1.32 not to signify any supposed likeness of him which is impossible but only to present him to the mind of the beholder in the doing some action of his which is in effect to do the very same thing in a table which the word Jehovah or God would do in a Book I conceive not what charge could be laid on it at least what degree or spice of Idolatry unless I must be thought to worship the Name of God because I write or read it Thus He. And to Mr. Spencer's urging the lawfulness of representing God as he hath pleased in the former Visions to represent himself Dr. Fern Answ to Spencer p. 57. answers ' That the representations of these Visions are tolerable And if of these Visions tolerable why not also of some part of them As the Ancient of Days sitting on a Throne to represent his coming to Judgment Or the figure of a Dove to signify a peculiar presence and assistance of the Holy Ghost where nothing untrue or unwarranted by Scripture is designed the care and over-sight of which is committed to the Church Governors And these thus represented why may not the same reverence be given to such figures recommended to us by such sacred Scripture-Apparitions as is to other representations of sacred Persons our Lord or his Saints limned or drawn in the like stories and why may not those Persons of the Trinity be worshiped before such Symbolical Figures or Representations of them if our Lord Christ may before his Of which more hereafter Only provided this difference always be put that we imagine no true resemblance of the Person in the one as we do in the other and that our devotion reflect not on the similitude of the Person but of the Apparition and on the reality of some gracious operation thereof § 13 2 In none of these whether Metaphorical Representations of the Trinity or proper ones of our Lord or his Saints do Catholicks affirm or pretend any peculiar presence of the Deity of our Lord or of his Saints no Virtue either natural or accessory and derivative in any such Image for which it should be worshiped or honoured or trusted in or for which our Lord should be honoured or worshiped by it or our requests to have any more access or efficacy by or through any such Image to or upon its Exemplar or Person represented Or again the Exemplar any greater influence by or through it upon those who supplicate him before it Nor seemeth the Expression of the Council of Trent Sess 25. Per Imagines quas osculamur coram quibus caput aperimus procumbimus Christum adoramus cujus illae similitudinem gerunt to have any other meaning than this That per osculationem imaginum and apertionem capitis c. coram illis adoramus Prototypum that by or in that inferior reverence and respect we give to them we testify the Honor or Adoration we bear to him they represent to us as appears also by the words of the Council immediately preceding Non quod credatur c. sed quoniam honos qui eis exhibetur i. e. that Cult given them expresly declared inferior by the Council of Nice to whose explication the Council of Trent referrs us refertur ad Prototypa quae illae representant In which sense it is noted by Estius 3. Sent. Dist 9. § 3. that this Saying of St. Basil and some others Quod Honor Imaginis transit in Prototypum is taken both by the second Council of Nice by Pope Adrian Resp Carol. c. 8. by Damascen De Fid. Orthod 4. l. 17. c. and also is understood to be taken so and in such sense disputed against by the Caroline Books l. 3. c. 16. and not in that other sense applied to it by some Schoolmen As the Honor done to his Image or to the Chair of State redounds to the honor of the Prince yet is not the same we give to the Prince Thus then per Imagines we worship the Prototype but not as if by or thro these Images as a more advantageous or acceptable medium of our service we direct our proper worship to the Prototype as some Protestants seem willing to mistake it Or if any will have the Council to speak here not of the inferior Adoration terminated in the Image but of the supreme given to the Prototype then the Council in these words Per Imaginem Christum adoramus must be understood to use per only to signify the motive or occasion of our worship As that Saying of St. Gregory Epist 7. l. 53. long ago expresseth it Et nos quidem ante Imaginem Salvatoris non quasi ante Divinitatem prosternimur sed illum adoramus quem per Imaginem aut natum aut passum c recordamur But I say tho Catholicks may thus make the Image or rather our beholding it a medium of exciting the Remembrance and so the Love Honor Worship of the Exemplar yet they make it no medium of the foresaid worship to the Exemplar or Prototype Non quod credatur saith the Council of Trent Sess 25. inesse aliqua in its virtus propter quam sint colendae vel quod fiducia in iis sit figenda Lastly Catholicks pretend no advantage in the use of such Images either to render our Prayers or Worship more acceptable to God or his Saints or more effectual to us save so far as the frequent beholding such Representations may excite and increase our devotion affection and love and imitation of their Virtues c. and this devotion fection imitation obtain a more gracious acceptance and reward § 14 Neither have the solemn Benedictions of Images used in the Church any such design as to derive from above any special virtue into them but only as in all other benedictions of God's Creatures to implore God's blessing on them for that purpose to which they are made use of viz. Ut quoties illas Imagines sive effigies oculis corporeis intuemur toties eorum in quorum memoriam honorem adaptantur Actus sanctitatem ad imitandum memoriae oculis meditemur And Ut quicunque coram illis imaginibus talem Sanctum honorare studùerit Illius precibus obtentu a Deo gratiam in praesenti aeternam gloriam obtineat in futuro Where the reward follows the devotion of the Supplicant not any virtue of the Picture And if some Pictures or Images happen to be frequented with mens Prayers I mean to the Person represented by them more than others because some Miracles have bin done as in some holy Places more than in some others so where some Holy Pictures or Images are more than where some others yet are such Miracles no more affirmed to be done by any virtue of such Images which is by the Church declared to be none at all in any Non quod credatur inesse aliqua in iis virtus than by the virtue of such Holy Place But only from God's good pleasure a reason
