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
is given to them because not God but they themselves are the Object and the ultimate Object of that Worship which is given to them Though we should grant that God is honoured by that Worship which is given to some excellent Creatures who are his Friends and Favourites yet the Honour we do to God in this is of a very different nature from that Worship which we pay to Creatures it does not consist in this that the worship we give to Creatures is terminated on God for it is terminated upon those Creatures whom we worship but the Honour must consist in the Reason of our worship that we worship them for God's sake It is an honour to God by Interpretation and Consequence as we intend it for God's Honour or as God is pleased to think himself honoured by it but it is no act of Worship to God and therefore not terminated on him The Worship can go no further than its proper Object though the Reason of the Worship may For there is a great deal of difference between an Object and a Medium of Worship a Medium of Worship which is only a representative Object receives our Worship but does not terminate it but convey it to that Being it represents because it is worshipped only in the place and stead of another as it is in that Worship which is given to the Images of Christ and the Saints which some Divines of the Church of Rome tell us is not terminated on the Images but on Christ or the Saints represented by those Images but a proper Object of Worship which receives worship in its own proper person for whatsoever reason it is worshipped it terminates the Worship the Worship which is given to it goes not beyond it self though the Reason of the Worship may reach farther and be thought to reflect some Honour upon God and to testifie our Love and Reverence for him by that Worship we pay to those who are dear to him So that if we do give Religious Worship to the Virgin Mary and Saints such Worship is terminated on them and then all Religious Worship is not terminated on God as he says the Church of Rome teaches it must be which yet teaches also the worship of Saints and the Blessed Virgin Methinks he should have taken care to have stated this matter a little plainer For if he cannot reconcile the Doctrine and Practice of the Church together I fear his Exposition will rather increase than end Controversies Thus how doubtfully does he speak If the Honour she renders to the Blessed Virgin and to the Saints may in some sense be called Religious it is for its necessary Relation to God Why does he not tell us plainly whether this Honour the Church of Rome gives to Saints and the Virgin be Religious or not and in what sense it may be called Religious Honour If he undertake to expound the Catholick Faith why does he not do it Why does he speak so cautiously As if he were afraid to own what the Faith of the Church is in this point Which yet is a very material one and very necessary to be truly stated Thus I can understand how the Honour which is given to Creatures may have Relation to God viz. because we honour them for God's Sake and upon account of their Relation to him but I do not understand how this relation to God makes the Honour of Creatures a Religious Honour For though we honour Creatures for God's Sake yet the Honour we give to Creatures must be sutable to their own Natures and therefore not that Religious Honour which is proper to God only As when we honour a man for the sake of our Father or our Prince we do not give him that Honour which is proper to our Father or our Prince though we honour him for their Sakes And therefore if the Church of Rome does give Religious Honour to any Creatures it will not justifie her in giving religious Honour to Creatures that she honours them for God's Sake for Creatures are Creatures still though never so nearly related to God and therefore not capable of Religious Honours So that I do not see how this Explication if it may be so called takes off any Objection that was ever made against the Church of Rome about the Object of Religious Worship For if by all Religious Worship being terminated on God he means that no other Being must be religiously worshipped but only God then this is an invincible Objection against that Religious Worship which the Church of Rome gives to the Blessed Virgin and to Saints and Angels If he means by it that Religious Worship may be given to other Beings besides God so it be all terminated in God then all the other Objections against worshipping any other Being besides God are in full force still notwithstanding his Explication their Relation to God will not justifie the Religious Worship of Creatures and it is contrary to all Sense and Reason to say That the Worship which is given to Creatures is terminated on God SECT IV. Invocation of Saints THere are two great Opinions against that Worship which the Church of Rome gives to Saints departed who now reign with Christ in Heaven as the Council of Trent teaches 1. That it is to give them that Religious Worship which is due only to God 2. That it makes them our Mediators and Intercessors in Heaven which is an Honour peculiar to Christ. Now M. de Meaux and after him the Author of the Character think to remove these Objections only by explaining the Doctrine of their Church about this matter and I shall distinctly consider what they say to each of these 1. As for the first That in praying to Saints they do not give them that Worship which is due only to God they think is evident from hence That the Council of Trent and the Catechism ad Parochos teaches them only to pray to Saints to pray for them The Bishop takes great pains to prove this to be the sense of the Council and therefore that in what terms soever those Prayers which we address to Saints are couched the Intention of the Church and of her Faithful reduces them always to this Form Now I will not dispute this matter at present but refer my Reader to the Answer to a Papist misrepresented But let us suppose that this is all the Church of Rome intends by it that we should only pray to the Saints to pray for us what advantage can they make of this Yes says the Advertisement before the Bishops Exposition p. 12. To pray to Saints only to pray for us is a kind of Prayer which by its own nature is so far from being reserved by an Independent Being to himself it can never be addressed to him That is we must never pray to God to pray for us and therefore such a Prayer is no part of that Worship which is due to God And he adds If this Form of Prayer
