inanimate thing is of it self capable of Worship but an Image considered as an Image but without the Exemplar is an inanimate thing This is the Doctrine of Thomas according to Vasquez which allows no more Worship to an Image considered in it self then Durandus does and yet he says that it may be delivered absolutely that Images are to be worshipped with Latria if by that be meant the same Worship which is given to the Exemplar And therefore Bellarmine tells us That to give the Worship of Latria to the Image of Christ as representing Christ is to worship the Image but improperly and per accidens and this reconciles Thomas and Durandus who grants that the Image may be said to be worshipped improperly and abusively as in presence of the Image the Object is worshipped represented by it as if it were actually present As for Durandus his Argument against Thomas his Doctrine that the Worship of the Prototype is to be given to the Image That there is a real difference in the thing and in the conception between the Image and the thing represented and therefore properly speaking the same Worship is never due to the Image that is to the Object represented by it I think if any Worship of Images were justifiable this Argument were ealy answered For tho there be a great difference indeed in the nature of things between the Image and the Object between Christ suppose and his Image which represents him yet in this case there is none in the Conception for an Image when it receives our Worship in the place and stead of the Prototype does not represent according to the usual nature of an Image by its likeness and similitude for so both in the thing and in the conception the Image differs from the Object it represents but it represents as a Proxy and Substitute who in the eye of the Law is the same Person with him whom he represents Thus Thomas must understand the Representation of an Image when he says that it is the same motion of the Mind to the Image and the exemplar represented by it that is that the Image is supposed to supply the place of Christ and represent him present to us and therefore we worship the Image as Christ's Representative with that Worship we would give to him were he actually present this is not indeed the natural use of Images nor is it natural to worship them but this is the true Interpretation of Thomas his Doctrine and therefore Gregorius de Valentia expresly tells us that the Image is worshipped in Christ's stead And Cardinal Cajetan says That Christ himself is the reason of the Worship of the Image and his being in the Image is the condition by which the reason of the Worship doth excite Men to worship and terminate it that is Christ is in his Image as a King is in his Viceroy or any Man in his legal Proxy This is what Suarez meant by the esse reale and esse representativum of the Prototype that tho the Image does not contain Christ in the first sense in his own proper Person yet it does in the second sense as his legal Proxy and Representative And this Durandus himself must acknowledg if there be any sense in his words That at the presence of the Image we worship the Object represented by it as if he were actually present For why should he in the presence of the Image worship Christ represented by it as if he were actally present unless he account the Image the Substitute and Representative of Christ as if he were actually present and this I think reconciles that appearance of difference between Thomas and Durandus occasioned by a Misapprehension of Thomas his Doctrine Durandus owns the Worship of Christ in the presence of the Image as he is represented in the Image as if he were actually present which is Mr. de Meaux his Opinion also in this matter but he will not allow this but only in an improper and abusive sense to be the Worship of the Image because the Image is not Christ but both in the thing and in the conception is distinguished from him and therefore to worship the Image of Christ would be to worship Wood or Stone with the Worship of Christ Whereas Thomas considers the Image not as to its external matter or form upon which account he denies any Worship to be given to it but as the Proxy and Representative of Christ and thus it is Christ represented in the Image and not the material Image which is worshipped which is the very same with Durandus his way of worshipping Christ as represented in the Image in the presence of the material Image that is he worships before the material Image but worships only the Person of Christ as represented by the Image But this will be better understood by considering the nature and capacity of a legal Proxy or Representative Suppose A were to all intents and purposes a legal Proxy for B to do and to receive whatever B might do and receive in his own Person in this case A is not considered as A in his own personal Capacity but A is B as his Proxy and Representative Suppose now that C owes a Sum of Mony or a certain Homage to B and pays it to A as B's Proxy that is not as he is A but B. When C worships A as representing the Person of B he is properly said not to worship A but B because he worships A not as A but as A is B in his Representative Capacity Now if you will suppose A to be the Image and B to be Christ this explains in what sense Thomas worships the Image for Christ not as the Image is Wood or Stone but as it is the Representative of Christ's Person Now suppose D should scruple paying the Worship of B to A because A is a distinct Person from B and has no right to the same Worship and therefore should only worship B in the presence of A as representing him would not all the World see that D and C meant and did the same thing worshipped A as the Representative of B tho D is pleased to phrase it otherwise and more improperly than C does for the personal Capacity of A is not considered at all when it is worshipped for B but only his Representative Capacity and this is the only difference between Thomas and Durandus Thomas worships the Image in Christ's place and stead as representing Christ without considering its natural Capacity as an Image of Wood or Stone as C worships A as B's Proxy without considering A's personal Capacity but Durandus worships Christ as represented by the Image which is the same with the Image representing Christ in the presence of the Image considered in its natural Capacity as D worships B as represented by A in the presence of A considered in his personal Capacity that is he worships representative A in the presence
who teach these Doctrines disown for M. Daille himself in the place quoted by the Bishop charges the Opinion of the Lutherans and of the Church of Rome about the manner of Christ's Presence in the Sacrament with inferring the destruction of the Humanity of Jesus Christ and therefore the Bishop concludes too much when he infers It is then a certain Maxime established amongst them that they must not in these cases look upon the Consequences which may be drawn from a Doctrine but purely upon what he proposes and acknowledges who teaches it But the use M. Daille makes of it is only this That when such ill Consequences as mens Doctrines are justly chargeable with have no ill influence upon Worship or as he speaks no poyson in them if they disown such Consequences this ought not to break Christian Communion And therefore though no man ought to be received into the Communion of the Church who denies the Humanity of Jesus Christ yet the National Synod at Charenton admits Lutherans to the Holy Table because whatever might be inferred from their Doctrine yet they expresly owned the Humanity of Christ and this Doctrinal Consequence was a meer Speculative Error which made no change at all in Acts of Worship but when the Consequences are not meerly speculative but practical and do not so much concern what other men believe and think as what we our selves are to do as it is in the Worship of Saints and Images and the Host c. to say that we must have no regard to Consequences if the Church disowns them is to say that we must not consider the nature and tendency of our Actions nor what they are in Gods account but only what the Church thinks of them and therefore though we will not charge the Church of Rome with believing any Consequences which she disowns yet if her Doctrines and Practices corrupt the Christian Faith and Worship it is fit to charge her with such Corruptions and if the Charge be just though she disown it it will justifie our Separation from her Communion SECT III. Religious Worship is terminated in God alone THE account the Bishop gives of that Interior Adoration which is due to God alone is very sound and Orthodox that it consists principally in believing he is the Creator and Lord of all things and in adhering to him with all the powers of our Soul by Faith Hope and Charity as to him alone who can render us happy by the Communication of an infinite Good which is himself But there are two things I except against in this Section as not fairly stated First concerning the exteriour marks of Adoration Secondly concerning the terminating of Religious Worship As for the first he tells us This interiour Adoration which we render unto God in Spirit and in Truth has its exterior marks of which the principal is Sacrifice which cannot be offered to any but to God And with respect to the second he tells us The same Church teaches us that all Religious Worship ought to terminate in God as its necessary End and that if the Honour which she renders to the Blessed Virgin and to the Saints may in some sence be called Religious it is for its necessary relation to God The Bishop very well knew that this is the main Seat of the Controversie between us and had he intended by his Exposition to have put an end to our disputes he should have taken a little more care about this Point for as he has now stated it he has left the matter just as he found it We say that all Religious Worship ought not only to terminate in God as its necessary End but that God is the sole and immediate Object of all Religious Worship and that we must worship none besides him as our Saviour expounds the Law Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve Matth. 4. We have always denied any relative Worship to be due to Creatures for to worship Creatures is to make them Gods and it is no honour to the Supreme God to advance his own Creatures to divine Honours to make more though inferiour Gods for God's sake We say all external Acts of Religious Worship are peculiar and appropriate to God as well as Sacrifice for since we must worship none but God whatever can be called Religious Worship must be given to none besides him and the Bishop has not dealt plainly in this matter he says that Sacrifice can be offered to none but God but he has not told us what he thinks of other external Acts of Worship whether they may be paid to some excellent Creatures for since Sacrifice is not a natural but instituted Worship if nothing but Sacrifice is peculiar to God then all external natural Worship is common to God and Creatures and then in the state of nature there could be no external and visible Difference between the worship of God and Creatures nor had there been any under the Gospel neither had not Christ instituted his last Supper which the Church of Rome has transformed into a Sacrifice of his natural Flesh and Blood Thus when he says that all Religious Worship ought to terminate in God as its necessary end this seems to me an ambiguous Expression for Worship properly terminates in the Object to which it is given and in this sense If all Religious Worship must terminate in God then all Religious Worship must be given to God and to none else which is the true Catholick Faith that God is only to be worshipped But then what becomes of that Religious Worship which is given to the Virgin Mary and Saints in relation to God Does not this Worship which is given to them terminate in them and not in God Are not they the immediate and proper Objects of that Worship which is given to them And does not the Object terminate the Worship Is God the Object of that Worship which they give to the Saints and Blessed Virgin Then they either give that inferior Degree of Worship to God which is proper for Creatures which is an affront to his Majesty and Greatness or they give that Worship to Creatures which is proper to God which is Idolatry Which plainly shews that that Worship which is given to Creatures is terminated in those Creatures to which it is given and therefore if any degree of Religious Worship be given to Creatures all Religious Worship does not terminate in God as he said it must and if all Religious Worship must terminate in God then no Religious Worship must be given to Creatures as he grants it may to the Virgin Mary and Saints Yes you will say that Worship which is given to the Saints and Blessed Virgin terminates in God because it is given them upon account of their Relation to God but this is a great mistake their Relation to God can only serve for a Reason why they are worshipped but cannot terminate that worship on God which
