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
Answerers way of proceeding which I reduced to Four Heads 1. That the Answerer in some Points owns the Doctrine which he has Represented to be the Faith of a Roman-Catholick to be the established Belief of the Church of England This I proved not to be true by a particular Examination of those instances he gave 2. He charges the Answerer with appealing from the definitions of their Councils and sense of their Church to some expressions found in old Mass-Books Rituals c. This I showed also that the Answerer has not done 3. That he appeals from the Declarations of their Councils and sense of their Church to some external action as in case of respect shewn to Images and Saints upon which from our external adoration you are willing to conclude us guilty of Idolatry Whereas he thinks we must not judg of these actions without respect to the intention of the Church who commands them and of the person who does them 4. That he appeals from their Councils and sense of their Church to the sentiments of their private Authors These Objections I answered at large in my Reply but he has returned not one word to any of them excepting the third and how he has answered that you have already heard This is the new way of answering Books a la-mode of Rome but the greatest Wits can do no more than the Cause will bear tho a little prudence would teach men to say nothing in such a Cause as will admit of no better a defence FINIS ERRATA PAge 2. l. 32 for seem r. been p. 5. l. 24. for Bulgradus r. Busgradus p. 26. l. 32. dele to p. 27. l. 27. for fine r. fierce p. 35. l. 14. for keep r. help l. 34. for you r. them p. 100. l. 17. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 110. l. 13. for 2ly r 3ly The Pages mistaken from 58. to 73. Pap. P. 12. Papists Protesting c. p. 17. P. 1â— Reply p. 4. P. 23. P. 20. P. 21. Pag. 5. Card. Bona's Letter Papists Protest p. 29. Condom ' s Expos p. 51. Condom ' s Expos p. 51. Pag. 4. Pag. 4. See a late Tract of the Object of Religious Worship Pag. 6. Papist misrepresented p. 3. Ed. 2. Bellarm. de sanct beatit l. 1. c. 20. c. 18. Pag. 6. Papists Protest p. 33. Pag. 35. p. 35â— See D. Stillingfleet's defence of the discourse concerning Idolatry p. 216. c. St. Aug. de civit Dei p. 8. c. 27. Pag. 9. Pag. 6. Nam si propterea Subsidiis sanctorum uti non liceat quod unum patronum habemus Jesum Christum nunquam id commisisset Apostolus ut se Deo tanto studio fratrum viventium precibus adjuvari vellet neque enim minus vivorum preces quam eorum qui in Coelis sunt sanctorum deprecatio Christi Mediatoris gloriam dignitatem immiâ—uerent Catech. Rom. part 3. Tit. de cultu vener sanct Heb. 4. 14. Heb. 7. 16. 26. Heb. 9. 24. Heb. 7. 25. Pag. 4. Contemplations on the life and Glory of holy Mary p. 24. Ibid p. 5. Luke 11. 27. Matth. 12. 46. c. Luke 2. 48. 49. John 2. 3 4. Pag. 7. Pag. 9. Pag. 9. Pag. 9. See Dr. Stillingfleet's Defence of the Discourse of Idolatry p. 466 c. 1 King 18. 27. Pontif. in Bened nov erucis Psalm 135. 15 16 17. Vasquez Dâ—sp 106. c. 1. Pag. 9. See Dr. Stillingst Defence of the Disc. of Idol p. 703 c. And several Conferences between a Romish Priest c. p. 211 c. Durand in Sent. 3. Dist. 9. q. 2. Vasquez Disp. 106. c. 1. Idem Disp. 108. c. 3. C. 9. Disp. 109. c. 1. Bellarm. de Cultu Imag. l. 2. Pag. 5. Greg. de Valent de Idolol l. 2. c. 7. Cajent in Aq. 3 p. q. 25. art 3. Suarez Disp. 54 Sect. 4. De Natura deorum l. 1. c. 27. Max. Tyrius dissert 38. See Dr. Stillingfleet's Defence of the Discourse of Idolatry p. 466 c. Dio Chrys. Orat. 12. St. Aug. in Psal. 113. Arnob l. 6. Aug. Ep. 119. c. 11. Arn. l. 1. Caesar de Bellâ— Civ l. 2. Ovid. Fast. 4. Exod. 32. 1. See Dr. Stillingfl Defence of Disc. of Idolatry p. 747 c Isa. 44. 10 15 17. Deut. 4. 15. Isa. 40. 18 27. Acts. 17. 29. Tertul de Idolo c. 4. Wisdom c 14. v. 15. c. 13. v. 6. Levit. 19. 4. Psalm 13515. Rom 1. 23. 1 King 12. 28. 1 King 16. 31 32. 1 King 18 21. 2 King 10. 16. Isa. 40. 18 19 c. Arnob. l. 6. Psal. 135. 18. Joh 4. 21 23 24. Papists protesting c. p. 27. P. â—8 Exposition P. 3â— P. 37. Doctrines and Practises of the Church of Rome truly represented p. 6. Ed. 2. Bulla Pii quarti super confirm Concil Trid. Reflect p. 7. Reply p. 44. Papists Prot. p. 25 Reflect p 8. Reply p. 47. Refl p. 8 9. Rep. p. 49 c Refl p 15 16 Reply p. 55. Ibid. p. 58. P. 61. P. 63. P. 67.
