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
began to be used in the Fourth Age. V. The Church not chargeable with the Abuses about Images She regulating by her Bishops both the making and use of them Nor bound in favour to Protestants to quit all her Images as neither do Protestants theirs in favour to Puritans § 58. The Church not chargeable with Idolatry for some particular Practices therein because the internal act of Worship not knowable by others § 59. The external such as is practised among Catholicks abstracting from a bad intention may be lawfully used in the honour given to a Creature § 60. The great guilt and the many inconveniencies pressing those that charge the Church with Idolatry in the matter of Images § 61. CONCERNING IMAGES AND IDOLATRY § 1 IN this Discourse concerning the Worship or Veneration of Images I shall proceed by these steps 1. I shall shew what Worships of Images are willingly granted by Catholicks to be Idolatrous 2. That all the so former Idolatries in this kind Heathen Jewish or any other are comprehended in some of them 3. That from any such Idolatry the Roman Doctrine and Practice in their Veneration of Images is clearly free 4. What Worship or Veneration of Images the Roman Church allows and contends for 5. That this Church is no way chargeable with the Abuses happening in such Worship I. §. 2. I. First then Concerning Idolatrous Worships of Images these things are willingly granted 1. That to Worship or Bow to an Image made to represent a false God tho such God imagined to be Spiritual or Immaterial and tho imagined not to resemble not to animate or inhabit or have any presence in or to give any virtue to such Image altho such a refined and abstractive Heathen-worship can hardly be produced is Idolatry Be cause indeed the thing represented and which they worshi◠by in or before this Image is not God but an Idol a Figment either Quod non est Nothing or Quale non est no such Thing as they imagine it § 3 2. Granted also That making an Image or Representation of the true God tho He confessed to be such as he is in all his other Attributes and worshiping Him by in or before it if he be imagined to have any such particular form or shape as the Image represents as the Anthropomorphites conceiv'd him to bear an humane shape and most of the Heathen erred as in other of God's Attributes so in this the not believing the pure Spirituality and Infinity of his Essence Act. 17.29 30. as in the last of these do at this day the Socinians and so were prone to make several Similitudes and Figures is also Idolatry that is a worshiping him as so something He is not or as having some shape figure or members he hath not And is expresly forbidden by God in the Second Commandment according to the Protestant-account Exod. 20.4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven thing or any likeness that is in Heaven c thou shalt not how down unto them nor serve them Where by serve them is understood 1 either giving Divine Honor to any of them and serving them as God strange God's being prohibited just before vers 3. and I am a jealous God following presently after ver 5. 2 Or giving Honor to God by any such Image as a Similitude of God or giving to such Image any inferior honor whatever as to the Similitude of God or as having any virtue in it whereby to render our Devotions more acceptable to God Of which Moses speaketh Deut. 4.15 16 17. Take good heed to your selves c. for ye saw no manner of Similitude in Horeb. See also Isa 40.18.46.5 Act. 17.29 Thus therefore we are so forbidden to give God any honor by any kind of Image or Figure so designed and as not to make the Image of any other God so neither of the true with conceiting it to have any likeness of him or him to have any presence in it or to communicate any Divine Virtue thereto whereby our service may be rendred more acceptable to him through or by it Nor was such law obligatory only to the Jews but is so to all men for ever Elius Sent. 3. Dist 37. Contra istamprohibitionem Decalogi peccaur tribus modis 1. Si ipsum Simulachrum habetur pro Deo 2 Si Creatura per Simulachrum repraesentata colitur ut Deus 3 Si it a habetur Simulachrum tho in an intention of worshiping the true God quasi per illud Deitas ipsa effigiaretur Bell de Imag. 2. l. 13. c. Qui imagnatur Deum esse ipsi Idolo similem dum putant se colere Deum verum revera non cosunt nisi figmentum suum Conc. Trident. Sess ult Si aliquando historias narrationes sacrae Scripturae cum id indoctae plebi expediat exprimi figurari contigerit doceatur populus non propterea Divinitatem figurari quasi corporeis oculis conspici vel coloribus aut siguris exprimi possit § 4 3. It is granted also That to give 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Divine Worship wholly or in part to any Image made to represent I say not only the Likeness of God but of any Apparition of God or to any Image of our Lord Christ as to a mediate or immediate Object of such Divine Worship is flat Idolatry Since such person must either hold such Image to be God or such supreme Worship lawful to be given to what is not God Of which thus Bellarm. De Imag. 2. l. 24. c. Non licet Imagines colere Divinis honoribus i. e. cultu Latriae etiamsi quis dicat id se facere propter Deum vel Christum non propter imagines nam hoc ipso quod eas colit divinis honoribus convincitur eas colere propter ipsas non propter Deum quicquid ipse verbis dicat for none can give an interior supreme Honor to what really he holds not Supreme And Quis diceret se exhibere Latriam Imaginibus quae est divina Servitus in affectu solo consistens concederet eo ipso se Imaginibus tanquam Diis servire saith Vasquez In 3. Thom. Disp 109. c. 3. As for the Expressions of some Schoolmen how they are to be understood see below § 37. And hence also is conceded That to profess the giving any Adoration or Religious Worship as Adoration and Religion are taken strictly and properly to signify Divine Worship to any image of God of our Lord or his Saints is Idolatry § 5 4. Granted That to give any external Sign Ceremony or Note of Honor that is appropriated by God to himself to any Image whatever tho without any intention to give any divine honor to such Image where the ignorance is not invincible is Idolatry for this is worshiping the Creature with a Worship due only to God And such Idolatry is it also to communicate any Attribute or perfection of God and consequently the honor and reverence due to it to
any Creature § 6 5 Lastly Granted taking Idolatry in a larger sense so as gross and superstitious Worships in a false and prohibited manner tho of the true God may be stiled such or at least are sins highly offending God as being a service unlawful and prohibited by him That to make the Image not of God but of an Angel or Cherub or any other Figure and to worship God before it as a Symbol or his Presence or as believing God there to have a peculiar Presence to with or in it or God to give some virtue to it or to others by it when such belief is a groundless figment of the Worshipers without any Divine Promise of any such peculiar Presence or Virtue this also will be a species of Idolatry tho not so gross or stupid as several of the former and more or less excusable according to the voluntary or involuntary ignorance or error of the Judgment from which it proceeds And so if we suppose here the best that is pretended or can be imagined of the Israelites worship of the Calf at Sinai and afterward of those at Bethel viz. That all things were framed like to those in the Sanctum Sanctorum of the Tabernacle and afterward of the Temple and then the God of Israel only worshiped as present here between the Cherubs worshiped in the same manner here as in the Sanctuary or Temple tho there seems to be no truth in this supposition that the Jews Worship was such see § 8 9. yet as the one was a true and acceptable worship of God so would the other have been Idolatry and the worship of their own groundless and irrational Figment instead of the service required from them by God and where the error of their Judgment being void of any Divine Promise or Revelation concerning such peculiar Presence was unexcusable as also was that of Gideon Jud. 8.27 who made an Ephod and probably all other furniture belonging to the Divine Service and set it up in his own City tho without intention of introducing any strange God or Worship See ver 23 and 33. the people returning to strange Gods as before in Jud. 2.11.3.7 after his death yet it is said here that all Israel fornicated that is committed Idolatry with his Ephod and that it was the ruine of his house Of which thus St. Austine Q. Vet. Testam 7. l 41. q. moves this Question Non frustra quaeritur cum Idolum non fuerit id est cujusquam Dei falsi alieni simulachrum sed Ephud id est unum de Sacramentis Tabernaculi quod ad vestem Sacerdotalem pertineret quomodo fornicationem Scriptura dicat populi ista sectantis atque venerantis To which he answers Ideo scilicet quod praeter Tabernaculum Dei ubi erant ista quae ibi fieri jusserat Deus Israel extra simile aliquid fieri fas non erat And afterward Ut hoc sit peccatum Gedeon quodextra Dei Tabernaculum fecerit aliquid simile ubi coleretur Deus Not much different seems also that of Micah Jud. 17.6 13. and the Manicheans worshiping the Sun for Christ or Christ in the Sun This of several sorts and ways of Idolatry in Images freely granted II. Next II. §. 