وو gory Nazianzen relates, how " a lewd woman was reformed by seriously viewing the picture of a reverend and virtuous old man. And no doubt the sight of his person would have had a more certain effect; yet none can infer from thence, that she had been obliged to worship his person; nor doth the Father say any thing of her adoring his picture.* The woman who was cured of an issue of blood, made a statue of Christ, after the Romans' custom, who used this way to express their gratitude to their benefactors: but there is no mention that she or others adored this statue; and if the Christians had done so in that age, they could not have accused the heathens for worshipping their images. Asterius Amasenus lived after the year 400, and he only rhetorically describes the picture of St. Euphemia's passion, which he saw in one of the porticos of the Church, and saith that the painter was piously employed when he drew this piece, no doubt more piously than if he had been painting a profane story: but still we do not find that the Father prayed to this figure; and this is the first instance they can bring of a picture hung up in or near a church. So that probably about this time they came to be used to adorn churches. For it is most improbable, which a certain legend afterwards affirms, that there were pictures of saints in Christian churches in the times while persecution raged; and we are assured of the contrary by far better authority. It was therefore in the fifth century that this adorning of churches came in, as may be collected from that question put to Nilus (who lived about 445), concerning painting churches or oratories: and he advises them to have (not a rood-loft full of saints, but) only the bare sign of the cross in the east end, and saith, the other walls should rather be adorned with histories of the Old and New Testament, than with horses, dogs, and hares, and such-like vain pictures;T but in him we hear nothing of adoring either the cross or other pictures. The next order of testimonies are out of authors living six hundred years after Christ, in an age when ignorance and superstition grew apace, and therefore they are no good evidence for a tradition, pretended to be derived from the Apostles. * Ibid. p. 206. D. Act. 4. p. 214. C. + Ibid. p. 207. B. Baluzii not. ad Lactant. de Mort. persecut. p. 374. ¶ Act. 4. p. 227. B. Ibid. p. 207. D. 66 Maximus died not much above one hundred years before this Council.* And in him we first meet with kissing the cross and the image of Christ, as well as the Gospels, in the taking of an oath but the Fathers of this Council stretch this too far, when they affirm this was adoration; for those who utterly deny, that any adoration is due to the Gospels, will yet kiss the book when they take a solemn oath. Leontius Cyprius is an obscure author, and some think this tract was never heard of before this Council; however, he lived but in the year 620,‡ and therefore is too late for an evidence in this cause: he seems indeed to speak the most home to the adoration but his authority weighs not against many elder and more learned Fathers; and his arguments shall be examined afterwards.§ Their next witness Anastasius, bishop of Antioch, lived in the seventh century, and yet is no favourer of their cause; for he allows no more honour to be given to angels, than we give to men; and expressly declares, we must not pray to them, that being a service only due to God:"|| and how this will agree to the praying to saints and angels, in and by images, as the Romanists daily do, I cannot imagine. Besides, he makes it ridiculous to adore the emperor's image, when he himself is present; yet Christ hath assured us, he is present always, when we assemble in his name; and he hath promised to be with us unto the end of the world; and therefore it is as ridiculous to adore his image. For as Lactantius argues, "Since God cannot be absent, but by his divine nature he hears and sees all things in every part of the world, it is needless to make an image of him, that is everywhere present; and since he hears us, it is enough to call upon his name in prayer.' "** As for Sophronius of Jerusalem, he is too late, as was noted before, for he died in the year 636.++ Yet he names no custom of adoring or praying to the images of the saints, though he speaks of building churches to their memory; and shews the great advances which superstition had made in adorning churches.