excellentiori But herein is Vasquez censured by others as mistaken that he thought all inferior honor and veneration to be necessarily such a submission tanquam excellentiori Meanwhile a late Protestant Writer Stillingfl Rom. Idol c. 1. § 11. p. 104. hath very uncandidly made use of this passage of his to shew Catholicks confessed to be Idolaters whether they say they give a supreme or whether an inferior worship to Images even by the testimony of their own Writers For as he urgeth Bellarmin saith to give Latria or the supreme and self same Worship that is given God to an Image is Idolatry which as said by Bellarmin so is granted and then Vasquez he citing this Passage saith that he who gives an inferior worship distinct from the Prototype to an Image is also an Idolater Thus that Author But for this later Vasquez first restrains the inferior worship he speaks of submissio animi and servitus tanquam excellentiori and next saith that such a one is either Iconolatra i. e. if he gives it to such a thing as superlatively excellent but then such worship given to an Image tanquam bono summo excellentissimo cannot rightly be called an inferior worship of if called so Catholicks in such a sense renounce it and grant it to be Idolatry Or he is Iconodulos which later is most true and as said by Vasquez so will not be denied by Bellarmin or any other rational person Thus then a supreme worship given to Images according to Bellarmin is Idolatry and an inferior Worship also given to Images according to a sense Vasquez gives of it is Iconolatry Whilst meanwhile an inferior worship given to Images in the Catholick's sense thereof neither exhibited to them ut bono excellentissimo nor excellentiori se is very innocent and lawful Of which sense of Vasquez thus Cardinal Lugo De Incarnatione Disp 36. § 3. n. 36. Non possumus prudenter concipere allam prorsus adorationem respectu Imaginis qua submittimus nos illi praeferentes illam nobis hoc enim esset stultum mendacium quia absolute loquendo meliores sumus nos quam Imago S. Petri. Ergo prudenter operando debemus nosmetipsos praeferre imagini tanquam digniores excellentiores Nemo ergo potest dicere quod adoratio Imagnis includat etiam talem internam submissionem nec de hoc potest esse rationabilis controversia But then by the inferior honor or worship not only external but interior also that is allowed by Catholicks to Images is not meant any such submission as to a thing more excellent than the honourer as Vasquez supposeth but only a certain internal esteem of it as well as external respect to it for some nearer relation it hath as a Picture hath by its similitude to some Person that is honoured by us as more excellent than our selves which our esteem of the Exemplar we have a mind to shew not to the Picture but to others or also to the Exemplar it self by the external gestures and civilities we perform to or before his Image of which I shall speak more particularly below § 49. without which internal intention of shewing such exterior reverent treatment of such Image the external treatment it self seems insignificant And therefore Sunrez thus censures this Opinion That thus no honor at all is indeed allowed to the Image the external note signifying nothing when standing single and no internal intention of reverence or esteem at all to the same thing accompanying it See him in 3. Thom. Disp 54. § 5. Si interna intentio cultus non cadit in imaginem sed sola actio exterior or externa nota cultus circa illam versatur ex intentione colendi Exemplar ex ea non solum sequitur Imagines minus coli quam Exemplaria sed etiam sequitur illas non coli Thus Vasquez and St. Thomas and other ancient Schoolmen whose expressions he defends according to the sense he gives them in seeming to say so much beyond the Conciliary Decree of Nice are thought to say nothing at all or less than must be said to justify the truth of this Decree viz. That there is not only an empty external note but also some interior and real honor and respect due and given to Images § 38 To relate any further the Schoolmen's Expressions for shewing them innocent and harmless in this point would be only to embroil a matter which seems of it self sufficiently clear and the rather may be spared here because one would think no such diligence necessary to perswade that I say not some ignorant persons but the most learned in the Roman Church should downright affirm Divine Worship due to a Creature and that inanimate and scarce a substance On this matter thus Mr. Thorndike 'To say that the Image of our Lord is to be honoured as He is is perfect Idolatry But he who believes the Son to be of the Father's substance as all the Schoolmen do and his Picture to be his Picture as all mankind do cannot say so if he be in his wits Thus Mr. Thorndike Who then can easily believe such a thing of them who are granted to acknowledge neither any peculiar Divine Presence to such Image nor any other virtue in it and expresly grant that he who worships our Lord with latria before an Image doth no more give such honor