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
be the same or equal of all things that have any manner of Relation to such Person or that the estimation of many such things circumstances considered should be accompanied with any such external note of respect or honor So a Prince's Servant a person much resembling him a Kinsman a Friend or Favourite an Embassador his Chair of State his Robes may all receive honor from us for the Prince's sake yet not all an equal to that we give the Prince or one of them to that we give to some other or all on the self same but on a very different account And again some other things of a less valued relation to him receive no external mark of esteem at all or not in so special a manner as the former The same case it is in several things as they relate to God which on many accounts the whole Creation doth 1. First God here may be worshiped both with internal and external supreme Adoration bowing kneeling prostration c. in the beholding and contemplating and so in the presence of any of his Creatures a Man the Sun the Stars or any other whatever I see not how any rational man can deny it Yet exteriorly to do this in the sight of others who may misinterpret our intentions and mistake the direction of our Worship especially when the thing is of a greater essential or substantial dignity before or toward which we perform it and which may be to us the occasion of it it is not convenient And the same case it may possibly be in giving such Adoration before a Picture or other sacred thing in a Country wholly given to Idolatry and in whom the light of Reason is so far extinguished as that they worship Pictures for Gods The same case I say in the incurring a fault not of Idolatry but of Indiscretion And perhaps this may be the reason of the rarer use of Pictures in the first four Ages of the Church when the Christain world was not as yet so well cleansed from Heathenisme not that the use of these was not then held lawful or also beneficial but that for other considerations not so expedient 2ly We may also retain a certain esteem and value of the lowest of God's Creatures that is terminated in it but for the Maker's sake of a Fly an Ant c much more of the Sun But here also we stand obliged to the observing a decency and not giving a scandal in any our external expressions thereof which are fitly reserved for other much more principal or special Relatives 3ly Other things therefore there are of a more special relation and connexion to the prime Object of Honour and Adoration as consecrated to God's more immediate service or some way representing or minding us of his presence Such are Churches Altars the consecrated Symbols of the Eucharist the sacred Utensils and Chalices Holy Relicks Holy Cross the Holy Name of JESUS and in the last place sacred Images or Pictures which I call sacred tho some of them be not consecrated if they be such as represent and carry a similitude of Sacred Persons viz. of our Lord or his Saints the natural property of which copies being to bring into our mind and renew in us the remembrance of their Originals that are sacred gives us a sufficient title to stile them so too and the Church having found a singular benefit in such an effect of them hath frequently dedicated consecrated and exposed several of them in her publick places of worship for the same use which adds also a further degree of Reverence to those so dedicated Now what those things punctually are which are to be treated with such a special reverence or esteem as due to them on the former account this surely ought to be left to the judgment and arbitration of the Church and of our Canonical Superiors whose office it is to weigh the con-or inconveniences the decency or indecency thereof and private persons may safely act herein according to her declarations and directions Neither such external reverenc being so required may we withdraw it for fear of scandal as in the former but now mentioned but we are to correspond to the Church's Constitutions in our obedience and those who take scandal are to endeavour to rectify their own fault not ours in conforming themselves also to the same judgment always remembering that passage of St. Austine Epist 118. Si quid tota per orbem frequentat Ecclesia quin ita faciendum set disputare insolentissimae insaniae est If Images then representing holy Persons and Stories are numbred and ranked among these things venerable by the Church i. e. by the most supreme authority of its Councils and the veneration of them there resolved as hath bin shewed § 12. c. we need no more thus bandy arguments pro and con but securely rest in an humble obedience and leave the care of preventing or remedying mistakes and the considering of the just extent of the Second Commandment and other Scriptures to the same Authority § 51 Meanwhile those Protestants who allow a certain Reverence signified by some exterior note thereof due at least to some sacred things for I account no genuine Sons of the Church of England do to all deny it as to Churches nick-named by some others Steeple-houses to Altars to the Holy Name of JESUS to the sacred Symbols of our Lord's Body and Blood tho they deny it to Images are concerned here as much