesse that is not in Peter but in another, as I may love and desire good to Peter, for the goodnesse that is in his father, and not in himself, and so pay the debt of affection to him for another, so I may honour an Image for the debt of honour that I owe to the samplar represented by the Image, therefore it is not required to the essence of adoration, that we acknowledge debt due to every thing adored for another; it is sufficient a debt be acknowledged, either to the Image, or the samplar. Answ. The debt of love and the debt of honour are not alike. I owe honour to superiours onely as superiours, I owe love to superiours, equals, inferiours. If I truly adore an Image, I truly acknowledge excellency in the Image, I truly yeeld to it, a worthier place then I deserve to have my selfe, (saith rde Lugo) Ergo, by the fifth Commandement according to the debt of justice, I owe feare, honour, and reverence to it, else I adore it by a figure, which the Iesuite doth deny.
1Answ.
rDe Lugo ibid. 39. imagines vere cedo exterius, daudo illi meliorē & superiorem loam honorifice eam tracta• do.De Lugo ibid. 39. imagi•s vere cedo exterius, daudo illi meliorē & superiorem lo•um honorifice eam tracta• do.
I am not afraid that they say, Damascene, sa superstitious Monk alloweth Images to be adored. So doeth tthat pretended seventh Synod, or (u) the second Nicene Synod, and xStephanus and Adrianus, as we may read in Juo. yNicephorus speaketh many fables for Images, he showeth us that Luke the Evangelist should have painted the Images of Christ and the Virgin Mary. zAnd that aholy Sylvester had the Images of Peter and Paul, and showed them to the Emperor Constantine, and bCanisius a fabulous man saith, there appeared to Sylvester at the dedication feast of Saint Salvator's church the picture of Christ in the Wall, but the original of Images seemeth to be the vanity of man, saith cthe Wise Man. 2. The keeping of the dead in memory, saith dCyprian, ad defunctorum vultus per imaginem detinendos expressa sunt simulachra, inde posteris facta sunt sacra quae primitus assumpta fuerunt solatia, in aliis codicibus ad solatia. 3. The blind heathen wanting the light of Scripture, began to worship Images. eEusebius saith it began first [Greek or Hebrew], from the Heathenish custom it came that Peter and Pauls Images were first made. Men did it saith fAugustine, ut Paganorum concilient benevolentiam, to conciliate the favour of Pagans, it may be seen out of Gregorius
I am not afraid that they say, Damascen, sa superstitious Monke alloweth Images to be adored. So doeth tthat pretended seventh Synod, or (u) the second Nicene Synod, and xStephanus and Adrianus, as we may read in Juo. yNicephorus speaketh many fables for Images, he sheweth us that Luke the Evangelist should have painted the Images of Christ and the Virgin Mary. zAnd that aholy Silvester had the Images of Peter and Paul, and shewed them to the Emperour Constantine, and bCanisius a fabulous man saith, there appeared to Silvester at the dedication feast of Saint Salvators church the picture of Christ in the Wall, but the originall of Images seemeth to be the vanity of man, saith cthe Wiseman. 2. The keeping of the dead in memory, saith dCyprian, ad defunctorum vultus per imaginem detinendos expressa sunt simulachra, inde posteris facta sunt sacra quae primitus assumpta fuerunt solatia, in aliis codicibus ad solatia. 3. The blinde heathen wanting the light of Scripture, began to worship Images. eEusebius saith it began first 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, from the Heathenish custome it came that Peter and Pauls Images were first made. Men did it saith fAugustine, ut Paganorum concilient benevolentiam, to conciliate the favour of Pagans, it may bee seene out of Gregorius
gMagnus, saith hVoetius, that the worshipping of Images crept in but the sixth age. In the first three hundred years, Images were not admitted (saith our Country-man iPatrick Simpson) into the place of worship, in the fourth, fifth and sixth Century, they were admitted into temples, but for the most part without opinion of adoration. In the second Nicene Council, an obscure age, (saith kPetrus Molinaeus) when the scriptures were taken away, it is ordained that Images should be adored, but not the Images of the Father. Quoniamquis sit non novimus, deique natura spectanda proponi non potest ac pingi. But only the Image of the Son. This Council was Anno 787. as saith lBellarmine. But this wicked Fathers argument proves also that the Image of God the Father may be painted, while they prove worshipping of Images, because the Psalmist saith, The Lord arose as a mighty man after Wine. But mGenebrard saith this Council of Nice, was controlled by a Council in the West. nBarronius mentioneth two Epistles written by Gregorious 2. a defender of Images, wherein he saith, the Son may be painted, not the Father. This Council was approved by Constantine, Ireneus, and a Greek copy of the Synod sent to oAdrian the Pope. But 1. this wicked Synod did not maintain adoration of Images, such as Suarez, Bellarmine, Vasquez, Peri•rius, &c. now hold, but only veneration. 2. Images were placed in the Churches, saith pPaul. Diaconus, multis contra dicentibus, many speaking against i•. And qBergomens. saith, the Emperor Constantine himself not long after did abrogate the Acts of this Synod, and rthe Synod of Frankfort condemned this Synod. See sAventinus; tHincmarus saith it is true they of Frankfort allowed Images to be in Churches, but not to be adored. wUrspergensis saith that this synod did write a book against the second Council of Nice, called otherwise the seventh general Council. A book came out▪ in France, and after in Germany under the name of Charles the Great, condemning by strong reasons the adoration of Images, and answereth all the arguments of the Nicene Fathers on the contrary, Tannerus the Jesuit saith this was a forged Book.