civil and religious worship is this that the one relates to this World the other to the invisible Inhabitants of the next In this last Paragraph the Protester says p. 35. We have a Consequence and Comparison and both so excellent in their kinds that if any better connexion can be found in them then between the Monument and the May-pole it must be by one who has found one trick more in Logick than ever Aristotle knew Sometimes indeed Aristotle 's Logick does not do such feats as one would expect but a little natural Logick called common sense would have shewed him the connexion For I think there is some sence in saying that as the different degrees of civil honour though most of the external signs of honour be the same such as kneeling bowing the body uncovering the head may yet be distinguished by the presence of the Object to which it is paid whether it be our Father or our Prince So though the external signs of civil and religious honour are in many instances the same yet civil and religious worship may be visibly distinguished by the object to which it is given For civil worship can belong only to the Inhabitants of this World but whatever worship is given to the invisible Inhabitants of the other World is religious Now if this be so then to pray to Saints now they are removed out of this World into an invisible state is to give religious worship to them which makes a vast difference between praying to the Saints in Heaven to pray for us and speaking to our fellow-Christians on Earth to pray for us The Protester is willing to grant or at least suppose that the honour or worship which is given to the invisible Inhabitants of the other World is religious worship but still he says it remains to be proved that all religious respect and honour is so a divine honour as to make a God of the thing to which it is paid at least constructively This I think is no hard matter to do but I shall first consider his Arguments against it and all that he says is That if it be true it proves too much and will bring my self in for a share with them in giving religious worship to creatures and so making Gods of them at least constructively He instances in that Custom of bowing to the Altar or Communion Table as he calls it and bowing at the name of Jesus but this shall be considered when I come to the worship of Images His other instances concern that religious respect which we allow due to sacred places and things and a religious decency to the bodies of Saints and Martyrs but what is this to a religious worship The respect we shew to such things and places is no more than a civil respect which consists in a decent usage in seperating them from vile and common purposes and it is called a religious respect not from the nature of the respect but from the reason why we give it viz. out of reverence to God to whose worship they are seperated Thus that love and honour we pay to a living Saint though it rise no higher than the expressions of a civil respect may be said to be religious when we love and honour them for Gods sake but this is an external denomination from the Cause and motive not from the nature of the Act and therefore cannot make Gods of them because it is not religious worship but to give proper religious worship to any Being is to give it that worship which is proper only to God which is the only way to make any Being a God which is not a God Now if this be a true notion that all worship which is given to the invisible Inhabitants of the other World is religious worship I will easily prove that we must worship no other invisible Being but God alone and therefore cannot pray to Saints in Heaven without giving the worship of God to them And my reason is this Because God challenges all religious worship to himself as our Saviour tells us Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve Matth. 4. It seems to me a very needless dispute what is the peculiar and incommunicable Worship which must be given to none but the Supreme God when God has appropriated all Religious Worship to himself whatever act of religious Worship God requires us to pay to himself must be given to none else and therefore if all worship paid to invisible Beings be in its own Nature religious Worship we must worship no Invisible Being but only God For if all Worship of Invisible Beings be religious and God challenges all religious Worship to himself then we must worship no Invisible Being but only God for to worship any other Invisible Being is to give religious Worship to that which is not God But the Protester thinks I ought to have allowed for the different Kinds and Degrees of Religious as well as Civil Honour Such I suppose as they call their Latria or Dulia Supreme or Subordinate Absolute or Relative Terminative or Transient Worship but there is no place for these different Degrees and Distinctions of religious Worship if we must worship no other Invisible Being but only God for if there be but one Object of religious Worship there is no need to distinguish this Worship into different Kinds and Degrees as Civil Worship is which has very numerous and very different Objects If we must give no Worship to any invisible Being besides God it is ridiculous to dispute what Degree of Worship we may lawfully give them when we must give them none And it is a good Argument that there are no different Kinds of Religious Worship one which is Supreme and Soveraign and due to the one Supreme God other Inferiour and Subordinate Degrees of Worship which may be paid to those Excellent Spirits which are very dear to God and the Ministers of his Providence because there are no external and visible Signs to distinguish between such different Degrees of religious Worship As Civil Worship is confined to the Inhabitants of this World and is thereby distinguished from religious Worship so the Different Degrees of Civil Honour though the External Signs and Expressions of it are the same are distinguished by the visible Presence of the Object to which it is paid for when a man bows or uncovers his head we know what kind of Honour it is by considering the Relation or the Quality of the Person to whom it is paid whether he be a Father a Prince or a wise and good man But if there were more Invisible Beings than one to worship though there might be different Degrees of Internal Honour and Worship paid to them according to the different Apprehensions men had of their several Degrees of Perfection yet the External Signs of Worship must be the same in all And thus there would be no visible distinction between the Worship of the
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