prove a Papist to be Misrepresented it seems there is something in the World called Popery which he is very much ashamed of and it is well if it does not prove to be his own beloved Popery at last I had told him as plainly as I could in Answer to his Character of a Papist Misrepresented what I called Popery and what I take to be the general sense of Protestants about it and shewed him evidently that what he calls a Misrepresentation is none nay in most cases I have allow'd his own Character of a Papist Represented and surely there is no Misrepresentation in that unless he has misrepresented a Papist himself and why is he not satisfied with this why so much Zeal to prove us Misrepresenters when we are willing to fall with the Market and to abate as much in the Notion and Idea of Popery as they are pleased to lower it Why must we be bound to justifie that Representation of Popery which some Protestants have formerly made of it when Popery was quite another thing than the Bishop of Condom and the Representer have now made it any more than they are bound to justifie every thing which Thomas Aquinas or Bellarmin or Vasquez have taught for Popery But let us consider that Character he has made of a Papist out of the Writings of Protestants only I must put him in mind that he must still distinguish between matters of Representation and Dispute If the matter of Fact they charge them with be true they are no Misrepresenters as for their Reasons and Arguments I will no more undertake to defend all the reasonings of Protestants than I suppose our Protester will all the reasonings of Papists The first Misrepresenter he brings upon the Stage is John Lord Archbishop of York in his Manual or three small and plain Treatises written for the use of a Lady to preserve her from the danger of Popery And all that I shall say to this is that if what he transcribes out of his Book be a Misrepresentation it is not a Protestant but a Popish Misrepresentation For the Archbishop cites his Authors for what he says as the very Title of the Chapter tells us which I shall here present to the Reader with all the References and Authorities as they are Printed in his Book and leave the Protester to consider of a good Reason why he left all these Authorities out CHAP. VI. Reasons of refusal to leave the Romish Religion collected out of Printed Authors I cannot leave my Religion I. Reason BEcause we must simply believe the Church of Rome whether it teach true or false Stapl. Antidot in Evang. Luk. 10. 16. pag. 528. And if the Pope believe there is no life to come we must believe it as an Article of our Faith Bulgradus And we must not hear Protestant Preachers though they preach the Truth Rhem. upon Tit. 3. 10. And for your Scripture we little weigh it For the Word of God if it be not expounded as the Church of Rome will have it is the word of the Devil Hosius de expresso verbo Dei II. Reason You rely too much upon the Gospel and S. Paul's Epistles in your Religion whereas the Gospel is but a Fable of Christ as Pope Leo the tenth tells us Apol. of H. Stephen fol. 358. Smâ—ton contra Hamilton pag 104. And the Pope can dispense against the New Testament Panormit extra de divortiis And he may check when he pleases the Epistles of S. Paul Carolus Ruinus Concil 109. num 1. Volum 5. And controul any thing avouched by all the Apostles Rota in decis 1. num 3. in noviss Anton. Maria in addit ad decis Rotae nov de Big n. 10. And there is an eternal Gospel to wit that of the Holy Ghost which puts down Christs Cirellus a Carmelite set it forth III. Reason You attribute all your Salvation to Faith in Christ alone Whereas He is the Saviour of Men only but of no Women Dial. of Dives and Pauper compl 6. cited by Rogers upon the Artic. and Postellus in Jesuits Catech. l. 1. cap. 10. For Women are saved by S. Clare Mother Jane Som. in Morn de Eccles. cap. 9. Postellus in Jesuits Catech. Lib. 8. cap. 10. Nay to speak properly S. Francis hath redeemed as many as are saved since his days Conformit of S. Fran. And the blood of S. Thomas à Becket Hor. Beat. Virg. And sometimes one man by his satisfactions redeems another Test. Rhem. in Rom. 8. 17. IV. Reason In your Church there is but one way to remission of sins which you call Faith in Christ but we have many For we put away Our Venials with a little Holy Water Test. Rhem. in Rom. 8. 17. Mortals by 1. Merits of the B. Virg. Hor. B. Virg. 2. The Blood of Becket Ib. 3. Agnos Dei or Holy Lambs Cerem l. 1. t. 7. 4. Little parcels of the Gospel Breviar 5. Becoming Franciscans conf l. 1. fol. 101. 