gMagnus, saith hVoetius, that the worshiping of Images crept in but the sixt age. In the first three hundred yeeres, Images were not admitted (saith our Country-man iPatrick Sympson) into the place of worship, in the fourth, fifth and sixt Centurie, they were admitted into temples, but for the most part without opinion of adoration. In the second Nicene Councell, an obscure age, (saith kPetrus Molinaeus) when the scriptures were taken away, it is ordained that Images should be adored, but not the Images of the Father. Quoniamquis sit non novimus, deique natura spectanda proponi non potest ac pingi. But onely the Image of the Son. This Councell was Anno 787. as saith lBellarmine. But this wicked Fathers argument proves also that the Image of God the Father may be painted, while they prove worshipping of Images, because the Psalmist saith, The Lord arose as a mighty man after Wine. But mGenebrard saith this Councell of Nice, was controuled by a Councell in the West. nBarronius mentioneth two Epistles written by Gregorious 2. a defender of Images, wherein he saith, the Sonne may be painted, not the Father. This Councell was approved by Constantine, Ireneus, and a Greeke copie of the Synod sent to oAdrian the Pope. But 1. this wicked Synod did not maintaine adoration of Images, such as Suarez, Bellarmine, Vasquez, Peri•rius, &c. now hold, but onely veneration. 2. Images were placed in the Churches, saith pPaul. Diaconus, multis contra dicentibus, many speaking against i•. And qBergomens. saith, the Emperour Constantine himselfe not long after did abrogate the Acts of this Synod, and r
gGregor. mag. Epist, ad Serenum Massilien shem lib. 7. Ep. 109.Gregor. mag. Epist, ad Serenum Massilien sem lib. 7. Ep. 109.
hVoetius in desper. caus. papat. lib. 3. c. 6. sect. 2.
iSimpson 6. Century of the worshipping of Images, p. 38.Sympson 6. Century of the worshipping of Images, p. 38.
kPet. Molin•us Buckler of Faith of Images, Sect. 118. pag. 308.
lBellarm de scrip. in Chron.
mGenebrard •hron. an. 794. p. 308.
nBarronius An. 726. Observe that Aeneas Sylvius epist. 301. saith, ante▪ Nicenam Synodum unusquisque sibi vivebat, quemadmodum sibi visum est, & paro•s respectus ad Romanam ecclesiam •abe•atur, a Metropolitan Bishop, a step to the Popedom, was first created here in Romes Car•bage, Constantinople, Antiochia.Barronius An. 726. Observe that Aeneas Sylvius epist. 301. saith, ante▪ Nicenam Synodum unusquisque sibi vivebat, quemadmodum sibi visum est, & paro•s respectus ad Romanam ecclesiam •abe•atur, a Metropolitan Bishop, a step to the Popedome, was first created here in Romes Car•bage, Constantin•ple, Antiochia.
But against famous ⟨p. 181⟩and learned Authors saying the contrary, and so xHincmarius and yEctius make mention of this book, and Pope Adrianus (as zHospinianus doth well observe) doth approve of this Synod of Frankfurt by his Letters written to the Emperor of Constantinople, and the Patriarch Tharasius.