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
in presence of the Image but only that Worship which is due to the Prototype to Christ or his Saints represented by such Images Hence Thomas asserts that the Image is to be worshipped with that Worship which is due to the Prototype the Image of Christ with Latria because that is due to Christ and the Images of the Saints with Dulia because that degree of Worship is proper to them and the Bishop teaches That when they honour the Image of an Apostle or Martyr their Intention is not so much to honour the Image as to honour the Apostle or Martyr in presence of the Image that is they perform no other Act of Worship in the presence of the Images but that which is proper to the Apostle and Martyr and therefore they both agree that there is but one motion of the Mind to the Image and to the Prototype represented by it that is as the Bishop speaks they have but one Intention and that is to honour the Apostle or Martyr in the presence of the Image and yet after all they seem vastly to differ for Thomas says that they give the Worship of the Prototype to its Image that is that they worship the Image of Christ with Latria which is the Worship due to Christ but the Bishop will not own that they properly give any Worship at all to Images but only worship Christ or the Saints in the presence of the Images Christ indeed with Latria and the Saints with Dulia but their Images properly with neither and yet this difference is only in words as Vasquez confesses concerning Durandus and Holcot whom Mr. de Meaux follows 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 For as I have already shew'd to worship the Image or before and in the presence of the Image when it signifies a Representative Object is the same thing and there is no difference between worshipping the Image as representing Christ and worshipping Christ as represented by the Image and yet this is all the difference between Mr. de Meaux and Thomas Aquinas Tho I think Thomas speaks most properly for if Christ be worshipped in his Image we must give the Worship to the Image which we intended for Christ because Christ is worshipped in that Worship we give to his Image and therefore he cannot be worshipped by his Image if his Image be not worshipped of which more presently Durandus indeed whose Opinion Mr. de Meaux seems to follow did in words oppose the Doctrine of Thomas that the Worship of the Prototype ought not to be given to an Image because the Image and the Prototype were two distinct things and therefore what belonged to the Exemplar could not be attributed to an Image however considered as an Image and so the Worship due to the Exemplar could not be given to the Image but yet he plainly grants all that Thomas intended by it that the Image may be said to be worshipped with the same Worship with the thing represented because at the presence of the Image we worship the Object represented by it as if he were actually present But I have a better reason than this to believe that they were both of a Mind tho they expressed themselves very differently and that is because their Arguments whereby they confirm their several Opinions are the same and then it is not likely that their Opinions should much differ Durandus proves That the Images are not to be worshipped but only improperly and abusively because at their presence we call to mind those Objects represented by them which are worshipped before the Images as if they were present by such Arguments as these that Worship properly belongs only to that Being in whom the cause of Worship is and that only to his Person upon account of his adorable Perfections which are the cause of that Worship and therefore Latria or Supream Worship can be due only to God upon account of his Deity But that which is no Subject capable of Holiness and Vertue cannot in it self be the term of Adoration and therefore proper Worship can never be due to the Image of Christ or to his Cross for tho Christ be represented by his Image 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 Thomas Aquinas on the other side proves that the Image must be worshipped with that Worship which is due to the Prototype or the thing represented by it by much the same Arguments 1. That no irrational Creature is capable of Worship but with a respect to a rational Being which answers to Durandus his reason that Worship properly belongs only to that Being in whom the cause of Worship is and that which is no Subject capable of Holiness and Vertue as no inanimate or irrational Creature is and therefore no Image cannot in it self be the term of Adoration From which it appears that they must agree that no proper Worship can be given to Images 2. Because Images are to be worshipped upon account of their Representation therefore they are to be worshipped with the same Worship of the thing represented 3. Because the motion of the Mind towards an Image as an Image is the same with the motion towards the thing represented So that Thomas plainly allows that the Image is not to be worshipped at all upon its own account but only as it represents and to worship the Image as it represents is the very same act with worshipping the Object as represented by the Image because the motion of the Mind towards an Image as an Image that is as it represents is the same with the motion towards the thing represented That to worship an Image as representing Christ is the same thing with worshipping Christ as represented by the Image and therefore the same Worship which is due to Christ must be given to his Image as representing him or to him as represented by the Image So that according to Thomas his reasoning there is no difference between his giving the Worship of Christ to his Image as representing him and Durandus his worshipping Christ before his Image as represented by it as if he were actually present Thomas could not have quarrelled with Durandus because he owns it is the same thing tho Durandus quarrels with Thomas And therefore Vasquez who seems to understand the Doctrine of Thomas as well as any Man acknowledges that Durandus and Holcot differed only in manner of speaking from the rest and freely declares his own Opinion to be that an Image cannot be lawfully worshipped any other way than as in and by that the Exemplar is made the term and next material Object of Adoration and he gives this Reason for it because no
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
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-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-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-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