6. A Bishops pardon for 40 days a Cardinals for an 100. days and the Popes for ever Taxa Camer apud Esp. in 1 ad Tim. V. Reason You stand too precisely upon your Sacraments and require a true Faith in the partakers Whereas with us to become a Monk or a Nun is as good as the Sacrament of Baptism Aquin. de Ingres Relig. l. 2. c. 21. And the very true and real Body of Christ may be devoured of Dogs Hogs Cats and Rats Alex. Hales part 4. q. 45. Thom. parte 3. q. 8. art 3. VI. Reason Then for your Ministers every one is allowed to have his Wife or else inforced to live chastly whereas with us the Pope himself cannot dispense with a Priest to marry no more than he can priviledge him to take a Purse Turrianus found fault withal by Cassan. consult art 23. But Whoredom is allowed all the year long See Sparks 's Discovery pag. 13. and constitut Othen de concubit Cleric removend And another sin for June July August which you must not know of Allowed for this time by Sixtus Quartus to all the Family of the Cardinal of S. Lucie Vessel Grovingens tract de indulgent citat à Jacob. Laurent Jesuit lib. pag. 196. vide Jo. Wolâ—â—i lection memorab centen 15. pag. 836. For indeed the wickedness of the Church-men is a prime Argument of the worthiness of the Roman Church Bellar. l. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 14. artic 28. And the Pope can make that righteous which is unrighteous l. 1. Decretal Greg. tit 7. c. 5. And yet can no Man say unto him Sir why do you so In extrav tom 22. titul 5. c. ad Apostolatus VII and last Reason You in the Church of England have cast off the Bishop of Rome whereas the Bishop of Rome is a God Dist. 96. c. satis evidenter Panorm cap. Quanto Abbas The Use and Application of this Doctrine you may find in the next Chapter and a particular proof that some Doctrines of the Roman
it of a Papist which he always looked upon no other than of a Papist Misrepresented he falls a commending the zeal of Protestants against such Popery with great earnestness and passion and therein we agree with him as believing it to be very commendable and do not doubt as he says but those Martyrs recorded by Fox who for not embracing this Popery passed the fiery Tryal had surely a glorious Cause and that the Triumphs and Crowns of Glory which waited for them in Heaven were not inferior to what those enjoyed who suffered under Decius or Dioclesian I agree with him also that there is no need of any longer disagreement that there is no necessity of keeping up names of division that Protestant and Papist may now shake hands and by one subscription close into a Body and joyn in a fair and amicable correspondence For if as he says there is no Papist but will give his hand for the utter suppressing this kind of Popery I see no reason why they may not joyn in Communion with the Church of England which has suppressed it But I am not of his mind that all the Strife has been about a word for the Dispute has been about the Worship of Saints and Images about Transubstantiation worshipping the Host Communion in one kind Service in an unknown Tongue the authority and the use of the Holy Scriptures the Sacrament of Penance Indulgences Purgatory the Popes Supremacy and several other material differences which are something more than a meer Word will they now part with all these Doctrines and Practices since they have been informed by great and good authorities what the nature and evil tendency of these things is No! by no means they will retain all these Doctrines and Practices still but will renounce and abhor all that evil which Protestants charge them with They will pray to Saints and worship Images still but they will abhor all Heathenish Idolatry in such Worship c. but what reason is this for Protestants to joyn with them in one Communion while they retain the same Faith and Worship which at first made a separation necessary and we retain the same opinion of their Faith and Worship which ever we had If Papists be the same Protestants the same that ever they were if Separation were once necessary surely it is so still What change is there now in Papists which was not before that should now invite us to embrace their Communion Yes they abhor all that which Protestants call Popery This is good news but let us a little better understand it Do they abhor the Worship of Saints and Images and the Host Do they abhor the Doctrines of Transubstantiation Penances Indulgences Purgatory Do they renounce the Popes Supremacy c. no such matter but they abhor those Opinions which Protestants have of these things did they then ever believe that these Doctrines and Practices were so bad as Protestants always did and to this day say they are if not what change is there in them that should invite us now to a reconciliation Did Protestants separate from Papists because they believed that Papists thought Idolatry lawful If not why is their abhorring Idolatry while they do the same things that ever they did a sufficient reason for a re-union Suppose some Common-wealths-men who take up Arms against the King should tell the Royalists who fight for him that they have all this while mistaken one another that for their parts they hate Rebellion as much as they can do and have been greatly misrepresented by those who have called them Rebels the strife has been only about a word and therefore it is time for them now to joyn all together not in their duty to their Prince but in opposing him though I dare not smile at our Author for fear of his displeasure again yet I fancy a good Subject would entertain such a proposal with a very disdainful smile And therefore as for misrepresenting our Author may complain on till he is a weary but he can never prove us to be Misrepresenters while they still own that Faith and Worship which we charge them with and if he thinks we censure