to the Image than he that worships the King with Regal Honor gives the same regal honor also to his Cloaths to his Robes to his Purple to his Crown that he wears a Simile often used yet not devised by the Schoolmen but borrowed from St. Epiphanius In Anchorato and from St. Austine De Verbis Domini Serm. 58. Or no more than he that bows to our Lord at the naming of Jesus or at the producing or reading the Gospels worships in the same manner the Book of the Gospels or the Letters or Syllables of the Name Jesus For these Schoolmen hold Images and those other things capable of the worship of the Exemplar only in the same manner If Images of our Lord capable of Latria so the rest See Vasquez Ibid. Disp 108. c. 11. The Title of which Chapter is Eodem modo atque Imagines Nomen Jesus alias res sacras he names Crucem vasa sacra librum Evangeliorum c. esse adorandas And see Suarez Disp 54. § 6. And Lugo De Incarnat Disp 36. § 5 saying the same When Bellarmin speaks of giving to our Lord before an Image the cultus Latriae De Imag. 2. l. c. 23. he saith the Image here is neither suppositum quod adoratur nor ratio adorationis sed quiddam adjunctum and shares no more of this Honor than the Kings garments do of that we give the King and he saith that such Worship is applied to the Image only improprie per accidens De Imag. 2. l. 21. c. and then again to bring off this expression he saith Quod non dicitur nisi improprie
CONCERNING IMAGES AND IDOLATRY OXFORD Printed in the Year 1689. THE CONTENTS I. WHAT Image-Worship granted by Catholicks Idolatrous II. That all former Idolatries about Images are contained therein III. The Roman Doctrine and Practice free therefrom IV. What Image-Worship allowed by the Roman Church V. The Roman Church not chargeable with the Abuses in her Worship Conceded That it is Idolatrous I. 1. To Worship an Image made to represent a false God tho such God imagined to be spiritual immaterial not to resemble animate inhabit or give virtue to such Image § 2. 2. To make an Image of the true God and to worship him in by or before it as it truly representing his form of shape § 3. 3. To give Divine Worship wholly or in part to any Image made to represent either the likeness or any apparition of God or to an Image of our Lord Christ as to the mediate or immediate object of Divine Worship § 4. 4. To give any note of Honour appropriated to God to an Image tho intending no Divine Honour thereto where no invincible ignorance § 5. 5. To make an Image not of God but of an Angel or Cherub or other Figure and to worship God before it as a Symbol of his presence or as believing God particularly present to with or in it or God to give virtue to it or to others by it this grounded on no Divine Promise is a sort of Idolatry more or less excusable as the error of the judgment more or less voluntary § 6. II. 1. The Heathen by their Images worshiped not the one true but many and false Gods or Demons grosly erring in the Divine Attributes and communicating Divine Honours to their inferior false Gods § 7. 2. The Jews both at Sinai and Bethel worshiped not the God of Israel but the Calves and molten Images § 8 9. III. 1. The making any Figure of God is matter of opinion only and by some denied to be lawfully done Universally denied that any such Image may be made in the same manner as those of a Creature or our Lord to infer any form or shape proper to God Tho accounted lawful to represent any visible apparition of any Person of the Trinity § 12. 2. In neither the Metaphorical Representations of the Trinity nor those of our Lord or his Saints any particular presence of the Trinity our Lord or his Saints affirmed by Catholicks No Virtue in such Image for which to worship honour or confide therein Or to Honour or Worship our Lord thereby Or our Bequests rendred more prevalent with its Exemplar or Prototype thro or by It. Or the Exemplar by or thro it rendred more exorable to his Suppliants § 13. The Benediction of them not deriving virtue to them but imploring God's blessing on the users of them § 14. 3. No Prayer tho made before directed to an Image believed neither to be indued with life or inhabited by the Deity Neither sacrificed to nor honoured with any signs of a Sovereign Adoration § 15. 4. No Cult proper to the Exemplar in the relative veneration for the Persons sake represented thereby given to Images either Latria to those of our Lord and the Blessed Trinity Or Dulia to those of the Saints § 16. Shewn by the Councils of Nice 2. and Trent and other preceding Councils St. Gregory § 20 21 22. Concerning the Council of Franckfort the Caroline Books and the Reasons exhibited therein against Images § 25 26 c. No Honours from Lights Odours c. applied to Images Reliques Saints amount to Latria § 30.31 32. To which Council the Nicene or Franckfort Obedience due § 35. c. Concerning the Schoolmens Opinion herein § 37. c. 5. No external signs of Honour appropriated to God exhibited to Images No Sacrifice as in the Heathen and Jewish Idolatry § 30. 6. Protestants granting the Roman Church a true Church consequently free her Worship of Images from Idolatry § 41. IV 1. Catholicks maintain the use of Images many ways beneficial to fix or heighten Devotion excite Affections revive the Memory invite our Addresses and application to their Exemplars § 42. 2. Maintain also a Veneration properly due to Images in themselves as the proper Object of such Honour § 43. 3. But this only Relative not propter se but for the Exemplar's sake § 43. 