the Worship of Images unless he will say That it is unlawful to make the Images of any thing in Heaven or Earth or under the Earth but then they can have no Images to worship Tertullian indeed and some others condemned the very Arts of Painting and Carving Images as forbid in the second Commandment and it is certainly unlawful to make any Image in order to worship it But I desire to know of this Author whether it be lawful to make an Image or Picture of the Sun and Moon and Planets of Birds and Beasts of Men and Women which are the Likeness of Things in Heaven and Things on Earth If it be then the making of those Images is not forbid in the second Commandment and then the worship of them is not forbid neither But he says He means such Images as are made to represent God and those which are made to show him present and which are worshipped with the same intention as full of his Divinity But is this the Work of the Carver or the Painter to make a God Can the Pencil or the Knife put Divinity into a Picture or Image This is the work of him that Consecrates and him that Worships Qui fingit Sacros auro vel marmore vultus Non facit ille Deos qui colit ille facit He had forgot the Brazen Serpent which Hezekiah broke the making of which I suppose was not forbid in the second Command but it seems the worship of it was But to return Though the second Commandment forbids the worship of all sorts of Images and every act and degree of Worship without leaving room for any Exceptions or Distinctions yet we may learn from Scripture what was the currant Notion of Image-Worship at that time viz. That they worshipped their Images not for Gods but for Symbols and Representations of their Gods that is they set them up as visible Objects of Worship to receive their Worship in the name and stead of their Gods They did not worship the Images themselves but their Gods in and by their Images Indeed this is the only Notion of Image-Worship that any Men ever had till Christians began to worship Images and then were forced to defend it and to distinguish away the Idolatry of it This is the Account the Heathens gave of their Worship of Images That they did not believe them to be Gods but only worshipped their Gods in their Images Thus Cicero ascribes the making Images of their Gods in humane Shape to their Superstition Vt essent simulacra quae vener antes deos ipsos se adire crederent that they might have Images to make their Addresses to as if the Gods themselves were present And Maximus Tyrius gives a large Account of their Images to the same purpose That they are all but so many Pictures and Representations of the Deity to bring us to the conception of him and it matters not what the Image be so it bring God to our Thoughts and direct our Worship to him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Celsus and Julian deny that they thought their Images to be Gods and so did the Heathens in Arnobius Athanasius and St. Austin as those Fathers acknowledg And Julian tells us That a lover of God loves the Representations of the Gods and beholding their Images doth secretly fear and reverence them which although invisible themselves do behold him And Dio Chrysostom in his Olympick Oration gives this Account why Men are so fond of Images which they know cannot express the invisible and inexpressible Nature of God Because Mankind doth not love to worship God at a distance but to come near and feel him and with assurance Sacrifice to him and Crown him Nay those very Heathens who believed that some invisible Spirits after Consecration were not incorporated with their Images which it does not appear to me that any of them thought but present in them did not therefore worship the material Figure but through the visible Image worshipped those invisible Spirits which were hid in it Non hoc visibile colo sed numen quod illic invisibiliter habitat And therefore Arnobius says That they formed the Images of their Gods Vicariâ substitutione that is to set them in the place of God to be a vicarious Object of Worship to receive their Worship in the name of their Gods and that God receives their Worship by Images per quaedam fidei commissa by way of Trust as if they were intrusted to receive their Worship for God in his stead Hence St. Austin tells us that no Image of God ought to be worshipped but only Christ who is what he is and he not to be worshipped instead of God but together with him which shows plainly what Notion the Father had of proper Image-worship that it is to worship the Image instead of God and therefore tho Christ be such an Image of God as must be worshipped yet he must not be worshipped as an Image that is not in the stead but together with God And St. Hierom on Rom. 1. gives the same notion of Image-worship Quomodo invisibilis Deus per simulacrum visibile coleretur that it is to worship the invisible God by a visible Image and therefore falling down before their Images is called by Arnobius Deorum ante ora prostrati prostrating themselves before the Face of their Gods which is aptly expressed by Caesar ante simulacra projecti victoriam a Diis exposcerent falling down before their Images they begged Victory of their Gods And in those days before they were acquainted with School-Distinctions to pray to their Gods before their Images and fixing their Eyes on them was thought to be Image-worship thus St. Austin expresses it by adorat Vel orat intuens simulacrum adoring or praying looking upon an Image and so does Ovid Summissoque genu vultus in imagine Divae fixit with bended Knees he fixes his Eye upon the Image of the Goddess and indeed all the Arguments of the ancient Fathers against the Worship of Images are levelled against this Notion of it that they worshipped their Gods by Images not that they thought their Images to be Gods This then being the received Notion of image-Image-worship among the Heathens in which they all agreed as far as we have any account of their Opinions and being the only intelligible account that can be given of the Worship of Images we have reason to believe that the second Commandment which forbids the Worship of Images had a principal regard to it but I have other Arguments from the Scripture it self to confirm this Opinion 1. The first is from the first Example of image-Image-worship among the Israelites after the giving this Law that is the Worship of the Golden Calf which Aaron made while Moses was in the Mount That this Calf was intended only as a Symbolical Representation of the God of Israel and that they worshipped the Lord Jehovah in the Worship of this
