« FöregåendeFortsätt »
end of their conversation.” And yet there seems to be some little difference betwixt a fringe and a graven image, betwixt remembering God's commandments “to do them,” and to break them.
Pope Hadrian finds in Isaiah, a prophecy concerning Gospelimages, as clear as the nose upon your face ; for, ecce signum : “ In that day there shall be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt; and a pillar at the border thereof to the Lord, and it shall be for a sign.
He also finds the sweet singer of Israel harping oft upon the same string, and prophesying of images to be adored in the Gospel times ; saying, "The light of thy countenance, signatum est super nos, is signed upon us,”+ Psalm iv. 6.
And again, “ Lord, I have loved the beauty of thy house, and the place of the tabernacle of thy glory," Psalm xxvi. 8.
And a third time, “Thy face, Lord, will I seek," Psalm xxvii. 8.
And a fourth, “ Even the rich among the people shall entreat thy face,” Psalm xliv. 12.
And lastly, in those words, “Honour and majesty are before him ; strength and beauty are in his sanctuary," Psalm xcvi. 6.
And what can be more evident for image-worship than these texts, which do so plainly mention the face and countenance of God!
Theodosius proves, that we Christians must have holy and venerable images ; because it is said, “Whatsoever things were written, őoa poɛypápn, aforetime, were written for our learning; wherefore the venerable images being written upon wood and stone, and metal, must be for our instruction,"I
4. Away with those ignorant fellows who can derive the pictures of Christ and his Apostles no higher than St. Luke and Nicodemus ; this Theodosius finds them among the writings of the Prophets, as clear as the noon-day ; see mposypáon, “ they were engraven aforetime,” even before Christ's human nature, or his Apostles had a being; and had it not been thus, we Christians had been void of hope, for “these things were written, that we through comfort, Tõv ypapūv, of these pictures might have hope.”
* Quemadmodum Esaias propheta vaticinatus est. Act. 2. [Ibid.]p. 110. + Magnopere vultum ejus secundum humanitatis ipsius dispensationem adorari præmonuit, inquiens, etc. * Act. 4. [Ibid.) p. 213.
They have all found it in the book of Canticles, or something which makes for it ; for there it is most appositely said, “Shew me thy face, and let me hear thy voice; for thy voice is sweet, and thy countenance is comely."* And in that of the Psalmist, “As we have heard, so have we seen, xlviii. 8.
“ Ezekiel's temple was made,”+ say they, “with cherubims and palm trees; so that a palm tree was between a cherub, and a cherub; and every cherub had two faces; so that the face of a man was toward a palm tree on the one side, and the face of a young lion toward the palm tree on the other side ; and thus it was throughout the house round about.” So that it seemed to them to have been an eidulejov, or a house of imagery ; and yet should you ask them where this temple was built, or what existence had these cherubims, but in the vision of the Prophet, it will puzzle their infallibilities to answer you.
Lastly, They argue from the author to the Hebrews, thus : “ Verily the first covenant had also ordinances, and a worldly sanctuary ; there was a tabernacle made,' in which was first the candlestick, and the table, and the shew-bread, which is called holy; and after the second vail, the tabernacle, which is called the holiest of all, which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold; wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant, and over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercy-seat. If then,” say they, “the Old Testament had cherubims shadowing the mercy-seat ; let us have images of Christ, and of his holy mother, shadowing the altar ; for because the Old Testament had such things, the New received them. This,” say the Synod,|| “is the truth.” “ This,” say the princes, “is the command of God.” But why did they not conclude also for another ark and mercy-seat, another tabernacle, a golden censer, and a pot of manna, seeing it was but saying, as in the case of images they do,
because the Old Testament had these things, let us Christians have them too,” and it infallibly must be so? And tell me now,
* Act. 6. [Ibid.) p. 408. Cant. ii. 14. + Act. 4. [Ibid. p.] 197.
Ibid. ΚΑΙ Εάν η παλαιά είχε χερουβείμ, και ημείς εικόνας του κυρίου, και της αγίας Θεοτόκου, και των αγίων αυτού έξομεν, κατασκευαζούσας το ιλαστήριον. [Ibid.] p. 200.