his House So that there is no need to find any Hole as the Protestor speaks to get out at with the Altar for that was never in yet as far as this Controversy is concerned and therefore I am like to make no breach for him to follow at with his Image Nor does any Man kneel to the Sacrament but only receive the Sacrament kneeling and if he cannot distinguish between an Act of Worship to the Sacrament and a devout Posture of receiving it yet the meanest Son of the Church of England can Why does he not as well say that when we kneel at Prayers we worship the Common-Prayer Book which lies before us and out of which we read as that we worship the Bread when we receive and eat it with devout Passions upon our Knees But to return to the Exposition 2. I observe that there is a great difference between a memorative Sign and the Representation of an Image both of them indeed excite in us the remembrance of something but in such different manners as quite alter the nature of them It is necessary to take notice of this because I find Monsieur de Meaux and after him the Representer very much to equivocate in this Matter it is a very innocent thing to worship God or Christ when any natural or instituted Sign brings them to our minds even in the presence of such a Sign As if a Man upon viewing the Heavens and the Earth and the Creatures that are in it should raise his Soul to God and adore the great Creator of the World or upon the accidental sight of a natural Cross should call to mind the Love of his Lord who died for him and bow his Soul to him in the most submissive Adorations because I say this is very innocent the Bishop would perswade his Readers that this is the only use they make of Images to excite in us the remembrance of those they represent and mightily wonders at the little justice of those who treat with the term of Idolatry that religious Sentiment which moves them to uncover their Heads or bow them before the Image of the Cross in remembrance of him who was crucified for the Love of us And that it is sufficient to distinguish them from the Heathen Idolaters That they declare that they will not make use of Images but to raise the mind towards Heaven to the end that they may there honour Jesus Christ or his Saints and in the Saints God himself who is the Author of all Sanctity and Grace Now it is certain an Image will call to our remembrance the Person it represents as the presence of the Person himself will make us remember him but this vastly differs from a meer memorative Sign For the use of Images in the Church of Rome is not primarily for Remembrance but for Worship as the Council of Trent expresly teaches That the Images of Christ and the Virgin the Mother of God and other Saints are especially to be had and kept in Churches and due Honour and Veneration to be given to them because the Honour given to them is referred to the Prototypes which they represent so that by the Images which we kiss and before which we uncover our Heads and prostrate our selves we adore Christ and venerate the Saints whose likeness they bear These are the words of the Council and it would be a very odd Comment upon such a Text to say that Images serve only for Remembrance A meer Sign which only calls Christ to our Minds can deserve no Honour or Worship but a representing Sign which puts us in mind of Christ by representing his Person to us as if he were present whether it raises our hearts to him in Heaven or not yet according to the Council of Trent it must direct our Worship to him as represented in his Image When Men go to Church to worship Christ or the Virgin Mary before their Images it may be presumed they think of them before they see their Images and therefore do not go to be put in remembrance of them by their Images but to worship them before the Images in that Worship which they give to the Images And therefore when the Bishop speaks so often of the Virtue of Images to excite in us the remembrance of the Persons they represent to reconcile him with himself and with the Council of Trent which he pretends to own we must not understand him as if Images were of no use but to be helps to memory and are honoured for no other reason which is no reason at all as the unwary Reader will be apt to mistake him but that these visible Images represent to us the invisible Objects of our Worship and give us such a sense of their Power and Presence as makes us fall down and worship them before those Representations which we honour for their sakes that is tho they serve for remembrance yet not as meer memorative Signs but as memorative or representative Objects of Worship 3. I observe that it is the very same thing whether we say that we worship Christ as represented by the Image or worship the Image as representing Christ for they both signify that Christ is worshipped in and by his Image that the Honour and Worship is given to the Image and referr'd to the Prototype If Christ be worshipped as represented by the Image then the Worship which is intended for Christ is given to the Image in his Name and as his Representative if the Image be worshipped as representing Christ then the Worship which is given to the Image is not for it self but for Christ whom it represents which differ just as much as a Viceroy's being honoured for the King or the King 's being honoured in his Viceroy And therefore I wonder that any Man of Understanding and Judgment as Monsieur de Meaux certainly is should think there is any great matter in saying When we honour the Image of an Apostle or Martyr our Intention is not so much to honour the Image as to honour the Apostle or Martyr in the presence of the Image that is in and by the Image as I have showed that Phâ—â—se signifies when it is referred to a Representatiâ—◠〈◊〉 for it is the very same thing to say we honour the 〈◊〉 as representing the Martyr or we honour the Martyr as represented by the Image Having premised these things let us now compare the Opinion of Monsieur de Meaux with the Opinion of St. Thomas Aquinas about the Worship of Images and tho the first is thought by some Men to say a great deal too little and the other a great deal too much yet it will appear that their Opinions in this matter are the very same They both agree That Christ and his Saints are represented by their Images they both agree that Christ and his Saints are worshipped in their Images as represented by them they both agree that no other Worship is to be paid to or before or
of personal A which is the same thing that C does but is a more uncouth and absurd way of speaking Thus to proceed When C worships A as B's Proxy in his name and stead does he worship A or B he worships A indeed but considered as B and therefore the Worship given to A in the name of B is not the Worship of A but of B And will any Man say that A and B are two Objects of Worship when in this sense A is B and is considered only as B that is as B's Proxy and therefore A considered as A in his own personal Capacity is not worshipped at all neither absolutely nor relatively per se nor per accidens but if A be worshipped only as B to say that A is worshipped relatively or per accidens is to say that B who is worshipped in A is worshipped both absolutely and relatively properly and improperly per se and per accidens which are some of the Objections which Catharinus and others use against Thomas Much at the same rate others compare Thomas his Doctrine of worshipping the Image with the Worship of the Prototype as represented by it with worshipping a Sign and the Thing signified or worshipping the King and his Robes which are very remote from the Business and perplex and confound a Doctrine which is very easy to be understood and easily rescued from those Scholastick Absurdities which are charged on it if that were its only fault For the true Representation of it is by considering the Nature of a Proxy and legal Representative which acts in another's name and stead Having thus considered what is the Notion of Image-Worship according to Thomas and Durandus and Monsieur de Meaux that it is a worshipping the Image in the name and stead of the Prototype as its Proxy and Representative worshipping the Image as representing Christ as Thomas speaks or worshipping Christ before his Image as represented by it as Durandus and M. de Meaux speak We have now some Foundation to build on and I think they have no reason to complain that I have stated it in this manner which grants them all they can desire or ask for viz. That they do not worship Images as an Image signifies a Figure of Wood or Stone but they worship the Image as representing Christ or if they like that better Christ as represented in his Image That when they honour the Image of an Apostle or Martyr they do not so much intend to honour the Image as the Apostle or Martyr in the presence of the Image Let us then consider whether this will justify them and if this will not I doubt their Cause is desperate And in order to this I shall do these three things 1. Show you that this is the only intelligible Notion of worshipping God or Christ or the Saints by Images that Images are a kind of legal Proxies and Representatives to receive our Worship in the name and stead of Christ or the Saints 2. That this is the Scripture Notion of Image-Worship and that in this sense it is the Scripture condemns the worship of Images as practised by the Heathens 3. I shall show wherein the Evil of worshipping Images according to this Notion consists 1. That this is the only intelligible Notion of worshipping God or Christ or the Saints by Images that Images are a kind of legal Proxies and Representatives to receive our Worship in the name and stead of the Prototype or the Being represented by them The Reason of worshipping Images is to do Honour to some Divine Being represented by these Images for the true occasion of Image-Worship is that fondness Men have