But against famous ⟨p. 181⟩and learned Authors saying the contrary, and so xHincmarius and yEctius make mention of this book, and Pope Adrianus (as zHospinianus doth well observe) doth approve of this Synod of Francford by his Letters written to the Emperour of Constantinople, and the Patriarch Tharasius.
xHincmarin. Archiepiscopus Remorum c. 10. cont. Hincmarin. •andunensem Episcop.
The first five hundred years (saith aCalvin) images were not worshipped. Caj•s Caligula a proud Tyrant, commanded the Jews to set up his image in the Temple: the Jews answered they should rather die then pollute the Temple of God with images, as •aith bJosephus and cEusebius, and this fell out while the Apostles lived.
The first five hundred years (saith aCalvin) images were not worshipped. Caj•s Caligula a proud Tyrant, commanded the Iews to set up his image in the Temple: the Iews answered they should rather die then pollute the Temple of God with images, as •aith bIosephus and cEusebius, and this fell out while the Apostles lived.
Ann. 108. Plunius 2. writeth to Trajanus under the third Persecution, That Christians were men of good conversation, and detested vices, worshipped Christ, and would not worship Imagesd, as that Letter beareth: and eEusebius, reporteth Adrian had a purpose, (as saith fBucol.) to build a Church for the honour of Christ void of Images. See gSymson that ancient Writer: hJustine Martyr in this Age; Omnes imagines ad cultum proposit as simpliciter damnant Christiani. iTertullian, a most ancient writer, who lived under Severus in time of the fifth Persecution, as kthe Magdeburgenses testify; saith, Nos adoramus oculis ad caelum sublatis, non adimagines seu picturas, and, indignum ut imago Dei vivi imagini idoli, & mortu: fiat similis, (saith lhe also) and not only thinketh it unlawful to represent God by an Image, but also saith, that Craftsmen, who profess themselves Christians, ought no• to make Images of God. An ancient Writer mClemens Alexandrinus, Non est nobis imago sensibilis de materiâ sensibili, nisi quae precipitur intelligentiâ. Deus enim qui solus est verè Deas, intelligentiâ precipitur, non sensu: We have no sensible Image of sensible matter, because God is taken up by the understanding, not by the sense: and nNihil in rebus genitis potest referre Dei imaginem. This ancient Writer flourished, saith oCatolog. Testium veritat. Anno 150. or as pHospinian saith Ann, 200. and qIreneus, the disciple ⟨p. 182⟩of Polycarpus, an hearer of John the Apostle maketh it the Heresy of the Gnostics, that they held that Pilate made the Image of Jesus: Et quod imagines baberent Christi, Apostolorum atque Philosophorum▪ easque coronarent, ac colendas propo•erent. aCyprian saith, Idols, or Images, be not only against the Law of God, but against the nature of man; bOrigen said, The Images of Christians are Christians indeed, with Gods Image: and, Nos veno ideo non honor amus simulachrá, quia quantū possumus, cavemnus, ne in•idamus in eam crudelitatem, ut et iis tribuamus divinitatis aliquid. cGrave Athanasius saith, [Greek or Hebrew] The invention of Images is from an evil fountain, and not from good, and whatsoever hath a bad beginning, cannot be deemed in any thing good, being altogether bad: The Papist Harding bringeth in a counterfeit Dialogue of Athanasius, betwixt Christ and his Church; and Christ comforting his Church, because she was persecuted for worshipping Christs Image;
Ann. 108. Plunius 2. writeth to Trajanus under the third Persecution, That Christians were men of good conversation, and detested vices, worshipped Christ, and would not worship Imagesd, as that Letter beareth: and eEusebius, reporteth Adrian had a purpose, (as saith fBucol.) to build a Church for the honour of Christ void of Images. See gSymson that ancient Writer: hJustine Martyr in this Age; Omnes imagines ad cultum proposit as simpliciter damnant Christiani. iTertullian, a most ancient writer, who lived under Severus in time of the fifth Persecution, as kthe Magdeburgenses testifie; saith, Nos adoramus oculis ad caelum sublatis, non adimagines seu picturas, and, indignum ut imago Dei vivi imagini idoli, & mortu: fiat similis, (saith lhe also) and not only thinketh it unlawfull to represent God by an Image, but also saith, that Craftsmen, who professe themselves Christians, ought no• to make Images of God. An ancient Writer mClemens Alexandrinus, Non est nobis imago sensibilis de materiâ sensibili, nisi quae precipitur intelligentiâ. Deus enim qui solus est verè Deas, intelligentiâ precipitur, non sensu: We have no sensible Image of sensible matter, because God is taken up by the understanding, not by the sense: and nNihil in rebus genitis potest referre Dei imaginem. This ancient Writer flourished, saith oCatolog. Testium veritat. Anno 150. or as pHospinian saith Ann, 200. and q
dEpist. Plinii. 2 ad Imporat Trajan.