7. All the Idolatrous use of Images either by the Heathens or Jews or any others seems to have fallen under some of these 1. For that of the Heathen I think the matter out of dispute who whatever respect they gave to or conceit they had of the Images it is certain that the Gods or Demons invisible that these worshiped by or in them were not the one true but many and false Gods whilst they also grosly and stupidly even the wisest of them erred both in several of the Divine Attributes and communicated also to the inferior false Gods those Attributes and Honors as Sacrifice for one which do belong only to the Supreme Neither can there be shewn tho some Protestants take great pains for paralelling Heathens and Catholicks in Idolatry to make the one in their Worship very acute and subtile the other extremely stupid and simple as if Christianity much blinded the one and Heathenisme much elevated the other I say neither can there be shewn out of the Apologies of the Wisest of the Heathen after Christianity had subtilized them either in their own Works or those of the Fathers any Heathen Image-Worship so refined and purified as not to have been peccant in some of the circumstances fore mentioned viz. either imagining some things false concerning the Image or concerning the Deity they worshiped or both Or if there can it shall be granted that such Person was no Idolater but then maintained also that he was no Heathen § 8 2. For the Idolatry of the Jews whether at Sinai or at Bethel both which some also labour much to extenuate so to raise the Christian's practice in their Veneration of Images c. to equal it yet we find the Scriptures most express in charging them with worshiping not the God of Israel whom they are said meanwhile to have forgotten and cast behind them but the Calves the molten Images with Divine Honors and Sacrifices See for the first that of Sinai the Declaration of God Exod. 32.8 They have made a molten Calf and have worshiped it and sacrificed to it and have said these or this Nehem. 9.18 is thy God c. And of Moses ver 31. They have made them a God of Gold And of the Psalmist Psal 105.19 20 21. They worshiped the Golden Image and changed their Glory their God Jer. 2.11 into the similitude af an Ox that eateth grass and they forgat God their Saviour which had done great things in Egypt And of St. Stephen Act. 7.41 They made a Calf and offered Sacrifice to the Idol See for the second that of Jeroboam 1. King 12.28.32 where after the like Proclamation he is said to have sacrificed to the Calves that he had made and also to Devils 2. Chron. 11.15 and is accused by the Prophet Ahijah 1. King 14.9 to have gone and made him other Gods and molten Images and to have cast the Lord behind his back that is forgot him which seems not done in his worshiping none but him between the Cherubim and only mistaking the right place But yet further since we live in a world now not so addicted to Idolatry as the old was and so less crediting it that we may the easilier imagine this Idolatry of the Jews so gross as here described Consider how formerly in Egypt many of the Israelites themselves went after and served the Idols thereof Of which God complains also Ezek. 20.7 8. And also how in the Wilderness after this at Sinai and after the Tabernacle already erected and God's Worship better setled they still entertained and served there also strange Gods Moloch and Remphan and the Moabites Idol Baal-Peor and the Host of Heaven had their Images Figures and Tabernacles and in effect worshiped the Devils
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
quid innuant venerantur indoctis tamen quibusque scandalum generant qui nihil aliud in his praeter id quod vident venerantur adorant But then why is not the Controversy a little mollified and reduced to this whether all Veneration or also use of sacred Pictures were better to be by all laid aside than such a gross mistake by any incurred § 29 This of those whether the Caroline Books or Divines of Franckfort or of Paris assembled some thirty years after Franckfort under Ludovicus Pius who denying such Honors lawful to be exhibited to Images yet freely gave the very same to other sacred things by which such external acts of honor are cleared from necessarily being or signifying in themselves any Divine Worship Where it is observable that Daille in his Treatise of Images l. 4. c. 3. tho he saith of the Nicene Fathers that in denying to give any Divine Honor to Images yet notwithstanding they actually gave to them those which were so For saith he se prosternere to prostrate our selves to be uncovered to hold up our hands as an act of humility to make prayers to offer incense and lights are not these services we render to God and tho he spends a whole Chapter Ibid. c. 6. in justifying the Synod of Paris that censures Nice and Pope Adrian yet makes no mention at all of any censure of Franckfort against them against Bellarmin's reflections upon it Yet when he comes to the main Point and that whereon the Cardinal chiefly insisteth Quod superat omnem admirationem illud est quod multa testimonia proferunt pro adoratione Crucis Cum ergo liceat per adversarios Crucis imaginem colere cur imaginem Crucifixi colere non licebit And At inquiunt nihil manu factum colere fas est Quid igitur saith he Lignum vel signum Crucis non est manu factum Codex Evangeliorum sacra vasa quae horum opinione veneranda sunt quid sunt aliud nisi opera manuum humanarum Et tamen verum est nihil manu factum esse colendum eo genere cultus quo Deus ipse qui omnino non est factus sed omnium rerum factor colendus To this the main Objection and so much you see pressed by the Cardinal I say Daille in that Treatise as also Protestant Writers ordinarily returns no Answer passeth it over in silence and takes care his Reader hear nothing of it and so doth a late Author that goes as high as any in his charge For indeed what can he or they say to it But that such Idolaters as the Accused were such also the Accusers such as the Orientals in respect of Images such the Gallican German or Brittanick Clergy in respect of other things finally the whole Church then Idolaters And what matters it whether such in respect of the Images of our Lord or those of the Cross hanging lights or burning sweet odours before the one or the other And to what purpose labour they to shew some part of the West opposite to the East as to veneration of Images when they have both these united against themselves as to Adoration of and using all those outward ceremonies of Honor to the Cross as the other do to Images § 30 Leaving then both East and West under their heavy charge of Idolatry as to the Cross and Holy Gospels c let us see now in what particular of those Honors generally exhibited to these a Protestant can verify it They cannot surely in these their being uncovered kissing embracing kneeling prostration I name not praying to them for that is generally disclaimed for these are no Ceremonies of Worship appropriated to the Deity but lawfully exhibited to Creatures But if perhaps they shall pitch upon the luminaria suffita lights or sweet odours or if any other may be named such like that they are expressions of respect and honor only applicable to the Deity upon what ground can this be said § 31 For the First Lights In setting forth a shew with the greater pomp Protestants as well as Catholicks think they lawfully use them In times of solemn Joy we make Bonfires we use Torches in Funerals not all or always for necessity but in honor of the Deceased and in particular they are the fittest Emblems of the present splendor and glory of our Lord and his Saints in Heaven whose Images but in relation to the Person represented we honor with them Erat lucerna ardens saith our Lord of the Baptist They were used anciently and that on the day time at the reading of the Holy Gospel which was delivered to us by the Lux Mundi our Lord a Custome defended by St. Jerome against Vigilantius Per totas Orientis Ecclesias Epist contra Vigilantium saith he quando legendum est Evangelium accenduntur lucernae jam sole rutilante and this reason given non ad fugandas tenebras sed ad signum laetitiae demonstrandum And Rivet in his Debates with Grotius Exam. Animad Grot. Art 21. acknowledgeth the ancient Christians to have met the Statues of their Christian Emperors brought into Cities as it were to receive their homage where the Emperor could not come in person cum cereis incensis with