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
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
Images that the Gallican gave not to the Cross as is given to the Gospels and Holy Vessels And is this such an Adoration as is only due to God Or is Pope Adrian hard set to shew it was not so What means I say such loose and confused discourse ' If saith another Dr. Hammond Of Heresy § 9. n. 18. the Council of Nice define not for Adoration of Images then it is not rejected by us define not for Adoration doth he mean Adoration here as that Council declares they took it for Veneration And will Protestants allow this And if it doth define for Adoration then was it rejected by Franckfurt But means he here Adoration sicut Deificae Trinitati which Nice as well as Franckfurt rejected Or taken for Veneration which Franckfurt denies to Images indeed but allows to all other holy things viz. To the Image of the Cross tho not of our Lord and will that Doctor think we granting the one differ with us for the other What mean Protestants after the distinguishing and clear dealing of the Church to speak thus in the Clouds When they name Religious take heed of telling us what they mean by it or of touching the Catholick's explication of their meaning of it Do you understand by it say we any inferior veneration or reverence given to such things as are called sacred and used in our Religion and Service of God You your selves allow it and give it see below § 51. and the Gallican Bishops did so as much as Nice Do you mean supreme and divine Worship due only to God Catholicks deny it to any Creature as much as you Why is here made in Protestant Writers such a Petitio principii still Why are not the former Disputes contracted and this only discussed Whether sacred Images or Images of sacred Persons our Lord his Holy Mother and the Saints are without Idolatry capable of such a veneration as is or at least hath bin heretofore given generally by Christians to other holy things Or Whether the veneration also of some things not sacred if only done to them in such a manner as we honor or reverence things sacred amounts to Idolatry Or Whether he who acknowledgeth such adoration of Images as was anciently of the Cross maintains Idolatry Lastly Whether some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 supposed not granted in their expression as to the word Adoration or Religious yet these terms not used in the Council of Trent and only the one of them used but this explained and qualified in the Council of Nice can amount to Idolatry by their Doctrine § 20 This said from § 16. of the Church's explication of her terms to remove all jealousies and leave those excuseless who from equivocal words would asperse her Tenents Now I shall give a particular account of the proceeding of her Councils in stating this matter especially that of Nice referred to by that of Trent which made this Article concerning Images and some others in some hast for concluding the Council before the death of the Pope then dangerously sick The Decree of that Council Act. 7. runs thus Definimus venerandas saith that Council Sacras Imagines dedicandas in Templis sanctis Dei collocandas habendasque quo scilicet per hanc Imaginum pictarum inspectionem omnes qui contemplantur ad prototyporum memoriam recordationem desiderium veniant Illisque salutationem honorariam adorationem exhibeant non secundum fidem nostram veram latriam quae solum Divinae naturae competit sed quemadmodū typo venerandae vivificantis Crucis sanctis Evangeliis Reliquiis sacris oblationibus suffitorum luminarium reverenter accedimus where note that this latter Quemadmod um oblationibus suffitorum luminarium reverenter accedimus typo or what if they had said imagini venerandae vivificantis Crucis Sanctis Evangeliis Reliquiis sacris was the universal practice of the whole Church in those days whether Eastern or Western Iconoclasts or Catholicks See the same Declaration made by several members of this Council occurring often in the 2d 3d 4th and 6th Acts of it In this last the Iconoclasts then also accusing the Catholicks of exhibiting Latriam to their Images Epiphanius in his Reply exclaims O insanientem linguam quae Christianorum inculpatam fidem in simulachrorum arbitratur translatam culturam Nemo enim Christianorum eorum qui sub caelo sunt imagini latriam exhibuit Etenim hoc est Gentilium fabulamentum Daemonumque invocatio viz. to give latriam or Divine Worship to Images The same is reiterated by Adrian in his Answer to the Capitalare Act. 4. cap. 56. Qualiter in eorum explanaverunt definitione demonstrantes eis imaginibus osculum honorabilem salutationem reddere nequaquam secundum fidem nostram veram culturam quae decet solum divinam naturam And the Epistle of the Nicene Council to the Bishops hath these words Quare eas imagines honorabiliter adoramus salutamus idem enim significant haec duo verba This of the clear resolution and explication of that Council § 21 If we look before this Council into the times when first happened some Controversy about Images and examine the Tenet or Doctrine of St. Gregory consulted concerning it and which both the Nicene Council and Pope Adrian on one side and the Caroline Books and the Gallican Bishops on the other professed to correspond and concur with we do find him indeed denying adoration to Images but adoration taken strictly sicut Deo but yet allowing veneration to them as to other Holy Things as Pope Adrian also in his answer to the Caroline Books represents it to Charles the Great Thus He in his Epistle to Serenus 9. l. 9. Ep. Et quidem quia eas adorari vetuisses omnino laudavimus fregisse vero reprehendimus where the Reason of non-adoration