for a visible Object of Worship and because they cannot see the Gods they worship therefore they set up Images as visible and representative Deities to receive their Worship in the name and stead of their Gods Now if we grant that Men intend to worship their Gods in that Worship they pay to or before their Images we must grant that these Images are instead of visible Gods to them or supply the place of their Gods and receive Worship in their Names For to worship God or any Divine Being by an Image can signify neither more nor less than to worship God or Christ or the Saints in that Worship which we give to their Images for God cannot be worshipped in an Image any otherwise than as the Worship which is given to the Image is his Worship and given in his Name for B can be worshipped in A only as A is B's Representative and is worshipped in his name and stead To worship any Being is to worship his Person and therefore we must either worship him in his own natural Person or in his Representative who is his legal Person As to shew you this particularly If any Men were ever so sottish as to believe their Images themselves that is the visible Figures of Wood or Stone or Brass to be Gods and to worship them as Gods such Men cannot be said to worship God by an Image but to worship an Image-God for the Image it self is their God and the Worship terminates on the Image as God They may be said to worship false Gods Gods in a strict and proper sense of Wood and Stone but to worship God by an Image and to worship the Image it self for a God are very distinct things and if the Scripture forbids the Worship of God by an Image it will not justify Image-Worship to say that some Heathens were such Sots as to believe their Images themselves to be Gods for Men who are not such Sots may Worship their Gods by Images as all those Heathens did who acknowledged their Images to be only Symbols and Representations of their Gods and therefore not to be Gods themselves for the same thing cannot be a Symbol and Representation of it self which is as good sense as to say that a Sign and the thing signified by it is the same To give a proper though inferiour degree of worship to Images themselves is not to worship God or Christ by his Image because in this case the Worship they give to the Image of Christ is not such a Worship as is proper for Christ and is terminated not on Christ but on his Image No Worship is proper to be given to Christ but the Worship of Latria or supream and soveraign Worship but the Roman Doctors who embrace this Opinion deny with the second Council of Nice that Latria may be given to Images and in general reject the Doctrine of Thomas that the Image is to be worshipped with the Worship due to the Prototype And how then can Christ be worshipped in his Image if no Worship is given to the Image which is fit for Christ to receive when the Image has no Worship given it but such as is proper to its self considered as Christ's Image will they call this the Worship of Christ especially since this Worship which is given to the
Image is terminated on the Image as its own proper and peculiar Worship as Catharinus and Bellarmine and all of this way acknowledg who reject Thomas his Doctrine of worshipping the Image with the worship of the Prototype represented by it because this is not properly the Worship of the Image but of the Prototype and therefore that the Image may be sure to be worshipped they give it an inferior degree of Worship which terminates on it self Now how Christ should be worshipped in that Worship which terminates on his Image that is how that Worship which ends in the Image and goes no farther should pass through the Image and end in Christ as it must do if Christ be worshipped in the Image is past my understanding as all Contradictions are But they refer the Worship of the Image to the Prototype But it is worth enquiring how they do it Do they intend the Worship they give to the Image for Christ that is Do they intend to worship Christ in that Worship they give to his Image No they can't do that because they give only an inferior degree of Worship to the Image which is not worthy of Christ not a Worship proper for him but only for his Image but they worship the Image for the sake of Christ and this they take to be an Honour to Christ to worship his Image but this is not to worship Christ in or by his Image for in this way Christ is not worshipped in that Worship we give to his Image but it is to worship the Image for Christ's sake which is by interpretation an Honour to Christ as any respect we show to the Image of the King argues our Esteem and Honour for our King whose Image it is but these two differ as much as to honour Christ in our Actions and to worship him as to do something which is by interpretation an Honour to Christ and to make our immediate Addresses to offer up our Prayers and Thanksgivings to him Every thing we do for the Honour of Christ is not presently an Act of Worship and therefore though we should grant that we honour Christ in the Worship of his Image it does not follow that therefore we worship him in worshipping his Image when we give no Worship at all to him but only to his Image which plainly shows that in this way they do not worship Christ by his Image but only worship the Image for Christ's sake Which is a plain Argument to me that though this Way has very great and learned Advocates yet it cannot be the meaning of the Council of Trent because it is not reconcileable with the Practice of the Church of Rome which prays every day to Christ and the blessed Virgin to Saints and Martyrs before their Images in such terms as are proper only to be used to themselves which besides the other Faults of it is horrid Non-sense if they do not intend to worship Christ and the Saints in their Images Much less do those worship the Prototypes in their Images who only use Images as helps to Memory and to excite devout Affections in them that at the sight of the Image they may offer up more fervent Prayers to God or Christ for though this practice may and has a great many other Faults in it yet this is neither in the intention of the Worshipper to worship the Image nor the Exemplar by the Image Monsieur de Meaux by some Expressions he uses would perswade his Readers that this is all the Church of Rome intends in the use of Images and yet he owns the Doctrine of the Council of Trent That the Honour of the Image is referred to the Prototype because by the Images which we kiss and before which we uncover our Heads and prostrate our selves we adore Christ and worship the Saints whose Likeness they bear Which plainly signifies that we worship Christ and the Saints in the worship of their Images and therefore though Images may be helps to Memory also yet they must be honoured and worshipped that Christ and his Saints may be worshipped in them and by them which is a very different thing from being bare Signs to help our Memories and quicken-our Devotions There is no need of Consecration for this End and the Church takes no notice of this use of them in her Forms of Consecration These are all the Pretences I have met with for the use of Images in Religious Worship and it is evident from what I have said that there is no other sense wherein God or Christ can be said to be worshipped by an Image but only as the Image receives the Worship due to Christ in his Name and Stead as if it were his legal Proxy and Representative which as I have shewed is the true Interpretation both of the Doctrine of Durandus and Monsieur de Meaux and Thomas in this Matter 2dly I am now to show that it is in this Notion the Scripture forbids the worship of Images as the Representatives of God or any Divine Being to receive our Worship in God's Name and Stead It is true indeed the 2d Commandment which forbids the worship of Images takes no notice of the Distinctions of the Schools in what Notion an Image is worshipped or what kind and degree of Worship is given to it but the words are so large and general as to exclude all use of Images in Religious Worship The Worship which is expresly forbidden in the Commandment to be given to Images is only the External Acts of Worship such as to bow down to them which is the very least that can be done if Men make any use of Images in Religious Worship The Images which are forbidden to be worshipped are all sorts of Images whatever The likeness of any Thing which is in Heaven above or in the Earth beneath or in the Water under the Earth And how extravagant soever Mens Fancies are they cannot well form any Image but must be like to some of these things either in whole or in part But the Commandment takes no notice of Mens different Opinions about Images whether they look upon them as Gods or Representatives of God or helps to Memory and Devotion for since the design of the Commandment is to forbid the use of Images in Religious Worship it was dangerous to leave any room for Distinctions which is to make every Man judg what is an Innocent and what is a sinful use of Images which would utterly evacuate the Law for Men of Wit can find out some Apology or other for the grossest Superstitions As for instance I find a notable Criticism in the Advertisement to Monsieur de Meaux his Exposition p. 14. That the Images forbidden in the second Commandment are those which are forbidden to be made as well as to be worshipped The Consequence of which is That the Worship of such Images as may be lawfully made is not forbidden in this Law and then indeed there is room enough for
Calf is so evident from the whole Story that I confess I do not think that Man fit to be disputed with who denies it for he must either want Understanding or Honesty to be convinced of the plainest matter which he has no mind to believe The occasion of their making this Calf was the absence of Moses who was a kind of a living Oracle and Divine Presence with them They said to Aaron Vp make us Gods which shall go before us for as for this Moses the Man who brought us up out of the Land of Egypt we wot not what is become of him So that they wanted not a new God but only a Divine Presence with them since Moses who used to acquaint them with the Will of God and govern them by a Divine Spirit was so long absent that they thought him lost when the Calf was made they said These be thy Gods O Israel which brought Thee out of the Land of Egypt Which they could not possibly understand of the Calf which was but then made For tho we should think them so silly as to believe it to be a God it was impossible they should think that the Calf brought them out of Egypt before it self was made Nor could they think any Egyptian Gods delivered them out of Egypt to the ruine and desolation of their own Country especially since they certainly knew that it was only the Lord Jehovah who brought them out of Egypt by the hand of Moses and therefore Aaron built an Altar before it and proclaimed a Feast to the Lord or to Jehovah as the word is which makes it very plain to any unprejudiced Man that they intended to worship the Lord Jehovah in the Worship of the Golden Calf which they made for a symbolical Representation and Presence of God which no doubt was very agreeable to the notion the Egyptians had of their Images from whom they learn'd this way of Worship and I need not tell any Man how displeasing this was to God 2. Another Argument of this is That Images are called Gods in Scripture Isa. 44. 