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-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
be the Glory of God to be what he is a pure infinite eternal invisible Mind it is a contradiction and dishonour to him to be represented by a material visible Image like to some of his own Creatures but inferior to the meanest living Creatures because without Life and Sense Thus St. Paul argues Acts 17. 29. Forasmuch then as we are the off-spring of God we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto Gold or Silver or Stone graven by art and mans device If we think God to be like to such Images we know nothing of him and if we make such Images as we know are not like to God nay a reproach to his Nature and Perfections we wilfully affront him And tho Christ conversed in this World in human Nature which is representable by an Image yet an Image is not a proper Representation of Christ as the object of Worship because it cannot represent the Divine Nature which is the Reason and Foundation of Worship And as for Saints they ought not to be worshipped at all and therefore not worshipped by Images And indeed that very Law which forbids the worship of Images without any Exception and yet upon such Reasons as are peculiar to the infinite Nature of God are a plain Argument to me that no Being which is representable by human Art is an Object of Worship 2. To set up an Image in the place of God has a great appearance and suspicion of worshipping a material and visible God of giving Divine Honours to Gold and Silver and the work of mens hands for the men pretend to Worship God in the Image yet how does the Image come to be worshipped for God What likeness What Relation is there between them How easily may men slip into the worship of Images themselves and forsake God or never mind him for the sake of a fine Picture or some beautiful or wonder-working Image for tho there is a great deal of difference between worshipping God by an Image and worshipping the Image it self yet to all appearance they are so like one another and there is so easie a passage from one to the other that Gods displeasure against this Sin is expressed in Scripture by Jealousie a Passion which expresses both Suspicion and Caution while they profess to Worship God by their Images they do not change their God but yet their worshipping a visible Image looks very like it and is an easie introduction to it Thus in the second Commandment the Reason with which God inforces his Prohibition against worshipping Images is For I the Lord thy God am a Jealous God Thus Psal. 78. 58. for they provoked him to anger with their high places and moved him to jealousie with their graven Images And therefore he expresses himself with some Passion and Concernment in this matter I am he Lord that is my Name and my Glory will I not give to another neither my Praise to Graven Images Isa. 42. 8. The Church is called Gods Spouse and the worship of false gods is called Woredom and Adultery going after other gods and the worship of the true God by Images tho it be not Whoredom yet it is such a kind of spiritual Wantonness and Incontinency as excites his Jealousie 3. Especially when we consider that the Worship of Images does naturally expose us to the Cheats and Impostures of wicked Spirits for this reason I observed before God fordids the Worship of any other Invisible Being but himself for it men were allowed to Worship inferior Spirits bad Spirits who inhabit these lower Regions would soon have the greatest share in their Worship and thus it is with Images which are such an offence and dishonour to God that we cannot expect that he will ever show himself present in them or guard them from the possession of evil Spirits It is evident that in the Heathen World evil Spirits possessed their Images and abused mankind with their lying Wonders and lying Oracles and I have some reason to believe that if any Miracles are wrought still at Images they are not by good Spirits because Images are an Abomination to God and therefore Rom. 1. St. Paul attributes the general corruption of mens lives and manners to the Worship of Images They changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man and to birds and fourfooted beasts and creeping things wherefore God gave them up to uncleanness for this cause God gave them up to vile affections and even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge God gave them over to a reprobate mind to do these things which are not convenient The meaning of which is That God gave them over to the delusions of wicked Spirits who lurked in their Images and first corrupted their Religion and then their Lives by impure and barbarous Rites of Worship 4. If there were no other hurt in Image-worship yet it debases human Nature to fall down before a sensless Image As it is a dishonour to God to be worshipped by an Image tho the Worship be intended for himself and not for the Image because it makes so mean and vile Representation of him so it is a reproach to a man who is a reasonable Creature and made after the Image of God to fall down before Stocks and Stones with all external Submissions and Adorations tho he intends not to worship the material Image but God by it because the visible Object before which we pay our Worship is so much below the honour and dignity of humane Nature is a reproach to the understanding of a man to think that a material Image is a decent Representation of God and a fit medium of Worship and he must have a mean and beggarly Spirit who can be contented to bow down before it Thus Arnobius aggravates the madness of this Supplicare tremebundum facttitatae abs te rei To fall down trembling and to supplicate that which thou thy self hast made And a greater than Arnobius tell us They that make them are like unto them so is every one who putteth their trust in them 5ly The Worship of God by Images is contrary not only to the Law of Moses but to the reason of Mankind it gratifies indeed a fleshly and sensual Mind to have a visible Object of Worship but God is the only natural Object of Worship and reason tells us that God is invisible and Reason will tell us that it is contrary to the nature of an invisible Being to be worshipped under a visible Representation it is not only a Reproach to the Divine Nature but an absurd and unreasonable Worship For what considering man can think it reasonable to worship a visible Image instead of an invisible God Reason can never justifie a worship so contradictory to the Divine Nature and therefore Reason can never teach men to Worship an Image For what is it they intend by worshipping Images Have they a mind to see the God