as Catholicks 1. both to make a distinction between exhibiting such reverence to these and promiscuously doing this to any Creature because that all things also some way relate to God as between the reverence given to God's Sanctuary or to his Altars and given to the Sun Lev. 26.2 And again 2. to distinguish the reverence they give to these from that superior honor they give to those for whose sake they honor these the reverence they give to God's Sanctuary from that they give to God himself Neither may they produce here any such arguments as current against the Veneration of Images which will confute their own practice as to Churches Altars the Holy Name of JESUS c. as some very unconsiderately do and as will further appear if we take that which a late Writer hath said concerning the reasonableness of worshiping the Sun rather than an Image and apply it to worshiping the Sun rather than any other sacred things Churches Altars c. such as Protestants also shew Reverence to § 52 For thus one may plead in his own words Rom. Idol p. 69. against a Protestant uncovering his head or shewing any reverence to a Church to the Altar or to the Holy Name of JESUS or against the Gallican Bishops that opposed Nice bowing to and incensing Churches Altars the Gospel the Holy Utensils the Cross c or the same may be applied if you will against bowing to the King's Chair of State or the Emperor's Image ' It seems as he goes on
of which as to the places and times and other circumstances he chuseth we are not to enquire Now as no such corrupt Imaginations concerning any Divine influence or virtue of Images have ever bin in the Christian Church so have always some such Imaginations attended all former Idolatrous worship of Images that have ever bin Heathen or Jewish Unless it were an Idolatry peccant only in the Exemplar worshiping that which is represented by the Image suppose the deceased Emperor for a God which is not so and not at all faulty about the Image if using it only as a Memorial of him For some Idolatry may be without or beside and was before any Images § 15 3ly Neither doth the Roman Church admit any Prayer tho at pleasure said before to be directed to any Image excluding here the Prosopopeias sometimes found in the Church's Poetry as O Crux ave spes unica for Crucifixe and by the learned who use them sufficiently understood in a Catholick sense they being held as without life or knowledge so without any animation or inhabitation of the Deity non quod credatur inesse aliqua in iis Divinitas Vel quod ab eis sit aliquid petendum saith the Council Sess 25. And Bellarm. De Imag. 2. l. 18. c. Precaturi ad Imagines accedimus non ut invocemus imaginem sed ut memoriam ejus quem orare volumus nobis imago refricet This indeed being the chiefly professed Catholick use of them Neither do Catholicks offer any Sacrifice to them a thing the Heathen professed or use any other external Ceremony of worship whatever appropriated by God to himself § 16 4. All these Fancies concerning and Practices toward Images being rejected by the Church Neither 4ly do Catholicks in the relative Veneration which they retain of them for the Person 's sake whom they represent yet give the proper Cult or Worship due to the Exemplar unto them either Latria or Divine Worship to the Images of our Lord Christ or to the Metaphorical and Historical ones of the Trinity or that inferior called Dulia to those of Saints And therefore in their applying either the term of Adoration or of Religious Worship to Images or any other sacred thing or person save to God only they declare their not taking or using these words in the most severe strict or proper sense for so they grant them to be used to signify only the supreme worship due to the Divine Majesty Of which thus St. Thomas 22ae q. 81. art 5. Religio est quae Deo debitum cultum offert And Art 1. Religio est virtus per quam homines Deo debitum cultum reverentiam exhibent And Religio saith he habet duplices actus quosdam quidem proprios immediatos quos elicit per quos homo ordinatur ad solum Deum sicut sacrificare adorare alia hujusmodi Here we see both Religio and Adoratio appropriated to God Vasquez in 3. Part. D. Thom. Tom. 1 Disp 98. c. 1. Vera sententia Duliam qua Sanctis cultum exhibemus peculiarem esse virtutem a Latria out Religione distinctam atque adeo Religionem circa cultum solius Dei versari And Cum Religio circa cultum Dei solum versetur cultus honor qui proxime Sanctis defertur ad ipsam non poterit referri alioquin si esset actus Religionis Latriae quoque diceretur Latria enim Religio idem sunt Bellarm. De Sanct. Beat. 1. l. 12. c. Aliquando accipiebant Patres nomen Religionis strictius ut convenit virtuti illi speciali quae habet pro objecto cultum Dei quae distinguitur specie ab ea virtute qua colimus Sanctos aliquando largius pro omni illa virtute qua colimus vel Deum vel Dei amicos aliasque res sacras quae distinguitur a cultu politico Franciscus a Sancta Clara. Prob. 37. De Invoc Sanct. p. 348. Objectum actus Religionis est Deus solus Cultus quo veneramur Sanctos non est religionis actus nec est actus civilis quia objectum non est aliquid civile sed supernaturale scil Sanctitas eorum § 17 Therefore it may be observed of the two Councils