10. Who hath fashioned a God or molten a Graven Image which is profitable for nothing He maketh a God and worshippeth it he maketh it a Graven Image and falleth down thereto The residue thereof he maketh a God even his Graven Image and worshippeth it and prayeth unto it and saith Deliver me for thou art my God I need not multiply places for the proof of this for this is own'd by all the Advocates of the Church of Rome and relied on as the great support of their Cause From hence they say it is plain in what sense God forbids the Worship of Images viz. when Men worship their Images for Gods as the Text asserts the Heathens did But tho the Church of Rome worships Images yet she does not worship them for Gods but only worship God or Christ or the Saints in and by their Images This is the reason of their great Zeal to make the first and second Commandment but one because the first Commandment forbidding the Worship of all false Gods If that which we call the second Commandment which forbids the Worship of Images be reckoned only as part of the first then they think it plain in what sense the Worship of Images is forbid viz. only as the Worship of false Gods and therefore those cannot be charged with the breach of this Commandment who do not believe their Images to be Gods Now besides what I have already said to prove that the Heathens did not believe the Images themselves to be Gods which is so sottish a Conceit as no Man of common Sense can be guilty of I have several Arguments to prove that the Scripture does not understand it in this sense 1. The first is That the Golden Calf is called Gods of Gold Exod. 32. 31. and yet it is evident they did not believe the Calf to be a God but only a Symbol and Representation of the Lord Jehovah whom they worshipped in the Calf 2. The very name of an Image which signifies a Likeness and Representation of some other Being is irreconcileable with such a Belief that the Image it self is a God that the Image is that very God whom it is made to represent which signifies that the likeness of God is that very God whose likeness it is Especially when the Scripture which calls such Images Gods calls them also the Images of their Gods Which is proof enough that tho the Scripture calls Images Gods it does not understand it in that sense that they believe their material Images to be Gods for it is a contradiction to say that the Image of Baal is both their God Baal and his Image at the same time for the Image is not the thing it represents 3. The Arguments urged in Scripture against Images plainly prove that they were not made to be Gods but only Representations of God One Argument is because they saw no similitude of God when he spoke to them in Horeb out of the midst of the Fire another that they can make no likeness of Him To whom then will ye liken God or what likeness will ye compare to Him To whom then will ye liken Me or shall I be equal saith the Holy One Thus St. Paul argues with the Philosophers at Athens For as much then as we are the Off-spring of God we ought not to think the Godhead to be like to Gold and Silver and Stone graven by Art and Man's Device Now what do all these Arguments signify against making a God for if they can make a God what matter is it who their God be like so he be a God It is a good Argument against making any Image and Representation of God that it is impossible to make any thing like him but it is enough for a God to be like it self In what sense then you 'l say does the Scripture call Images Gods there is but one possible sense that I know of and that is that they are vicarious and substituted Gods that they are set up in God's place to represent his Person and to receive our Worship in his name and stead and so are Gods by Office tho not by Nature They are visible Representations of the Invisible God they bear his Name and receive his Worship as the Golden Calf was called Jehovah and the Worship of the Calf was called a Feast unto the Lord And this is some reason for their being called Gods as the Proxy and Substitute acts in the name of the Person he represents Which proves that this is the Scripture notion of Image-worship that the Image is worshipped in God's name and stead And to this purpose I observe That tho' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or an Idol signifies a false god yet it signifies such a false god as is only the image and figure of another god for so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fignifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a likeness or similitude Thus Tertullian tells us eorum imagines Idola imaginum consecratio Idolatria That their Images are Idols and the Consecration of them is Idolatry Thus the Author of the Book of Wisdom attributes the original of Idolatry to Fathers making images for their children who were dead and appointing solemnities to be kept before them as if they were gods and thus by degrees Princes passed these things into Laws and made men to worship graven images and thus either out of affection or flattery the worship of Idols began Which shews what he means by Idols Images consecrated for the worship of God And therefore he distinguishes the worship of Idols from the worship of the Elements and heavenly bodies when this was done without an Image And therefore no God is in Scripture called an Idol but with respect to its Image Thus Idols and Molten Gods are join'd together as expounding each other And the Psalmist tells us The Idols of the Heathens are Silver and Gold the work of mens hands So that an Idol is a false God as it signifies a material Image made to represent some God as a visible object of worship to receive the worship of that God whose name it bears in his place and stead To the same purpose the Scripture charges these Image-worshippers with changing the Glory of God into the likeness and similitude of those creatures whereby they represented him The Israelites made the Image of a Golden Calf as the symbolical representation and presence of the Lord Jehovah and the Psalmist tells us that by so doing they changed their glory i. e. the Lord Jehovah who was the glory of Israel into the similitude of an Ox which eateth grass Which necessarily supposes that they intended to represent the Lord Jehovah in the image of the Calf not that they thought their God to be like the Calf but as they made a vicarious and visible God of it and worshipped it in the name of the Lord Jehovah Thus St. Paul describes the Idolatry of the Heathens That they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man and four footed beasts and creeping things But of this more presently this is sufficient to show what the Scripture notion of Image-worship is and in what sense it condemns it 3dly Let us now consider wherein the evil of this image-Image-worship consists which will greatly contribute to the right understanding of this whole dispute Now the account of it in general is very short and plain That the evil of image-Image-worship when we worship the true God by an Image does not so much consist in the kinds or degrees or object of worship as in representation and if this prove the true account of it as I believe it will appear to be to all considering men before I have done it will quite alter the state of this controversie and put M. de Meaux and the Representer to find out some new Expositions and Representations of their Image-worship 1. That the evil of Image-worship when men worship the true God by an Image does not principally consist in the kinds or degrees or object of worship Such men indeed are said in Scripture to worship Images and Idols and Molten Gods and that their Idols are silver and gold wood and stone for when they worship God by an Image they must worship the Image or else they cannot worship God in it tho' they worship the Image not for it self but for the Prototype as the Council of Trent determines which is more properly worshipping God or Christ in or before his Image as M. de Meaux expounds it than worshipping the Image and they are said to worship Images rather with respect to the manner than to the object of worship as you shall hear more presently The Church of Rome indeed as her doctrine and practice is expounded by her most famed Divines may justly be charged with worshipping Images in the grossest sense as that signifies giving Religious worship to the material image of wood and stone which is strictly to worship stocks and stones as Gods This charge may be easily made good against all those who teach that the Image is to be properly worshipped and that either a relative latria or some proper inferâ—â—r worship is to be terminated on the Image as its material object and yet most of the Roman Doctors atttibute one or t'other to the Image as distinct from that worship they give to the Prototype and dispute very learnedly that this is the Doctrine both of the second Council of Nice and of the Council of Trent That a proper worship must be given to the Image distinct from that worship which is given to the Prototype but they cannot yet agree whether it be a relative improper analogical latria which must be given to the Image of Christ or only dulia or an inferiour degree of Religious worship This has hitherto been the chief seat of the Controversy between Protestants and Papists about Image-worship and M. de Meaux seems very sensible That attributing a proper worship to Images so as to terminate it on them gives too just occasion for the charge of Idolatry and puts them to hard shifts to vindicate themselves from it and therefore he owns no worship due to the Image for it self but only as it represents the Prototype which therefore is not so properly the worship of the Image as of the Prototype by the Image and here I perfectly agree with him That the true notion of Image-worship is not to worship the Image at all considered in it self as a material figure of Wood and Stone but only to worship God or Christ in the Image And therefore I shall set aside this dispute in what sense or how far a Papist may be charged with worshipping the material Image which has occasioned eternal wranglings and yet does not properly belong to the controversie of image-Image-worship To worship a material Image is to give the worship of God to Creatures to Wood and Stone but Image-worship is in its strict notion not giving Divine worship to Images but worshipping God in and by the Image which represents him which in Scripture is called worshipping Images And therefore tho we should grant that M. de Meaux his exposition avoids the first charge of giving Religious worship to Wood and Stone because he denies that they properly worship the Image but only the Prototype in the Image yet the whole guilt of Image-worship as that signifies the worship of God by Images not the worship of the material Image is chargeable upon him still that is the worship of the Prototype by the Image which is all that is forbid in the second Commandment This it may be will be thought a giving up the Cause to grant that the Church of Rome may worship God or Christ by Images and yet not be chargeable with worshipping the Images themselves or