lights and burning sweet odours to express a Civil Honor to the Persons these represented a Custome mentioned also in 2. Nicene Council Act. 1. Si enim Regum laureata Iconas missas ad civitates vel regiones obvii adeunt populi cum Cereis incensis non cera perfusam tabulam sed Imperatorem honorantes c. Concerning this thus Bellarmin De Reliquiis 2. l. 3. c. declares the Catholick's intention Non offerri cereas Martyribus tanquam sacrificia sed accendi in signum laetitiae Ignem enim accendi solere ad laetitiam significandam in rebus profanis praeterea ignem Gloriae signum esse unde Imperatoribus Romanis ubique Ignis praeferebatur And in the 2. Nicene Council Act. 4. we find both them and sweet odours thus defended and expounded Epist Germani ad Episc Claudiopol Sed nec illud scandalizet quosdam quod ante Imagines Sanctorum luminarium concinnatio suavis odoris thymiamata fiunt symbolice namque talia celebrari ad honorem eorum ezcogitata sunt c. Indicia sunt namque sensibilia lumina divini ac sine materia luminis dati sanctis in caelo porro Aromatum incensum purissimae totius S. Spiritus inspirationis repletionis insigne And St. Austine long ago in the 27th Chapter of his 8th Book De Civitate Dei Entitled De modo honoris quem Christiani Martyribus impendant speaking of such Ceremonies used at the Memorials or Sepulchers or Reliquaries of the Martyrs Quaecunque igitur saith he adhibentur Religiosorum obsequia in Martyrum locis ornamenta sunt Memoriarum non sacra vel sacrificia mortuorum tanquam Deorum § 32 For the Second Burning sweet Odours It it granted that as the
or Divine Worship consists of both and the external act receives its specification from the internal and not one but both these we equally give to our Lord then also when one prays to him not before but without an Image I say when this superior Worship is spoken of tho here we uncover our heads kneel or prostrate our selves before an Image nay kiss also and embrace it yet is the Image neither objectum nor ratio adorationis but only adjunctum as the Cardinal De Imag. 2. 1. 23 c. hath it a circumstantial an inductive a motive thereof For the mental intention is supposed here wholly to direct as it can at pleasure these outward notes of Honor some of which are accidentally and concomitantly applied to the Image but without any purpose of honouring It thereby to the Prototype and the kiss or embracing of it and immediatly touching it is in such worship mentally no more intended to it than the kneeling prostration or prayers which as it is then made before it so is made at another time in the very same manner and intention to the Prototype without it Neither is such external Latrical worship imagined to be conveyed to the person represented either by or through the Image as a Medium to it but the Image is a meer circumstance of such Adoration as time and place are and any Creature of God may be yet a circumstance much more beneficial for reminding us of such duty as also for rendring this service more fix'd and steddy or intense and devout than others be And in this sense is the Synod of Metz to be understood held An. Dom. 1549. after the beginning of the Reformation and in the suspension of that of Trent for setling the new Controversies in Religion which concerning Images speaks plainly thus Cap. 41. Non proponuntur Imagines in Ecclesia ut adoremus eas colamus sed ut per eas quid orare colere venerari imitari debeamus admoneamur Non ut colamus i. e. cultu Latriae for certainly such a veneration and reverent treatment of them as sacrorum vasorum these Fathers denied not In explication of which they use this Simile as Vasquez In 3. Thom. Disput 108. c. 14. cites their words out of another Copy that contains their Acts more at large than that in Binius Codicem oculis perlustrans cum ad Venerabile tremendum Nomen Jesu devenerit caput aperit inclinatur suspirans in coelum oculos attollit so do Protestants ob id omni reprehensione Idololatriae suspicione caret siquidem non literas c. sic honorat sed cogitatione veneratione mentis suae ad eum honorandum adorandum rapitur cujus memoriam hae literae ei suggerunt Cur ergo superstitionis aut Idololatriae reus peragitur qui ante imaginem crucifixi Domini caput aperit aut procumbens adorat cum nequaquam imaginem putet adorandam i. e. latria the Cult both exterior and interior he then gives to our Lord just so as before the other did at the sight of his name sed cum corde veneretur adoret quem prose natum passum c recordatur But here it is not denyed That the same numerical external mark of honor may truly be said to respect and may be lawfully exhibited at the same time to both the Image and the Exemplar if here accompanied with a double internal intention one higher respecting the Prototype and another inferior respecting the Image As the same putting of our hat and being uncovered may be performed at once to the Prince and to our Father attending upon him but doubtless with a much different internal honor So was the external bowing of the people but one when they are said to have therewith worshiped God and the King 1. Chron. 29.20 And of such outward Cult it is truly said Eundem esse posse in Imaginem Exemplar This of the Councils touching this Subject § 37 For the Schoolmen tho no Catholicks are obliged to justify or adhere to their expressions in this matter or discuss their subtilties and some have bin very free also in the censure of some of them as dangerous and also hardly intelligible See Bellarm. De Imag. l. 2. c. 22. § 4. and so the uncurious may omitting what follows pass on to § 40. yet the later Schoolmen to whose hands the Acts of this second Nicene Council have come have generally conformed to its language and have taken much pains also to reduce the varii modi loquendi of their Predecessors to the same intention and meaning who are supposed not to have seen this Decree because they have not mentioned it and who upon a Philosophical Maxime That idem est motus in Imaginem Exemplar have used expressions somewhat different from it and apt to be mistaken Estius faith of St. Thomas In 3. Sent. Dist 9. § 3. Probabile est S. Thomam hanc Concilii definitionem non legisse quam si legisset aliter de Cruris Imaginis Christi adoratione fuisset locutus And Bellarm. De Imag. c. 22. Valde credibile S. Thomam alios Doctores Scholasticos illius temporis non vidisse Nicaenam Synodum secundam neque octavam Synodum Generalem neque Epistolam Hadriani Papae pro defensione Synodi Nicaenae Nam haec omnia longo tempore latuerunt hoc nostro saeculo primum edita sunt And Ibid. he saith since these known Cur ergo quaeso non loquimur ut Patres nostri loquuntur And Vasquez In 3. Thom. Disp 109. c. 3. in vindication of St. Thomas and other former Schoolmen saith Nullus Scholasticorum sic loquitur Imagini Christi aut Trinitatis Latria he means latria taken in its strict sense for submissio animi or servitus in affectu consistens tribuenda est And Qui diceret se exhibere latriam Imaginibus quae est divina servitus in affectu solo consistens concederet eo ipso se Imaginibus tanquam Diis servire It is true that Vasquez himself useth this language Eadem adoratione cum exemplari Imagines esse adorandas but he declares his meaning to be eadem adoratione i. e. externa as inclination corporis genuflectione quam exhibemus etiam Exemplari in Latria but not eadem adoratione interna i. e. submissione animi servitute tanquam bono summo excellentissimo which internal submission is the Latria proper only to God but the external notes we use thereof are common also to others Now to give any such interior Adoration i. e. submissio animi tanquam excellentiori tho the lowest or least that can be imagined to an inanimate picture Vasquez in defence of his Opinion saith very truly and so must all Catholicks with him that any such person agit perverse abjecto animo and may rightly be called either Iconolatra i◠be yielding such submission to an Image tanquam bono summo excellentissimo or Iconodulos if as se