4. Maintain the making using or worshiping so as is here asserted of Images not to be prohibited in the Decalogue 1. Because otherwise the prohibition of making or having an Image in any sense whatever would thus be inferred from the Text. 2 Because else such Worship must be extended to all Creatures But it seems unreasonable to hold either all Worship whatever to a Creature forbidden by the Decalogue Or that tho forbidding only Latria yet it forbids any Worship at all to Images Supposing all Worship of Images prohibited by the Decalogue yet if Images be worshiped by an inferiour Worship lawfully given to other things it may be a Sin but no Idolatry § 45. Some Divines denying any Worship whatever to Images deny also the making and using thereof and restrain this Precept as Temporal to the Jews Grant also the Jews not prohibited hereby the Adoration of other Sacred things hence inferring the prohibition of Image-Worship having in it nothing of Morality so that this Opinion is utterly unserviceable to Protestants who are pressed by many difficulties The Cherubim Brazen Serpent Solomon's framing several Figures as without so without breaking any Command § 46. 5. But this Worship or Respect of an Image not the same as to the Prototype or implying our submission to it or its excellency above us but relative inferior and such as is given to other appartinents of holy persons and the instruments of Religion all these being by the Councils and the Schoolmen compar'd and equall'd as defending Image-Worship § 47. 6. Veneration due to Holy things granted by Protestants § 48. 7. The Honours externally imparted to Images are baring the head bowing kissing embracing lights perfumes c internally an esteem of them for their relation to some nobler Object than our selves and an intention by our outward gestures to declare to persons of understanding the Exemplar or others the value we set on any thing so nearly relating to such holy Person § 49. 8. Not necessary that this esteem or reverent treatment of inanimate things for the sake of some sacred person they appertain to should therefore be the same of all things relating to such Person § 50. 9. The lawfulness of an inferior Veneration of Images being cleared no need to inquire whether the present practice herein be ancient and the modern use precisely the same as of former ages For what at any time is lawfully practised may at any time lawfully begin to be so And Antiquity in not condemning justifies the present Practice Scripture-example without a Precept is sufficient The non-practice argues not the Tradition not Apostolical § 53. Protestants grant Images
Images that the Gallican gave not to the Cross as is given to the Gospels and Holy Vessels And is this such an Adoration as is only due to God Or is Pope Adrian hard set to shew it was not so What means I say such loose and confused discourse ' If saith another Dr. Hammond Of Heresy § 9. n. 18. the Council of Nice define not for Adoration of Images then it is not rejected by us define not for Adoration doth he mean Adoration here as that Council declares they took it for Veneration And will Protestants allow this And if it doth define for Adoration then was it rejected by Franckfurt But means he here Adoration sicut Deificae Trinitati which Nice as well as Franckfurt rejected Or taken for Veneration which Franckfurt denies to Images indeed but allows to all other holy things viz. To the Image of the Cross tho not of our Lord and will that Doctor think we granting the one differ with us for the other What mean Protestants after the distinguishing and clear dealing of the Church to speak thus in the Clouds When they name Religious take heed of telling us what they mean by it or of touching the Catholick's explication of their meaning of it Do you understand by it say we any inferior veneration or reverence given to such things as are called sacred and used in our Religion and Service of God You your selves allow it and give it see below § 51. and the Gallican Bishops did so as much as Nice Do you mean supreme and divine Worship due only to God Catholicks deny it to any Creature as much as you Why is here made in Protestant Writers such a Petitio principii still Why are not the former Disputes contracted and this only discussed Whether sacred Images or Images of sacred Persons our Lord his Holy Mother and the Saints are without Idolatry capable of such a veneration as is or at least hath bin heretofore given generally by Christians to other holy things Or Whether the veneration also of some things not sacred if only done to them in such a manner as we honor or reverence things sacred amounts to Idolatry Or Whether he who acknowledgeth such adoration of Images as was anciently of the Cross maintains Idolatry Lastly Whether some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 supposed not granted in their expression as to the word Adoration or Religious yet these terms not used in the Council of Trent and only the one of them used but this explained and qualified in the Council of Nice can amount to Idolatry by their Doctrine § 20 This said from § 16. of the Church's explication of her terms to remove all jealousies and leave those excuseless who from equivocal words would asperse her Tenents Now I shall give a particular account of the proceeding of her Councils in stating this matter especially that of Nice referred to by that of Trent which made this Article concerning Images and some others in some hast for concluding the Council before the death of the Pope then dangerously sick The Decree of that Council Act. 7. runs thus Definimus venerandas saith that Council Sacras Imagines dedicandas in Templis sanctis Dei collocandas habendasque quo scilicet per hanc Imaginum pictarum inspectionem omnes qui contemplantur ad prototyporum memoriam recordationem desiderium veniant Illisque salutationem honorariam adorationem exhibeant non secundum fidem nostram veram latriam quae solum Divinae