the material figures of Wood or Stone and therefore it will be necessary to shew that the true Notion of Idolatry or Image-worship is not giving Religious worship to the Images themselves but worshipping God by Images and what the difference between these Two is 1. And the first thing I shall observe to this purpose is the difference between the First and Second Commandment which all Protestants own and defend against the Church of Rome which makes the Second Commandment only a Branch and Appendix of the First Now the First Commandment forbids all false objects of worship the worship of all creatures and fictitious Deities and therefore the worship of all Beings besides God whether rational animate or inanimate is a breach of the First Commandment and must be reduced to it and consequently the Second Commandment which forbids the worship of Images cannot forbid them as false Objects for all such are forbid in the first Commandment but as a false and corrupt way of worship and therefore Image worship as it is forbid in the Second Commandment cannot signifie worshipping the Image it self as distinguished from the Prototype for that would make it a false object of worship against the first Commandment but only a false and superstitious way of representing and worshipping God by an Image 2ly And therefore I observe that an Image does not alter the object of worship which yet it must necessarily do if it were Essential to the Notion of Image-worship to worshipt the Image it self which would make the Image a new object of worship Now it is plain that men who do not dispute themselves into endless subtilties and distinctions intend no more in the worship of Images than to worship that God whose Image it is and therefore the object of worship is the same with or without an Image They who worship the True God with an Image and they who worship him without an Image worship the same God though in a different manner and besides what judgment men make of their own actions and what they intend to do the Scripture it self acknowledges this When the Israelites made a golden Calf Aaron proclaims a Feast to the Lord Jehovah which proves that they intended to worship the same God still in the golden Calf which they did before without it Thus the Two Calves which Jeroboam set up were made in imitation of the golden Calf and for Symbolical representations of the God of Israel who was worshipped by them For it is plain that Jeroboam did not intend to change their God but only to prevent their going up to Jerusalem to worship God there and therefore he tells them It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem behold thy Gods O Israel which brought thee up out of the Land of Aegypt that is the Lord Jehovah Now we may observe that God himself though he was grievously offended with the Sin of Jeroboam yet he makes a great difference between the Sin of Jeroboam and the Sin of Ahab who introduced the worship of Baal a false God whereas Jeroboam retained the worship of the true God though he worshipped him in a false and Idolatrous manner If the Calves of Don and Bethel had been false Gods as Baal was the Sin had been equally provoking but the worship of the Calves did not change their God as the worship of Baal did and therefore Elijah distinguishes the Israelites into the worshippers of God and of Baal How long halt ye between Two Opinions if the Lord be God follow him but if Baal then follow him and yet most of those who are said to be worshippers of God did worship God at the Calves of Dan and Bethel which was the established Religion of the Kingdom And thus Jehu tho' he departed not from the Sin of Jeroboam the golden Calves in Dan and Bethel yet he calls his Zeal in destroying Baal out of Israel his Zeal for the Lord Jehovah Now if the worship of an Image do not change the object of our worship neither in the intention of the worshipper nor in the account of Scripture as I have now proved it evidently follows that the Image is not worshipped as an object but as a Medium of worship it receives no worship for it self but only for God whom it represents And that which is so offensive to God in it is not that they set up any Rival and Opposite gods against him but that they worship him in a reproachful and dishonourable manner which makes him abhor and reject the worship and because he will not receive this worship himself he calls it worshipping Idols and graven Images and molten gods that is vicarious and representative gods which though they receive the worship in God's Name yet are an infinite reproach to his Majesty by that vile and contemptible Representation they make him This is the strict Notion of Idolatry not the giving the worship of God to Creatures which is the Breach of the First Commandment in making new Gods but the worship of God by an Image which makes such Images Gods by Representation but not the objects but only the Medium of worship and therefore though we should grant M. de Meaux that he does not worship Images but only Christ and the Saints in or before their Images this does not excuse him from Idolatry which does not signifie worshipping an Image in a strict sence but only worshipping God in an Image which terminates all the worship not on the Image but on God 2ly Let us now consider wherein the Evil of this Idolatry or Image-worship does consist and that I said was in Representation which I shall briefly explain in these particulars 1. That it is an infinite reproach to the Divine Nature and Perfections to be represented by an Image To whom will ye liken God Or what likeness will ye compare to him The workman melteth a graven-Image and the Goldsmith spreadeth it over with Gold and casteth Silver Chains He that is so impoverished that he hath no Oblation chuseth a Tree that will not rot he seeketh unto him a cunning Workman to prepare a graven Image that shall not be moved Have ye not known Have ye not heard Hath it not been told you from the beginning Have ye not understood from the Foundations of the Earth It is he that sitteth upon the Circle of the Earth and the Inhabitants thereof are as Grashoppers that stretcheth cut the Heavens as a Curtain and spreadeth them out as a Tent to dwell in How incongruous and absurd is it to make a Picture or Image of that God who is invisible to represent a pure Mind by Matter dull sensless Matter to give the shape and figure of a Man or some viler Creature to that God who has none To make an Image for the Maker of the World and to bring that Infinite Being to the scantlings and dimensions of a Man who fills Heaven and Earth with his presence If it
Church destroy justice towards Men in all relations as the Popes power of dispensing with the duties of all relations their Doctrines of probabilities of mental reservations that the intention regulates the action that no Faith is to be kept with Hereticks that the Pope may depose Princes and dispose of their Kingdoms pardon nay canonize King-killers and absolve Subjects from their Allegiance c. I know our Author calls all this Misrepresentation but that is not our Dispute now but whose Misrepresentation it is It is plain this is not Protestant but Popish Popery for not Protestants but Papists were the Original Authors And I doubt not were it worth the while it might easily be proved that the grossest Misrepresentations which this Author charges on Protestants are only transcribed out of Popish Authors and this he seems to own when he is so angry with us for proving these Misrepresentations as he calls them by appealing to their own private but approved Doctors who have in plain terms asserted those things which poor Protestants must not repeat after them without incurring the Censure of Misrepresenters Now though we grant that every Doctrine which we find in Popish Authors ought not to be accounted an Article of the Romish Faith yet if such Books be published by the authority of Superiors and when they are published and known in the World escape the Inquisition and the Index expurgatorius the Doctrines contained in them ought at least to be looked on as licensed and tolerated Doctrines and therefore consistent with the Romish Faith not a Misrepresentation of it For will a Church so strict and severe in its Discipline and so jealous of Heresies which censures all the Ancient Fathers and expunges out of their Writings every passage which in the least savours of Heresie which will not entrust the People to use the Bible for fear of their learning Heresie from it I say will such a Church suffer their own Doctors to publish such Opinions to the World as Misrepresent her own Faith and Worship without condemning or passing the least censure on them And therefore though we cannot prove from these private Doctors what the Faith of the Church of Rome is and what all are bound to believe who are of that Communion yet by their Authority we may confute the charge of Misrepresentation For no Protestant can be justly accused of Misrepresenting the Doctrines of the Church of Rome who charges them with no Doctrines but what are allowed to be taught in that Church as all those Doctrines are which are allowed by publick Authority to be Printed and Read in the Communion of that Church especially as I observed before where the Press is kept under such strict Discipline as it is in the Church of Rome We must not indeed charge all Papists with believing such Doctrines because all are not bound to believe them as they are to believe the Decrees and Definitions of their Councils but we may say that they are not contrary to the Faith of the Church because all Papists are allowed to believe them who will for I presume all Men are allowed to believe that which any Man among them is allowed to teach However I hope it may be some excuse to the Archbishop that he Misrepresents only at second hand since our Author will have it to be a Misrepresentation and says no more than some Papists themselves say and resolves all into the Credit and Authority of his Authors and I cannot think it a greater fault in a Protestant to give an account of such pernicious Doctrines and Opinions as are owned by some of their own Writers than it is in the Church of Rome to suffer them to be published by Authority and to pass without any Censure if they dislike the Doctrine As for what he transcribes out of Doctor Beard and Mr. Sutcliff I presume he intended we should take it all upon his Authority for he has not directed us where to find any of those passages he has cited and it is a little too much to read two great Books in Quarto to pick them out Without looking on the Books we might easily perceive that those sayings he has transcribed out of them do not concern Representing but Disputing and I never undertook to justifie every saying in Protestant Writers against Popery but yet some things sounded so harsh that I vehemently suspected foul play and therefore had the curiosity to examine and found it to be as I suspected Some passages for which they produce their Authorities and that very good Authorities as the World went then are cited by the Protester without any Authorities as he dealt before with the Archbishop or what they prove by variety of reasons is nakedly Represented without any reason to back it or their words are curtailed or transplaced which alters their sense and signification I shall give some few instances of this out of Mr. Sutcliff to let the World judge who are the Misrepresenters Quotations out of Mr. Sutcliff in the Papists Protesting c. Mr. Sutchliff's Survey of Popery THey speak what they can in disgrace of the Holy Scriptures FInally they say they are obscure and hard to be understood they speak what they can in disgrace of the Holy Scriptures P. 6. They give the Office of Christ's mediation to the Virgin Mary to Angels and to Saints they make also Saints our Redeemers They give the Office c. teaching that by their Merits Christians obtain their desires and are delivered out of Purgatory Ibid. They overthrow Grace and ascribe the merit of our Salvation not to Gods mercy through Christ not to the merit of his Passion but properly to our own Works and Merits Albeit they exclude not Grace from the work of our Salvation yet making Grace a Habit or Vertue they overthrow Grace c. p. 9. They cut out the Second Commandment because it cannot stand with the Popish worship of Images They cut out the Second Commandment in the Offices of our Lady and their Primers because c. Ib. They pray before Stocks and Stones nay they put their trust in them Nay they put their trust in them for if this were not so why should they hope for better success at the Image of our Lady of Loretto or Monserat than at any other Image or form of our Lady p. 10. Papists think they do God good service when they murder true Christians Proved from the cruel Executions in England France Germany Spain p. 23. By the Doctrine of Papists the Devils of Hell may be saved They teach that the Devils of Hell may have true Faith but our Saviour saith John 3. that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life So it followeth by the Doctrine of Papists that the Reprobates and Devils in Hell may be saved p. 28. Papists blasphemously make Christ not only a desperate Man without hope but also an Infidel without Faith p. 13. They take from Christ both Faith