the Bishop not to restrain the word always to the Supreme or Divine Worship And then Adorare being taken sometimes for venerari as it runs adoravi filios Heth so it may also adorate Scabellum Templum without an Ad and he may safely say if Templa veneramur so Templa adoramus both signifying the same inferior worship or honor But however Veneration of Temples and other holy things and if I mistake him not of the Cherubims Bishop Andrews allows Thus he also elsewhere Serm. on Phil. 2.10 p. 478. of the Reverence due to the Holy Name of JESUS ' He is exalted saith he to whose Person knees do bow but to whose Name only much more And His Name he left behind to us that we may shew by our reverence and respect to it how much we esteem him how true the Psalm shall be Holy and reverend is his Name Look to the Text then and let no man perswade you but that God requireth a reverent carriage even of the Body it self And namely this service of the Knee And that to his Son's Name Do it to the sense have mind on him that is named there is the relative honor of it and do his Name the honor and spare not The same he saith there also of the Holy Mysteries in the Eucharist ' There are saith he wondring at it that forbear to do it at his Name Nay at the Holy Mysteries themselves Where his Name is I am sure and more than his Name even the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ Thus He. Again Bishop White against Fisher p. 224. saith ' Religious Adoration may be founded on some certain kinds of Union 1. Personal 2 Substantial or 3 lastly Causal relative or accidental to wit when by divine ordination things created are made instruments messengers signs or receptacles of divine grace as the holy Sacraments and the Word and Gospel and the Ministers of the Church c. Christ himself is present assistant and operative in and by these instruments and hath commanded reverence to be used towards them accounting the love faith and honor which are yielded to his created Word to be love faith and honor to himself And before p. 219. Upon the relative union also between the King and his Image shewed by F. Fisher out of St. Athanasius Contra Arrianos Serm. 4. Upon which that Father there concludes Qui igitur adorat imaginem in illa adorat ipsum Regem quia cum ipsa imago nihil aliud sit quam Regis forma ac species the Bishop grants ' That the Images of Kings sometimes saith he not always in civil use and custome not in Religion may be taken and reverenced for the principal I suppose then in civil use and custome not in religious so may our Lord's Image too sometimes And then why not at any time either his or the King's De Sanctorum Reliquiis Imaginibus c. saith Spalatensis Ostensio Errorum Suarez cap. 2. cultum in his distinguo ac Venerationem Humanum neque Rex neque Orthodoxi negabunt religiosum vero divinum omnino negandum esse affirmo And afterward distinguishing Excellentiam qua a Deo fuerunt supernaturaliter exaltati solam civilem excellentiam in ipsis he saith Honore eodem humano utramque excellentiam divinam humanam in homine prosequimur Religioso autem hoc est divino honore solum Deum prosequendum esse arbitramur and as well might he if he pleased have distinguished a Religious honor into Humanus Divinus Bishop Mountague in his Appeal to Caesar chap. 21. saith ' That no Religious Honor or Worship is to be given to Images but yet That all Reverence simply cannot be abstracted from them ' And can a man saith he there have the true Representation of his Prince Patrons c. without awe respect regard love reverence moved by aspect and wrought in him I profess my imperfection or what they will call it it is so with me And quotes this out of Junius in his Animadversions upon Bellarmin De Imaginibus Hoc nemo nostrum dicit non esse colendas Imagines nec ullo modo Suo modo coli probamus velut Imagines at non religioso cultu qui aut superstitiosus est aut impius Nec cum aliorum scandalo sive cultus separatus sive conjunctus cum eorum cultu intelligatur quorum sunt Imagines Bishop White also of Images themselves speaks thus in the beginning of his Discousse p. 208. ' The Advocate of Imagery Fisher should first of all have declared what he understands by Worship of Images whether Veneration only largely taken or Adoration properly so called Veneration may signify external regard and reverence of Pictures such as is given to Churches and sacred Vessels and to ornaments of sacred Places and according to this notion many have approved or tolerated Worship of Images which deny Adoration And amongst the many here he means not only Papists but Protestants For there he quotes also this place of Junius for it and before him cites the Council of Nice that we may see both agree Some cult honor reverence we see then here allowed as to other holy things so to Images As for our stiling it a religious Cult we cannot hinder but that Protestants may take the word of which see enough before § 16 c. as that Catholicks dare not apply it so to any thing save to God Of the Equivocation that is in this and many other words not easily to be avoided Mr. Thorndike saith well Epilog 3. l. 30. c. p. 353. where speaking of the term of Religious as applied to the honor of Saints he saith ' Whether this Honor be Religious or Civil nothing but equivocation of words makes disputable And That all is to be imputed to nothing but want of proper terms for that Honor which Religion enjoines in respect of God and that relation which God hath setled between the Church Militant and Triumphant being reasonably called Religious And being neither civil nor humane honor but such as a Creature is capable of for Religion's sake and that relation which Religion setleth Thus He. But that then when otherwise agreed we may not fall out about words tho this honor is given to the Image not of a Statesman but of an Holy Person and to other things because they are sacred and belonging to Religion yet rather than the propriety of two words shall separate us let them so as allowing it freely stile and call it if they please a civil Veneration of the Name of JESUS and of the Eucharistical Mysteries of the Images of our Lord and his Mother of the Apostles Martyrs and other Saints For indeed we are all spiritual Fellow-citizens Phil. 3.20 and our Religion a celestial 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Common-wealth and our Lord the Head of it Heb. 12.22 23. Again thus Mr. Thorndike Just Weight c. 19. p. 128. according to his free language in free
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
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
simpliciter potest negari And for his Simile may not one truly say that in the honor given by him to the Royal Majesty sitting in his Robes the Robes have no share at all Vasquez as we have seen before § 37. allows to the Image only an external Note of Honor but no internal Cult at all proper or improper supreme or inferior i. e. say others allows them no honor or adoration at all which they say cannot be gone in any manner by external gestures only without any internal intention But then when they speak of an internal respect or honor given to the Image as the proper object of such respect for the Exemplar's sake not only any latria but any submissio animi tanquam excellentiori is herein desclaimed of which saith Lugo non potest esse rationalis controversia § 39 Lastly the worst that can be of such learned men who by their ascending to subtilties have the infelicity also to be misunderstood yet where is had so plain a Definition and explication of the Church Non latriam it seems unjust against this to make use of some contradictions and inconsistencies were there any such of some private Authors To them we may say as long ago Cardinal Bellarmin De Imag. 2. l. 22. c. Cur quaeso non loquimur ut Patres nostri loquuntur And if it be lawful to desert not only the expressions but opinion of St. Thomas in other points why not in this Nor from such expressions can any have the least pretence either to accuse the Roman Church of Idolatry or reject its Communion This of some School-Expressions And this in 4th place from § 16. of the Roman Church's not acknowledging any either Latria or Dulia to Images § 40 5ly Neither doth she give to them any external sign of honor which the Divine Majesty hath appropriated to his own service and worship They sacrifice not to them as all former both Heathen and Jewish Idolatry did And as for any other signs of respect given them they have bin already cleared before § 31 32. § 41 6. Lastly To clear the Roman Church from any such Doctrine or Practice about Images as renders her Cult of them Idolatry an Idolatry equal with the Heathen we may urge Mr. Thorndike's Argument set down below § 48. For that so she can be no true Church neither the whole nor any true part of the Church Catholick which if it cannot maintain any Heresy can much less Idolatry See Annotation on Dr. Stillingst p. 73. l. 13. Yet Protestants do not deny the Roman to be a true Church And should they they would destroy a legal Mission or Ordination of their own Church-Ministry or Clergy received from this Church IV. The third Head proposed being thus dispatched IV. §. 