that have chiefly spoken of Image-worship the second of Nice and that of Trent 1. That the Council of Trent in the Decree De Reliquiis Sanctorum sacris Imaginibus Sess 25. purposely forbears to use either of these expressions Adoration or Religious Worship Sanctorum cum Christo viventium saith it sancta Corpora a fidelibus veneranda esse Sanctorum reliquiis venerationem atque honorem deberi eas-a fidelibus utiliter honorari Imaginibus Christi Deiparae Virginis c. debitum honorem venerationem impertiendam Et Christum adoramus Sanctos veneramur A thing observed not only by P. Veron and others in defence of this Council but by Daille De Religios cult objecto 4. l. 1. c. with this uncharitable censure annexed That they did it out of cunning to conceal the true Doctrine of their Church I would he and other Protestants would make good use of this their not speaking their mind to submit to their moderate Decree and they will be content he should forbear any subscription to their mental Reservations or if he will to their Schoolmen's Speculations His words are Haec illi versute ut solent Primo enim non adorationem aut cultum religiosum quae vera est ipsorum sententia sed venerationem suis Reliquiis decernant superstitionis suae dedecus hujus vocabuli ambiguitate obumbrantes But indeed such was the Councils prudence to cut off occasion from them who seek occasion and to deprive their adversaries of any advantage whose stile therefore we see much displeaseth them from such general and equivocal words tho cautiously explained when formerly used of making plausible declamations to the vulgar against her innocent Doctrine This for Trent § 18 2. Next Observable also that the second Council of Nice useth indeed the term of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Adoration but usually accompanied and qualified with some diminutive Epithet and explained by veneratio osculum amplexus honorabilis salutatio reverens accessio c. And in their Epistle to the Emperors Act. 7. sheweth the word Adoration to be equivocal and to shew a salutatory Worship as well as Latrical and Divine That in the Scripture as it is used to God in the Decalogue Dominum Deum tuum adorabis so to Men also frequently as Abraham adoravit filios Heth Jacob Esau and Pharaoh David Jonathan c. That for the Fathers Gregory Nazianzen saith Serm. de Nativitate Christi Bethlehem cole praesepe adora The like we find in St. Jerome Apol. contra Ruffin 3. l. Bethleem meam reversus sum ubi adoravi praesepe incunabula Salvatoris On which Quis saith they nisi insensatus existimet haec 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pronunciari They urge the Church Hymn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Crucem tuam adoramus Domine Quod certissime say they salutatio est dicitur Thus they defend the word Adoration to be used to express a salutatory Honor. For which we have Chemnitius Exam. Conc. Trid. p. 4. p. 696. his Confession thus far Quidam saith he vocabula mitigare studuerunt ut Act. 3. Constantinus Cypri Episcopus dicit Suscipio venerandas Imagines Adorationem autem quae fit secundum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tantummodo Supersubstantiali Vivificae Trinitati conservo Et Act. 7. Dicunt veram latriam soli Divinae Naturae competere Esse autem aliam honorariam adorationem sicut Jacob adoravit Esau Gen. 33. Abraham filios Heth. Gen. 23. Jacob Pharaonem Gen. 47. c. Quando itaque dicitur Imagines adorandas non intelligi cultum Latriae Sed adorare idem valere quod salutare amplecti amare sicut Pharisaei scribuntur amasse salutationes in foro Matt. 13. c. Volunt igitur quidam vacabulo Adorationis in Actis illius Synodi nihil aliud intelligi quam exhibitionem bonoris seu reverentiae quae fit externo aliquo gestu vel inclinatione capitis vel genuflectione vel amplexu osculo hujusmodi Thus he rightly if instead of Quidam he had put Omnes For we see it is the publick stating of the whole Council in Act. 7. Lastly whatever the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Adoration may properly signify the same Fathers declare in their Decree that the veneration or reverence or call it what we will that is given by them to Images neither for the inward intention nor outward ceremony or signs of it is any other than that which is generally given even by the Iconoclasts to other sacred things to the Cross the holy Utensils the Gospels Relicks Churches and such as the Christians of those days gave also to the Emperors Statues Now the worship meanwhile they exhibit to Images certainly is not what their expression may seem to some most properly to signify but what they explain themselves to mean by it and if such worship lawful their supposed a fault is only verbal And here also the Caroline Books observing this wariness in this Decree of Nice as Daille and others in that of Trent 3. l. 17. c. say the Council did this to palliate and disguise their Error to the common people of which more anon And 2ly 3. l. 16. c. That tho the learned do avoid such a mistaken Adoration yet the unlearned are scandalized thereby and fall into it which also now is the last Plea of Protestants against the Roman Church § 19 Well then These things are clear that the word Religious is not