Η “Η αγία Σύνοδος είπεν, ναι Δέσποτα η αλήθεια: οι μεγαλοπρεπές στατοι άρχοντες είπον, αληθώς θεού διαταγή έστιν. Ιbid,
can any one who reads these powerful demonstrations from, and excellent expositions of the holy Scripture, doubt of the truth of that which is so oft asserted by this Synod, that "they were certainly assisted by the Holy Ghost ?»**
But to be serious : if all, or any of these places, have any strength to prove that images should be set up in churches, or adored by Christians, why do not any of their writers use them to that end ? If they do not, why may not they be taxed with weakness, who use such proofs as none but the most undiscerning persons could produce, and which their best friends are ashamed of ?
Inference 2. §. 5. Hence it is evident that the second Nicene Council grossly was mistaken in that determination and assertion, so frequently repeated in that Council
, that imageworship had been delivered to them by the continual suffrage and approbation of the whole Church of Christ ; and was the tradition of the whole Church catholic, even from the times of the Apostles.
And consequently, that this Council hath been actually deceived in matter of tradition, as well as in her interpretations of the holy Scripture: for whereas it is frequently there said that this was the constant doctrine and tradition of the holy Fathers of the catholic Church; the opposition is not greater betwixt light and darkness, than betwixt the assertions of the Fathers, and the determinations of the Council. For,
1. The Fathers of that Council do pronounce Anathemat against all persons who take such places of the holy Scripture, which are spoken against idols, as spoken against holy images, i.e. who says the second commandment forbids the worship, not of idols only, but of holy images. And so they do pronounce Anathema against 'Justin Martyr, St. Clemens of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, St. Austin, Theodoret, Fulgentius, Agobardus, the Councils of Constantinople, Frankfort, and Paris.
2ndly, The Fathers of the same Council pronounce Anathemas against all persons
“ that the erection of
* Act. 3. [Ibid.) p. 157. Act. 7. p. 580,581, 585,
+ Τοίς εκλαμβάνουσι τας της θείας γραφής ρήσεις, τας κατ' ειδώλων, εις τας σεπτάς εικόνας, ανάθεμα. Αct. 1. [Ibid.] p. 57. 4. p. 317. 5. p. 389. 7. p. 576. 8. p. 592.
* Τοίς λέγουσι διαβολικής μεθοδείας εφεύρεμα την των εικόνων ποίησιν, και μη των αγίων πατέρων ημϊν παράδοσιν, ανάθεμα. Αct. 1. [Ibid.) p. 57. VOL. VII.
images is the invention of the devil, and not the tradition of the catholic Church :" and so they do pronounce Anathema against Clemens of Alexandria, St. Ambrose, Theodotus, Amphilochius, St. Jerome, and St. Chrysostom, Agobardus, Hincmarus, and the three forementioned Councils; who all declare, “ that this was no tradition of the catholic Church.” And against Clemens of Alexandria, Tertullian, Lactantius, Eusebius, Theodotus Ancyranus, and the whole Council of Constantinople, who say expressly, “that image-making or image-worship was the invention of the devil.”
3rdly, These Fathers do pronounce Anathema* “ to all who violate, break, or dishonour sacred images ;” which Epiphanius, Serenus, and all the Fathers of Constantinople did ; and “upon all that knowingly communicate with them, who contumeliously speak of them, or dishonour them.”
Now seeing all the Christians of the fourth century did certainly communicate with Epiphanius; of the sixth century with Serenus ; since all the Fathers mentioned in my
second chapter, do in their sense dishonour images, they in effect pronounce Anathema against them all.
4thly, They pronounce Anathemat “against all persons who detract from, or who speak evil of their sacred images."
Now since the Fathers have declared concerning images in general, that they are “worse than mice and worms; that they are “the invention of the devil ;” with many other things of a like nature, mentioned chapter the second ; they must be all obnoxious to this Anathema.
