he was in the flesh, was made by Pilate; and these images they worshipped, as did the Gentiles: these things they did, but against these things the Christians did zealously and piously declare: "We have no image in the world," said St. Clemens of Alexandria: "It is apparently forbidden to us to exercise that deceitful art: for it is written, Thou shalt not make any similitude of any thing in heaven above," &c. And Origen wrote a just treatise against Celsus, in which he not only affirms, "That Christians did not make or use images in religion, but that they ought not, and were, by God, forbidden to do so. To the same purpose, also, Lactantius discourses to the emperor, and confutes the pretences and little answers of the heathen in that manner, that he leaves no pretence for Christians, under another cover, to introduce the like abomination.

d

We are not ignorant, that those, who were converted from Gentilism, and those who loved to imitate the customs of the Roman princes and people, did soon introduce the historical use of images, and, according to the manner of the world, did think it honourable to depict or make images of those whom they had in great esteem; and that this being done by an esteem, relying on religion, did, by the weakness of men, and the importunity of the tempter, quickly pass into inconvenience and superstition; yet even in the time of Julian the emperor, St. Cyril denies *, that the Christians did give veneration and worship to the image, even of the cross itself, which was one of the earliest temptations; and St. Epiphanius (it is a known story) tells, that when, in the village of Bethel, he saw a cloth picture," as it were, of Christ, or some saint in the church, against the authority of Scripture;" he cut it in pieces, and advised that some poor man should be buried in it; affirming," that such pictures are against religion, and unworthy of the church of Christ." The epistle was translated into Latin by St. Jerome; by which we may guess at his opinion in the question.

The council of Eliberis is very ancient, and of great fame; in which it is expressly forbidden, that what is worshipped should be depicted on the walls; and that, there

d Cont. Cels. lib. vii. et viii.

e

Epist. ad Joh. Hieros.

Can. 36. Placuit picturas in ecclesia esse non debere, ne, quod colitur aut adoratur, in parietibus depingatur.

fore, pictures ought not to be in churches. St. Austin, complaining that he knew of many in the church, who were worshippers of pictures, calls them 'superstitious;' and adds, that the church condemns such customs, and strives to correct them;' and St. Gregory, writing to Serenus, bishop of Massilia, says, 'he would not have had him to break the pictures and images, which were there set for an historical use; but commends him for prohibiting any one to worship them, and enjoins him still to forbid it.' But superstition, by degrees, creeping in, the worship of images was decreed in the seventh synod, or the second Nicene. But the decrees of this synod being, by pope Adrian", sent to Charles the Great, he convocated a synod of German and French bishops, at Frankfort, who discussed the acts passed at Nice, and condemned them: and the acts of this synod, although they were diligently suppressed by the pope's arts, yet Eginardus, Hincmarus, Aventinus, Blondus, Adon, Aymonius, and Regino, famous historians, tell us, that the bishops of Frankfort condemned the synod of Nice, and commanded it should not be called a general council;' and published a book under the name of the emperor, confuting that unchristian assembly; and not long since, this book, and the acts of Frankfort, were published by bishop Tillius; by which, not only the infinite fraud of the Roman doctors is discovered, but the worship of images is declared against and condemned.

A while after this, Ludovicus, the son of Charlemagne, sent Claudius, a famous preacher, to Taurinum in Italy, where he preached against the worshipping of images, and wrote an excellent book to that purpose. Against this book, Jonas, bishop of Orleans, after the death of Ludovicus and Claudius, did write: in which he yet durst not assert the worship of them, but confuted it out of Origen, whose words he thus cites: "Images are neither to be esteemed by inward affection, nor worshipped with outward show:" and out of Lactantius these: "Nothing is to be worshipped, that is seen with mortal eyes; let us adore, let us worship nothing, but the name alone of our only Parent, who is to be

De Morib. Eccles. lib. i, c. 34. Idem de Fide et Symbolo. c. 7. et contr. Adimant. c. 13.

A. D. 764.

sought for in the regions above, not here below:" and to the same purpose, he also alleges excellent words out of Fulgentius and St. Jerome; and though he would have images retained, and, therefore, was angry at Claudius, who caused them to be taken down, yet he himself expressly affirms, that they ought not to be worshipped; and withal adds, that though they kept the images in their churches for history and ornament, yet that, in France, the worshipping of them was had in great detestation. And though it is not to be denied, but that, in the sequel of Jonas's book, he does something prevaricate in this question; yet it is evident, that, in France, this doctrine was not accounted catholic for almost nine hundred years after Christ; and in Germany, it was condemned for almost one thousand two hundred years, as we find in Nicetas.