used at all by either Council and is by those Roman Authors which use it explained to mean not Divine but only an inferior worship of Persons or Things Sacred or Holy to contradistinguish it to that worship given to Persons dignified in the State or to some things relating to them meerly upon a Civil account And so was it used by St. Austine long ago Memorias Martyrum saith he Contr. Faustum 20. l. 21. c. Populus Christianus religiosa solemnitate celebrat And elsewhere De Civ Dei l. 8. c. 27. Quaecunque igitur adhibentur religiosorum obsequia in Martyrum locis c. And De Trinitate 3. l. 10. c. speaking of sacred things Honorem tanquam religiosa saith he possunt habere stuporem tanquam mira non possunt And as if he had foreseen the present quarrel about it and endeavoured to prevent it he hath thus discoursed on the latitude of the use of this word De Civ Dei 10. l. 11. c. Et ipsa religio quamvis distinctius non quemlibet sed Dei Cultum significare videatur unde isto nomine interpretati sunt nostri eam quae Graece 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicitur tamen quia Latina loquendi consuetudine non solum imperitorum verum etiam doctissimorum cognationibus humanis atque affinitatibus quibusque necessitudinibus dicitur exhibenda religio and so much more Sanctis non eo vocabulo vitatur ambiguum cum de cultu Deitatis vertitur Quaetio Ut fidenter dicere valeamus Religionem non esse nisi Dei cultum quoniam videtur hoc verbum a significanda observantia propinquitatis humanae insolenter auferri Quae itaque 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Graece Latine autem Religio dicitur sed ea quae nobis est erga Deum hanc ei tantum Deo deberi dicimus qui verus est Deus facitque suos cultores Deos. Thus St. Austine Clear also that the word Adoration by the Council that useth it is declared to be applied to Images in no other sense than as it is by the Scriptures notwithstanding Dominum Deum tuum adorabis to men to scabellum montem sanctum Templum c. and by the whole Christianity of that Age to the Cross and other Sacred things an Antiphon in the publick Liturgy of the Church on Good-Fryday being Crucem tuam adoramus Domine See Ordo Romanus And Alcuinus De Divinis Officiis who is thought to be the Pen-man of the Caroline Books in his Comment on the Liturgy Die Parasceves there useth the same word Venit Pontifex adorat deosculatur Crucem And Qui non possunt habere de ligno Domini salva fide adorant illam Crucem quam habent meaning hereby veneration of it I say then after this Why stay we still in the entrance of the Controversy and make verbal quarrels What means such Language as this of Bishop Andrews Respon Ad Apol. p. 200. 202 203. In secundo praecepto Legis Adoratio non restringitur absoluta est 2. Distinguit Cardinalis de Adoratione ea non ea ubi Lex ipsa non distinguit Relativam sanctitatem tribuit Imaginibus id est minimam Quibus adorationem tamen vindicat id est cultum maximum Is this Abraham adoravit filios Heth or adorate scabellum cultus maximus Or must not Bishop Andrews distinguish at least in the former Non adorabis omnem similitudinem Immo adorabis aliquam similitudinem An non ex diametro contraria No if we distinguish concerning Adorabis So a late Author Dr. Stillingft Rom. Idol c. 1. p. 87. ' God saith he challengeth all Religious Adoration to himself What In whatever sense Adoration or Religious can possibly be taken properly or improperly Again p. 89. ' The Synod of Nice said it intended to give no proper Divine Worship to Images But that is not the Question what they say but what the nature of the thing doth imply Whether that Religious Worship they give to Images is not part of the Adoration which is only due to God The nature of the thing that is of the Worship that is expressed by their words and what is that then Not Latria say they but honoraria salutatoria Adoratio Such and only such for if not name what the Nicene gave to
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
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
such veneration of Images for some Ages in all or some part of the Church that therefore the lawfulness of such a practice is no Apostolical Tradition because all things lawful are not as to practice in all times so expedient And perhaps this might be the reason as hath bin said of the rarer use of Pictures in the first four Ages of the Church because the Christian world was not as yet so well cleansed from Heathenisme and so in later times of the veneration or use of Images not being so universal in some parts of the West as latelier converted from Heathenisme and still neighbouring upon them § 54 2. It is granted by Protestants that the use of Images in Churches was introduced in the fourth Age. Of which thus Chemnitius Exam. Conc. Trid. part 4. De Imaginibus Caepit in ipsis etiam Templis usus esse Imaginum non sane ad cultum adorationem sed partim ad historicam commonefactionem partim ornatus gratia Et caeptum hoc fuit potissimum circa An. Dom. 380. Quoting a Passage of Gregory Nyssen Orat. in Theodorurn Martyrem Et Pictor etiam artis suae stores induxit in imaginibus exprimens res Martyris praeclare gestas labores cruciatus immanes tyrannorum aspectus c. Christique certamini praesidentis