‡‡ And his very silence about adoration is a good proof that no such thing was in use at that time. Finally, as if they relied not much on these later witnesses, Ann. 620. Bellarm. de Script. Eccl. p. 111. § Act. 4. p. 235. B. Act. 4. p. 247. A. ¶ Ibid. E. ** Lactantii Instit. lib. 2. cap. 2. [vol. 1. p. 117. Lut. Par. 1748.] tt Chartophyl. Eccles. p. 128. # Act. 4. p. 250. C. they run back again to some more eminent and ancient Fathers, but still to no purpose. The first place cited out of St. Chrysostom, is not to be found in the best edition of his works; but if it were, his arguing that all creatures have a natural reverence for man as he is the image of God,* will be little for the credit of their images, which dogs will piss upon, and birds defile; yea, which mice and worms make bold with. The following citations out of St. Athanasius and St. Basil, are good evidence against the worship of the image of Christ in their time; for they only argue for the worship of Christ himself, and shew, that he being the image of God, in worshipping him, we worship God; and this they illustrate by the civil honour paid to the emperor's image, which is shewed for the emperor's sake. But if there had been any custom then of worshipping Christ's image with religious worship, that had been a far more proper illustration for their argument, than the other; and there could not have been a fitter occasion to mention the adoring Christ by his image than this. Wherefore their silence in that point, and their flying to a remote comparison, relating only to civil honour, doth prove, that in their time the image of Christ was not adored with religious worship. The next citation out of St. Basil, is out of a forged epistle of his to Julian the Apostate; which is so gross, that some of the Romanists are ashamed of it; and the very style sufficiently discovers it. § And no doubt if St. Basil had writ so plainly to Julian, about the Christians adoring images, that witty and malicious adversary of theirs would have made use of this to justify his pagan idolatry; whereas in all his works he never objects this, but blames them as enemies to all images. The testimony of Theodoret, about setting up the image of Symeon Stylites over their shop-doors at Rome, hoping for protection from thence, || confutes the pretence of Pope Gregory and the Council, that they did not hope and trust in images; and no doubt it was a crime in the people who did so, if the story be true: but let it be remembered, that Theodoret brings it in with "they say," as being only a report; and he lived a great way from Rome, and so might be easily imposed on in this matter. They add another place out of St. Basil's sermon on Balaam; which (if it be genuine) is nothing * Ibid. p. 259. Act. 4. p. 263. C. D. † Ibid. p. 262. A. D. & 263. A. § Dr. Cave's Life of St. Basil, p. 222. Ep. Gregor. p. 14. E. & Act. 6. p. 411. B. to their purpose of adoration, being only a rhetorical flourishin kind of advice to a painter: and many thousands hold it lav ful to draw a picture of our Saviour, who utterly refuse 1 worship it.* In the next act, St. Cyril justly condem Nebuchadnezzar, for the sacrilege of taking away the cherubin out of the temple. But what is this to a Christian emperor taking away images, which were not set in churches by God command (as the cherubims were in the temple), and whic were abused to superstition and idolatry (but so were not th cherubims). If St. Cyril had blamed Hezekiah for breakin the brazen serpent, it had been somewhat to the purpose, an their application had been very proper. As for the epistle Symeon Stylites, it was writ to that Justin the emperor, wh died in the year 578. So that it is too late to witness thei Apostolical tradition; and besides, he saith not one word o any worship paid to the images of Christ and his mother, by the Christians; which is the point they were to prove. No ought his authority to be much considered, if we observe how little charity this angry saint had, who urges the emperor destroy those Samaritans without any mercy, who had n mercy on the images; and curses them to the pit of hell, though Christ hath charged us to "bless, and curse not." And now we see how they have made out their catholic tra dition, for the veneration of images, which came (they say from the preaching of the Apostles, and had been received fo near eight hundred years, being the doctrine of all precedin Councils and Fathers. And yet not one Council or Fath mentions images, till about three hundred years after Christ: and after that for three hundred years more they were on used for ornament and history; but the adoration is proved b a heap of legends and spurious authorities, or by writers wł lived but a very little while before this Council. * Act. 4. p. 271. A. + Act. 5. p. 347. E. to END OF VOL. VII. G. NORMAN, PRINTER, MAIDEN LANE, COVENT GARden. |