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
on Earth by their own Power then Prayer is a worship which is not due to their nature even in a glorified state For no Being can have a right to our Prayers who cannot hear them and though we should grant that God reveals our Prayers to them yet to know by Revelation is not to hear In this case all that can be reasonable for us to do is only secretly to desire that the Saints would Pray for us which God can reveal to them if he pleases as well as our Prayers but it can never be reasonable to Pray to those who cannot hear us And if Prayer cannot be due to a created nature in its most exalted state because no creature can be present in all places to hear our Prayers then if it be a proper worship for Creatures it must be so by a positive Institution of God but then they must shew an express command for it and when they can do that we will dispute the reason of the thing no longer And this is a manifest reason why we should worship no other invisible Being besides God because no other invisible Being is capable of our Worship God alone fills all places and therefore may be worshipped though we do not see him for he is present every where to hear our prayers but we cannot know that any Being of a limited presence is present with us unless we see it and it is unnatural to pray to any Being who is not present to hear us And though the Church of Rome does not directly and positively attribute any divine perfections to Saints yet mankind are so naturally prone to ascribe a kind of Divinity to immortal and invisible Spirits that this is a sufficient reason why God should not allow the worship of any invisible Spirits For after all that can be said to the contrary it is a mighty temptation to men at least to make inferior Deities of those to whom they constantly pay divine honours And though they do not attribute to Saints a natural power to know our Thoughts and to hear our Prayers and to answer them yet if this supernatural gift and power whereby they do it be as constant and act as certainly as nature does it is as great and adorable a perfection as if it were natural for since all created Excellencies are the gift of God what mighty difference is there between a natural and supernatural perfection or gift if that which is supernatural be as certain and lasting and that which they can as constantly use as that which is natural As to take their own instance Were the gift of Prophesie which God bestowed on some in former Ages as constant and certain as natural knowledge that they could use this gift whenever they pleased and as constantly foretel things to come as they could reason and discourse what difference would there be in this case between a natural and supernatural knowledge of future things truly no more but this That a natural knowledge is a perfection which God did originally bestow upon our nature supernatural knowledge is an additional Perfection but yet upon this supposition as inseparably annexed to our natures as natural knowledge and always as ready for use as that which I think would make such a Prophet as truly venerable as if Prophesie were natural to him Thus it is in this present case If the Saints know our prayers by what means soever they do it it must be as constant and lasting a gift as if it were natural that is they must as certainly know when and what we pray for every time we pray as if they were present to hear us For if they do not always know our prayers we can never know when to pray and can never have any security of their Intercession for us many thousand Ave Maries may be every day lost and turn to no account and if they do constantly know this by a supernatural gift it is as glorious a perfection as if this knowledge were natural Mankind do not so critically distinguish between natural and supernatural gifts in whomsoever these perfections are they are divine and such creatures have a supernatural kind of Divinity annexed to their natures they are made Gods though not Gods by nature which is as much as any people believe of their inferior Deities who believe but one Supreme and Sovereign God who is a God by nature And yet the Author of the Character of a Papist represented gives some instances which would perswade us that the Saints have a natural knowledge of our Prayers Thus he tells us That Abraham heard the petitions of Dives who was yet at a greater distance even in Hell and told him likewise his manner of living while as yet on Earth p. 4. Now not to ask how he comes so exactly to know where Hell is and that it is at a greater distance from Heaven than the Earth is If there be any force in this Argument it must prove that the Saints have a natural knowledge of our Prayers though at so great a distance from us as Heaven is That they see and hear us as Abraham did Dives though we cannot see and hear them as Dives did Abraham which might have satisfied him since he thinks fit to reason from Parables that whatsoever distance there is between Heaven and Hell there is a greater communication between them than between Heaven and Earth However our Saviour cannot here speak of any supernatural gift whereby Abraham saw and heard Dives in Hell unless we will say that Dives did by a supernatural gift also see and hear Abraham in Heaven and therefore if this prove any thing it proves that Saints know and hear our Prayers by their own natural powers Thus he adds That the very Devils hear those desperate wretches who call on them and why then should he doubt that Saints want this priviledge in some manner granted to sinful men and wicked spirits But though he call this a Priviledge I suppose he means a natural one unless he thinks that the Devils hear witches by a supernatural revelation as the Saints in Heaven hear the prayers of the Saints on Earth But I always thought that Devils had been a little nearer bad men than the Saints in Heaven are to us on Earth for they are confined to this Lower Region and therefore are often so near as to see and hear bad men though they are invisible themselves And this is one reason why God will not allow us to worship any invisible Spirits because though we should intend only to worship good Spirits and glorified Saints yet bad Spirits who are near and present as having their residence in the Air as the Devil is called the Prince of the Power of the Air do assume this worship to themselves and both corrupt the worship and abuse their Votaries with lying Wonders Thus they did in the times of Paganism and whether they have more reverence for the Christian Saints than they