their Doctrine and Worship too severely let him vindicate it when he can In my Reply I considered what were the faults of his twofold Character of a Papist misrepresented and represented and shall now briefly examine what he says to it As for the Character of a Papist misrepresented I observed 1. That he put such thing 's into the Character as no Man in his wits ever charged them with As that Papists are not permitted to hear Sermons which they are able to understand or that they held it lawful to commit Idolatry or that the Papist believes the Pope to be his great God and to be far above all Angels which the Answerer calls Childish and wilful mistakes And yet says the Protester p. 19. those very things almost in express terms and others far more absurd we see charged on them as is shewed above that is in the Quotations out of the Archbishop and others But I can see no such thing unless the Supremum numen in terris as Stapleton calls Greg. 13. signifie that the Pope is their great God and then I must beg his pardon that I did not think any Man in his wits so silly as it seems some of their own great Divines have been for this is not a Protestant but a Popish representation of them 2. I found fault That the Opinions of Protestants concerning Popish Doctrines and Practices and those ill consequents which are charged and justly charged upon them are put into the Character of a Papist misrepresented as if they were his avowed Doctrine and Belief For whosoever gives a Character of a Papist ought only to represent what his Faith and Practice is not what Opinion he who gives the Character has of his Faith and Practice for this does not belong to the Character of a Papist but only signifies his own private Judgment who gives the Character while we charge Papists only with matter of Fact what they believe and what they practise this is a true Character and no Misrepresenting but if we put our own Opinions of his Faith and Practice into his Character this is Misrepresenting because a Papist has not the same Opinion of these things which we have and this makes it a false Character To this the Protester answers p. 20. This is a pretty speculative quarrel I confess and might deservedly find room here were it our business to consider the due method of misrepresentation in the abstract But as our present concern stands here 's a quaint conceit lost for coming in a wrong place For what had the Author of the Misrepresentation to do with these Rules He did not intend to misrepresent any Body This is very pleasant a Man who undertakes to make Characters is not bound to consider what a Character is nor what belongs to
to reconcile the Council with it self since the Fathers of that Council would not plainly decide this Controversy among their Divines Let us then try if we can discover what Monsieur de Meaux thinks of this Matter what Worship that is which he allows to be given to Images Now as far as I can guess he is of Durandus his Opinion That all External Acts of Adoration are to be performed before the Image but that the Image is not to be properly worshipped but only Christ in the presence of his Image as representing his Person to us and exciting in us the remembrance of him Thus he tells us That while the Image of Christ crucified being present before our Eyes causes so precious a remembrance in our Souls we are moved to testify by some exteriour signs how far our gratitude bears us and by humbling our selves before the Image we show what is our submission to our Saviour So that he allows of humbling our selves before the Image that is of paying the External Acts of Worship before it Well! but is this to worship the Image For that he tells us to speak properly and according to the Ecclesiastical Stile I suppose he means a new Modern Stile for the old Ecclesiastical Stile did somewhat differ 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 this is not properly but improperly and abusively called the Worship or Honour of the Image but Christ or his Saints are properly worshipped before or in presence of their Images as representing them to us which was exactly the Opinion of Durandus This certainly is the least that can be made of the Worship of Images and yet as far removed as this Opinion seems to be from the Opinion of St. Thomas who affirms that the Worship of Latria is to be given to the Image of Christ I take them to be the very same though very differently expressed The right stating of this will mightily tend to clear this perplexed Controversy and therefore I shall do it with all the plainness I can 1. Then I observe that to pay the external Acts of Adoration to or before or in presence of a representative Object as representing signify the very same thing it is all one kind of Worship because the formal Reason is the same in all and that is the Representation When I bow to the Image of Christ I bow to it as representing Christ to me who is the ultimate Object of my Worship when I bow before or in the presence of the Image I do the same thing tho I give it a new Name I bow before it as representing Christ to me as if he himself were there personally present in the Image When I bow to the Image I do not bow to