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
and hope Aqui. p. 3. q. 7. art 4. So that which they falsely objected to Calvin doth rightly fall upon the Papists that they blasphemously make Christ c. That Christ is not the Redeemer of all Mankind They affirm the Virgin Mary to be conceived without original Sin c. of which it follows that Christ is not the Redeemer of all Mankind for what needed they a Redeemer who were not born sinners p. 41. They make Christ inferiour to Saints and Angels They say Masses in honour of Angels and Saints but he in whose honour a Sacrifice is offered is greater than the Sacrifice doth it not then appear that while they offer Christs Body and Blood in honour of Saints and Angels they make Christ inferior to Saints and Angels p. 42. They prefer the Pope before Christ. They prefer the Pope before Christ for Christ's Body when the Pope goeth in progress is sent before with the Baggage and when the Pope is near goeth out to meet him while all the Gallants of Rome attend on the Pope p. 43. To the Images of the Cross and Crucifix they give as much honour as is due to God p. 14. To the Images c. teaching their followers that it is but one honour given to the Image and the thing Represented by the Image p. 74. They fall down like Beasts before the Pope and worship him as God ascribing to him most blasphemously the honour due to Christ. They fall down c. Paulus Aemilius l. 2. telleth how the Ambassadors of Sicily cried thus to the Pope Thou that takest away the sins of the World have mercy upon us Stapleton to Greg. 13. calls him supremum numen in terris They call him Vicar of Christ the Monarch of the Church the Head the Spouse the foundation of the Church ascribing to him most blasphemously the honour due to Christ. p. 72. They give divine honour to Images which they themselves cannot deny to be Idolatrous They confess is Idolatry to give divine honour to Creatures But they give divine honour to the Sacament to the Cross and to Images of the Trinity which I hope they will not deny to be Creatures The Romish Church consists of a Pack of Infidels p. 15. Faith is of things as the Papists say in their Catechism only proposed to us by the Church so that if the Church propose not to us the Articles of Faith we are not to believe them if these Men teach truth Further this sheweth the Romish Church consists of a pack of Infidels for if the same believed not without the authority of the Church then she did believe nothing of Christ seeing the Papists acknowledge no other Church but that of Rome and no Church can teach it self p. 178. Scripture and Fathers they read not Spoken of the Schoolmen not of all Papists upon the authority of Ferdinando Vellosillo p. 200. In a member of the Catholick Church they say neither inward Faith nor other virtue is required but only that he profess outwardly the Romish Religion and be subject to the Pope This Opinion he attributes to Cardinal Bellarmin and cites de Eccles milit cap. 2. They make more Conscience to abstain from flesh on Friday than to murder Christians They make more Conscience c. as their curiosity in keeping the Fast and their cruelty in massacring Christians declares p. 205. Divers points of Popish Doctrine are especially said to proceed from the Devil He instances in forbidding Marriage and commanding to abstain from meats which he says are called in Scripture Doctrines of Devils p. 213. That the Popish Church hath no true Bishops that Popery in many points is more absurd and abominable than the Doctrine of Mahomet That Papists that positively hold the heretical and false Doctrines of the modern Church of Rome cannot possibly be saved are the Titles of several Chapters in which he endeavours to make good these charges how well let our Author consider but all men will see that this is not Representing but Disputing This is abundantly enough to give the Reader a tast of the Protesters honestly in Representing and how little I am concerned in these Quotations If some Protestants have charged the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome with such consequences as they cannot justifie wiser Protestants disown it and Papists may confute it if they please which will be a little more to the purpose than to cry out so Tragically about Misrepresenting But to make good this charge of Misrepresenting against us he concludes with several passages out of the Homilies concerning the worship of Saints and Images Now if our Church be guilty of Misrepresenting in her very Homilies which we are all bound to subscribe we must acknowledge our selves to be Misrepresenters But wherein does the Misrepresentation consist Do they not set up Images in Churches And do they not worship them Have they not a great number of Saints whom they worship with Divine Honours The matter of fact is plain and confessed and therefore our Church does not misrepresent them So that the only Misrepresentation he can complain of is that he does not like the judgment of our Church about the worship of Saints and Images and we cannot help that This is the belief of our Church and this is our belief and let him prove us to be Misrepresenters in this if he can for that is not proved meerly by his calling it Misrepresenting Only I would gladly know of this Author what he takes the judgment of the Church of England to be about the worship of Images Whether it be Idolatry or not If he thinks our Church charges them with Idolatry in worshipping Images which I suppose he means when he complains of Misrepresentation and picks out some passages which look that way there is the authority of Doctor Godden against him unless he has changed his mind lately who accuses Dr. St. with contradicting the Church of England in his charge of Idolatry upon the Church of Rome and makes it a certain mark of Fanaticism to do so and then however we may be thought to misrepresent the Church of Rome in this charge of Idolatry we do not misrepresent the Church of England in it which is some satisfaction to us that we are not Misrepresenters on both sides But these Men take great liberties in Representing the Faith and Doctrines of Churches In one Kings Reign the Church of England does not charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry in the next it does though their Articles and Homilies be the same still but they deal with the Church of England no worse than they do with their own Church in one Age a Bellarmine truly Represents the Doctrine of their Church in another a Bishop of Condom and though the Council of Trent be but one and the same the Faith of it alters very often as it may best serve the interest of the Catholick Cause Our Author having exposed the Protestant Character as he calls
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-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-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-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