naturae competit sed quemadmodū typo venerandae vivificantis Crucis sanctis Evangeliis Reliquiis sacris oblationibus suffitorum luminarium reverenter accedimus where note that this latter Quemadmod um oblationibus suffitorum luminarium reverenter accedimus typo or what if they had said imagini venerandae vivificantis Crucis Sanctis Evangeliis Reliquiis sacris was the universal practice of the whole Church in those days whether Eastern or Western Iconoclasts or Catholicks See the same Declaration made by several members of this Council occurring often in the 2d 3d 4th and 6th Acts of it In this last the Iconoclasts then also accusing the Catholicks of exhibiting Latriam to their Images Epiphanius in his Reply exclaims O insanientem linguam quae Christianorum inculpatam fidem in simulachrorum arbitratur translatam culturam Nemo enim Christianorum eorum qui sub caelo sunt imagini latriam exhibuit Etenim hoc est Gentilium fabulamentum Daemonumque invocatio viz. to give latriam or Divine Worship to Images The same is reiterated by Adrian in his Answer to the Capitalare Act. 4. cap. 56. Qualiter in eorum explanaverunt definitione demonstrantes eis imaginibus osculum honorabilem salutationem reddere nequaquam secundum fidem nostram veram culturam quae decet solum divinam naturam And the Epistle of the Nicene Council to the Bishops hath these words Quare eas imagines honorabiliter adoramus salutamus idem enim significant haec duo verba This of the clear resolution and explication of that Council § 21 If we look before this Council into the times when first happened some Controversy about Images and examine the Tenet or Doctrine of St. Gregory consulted concerning it and which both the Nicene Council and Pope Adrian on one side and the Caroline Books and the Gallican Bishops on the other professed to correspond and concur with we do find him indeed denying adoration to Images but adoration taken strictly sicut Deo but yet allowing veneration to them as to other Holy Things as Pope Adrian also in his answer to the Caroline Books represents it to Charles the Great Thus He in his Epistle to Serenus 9. l. 9. Ep. Et quidem quia eas adorari vetuisses omnino laudavimus fregisse vero reprehendimus where the Reason of non-adoration rendred by him shews him to mean it of Adoration striclly so taken Quia saith he omne manu factum adorare non liceat quonian scriptum est Dominum Deum tuum adorabis illi soli servies So also in his Epistle to Secundinus l. 7. Ep. 53. sending to him a Picture of our Lord as Secundinus had requested of him He adds Scio quidem quod imaginem Salvatoris nostri non ideo petis ut quasi Deum colas By these two Dominum Deum tuum adorabis and non quasi Deum colas we see the Adoration he excepts against But then in the same Epistle he acknowledgeth a prostration before such Image as a thing lawful Et nos quidem non quasi ante Divinitatem ante illam the forementioned Image of our Lord prosternimur Sedillum adoramus quem per imaginem aut natum aut passum recordamur On which Pope Adrian in his Answer to Charles his Books c. 50. Act. 4. Sic Secundino docuit non quasi Deum colere sed ante easdem sacras imagines se prosternens non quasi ante Divinitatem ante ipsas
Trinitatem servitio aut adoratione non impenderent anathemata judicarentur Qui supra Sanctissimi Patres nostri omnimodis orationem servitutem eis renuentes contempserunt atque consentientes condemnaverunt Much dispute hath been and many reasons on either side produced concerning the true Decree of this Council whether it was for or against Adoration i. e. Veneration of Images Historians varying in this matter and the former published Acts of this Council containing nothing thereof But for the present we will suppose this forementioned Decree genuine i. e. grant all our Adversaries can desire and proceed only to examine how the Nicene Decree is any way debilitated thereby Desiring this on the other side to be granted me that Pope Adrian at least confirmed no such Decree of Franckfort upon these considerations 1. Both because Adrian professed to the Emperor his admitting and confirming the Decree of Nice 2. And also writ an Answer in defence of it to the Caroline Books and particularly Act. 3. c. 9. to that Chapter l. 3. c. 17. which chargeth the Nicene Synod with the very same error as this Franckfort Decree doth where he shews that the Nicene Synod maintained just the contrary And 3. because in some parts of that Answer he produceth two forementioned Councils held at Rome one of them by his immediate Predecessor Stephen IV. the delegated Bishops of France also consenting to have decreed the same Veneration of Images before that of Nice as also his Predecessor St. Gregory to have taught it And lastly because the Gallican Bishops assembled at Paris under Ludovicus Pius in 824 when the former transactions of Franckfort could not be unknown or forgotten accuse Pope Adrian for siding with and defending the Council of Nice and Adoration of Images not justly done if his latter Act at Franckfort was contrary to and condemned both the Council of Nice and consequently his own Answer Neither tho Ado in his Chronicle and so others after him mentions the presence of Pope Adrian's Legates in this Synod of Franckfort and they might be there and dissent yet do I see any probability thereof because there is no mention made of them as always useth to be in the Acts of this Council where there is of all the other members of it and of the presence of the Emperor Charles and it is also manifest that Pope Adrian's Epistle to the Spanish Clergy against Elipandus inserted in that Council was procured by Charles his Agents at Rome before its sitting § 25 After this to consider the Canon of Franckfort it self