rendred by him shews him to mean it of Adoration striclly so taken Quia saith he omne manu factum adorare non liceat quonian scriptum est Dominum Deum tuum adorabis illi soli servies So also in his Epistle to Secundinus l. 7. Ep. 53. sending to him a Picture of our Lord as Secundinus had requested of him He adds Scio quidem quod imaginem Salvatoris nostri non ideo petis ut quasi Deum colas By these two Dominum Deum tuum adorabis and non quasi Deum colas we see the Adoration he excepts against But then in the same Epistle he acknowledgeth a prostration before such Image as a thing lawful Et nos quidem non quasi ante Divinitatem ante illam the forementioned Image of our Lord prosternimur Sedillum adoramus quem per imaginem aut natum aut passum recordamur On which Pope Adrian in his Answer to Charles his Books c. 50. Act. 4. Sic Secundino docuit non quasi Deum colere sed ante easdem sacras imagines se prosternens non quasi ante Divinitatem ante ipsas
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
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
Having said what I think is abundantly sufficient to clear the Church's Practice in her use and veneration of Images from so heavy an imputation as indeed if the Adversaries interest would permit them to aggravate it so far doth utterly un-church it and make it a Synagogue of Satan and parallel to the Heathen Religions Now I desire those Protestants who charge the Church herewith to reflect what an heavy guilt it leaves upon themselves if such Accusation should be false and without cause and what consequences pernicious to themselves it draws along with it For 1. if it be a great fault to charge unjustly any private person with so hainous a crime as Idolatry what is it to charge the whole Catholick Church East and West with the Practice thereof now for above a thousand years and this notwithstanding our Lord 's precious Blood shed for this his Church and all his Providence over it now when all Power in heaven and earth is committed to him and notwithstanding his express Promise of protecting it for ever against the gates of hell What is it thus to call their innocent Mother a Whore for committing such spiritual Fornication and their supreme Spiritual Father Anti-Christ 2. And next What consequences doth it draw after it most mischievous to their Salvation Since after they have once fixed such an Apostacy upon their supreme Spiritual Governors and Guides and after they have thus cryed Corban they conceive themselves freed and absolved from any further Obedience they owe them And by withdrawing Obedience abandon themselves to all those errors and disorders from which this supreme Church-authority would have restrained them Nay some are so frighted herewith as they know not how to stay longer under any Church-authority at all but run away also from those Ecclesiastical Governors who have discovered this Idolatry and Anti-Christ to them and from that Church-discipline also and those Ceremonies which these judge still fit to retain as thinking they discern in all these some lineaments and resemblances of him And so by God's just judgment what aspersions these inferior Guides have laid upon the Supreme these other their Subjects have returned on them And several sober Protestants of late See Dr. Hammond who seem to have better weighed these things in labouring against these Puritan Sects to free their own Church-Government from such an imputation have also enlarged themselves so far as to release the Roman from it and have joined themselves with the Catholick Writers to remove Anti-Christ and his Seat and Kingdom quite out of the verge of Christianity § 62 Meanwhile of those Protestants who have supposed the Roman Church Anti-christian and its Head the Anti-christ and its Religion Idolatry these later more zealous Sects seem to act much more sincerely and consequentially than the other more moderate party For such Idolatry and Anti-christ once clearly discovered God forbid good Christians should so far either admit of his Laws or comply with his religious Ceremonies or maintain Communion with his Members or derive their Authority from him as the Prelatical Protestancy doth with and from the Church of Rome Would any of them correspond so far with Mahomet's Religion whom yet they account not bad enough to inherit the title of Anti-christ or charge of Idolatry as they do with the Pope's Let them then either remit such Accusation or prosecute more severely and more speedily fly from such a guilt We can never run far enough from this Grand Enemy of our Lord. For as the Apostle 2. Cor. 6.14 ' What fellowship or communion hath light with darkness what concord Christ with Belial what commerce Jerusalem with Babylon Let therefore those Zelots who are so forward to heap such an extremity of Impiety on the whole Church of God for so many Centuries before Luther or also on the whole present Church besides Luther's Followers consider well that necessary consequence thereof which some others of their own side to deter them from such a charge have observed For ' If as Mr. Thorndike Epilog 3. l. p. 357. these Practices which the Church of Rome allows and which we have handled here were necessarily Idolatries then were the Church of Rome necessarily no Church I add nor any other for many Ages before Luther or the present besides Luther for in these Practices all else agree ' The being of the Church and of Christianity presupposing the worship of one true God exclusive to any thing else And elsewhere Just Weights 2. c. p. 11. ' They that own the Church of Rome for a true Church and if it be not where was the Catholick Church before Luther must contradict themselves if they