humanae formae effigiem Haec pictor tanquam in libro loquente artificiose depingens Martyris certamina nobis exposuit Solet enim etiam pictura tacens in pariete loqui maximeque prodesse c. Thus Gregory See also Daille Traicte des Imag. c. 4. But for Chemnitius or him to argue those Pictures to be first made or introduced into the Church about this time because at this time spoken of or at such time as these were seen here yet not the like to have been elsewhere because not mentioned as here are both unreasonable There are indeed produced by them two Testimonies in that Age that seem very prejudicial to Images The one a Canon of Conc. Elibert c. 36. Placuit Picturas in Ecclesia esse non debere ne quod colitur aut adoratur in parietibus depingatur The other a Passage in an Epistle of St. Epiphanius to John Bishop of Jerusalem Who as he was travelling in Palestine coming to a certain Church and seeing a Picture as it were of our Saviour or some Saint painted on a Veil and a Lamp hanging before it took and tore it as holding such a thing unlawful and against Scripture to be hung up in a Church Because the place is much pressed I will set you down the Story in his own words relating to the Bishop of Jerusalem his action and sending that Church another Veil in stead of that he had torn Cum venissem ad villam quae dicitur Anablatha vidissemque ibi praeteriens lucernam ardentem interrogassem quis locus esset didicissemque esse Ecclesiam intrassem ut orarem inveni ibi velum pendens in foribus ejusdem Ecclesiae unctum atque depictum habens imaginem quasi Christi vel Sancti cujusdam non enim satis memini cujus imago fuerit Cum ergo hoc vidissem in Ecclesia Christi contra authoritatem Scripturarum hominis pendere imaginem scidi illud magis dedi consilium custodibus ejusdem loci ut pauperem mortuum eo obvolverent efferrent Illique contra murmurantes dixerunt Si scindere valuerat justum erat ut aliud daret velum atque mutaret Quod cum audissem me daturum esse pollicitus sum illico esse missurum Paululum autem morarum fuit in medio dum quaero optimum velum pro eo mittere arbitrabar enim de Cypro mihi esse mittendum Nunc autem misi quod potui reperire precor ut jubeas presbyteros ejusdem loci suscipere velum a latore quod a nobis missum est deinceps praecipere in Ecclesia Christi ejusmodi vela quae contra religionem nostram veniunt non appendi But 1st both these prove beyond that for which the objecters press them by opposing also the making or use of holy Images at least in Churches the first forbids the painting or placing of them in Churches the second tears and defaces those found there Protestants approve neither of these Let themselves then frame an Answer to them § 55 2ly For the first of these I grant there might be good ground for such a prohibition considering the times the Council being very ancient and held in Spain before that of Nice at which time a great part of the West were Heathen-Idolaters and taking the Adoratur in their sense not for any inferior Veneration but such as the Heathen gave to their Images the Prohibition was prudently made for that very reason Ne quod adoratur in parietibus depingatur or which comes to the same Ne quod in parietibus depingitur adoretur i. e. Ne putetur Deus Christianorum esse illud quod in parietibus depingitur as the Heathen God's were and lest such Pictures should there by any new Converts be adored with any such corrupt notions as formerly were their Idols To this purpose speaks Mr. Thorndike concerning both these places objected ' Granting saith he Just Weights c. 9. p. 127. that Epiphanius and the Council of Elvira did hold all Images in Churches dangerous for Idolatry of which there is appearance it is manifest that they were afterwards admitted all over And there might be jealousy of offence in having Images in Churches before Idolatry was quite rooted out of which afterwards there might be no appearance But no manner of appearance that Images in History should occasion Idolatry to those Images in them that hold them the Images of God's Creatures such as are those Images which represent histories of the Saints out of the Scriptures or other relations of unquestionable credit Thus He. 2. Next for the other of Epiphanius supposing neither that Epistle nor that Passage in it falsified it seems that he had the same jealousy with the Fathers of Elvira tho not so much cause considering his times and by some of his words that he held also the use of Images in Churches to be against Scripture in which therefore Protestants as well as Catholicks must hold him singular and not to be credited and the rather because what is urged out of other Fathers of the same age Basil Gregory Nyssen and Nazianzen allowing this use of them shews him to be heterodox herein And the Fathers of Nice Act. 6. Tom. 5. out of the same pretended Epistle of his to Theodosius the Emperor that the Iconoclasts urged for his disallowing Images extract such a Confession of his Multoties locutus sum cum comministris meis ut auferrentur Imagines receptus non sum ab eis neque audire vocem meam saltem paululum passi sunt Which Comministri say those Nicene Fathers also were such as Basil Gregory Nazianzen and Nyssen Chrysostome Ambrose Amphilochius