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
sacrificing of Beasts so the fuming of Incense joyned with certain circumstances of its being offered upon the fire of the Altar by a Priest of such a composition c. was under the Law a Ceremony of the Divine Worship not communicable nor lawful to be performed upon whatever rectified intention to any other But yet among the Jews as the killing of Beasts also for food so the burning of Incense or sweet Odours divested of such circumstances was never prohibited to be used otherwise than only in the Divine Service Use all manner of Perfumes on any occasion the people might only this excepted that they should not be of the same composition with that of the Sanctuary Exod. 30.37 38. Now the Church is far from using such perfuming with any such circumstances as may give it the appearance of a Sacrifice or such Oblation of it as was made to God under the Law for she acknowledgeth none neither that of Beasts nor of Incense nor any other lawful now under the Gospel to be offered in this manner either to any other or to God himself save only that of the Body and Blood of our Lord in the Eucharist the other being Levitical typical abolished Rites She also abhorrs the use of it as also she doth of any other the least common Honor any kneeling or bowing as it was required of the ancient Christians to the Heathen Gods or Emperors or their Statues i. e. with an Altar erected before such Statue a Fire kindled on It and Incense to be cast thereon or at the least imposed upon them as an external acknowledgment or confession of their believing some Divinity in the Person to whom it was offered She only useth such Odours as a common Ceremony of Honor frequent in times of Joy to entertain the Smell as Lights and Bonfires do the Eyes Hymns Musick and ringing of Bells the Ears And when used in the Divine Service it is so not only by the Priest the proper Minister of a Sacrifice but inferior Ministers who incense or perfume therewith not only the Altars and Images of Saints but the Book of the Gospels the Priest and other Clergy and the people In Ecclesia saith Bellarmin De Imag. 2. l. 17. c. non-Sacerdotes incensum offerunt idque non solum Deo sed etiam populo See the Rubricks in Ordo Missae So that if the Saints in Glory be Deified by such a Ceremony so are the People and the Books too Several ends of the Church's using it Bellarm. De Missa 2. l. 15. c. names such as these Ut significetur bonus odor Evangelii 2. Cor. 2.15 Christi bonus odor sumus Deo Ut significentur orationes Sanctorum Rev. 5.8 and amongst others Ut teter odor si quis ex multitudine hominum in Ecclesia existeret abstergatur And Thurifications or wasting sweet Odours on this manner methinks should be no more suspected of Idolatry than sprinkling Holy Water We find mention of these two last thymiama luminaria in the 4th Canon Apostolical and provision for these numbred amongst the Oblations allowed to be brought to the Altar And these Canons in the Protestant's judgment surely as ancient as Constantine's days And Daille De Relig. cult objecto 2. l. 15. c. with his Negative Arguments contending such Customes to have bin unknown to the ancient Christians yet extends this purity of the Church in the ignorance of them no further than till the beginning of the 4th Century the times of Constantine that is no further than till the Church lifting up her head out of long Persecutions had the first opportunity to honor her Martyrs with a greater external Solemnity and Triumph About which times supposing not granting that she had borrowed and adopted these emblematical Ceremonies into her Service out of Gentilisme yet a rectified intention purifies the external action and David made no scruple of using the spoils of the Heathen for the more adorning the House of God And if the Christians may not use at pleasure what Paganisme hath formerly abused nor honor God's Saints with any thing formerly applied to Idols then neither may they with bowing to them for this the Heathen did to their Idols nor for the same reason may Protestants retain any Customes supposed formerly abused by the Roman Church Lastly if these two of Lights and Perfume shall amount to Idolatry so Idolatry will be introduced into the Church in the times of Constantine and so an hundred years before the Protestant account and extremely disorder their Calculations about the fourty two Months or 1260. years of Anti-Christ's Reign Neither will this leave that Church which our Lord promised Hell Gates should not prevail against one minutes respite as it were but remove it immediatly from the Captivity under Heathen Rome and Idolatry without the Church to that Captivity much greater under the Christian Anti-Christ as they stile him and Idolatry within it Meanwhile this is willingly granted That to incense or burn lights before any Image or other Creature whatever with some of those mis-apprehensions mentioned before § 4 c. is an act of Idolatry as burning Incense to the Brazen Serpent was if done upon any such superstitious account or in any such way as God under the Law required it only to himself and therefore this Serpent was removed and broken by Hezekiah 2. King 18.4 But so also was it Idolatry to bow the knee to the same Serpent Now all such superstitious intention in incensing Images the Cross the Gospels and the like do Catholicks renounce and profess whatever is offered at to or before such Images as Perfume Lights Tablets c. to have relation only to the Dignity of the Person represented and not to any at all in the Image and to be used as expressions of Joy and Gratitude or honorary Ornaments of it meerly for the Exemplar's sake or also as Memorials and Monuments of some Benefits received by the Supplicants from him Thus I have shewed the Gallican Bishops to have given the self same veneration to Crosses and other sacred things as the Nicene did to Images and have vindicated both of them from giving to sacred things in these external Ceremonies used toward them any Divine Honor as also the ancient Christians in their using the like to the Statues of their Emperors And so have cleared this matter as That the Fathers of the Council of Nice expresly denied their giving any Latria or Divine Worship to Images so that no particular Note or sign of Worship exhibited by them to Images can be proved such And consequently that in the condemning of those who to use the words of Franckfort Imagines Sanctorum ita ut Deificam Trinitatem servitio aut adoratione impendunt both those of Nice and Franckfort in their Decree perfectly agree § 33 But now in the last place supposing some difference or opposition between the Decrees of these two Councils the one of them denying not a Divine but any Adoration