was needless to my purpose and yet the Consequence holds good without it if it be not a judgment ex Cathedra it is not the judgment of the Apostolick See which was all I intended to prove and our Author in his long harangue has said nothing to prove that it was nay is so far from that that he avoided the very mentioning of that because he knew not what to say to it Malitiously and inconsiderately were pretty words to descant upon but the Cathedra choaked him The truth is the principal Commendation which is given to the Bishop of Condom's Book is that it is a new way of dealing with Hereticks and that which they hope may be more effectual than Disputing has been but there is none of them that make it the Rule much less the only Rule of the Catholick Faith Cardinal de Buillon acquaints Cardinal Bona that there are some and he speaks of Catholicks who find some fault in it and Cardinal Sigismond Chigi in his Letter to the Abbot of Dangeau though he highly commends him yet is far from allowing his Book to be the Standard of the Catholick Faith or the Authentick interpretation of the Council of Trent when he tells the Abbot certainly it was never his Condom ' s intention to give the interpretation of the Tenets of the Council but only to deliver them in his Book rightly explicated in such sort that Hereticks may be convinced that is he did not allow him to interpret the Council but commends him for dealing with Hereticks in a new and as he thought more advantageous method than had been formerly used and to this purpose the Pope commends him that his Exposition of the Catholick Faith contains such Doctrine and is composed in such a method and with so much prudence that it is thereby rendred proper to instruct the Readers clearly in few words and to extort even from the unwilling a confession of thâ— Catholick Faith Now to me this seems to fall very short of making the Bishops Exposition the Authentick interpretation of the Council of Trent that what ever the Bishop of Condom says is the sense of the Council must be acknowledged to be so though other as good Catholick Divines as famous in their Generation and whose Books have been received with as universal approbation are of another mind and which signifies a little with us Protestants where the plain words and reason of the Council is against him I would desire our Author to tell me whether the Pope when he approved the Bishop of Condom's Book did at the same time condemn Cardinal Bellarmin's or those other Divines and Schoolmen who give such a different explication of the Council of Trent from what this Bishop does if he did not what authority has he given to this Exposition more than any other Catholick Doctor may challenge Why may we not if we please follow Bellarmin or Suarez or Vasquez or Cajetan as well as Condom Our Author thinks it the shortest and easiest way to decide this Controversie whether he have truly Represented the Faith of a Papist by making an experiment Thus he concluded his Reflections p. 19. Do but you or any Friend for you though I did not know before that the Church of Rome would admit Proxies in the profession of our Faith give your assent to those Articles of Faith as I have Represented it in the very form and manner a I have stated them in that Character of a Papist Represented and if upon your request you are not admitted into the Communion of the Roman Catholicks and owned to believe aright in all those points I 'le then confess that I have abused the World that my Representing is Mispresenting the Faith of the Papist To this I answered in my Reply p. 40. that I did believe that his Representation was the Faith of a Papist excepting what concerned the deposing Doctrine and some few other points which I had before particularly remarked not that this is the whole of what Papists believe but that it is right as far as it goes but we did not like his Faith so well as he had Represented it as to make the experiment This I thought had been answer enough for any reasonable Man but in his Answer to the Reply he is still for new experiments as being much easier than Disputing which he does not like and now the trial is That if notwithstanding my refusal to admit the deposing Doctrine and the Popes Infallibility but as stated by the Representer that is not as Articles of Faith I be not judged sufficiently qualified as to these points to be received into the Communion of the Roman Catholicks then he will grant that I have reason to charge the Representer not to have done his part in those particulars that is not to have truly Represented the Faith of a Papist Now in answer to this I beg his leave that I may take my turn too in making Proposals and I will do it very gravely without the least Smile since I see he is offended at it and that is this Suppose I should resolve to be a thorough-paced Papist and instead of assenting to his Representation should rather chuse that Representation which Cardinal Bellarmine has made of the Faith of a Papist who does not mince the matter as to worshipping Images and praying to Saints and trusting in their aid and assistance c. who makes the Popes Infallibility and his Deposing Power an Article of Faith should I be thought sufficiently qualified as to these Points wherein the Cardinal expresly contradicts and condemns our Authors and the Bishop of Condom's Representation to be received into the Communion of Roman Catholicks If I should and I will venture the Protestor to say that I should not then if his Argument from Experience be good it is plain That Cardinal Bellarmine has made a true Representation of the Roman Catholick Faith and thus we have Experience for both sides for Cardinal Bellarmine and for the Bishop of Condom and our Representer and yet it is somewhat strange they should be all true Representers especially in those points wherein they contradict each other This the Bishop of Condom was aware of and therefore concludes his Book with a Caution against it to those who should think fit to answer it That it would be a quitting the design of this Treatise to examine the different Methods which Catholick Divines make use of to establish or explicate the Doctrine of the Council of Trent and the different Consequences which particular Doctors have drawn from it Which is a plain Confession that other Catholick Divines do not agree with him in this Method nor allow of those narrow Bounds which he has set to the Catholick Faith and therefore it was wisely done of him to persuade his Answerers to take no notice of any such Disagreement and it will be a great piece of Civility and good Breeding in them not to do it but how
shew 1. Then he tells us That the Council of Trent forbids us expresly to believe any Divinity or Virtue in Images for which they ought to be reverenced We grant the Council does forbid this and he knows that we never charge them with it though there are some practices of the Church of Rome which look very suspiciously that way but then we say the second Commandment forbids the worship of all Images without any such limitation for there is not any one word in the Commandment to limit the Prohibition of worshipping Images to such Images as are believ'd to have any Divinity in them The words of the Commandment are as general as can be Thou shalt not make to thy self any Graven Image nor the likeness of any thing that is in Heaven above or in the Earth beneath or in the Water under the Earth thou shalt not how down to them nor worship them The Commandment takes no notice of any Divinity which is supposed to be in these Images but only of the Representation made by them that they are the Likeness or Representation of things in Heaven or things on Earth or things under the Earth and therefore the whole Dispute between Papists and Protestants about the sense of the second Commandment and the strict notion of an Idol is left untouch'd by this Exposition The Roman Doctors indeed tell us that the Heathens worshipped their Images as Gods and did ascribe Divinity to them upon which account Monsieur de Meaux tells us All these words of the Council are like so many Characters to distinguish us from Idolaters seeing we are so far from believing with them any Divinity annexed to the Images that we do not attribute to them any Virtue but that of exciting in us the remembrance of those they represent But he knew very well that Protestants deny that the Heathens took their Images for Gods any more than Papists do their Philosophers despised the charge and made the same Apologies for themselves which the Divines of the Church of Rome now do and we may suppose that common Heathens had much such Apprehensions about them as common Papists have Those who had any sense could not believe them to be Gods and those who have none may believe any thing but there is no great regard to be had to such Mens Faith whatever their Religion be who are void of common Sense However this Dispute whether the Heathens did believe their Images to be Gods or to have any more Divinity in them than Papists attribute to their Images is a Dispute still and Monsieur de Meaux has not said one word to prevent it and therefore the Condemnation of the Heathens for worshipping Images is still a good Objection against the worship of Images in the Church of Rome till he prove as well as assert this difference between them But indeed tho I readily grant that the Church of Rome does not believe that there is any Divinity in their Images and that the Heathens did believe that Consecration brought down the Gods whom they worshipped by such Representations and tied them by some invisible Charms to their Image that they might be always present there to receive their Worship yet this makes no material difference in their Notion of Images The reason why the Heathens thought it necessary by some Magical Arts to fasten their Gods or some Divine Powers to their Images was not to incorporate them with their Images but to secure a Divine Presence there to hear their Prayers and receive their Sacrifices without which all their Devotions paid to an Image were