42. What Cult or Worship practised by all former Idolaters Catholicks do deny to Images I come next to shew you what they allow 1. First then they maintain a very beneficial use of the Images of our Lord or his Saints set before us when we pray and especially when subject to distraction of thoughts in Prayer that the sight thereof may serve to heighten our devotion and the better confine our meditation on the Person or sacred Story represented and hinder our Imaginations from straying abroad may serve to excite in us acts of Honor Love Affection to such Persons a grateful remembrance and imitation of them of their Heroick Vertues and valiant Sufferings a passionate representing to them the Persons I mean nor the Pictures our present condition and imploring their aid and intercessions c. From the more frequent practice of which acts occasioned by these sensible memorials of our Blessed Lord and his Saints Catholicks experience so great an advantage in raising their affections as that they are not easily by the groundless clamours of Idolatry or of the peril thereof to Christians wherein Heathens are made so subtile to be frighted out of them Nor the Church moved at all to restrain the good use that is made of and fruit received by them § 43 2ly Catholicks do maintain a certain honor reverence or veneration properly due and lawful to be given to the Images or Pictures of our Lord or his Saints and that per in or secundum se to the Image in it self and as the proper object of such Honor or Veneration 3. But 3ly this only a relative honor and not given propter se §. 44. n. 1. but such whereby out of the love and honor we owe to the Prototype we have an affection also to those things that any way appertain to it to any Relick Representation Memorial of it To understand which if it needs any further explaining we may observe with Suarez In 3. Thom. 7.25 Disp 54. § 4 5. That to or in the presence of an Image a twofold Adoration may be performed 1. Either an Adoration both internal and external the external still following the intention of the mind only to the Exemplar and none at all to the Image the Image or Picture serving only as a Motive thereto or a Remembrancer thereof of which we have spoken before § 36.2 Or an internal and external Adoration such as that we here speak of directed only to the Image not the Exemplar as its proper object tho the honor we owe to the Exemplar be the sole motive thereof so that if it be done to an Image of our Lord it proceeds originally from the honor we owe unto our Lord tho it is not that Honor Or also one and the same external gesture subservient to a double internal intention one directed to the Figure the other to the thing designed by it Now both these Worships are by the Church maintained lawful and this later in the second Nicene Council vindicated against those who tho they were no Iconoclasts but allowing the use of Images yet denied it lawful to pray or bow before to kiss or embrace or to use lights perfumes or shew any other signs of honor to them therefore these called by Epiphanius 2. Conc. Nic. Act. 6. in fin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 semi-pravi and falso veri whenas yet those very persons that denied these lawful to Images performed the like Ceremonies to the Cross the Book of the Gospels and other sacred Utensils Against these therefore it concerned the Church to vindicate such long-practiced Salutation or honorary Adoration of Images Which also was defended in that Council by the like civil Honors and Ceremonies relating to the Exemplar by Christians without scruple performed to the Emperors waxen Effigies or Statues brought into Cities for their doing homage where the Emperor could not appear and receive it in person Si enim saith a Bishop there 2. Conc. Nic. Act. 1. Regum laureata Iconas missas ad civitates vel regiones obvii adeunt populi cum Cereis Incensis non cera perfusam tabulam sed Imperatorem honorantes Quanto
do the Adorate scabellum Psal 98. and Moses's putting off his shooe because the ground was holy Exod. 3.5 Jos 5.15 Gen. 28.16 17 18. do warrant the contrary And venerabantur quondam Judaer Sancta Sanctorum saith St. Jerome Epist 17. Ad Marcellam from which he inferrs Nonne tibi venerabilius videtur Sepulchrum Domini Yet was the Ark also as well as the Images of the Cherubims liable to be adored with such a kind of Worship as might be flat Idolatry It is most true then and willingly conceded to those who I know not to what end do press it that if God declares that any worship whatever given to an Image is Idolatry no distinction about worship can save us from it but as you see most reasonably still maintained that God in this Precept or elsewhere in the Scriptures hath declared no such thing And were the sense of Scriptures here disputable yet from whom ought we to learn it rather than from the Church which we have shewed in her supreme Councils to expound them otherwise Lastly supposing all Veneration of Images prohibited in the second Commandment yet if the Veneration practised against the Precept be such only as is lawfully given to other Creatures as to sacred things the misapplication thereof to Images will be a fault or a sin because transgressing some part of God's Law but not therefore the sin of Idolatry because no honor is done to it but what may be lawfully done to the Creatures and those as to their substance the meanest and so no Divine Jealousy raised thereby § 46 Meanwhile some Catholick Divines also I grant there are that hold by this Commandment any Worship whatever little or great to be prohibited to Images But then so do they 1st the making or use of any Images 2ly thus far they restrain and contract this Precept to be a ceremonial and temporal one belonging only to the Jews a Nation and in an Age much inclined to Idolatry 3ly grant this Precept not prohibiting the Jews the Adoration of other things sacred the Temple the Ark c. from which they collect that the prohibition therein solely of Image-worship hath nothing of Morality in it by all which their opinion is rendred useless to Protestants who urge it 4ly They labour here under several difficulties as not only God's commanding the Images of the Cherubims and afterward of a Serpent to be made but Solomon's voluntary framing several figures as without command so without trespassing any and their answers to them seem to some other Catholicks not satisfactory This concerning no prohibition in the first or second Commandment either of the making or of the Veneration of Images such as is maintained by Catholicks viz. only a relative honor and though given per in or secundum se to the Image yet not propter se but such whereby out of the love and honor we owe to the Prototype we have an affection and respect also to those things that any way appertain to it § 47 5ly But then this respect or esteem of it is not affirmed the very same that we exhibit to the Prototype it self nor any such honor as implies out submission to it or it a thing held more excellent than our selves No inanimate thing being in reason capable of such a subjection and homage from Man or an inferior from the superior But such an inferior reverence and respect as is given to other relatives and appertinents of Holy Persons or Instruments of Religion Such as is given Typo venerandae Crucis Sanctis Evangeliis reliquis Sacris as the Second Nicene Council referred-to by that of Trent declare their meaning and so again the 8th General Council cap. 3. recited before § 20 c. Such as is given to the Holy Cross to the Book of Holy Scriptures to the Sacred Utensils Churches Altars lastly to the Holy Name of JESUS for as I have shewed both the Councils and Schoolmen do compare and equal all these and defend that of Images by the other as to the same kind of honor cult or reverence given them tho this reverence may be gradually different as the Person represented is more excellent or the thing so honoured for his sake more nearly relating to him Of these thus Bellarmin De Imag. l. 2. c. 21. Non debetur Imagini Honor qui debetur Deo sed minor Non asserimus eundem honorem sed aliquem honorem deberi Imagini Again Ibid. c. 19. Imago cum sit res inanimata sensus ac rationis expers non est honoris capax propter se ideo Imagines non honorantur absolute sed relative ad Prototypum Qui honor transit ad Exemplar mediate quasi consequenter nam qui honorat imaginem alicujus sine dubio honorat propter eum cujus est Imago Ibid. c. 21. And. Imagines venerandae eo modo quo veneramur Evangelia sacra vasa § 48 6ly A Veneration or Reverence due to Holy things as the ancient Opposers of Nice did so the soberer sort of Protestants do willingly acknowledge To Bellarmin urging That Judaei solebant prostrati ad terram venerari imagines Cherubim Bishop Andrews answers Resp ad Apol. c. 8. p. 204. At Cherubim c. non adorarunt Nam veneratos esse eos Sanctum Sanctorum non dubitamus qui ipsi Templa veneramur Sed ad Adorationem nimis angusta venerandi vox And Cap. 1. p. 35. Rex adorationem Reliquiarum reprehendit non Venerationem And p. 50. Tandem autem eo forte recidet ut non alium eis honorem congruere dicturus sit quam libro Evangelii vel vasis Sacramentorum De quo neque nos habebit valde repugnantes Thus He. But if that Veneration of the Images of the Cherubim be allowed which he yields of the Temple no more is by Bellarmin or Catholicks desired But then for the term Adoration or Incurvation the Scripture useth this term for Scabellum pedum twice and for Templum and Montem Sanctum too See Psal 98.5 Adorate Scabellum And ver 9. and Psal 131.7 and Psal 5.8 Or if in all these by reason of a Prefix 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before the word they are to be translated ad Scabellum ad Templum incurvate vos Templo or ad Templum yet the Scripture useth the same mode of expression for Abraham's worshiping of the Sons of Heth and Jacob of Pharaoh where is the same Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 too and as much reason for translating ad filios Heth as ad Scabellum or ad Templum I say in these the word Adorare is used and applied to them notwithstanding Non added in the second Commandment to the very same Hebrew word that is used in the other Exod. 20. Non adorabis ea neque coles that is non adorabis neither any thing nor the Image or Similitude of any thing Sun Moon or Stars in Heaven or in Earth This Abraham adoravit filios Heth must force