be the same or equal of all things that have any manner of Relation to such Person or that the estimation of many such things circumstances considered should be accompanied with any such external note of respect or honor So a Prince's Servant a person much resembling him a Kinsman a Friend or Favourite an Embassador his Chair of State his Robes may all receive honor from us for the Prince's sake yet not all an equal to that we give the Prince or one of them to that we give to some other or all on the self same but on a very different account And again some other things of a less valued relation to him receive no external mark of esteem at all or not in so special a manner as the former The same case it is in several things as they relate to God which on many accounts the whole Creation doth 1. First God here may be worshiped both with internal and external supreme Adoration bowing kneeling prostration c. in the beholding and contemplating and so in the presence of any of his Creatures a Man the Sun the Stars or any other whatever I see not how any rational man can deny it Yet exteriorly to do this in the sight of others who may misinterpret our intentions and mistake the direction of our Worship especially when the thing is of a greater essential or substantial dignity before or toward which we perform it and which may be to us the occasion of it it is not convenient And the same case it may possibly be in giving such Adoration before a Picture or other sacred thing in a Country wholly given to Idolatry and in whom the light of Reason is so far extinguished as that they worship Pictures for Gods The same case I say in the incurring a fault not of Idolatry but of Indiscretion And perhaps this may be the reason of the rarer use of Pictures in the first four Ages of the Church when the Christain world was not as yet so well cleansed from Heathenisme not that the use of these was not then held lawful or also beneficial but that for other considerations not so expedient 2ly We may also retain a certain esteem and value of the lowest of God's Creatures that is terminated in it but for the Maker's sake of a Fly an Ant c much more of the Sun But here also we stand obliged to the observing a decency and not giving a scandal in any our external expressions thereof which are fitly reserved for other much more principal or special Relatives 3ly Other things therefore there are of a more special relation and connexion to the prime Object of Honour and Adoration as consecrated to God's more immediate service or some way representing or minding us of his presence Such are Churches Altars the consecrated Symbols of the Eucharist the sacred Utensils and Chalices Holy Relicks Holy Cross the Holy Name of JESUS and in the last place sacred Images or Pictures which I call sacred tho some of them be not consecrated if they be such as represent and carry a similitude of Sacred Persons viz. of our Lord or his Saints the natural property of which copies being to bring into our mind and renew in us the remembrance of their Originals that are sacred gives us a sufficient title to stile them so too and the Church having found a singular benefit in such an effect of them hath frequently dedicated consecrated and exposed several of them in her publick places of worship for the same use which adds also a further degree of Reverence to those so dedicated Now what those things punctually are which are to be treated with such a special reverence or esteem as due to them on the former account this surely ought to be left to the judgment and arbitration of the Church and of our Canonical Superiors whose office it is to weigh the con-or inconveniences the decency or indecency thereof and private persons may safely act herein according to her declarations and directions Neither such external reverenc being so required may we withdraw it for fear of scandal as in the former but now mentioned but we are to correspond to the Church's Constitutions in our obedience and those who take scandal are to endeavour to rectify their own fault not ours in conforming themselves also to the same judgment always remembering that passage of St. Austine Epist 118. Si quid tota per orbem frequentat Ecclesia quin ita faciendum set disputare insolentissimae insaniae est If Images then representing holy Persons and Stories are numbred and ranked among these things venerable by the Church i. e. by the most supreme authority of its Councils and the veneration of them there resolved as hath bin shewed § 12. c. we need no more thus bandy arguments pro and con but securely rest in an humble obedience and leave the care of preventing or remedying mistakes and the considering of the just extent of the Second Commandment and other Scriptures to the same Authority § 51 Meanwhile those Protestants who allow a certain Reverence signified by some exterior note thereof due at least to some sacred things for I account no genuine Sons of the Church of England do to all deny it as to Churches nick-named by some others Steeple-houses to Altars to the Holy Name of JESUS to the sacred Symbols of our Lord's Body and Blood tho they deny it to Images are concerned here as much as Catholicks 1. both to make a distinction between exhibiting such reverence to these and promiscuously doing this to any Creature because that all things also some way relate to God as between the reverence given to God's Sanctuary or to his Altars and given to the Sun Lev. 26.2 And again 2. to distinguish the reverence they give to these from that superior honor they give to those for whose sake they honor these the reverence they give to God's Sanctuary from that they give to God himself Neither may they produce here any such arguments as current against the Veneration of Images which will confute their own practice as to Churches Altars the Holy Name of JESUS c. as some very unconsiderately do and as will further appear if we take that which a late Writer hath said concerning the reasonableness of worshiping the Sun rather than an Image and apply it to worshiping the Sun rather than any other sacred things Churches Altars c. such as Protestants also shew Reverence to § 52 For thus one may plead in his own words Rom. Idol p. 69. against a Protestant uncovering his head or shewing any reverence to a Church to the Altar or to the Holy Name of JESUS or against the Gallican Bishops that opposed Nice bowing to and incensing Churches Altars the Gospel the Holy Utensils the Cross c or the same may be applied if you will against bowing to the King's Chair of State or the Emperor's Image ' It seems as he goes on