eEuseb. Histor. lib. 3. cap. 33.
fBucol•. in Alexand. severo.
gSymson 1. Century cap. 1.
hJustin. Martyr. in Dialog. cum. Trypho. & apolog. 2.
but when and where this persecution was, none knoweth, for many times hath the Church been persecuted for not worshipping Images; but see the answer of the learned dJewell thereunto; eEpiphanius, who lived, Anno 370. proveth against the3 Collyridiams, That Mary nor no creature should be adored. Unde est simulachrificum hoc studium et diabolious conantus? praetext• enim 4justitiae sempersubiens hominum, mentem drabolus, mortalem naturam in hominum oculis deificans, Statuas humanas, imagines press ferentes per artum, veritatem expressit, et mortui quidem sunt qui adorantur: Item, Revera sanctum erat corpus Mariae, non tamen Deus, honorata, non in adorationem data. Mary was not God, and therefore is not to be adored: He professeth that he did rive a veil, that had painted in it the Image of Christ, or of some man▪ Cum ego videssem in Ecclesia Christi▪ contra authoritatem scripturarum, hominis pendere imaginem, scidi illud, &c.
but when and where this persecution was, none knoweth, for many times hath the Church been persecured for not worshipping Images; but see the answer of the learned dJewell thereunto; eEpiphanius, who lived, Anno 370. proveth against the3 Collyridiams, That Mary nor no creature should be adored. Ʋnde est simulachrificum hoc studium et diabolious conantus? praetext• enim 4justitiae sempersubiens hominum, mentem drabolus, mortalem naturam in hominum oculis deificans, Statuas humanas, imagines pre se ferentes per artum, veritatem expressit, et mortui quidem sunt qui adorantur: Item, Revera sanctum erat corpus Mariae, non tamen Deus, honorata, non in adorationem data. Mary was not God, and therefore is not to be adored: He professeth that he did rive a vail, that had painted in it the Image of Christ, or of some man▪ Cum ego videssem in Ecclesia Christi▪ contra authoritatem scripturarum, hominis pendere imaginem, scidi illud, &c.
dJewell against Harding 14. art. of adora•. pag. 506, 507.
eEpiphanius lib. 3. cont. Collyridianos.
3[f] Idem ibid.
4(g) Lactantius, institut. l. 2. cap. 2. Etenim hominis imago necessaria tum videtur, cum procul abest, supervacua futura cum presto est, dei autem cujus spiritus ac numen ubique diffusum, abesse nunquam potest, semper utique imago supervacua est. The Arguments of the ancients against Images.
Lactantius Formianus, Images are to represent these who are absent. God is every where present, it is vanity therefore to form an image of God. Also hThere is no Religion, where there is an image: Also ⟨p. 183⟩iyour gods be either in Heaven, or not; if they be not in Heaven, why do ye worship them? If they be in Heaven, why do ye not lift your eyes to Heaven while you adore them? Why do you convert your eyes toward walls, stocks and stones, rather then toward that place where you imagine your gods to be?
Lactantius Formianus, Images are to represent these who are absent. God is every where present, it is vanity therefore to forme an image of God. Also hThere is no Religion, where there is an image: Also ⟨p. 183⟩iyour gods be either in Heaven, or not; if they be not in Heaven, why do ye worship them? If they be in Heaven, why do ye not lift your eyes to Heaven while you adore them? Why do you convert your eyes toward walls, stocks and stones, rather then toward that place where you imagine your gods to be?
hLactantius lib. 2. cap. 19.
iIb. Cur ad parietes & signa, & lapides potissimum quam illo spectatis, ubi cos esse credatis. ib. instit. div. l. 2. c. 1.