times ' The Furniture and Utensils of the Church were honoured in the spotless times of the Church as consecrated to God's service tho the honor of them being uncapable of honor for themselves was manifestly and without any scruple the honor of God But Images so long as they were used to no further intent than the ornament of Churches the remembrance of holy Histories and the raising of Devotion thereby as at the first they were used by the Church and so are still came in the number I add and so ought to receive the honor of things consecrated to God's Service Lastly thus Daille Traicte des Images c. 7. in his Answer to St. Gregory's forementioned Expression ea qua dignum est veneratione seems to allow some Veneration to such things so it be not cult ou service religieuse 'A certain degree of respect and honor saith he is due to all the Instruments of Religion as to the persons and things of the Church to the Priests to the Chalices to the sacred Bibles which every one calls venerable yet none deferrs to them the religious service which those of the Roman Communion now adays render to Images See also Ibid. p. 340. 376. And Apol. des Eglis Reform c. 10. One of his Answers to the Text Adorate Scabellum Psal 98. is ' That this Adoration of the Ark was an inferior species of honor to the Adoration of Latria which is due to none but God Thus He. This inferior reverence then due to holy things let him allow to the Images of our Lord and his Saints and for any further latria or religious service he shall be dispensed with And here I may conclude with what a modern Controvertist Spencer Scripture mistaken p. 128. writ not long since in debating the sence of the Second Commandment ' That what Worship soever a well-minded Protestant should judge may be given to the Holy Name of JESUS when he sees it either printed in a Book or engraven in a Stone without all Superstition or Idolatry or breach of the Second Commandment I add or what the Jews might give to the Ark let him give the same to any Image of our Saviour and in the same manner or at least judge that the like may lawfully be given to it and no more in this point will be required of him to be esteemed conformable to the Doctrine and Practice of the Roman Church To the Testimonies of Protestants confessing a certain Reverence and Honor due to Holy things might be added the Testimonies of the Fathers and constant Practice of the Church in all former times and the several commands and examples thereof occurring in the Scripture Ye shall reverence my Sanctuary Lev. 19.30 and 26.2 And Adorate Scabellum pedum ejus and that quia sanctum est since both in the Hebrew are of the same Gender Sanctum or Sanctus may relate either to Scabellum or Dominus and the place where it was was called Sanctum Sanctorum Such things I say I might collect if I thought this were a thing that would be much questioned save by some late profane Sects that cry down also all Things and Persons sacred the Clergy and Churches § 49 7. Next If it be more particularly enquired what this Veneration or Honor is that is communicable or pretended to belong as to other holy things so to holy Images for so I call those representing Holy Persons Such Honors for the external signs thereof have used to be in ancient times and still are in the Roman as also Oriental Churches uncovering the head bowing kissing embracing lights perfumes c. As we see also men place in their Closet kiss or embrace the Picture or Effigies of a person whom they dearly love without any fear of either Idololatria or Idolodulia in such a Practice Again For the internal intention joined with such outward gestures this also non ullus cultus eorum qui tribuuntur naturae intelligenti as Bellarmin observes or any such submission of mind as he that honors it acknowledges himself inferior to it which Vasquez therefore taking internal Adoration in so strict sense justly rejects as unapplicable to any Image or inanimate thing in what consideration soever but an inward esteem and value of them for some particular relation they have to some other object more excellent than our selves as also an intention by the outward gestures we use to shew not to the Image to which we perform them but to any persons capable of understanding our action the Prototype or others the esteem we have of any thing so nearly belonging to such a person F. Suarez thus expresses it In 3. Thom. Disp 54. § 5. Est Existimatio quaedam Imaginis ut est similitudo ad personam sacram or ut est quaedam res habens relationem ad tale exemplar Propter quam honor illi exhibetur non ea intentione ut Ipsa illum percipiat such cult belongs only to things intelligent sed solum ut convenienti reverenti modo tractetur juxta existimationem quae de illa haberi debet atque adeo ut haec ipsa existimatio ipsism actionibus significetur ostendatur Significatio autem haec sicut non fit propter Imaginem quae adoratur ita neque fit ad ipsam id est ut ipsa percipiat animum intentionem adorantis sed hoc modo ordinatur significatio ad eum propter quem fit adoratio vel certe etiam ad alios qui adorationem vident whereby such person would testify to them his honor of the Prototype Unde per tale officium adorationis homo non ita se submittit Imagini ut profiteatur se inferiorem illa which may remove Vasquez's scruple sed solum profitetur Imaginem pertinere seu esse aliquid ejus qui superior excellentior est In which worship of the Image virtualiter exhibetur rei intellectuali debitus cultus quamvis in expressa formali intentione hoc non habeatur Thus Suarez De Mysterio Incarnat Disp 36. § 3. n. 39. And Lugo thus Animus exercendi exterius circa Imaginem dando ei superiorem locum honorifice eam tractando c. propter excellentiam Exemplaris quam repraesentat eas actiones submissionis externae praestat quas exercere solemus circa excellentiores dominos sed non quod volumus significare quod interius existimemus Imaginem esse nobis superiorem vel dominum quia totus hic honor debetur Exemplari etiam in sua Imagine This I have exhibited at length out of these two judicious Schoolmen to avoid many cavils about the mode of this inferior worship and observance that is given to and terminated in Images as also in other sacred things § 50 8. Yet 8ly Catholicks contend That it doth not hence become necessary that this Existimation or external reverent Tractation of inanimate things performed to them in consideration of some other sacred or honourable person they appertain to should therefore
there much more reasonable for me to worship God by prostrating my self to the Sun or any of the heavenly Bodies nay to an Ant or a Fly than to a wooden Table or to a Stone-building or to the leaves of a Book or a few letters put together in a word or to two sticks across or to a silver Chalice or to a wooden Chair For in the other I see great evidences of the power and wisdom and goodness of God which may suggest venerable apprehensions of God to my mind whereas these can have nothing worthy admiration unless it be the skill of the Artificer And I cannot for my heart understand why I may not as well nay better burn Incense and say my Prayers to the Sun having an intention only to honor the true God by it as to do both those burn Frankincense and say my Prayers in a Church or before the Altars or a Cross I say here before because as Protestants going into a Church or before an Altar to pray yet do not pray to the Church or Altar so neither do Catholicks to an Image And as Protestants do not burn Frankincense in a Church that the Church or Altar may scent it so neither Catholicks that the Image I am sure the Sun hath far more advantages than any artificial Table or a curious Structure can have the beauty and influence of it may enflame and warm ones devotion much more If the danger be that I am more like to take the Sun for God than a Church a Table or a Book on that account that which deserves most honour should have least given it and that which deserves least should have most Then After his own reasoning ended Thus he may set the Heathen himself upon the Protestant as he there doth upon the Catholick ' I saith the Heathen proceeding only upon such principles as these that there is one supreme infinite Being who makes use of some more illustrous Beings of the world to communicate benefits to the rest on which account I think my self bound to testify the honor I owe to the supreme Deity by paying my due respects and honor also in subordination to him to those subservient and ministerial instruments of his am not afraid of what any Prelatist in the world can say for my confutation Nay I am tempted to laugh at their folly and despise their weakness who plead for the Worship of God in or before a dull and rude heap of stones or frame of wood and condemn me for honouring God in the Sun the most noble part of the Creation If they tell me that the supreme God must have a Worship proper to himself Yes I answer them in their own terms I by no means question it and that is it which is called by them and the Fathers See St. Austine De Civ Dei l. 10. c. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is reserved to the supreme Deity all that I give to the Sun is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which deserves an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of its eminent usefulness But here the personated Heathen mistakes a litle for as the veneration of holy things is not by Protestants so neither that of Images by Catholicks called any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 see before § 49. much less do Catholicks do the same things to an Image which they do to God himself as this Author tels his Reader a litle after ' If they say I make the Sun God by giving it religious worship no more than they do Temples and Altars for the Catholick's Veneration given to Images is held no more religious in any sense than that of Protestants to Churches Altars the Holy Name of JESUS c words and things relating to Religion not Civil commerce ' If they urge that God hath forbidden worshiping the Host of Heaven and so the Sun Yes that is giving the Worship of the supreme God to them but not a subordinate relative inferior worship which was all I intend and I hope they are not so ignorant of the nature of humane actions as not to know that they go whither they are tended and my intent was only to honor the true God by it It would be too tedious to prosecute the rest of his Discourse justifying the worship of the Sun rather than of any other sacred things against the Protestants as much as of it rather than of Images against Catholicks And the same joint defence against such Heathen may serve for them both That such relative reverence or veneration is not performed to those things more that are in their essence more noble than others for what comparison herein between the Sun and a Church Nor yet to all things that have any relation to him whom we principally and soveraignly honor for so have all God's Creatures whatever but to those only that have a nearer and more immediate relation to him either by consecration to his service as Churches Altars c. or also a representation of his Person as the Images of our Lord or some other way In the reverent treatment of which things tho these uncapable of any sense thereof yet in the sight of them who behold it we devoutly express our honour and homage to the person to whom they belong And what things it is meet should receive such a respect we must prudently leave to the judgment and arbitration of the Church and our Spiritual Superiors § 53 9. These things concerning the lawfulness of such an inferior Veneration as is given by Catholicks to Images being cleared whether the present practice herein be also ancient and the use of later ages precisely the same as the first we need not be solicitous 1. For first that which is lawful in any times to be practiced may also lawfully at any time begin to be so Nor is it necessary that what is done now be also the practice of Antiquity but sufficient if nothing in Antiquity can be shewed repugnant to it Again It is not necessary that there be any express Command or Precept in Scripture either for the veneration use or making of Images But it is sufficient if there be any example in the New or Old Testament that it is in neither of them disallowed enough if an example there be of something equal and parallel to it the veneration of some other sacred things or enough for the lawfulness of such practice if no prohibition found thereof in the sacred Writ as I hope for two of these the making and use of Images or Pictures Protestants will accord The honor and worship of our Lord and his Saints all will allow a duty what ways or modes also of honouring them more immediate and direct or also more remote and relative are lawful or also expedient and when it belongs to the Church to determine and to prescribe to us and we are obliged to acquiesce in her judgment and submit to her Injunctions Lastly It will not follow from the non-practice of any
and Cyril of Hierusalem Epiphanius also in this Epistle confesseth that the people of the place where he tore the Veil murmured against him for it and this probably if we consider such allowed use of Images elsewhere not only for the loss of their Veil but for his controlling as those times were a blameless practice Which practice by what the aforesaid Nicene Fathers Ibid. relate his own disciples and followers imitated afterward also in Cyprus building a Church in his honor and cum multis aliis titularibus picturis imaginem ejus in ipso templo collocantes This of the use of Images in the fourth Age. § 56 3ly Granted also by Protestants that the Veneration of Images was practiced in the fifth Age. Of which thus Daille Des Imag. l. 3. c. 7. ' In the second half of the fifth Age and in the whole that followed we find frequent passages that speak of Images and some also that make mention of venerating and serving them but the word serving he should either have omitted or shewed it in some testimony of that Age. But then meanwhile it is granted by them that the veneration of sacred Relicks and of the Cross was a custome of the fourth Age and that God also then honoured these with many Miracles Now this fourth Age was the first wherein the Church enjoyed a liberty of its publick Service and Ceremonies and wherein the Church-Practices and History were more exactly by a greater plenty of Writers and in larger Volumes recorded See Chamier Tom. 2. l. 20. c. 9. § 35. in his Answer to the Testimonies of the Fathers Trecentis post Christum annis nullum omnino vestigium extat adoratarum Reliquiarum vix etiam conservatarum nisi in Sepulchris Ergo ea veritas non est Christiana a non-consequence for a Truth may be in an Age in the Writings of which it is not set down and registred Nam deinceps antea confessus sum invectum id studium auctum And see Daille in his Book De Relig. cultus objecto confining himself both for the non-veneration of Relicks and of the Cross to the three first Ages and granting the practice of them in the fourth But then for the silence of the Writers of the three first Ages we must remember him of what he hath said in his Vray usage des Peres l. 1. c. 1. when he thought it his interest to shew the Fathers Works unserviceable for the deciding of modern Controversies viz. ' 1. That the Writings of the three first Ages were few the faithful for the most part rather contenting themselves to write their Faith in the hearts of men c. than to amuse themselves in composing Books of it 2 That the greatest part of the Writings then published are perished Where also he recites the Names of eight and twenty Authors whole Works are lost and the Works such as are certain and not contested of eight only that are of any note to have descended to us yet when another descant better served his turn he elsewhere De Relig. cultus objecto l. 5. c. 3. amplifies the Writings of these times on this manner Cum ex primis illis saeculis saith he auctorum ecclesiasticorum plurium quam viginti quinque supersint monumenta quorundam pauciora aliorum plura aliquorum etiam plurima quidem luculentissima monstrum esset ingens inauditum plane incredibile si veluti facta quadam inter se conjuratione eam rem omnes ubique constanter in tam multis libris tacuissent quae in tota Christi sui Ecclesia pro insigni Christiani cultus parte haberetur And in his Noveaute des Traditions Romaines part 1. c. 3. p. 14. published some years before he saith much what the same reciting there particularly those many famous Writings of the three first Ages that have descended to our times His argument concluding hence that what these mention not then was not But what is this insignis Christiani cultus pars he there speaks of The veneration of the Cross as if this were some great and fundamental Article of the Catholick Faith Well for the Cross I appeal to the equal Reader whether the Heathens objecting then to the Christians the Adoration of it mentioned by Minutius Felix and by Tertullian Apologet. c. 16. calling the Christians Religiosos Cruris with whom Justin Martyr seems to speak like things concerning it In Apolog. 