and they have then good reason as they do to put up more frequent Prayers to her than to God or Christ himself And whether they do not believe this and that at this very day let any one judge from these passages in the Contemplations of the Life and Glory of the Holy Mary which is lately published in English Permissu Superiorum There p. 7. he tell us that God hath by a Solemn Covenant pronounced Mary to be the Treasury of Wisdom Grace and Sanctity under Jesus So that whatever Gifts are bestowed upon us by Jesus we receive them by the Mediation of Mary No one being gracious to Jesus who is not devoted to Mary nor hath any one been specially confident of the Patronage of Mary who hath not through her received a special Blessing from Jesus Whence it is one great mark of the Predestination of the Elect to be singularly Devoted to Mary since she hath a full Power as a Mother to obtain of Jesus whatever he can ask of God the Father and is comprehended within the Sphere of man's Predestination to Glory Redemption from Sin and Regeneration by Grace Neither hath any one petitioned Mary who was refused by Jesus nor trusted in Mary and was abandoned by Jesus A little after he directs the Devotes of the Virgin to have a firm and unshaken confidence in her Patronage amidst the greatest of our inward Conflicts with Sensuality and outward Tribulations from the adverse Casualties of this Life through a strong Judgment of her eminent Power within the Empire of Jesus grounded upon the singular Prerogative of her Divine Maternity for by vertue thereof no State of man can be so unhappy through the malice of Satan the heats of our Passions or the Enormity of Sin which exceeds her Love towards the Disciples of Jesus or the efficacy of her Mediation for us unto Jesus So that though the condition of some great Sinners may be so deplorable that all the limited Excellency Merits and Power of all the Saints and Angels cannot effectually bend the Mercies of Jesus to receive them yet such is the acceptableness of the Mother of Jesus to Jesus that whoever is under the Verge of her Protection may confide in her Intercessions to Jesus He denying no Favour to her whereby the Wonders of man's Predestination and Redemption through Jesus may be magnified and promoted So that the Blessed Virgin is more Powerful than all the Saints and Angels in Heaven she has all the Power of Christ all his Grace and Mercy in her hands and can dispense it to such Sinners whom Christ would not pity and relieve without her and therefore is a more powerful Patroness of Sinners than Christ himself is And therefore he might well add in the next place that all these Blessings flow from Jesus to all through Mary and may therefore justly refer them all to her as to the most effectual Instrument Channel and Conveyance of all Now if this be true Representing it is no Mis-representation to say that a Papist believes the Virgin Mary to be much more Powerful in Heaven than Christ not that she has any Power of her own but that she can more powerfully and effectually bend the Mercies of Jesus to relieve Sinners than the mercies of Jesus can bend themselves without her SECT V. IMAGES THAT the Worship of Images as it was practised by the Heathens is Idolatry Monsieur de Meaux and the Representer suppose and therefore their Business is to give such an account of the Worship of Images as practised in the Church of Rome as to distinguish themselves from Heathen Idolaters To this purpose the Bishop tells us The Council of Trent forbids us expresly to believe any Divinity or Virtue in them for which they ought to be reverenced to demand any favour of them or to put any trust in them and ordains That all the Honour which is given to them should be referred to the Saints themselves which are represented by them That the Honour we render Images is grounded upon their exciting in us the remembrance of those they represent That by humbling our selves before the Image of Christ crucified we show what is our submission to our Saviour So that to speak precisely and according to the Ecclesiastical Stile 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 Thus the Pontifical tells us and the Council of Trent expresses the same thing when it says The Honour we render to Images has such a reference to those they represent that by the means of those Images which we kiss and before which we kneel we adore Jesus Christ and honour the Saints whose Types they are To the same purpose the Representer speaks and almost in the same words So that the Sum of their Apology is this That they do not believe Images to have any Divinity in them or to be Gods and therefore do not pray to nor put their trust in the Image nor so much honour the Image in those external Expressions of Reverence they pay to it by kissing it and kneeling before it as Christ or the Saint whom the Image represents and the usefulness of Images to excite in us the remembrance of those whom we love and honour is a justifiable Reason of that Honour we pay to them This is a Matter of very great consequence and deserves to be carefully stated and therefore I shall strictly examine Whether this Exposition will justify the worship of Images and sufficiently distinguish the Worship of the Ch. of Rome from that Worship which the Heathens gave to their Images Monsieur de Meaux pretends by his Exposition of the Doctrines of the Church of Rome to cut off Objections and Disputes that is so to state the Matter that there may be no place for those Objections which Protestants commonly urge against worshipping Images But I do not see that he has made any Essay of this Nature in the Point of Image-Worship but has left both all the Disputes among themselves and with Protestants untouched The Objections which Protestants urge against the Worship of Images as taught and practised in the Church of Rome are principally these four 1. That it is expresly forbid by the second Commandment without any limitation or exception 2. That the Heathens are in Scripture charged with Idolatry in the Worship of Images 3. That it is a violation of the Divine Majesty crimen lesse Majestatis to represent God by a material and sensless Image or Picture 4. That a visible Object of Worship though considered only as a Representation is expresly contrary to the Law of Moses and especially to the spiritual Nature of the Christian Worship Now I do not see how the Bishop's Exposition takes off any of these Objections which after all that he hath said are in full force still as I shall particularly