the Wood or Stone but to Christ as represented in the Image when I bow to Christ before the Image I do the same thing I bow to Christ as represented in the Image which stands before me For suppose Christ were there present instead of the Image would it make any difference in my Worship to say That I bow to Christ or before him or in his presence when they all signify that I direct my Worship to him as personally present no more difference is there in bowing to or before or in the presence of the Image when I direct my Worship to Christ as represented by the Image There may indeed be a great difference between bowing to my Prince and in the presence of my Prince when these Expressions signify different Objects for I may bow to another Man in the presence of my Prince and in that Act I do not bow to my Prince but when to and before and in presence do not distinguish the Objects the Act is the same If the presence of the Image were an accidental thing and had no relation to that Worship which we pay to Christ or the Saints where such Images are present there would be a great difference between bowing to and in presence of the Image but if these Images be on purpose set up in Consecrated Places and are themselves consecrated for that use to represent Christ and the Saints to us whether we say we bow to them or before them we do the same thing and with the same intention to worship Christ and his Saints as represented by them So that if we own as the Bishop does that the Honour done before the Image goes to the Prototype to Christ or the Saints represented by such Images we need not dispute about the manner of expressing it he may take his own way of speaking that he honours Christ in the presence of his Image so he honours Christ as represented by the Image and therefore in Scripture to fall down before and to the Image and to worship the Image are all equivalent Expressions There is indeed a vast difference between bowing to or before an Image which represents God or Christ or some Divine Being to us as the Object of our Worship and bowing towards a Place or worshipping God towards a Place as the Jews worshipped towards the Temple and in the Temple towards the Mercy-Seat the one was absolutely forbid by the Jewish Law the other allowed and practised by the devoutest Worshippers of God which argues that there is some difference between them and it is not hard to say wherein the difference consists that one is a representative Object the other only a Circumstance of Worship To bow to or before an Image is to worship the Image or God or Christ by the Image which makes the Image as representing the Prototype the Object of our Worship but which way soever we look or bow towards the East or towards the West God alone is the immediat Object of our Worship the Place only the Circumstance of Worship whenever we bow to God we must bow towards some Place or other but the Place does not represent God to us as an Image does and therefore is no Object of Worship which shows what little reason the Protestor had to compare bowing to the Altar and kneeling to the Sacrament as he calls it with bowing to an Image There is no Man of the Church of England that I know of who bows to the Altar I am sure the Church no where teaches any such Practice She only recommends to her Children bowing of the Body to God when they come in and go out of his House and though the Communion Table or Altar is generally so scituated at the East end of the Church as to be opposite to the entrance of it for which reason some have called it bowing towards the Altar yet our Church teaches us to have no regard at all to it And Arch-Bishop Laud in his Speech in the Star-Chamber declares That if there were no Table standing he would worship God when he came into
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
to which they refer he has taken another course with Mr. Sutcliff has set down only half sentences and concealed both the authorities and the reasons he alledges for what he saies which is in a strict and proper sense to misrepresent All that he answers to that distinction between representing and disputing which he allows to be good is this That the common people do not distinguish these matters but look upon all to be equally the Faith of Papists That is if they hear any man call the worship of Images Idolatry they do as verily think that Papists believe Idolatry lawful as he saies in his Character as that they worship Images risum teneatis and thus much for Representing The next dispute is about the rule of Representing In his Introduction to A Papist Misrepresented c. he appeals to the Council of Trent and Catechism ad Parâ—chos this the Answerer likes well but tells him 1. That he shows no authority he hath to interpret that Rule in his own sense against the Doctrine of many others as zealous for their Church as himself as he does in the Popes Personal Infallibility and the Deposing Power which he saies are no Articles of Faith though other zealous Papists say they are and asks what authority he has to declare the sence of the Council of Trent when the Pope has expresly forbidden all Prelates to do it and reserved it to the Apostolical See 