5thly, They pronounce Anathema I“ against all who do not call them holy and sacred images ;” that is, againt St. Clemens of Alexandria, Origen, Lactantius, Eusebius, and others, who have declared, that they cannot be sacred ; and that they are men of impotent spirits and lame minds, who so esteem them.
6thly, They denounce Anathema “ against all those who do not worship images, or who doubt of, or who are disaffected to
* Τοίς εικονοκλάσταις ανάθεμα, τοίς κοινωνούσιν εν γνώσει, τοίς υβρίζουσι και ατιμάζουσι τας σεπτάς εικόνας, ανάθεμα. Αct. 4. [Ibid.] p. 317. 5. p. 389. 7. p. 576.
+ Τοίς βλασφημούσιν εις τας τιμίας και σεπτάς εικόνας, ανάθεμα. Act. 4. (Ibid.) p. 317. 5. p. 389.
1 Περί των ιερών εικόνων πιστούμεθα, και ομολογούμεν, και ιεράς, και αγίας αυτάς αποκαλούμεν, και ο μη ούτως λέγων, έστω ανάθεμα: η αγία Σύνοδος είπεν, έστω ανάθεμα. Αct. 4. [Ibid.] p. 212.
και Τοίς μη προσκυνούσι τας αγίας και σεπτάς εικόνας, ανάθεμα. Act. 1. [Ibid.] p. 61. 7. p. 584.
the worship of them.” Now this Anathema, if what is here produced cannot be refuted, must certainly be pronounced against the blessed Apostles, and all the Christians of the first five centuries.
Lastly; Whereas Origen declares, " that the first thing which Christians taught their converts, was the contempt of all images ;" the Fathers of this Synod pronounce Anathema* to all - who do not diligently teach all Christian people to adore the images of all good men from the beginning of the world.”
9. 6. 3rdly, Hence also may be seen how vainly and unjustly Roman Catholics do boast of the consent of Fathers on their side, and say, that they expound the Scriptures according to that sense which they received from the ancients ; it being evident, from what hath been discoursed, that in their exposition of these words, “ Thou shalt not make to thyself the similitude of any thing in heaven or earth, &c. thou shalt not bow down to them,” they do embrace a sense which no Father, for the first six centuries, did ever put upon them; and do reject that sense they generally did impose upon these words.
. 7; 4thly, Hence I infer, that the religion of the Church of England is, in this particular, much safer than that of Rome : for if image-worship be not forbid in this commandment, nevertheless we only do neglect that practice which their best writers deem indifferent ;t which no Jew ever did perform to any patriarch or prophet, nor any Christian for 600 years to any apostle, saint, or martyr, and which no Scripture hath commanded; and so we only do neglect to do that, which neither example of the ancients, nor any precept, doth commend to
* Τοίς μη διδάσκουσιν επιμελώς πάντα τον φιλόχριστον λαόν προσκυνείν, και ασπάζεσθαι τάς σεπτάς, και ιεράς, και τιμίας εικόνας πάντων των αγίων των απ' αιώνος τω θεώ ευαρεστησάντων, ανάθεμα. Act. 1. [Ibid.] p. 61.
+ Illud ante constituendum, Imagines, ex earum per se genere esse quæ ådiápopa nominantur, hoc est, quæ ad salutem omnino necessaria non sunt, nec ad substantiam ipsam religionis attinent, sed in potestate sunt Ecclesiæ, ut ea vel adhibeat, vel ableget pro eo atque satius esse decreverit. Petav. Theol. Dogm. tom. 5. I. 15. cap. 13. sect. 1.
Ea est hujusce miserrimæ dissensionis materia, sine qua, sicut multis videtur, salva per fidem, spem, et charitatem incunctanter, et in hoc seculo et in futuro, salvari potest Ecclesia, quorum sensus, et sententia talis est, quid fidei, spei, et charitati obesse potuisset, si Imago nulla toto orbe ter. rarum picta vel ficta fuisset. Epist. Eugenii, p. 2. Act. Synod. Paris. p. 130, 134.