2. as well as the Apostate Julian's reproaching them with it afterward mentioned by Cyril Alexandrinus In Julian l. 6. doth not shew some Veneration given to the Cross also before the fourth Age. Indeed so often as this was objected these Authors had reason to deny such an Adoration of it as the other charged them with namely an Adoration of two pieces of wood across parallel to that given by the Heathens to their Images as imagining some Divinity or Virtue resident therein O miseri homines saith Julian quum serventur arma quae magnus demisit Jupiter c. cessatis adorare colere interim Crucis lignum adoratis imagines illius in fronte ante domos pingentes But yet such Adoration so early objected seems rationally to infer some reverence and honor done by the Christianity of those times to it as to other holy things Neither hence may Daille justly draw the same consequence of the Christains Veneration of an Asse's Head from the Adoration also of this objected to them because we find not any such Practice in the sourth or the following Ages of the one as we do of the other nor no such practice of the one an Asse's Head in any Age at all But the Objection of it probably grounded on a fabulous Story related by Tacitus § 57 If then I say this Veneration of Holy Relicks and the Cross which is found in the fourth Age or ancienter be conceded any way lawful or justifiable then the same and no greater given in whatever following Age to Images can never be Idolatrous But then that Passage written by St. Anstine at Rome about An. Dom. 388. De Moribus Ecclesiae c. 34. much urged by Protestants Novi multos esse sepulchrorum picturarum adoratores speaking of turba imperitorum as he there calls them amongst Christians as it declare both of these the worship of Pictures then as well as of Relicks to have bin done in an excessive and superstitious way by some so seems it to imply both also and not one of them only done in a laudable way by others and that if there was an inculpable Veneration of Holy Relicks in that Age of which and the due Honors done to the Sepulchres of the Martyrs see much in his Civ Dei 22. l. 8. c. and 8. l. 27. c. so also of Holy Pictures too the excess of such a Practice among the simple and unlearned being not likely where none at all was among the prudent and discreet V. §. 58. 10. Such appearing to be the
Doctrine of the Church in her retaining the use of Images I come now to what was in the Fifth place proposed That She is not answerable for the faults of those that practice otherwise Especially having laid a strict charge on all Bishops Conc. Trid. Sess ult de Venerat Imag. both for the remedying all indecencies in the making of such Pictures and removing any Superstition in the use of them Nor can those be excusable who desert her Communion for any such Practice to which she no way obligeth or also which she with them condemneth and much less for such expressions as being used more freely in her Hymns and Poetry are taken by them in such a sense as they do or may know her common Doctrine disclaims So long as our own practice is no way hindred from going along with the Church's Doctrine we may not alledge any other mens practice to warrant a discession from her may alledge no more that of Idolatry perhaps than that of Adultery Murther or Blasphemy in her ' Let Practice and Doctrine go together we agree said Bishop Mountague Appeal to Caesar p. 257. If he speak of a general Practice this demands too much but where our Practice and the Church's Doctrine may go together there we cannot justly disagree he the Practice of some others how it will 2. Again neither is the Church of Rome hereupon more obliged to abrogate a lawful Veneration of Images because Protestants are offended at it as liable to abuse than Protestants to lay aside which they do not the use of Images because the Puritans are offended at them upon the same account § 59 3. But then as to the Practice of any particular person in this matter it seems very difficult to charge it with Idolatry For 1. The internal act of the Worship given to Images by any is not knowable to any others Distinctio Latriae saith Spalatensis De Rep. Eccl. 7. l. 12. c. 47. n. aliarum inferiorum adorationum ex solo hominis interno dependet quod internum non substat Ecclesiae judicio I add neque cujusquam alterius And not certainly known ought to be most charitably interpreted especially in the practice of people instructed in the common Creeds and Principles of Christianity perfectly opposite to Idolatry And therefore that Passage of St. Austine in Psal 113. is very unreasonably urged by some Protestants Quis autem adorat velorat intuens simulachrum qui non sic afficitur ut ab eo se exaudiriputet ab eo sibi praestari quod desiderat speret Which as it was spoken by him of the Heathen Quis Gentilium of whom he saith also a little before that Quoniam in illo figmento non invenit vitalem motum credit numen occultum And effigiem viventi corpori similem sine vivo aliquo habitatore esse non putat So can it be no way applied to the common principles of any Christian and to find it false let but the Objecter if a Christian try the experiment of the Quis upon himself and looking on a Picture when he prays to our Lord tell whether he thinks it hears him And since Protestants at other times do so freely exalt the knowledge of the Heathen too that they were not so stupid as to worship Stocks and Stones or Pictures the works of their own hands but only the Gods by such Representations which are only the visible Memorials of them which they do to make the Christian run parallel with the Heathen Idolatry why do they not meanwhile reflect on the great uncharitableness on the other side toward Christians in fancying or representing them so stupid and void of understanding in their addresses to Images or Pictures ut ab illis se exaudiri putent c. I say then as to the internal act of Veneration or Reverence given by any Catholick to an Image since it can no way be known to Protestants it ought to be charitably interpreted that it doth not deviate from the Church's Doctrine § 60 As to the external I grant it may discover it self to be such as may be unlawful or idolatrous as by the form of their Vocal Prayers addressed to such Images Sacrifice erection of Temples and Altars to them a wrong confession of their Faith concerning them in attributing to them something Divine or some other of those misapprehensions mentioned in the beginning of this Discourse § 2. c. Of which some Christians were guilty long ago in St. Gregory's time as appears by the Fact of Serenus and in St. Austin's by his Novi multos and so for ought we know some may be still But then for those exernal acts of Veneration that ordinarily appear among Catholicks as kissing burning lights perfuming or incensing them uncovering the head kneeling praying before them I have shewed before § 49. c. that there are none of these but may be lawfully used abstracting from a bad intention in expressing the honor we give to a creature and therefore cannot be chargeable with Idolatry and that all these are used also by Protestants in the honor they do to some of the Creatures If then an Anti-ceremonial Puritan seeing a true Son of the Church of England that he may say his Prayers the more devoutly going into a Church and uncovering his head so soon as he enters into it or into the Chancel at least bowing toward the Altar or Communion-table there sometimes also burning Frankincense there a thing as lawful I suppose as it is in our own houses bowing at the Holy Name of JESUS kneeling down at his receiving of the Holy Mysteries in the Eucharist in his taking a solemn Oath kissing the Gospels in the Interrment of an honourable Friend lighting up many Torches not for need but as an Honor to the Deceased and an Ornament of his Funeral c as a Puritan I say would be censured to offend very much against Charity if he should accuse or mis-construe him herein to commit a most gross Idolatry or Superstition for possibly he may do so in giving Divine Worship to a frame of Wood or a Name in Incensing a pile of Stone in imagining God to dwell in a Fabrick made with hands in lighting a dead man to his Grave c. If I say this would be a most uncharitable and unjust Accusation in a Puritan toward a Protestant-Conformist how will not a Protestant stand guilty of the same fault when beholding a Catholick kneeling and saying his Prayers before an Image he chargeth him with praying and giving Divine Honors to it with conceiving some Divinity resident in it or Virtue issuing from it or that it is lighted with his lamp small 's his sweet odours and hears his requests This of the difficult discovery of an Idolatrous Practice in any In which as it happens in several other matters I fear for the most part the guilt of the Accuser is greater than of the Accused § 61 For a Conclusion to this Discourse