kHis Arguments against Images be these: l1. They forget reason, when they fear the work of their own hands: 2. mGod is not absent, but present every where: 3. nThe image is a dead thing void of sense, God is the eternal and everliving God: 4. oNothing mortal should be worshipped. 5. pWhat vanity to hope for protection from these things, which cannot defend themselves • 6. qThe image is less and viler then the worshipper: 7. rMan according to Gods image, is the image of God. 8. (s) God needeth nothing, neither torches because he made the light, nor images. This man lived, Anno 300. Before which time the Church of Christ being persecuted, they had no Churches, nor Images to be ornaments in their Churches, as saith (t) Ambrosius, and also uChrysostom, who was displeased with the fooleries in Temples in his time, and saith, They were not like the Temples of the Apostolic Churches: and xTertullian, and yEusebius saith, They had then, Simplices domos, Simple houses, void of paintries and pictures: And the want of Temples was objected against Christian Religion, as zOrigen cleareth in the time of Constantine, the son of Chlorus, as saith, aSozomen, and bEusebius, Temples were builded, but as cJoan. Quintinus expoundeth Tertullian, without the ornaments of images, and dTertullian himself maketh building of Altars, and portraits, Idol•tricos cultus, Idolatrous worship. In the forty years space, betwixt the reign of Valerian, and the 19. year of Diocletian, there were Oratories and Temples builded, but neither painted Pictures, nor Images in them, as saith [e] Eusebius: Yea, of thirty Bishops of Rome, even from Peter and Paul to Sylvester, and Constantine the Emperor; to wit, three hundred years, there were none, who were not persecuted to blood, or to death, or some other way. It is a vain thing to say, they had breathing time to build17⟨p. 184⟩Temples, and erect Altars, and golden Images of Christ, and the Virgin Mary, and the Saints. It is true, in the two hundred year after Christ, under Alexander Severus, Gordianus, Philippus, Gallienus; Churches were builded, as fNicephorus saith, but again under Diocletian they were demolished to the ground, but observe well there were no Images of Christ broken, which that Tyrant in despite of Christ, would not have omitted; see gEusebius, they were builded again under great Constantine, so hSozomen, iOtho Phrisingensis kand Nicephorus.
kHis Arguments against Images be these: l1. They forget reason, when they fear the work of their own hands: 2. mGod is not absent, but present every where: 3. nThe image is a dead thing void of sense, God is the eternall and everliving God: 4. oNothing mortall should be worshipped. 5. pWhat vanity to hope for protection from these things, which cannot defend themselves • 6. qThe image is lesse and viler then the worshipper: 7. rMan according to Gods image, is the image of God. 8. (s) God needeth nothing, neither torches because he made the light, nor images. This man lived, Anno 300. Before which time the Church of Christ being persecuted, they had no Churches, nor Images to be ornaments in their Churches, as saith (t) Ambrosius, and also uChrysostom, who was displeased with the fooleries in Temples in his time, and saith, They were not like the Templ•s of the Apostolick Churches: and xTertullian, and yEusebius saith, They had then, Simplices domos, Simple houses, void of paintries and pictures: And the want of Temples was objected against Christian Religion, as zOrigen cleareth in the time of Constantine, the son of Chlorus, as saith, aSozomen, and bEusebius, Temples were builded, but as
kinstit. l. 2. c. 2.
lIbid.
mInstit. l 2. c. 3.
nInstit. l. 2. c. 4.
oInstit. l. 2. c. 18.
pIbid.
qInstit. l. 6. c. 11.
rAmbros. officior l. 2. cap. 21.
uChrys. l. 2. epist. 246.
xTertullian apol et c•nt. valent.
yEusebius hist. ec. l. 9. c 10.
zOrigen cont. cles. l. 9. c. 4.
aSozomen l. 1. c. 8.
bEuseb. in vita constan. l. •.
cJoan Armitants in explan••io can 5. concilii gangren
dTertull. lib. de Idol. Plutarch in vitae Numae non dum ingenia Grecorum atque Tuscorum fingendis simulachris urbem inundaverunt, ita Tertullian, Apol. c. 25.
The dream of Platina, for the building of a Church, by the donation of Constantine, with twelve portions of earth, equal to the number of the twelve Apostles, and of another Church, with the title of the holy Cross at Jerusalem, which Helena found in that place, and Constantine placed in this Church at Rome, is refuted by lHospinian: yet is there no word of any Images in these Churches.