lost which was very necessary especially in the Worship of their Inferior Daemons whom they did not believe to be present in all places As Elijah mocked the Priests of Baal and said Cry aloud for he is a God either he is talking or he is pursuing or he is in a Journy or peradventure he sleepeth and must be awaked But now those who believe that God is every where present to fee and hear what we do and that the Saints who are not present in their Images yet do certainly know by what means soever it be what Prayers and Homages are offered to them at their Images need not call down any Divine Powers constantly to attend their Images but only to procure their acceptance of those Devotions which are paid to them at their Images And this is the difference between the Consecration of Heathen and Popish Images The first is to procure the Presence of their Gods in their Images the other to obtain the Favour of Christ and the Saints to accept those Prayers and Oblations and other Acts of Devotion which are offered to them at their Images as to give but one Instance of it in a Prayer used at the Consecration of the Cross. Sanctificetur lignum istud in nomine Pa ✚ tris Fi ✚ lii Spiritus ✚ Sancti benedictio illius ligni in quo membra sancta salvatoris suspensa sunt sit in isto ligno ut orantes inclinantesque se propter Deum ante istam crucem inveniant Corporis Animae sanitatem Let this Wood be santified in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and let the Blessing of that Wood on which the holy Members of our Saviour hung be on this Wood that those who pray and bow themselves before this Cross may obtain Health both of Body and Soul This peculiar Virtue which Consecration bestows on Images to obtain the Favour of Christ and his Saints to those who pray and worship before them is all that the Heathens intended in calling down their Gods to attend their Images to hear and receive their Prayers and Sacrifices They did not believe their Images to be Gods but Silver or Gold Wood or Brass or Stone according to the Materials they were made of as the Church of Rome does but they thought their Gods were present to hear the Prayers they made before their Images as the Church of Rome also believes that Christ and his Saints have a peculiar regard to those Prayers which are made before their Images as is evident from their forms of consecrating Images to such an use The Heathens did not put their trust in an Image of Wood and Stone but in that God who was represented by that Image and was there present to help them And thus tho the Church of Rome does not demand any Favour of Images nor put any Trust in them yet she expects the Relief and Acceptance of Christ and the Saints for that Worship she pays to their Images and I would desire any Man to show me the difference between these two especially when we consider how much greater Vertue is attributed to some Images of the Blessed Virgin in the Church of Rome than there is to others as to the Image of the Lady of Loretto c. which can signify nothing less than that the Virgin is
more pleased with and will more graciously accept our Worship before such an Image than any other or else me-thinks the Devotoes of the Virgin should not go so many Miles in Pilgrimage to the Lady of Loretto as they often do if they believed the Images of the Virgin which they had at home to be of equal Power which is as much trusting in Images and attributing a Divine Virtue to them as ever the Heathens were guilty of For me-thinks those who strictly adhere to the Letter of Scripture to prove that the Heathens believed their Images to be Gods and did put their Trust in them because the Scripture expresly says so should consider also that the Scripture expresly tells us that the Idols of the Heathens are Silver and Gold the Work of Mens hands they have Mouths but they speak not Eyes have they but they see not they have Ears but they hear not neither is there any Breath in their Mouths and therefore we have as much reason to conclude that the Heathens did not put their Trust in the material Images which they knew to be no better than stupid senseless matter which could not of themselves hear or help them as to confess that in some sense they made Gods of them For if the Heathens did not believe them to be dead senseless Images which could neither speak nor see nor hear but that they were really animated by invisible Spirits they were not such dull and sottish Idolaters as the Psalmist represents them and if they did as the Psalmist takes it for granted they themselves acknowledged than it is certain they could not believe the material Images to be Gods nor the Objects of their Hope and Trust and therefore might as some of their Philosophers in effect did as safely renounce believing any Divinity or Vertue in their Images for which they ought to be reverenced or demanding any Favâ—ur of them or putting any Trust in them as the Council of Trent does So that their not believing any Divinity in their Images does neither excuse them from the Breach of the second Commandment nor sufficiently distinguish the Church of Rome's worshipping Images from that Worship which the Heathens gave them at least the Bishop has said nothing to answer or prevent these Objections against Image-worship which he pretends to be the design of his Exposition 2. As a fuller Explication of the Doctrine of the Church about Image-worship Monsieur de Meaux adds that the Council of Trent ordains That all the Honour which is given to them Images should be referred to the Saints themselves which are represented by them Or as the Council expresses it The Honour we render to Images has such a reference to those they represent ad Prototypa quae illae representant to the Prototypes which they represent that by the means of those Images per Imagines by those Images we kiss and before which we kneel we adore Jesus Christ and honour the Saints whose Types they are Quorum illae similitudinem gerunt Whose likeness they are or whom they represent Hitherto we have no Exposition at all of the Doctrine of the Church about Image-Worship but only a bare relation what the Council says that Images must be worshipped only upon account of their Representation and that the Worship which is given to the Image is referred to the Prototype This all Roman-Catholicks agree in but yet there is an endless Dispute among them about the Nature and Degree of this Worship and it will be necessary to take a short view of it They are all agreed that at least the external Acts of Adoration are to be paid to Images such as Kissing Kneeling Bowing Prostration Incense this Durandus and Holcot and Picus Mirandula allowed they all agreed that the Worship which was given to Images is upon account of Representation or as Christ and his Saints are represented by them and worshipped in that Worship which is given to their Images but then there was a threefold difference between them 1. That some would not allow this Worship in a proper sense to be given to the Images but improperly and abusively because at the presence of the Image which excites in us the remembrance of the Object we worship the Object represented by it Christ or his Saints as if they were actually present this was the Opinion of Durandus Holcot and Picus Mirandula who could hardly escape the censure of Heresy for it and that which excused them as Vasquez says was That they agreed with the Catholick Church in performing all external Acts of Adoration to Images and that they differed only in manner of speaking from the rest 2. Thomas Aquinas and his Followers and several great Divines since the Council of Trent teach That the same Worship is to be given to the Image which is due to the Prototype and therefore as Christ must be worshipped with Latria or a supream Worship so must the Image of Christ because the Image is worshipped only on account of its Representation and therefore must be worshipped with the same Worship with the thing represented and the motion of the Mind to an Image as an Image is the same with the motion to the Thing represented Which seems the most reasonable Account for if I worship Christ by his Image I must give that Worship to the Image which I intend for Christ because in that case the Image is in Christ's place and stead to me 3. The third Opinion is That though we must worship Images yet we must not give the Worship of Latria to them no not to the Image of Christ himself but an inferior degree of Worship This some Divines asserted on the Authority of the Council of Nice which expresly determined that Latria is not to be given to Images But this is the most absurd Opinion of all for if we must worship Images only upon the account of their Representation we must give that Worship to them which is due to the thing represented by them and if we give any other Worship to them we must worship them for their own sakes And what is that Worship which is due to them as separated from the Prototype What Worship is due to carved and polished Brass and Stone Whoever desires to see these three different Opinions with the proper Reasons of them explained more at large may consult Dr. Stillingfleet's learned Defence of his Discourse of Idolatry Part 2. Chap. 1. pag. 575 c. Now the Council of Trent only determines that the Honour we give to Images must be referred to the Prototypes that we must adore Christ and his Saints in that Worship which we give to their Images which seems to countenance the second Opinion That the Worship of Latria is to be given to the Image of Christ because that is the Worship which we must give to Christ But then the Council refers to the second Council of Nice which determines the quite contrary and I dare not undertake
man in Mind of what he has heard or read of Christs dying upon the Cross but if he know nothing of the History of Christs Sufferings the bare seeing a Crucifix can teach him nothing Children may be taught by Pictures which make a more strong impression on their fancies than Words but a Picture cannot teach and at best this is but a very childish way of learning 3. But devout Pictures are of great use in Prayer the sight of which cures distractions and recals his wandering thoughts to the right object and as certainly brings some good things into his mind as an immodest Picture disturbs his heart with naughtiness But can men read their Prayers as well as learn the Articles of their Creed in a Picture too For even good thought are a distraction in Prayers when they call us from attending to what we ask of God and it is to be feared then that Pictures themselves may distract us unless we are sure they will suggest no thoughts to us at such a time but what are in our Prayers the Church of Rome indeed teaching her Children such Prayers as they do not understand and therefore cannot imploy their thoughts may make Pictures very necessary to entertain them but if our thoughts and our words ought to go together as it must be if the Devotion of Prayers consists in praying devoutly an Image which cannot speak and a Prayer which is not understood are like to make Men equally devout should Men when they look upon a Cruci fix run over in their Minds all the History of our Saviours Sufferings should the sight of our Saviour hanging on the Cross affect us with some soft and tender Passions at the remembrance of him which it is certain the daily and familiar use of such Pictures cannot do yet what is this to Prayer Such sensible Passions as the sight of a Picture can