we see it condemns those that give such Adoration to the Images of Saints as to the Deifical Trinity which condemnation is such as both the Council of Nice and Adrian and the present Roman Church do willingly admit and subscribe to the Definition of Nice as appears before being point-blank opposite to any such Adoration Non secundum fidem nostram veram latriam quae solum Divinae naturae competit sed quemadmodum typo venerandae Crucis Sanctis Evangeliis c. Only the application of such a Tenet and such an Anathematisme to the Council of Nice is that which it is most manifest the Fathers at Franckfort erred in and the cause of such mistake seems to be that the Question indeed about Adoration and the report of such an Anathematisme by the Nicene Council in qua scriptum habebatur saith the Franckfort Decree was allata in medium but not the Copy it self or if the Copy that Copy must be false for in express words the true Copies have no such thing but just the contrary For we see that the Copy of the Acts of this Council tho it is granted well known to the Author of the Caroline Books and to the Assembly at Paris some twenty years after this at Franckfort yet was not common in the West or came into many hands insomuch also as that it was unknown to St. Thomas and the ancient Schoolmen Hence that much cited Passage of Hincmar a Writer of those times Contra Hincmar Laudun c. 20. Septima autem apud Graecos vocata universalis Pseudo-Synodus de Imaginibus quas quidam confringendas quidam autem adorandas dicebant neutra pars intellectu sano definiens sine authoritate Apostolicae Sedis non longe ante nostra tempora Niceae est a compluribus Episcopis habita Romam missa quam etiam Papa Romanus in Franciam direxit unde tempore Caroli Magni Imperatoris jussione Apostolicae Sedis generalis Synodus in Francia convocante praefato Imperatore celebrata secundum Scripturarum tramitem traditionemque majorum ipsa Graecorum Pseudo-Synodus destructa est penitus abdicata de cujus destructione non modicum volumen quod in Palatio adolescentulus legi ab eodem Imperatore Romam est per quosdam Episcopos missum is found to have many mistakes in it 1. who first mentions the Constantinopolitan and the Nicene as one Council divided into two extremes in their Opinion 2. that it was held without the authority of the Roman Bishop which Error the Caroline Books had spread in the West tho the Acts of the Nicene Council often make clear the contrary mention the presence of his Legates and in Actione 2. recite Pope Adrian's Synodical Epistle sent by them fully agreeing with the judgment of the Council concerning veneration of Images in such manner as other holy things 3. That Pope Adrian having received a Copy of it sent it to Charles and that by the Pope's Order a General Synod was called by the Emperor in France he saith but surely means this of Franckfort wherein the Greek Pseudo-Synod was condemned and that a large Book written of the condemation of it meaning the Caroline Books was sent from Charles by some Bishops to the Pope whereas such Books were written indeed but long before the Synod of Franckfort and so the Volume sent to Adrian not by some Bishops of the Council but by Engilbert an Abbot a Favourite of Charles and so answered by him probably before this Council which was assembled indeed by the Apostolick Authority but upon another occasion the Heresy of Elipandus Lastly the Nicene Council maintaining Adoration of Images but in a much more mitigated sense than Hincmare and the Gallican Bishops all deceived by the Caroline Books apprehended it The same mis-opinion of this Council of Nice also had Jonas Aurelianensis who writing against Claudius Taurinensis an Iconoclast yet declares himself also an enemy to the Adorers of Images Quod cum sciant saith he Imaginibus nil inessc Divini majors invectione digni sunt quod honorem debitum Divinitati impendant egeno infirmo simulachro atque idipsum nonnullis Orientalium qui eodem sceleratissimo errori mancipantur respondere solere In like manner seems the Synod of Franckfort not having seen nor perhaps the Emperor I know not by what miscarriage or concealment the Acts of Nice or Adrian's Answer to have bin deceived by
the Caroline Books divulged some years before and exhibited in that Synod § 26 And the particular mistake in the Caroline Books which occasioned the Franckfort Canon seems to be contained in the 3. l. 17. c. where the words of Constantine a Cyprian Bishop in his Vote 2. Counc Nice Act. approving the Synodical Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs runs thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is Concors efficior suscipiens amplectens honorabiliter sanctas venerabiles Imagines Atque Adorationem quae secundum Latriam soli supersubstantiali vivificae Trinitati emitto Et non ita sentientes Anathemati svbjicio But the Caroline Books give it thus Se suscepturum amplexurum honorabiliter Imagines servitium Adorationis or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod consubstantiali vivificatrici Trinitati debetur ei se redditurum Here mistaking at least in the sense ei for eis as afterward in the same Chapter where he recites it it is not ei but illis and referring it not to Trinitati but Imaginibus and then carried away with Passion the Author of the Capitulare forementioned saith Caeteris consentientibus because none of the other Bishops censured this vote at all Nor had they reason as Constantine delivered it And then having thus made this passage his own tho he read the Decree of the Council point-blank opposite Non veram Latriam quae solum Divinae naturae convenit c and so the whole current of the Discourse of that Council yet it is clear to him that all that is but palliated stuff