2. The Answerer tells him That he leaves out in the several particulars an essential part of the character of a Papist since the Council of Trent which is that he doth not only believe the Doctrine there defined to be true but to be necessary to Salvation 3. That he never sets down what it is which makes any Doctrine to become a Doctrine of their Church 4. That he makes use of the Authority of particular Divines as delivering the sense of their Church when there are so many of greater Authority against them whereas if we proceed by his own rule the greater number is to carry it These were all very material objections and did deserve to be considered but as for the three last he takes no notice of them in his Reflections and says very little to the first The Answerer had asked How the Council of Trent comes to be the Rule and Measure of Doctrine to any here in England where it was never received p. 4. To this he answers in his Reflections p. 5. That the Council of Trent is received here and all the Catholick World as to all its Definitions of Faith But I told him in my Reply p. 51. that the meaning of that Question was not Whether it was owned by private Catholicks but by what publick Act of Church or State it had been received in England as it had been in other Catholick Countries and this he says nothing to and therefore might as well have let it alone at first I reinforced the Bull of Pope Pius 4th against any private mans interpreting the Council according to his own private Sense shewed the Reason and Policy of it and what a presumption it is for a private man when their Divines differ in their Opinions about any Doctrine to call one Opinion Popery Represented and the other Popery Misrepresented as our Author has done in the Articles of the Popes personal Infallibility and the Deposing Power as if Bellarmin and Suarez must not pass for good Catholicks but for Misrepresenters because they do not believe in these Points as our Representer does and this he takes no further notice of But to prove that he has not interpreted the Council according to his own private Sense he appeals to the Bishop of Condom's Exposition which is approved by the Pope himself and therefore has the Authority of the See Apostolick To this I answered that Bellarmin's Controversies had as great an Attestation from Pope Sixtus 5. as the Bishop of Condom's from this present Pope to which he gives no Answer and I observed from Canus that the Popes private Approbation is not the Authority of the See Apostolick but only his Judgment ex Cathedra and to this he gives no Answer but Shuffles a little about a private malicious and inconsiderate Judgment which I have now answered and makes a new Flourish about the several Translations and great approbation which has been given to this Exposition which I have again said something to tho I need not have said any thing had I before seen the Preface to the Answer to the Bishop of Condom and I guess our Author will never mention it more and then what becomes of his Characters He denied the Popes Personal Infallibility to be an Article of Faith because not positively determined by any General Council In answer to which I told him that other Roman Divines did believe it an Article of Faith That the Churches Infallibility was not determined by any General Council no more than the Popes Infallibility and yet was owned by them as an Article of Faith that if there be any Infallibility in the Church the Pope as the Supreme Pastor has the fairest pretence to it For Infallibility ought in reason to accompany the greatest and most absolute Power and this he has passed over silently Next comes the Deposing Power which has as evidently been declared in General Councils as Transubstantiation and how comes this to be no Article of Faith To this he answers that it wants an Anathema and that it is not decreed as a Doctrinal point but as a matter of Discipline and Government This I examined at large in my Reply and he is much concerned at it that I put him out of his Representing humour by disputing but he thought himself bound in Civility to say something to it and truly he has been wonderfully Civil as appears from what I have already said in Answer to him The Answerer in his Introduction had proved the Deposing Doctrine on him from two sayings of his own That the orders of the supreme Pastor are to be obeyed whether infallible or not and that Popes have own'd the Deposing Doctrine and acted according to it and others are bound to obey their Orders and consequently to act when Popes shall require it according to the Deposing Doctrine To this he answers in his Reflections that he only made a comparison between Civil and Ecclesiastical Power and therefore it is as unjust from hence to infer That all the Orders of the Pope must be obey'd as it would be to say that Subjects must obey their Princes in every thing they command whether it be good or bad and this I told him in my Reply I would acknowledg to be a good answer if he would grant the Deposing Doctrine to be a sin But this I suppose he was unwilling to do and therefore we hear no more of this matter In the next place in his Reflections he finds great fault with the