maintain such a supposition as that the Pope is Anti-christ or the Papists Idolaters Their charge is too high to be possibly true and to render her not innocent and free from their complaints they must necessarily make her less wicked Again the same Author Ibid. c. 19. p. 128. ' He that sees saith he the whole Church for the East as well as West practice these by them stiled Idolatries on the one side and only Calvin and his Followers on the other hath he not cause to fear that they who make them Idolaters without cause will themselves appear Schismaticks in the sight of God for it And therefore much more modestly he saith Epilog 3. l. p. 364. That the honor of Images which the Church's Decree maintaineth is no Idolatry And Ibid. p. 416. That the Idolatries which he grants to be possible tho not necessary indeed to be found in it are by the ignorance and carnal affections of particulars not by commands of the Church or the Laws of it And of the great danger of censuring such general Practices of the Church thus Bishop Forbes speaking of one of the supposed Idolatries Invocation of Saints De Invoc Sanct. 3. c. p. 322. Totius Ecclesiae universalem consensum spernere aut damnare res longe periculosissima est And much more in abuses only of some that which he saith is true p. 326. Non continuo propter periculum abusus aut etiam abusum quem reipsa cernimus legitimus rei usus cum scandalo totius Ecclesiae tollendus aut damnandus est § 63 Surely as the Devil gained heretofore infinite of Souls in the Old World by the Practice of Idolatry so in the New after the World's being more enlightened by the coming of our Lord and after his old gross Arts grown into general contempt and disgrace he changeth his Colours and plays another game and makes no small Harvest of Souls by driving and frighting them out of the Catholick Church and Faith and former Obedience to legal Church-Authority under the pretence now of flying from Idolatry And again So great an Envy he hath to the Honor he sees given in the Church to the sacred Humanity of our Lord in the Holy Mysteries and to his Martyrs and Saints and all that which any way appertains to them that he
now chooseth rather to represent himself a great Zelot of preserving Worship and Adoration entire to the one only God and of not communicating any of his Excellencies to the Creature He pleads much our Lord 's sole worthy Intercessions and Mediation and the necessity of performing all our Devotions out of the assurance of Faith and a Divine Command He insists much on a spiritual and refined internal service of God without any superstitious regard had to times persons places and such as is divested of external and formal Rites and Ceremonies Lastly both by some of the new Reformers within the Church and by Mahomet without it he mainly cries out against Superstition Ceremonies a multitude of Sacraments and their virtue Special Ordinations and Characters of Priesthood Will-worship Idolatry which last also is aggravated to the uttermost and extended to far greater subtilties than heretofore it was supposed to comprehend And by this new device he hath wrought so effectually on many that the memory of God's former Saints and Martyrs is almost quite obliterated and worn out among them and the Offering the Evangelical Sacrifice grown much into desuetude Holy Churches saving on the Lord's day shut up Holy Festivals no more observed Sacred Persons are seeking to credit themselves with laical and undistinct Habits sacred things grown into contempt and not enjoying so much as a negative reverence I mean freedome from contumely the Divine Worship at last so refined and purified till it is become invisible and by taking away the necessary circumstances the very substance and life thereof is perished and by disjoining the corporal and mental the interior and exterior Worship neither the one nor the other is by some at all by others so devoutly or frequently performed And all this forsooth this new Angel of Light promoteth in opposition to former Idolatry and Superstition Was not the Great False-Prophet Mahomet and the whole frame of his Religion at least one of the chiefest Conceptions of Satan's old age and Master-piece of all his Works And who so great an Enemy to Sacred Images as he or who with greater zeal throws down and declares war against all Idolatry And by him Satan instead of his former Pageantry and Puppets after that God's Messiah was sent with a most Spiritual Law and the Divine Grace to perswade men to it hath also now set up a sensual non-ceremonious facile Anti-law and a sword to compel men to it § 64 Now to be safe from all these changeable stratagems and wiles of the old Serpent sometimes assaulting us on the left hand sometimes on the right in former times by setting up Idolatry in later by exclaiming against and making shew of pulling it down I know no such security to a Christian as always to repose himself on the judgment of the Church Which Church is neither terrified with the fear of Idolatry so as to deny a due Honor to the Instruments of God's glory nor so prodigal or ignorant of the Divine Excellencies and Prerogatives as to give any part of them to any other In her honouring God's Saints or for their sakes any thing that appertains to them she knows that all such Honor finally terminates in God the sole Fountain and Donor of all that is in his Creature Honourable And his Saints now without all vanity or self-pleasing accept such Honor in conformity to God's will and because it is for his Honor that it should be given them And He is also honoured by them for bestowing such honor on them And God's Kingdome without all Jealousy remains in an Eternal Peace Amen FINIS