and this one Bishop speaks the true Opinion of them all His words in that Chapter are Errorem detegit this Bishop infaustum quem illi videntur plebibus ingerere palliatum Aiunt enim Non adoramus imagines ut Deum nec illis divini servitii cultum impendimus sed dum illas aspicimus adoramus illò mentis nostrae acumen difigimus ubi eos quorum illae sunt esse non ignoramus at contra iste illorum detegens errorem suam pandens absque ulla obumbratione cogitationem fatetur se quale Sanctae Trinitati tale illis exhibere servitium talemque adorationem sicque absurditatem quam illi introrsus retinent latenter hanc iste egerit patenter Thus he whereas the highest word this Bishop spake of the honor of Images is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so proceeds to the censure of his anathematizing the dissenters By all which it appears this is the very place most grosly mistaken on which the Franckfort Fathers grounded their Canon condemning as they had reason such an impious Anathema And thus by giving credit to the Caroline Books one Bishops vote mistaken to say the contrary to what it doth passeth for the true but concealed and palliated meaning of the whole Council and its plain Declaration in the publick Decree Non veram Latriam afterward also often pressed by Pope Adrian is not admitted to be heard against it This discovery is none of mine but Dr. Hammond's candid dealing in this matter who saith it is a plain calumny to that Bishop He is seconded also herein by Mr. Thorndike Epilog l. 3. p. 363. ' It is to be granted saith he that whosoever it was who writ the Book against Images under the name of Charles the Great did understand the Council of Nice to enjoyn the worship of God to be given to the Image of our Lord for of any other Image of God there was no question in that Council but it is not to be denied that it was a meer mistake c. Again That the Decree of the second Council of Nice enjoines no Idolatry I must maintain as unquestionable supposing the Premises The honor we give to an Image is not the honor we give to the Principal but only by the equivocating of terms according to the Decree of the Council and therefore that honor of Images which the Decree maintaineth is no Idolatry And in Just Weights p. 128. Tho this Council acknowledgeth that that Image it self of our Lord is honoured by the honor given before the Image to that which it signifieth yet It distinguisheth this honor from the honor of our Lord and therefore teacheth not Idolatry by teaching to honor Images Thus he vindicates this Council both from the censure of some Protestants Idolatry and from that of Franckfort and the Caroline Books not so rigorous In which Books I grant this Doctrine of Divine Worship given to Images to be imputed to the Greeks not only in the forementioned Chapter but frequently elsewhere as in 3. l. 24. c. 4. l. 21. c. but no other proof of it any where produced but only this passage of Constantine the Cyprian Bishop and their using the word Adoration which after the application of it in Scripture to inferior worships nay by the Censurers of Nice to the Cross and were there none of these after the Councill's explication of their innocent meaning so that they can be charged only with the abuse of a word not error in the sense seems great injustice And so also seems that 2. l. 27. c. Si omnes Imaginum adoratione carentes secundum illorum falsissimam opinionem pereunt infantes Baptismatis unda loti Corporis Dominici edulio Sanguinis haustu satiati qui necdum Imagines adorare valuerunt sic e saeculo migraverunt pereunt And so the same Author 's accusing them for passing such Decrees without the consulting or approbation of the Apostolick See when in the very beginning of the Acts of the Council the Roman Legates are the first that are named and Act. 2. set down and recited in the Council Pope Adrian's Epistle maintaining the Veneration of Images But however these things be Catholicks stand both to the Decree of Nice and Franckfort as to what the former affirms so to what the later condemns both well agreeing both most orthodox the later only erring in this that they condemned it as the Greeks Opinion of whom it is most manifest that they profest the contrary § 27 If here it be said that the Fathers of Franckfort justly charged those of Nice to have allowed to Images Honors truely Divine tho they acknowledge meanwhile of them that they denied as also the Roman-Catholicks now do those Honors to be truly Divine which they allowed I answer That then those of Franckfort or others since ought to instance what particular Honor that is given by Nice to Images that is held due only to the Deity Now first for the interior Honor which is given to any thing none can censure others for this none can know and therefore none can affirm of what sort it is of which thus Spalatensis well 7. l. 12. c. 47. n. Distinctio Latriae Duliae Hyperduliae aliarum inferiorum adorationum ex solo hominis interno pendet quod internum non substat Ecclesiae judicio And it is well gathered by him there that it was something external