raise in us are of little or no account in Religion true devout Affections must spring from an inward Vital Sense which the Picture cannot give to those who want it and is of no use to those who have it Thus I have as briefly as the Subject would permit examined the Doctrine of Praying to Saints and Worshipping Images according to the Exposition of the Bishop of Condâ—m to whom our Author appeals in these Points and this I hope will satisfie him what we think both of the Bishops Authority and his Exposition and how little we like Popery in its best dress And now it is time to return to our Protester And I hope by this time he sees that there is something more needful to clear the Matters in Controversie between us than barely M. de Meax his Authority and therefore he resolving not to look beyond the Exposition delivered by this Prelate I might here very fairly take my leave of him but I cannot do this tho' he be a perfect Stranger to me without dismissing him civilly with a Complement or two more 1. Then as to the Invocation of Saints he observes that I deny the Bishop has limited it only to their Prayers which I own is a mistake and this is such a Complement as must never be expected from a Doctor of the infallible Church for he had occasion enough for it had he had a Heart to do it but I hope I have abundantly made amends for this now by a fair and particular Examination of the Bishops Exposition as to that Point and indeed M. de Meaux himself gave the occasion for this by not owning it in its due place when he expounded the Decree of the Council which teaches them to fly to the aid and assistance of the Saints as well as to their Prayers but shuffling it into the middle of a sentence at some distance where no Man would expect it When Expositors dodge at this rate they may thank themselves if they are mistaken 2ly and 3dly He takes Sanctuary again in the Bishops Authority to justifie his renouncing the Popes personal Infallibility and the deposing Doctrine as no Articles of Faith But tho' the Bishop indeed do wave some things as he says which are disputed of in the Schools as no Articles of Faith yet he does not say what they are much less name the Popes personal Infallibility and the deposing power and one would think he could not mean the deposing power which is determined by General Councils and therefore must be an Article of Faith The Truth is the Bishop has here plaid a very cunning Game and men may make what they please of his words as their interest or inclination leads them if Protestants object the Doctrine of the Popes infallibility and Deposing power he can easily tell them that these are School disputes and not Articles of Faith if the Pope or Roman Doctors quarrel at it he has then said nothing in disparagement of the Popes infallibility and Deposing power but has taught that Fundamental Principle on which these Doctrines depend as in Truth he has when he makes the Primacy of Peter the Cement of Unity and gives this Primacy to the Bishops of Rome as Successors of the Prince of the Apostles to whom for this cause we owe that Obedience and Submission which the holy Councils and Fathers have always taught the Faithful though they have not said one word till of late of any such obedience and submission due to them especially when we consider what he means by the Primacy of the Pope that he is a Head established by God to conduct his whole Flock in his paths which gives him a Supremacy over bishops and Secular Princes and how naturally this infers infallibilty and a power of deposing Heretical Princes every one sees and we have reason to believe the Bishop expounded his Doctrine to this Orthodox Sence in his Letters to the Pope from the Popes Testimonial that his Letters shewed his submission and respect to the Apostolick See As for the Popes personal infallibility our Author in his Reflections p 8. denies it to be an Article of Faith because it is not positively determined by any General Council in my reply p. 47. I told him this is no proof that it is not an Article of Faith because the infallibility of the Church it self which they all grant to be an Article of Faith was never positively determined by any General Council and therefore some Doctrines may be Articles of Faith which never were determined by any General Council and I added that if the Church be infallible the Pope must if he be the Head of the Church for infallibility ought in reason to accompany the greatest and most absolute Power but our Author thought fit to let fall this dispute and to resolve all into the Bishop of Condoms Authority His Proposal which follows I have already answered without a smile but I cannot forbear smiling once more to hear him complain of disputing which he says belongs not to the Representer who being to represent and
supposes the same and the Decree to abstain from Blood and from things Strangled includes this doctrinal Definition That it was unlawful for Gentile Christians at that time to use their Christian Liberty in those matters to the offence and scandal of believing Jews The matter in short is this Every Decree which commands the doing any thing must contain a virtual Definition that such a thing may be lawfully done and every Decree which forbids the doing any thing does withal define that such a thing is either absolutely unlawful in it self or highly inexpedient and therefore unlawful in such Circumstances to be done this is as necessary as it is to command nothing but what is lawful and to forbid nothing but what is either unlawful or highly inexpedient And therefore when the Church of Rome Decrees the deposing Heretical Princes or the favourers of Hereticks She virtually defines that it is lawful to depose Princes which is a doctrinal Definition and may in a large sense be called an Article of Faith as that signifies all Doctrinal points proposed to us to be believed as I observed in my Reply p. 50 3. The third Enquiry was Whether the Authority of the Church be not as sacred in decrees of Manners as in Articles of Faith for the proof of which I urged the Council at Jerusalem and shew'd That Rules of Discipline and Government to direct the lives and manners of men is the only proper subject of Ecclesiastical Authority P. 55. And here where he should have taken notice of the Council of Jerusalem he says nothing of it but only says p. 32. that I urge out of Canus and Bellarmine that General Councils cannot err even in such decrees when they relate to things necessary to salvation and which concern the whole Church And when I have proved the Deposing Decree to be of this nature and esteemed as such by their Church I may then deserve a farther consideration What their Church will esteem if he may be the Expounder of it is nothing to the purpose for we argue not from their private esteeming but from their publick Definitions and if a General Decree for the government of the whole Church concern the whole Church and if to command a sin concerns mens salvation then the Deposing decree does for if it be unlawful to depose Heretical Princes it is more than a single sin to do it and if they will grant that General Councils cannot command a sin then they must grant that it is lawful to depose Heretical Princes and I agree with him that this does deserve a farther Consideration and shall be glad to hear his thoughts of it This Author in his Reflections p. 10. proves that Popes themselves own that the deposing power is no Article of Faith in letting so many open and positive asserters of the no-deposing power pass without any censure of heresie This in my Reply p. 57. I attribute to their want of power For Princes will not be deposed now nor suffer those to be censured who deny the deposing Power This in his protestation p. 32. he says Is spoke like an Oracle but he expects some better Argument than my bare assurance of what the Pope would do if he had power And I thought I had given him a better argument than my bare word for it viz. the experience of former Ages what Popes did when they had power for tho the infallible Chair may dissemble a little when circumstances of affairs require it yet sure it is not given to change What follows about the worship of Saints and Images I suppose has been sufficiently answered already but I cannot but observe a very pleasant argument he has against what I assert That no intention can alter the nature of actions which are determined by a divine or human Law Whereby I prove that if they do such things as in the account of the Divine Law are idolatrous their intention not to commit Idolatry will not excuse them This he says p. 36. a Quaker might as reasonably make use of for the justifying his yea's and his nay's and his other points of Quakerism For if he should say No intention can alter the nature of actions which are determined by a divine or human law but Swear not at all neither be ye called Masters and let your communication be yea yea nay nay are actions or things determined by the divine law therefore the intention of doing no evil in them cannot excuse the dâ—ing otherwise than is there determined from the guilt of sin But will our Protester say that the Divine Law does forbid all swearing then I grant that the Quakers are in the right and no intention will justifie swearing but St. James must be expounded so as to reconcile his words with other passages in Scripture which allow of swearing and could he show us where bowing and kissing and kneeling and praying before an Image is in any sence allow'd in Scripture then we would grant also that the direction of the intention would justifie such a use of these actions as the Scripture allows but what is absolutely forbid to be done no intention can excuse which is our present case here He concludes all with two or three Requests which must be briefly consider'd 1. That he the Replier will use his interest with Protestants to hold to what he saies they do ond charge us with nothing but what we expresly profess to Believe and Practice Now I can assure him there is no need of using my interest with Protestants to do this for I hope they are naturally inclined to to be honest but there are so many us's among them that possibly some Protestants may mistake one us for another They practice indeed generally much alike but they believe differently and they represent differently and they expound the Doctrine of their Councils differently and I hope Protestants may without any offence say how and wherein they differ and I think we cannot be justly charged with misrepresenting while we relate matter of Fact truly what their practice is and what their different sentiments and opinions are about these matters 2. That they Protestants pick not up the abuses of some the vices and cruelties of others the odd opinions of particular Authors and hold these forth for the Doctrines and Practices of our Church and that in charging any practises they charge no more than are concerned Now this is very reasonable if he speaks of such abuses as are not allowed and countenanced by the Church and of such cruelties as are not practised encouraged commended by the Governours of the Church and justified by the Decrees and Canons of Popes and Councils or of such odd opinions of particular Authors as steal into the world without publick authority and are censured as soon as they are known but as far as the Church gives any countenance and authority to such abuses cruelties odd opinions I see no reason why Protestants may not complain of