they Worship But how unreasonable is this when they know he is invisible and would not be a God if he could be seen And how absurd is it to Represent him by an Image when they know they can make no Image like him No worship can be natural which contradicts the nature of that Being whom we Worship and if it be not natural it must be instituted Worship and then tho it were forbid by no Law it must be commanded by some Law to make it reasonable at least if it be possible that a Law could make that an act of Honour and Worship which is a Dishonour to the Divine Perfections 6ly It is more especially contrary to the nature of the Christian worship which teaches us to form a more spiritual Idea of God and to worship him in Spirit and in Truth in opposition not only to all sensible Representations but to all symbolical Presences There are two things principally for which Images are intended to be visible Representations and a visible Presence of the Deity The first of these is so great a Reproach to the Divine Nature that it was forbid by the Law of Moses which was at best a less perfect Dispensation as being accommodated to the carnal State of that people but as to the second God himself gratified them in it for he dwelt among them in the Tabernacle and afterwards in the Temple of Jerusalem where he placed the Symbols of his Presence But now when the Woman of Samaria asked our Saviour about the place of Worship whether it was the Temple at Jerusalem or Samaria He answers The hour cometh when ye shall neither in this mountain nor yet at Jerusalem worship the Father But the true worshippers shall worship the Father in Spirit and in Truth for the Father seeketh such to worship him God is a Spirit and they that worship him must worship him in Spirit and in Truth Where Christ opposes worshipping in Spirit and in Truth to worshipping in the Temple not as a Temple signifies a place separated for Religious Worship which is a necessary Circumstance of Worship in all Religions but as it signifies a Symbolical Presence a Figure of Gods Residence and Dwelling among them in which sense the Primitive Christians denied that they had any Temples For God dwelling in human Nature is the only Divine Presence under the Gospel of which the Temple was but a Type and Figure Now if the spiritual Worship of the Gospel does so withdraw us from sense as not to admit of a Symbolical Presence much less certainly does it admit of Images to represent God present to us which is so gross and carnal that God forbad it under the Legal Dispensation We must consider God as an infinite Mind present in all places to hear our Prayers and receive our Worship and must raise our hearts to Heaven whither Christ who is the only visible Presence of God is ascended and not seek for him in carved Wood or Stone or a curious piece of Painting 7ly But since M. de Maux and the Representer think it sufficient to justifie the worship of Images that they are of great use to represent the object of our worship to us and to affect us with suitable passions it will be needful briefly to consider this matter For I confess I cannot see how a material and visible Image should form a true Idea in us of an invisible Spirit it is apt to corrupt mens notions of God and Religion and to abate our just reverence by representing the object of our worship under so contemptible an appearance An Image cannot tell us what God is if we are otherwise instructed in the nature of God we know that an image is not like him but a reproach to the Divine perfections if we are not better instructed we shall think our God like his image which will make us very understanding Christians But the Representer has drawn this Argument out at large and therefore we must consider what he says of it That Pictures and Images serve to 1. Preserve in his mind the memory of the things represented by them as people are wont to preserve the memory of their deceased Friends by keeping their Pictures But I beseech you the memory of what does a Picture preserve Of nothing that I know of but the external lineaments and features of the face or body and therefore the Images and Pictures of God and the Holy Trinity which yet are allowed in the Church of Rome cannot serve this end unless they will say that God has an external shape as Man has And suppose we had the exact Pictures of Christ and the Virgin Mary the Apostles and other Saints and Martyrs this might gratifie our curiosity but of what use is it in the Christian Religion To remember Christ is not to remember his face which we never saw but to remember his Doctrine and his Life to call to mind his great Love in dying for us to remember him not as a Man but as a God incarnate as our Mediator and Advocate as our Lord and Judge and therefore the Gospel which contain the History of his Life are a much better Picture of Christ than any drawn by the most curious Pencil and I doubt the Christian Religion will not gain much by taking the Gospels out of peoples hands and giving them a Picture to gaze on Yes says our Author 2. He is taught to use them by casting his eye upon the Pictures or Images and thence to raise his heart to the Prototypes and there to imploy it in Meditation Love Thanksgiving Imitation c. as the object requires But he is a very sorry Christian who never thanks of Christ but when he sees his Picture And how can the sight of a Picture raise our hearts to the Love of Christ The sight indeed of a lovely Picture may exciâ—e a sensible passion but not a Divine Love The sight of his Picture can only put us in mind that there was such a person as Christ in the world but if we would affect our hearts with his love and praise we must not gaze on his Face which is all that a Picture can show us if it could do that 〈◊〉 meditate on what he has done and suffered for us which may be done better without a Picture than with it If they want something to put them in mind that there is such a person as Christ which is all that his Picture can do the name of Christ written upon the Church Walls would be more innocent and altogether as effectual to this end But Pictures are very instructive as that of a Deaths head and Old Time painted with his Fâ—relâ—ck Hour-glass and Sythe and do inform the mind at one glance of what in reading requires a Chapter and sometimes a Volume Which is so far from being true that a Picture informs a Man of nothing but what he was informed of before The Picture of a Crucifix may put a