We are not unskilled in the devices of the Roman writers, and with how much artifice they would excuse this whole matter, and palliate the crime imputed to them, and elude the Scriptures expressly condemning this superstition: but we know also, that the arts of sophistry are not the ways of salvation. And, therefore, we exhort our people to follow the plain words of Scripture, and the express law of God in the second commandment; and add also the exhortation of St. John, "Little children, keep yourselves from idols." To conclude; it is impossible but that it must be confessed, that the worship of images was a thing unknown to the primitive church; in the purest times of which, they would not allow the making of them; as, amongst divers others, appears in the writings of Clemens Alexandrinus', Tertulliana and Qrigen".

SECTION IX.

As an appendage to this, we greatly reprove the custom of the church of Rome, in picturing God the Father, and the most holy and undivided Trinity: which, besides that it

Lib. ii. c. 22. advers. Marcion. et de Idololatr. c. 3.
Cont. Celsum, lib. iv.

* 1 John, v. 21.

ministers infinite scandal to all sober-minded men, and gives the new Arians, in Polonia, and antitrinitarians, great and ridiculous entertainment, exposing that sacred mystery to derision and scandalous contempt; it is also (which at present we have undertaken particularly to remark) against the doctrine and practice of the primitive catholic church.

6

St. Clemens of Alexandria says, that in the discipline of Moses, God was not to be represented in the shape of a man, or of any other thing:' and that Christians understood themselves to be bound by the same law, we find it expressly taught by Origen, Tertullian, Eusebius, Athanasius, St. Jerome, St. Austins, St. Theodoret ; Damascen1, and the synod of Constantinople, as is reported in the sixth action of the second Nicene council. And certainly, if there were not a strange spirit of contradiction, or superstition, or deflection, from the Christian rule, greatly prevailing in the church of Rome, it were impossible that this practice should be so countenanced by them, and defended so, to no purpose, with so much scandal, and against the natural reason of mankind, and the very law of nature itself: for the heathens were sufficiently, by the light of nature, taught to abominate all pictures or images of God.

Sed nulla effigies, simulacraque nota Deorum
Majestate locum et sacro implevere timore *.

They, in their earliest ages, had " no pictures, no images of their gods: their temples were filled with majesty and a sacred fear." And the reason is given by Macrobius': "Antiquity made no image," viz. of God;" because the supreme God, and the Mind that is born of him,” that is, his Son, the eternal Word, " as it is beyond the soul, so it is above nature, and, therefore, it is not lawful, that figments should come thither."

Nicephorus Callistus", relating the heresy of the Armenians and Jacobites, says, they made images of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; " Quod perquàm absurdum est:"

a Stromat. lib. i.

c De Corona Militis.

e Orat. contra Gentes.

De Fide et Symbol. c. 7. iDe Orthod. Fide, lib. iv. c. 17. 1 In Somn. Scip. lib. i. c. 2.

b Contra Celsum, lib. vìì.

d Præp. Evang. lib. i. c. 5.

f In c. 40. Isa.

h In Deut. q. 1.

Sil. Ital. iii. 30. Ruperti, v. i. p. 177.
Lib. xviii. c. 53.

Nothing is more absurd" than to make pictures or images of the persons of the holy and adorable Trinity. And yet they do this in the church of Rome: for in the windows of their churches, even in country villages, where the danger cannot be denied to be great, and the scandal insupportable; nay, in their books of devotion, in their very mass-books and breviaries, in their portuises and manuals, they picture the holy Trinity with three noses, and four eyes, and three faces, in a knot, to the great dishonour of God, and scandal of Christianity itself. We add no more (for the case is too evidently bad), but reprove the error with the words of their own Polydore Virgil": "Since the world began, never was any thing more foolish than to picture God, who is present every where."

SECTION X.

THE last instance of innovations introduced in doctrine and practice by the church of Rome, that we shall represent, is, that of the pope's universal bishoprick; that is, not only that he is bishop of bishops, superior to all and every one; but that his bishoprick is a plenitude of power; and as for other bishops, of his fulness they all receive,' a part of the ministry and solicitude; and not only so, but that he only is a bishop by immediate Divine dispensation, and others receive from him whatsoever they have: for to this height many of them are come at last. Which doctrine, although as it is in sins, where the carnal are most full of reproach, but the spiritual are of greatest malignity; so it happens in this article. For, though it be not so scandalous as their idolatry, so ridiculous as their superstitions, so unreasonable as their doctrine of transubstantiation, so easily reproved as their half-communion, and service in an unknown tongue; yet it is of as dangerous and evil effect, and as false, and as certainly an innovation, as any thing in their whole conjugation of errors.

When Christ founded his church, he left it in the hands of his apostles, without any prerogative given to one, or eminency above the rest, save only of priority and orderly