The dream of Platina, for the building of a Church, by the donation of Constantine, with twelve portions of earth, equall to the number of the twelve Apostles, and of another Church, with the title of the holy Crosse at Ierusalem, which Helena found in that place, and Constantine placed in this Church at Rome, is refuted by lHospinian: yet is there no word of any Images in these Churches.
mArnobius An. 330. maintaineth against the heathen, that the Christians ought to have no Images: 1. Because the device of images is a novelty, and was not before two thousand years, but God and Religion are no new things. 2. nBecause either the Gods dwelleth in their images, against their will, or of their own accord; if the former be said, they are compelled, which is absurd. If the latter, then they do either bide always in their images, and so are miserable, or they go out of the images when they please, and then the images are empty things.
mArnobius An. 330. maintaineth against the heathen, that the Christians ought to have no Images: 1. Because the device of images is a novelty, and was not before two thousand years, but God and Religion are no new things. 2. nBecause either the Gods dwelleth in their images, against their will, or of their own accord; if the former be said, they are compelled, which is absurd. If the latter, then they do either bide alwayes in their images, and so are miserable, or they go out of the images when they please, and then the images are empty things.
That could not be: 1. Because his manhood was joined with his Godhead, and could not be separated therefrom. 2. Because his Godhead cannot be represented, Mortuis, & inanimatis coloribus, with dead and lifeless colours. bHieronimus, who lived, An. 331. under Constantine, denieth that any Creature, Angel, or Virgin Mary should be worshipped. cRuffinus faith, Helena the mother of Constantine adored crucified Christ, but antiquity saith not, that she adored the nails that fixed him to the Cross, because they were but creatures.
That could not be: 1. Because his manhood was joyned with his Godhead, and could not be separated therefrom. 2. Because his Godhead cannot be represented, Mortuis, & inanimatis coloribus, with dead and livelesse colours. bHieronimus, who lived, An. 331. under Constantine, denyeth that any Creature, Angel, or Virgin Mary should be worshipped. cRuffinus faith, Helena the mother of Constantine adored crucified Christ, but antiquity saith not, that she adored the nails that fixed him to the Crosse, because they were but creatures.
Vrspergensis saith that this synod did write a book against the second Councell of Nice, called otherwise the seventh generall Councell. A booke came out▪ in France, and after in Germany under the name of Charles the Great, condemning by strong reasons the adoration of Images, and answereth all the arguments of the Nicene Fathers on the contrary, Tannerus the Iesuite saith this was a forged Booke.
Synod Frankfort.Synod Franckford.
sAventinus lib. 4.
tHincmarus cap. 20. contra Jandu••ns•m.Hincmarus cap. 20. contra Iandu••ns•m.
wUrspergens. in Histor.Vrspergens. in Histor.
Ireneus, the disciple
⟨p. 182⟩
of Polycarpus, an hearer of John the Apostle maketh it the Heresie of the Gnosticks, that they held that Pilate made the Image of Iesus: Et quod imagines baberent Christi, Apostolorum atque Philosophorum▪ easque coronarent, ac colendas propo•erent.
Origen said, The Images of Christians are Christians indeed, with Gods Image: and, Nos veno ideo non honor amus simulachrá, quia quantū possumus, cavemnus, ne in•idamus in eam crudelitatem, ut et iis tribuamus divinitatis aliquid.
Grave Athanasius saith, 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 The invention of Images is from an evil fountain, and not from good, and whatsoever hath a bad beginning, cannot be deemed in any thing good, being altogether bad: The Papist Harding bringeth in a counterfeit Dialogue of Athanasius, betwixt Christ and his Church; and Christ comforting his Church, because she was persecuted for worshipping Christs Image;
Tertullian himself maketh building of Altars, and portracts, Idol•tricos cultus, Idolatrous worship. In the fourty years space, betwixt the reign of Valerian, and the 19. year of Dicclesian, there were Oratories and Temples builded, but neither painted Pictures, nor Images in them, as saith [e] Eusebius: Yea, of thirty Bishops of Rome, even from Peter and Paul to Sylvester, and Constantine the Emperour; to wit, three hundred years, there were none, who were not persecuted to blood, or to death, or some other way. It is a vain thing to say, they had breathing time to build
Temples, and erect Altars, and golden Images of Christ, and the Virgin Mary, and the Saints. It is true, in the two hundreth year after Christ, under Alexander Severus, Gordianus, Philippus, Gallienus; Churches were builded, as
Nicephorus saith, but again under Dioclesian they were demolished to the ground, but observe well there were no Images of Christ broken, which that Tyrant in despite of Christ, would not have omitted; see