said or acted by which Serenus perceived the Massilians to give to Images an undue Adoration Next then for exterior Honor all that I find professed by those of Nice or objected by those of Franckfort is not giving to them any Divine Attribute or Virtue not Sacrificing or erecting Temples Praying to them c but osculari amplecti salutare whether by uncovering the head or kneeling or prostration oblatis perlustrare luminaribus odoriferis thymiamatibus honorare besides using the term adorare taken in a general sense Now none of these or perhaps some other that may be added could the Franckfort Fathers pretend due only to the Deity because themselves gave them all and allowed the lawfulness thereof tho not to Images yet to some other Creatures to Men to the Figure of the Cross to the sacred Utensils to the Holy Gospels to Holy Relicks to Churches to the Emperor's Statue and the like and in no other manner did the Nicene Fathers give them to Images than Franckfort or the Gallican Bishops for instance to the Holy Cross For Example If the one Incensed or set up Lights before the Cross not imagining the Cross either saw the Lights or scented the sweet Odours but in Honor of Him that was Crucified upon it so did the other before the Image of our Lord not imagining it to see or smell § 28 Such external Ceremonies of Honor I say the Opposers of Nice freely allowed to other Holy things and meanwhile disallowed them to Images upon such Reasons as these which occur frequentlly in the Caroline Books Adoratio scabelli pedum Domini was commanded in Scripture not so that of Images Capit. Caroli l. 2. c. 5. l. 3. c. 24. and Adoration also of Men hath an example in Scripture not so that of Images Ib. 1. l. 9. c. But if this were good arguing neither might the Gallican Bishops adore the Cross the Gospels c. of which we have in Scripture neither a Command nor Example Again they use Veneration of the Cross because Crucis signum magnum in se habere mysterium illud adeo esse a Redemptore mundi sacratum ut Divini nominis invocatione illatum alia quaeque censecret benedicat Which things cannot be said of Images But neither can they of Relicks to which yet they allow Veneration But then concerning Relicks this Book saith that Non sunt coaequandae Imagines Reliquiis Sanctorum Martyrum Confessorum eo quod Reliquiae aut de Corpore sunt aut de his quae circa Corpus l. 3. c. 24. but so neither is the Cross or Sacred Utensils de Corpore or circa Corpus yet are they venerable But then they have another reason for the veneration of Sacred Utensils which will not suit to Images for Sine Imaginibus lavacri unda sacri liquoris unctio percipi thymiamata adoleri luminaribus loca sancta perlustrari Corporis ac Sunguinis Dominici consecratio effici potest sine vasis vero nunquam But what then May not that be in some other respect venerable that is not in this as the Cross the Gospel and Holy Relicks are And as other things have a relation to sacred Persons for which they become venerable that is not applicable to Images so Images have a special relation namely that they afford a lively representation to our minds of the Exemplar or Prototype which the others do not From which it would be a weak arguing to conclude therefore Images only venerable not they So for the veneration of Basilica's and Churches they have another reason Aliud est loca divinis cultibus mancipata luminaribus perlustrari i. e. in the day time also in eisdem locis orationum thymiamatum Deo which must be understood not as any special external Cult now required by him fumum offerri aliud Imagini oculos habenti nihil cernenti lumen offerre nares habenti nihil odoranti thymiamata adolere aliud est loca divino cultui mancipata venerari aliud picturis luminaria thymiamata offerre Thus the Capitulare But then as such Lights and Incense are used within Churches in honorem Dei Christi to whom such Churches are consecrated yet I suppose without any reference to the Divine Sight or Olfaction and not in any honor of the sensless wood and stone of such Fabricks so are the same things used before the Images of Christ c. that are set in these Churches in honorem Prototypi which sees and smells and not in any honor of the sensless matter and colours of such Images or Painters work And much-what like things are there said of the rest Add to these things in the Capitulare what Bellarmin in Append. de Cultu Imaginum 4. c. relates out of the latter Synod as they call it at Paris Multa testimonia proferentes pro adoratione Crucis cum rationem reddere volunt cur signum vel lignum Crucis adorandum sit non sint adorandae Imagines Christi dicunt eam esse causam quia Christus in Cruce suspensus fuit non in Imagine quia per Crucem nos redemit non per Imaginem To which he Certe Christus non in signo Crucis aut in ligneis illis crucibus quae adorantur in Ecclesiis suspensus est Cum ergo liceat per adversarios Crucis Imaginem colere cur Imaginem Crucifixi colere non licebit Now therefore when in thus much the Franckfort Fathers are agreed with the Nicene That the Cross and Relicks c. may have the external veneration which the Nicene allow also to Images no such exterior signs or symbols of Honor may be stiled Divine Worship or due only to the Deity At least neither East nor West neither the Nicene nor Anti-Nicene Bishops of those times thought them so And this supposing the worst that such worship external or internal were mis-applied to Images yet so long as it held lawfully communicable to some other Creature extream folly and nonsence there may be in such misplacing it but can be no Idolatry No Idololatria or Iconodulia if you will because no latria or dulia as on the other side such worship as if given to some creature is Divine can be exhibited to no other creature at all without Idolatry And the Author of the Capitulare in charging the Nicene Fathers with giving Divine Worship to Images yet doth not that I can find any where charge them for it with Idolatry but with segnities insania and the like which methinks might teach some late Writers that modesty in their language toward the present both West and Eastern Churches which these observed toward the Eastern only And l. 3. c. 16. he seems to free the learned among the Greeks from any great error in it Nam etsi a doctis quibusque saith he vitari possit hoc quod illi in adorandis imaginibus exercent qui viz. non qui sint quid sed